Talk:Beedi

Comment

I have just rewrote russian version of this page. Found a very good source:

• Bidi Smoking and Public Health. Editors Prakash C. Gupta, Samira Asma

And more:

• Official page of "501 Mangalore Ganesh Beedies". It is one of the most famous beedi brand in India, as I know. In the FAQ section there is an information about nicotine and tar content. I think it's a weighty argument then speaking about it.
• Video on YouTube Process of rolling bidi shown by the way. Pay attantion at the working conditions.

--77.220.44.207 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bidi would be the correct spelling in India. There is already a larger article on the correct spelling (in india) of bidi I think these should be merged.

Nicotine content

How can bidis contain three times more nicotine than a regular cigarette, when they only contain 10-20% tobacco? (Diospyros melonoxylon does not contain any nicotine.) 62.113.159.156 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

but it's a raw off-grade tobacco. :/ --77.220.44.207 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article may have a POV problem. Does anyone else feel this way? Pygmypony 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. But if you do - feel free, edit page, add your own opinion, but don't forget - in should be quite weighty and citation proofed. --77.220.44.207 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the Indian culture stub should be removed. --ചള്ളിയാന്‍ 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Challiyan (talk • contribs)

i do think that there may be a point of view problem. this sentence in the lead section: "There, beedi consumption outpaces that of conventional cigarettes[2] and these tobacco-filled leaves deliver more nicotine,[9] carbon monoxide,[10] and tar[10] and carry a greater risk of oral cancers.[3]" sounds like outright arguing for conventional cigarettes. reference 8 is a broken link, while ref 11 is an online tabloid magazine article that is referring to a research conducted, but the article itself seems to be not very precise, eg: it contains a citation: "While the popular perception is that bidi is natural, hand-rolled and has fewer chemicals, it is as harmful as cigarette smoking if not more." at the same time the article title says "Bidi more harmful than cigarette: Study". it would be better to use the aforementioned study as a source rather than the article. while i would accept that beedi is likely to be more hazard to health than the average EU or US cigarette, this comparison is not well sourced in the article and i definitely do not like the advertising tone of the favorable comparison about conventional cigarettes.176.63.176.112 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Marijuana

In SE Asia in the 60's and 70's it was possible to buy beedies that contained marijuana. I cannot find any proof for this except that I remember indulging myself with them. They were sold typically one at a time by kids on street corners. This was at a time when the cannabis plant grew commonly along the edges of roads away from the city areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.161.79 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Beedi → Bidi — Relist. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Although Beedi is a legitimate spelling, Bidi is more commonly used, see google [1] [2]. Captain n00dle\^Talk 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Requested input at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not convinced. Most of the Google results for "bidi" refer to technology (as in Unicode "Bi-directional"). It is possible that one of them is more common than the other, but simply counting number of Google results won't do. (For what it's worth, I prefer "Beedi" as it more accurately reflects the pronunciation, with the long vowel.) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Granted there are more results for beedi, but adding a search term to refine it evens it out greatly; for instance 'smoke bidi' returns 86000 ghits to 'smoke beedi' and 101000 ghits. Many of the latter are due to Wikipedia.

2. 'beedi' accurately reflects the pronunciation if you accept that the phonetic value of 'ee' is IAST 'ī' and accept the possible confusion with IAST 'ē'. Which does occur.

Imc (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Imc, beedi reflects the correct pronunciation. This is common spelling of the word in India. Indian media calls it beedi as well. See [3] and [4] — Ganeshk (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I should have been clearer in my statement above. I was saying (or implying) that beedi does not reflect the correct pronunciation to everyone, and saying also that bidi has more support in google hits than described in the parent post. To anyone who has learned the pronunciation of almost any language other than modern English that is written in Latin letters (and this includes earlier pronunciations of English), 'beedi' in Latin letters could represent IAST 'bēdi'. Imc (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The original Hindi word gives us Beedi, and never Bidi!! The Google search argument notwithstanding. Posting a simple query at WP:India talk page prior to starting this exercise would have saved us so much of wiki time and given simple clarification, and due respect to the local usage. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This usage 'bidi' corresponds to the way other Indian words written with a similar phoneme are commonly written; e.g. Gita (see Bhagavad Gita), Sri, and numerous others. In addition, modern English does not have a standard pronunciation of 'i'. The proposed use of bidi corresponds to the same usage in many common English words, (e.g. litre, police). Applying the existing usage of 'ee' will lead to confusion, admittedly mostly by those for whom English is not a native language. For instance, for German and Dutch speakers, 'ee' would always be pronounced 'ē', which it was also originally in English. Applying the idiosyncrasies of modern English orthography to words that are not native to English often only leads to further confusion. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) was drawn up; it is a pity it was never formally accepted, but it still indicates sensible ground rules that it would be useful to apply. Imc (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous; I cannot think of a single English word in which 'ee' represents an /eː/ sound (German and Dutch are irrelevant; this is the English Wikipedia after all) — it is extremely unlikely that an English reader would see "Beedi" and read it as "Bēdi". It is also false that other Indian words with a similar phoneme are written with an 'i' always; many people are named "Geeta" (or even "Geetha"), and Śrī is often written "Shree" rather than the incorrect (but understood by convention) "Sri". In any case, since it's clear there's no uniform system for English spellings of Indian words, established usage must be decided on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to infer a system out of isolated examples. IAST is a system for transliterating Sanskrit, and it makes little sense to apply it to words not derived from Sanskrit or topics not primarily of scholarly interest, and even little sense to simply discard the diacritics. I might in principle support moving this article to Bīḍī as it would be a correct, unambiguous pronunciation, but "Bidi" seems just unnecessarily wrong. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Something may be ridiculous but it is not my comments. I've re-read my original comment and I did not say that Gita for instance is always written that way, so perhaps you should look at the article straw man. I know the spellings Geeta and Geetha are both found, I'm related to one person known by both spellings. My point was that Gita is written that way in the English wikipedia in the article Bhagavad Gita and I trust you will not look to change that spelling. German and Dutch were there for illustration, and because German and Dutch speakers will also use the English wikipedia. Admittedly I referred to IAST when I should have listed the much longer name National Library at Kolkata romanization which would be applicable in this case, well the term IAST is shorter and is almost identical for practical usage. As for making a case by case decision for each term, that leads us directly to these case by case arguments for each term; I won't get into it because it is pointless, but this was the sort of thing that applying the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) could help avoid. I commend it to you. Imc (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If the usual romanization uses an i and not the double e, then the page should be moved. It doesn't matter if most people use a spelling that is inconsistent with convention, as a redirect to "Bidi" can be placed at "Beedi". Also, for what it's worth, the Oxford American Dictionary lists "Bidi" as the main entry and "Beedi" as an alternate spelling. Fleetham (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If. But we're disputing here what the usual "romanization" is. I fail to understand your distinction between "usual romanization", what "most people use", and "convention". The Oxford American Dictionary is hardly an authority on how an Indian word should be spelt. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to use authoritative references, so any major dictionary will be relevant. Imc (talk)

• Oppose (formally, after comments above). "Bidi" is not the closest pronunciation, and has the danger of leading naturally (to most readers) to a very incorrect pronunciation (with an /aɪ/ sound as in most English words starting with 'bi-'). Shreevatsa (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There is no well accepted convention on Romanization of Indian names as Imc suggests. "Geeta" is just as common "Gita"(as a girl's name), and "Shree" is probably more common than "Sri". My name for example, has two different versions: "Deepak" as well as "Dipak", with "Deepak" being more popular. Also google will give different counts based on where you are searching from. Users from UK and US will probably get higher counts for "bidi" as opposed to "beedi" whereas in South Asia, it will be the other way round --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I even suggested that there was a well accepted convention. However the lack of such in Wikipedia is always be a problem because it causes confusion. As an example unconnected with wikipedia - currently in Britain, the name 'Punjab' is regularly heard pronounced with the first vowel said as in the English word 'put', sometimes by newsreaders who should know better, sometimes by those British who are of Panjabi (spelling deliberately used) origin. We should not use confused orthography in a reference work unless necessary, and absolutely not when we have a better choice. Also see my other comments above. Imc (talk)

• Comment I just read a National Geographic article and they used the "bidi" spelling. I have a feeling "bidi" may be the more conventional spelling. Fleetham (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support Clearly both transliterations are prevalent and therefore acceptable, but looking at Google books: bidi + smoke (4090 hits) is somewhat more common than beedi + smoke (2360). Ditto on pubmed: bidi (177) vs beedi (29). (I chose these two databases since they contain a much higher fraction of reliable and non-circular sources than general google search). That said, the article name is not of much significance in this case because (1) neither translitartion is "wrong" and there are no POV or framing concerns, (2) the reader will be directed to the article with either spelling, and (3) the first sentence itself will inform them of the alternate spellings and the correct pronunciation (if they care). So lets toss a coin, pick a name and move on :-) Our efforts are better spent in improving the article itself; there are over published 150 articles exploring the health impact of smoking bidis, including review, articles which really need to be incorporated here. Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not convinced World Health Organization India Poster 4 also uses Beedi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing Reference (404 error)

The #2 Reference - http://www.tobaccofreeunion.org/files/44.pdf - gives a 404 error. I could not locate the file anywhere else either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtornado (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beedi. 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/20120306053754/http://www.tobaccofreeunion.org/files/44.pdf to http://www.tobaccofreeunion.org/files/44.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bestpracticesfoundation.com/pdf/ILO.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Beedi

Beedi 37.154.71.42 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)