Talk:Hookah

Structure of Article

What a mess a bit of history of the name and various in .... country they do this... and in ... it is growing in popularity. Sugest most of this is ditched and the how it works moved to the top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.75.21 (talk) 10:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Removed: Damages

Removed the part: Damages Form the last news (American onsite) the effect of water pipe is more than cigarette. As dry john’s says smoking for 45 min is equal to using water pipe for 1 week. If you want to find out how this effect is true, call 457543902958 and you can get your right answer. Also there is a possibility to have a blood test in our laboratory which will be held next week.

Euand 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Muahah.. Im the boss babbayyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.253.254 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would actually AVC be very interested in comparing blood work from cigarette users vs hookah users, it would be interesting to see what could be learnt if the users where all occasional users who have abstained for a few weeks. Especialy if the volume of tobacco leaf(not shisha) was controled, rather than time. Please let me know of your results.

How it Works

Would it be possible for someone to write on how the water filters out anything? The study in the article implies that some things are filtered, however, I could not find anything that says how. My guess was that --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)the water stops anything heavier than it, but that is wrong as all nicotine and tar would be stopped, not just some. Then I thought perhaps it works by stopping all particles relative to how water soluable they are, but then wouldn't a lot more tar be filtered than the study seems to suggest? 24.83.215.11 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Zeroedout

Off the top of my head, it's a complicated process involving both solvency and condensation. It's, of course, a very important chemical and industrial process as well. Scrubber Gzuckier 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The water cools the smoke, some substances condense when cooled,some substances are also water soluble, and will move to the water rather than the air if they are on the edges of the air bubble... and such, if you have any doubts, go to a hookah bar, open a hookah, and drink up. get back to me afterwards.

Originating from turkey???????

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

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

Hookah vs. Sheesha vs. Arguily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

copyvio1: [1]

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

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

Besides, there is a unique trilingual reference website :

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

--KeithTyler

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

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

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

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

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

Picture

The Hookah

Is there no way to get a better picture than this? Intrigue 20:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with the second (tobacco burning) picture as well.

The tobacco looks like a freshly posited cow patty. --Philopedia 28 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)

The pictures in this article are unprofessional. Why are there so many pictures of unrelated objects such as the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland. So it involves a hookah? Big deal, the user might as well use Google image search.

ok, explain to me, slowly, like I was a small child, why the caterpillar from alice in wonderland is unrelated. Please. I, personnaly, would probably pick that as the BEST, western, referance to popular culture possible. It seems to me to be the first thing 90% of north americans think of when they hear "hookah" seems like a good reason to include it, and, gawd damn it, its a fookin picture, the more the merrier. If you think another would be more informative, add it, but quit your bitchin, it's childish.

---

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Matt Jordan wrote:

Hi Keith,

I'm a huge fan of wikipedia and I appreciate what you do for the organization. Off of the "hookah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah>" page, I posted a link (yesterday) to a Hookah History page on my website, hookahcompany.com. Later on that day, I noticed the link was removed and two other links were placed there. One of the two websites is a commercial website that is simliar to ours, which is called smoking-hookah.com. What qualifies smoking-hookah.com <http://smoking-hookah.com/> and not hookahcompany.com <http://www.hookahcompany.com/> as a valid link?

You removed those two other sites to put in your own commercial site instead. I consider that to be vandalism and until other contributors suggest otherwise I'm not going to let it stick.

It is also the second time you have done this. I for one would appreciate it if you would at very least take your form of "advertising" to a different website.

KeithTyler

This is really old, but since I've come across this page again in the search engines and it is public, I just wanted to set the record straight that we didn't remove any other websites from wikipedia. Perhaps it was another hookah website. It however was not hookahcompany. -Matt Jordan

Hookah Hub ( <a href="www.smoking-hookah.com/">Hookah - Hooka - Huka - Hookah Hub</a> ) would appreciate inclusion as well, thank you.

Since Wikipedia is such a good source for Google to show and discuss what a Hookah is, it is considered a very good resource from a search engine optimization standpoint to have a link from Wikipedia's domain. The problem is you have allowed a few sites post their link and now they have a very high advantage over others. CustomHookahs.com is a very valid resource for Hookah and has a Hookah Bar Directory integrated with Google Maps. This is useful to a lot of people looking for Hookah Bars in their state, but they have no idea where it is or the contact information. We allow them to see that information and get directions using Google Maps. I would appreciate if CustomHookahs.com was also appreciated as a valid resource and have a link posted on the Hookah page.

Armen Shagmirian

Commercial links

Do we really need four different links to commercial hookah/tobacco vendors? Since they add no intrinsic value to the academic content of the article, I've been bold and removed them. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Dewet 07:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dewet, As I agree that the commercial links do not add intrinsic value in the academic arena, they do offer a path by which someone can purchase hookah items. I am going to go a step further and be fair. If four links is too many for commercial advertising, which three should be selected? Perhaps it should be left to the consumer to search for hookah items, thus leaving the advertising completely outside of the realm of wikipedia. I am, therefore, deleting the remaining three links, as it would be unfair for three to have inclusion and others not. Cobrabyte

Err, I though I deleted all four? :) I definitely think something like Froogle should be the consumer's first stop to find anything to buy online; Wikipedia gets abused too often by vendors trying to better their search rankings. Dewet 16:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Sacred Narghile site is not commercial. So I am putting it again. Genevieve.

Without posing judgement on the quality of the article (I am not qualified to assess it and it seems satisfactory) I get the impression that only a single source was consulted. A bit as if the source in question had written the article and written for all the website pointed to in the first link.

I'm re-adding hookahforum.com, because it's clear to me that it's deletion has nothing to do with commercial content but with a childish game of internet king of the hill. Then you may as well ad hookahdomain.com hookahpro.com and hookahgiveaway.com since all 4 sites run ads for other sites that sell. If you want to be fair keep it fair accross the board. Kuriohara 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Nargileh. The first three letters are always [n]ar. Is the 'g' a 'g' or a 'gh'? In Hebrew it's a 'g'. Is the following vowel an 'i', a 'ui' or an 'ee' or something still more exotic? Is the final vowel an 'e', an 'eh', an 'a', or an 'ah'? We should be consistent. I don't really care; I like 'nargileh', but I'll be happy with anything consistent. --Mgreenbe 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The "e/a/ah/eh" is a common problem of Arabic transliteration. I think Hebrew has something similar: it is a question of the feminine ending, a short "a" followed by a letter written in the shape of a "h" but with the two dots of the "t" over it. In the "pausal form", i.e. at the end of a phrase or sentence, the h/t (ta marbuta) is not pronounced at all. In classical arabic, it is otherwise pronounced as a "t". In dialect arabic, it is only pronounced as a "t" when it is part of a genitive construction, and of course, this being arabic, it is never, ever, pronounced as a "h". The pronunciation of the vowel in many dialects is closer to an Italian or Spanish "e" than to English "a". Hence, it is found transliterated as "a" or "e" and also, in order to reflect the feminine ending, as "ah" or "eh". Hope that's clear.

"g" is the most common pronunciation of the first / second consonant, even though the letter doesn't strictly speaking exist in Arabic and so in Arabic the word is usually written with "kaf" = English "k", but this is I think less common in pronunciation. "g" is probably better here. The second vowel is simply a long "i" like Gaelic or Hungarian "í" (ok, also like English "ee"). Hope that makes everything perfectly clear and warns you of the danger of asking for things to do with Arabic to be explained. Palmiro | Talk 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I imagine that the occasional appearance of "gh" is the result of European languages like French, Italian and Spanish as well as English often rendering "g" followed by a narrow vowel as "dj", and is an attempt to make it clear that that shouldn't happen. There is an Arabic letter غ which is often transliterated as "gh", but it's never found in the name of the nargile (usually أركيلة in Arabic). Palmiro | Talk 18:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Well, in Hebrew it's written with a qamatz, which would be transliterated 'a'. The vowel for /i/ is a hiriq yod, so it'd be written 'i'. Nargila, or narghila. One problem: that looks terrible. Not English at all. The OED online lists all of the information under Hookah. Here are its spellings, by pronunciation:

• nargeeleh, narghilè, narghille, narghyle, narguillet, narghile, narghilé, narghileh, nargileh, narghili, narguileh
• nargeel, nargheel, narghil, nargill, nargil
• narghilly, nargilly
• N.E.D. (1906) also records forms nargilé, narguilè

Narguillet is at least creative; nargilly has the backing of Benjamin Disraeli. Narghile has William Makepeace Thackeray on its side. You're absolutely right, I shouldn't have started this — I should just be bold. --Mgreenbe 19:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

illegal drugs

what kind of research, if any, has been done about hookahs being used for illegal drugs? Is there any way to tell if deionized water really absorbs toxins? I am not sure about this most recent addition to style and health. NPPyzixBlan 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hookahs are incorrectly-classified as drug paraphernalia in some jurisdictions and that has lead other jurisdictions to follow suit. As for actual research, I've searched high-and-low for actual research on the subject and have come up empty. It's likely a case where 'if it looks like a bong ... it must be one, right?' I know that the US Customs Department doesn't treat hookahs as drug paraphernalia and the 'traditional use' of the apparatus is what is generally recognized. In fact, I use this case, along with the actual wording from the U.S. Code when I have problems with companies who do not want to work with our company because of the nature of our products. As hookah becomes more popular, I think it will even out and become publicly-recognized as an apparatus for tobacco (akin to English-style pipes). --Cobrabyte 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Glow sticks and dust masks have been classified as paraphernalia... gov'ments is stoopid.

"Glow sticks and dust masks have been classified as paraphernalia... gov'ments is stoopid."

Colloquially maybe, but not LEGALLY. Seary6579 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Health Concerns

I see that the article makes claim that water actually filters the tar and nicotine from the smoke as it travels through the water. Though I have no doubt that the smoke is cooled by the water (probably via condensation or the micro climate within the base), I have serious doubts that the water is 'cleansing' the smoke of any substantial levels of nicotine or tar. The smoke passes, rather rapidly, through the water and, due to past and present hookah designs, the smoke is actually contained within a bubble (see: cavitation) that protects most of the smoke from the water. Is there credible research to show otherwise? --Cobrabyte 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Having cleaned a hookah, and accidentaly tasted the residue, I can attest that much of the tar and nicotine is filtered, the smoke travels a longer distance, in a cool metal or glass area, causing much of the tar to deposit, nicotine is also very water soluble, and condenses easily. The smoke also spends alot of time imobile in those areas before being inhaled. However, the amount of nicotine and tar in the tobacco, the speed it is inhaled, and the temperature of the charcoal are all variable, so...

I removed the following text:

Nakhla shisha is actually not as dangerous as cigarette smoking, the chances of getting cancer with cigarette smoking are 107 times higher. shisha smoking in fact has not been proven to cause any cancers as the few people who are said to have got cancer were also demonstrated to have smoked cigarettes at the time of the cancer or previously.

Shisha has been proven not to harm our health.

i completely agree with the person above, i am actually looking at the jar of hookah i own and it says that it has 0.5% nicotine and 0% tar, hard to believe it is anything at all like cigarettes, people need to revise this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.226.193 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

because it fails to cite sources and contradicts the rest of the article. 70.162.14.102 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Shisha harm, history et al is covered in the detailed World Health Organisation document by the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation: http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/Waterpipe%20recommendation_Final.pdf

Hello, I found this article that describes the dangers of smoking hookah: http://www.livescience.com/health/070531_hookah_risks.html As I don't know how I should edit the article, I'm posting it here. Ericius 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Health Concerns section of this article is lacking in factual details. The studies cited are not backed up with scientific data. If we can back up this section with factual data, it needs to be reworded in an unbiased manner or possibly made into 2 sections? Specifically the first paragraph and citation 15,16,17 need to go.Four Q (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hookah is *NOT* as dangerous as cigarettes (when done properly). The issue is not one of filtering, it's an issue of how the hookah tobacco is cooked. Done correctly, hookah does not burn at all. In fact, if it DOES burn, it tastes harsh and ashy, and the session generally pauses until it's resolved. Ideally, you are baking or vaporizing the tobacco, thereby minimizing the release of carcinogens (which only occur during combustion). I'm not saying it's good for you; clearly, that amount of nicotine can and will lead to dependency if regularly consumed. But to suggest that hookah is 100 times worse than cigarettes because you are puffing so much more is completely ignorant of the hookah smoking process (I'm speaking here of ma'sal and the typical shishas seen in the West, as opposed to jurak and tombeik). -goldenbloo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.22.140 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

From an article by the MAYO CLINIC, "Hookah smoke contains high levels of toxic compounds, including tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens). In fact, hookah smokers are exposed to more carbon monoxide and smoke than are cigarette smokers." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265 It is definitly worse for you then smoking cigarettes. Those who think it's healtier don't understand how hookah's work.167.155.144.8 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

advertising

Isn't this line

You can find some exotic flavors like caramel and chocolate mint at this online hookah store http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Tobacco.aspx & also http://www.aladin-shisha.com/

blatant advertising? I don't know exactly what is and isn't against policy, but it doesn't seem appropriate to me. Anaraug 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

INquiring about tobacco free and herbal alternatives

In the social acceptance section I have noticed that this alternative has been addressed, i was wondering if anyone knew of information as to where one might acquire such products

Try a google search for "herbal hookah tobacco". You should also read this famous essay on asking questions on the Internet. --Mgreenbe 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A company called SOEX in India makes the herbal flavour. Its the same company that makes the AFZAL flavours.

Contradiction

In the Function section:

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

In the Style and Health section:

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

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

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

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

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

External link revert war

What's with the tug-of-war between an external link to hookahforum.com and one to hookahforum.net? Why not just include both, or is one of them commercial? I don't see products advertised on either front page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Like I said in Commercial Links, it's obviously a childish game of internet king of the hill, which is why I've simply added a third link. There shouldn't be a problem now. Kuriohara 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You said "it's clear to me that it's deletion has nothing to do with commercial content". How did you come to that conclusion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to the site. I read the front page. I clicked some links. It's pretty clear to me that Hookahforum.com is not a commercial site, and I think it'd be clear to anyone else who spent a little time on it. Kuriohara 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hookahforum.com is owned and operated by http://www.hookahkings.com, a hookah retailer. The IP of http://www.hookahkings.com is 69.80.208.111 and the IP of http://www.hookahforum.com is 69.80.208.204 Omega4 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but I don't see any links there to buy anything, and hookahforum.com doesn't seem to link in any obvious way to hookahkings.com, which is clearly commercial. The guideline to consider here is Wikipedia:External links. We're told there to avoid links to "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services," but it's not clear to me that's what hookahforum.com is all about. It appears to be more of a forum, for information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is spend some time on Hookahforums.com, or simply read their front page to understand that their aim isn't commercial. Who funds them is really irrelevant, as it's not a moral issue and it's not linking to a commercial site, per se. Simply because a commercial site keeps them alive shouldn't keep us from enjoying the information available from them. Kuriohara 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the other link? is it fair as well to have that one deleted in favour of hookahforum.com? If both of them are there, that is fine, but to continue to delete the entire external links section and replacing it with the hookahforum.com link is ridiculous. Omega4Omega4 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think hookahforum.net/org was doing to .com? A friend of mine, subscribed with .net who added hookahforum.com, was contacted personally by people from .net to basically tell him not to. Is that right? I think not. I added .com again in hopes they would both stay in, but I had to add it AGAIN before they locked the page. Kuriohara 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we all agree that both sites are ok, and not take either one down? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that 100%, GTBacchus. Kuriohara 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

sure thing Omega4Omega4 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I've unprotected the page. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

D Thanks for clearing it all up. Kuriohara

Interestingly enough a website got in under External Links as a Hookah Bar Directory. I looked at the site and it is still in construction and it does not provide any valid data to find all the hookah bars available in each State. This is in my opinion a better resource for finding hookah bars in your state: http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Bar.aspx As you can see when you click on California for example, you see all the Hookah Bars in the state and when you find the one you're looking for it shows you a Google Map representation of it so you can get directions to the hookah bar. It also has information such as the Hookah Bar's name, Adress, Telephone Number. I would suggest replacing the External Link of Hookah Bar Directory to this url: http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Bar.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.246.121 (talk • contribs) 08:21, May 12, 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:External links, Links normally to avoid, #12, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." -- Mwanner | Talk 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of re-hashing the "revert war" is. The problem was already cleared up, and GTBacchus said both links were alright to stay. Kuriohara 03:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the revert war was pointless-- both links are forums, which are no-nos under WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the admin's decision in the end? First, it doesn't say no, it says normally. Second, the revert war was just as pointless as you policing the links. I don't mean any offense, I just don't see the point when an admin has already taken care of it and the rule doesn't say under any circumstance should you not link forums. I just don't understand the point of re-hashing something that was already taken care of. Kuriohara 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it says "normally." Then it continues "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." The article is clearly not about either website. So we're left with a question whether the websites are "of particularly high standard." Personally, I don't see anything in these sites that meets that test-- a forum is a forum (though I suppose that a forum about physics peopled by physicists might rise to the standard), and the contents don't appear to me to rise to an encyclopedic level. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that as the owner of hookahforum.net, I have been uninvolved in said "war." I believe that both of the forum links and the sacred narghile site link should remain on this page because they are all non-commercial websites, and are all very large information resources for people looking for more than what this has to offer. as Kuriohara stated, the problem that had arose before was settled by an admin, therefore the links should not be deleted. hookahforum.net

Clearly WP:EL insists that external links be more than simply non-commercial. And you will, perhaps, pardon my saying so, but your opinion in this case is clearly not without bias. I am willing to listen to GTBacchus's opinion on this case, and have dropped him a line. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note, Mwanner. According to Wikipedia:External links, you're right; we generally avoid links to forums, because we want to link to information whose reliability we can be sure of. Since anybody can post to forums, they aren't the best resources. When I suggested keeping them both, it was as a compromise, preferable to alternating between the two, and I admit I overlooked relevant parts of WP:EL, stopping at the bit about commercial sites. Unless either or both of these forums are actually major hubs of hookah culture, I can't see the links as justified. SacredNarghile.com seems pretty informative, and is certainly attempting to be scholarly about hookahs, so it seems encyclopedic to me, especially since he have no other external links except to medical studies. I hate to have made one call in May and then have to reverse it now, but Mwanner's right, the forum links should go.

For those who are interested in these forums, I would call your attention to a new Wiki - AboutUs.org - which has a page about every domain on the Internet, or at least aims to. You might want to check out how your sites are covered there (e.g., [2]), and you're definitly welcome to edit it freely, without any question of your content being judged "unencyclopedic". The wiki is brand new and still in beta testing, but I predict it will get big, being a great idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, since there clearly is some worthwhile content on the two sites, let me urge the interested parties to work on bringing that contents (rewritten, of course) into the Wikipedia article. To me, that is the heart of WP:EL. Cheers, all! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. If the websites have usefull information, why not list them? This whole thing is childish, and I think it is not fair for an admin to revoke their decision based on what one person thinks should happen. Clearly Mwanner has something against either or both of these websites, which should not have a role in the content that thousands of people view every day. I am very dissapointed with this decision.

I have nothing against either website-- my only interest is in making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia. I didn't write WP:EL, but I do try to enforce it. Take a look at my contributions-- my actions here are fully consistent with my other work on Wikipedia.

If you are interested in seeing this article be a great article, please incorporate the useful information from these links into the article. Our purpose here is not to direct people to other sources of information, it is to amass all of the important info on each topic directly in our articles. Now is your chance to show that this article is really what you are interested in, not increased traffic for your website.

And Wikipedia admins are hardworking volunteers like the rest of us, and have every right to rethink a decision. Who would work at a project where you were never allowed to change your mind? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

section organization

does anyone really believe the etymology should be explained before the device's function? i think it's far more important to describe what the heck the thing actually is before going into the history of its name. etymology is more "fun to know," whereas the function is something that people will actually look to an encyclopedia for.

Merge with Ghalyun

Ghalyun being just another version of the hookah, I'd suggest merging it into this page as a section Hookah in Iran or something. Maybe, in parallel, make separate sections for various other regions as well. The content of that page doesn't add anything over and above this one, even to try to distinguish ghalyan from hookah. cab 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are different enough. Ghalyun, especially the traditional ones, have a shaft that is a longer than hookah, and they definitely have different strengths and tastes. Besides, an etymological analysis also is required before a correct decision is made. I suggest someone take the initiative and consult the following source for a more detailed analysis: [3] --Zereshk 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article should be merged into this one. The ghalyun appears to have overwhelmingly similar construction and could probably be considered a Persian word for "hookah". —ptk✰fgs 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

cooking rather than burning

"What anti-hookah advocates fail to realize is when you smoke a cigarette, you smoke every thing; there is nothing left but ash. When you smoke a hookah for 45 minutes, if made properly, the charcoal does not burn the tobacco like a cigarette. It more bakes the tobacco, rather than a burn. If you took off the aluminum foil after a hookah session, you will see not ash, but blackened, hard tobacco, where the moisture has been cooked away. You're smoking the flavour substance; the "goopy" fluid the tobacco is soaked in. "

That's interesting, assuming it's accurate. Similar to products I've seen that vaporize "smoking material" with a hotplate or such, rather than letting it smolder. Ought to be much less carcinogenic, give that it's the anaerobic high heat that cooks up the nitrosamines, etc. Gzuckier 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is accurate. I don't know if I could find a verifiable source. However whenever I smoke from my hookah it always leaves the top third charred and crispy, not ash. - Rexmage, 10-19-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexmage (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some information on this, especially since some legislation specifically forbids the "burning" of tobacco products indoors or in cafes/bars. If it could be shown that a nargile/hookah only vaporises, maybe such anti-smoking-legislation as is spreading in Europe could partly be circumvented in hookah bars?

similar edits nov. 14 2006

Given the documented info we have on actually smoking the burning tobacco through a hookah, this info ought to be added to it, not put in place. I don't know enough about hookah smoking in official hookah establishments, etc. to know if it's the case and whether there's a difference between the Middle East and the Western world, but the amateurs I see playing the home game just fire the stuff up like a pipe. Gzuckier 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can smoke a hookah like that but it makes the smoke extremely rough (I've done it). Also I've heard of traditional smokers placing the coals right on the me'asel and forming some sort of natural screen with the burnt tobacco. Again I've tried both these and found that coals on foil with holes is much more enjoyable. Plus would you rather have someone walk in the room and seeing you relaxing with your hookah or bent over it, trying not to burn your fingers looking like your lighting a bong. Shishasmoker 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure... you can, true, but thats smoking it wrong, it's almost like including the bad health effects of laying under a moving car's tire with the health effects of driving a car. Anyone interested in the results of smoking a hookah with fire should just read the article on bongs or pipes.

No one practically smokes it directly with a lighter cause its harsh and tastes bad. the Druzes here in Israel use the direct coal-on-tobacco technique, but its harsh also. we smoke a lot of hookah here in Israel, specially the kids aged 15 and up, as a social thing. we usually use 2 foils which makes sure that the tobacco really is "cooked" and not burnt like in a cigarette. we don't need no scientific to say which is healthier/worse. you just taste it man, hookah is so easy on the throat you barely feel it. you can actually breath through a lit hookah, i mean smoke many hits one after another without taking a pause, and not even feel a lack of oxygen. now lets see you do it with a cigarette.

Etymology addition

Hello everyone, I just wanted to notify you that I added a quote from Martin Booth's Cannabis: A History to the Etymology section. It has relevant information to the mention of hashish. I added the citation prior to the section break. This is my first edit so if I did anything incorrect please notify me.

Thanks, D.researcher 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I find it quite relevent and intriguing. Good addition.

origin?

Citation needed for the claim that hookahs started in India -- Alfred Dunhill claims they started in Persia, stimulated by the marijuana trade with East Africa.

Yes, different sources have different claims, ranging from Africa to India and even China! However the basic form is most widely accepted to have its origins in India. It later sperad to present day Iran and the rest is history. There are two citations given in the article at the end of the statement. Please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that its only in the west that they want to state that it came from India and of course if your going to use a source from the west it will tell you that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.248.43 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that the evidence clearly points to ancient Persia as the origin of the Hookah. The article has now included that Ali Shirazi (d. 1535), a Persian poet, refers to the use of the ḡalyān (Falsafī, II, p. 277; Semsār, 1963, p. 15), thus dating its use at least as early as the time of the Shah Ṭahmāsp I. It seems, therefore, that Abu’l-Fath Gilani should be credited with the introduction of the ḡalyān, already in use in Persia, into India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.56.136 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hookah

Is it possible to link to hookah sites about hookah information. Sites that are about the history and maintenance of hookahs?

You can read a brief history on the Hookah from here and maintenance tips from here. Also please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Style and health section...

MESSAGE FROM KAMAL CHAOUACHI

Yes, I am realising that the information provided in this section is highly biased. However, I am confident that the readers are not so ignorant and will be able to understand the other issues at stake beyond the health aspects.

For instance, the following sentence has been deleted by Wikipedia vandals who are trying to impose their views to the general public:

Other researchers have raised objections to the methods used in these studies, most notably Kamal Chaouachi, author of early comprehensive writings on the subject [4]

In these conditions, I am submitting it again and I will check on it from now onwards. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia, not the medium of crusade-minded people.

Apparently, some people dislike this project and do not want people to know that there are a serious debate on most of the "health aspects" surrounding hookah smoking. You will note that I limited myself to inserting only one link to a few personal pages (the Publisher of my first book on hookah smoking - 1997). I did not insert links that are quite clear on the degree of false information some people are trying to sell on this site. For instance, I could have inserted a link to my evaluation of the multi-expert WHO (World Health Organisation) report on hookah smoking, the first ever published by this institution on this subject. I preferred not to do so. A critique of the WHO report on hookah smoking

If the above sentence –that brings a minimum of balance on this page- is deleted again, I will feel obliged to cite many counter-studies for each of the given references.

I hope the Wikipedia supervisor will keep a watchful waiting eye on this. Thank you.

Kamal Chaouachi, Researcher and Consultant in Tobacco Control Paris, France, 4 February 2007

... could use some work. I'm not familiar with the medical literature, but this section seems to be anti-hookah. In addition, the sentence about the study cited sets off a red flag... you can't estimate the amount of nicotine entering the body by measuring the time spent smoking the hookah and consider that equivalent to chain smoking for the same amount of time. Plus, a lot of this controversial material is uncited. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 I agree I find it highly biased. -Ali

Not just biased. COMPLETELY FALSE! The serveral sources it quotes for "shisha is safer" statistics are actually completely opposite. example: Thomas Eisenberg is not a proponent of the safety of smoking a hookah but actually presents data to the exact opposite (in line with standard data on it). The other quote from the article about gum disease actually DOES indicate that smoking a hookah will increase your chance for periodontal disease. - Damon

Since there's a lot of talk about the WHO 'findings', I added a paraphrase of them. I wasn't trying to add to the bias, but I didn't want to keep flipping around between Wikipedia and an external link. Presumably, the casual reader won't want to either. Not that I'm anti-sheesha - sheesha sessions are important parts of my life. --Silverscaledsalmon (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Cannabis Resources" template

The template at the end of this article may be misleading; it seems to show that illegal drugs smoking in the main use for hookas... What do you think ?
FiP ^{Как вы думаете?} 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Putting the cannabis list there implies that its commonly used in illicit activity. -March 24, 2007

Alright... where to begin, laws have nothing to do with this, keep your subjective moral opinions out of this, although the main use of hookahs is to smoke tobacco, many people use it to smoke other herbs or herbal extracts, in fact, it IS very common. Leaving this use out of the article is just as biased as saying hookahs are only used to smoke pot. Possibly add a line such as:

Many traditional hookah smokers are offended by the use of a hookah for smoking psychoactive substances other than tobacco, and do not like it's association with marijuana, hash, or opium. Most hookah smoker do not smoke Opiates or Canabinoids in their hookahs, however, many do.

Try to keep opinions out of this, if you need your view expressed, do it in an unbiased way, and let other have their say as well.

heck, if you hate substances that your government has told you not to ingest so much, why not start a separate section? It would allow you to add historical, traditional, cultural, etc etc, references on the controversy. I have no problem with mentioning controversy, and explaining it to the full extent, however, other people's opinions are just as valid as yours, and should not be ignored.

editorial content

"...and is primarily used by those that have only experienced this particular aspect of Middle Eastern culture in its cheaper, commercialized form in the West."

aka American retards who don't know what they're talking about, and aren't oldschool and cultured like me. This paragraph has inappropriate (condescending) tone.

If there are no protests, I'm going to go ahead and delete that paragraph. It adds nothing, and contradicts Shisha.

hookah userbox

Fellow hookah enthusiasts and smokers we need to get a Hookah userbox can someone please make one. So that we can proclaim "This user smokes Hookah and is proud."

Difference between a hookah and a bong?

Is there any functional difference between a hookah and a bong? If so, maybe a section on how it works would be of merit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The South Asia section of this article is poorly referenced and does not cite sources for assertions made. May require cleanup.

I've created (unfortunately using an anonymous user) a section explaining how the hookah works.

Hookah vs bong

Basically the principle is the same. Tobacco is burning, and smoke is drawn through a tube that leads to a water container that cools off the smoke. However, a bong has no valves or gaskets. Its usually made of two components: The bong and a tube.

The tube of the bong is the equivalent of the hookah's bowl

—- Smackware

One is for marijuana, and has no hoses, no valves, does not use charcoal, and smells of hippies. The other is a hookah.

The irony with the above statement is that I've only ever used a hookah for smoking cannabis. The main difference between the two is that the substance you are smoking in a bong is burnt and that the substance you are smoking in a hookah is roasted. Also, while a hookah may be used for smoking any number of things, smoking tobacco from a bong is pretty silly, you'd just cough a lot, have to drink a ton of water and maybe feel a bit dizzy. 194.81.105.171 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the high?

From what I've seen of people using a shisha is much more of a high than smoking, I've grown up around them and seen/ see the effects first hand often. I've always attrbuted that to the fact that while using a shisha people take in soo much smoke it's lack of oxygen thing. Since it apparantly only gives the user 1/200th nicotine of a cigarette per 45mins and the effects I've seen happen instantly. If it also only give sthe user a fraction of a single cigarette why is the effect so much more pronounces? I've seen papers where they conclude (using VERY high temperature coal 700°c compared to 100°c) that it produces more nicotine CO etc, in which case the results would be better explained, but usually criticism of these papers is that usually the coal is much cooler. Is it that the coal is truly much hotter than 100°c? Or am I missing sometihng? Wolfmankurd 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the heat of the coal depends very much on which kind of coal you use (cococha coal or this round standard brackets you can buy in most shops) and the way of preparing the head. For example, some people place the coal directly on the tobacco, while others place aluminium foil between it, some with very little space between it, and others with even some centimeters between the coal and the tobacco. This is simply a decision of taste and tradition. But anyway, you're right, saying that smoking hookah has sometimes a strong effect on the smoker. But I think this is not only caused by nicotin an tar, but mostly because the smaller amount of oxygen and the stressing of the lungs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.205.114 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

200 - 300 cigarettes

Could someone please reference me to the following study (Stated in article): "One study found that a session of hookah smoking which lasts about 45 minutes is similar in nicotine tar and carbon monoxide intake from 200-300 cigarettes."

I've been searching for such and haven't found any research claiming 45min*hookah ~ |200-300|*cigarettes. Also, I have been conducting my very own research for many years... which, uhh, involved way more than just 45 minutes of smoking hookah :)...

Consider the following: Between 2003 and 2006, almost every weekend (Thursday, Friday and Saturday) I have been smoking approx 2-3 hours per day. This excludes all other smoking during the rest of the week,

The research mentioned above suggests that I have consumed at least 600 cigarettes per weekend. Most surveys and researches I've found, using Google, state that average cigarette smokers smoke approx 100-120 cigarettes in a week.

Even if such a research was conducted, I find the conclusion exaggerated. I think I should have had several nicotine poisoning cases by now.

    I agree, that statement seems pretty absurd - Circler

I also agree but you also have to remember that hookah consists of inhaling more smoke than cigarrete smokers because hookah is designed to be smoked during a long period of time where as cigarettes are made to be smoked in a short period of time.. So, depending on how big your "hits" are, it may very well be 200-300 cigarettes. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13538&Itemid=1Helloallen (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement about 200 to 300 cigarettes is misleading and only true in terms of volume but takes no account of the compounds present in the aerosol. The original source is from a 2004 study from A. Shihadeh titled Towards a topographical model of narghile water-pipe cafe ́ smoking: a pilot study in a high socioeconomic status neighborhood of Beirut, Lebanon. This study i believe is only a visual observation of users. The 200 to 300 claim was then re stated in 2005 by the WHO in a report titled Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health Effects, Research Needs and Recommendations by Regulators”. World Health Organisation Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (WHO TobReg). 2005.CaseyJones121974 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear i believe that the 2 reports i mention above always specifically referred to volume but subsequent reporting in the media may have omitted the volume part. Also, its worth considering that a direct comparison is not helpful as on average a waterpipe smoker may only use a waterpipe a few times a month.CaseyJones121974 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Health Section?

The section currently reads: "Health benefits and risks Health effects of tobacco smoking are widely known. But don't believe all the lies too much. Smoking Hookah (Shisha) isn't like smoking cigarettes or weed. It's very good for health. It has vitamin A, B, C and even D!"

First, this doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. Secondly, it's totally wrong. Recent studies show a significant, negative impact on the health of the smoker. In fact, it's many times worse than cigarette smoking. It needs to be revised. [5][6] [7] 128.241.109.243 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True, sounds horrible, however, the many times worst thing is also horrible... ok, to begin: Health effects of SMOKING tobacco ARE widely known, however, very little research has been done on vaporisation, hookah smoke is obtained by indirectly heating very very wet tobacco, resulting in much less actual substances being burned or vaporised, and since blends of tobacco vary widely, as well as burning time, temperature, and charcoal quality, little can conclusively be drawn. All we can assume safely is that there will be more carbon monoxide, as charcoal produces it and the tobacco is burned slowly at a lower temperature, which usually results in more carbon monoxide, but amount will vary greatly, and the water may absorb quite a bit... we can also assume that for the same volume of tobacco leaf, not weight or time or bowls, the chemicals released and produced will be LESS than from smoking, how much less cant be determined accurately, but it will be less, HOWEVER, some harmful chemicals might break down when burning, and not while vaporising, or may not vaporise at all, so, some chemicals in cigarette smoke may not be present, and others may be much higher, again, this will change with the tobacco blend and the charcoal, so exact figures are impossible.

Now... seriously, wtf? the line about lies is HORRIBLE! As far as I can tell, your calling the health effects of smoking tobacco lies... ok. no. bad writer. bad. and the term is marijuana or cannabis.

Very good for health... again, someone is being remarkably stupid here.

As for vitamins, somehow I doubt that all these vitamins vaporise at hookah temperatures, some may burn, some may stay in the tobacco, and some may not be absorbed very well as gases, so lets stay away from that, unless your suggesting people eat the tobacco, there are probably a few vitamins in cigarettes as well, but they are not good for your health.

As for the reply, the studies where flawed, obviously flawed in fact, and "many times" is misleading, as I've mentioned, it cant accurately be judged, some will be higher, some lower, some chemicals may never even be encountered with the other methode of consumption, as the health effects of each chemical is unknown, it's interaction with the other chemicals unknown, the amount of tobacco and other matter unknown, chemical composition of the charcoal unknown, temperature of the water unknown, saturation of the water unknown, burning temperature due to distance from charcoal unknown, relative daily amount of consumption unknown, etc etc etc... ANY conclusion drawn from any study, other than, possibly, a HUGE study of actual hookah smoker's individual smoking habbits, will be flawed and very subjective, ok if your trying to decide whether to smoke shisha or not, but not in an encyclopedia. Although, "significant, negative impact on the health of the smoker" is probably accurate enough for an encyclopedia. Unless you want to add a good unbiased section on health STUDIES, lets stick to verifiable FACTS about health, no theories. Really, the whole many times thing is just silly, seriously.

So, we could stick to observable facts, such as less lung irritation, more CO, and problems associated with chemicals known to be released by hookah smoking, like nicotine, however, anything else should be noted as controversial and unproven, or left out. Theories on more or less chemicals are just that, theories, and should be left out of an encyclopedia. This is not an opinion piece, it's an encyclopedia article, so lets keep personal opinions on tobacco and smoking in general out of this. Possibly a link to a tobacco health page or article? At most, I suggest:

Tobacco smoke has been proven to cause serious health problems when inhaled regularly, however, since shisha is traditionally smoked using indirect heat and a lower temperature, and filtered through water, the health effects of it's use will not be the same as smoking cigarettes. Shisha smoke is produced by indirect heat, resulting in a different amount of various chemicals being introduced into the user's lungs, although many users report less lung irritation or subjective long term effects, the health effects of shisha smoking versus cigarette smoking are still in question. Studies have shown that many of the same chemicals released during smoking are present in shisha smoke, sometimes in higher quantities, as well as lower, however, because of the wide variation in smoking techniques and habbits, as well as the varied chemicals and plants used in shisha, no conclusive data can be drawn. Shisha smoke does contain tobacco smoke, which has been shown to have negative health effects, and although some of those effects may be lessened, or worsened by smoking shisha, shisha smoke should not be considered a safe alternative to cigarettes,only a personal preference.

Scientific studies can be added here, if well cited and identified as such, but use discression.

MESSAGE FROM KAMAL CHAOUACHI (23 Oct 2008)

The question raised about a possible “bias” in presenting the health facts is very simple. Just consider one minute the two camps. On one hand, you have a world army of ““waterpipe”” experts (from WHO to all Lung Cancer Associations and Public Health schools of the world) who all agree that hookah smoking is highly detrimental (from 400 to 40 cigarettes, according to the different schools and scientific trends…). On the other, you have only one researcher in the world (and certainly we wait for the second as the Messiah) who, most of the time, disagrees with their widely advertised findings. This, to the point that even his name has been removed from the cited references (which of course have been absent there for a very long time: censorship). Therefore, I will correct them.

I have also noted that The Sacred Narghile link was removed whereas it has been there since the inception of the hookah entry in Wikipedia which is an insult to the latter as it has served as the initial basis for the construction of the article (remember year 2000 for those who have forgotten. There was not available literature except that found there). Please don’t force me to cite the “scientific studies” whose authors have plagiarised its materials. I have all the evidence for this.

Of course this electronic resource is critical of all studies generally cited (they are engaged in a war against any form of smoking, even against the E-cigarette, the E-cigar and the E-pipe). There is no such other site so scientific controversy should be encouraged, not criminalised. This is contrary to the spirit of science. Therefore, I am putting it again and I invite all peace lovers and advocates of democracy to keep a watchful eye. Note that I have not interfered in the “huge bulk of evidence” cited there when I have in fact almost one published critique in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for each of them. Check out:[8] http://PublicationsList.org/kamal.chaouachi

Kind regards,

Kamal

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamcha (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with shisha

Why is there a separate page for the same thing? I suggest the shisha article to be merged into this one. Funkynusayri 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...go for it? Just take the new content (Arabic words, for one, but we need proper transcription), and set up a redirect. --Mgreenbe 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've probably missed something minor, but, anyone can go back to retrieve that from the history of the shisha article. Funkynusayri 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

i completely agree with the person above, i am actually looking at the jar of hookah i own and it says that it has 0.5% nicotine and 0% tar, hard to believe it is anything at all like cigarettes, people need to revise this section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.226.193 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hashish vs Tobacco........too much focus on tobacco

This article seems a lot more focused on tobacco hookah smoking when in fact hashish (cannabis resin) was the original product that was smoked. Hashish has never refered to tobacco and I will modify this as well. Zachorious 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This article claims that the hookah was first used for tobacco, whereas the Wikipedia article on tobacco reports that tobacco didn't reach the eastern hemisphere until the European conquest of the western hemisphere. The Wikipedia tobacco article also reports that a Persian word similar to tobacco may refer to certain herbs; perhaps these may have been used in a hookah. AgedCare14 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

its just because today its mostly use for tobacco, as hashish has its own things to be smoked in 79.177.126.11 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Parts of the article not necessary

Additions such as "Hookah ('vesipiip' in Estonian) has also gained major popularity in Estonia, where it has caused contoversy amongst the troubled parents. Still, you can hardly find any party or (youth) gathering without a hookah." are completely unnecessary in my opinion. Anecdotal information like this doesn't add to the discussion at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.194.106 (talk) 19:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of anecdotal opinion; I've removed this from the ma'asel section... "Some arabs are mildly offended when you call it anything else. ". raining girl 11:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicotine controversy (in introduction)

I've noticed there is alot of controversy regarding nicotine etc in the above discussions and I'm not getting into that debate at all, but this sentence in the introduction is very clumsy, unreferenced and doesn't seem an accurate reflection of the discussion above. I have removed it and placed it here because of its poor wording (I'm just doing a quick copy-edit of the article) but if people feel that it belongs in the introduction, please improve the sentence before replacing it.

Also there are a lot of controversies, on the fact if hookah has nicotine in it or not. (Harvard University studies have proven there is no nicotine in the Hookah. There is a flavored tobacco which gets steamed away from the filter.However there is no nicotine).

Thanks, JenLouise 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

svg image

I have no idea about this subject, but I saw this nice picture. Perhaps u guys wanna put it in, or help correct it if it has any mistakes. I could translate it if u give me the names in english. --Canislupusarctos 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mada'a, yemeni water pipe

Someone who is knowledgeable on the subject should add Mada'a, the yemeni water pipe. http://www.google.com/search?q=mada%27a+water+pipe --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

common now yall hubbly bubbly is not mixing marijuana with shisha get educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.210.83 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Line

"Malaysia

Malaysia too has seen an increase in hookah use and cafes offering hookah more commonly known as shisha pipes. Nonetheless, this is only to cater the increasing number of tourists from the Middle East. Malaysians are smart enough to know that smoking kills. [6]"

That last sentence adds nothing to the article and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.252.226 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the note. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify

so, IS it bad for you? is it like smoking cigarettes or something? I'm just wondering, not sure. i don't really know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.255.14 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hose composition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Hookah Communities

I think Online Hookah communities should be listed somewhere on the wiki. Online communities are a hugely popular place to go, to learn about hookah's from regular hookah users. You can get tips, tricks, find vendors or products and get many discounts for community users only. A couple communities include www.whookah.com, www.hookahforum.com and www.hookahpro.com. Each one has very useful articles for any hookah user, whether they are a pro or just beginning. You can find topics on how to get your smoke thicker to topics on peoples opinions on the ever growing question, "Are hookah's safer than cigarettes?".

We can't leave the online hookah communities out of the wiki. The Wiki is an online source of information so why not include the best places online to get info on hookah.

Nroph (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Barhom I would like to know the "legal" status of "hookah" cafés in states where smoking has been prohibited where there are employees, like New York, Sweden etc. What happened to these cafés? I mean their entire business model was on smoking this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.195.211 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SITUATION IN ITALY

i've corrected the page. It Italy it is legal to produce and sell tobacco for hooka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.9.8 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Fakher comes from the UAE, not Egypt

In the Tobacco / Merchandising section, a list of brands is mentioned in the firt paragraph, and afterwards it is said that they are all Egyptian. Al Fakher is based in the UAE (at least according to the manufacturer's site, they have a factory in Ajman), as is mentioned in the second paragraph. I'll be bold, and remove the meniton of Al Fakher from the list in the first paragraph. Also, in one video on Youtube, some kind of controversy concerning Al Fakher is mentioned, so maybe there are actually two Al Fakher brands?--Cynebeald (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

History?

Maybe I'm blind, but where is the history section? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine Miss Information

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

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

Herbal Hukka (shisha/hookah)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[|Reference]

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

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

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

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

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

Health section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common usage not mentioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradiction in "Germany" section

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

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

the shisha reference is just wrong

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

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

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

Contradictions regarding Hookahs vs. cigarettes

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

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

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

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

Copyright problem removed

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

Price in Lithuania

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

Alternative names for HOOKA - The Kalian

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

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

Implement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA Today

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

rv

rv some things, Palestine and Arab world, no explanation given for Palestine's change and Arab worlds removal.[9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

names in different languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artificial culture

After the Arab foods, and Arab line dance (dabke), Israelis claiming Arab culture to create their made up artificial culture have continued to smoking: [10]

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

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

Hashish and Cannabis

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

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

The article states the following under health effects:

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

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

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

Part of "Diffuser" Section is Missing

The section reads:

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

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

Contradiction?

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a pulpit

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

Water filtration and carcinogens

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

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

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

Link

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

Bangladesh

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

Random quote in India section

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

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

Mu'assel article

The Mu'assel article seems to consist almost entirely of excerpts from this article but with a differing introduction. I think something should be done about this either a merger or have Mu'assel simply redirect here. Eopsid (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge to Hookah. A few sentence seems to be giving a description but rest is same as this article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Mu'assel and hookah are different. Mu'assel is the tobacco mixture smoked in a hookah. If the two articles seem to be the same, that should be fixed, per WP:SOFIXIT. I'm currently expanding the mu'assel article, but I encourage you (and others) to help out as well. --Chumash11 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Chumash11. Mu'assel is a tobacco you put in the hookah to smoke. They should stay seperated. User: ANOMYNOUS 9:40, 8 July 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:C001:29C0:E9E9:72CB:F43A:736A (talk)

Tuberculosis

Hookah/shisha offered in public cafes can transmit chest disease - most commonly tuberculosis if used by an infected person and had not be sanitized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.118.38 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement unnecessary

Under Bowls is the Sahara Smoke Vortex bowl really important ? I think Vortex bowl would suffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.80.57 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed original research/substandard content (Brazil)

I'm leaving the following text here until someone is able to clean it up & reference it adequately:
===Brazil===

Consuption of Hookah in Brazil started when Arab and European imigrants started to arive, however, it spread when a soap opera called "O Clone" was airing back in 2002. It gained more popularity in late 2000s among young adults. According to studies, people around 13 and 24 years are the ones that use hookah at most. Around 300.0000 people uses hookah frequently.<ref>[http://globotv.globo.com/rede-globo/bom-dia-brasil/v/uso-do-narguile-no-brasil-preocupa-especialistas/2119814/ "O Uso de Arguile Preucupa Especialistas"]</ref> Hookah bars and shops started to spread around the country, but the use of tobacco and smoke is limited to outdoor areas, since smoking is prohibited indoors with exeption of tobacco shops.

Although a ban was tried by the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency, it was overruled since it is a cultural rite.

--Technopat (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

East Africa esp Ethiopia and other Muslim regions

I think this article could do with some deeper research. I mean South Africa pales in comparison to Ethiopia. Where it was almost all Muslim and then cross-cultured to everyone else. You get large areas in almost every Muslim restaurants smoking this stuff. It is called Shisha there. Somalia and Eritrea are no different. Not sure about Sudan but hard to see it in Egypt but not Sudan. --Inayity (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Added blood levels comparing CEA's for cigarette smoking , non-smokers and Hookah smokers

This information is included in the source article which is referenced for CEA levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.56.136 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The citation [30] or [31] is a little outdated. Stating it is from 1902.. having more up to date sources would bring a lot more knowledge to the topic especially if studies show statistics in hookah smoking have changed, it would also bring awareness. Espinoc226 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724190114/http://www.ecs.com.np/feature_detail.php?f_id=176 to http://www.ecs.com.np/feature_detail.php?f_id=176

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hookah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116123140/https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/776b63cbb110 to https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/776b63cbb110
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120919133210/http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2008/10/29/4908dae9de4c4 to http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2008/10/29/4908dae9de4c4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404003541/http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/tobacco-control-advocacy/reports-resources/cessation-economic-benefits/reports/hookah-policy-brief.pdf to http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/tobacco-control-advocacy/reports-resources/cessation-economic-benefits/reports/hookah-policy-brief.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615061103/http://influxnews.com/is-hookah-sickness-just-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/ to http://influxnews.com/is-hookah-sickness-just-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Origins

These points should be noted.

• 1) The official language of both the Safavid and Mughal Empires was Persian (Farsi). Therefore Farsi must be displayed. Also, neither used Devangari script, so it is irrelevant.
• 2) Abul Fath Gilani (alleged inventor, also known as Irfan Shaikh) was an Iranian, as this is supported by Encyclopedia Iranica [11] and other sources and that the Safavid origin theory is a stronger theory.

Please read from Encyclopedia Iranica [[12]], "The exact date of the first use of ḡalyān in Persia is not known. According to Cyril Elgood (pp. 41, 110), who does not mention his source, it was Abu’l-Fatḥ Gīlānī (d. 1588), a Persian physician at the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar I, who “first passed the smoke of tobacco through a small bowl of water to purify and cool the smoke and thus invented the hubble-bubble or hookah.” However, a quatrain of Ahlī Šīrāzī (d. 942/1535) refers to the use of the ḡalyān (Falsafī, II, p. 277; Semsār, 1963, p. 15), thus dating its use at least as early as the time of Ṭahmāsp I (930-84/1524-76). It seems, therfore, that Abu’l-Fatḥ Gīlānī should be credited with the introduction of the ḡalyān, already in use in Persia, to India."

Thanks. Hazratleri (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hazratleri, you are favouring one outdated source over several reliable sources which state the hookah was invented in India. Also, hookah is a Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani word and that's how it entered the English lexicon so there's no valid reason to remove that language. Galyan is not an English word and so it should not be mentioned in the lede. Rzvas (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

None of your statements were relevant to my points or to my most recent edit. My recent edit is exactly as the references say. Hazratleri (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Really none? You've removed reliable sources, such as those by BBC, from the article. That source clearly states: "Many believe that it originated in India (known there as "hookah") about a thousand years ago, when more often the shisha pipe was used to smoke opium rather than tobacco." Another source published by the "Council of Scientific & Industrial Research" clearly says "The smoking of hookah and hubble-bubble started in India during the reign of the great Moghul emperor, Akbar." You've removed other sources, such as the statement that said: "In the Indian city of Fatehpur Sikri, Roman Catholic missionaries of the Society of Jesus arriving from the southern part of the country, introduced tobacco to the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great (1542-1605 AD). Cyril Elgood (pp. 41, 110) writes that the physician of Akbar, Irfan Shaikh, then invented the hookah in India." You are not at situation to remove information because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. The article already mentioned the theory that the Hookah may have come from Iran. Regardless, the word "Hookah" is Hindustani, the official language of administration of British India and one that is written in two scripts. That word entered the English lexicon from Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu and you are therefore not permitted to remove it. If placing Iran before India in the lede is totally wrong, I should remind you that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by both User:Rzvas and User:Raymond3023. The scripts are based on the etymology of the word and hookah is an Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) word, which was loaned into English during the British Raj. I have added a reference buttressing this fact into the article. Even though it is unnecessary, as there is an entire section dedicated to names of the hookah in other languages besides English, I could WP:COMPROMISE with User:Hazratleri and add "Galyan (Persian: قلیان)" in the introduction, after the word Hookah, if he promises not to continue edit warring over scripts. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The academic references are clear that both theories indicate an Iranian origin. The facts support the pre-March 9th edit. posting a random BBC article does not take away from the sourced and academic references which indicate a Persian origin. Also as previously mentioned. Farsi was the language of both the Safavid and Mughal Empires, so it has to take precedence. Soulsublime (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Facts are facts. It is incredible that anyone would blatantly lie and state a random and ambiguous BBC article which gives no reference and no date has any relevance, nor is it relevant to my point. Hazratleri (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Fact is Persian origin for both statements. Encyclopedia Iranica is a real source, unlike ambiguous nonsense. One can not deny the Persian origins of it. It must be noted and the language is Farsi, not a random Devangari script which has no relevance. Hazratleri (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Before your edit warring, the article contained a total of seven sources demonstrating that the Hookah originated in India (see this version before your revert). No one is denying that others speculate that the Hookah originated in Iran but both sides of the story need to be presented here. Given that Hookah is a Hindi-Urdu word, not a Persian one, the scripts for the former language should be presented in the lede. Please self-revert. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have checked the academic references and they all prove my point. Abul Fath Gilani was a Persian (the location given was the Mughal Empire) and the stronger theory is that of a Safavid origin. No reason to play mind games and vandalize, which you are evidently doing. Hazratleri (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

user:LouisAragon, user:Farawahar, user:Shahin.shn, user:HistoryofIran. Requesting insight into this topic from other active users. The most recent edit disturbs me, as it it is outright lie that states the hookah was invented in Fathehpur Sikri. As I have stated, it's origins are Iranian, and all of the Mughal sources indicate Abul Fath Gilani as the inventor, which is being removed my the Indian-prone editors, see [13]. The edit before March 9th is clearly accurate from the point of view of the sources, see[14]. Hazratleri (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ve seen a ping notification, so i’m here. But i must confess that i have only a little perspective about this topic. However, When i read what is above, i would say that the BBC article is unreliable (is it written by an academic in the field of history ?) while Encyclopædia Iranica is clearly reliable. Iranica seems to suggest that this was invented by a Persian inventor who lived in the Mughal empire, so what is the problem ? It’s maybe possible to write exactly what the source states, something like « invented by a Persian at the Mughal court », no ?—>Farawahar (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Farawahar and welcome to the discussion! There is no issue with mentioning the Persian inventor in the article. The problem occurred when User:Hazratleri removed a series of several sources from the article, all of which had a quote parameter. I went ahead and added the requested information in. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: Hi, i will check all the sources and the subsequent claims when i’ll have a little time. If both the Persian and Indian claims are legit (ie sourced), this is perfectly normal to keep both of them but if one of the two claims is not sourced, it should be removed. I already removed one source cited twice. I will check the other sources and their reliability (we need sources by historians). Best regards.—>Farawahar (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The claims are well sourced, with quantity of sources stating facts that the Hookah was invented in Fattehpore Sikri, India by a physician of Akbar [15] (see at least nine references on that point). Hazratleri was setting up a straw man by saying only one BBC source said this, while removing all the rest. Anupam has been more than generous to work with him and even added the Persian word for the device, despite the fact that the word originates from Hindi-Urdu, and also mentioned Akbar's physician. If you look at the version by Hazratleri, he duplicates a paragraph that was already there, falsely claiming that it was removed [16]. In reality, he just duplicated it and then WP:CANVASSED a slew of editors who he thought might want to edit war with him, and his likely sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hazratleri and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NOTHERE_sock). The version of the article as it stands now is well sourced and represents reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 « The claims are well sourced, with quantity of sources stating facts that the Hookah was invented in Fattehpore Sikri, India by a physician of Akbar « 

Easy man, calm down, and stay cool, i have not said that any claims or sources are unreliables, i just said that i’m going to check the article when i’ll have a little time.

 »Anupam has been more than generous to work with him and even added the Persian word for the device, despite the fact that the word originates from Hindi-Urdu, and also mentioned Akbar's physician. »

This is an Encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone, so we are supposed to work together and take the time for this work. Again, take it easy and stay cool.—>Farawahar (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that Hazratleri is currently blocked for 48 hours for his disruptive editing. We are staying cool, only Hazratleri is turning consensus-based editing into ethnic feud. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone named in the SPI has been blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked the sources in the article :

source number 10 :

https://archive.org/stream/citiesofindia00forruoft

Sir George Forrest, undoubtedly reliable. He was a historian, born in India.

source number 11 :

https://archive.org/stream/romanticcastles00sing

Esther Singleton, not reliable, i have not found any skill of historian for this woman and more, the sentence in her book is a copy-paste of Sir George Forrest’s one.

source number 12 :

https://archive.org/stream/indiaitsnativepr00rousuoft

Louis Rousselet, unreliable, not a historian, he is mainly a photographer but also a traveller, author and archaeologist. Anyway, i have not seen any mention of hookah page 290 of his book.

source number 13 :

https://archive.org/stream/modernindia003191mbp

William Eleroy Curtis, Pan-American movement of the USA, he is a lobbyist and bureaucrat, not a historian, therefore, not reliable here.

source number 14 :

https://archive.org/stream/calcuttapastpres00blec

Kathleen Blechynden, looks like a book describing Calcutta with no historical claims, unreliable. I have not found any historical skills about her.

source number 15 :

https://books.google.fr/books?id=k3IooL36XmgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

Seems to be ok, his book deals with the history of tobacco.

source number 16: not reliable, off topic, not a historical work at all.

source number 18:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=vMfEyKvR59sC&pg=PA10&dq=Charlemagne%27s+Tablecloth+hookahs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nichola Fletcher, said to live in Scottland and France, to be multiskilled and to have some historical knowledge, should be ok but not a great source for this topic.

source number 19 :

https://books.google.fr/books?id=DMvfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214&redir_esc=y

Robert Machray, Anglican bishop and missionary, unreliable here.

source number 20 :

https://books.google.fr/books?id=HvIRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA372&dq=origin+of+hookah&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20hookah&f=false

Harmsworth brothers, British newspaper proprietors, can be reliable if their newspaper is written by authors with historical skills.

If what i said seems ok for other contributors, i can remove the unreliables sources of the article.—>Farawahar (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessment of the sources. However, I disagree that these historical sources, which corroborate the statements of historians with respect to the origin of the Hookah, should be removed. For example, the text written by archaeologist Louis Rousselet is attributed to that author in the article and therefore, can be used. With respect to Calcutta, Past and Present, The Telegraph says of her: "Blechynden covered the history of Calcutta from the days of Job Charnock and later Hastings, followed up by vivid descriptions of the social life and streets and houses of the colonial city". It would thus be appropriate to have her discuss the Hookah and its origin in India, in light of her historical work. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to keep the Blechynden source, this is ok for me (even if in the Telegraph article, her aims are not really related to history), but what about the others ? Rousselet page 290 : no mention of hookah and Rousselet is not a historian. Singleton : unreliable, Machray : unreliable, « wealth of India » : off topic, Eleroy Curtis : unreliable. This makes me wonder why you guys want to keep these unreliables sources ? prove a point ?—>Farawahar (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again User:Farawahar, I noticed a little hostility at the end of your previous comment so I'm gong to remind you to be WP:CIVIL and work here collaboratively, rather than viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially since you were WP:CANVASSED here by a now blocked user. With respect to the Louis Rousselet, who is an archaeologist and therefore a reliable authority, the relevant quote can be found on page 290 of the work titled India and Its Native Princes (published by Scribner, Armstrong, and Co.), which states "The chronicler Aboul Fazel says that at certain hours the people were admitted into this court. After the council the emperor repaired to the Dewani-Am, where, after having put on his robes of state, he seated himself on a tribune overlooking the court. Here he remained for some time, inquiring into and redressing the grievances of the people, and receiving the strangers who flocked to his court. According to tradition, it was here that he received the Jesuits of Goa, who brought him the leaves and seeds of tobacco; and it was at Futtehpore that Hakim Aboul Futteh Ghilani, one of Akbar's physicians, is supposed to have invented the hookah, the pipe of India." If you do not own a copy of the book, you are welcome to borrow it at your local library. In light of this information, that source will stay in the article. With respect to Esther Singleton, the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship describes her as follows: "Esther Singleton (1865-1930), was a prolific American author and journalist. Her dozens of books included topics such as furniture, European cities, and The Shakespeare Garden." Since she was a prolific journalist, I am unsure of why you wish to remove that text. If you desire to remove the source by William Eleroy Curtis, I have no objection, in light of your comment posted above, although it still corroborates the information present in the other reliable sources. With respect to the text titled The Wealth of India, the source is reliable as it is published by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is an authority that can speak on the invention of the hookah. That being said, if you really want to remove it, you can do so, since we already have several other sources attesting to the veracity of the Hookah's origin in India. I also have no objection to you removing what is now source 18 or source 19, from Cassell's Magazine. If you disagree with my assessment, you are welcome to wait and see if other users offer their perspectives. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, User:Farawahar, in your previous comment, you mention that Rousselet makes "no mention of [the] hookah" but it seems that you neglected to actually search your own link that you provided. You will find the same paragraph on page 303 of your online version of his book. Remember that books are often published in different editions, sometimes by different publishers so page numbers can vary. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Farawar, Rousselet is an archaeologist with an expertise in India. Why should he not be retained? The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research does exactly what the name suggests--research. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or finding non-existing loopholes is not helping anyone. Bring some reliable sources for your information. Otherwise just adhere to the established consensus. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hookah names

Are you sure is Hookah a generic and international name for it? I have been travelling in several places (some 300 journeys in 55 countries of the world), been living in three continents and 15 visits to Turkey for instance; I never heard the word Hookah; I heard Nargile, Shisha, Cachimba or WaterPipe instead. --AlexanderFreud (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder who is pushing SA

SA just got into this thing. Everywhere you go on Wikipedia you see SA as the only African country mentioned. What about Ethiopia? Who been using it longer? And when you check it is the Somali and others that made it popular in South Africa among non-Indians. --169.0.56.107 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani: Devanagari vs Nastaleeq scripts

I accepted an anonymous editor's reversing the order of the Devanagari and Nastaleeq renderings of Hookah, as it did not seem like obvious vandalism, but would be unsurprised if I were to learn it constitutes a form of nationalistic WP:POV, or if it goes against a consensus such as at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Let me know if it becomes an edit war. Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hookah&diff=1031018561&oldid=1029531703 --Anon423 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)