Talk:Prevalence of tobacco use/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed deletion

I am proposing to delete this article.

1. The lead and the "Prevalence" section are all copy and paste from the article Health effects of tobacco, from which this creates an unnecessary duplication.
2. The "Ranks" section is partially out of date and only reproduces the information from its source [1] the World Health Organization.

Perhaps at a future date this article may be possible, however at in its current state it acts mainly as a distractor in the context of the articles it was written to supplement. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the prod because I believe the points are no longer/are not valid.

1. I have expanded the article substantially and there is now considerable more information here then at Health effects of tobacco#Prevalence.

2. The "ranks" section information was four years old when it was added here. That sort of information is not released every year. I don't believe old information is a valid reason for deletion. (Nonetheless, I have added the year of the study to the article for clarification, and feel free to update it)

Please comment here if you have any more concerns or of course feel free to AFD it. Cheers. Epson291 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's there Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevalence of tobacco usage. I concur with that the points are no longer valid, so I have revised my position to be neutral. In regards the ranks, there's a better source offered by the WHO, it what we used to create the "Percentage of fe/males smoking any tobacco product." maps. I'll probably work on that later. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Article focus

I've done a little cleanup, however there's still quite a bit to do. I can probably take care of the Ranks (possible rename), however here's the to do list:

• Minor WP:CSB issue since we mainly discuss developed countries
• I am unsure whether or not it would be wise to discuss prevalence by countries, it may be possible
  • to discuss each ascpect individually: developed countries and developing, income, education, so on
  • and perhaps to give an overview on geographic regions (e.g. Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, so on)
  • If we are intent on giving information about countries, perhaps it is possible to splinter an article just for that: there are a lot of countries out there
• I'm not entirely supportive of listing "Prevalence of tobacco usage" under Impact, since this article was originally designed to supplement Health effects of tobacco and mainly focuses on epidemiology. However it does seem to fit in Impact. Maybe the solution is to divide impact into Business and move Health Effects under Impact. What do you think?

ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For countries/geographic regions, it could be split once there is enough informaiton, though not yet in it's current state. Epson291 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranks section

Proposal

Notes

• * Data were not validated by country focal point in time for publication of this report.
• ** Current smoking prevalence not validated
• No data available in gray
• Error taken with a 95% confidence interval
• Smoking any tobacco product at the time of the survey, including daily and non-daily smoking.

Country	Male Mean [%]	Error [+⁄-%]	Female Mean [%]	Error [+⁄-%]
Antigua and Barbuda	no data	no data	no data	no data
Argentina	34.6	3.5	24.6	2.9
Bahamas	no data	no data	no data	no data
Barbados**	18.5	8.4	3.3	1.8
Belize	no data	no data	no data	no data
Bolivia	35.8	7.95	29.8	3.55
Brazil*	no data	no data	no data	no data
Canada**	no data	no data	no data	no data
Chile**	42.6	8.55	33.3	5.35
Colombia	no data	no data	no data	no data
Costa Rica	26.7	4.2	7.3	1.55
Cuba	44.8	17.65	29.6	7
Dominica	no data	no data	no data	no data
Dominican Republic	14.9	6.25	11	3.1
Ecuador	23.9	3.15	5.4	1.1
El Salvador	no data	no data	no data	no data
Grenada	no data	no data	no data	no data
Guatemala	24.8	4.05	3.9	0.9
Guyana	no data	no data	no data	no data
Haiti	no data	no data	no data	no data
Honduras	no data	no data	3.3	1.5
Jamaica	19.6	8.5	8.9	2.8
Mexico	37.6	7.4	12.4	3.5
Nicaragua	no data	no data	no data	no data
Panama	no data	no data	no data	no data
Paraguay	33.4	3.85	14.9	2.2
Peru	no data	no data	no data	no data
Saint Kitts and Nevis	no data	no data	no data	no data
Saint Lucia	28	11.7	11	3.65
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	17.6	8.45	5.2	2.75
Suriname	no data	no data	no data	no data
Trinidad and Tobago	36.5	14.6	7.3	2.35
United States of America	25.7	3.1	20.3	3.3
Uruguay	36.6	4.4	25.8	3.75
Venezuela	33.4	5.9	27.8	6

Using [2] (page 276 in the pdf) I've got a sample (above) of what I'm planning to implement. I removed the "Smoking cigarettes" columns and the "Daily" smoking rates and errors, they appear to be non-essential to the context of this article. I've converted their confidence interval range into a plus or minus tolerance, which I would assume our readers would be more familiar with. I can replace the countries with the template at a later time, but other than that is there anything you would add or append before I finish the rest of the table? ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What you've done looks great, good job! - Epson291 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal from Germany

“ Germany also has a strong cigarette industry lobby. Tobacco giant Philip Morris sponsors food and drink at every party convention in Germany. Tobacco companies pay for political parties' election posters and special evening functions. ”

Removed from subsection "Germany". Stay focused on the core topic which is the "prevalence of tobacco consumption", the juxtaposition violated both neutrality and reliable source (WP:RS#News organizations) as the statement expects the reader to automatically and unequivocally accept the connection between the German tobacco lobby and the heightened rates of tobacco consumption. There is little context to this situation and it likewise ignores the historical perspective of the anti-tobacco movement in the 1930s which left many tobacco health research as "muted". The sentence also looses objectivity and focus, this article is not Tobacco politics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add LGBT stats

In the US, more LGBT smoke than straight, partly because of efforts by tobacco advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.162.172 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find a decent source for that information, please go ahead and add it. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Prevalence of tobacco consumption country table

What's the deal with the exclamation marks? And also, are there no Canada data? TastyCakes (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The exclamation marks are explained in the article, in the key "Data were not validated by country focal point in time for publication of this report". The World Health Organization didn't compile statistics on Canada for two reasons: (1) Canada is a developed country with a very strong tobacco monitoring program, (2) surveying such a large, spread out, country wasn't worth the cost. The full report on these statistics is available starting page 272 [3]. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok, could we not put some kind of legend in this article though? Why do Australia and Barbados have exclamation marks but they do have data? Has that data come from another source? Can such a source be found for Canada? TastyCakes (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The exclamation mark isn't necessarily related to the whether or not they have data. The WHO has data on Australia and Barbados because they were interested in those areas—they were notable—even though the data wasn't validated at the time the report was published. I called the legend "Notes" and it's to the right of the table. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:US racial stats

The US racial statistics are inconsistent. The article states that 13.3% of Asians smoke and that Hispanics have the lowest percentage at 16.2%. 149.173.6.110 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Freudian psychology

Has Freudian psychology ever been used to explain the prevalence of smoking in women and men ? Much of Freud's philosophy was based on primitive psycho-sexual development, including things like penis envy. It's possible that such concepts might have been used to explain common drug addictions that involve suckling on cylinder-shaped objects. ADM (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have a section about this in Tobacco smoking in the section "Psychology". Can it to explain the difference between men and women? Yes, some, bottom of page 28.[4] ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

merge proposal

The parent article is in need of globalization, the articles on China and Uruguay are stubs not likely to grow. Argentina and Japan are well-developed, but could use a paragraph and a link to the parent article. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"stubs not likely to grow"? wrong. Keep separate articles, with cross-linking. 222.209.27.54 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Roughly half of which live in Asia"

I removed this because, although it is a direct quotation from the source, it is misleading. The population of Asia constitutes roughly half of that of the world and deserves no special mention here. A break-down of smoking by all continents may be suitable instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKoziar (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

incorrect sorting

When I am trying to sort the table by male rate it shows: Indonesia 65.9 Ethiopia 7.6 Russia 70.1 --Jonah.ru (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

More updated data

For many countries the info could be updated to the year 2011 or 2012 from this WHO statistics report [5] 85.170.154.233 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2008 data used in the table is old WHO data. I work in the field and know that for the UK there's been new data released this year (which I've added in the UK section). The data from this 2008 prevalence report looks weirdly high to me for 2008, is this just me or does anyone else agree?

Indian female smoking rate close to 3% ?

Seems too high. I Live in India and very rarely have seen females smoking. I would have thought may be like 0.01 % — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.17.175 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)