Talk:Tobacco politics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmm257. Peer reviewers: Eli 17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajameson1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following pages have been proposed to be merged: Tobacco litigation and Tobacco lobby to Tobacco politics. The rationale is as follows:

1. Both Tobacco litigation and Tobacco lobby discuss a central aspect of a larger subject: politics. Where as litigation discusses judiciary aspect, while lobby discusses legislative interest. Because of this, the two can be combined to provide a larger more complete picture.
2. The topic can be further expanded to encompass enforcement and conflicts between other interest groups.
3. Both Tobacco litigation and Tobacco lobby are considerably small, therefore a merge can be done without any loss in content.
4. These pages can be recreated when Tobacco politics reaches sufficient size: where WP:SIZE suggests a spinoff be done. Until then, the strong dispersion that exist now makes it difficult to articulate to the reader, and difficult to write and coordinate.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

TOBACCO NOT GOOD FOR YOU.....

This section has been deleted for not having any real value to the article. However, you can still access a previous revision of it here Willbat (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Truncated scope of article

As is usual on Wikipedia, important information is being suppressed by interested parties that don't want it to be known. Why does an article on tobacco politics not go into the social engineering addiction of the anti-smoking Nazis and their well-oiled machine? For one thing, I would like to see some reference to the manipulation of data to fit the preconceived "conclusion" that secondhand smoke is harmful, which is the biggest fraud perpetrated on health care consumers since a Los Alamos scientist said that radiation poisoning results in "a pleasant death." How about we try for some real balance in this article? BidingMyTime2 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know about your consiracy claims, but yes, this information is worth mentioning here and should be expanded upon in the Anti- smoking movement article . Perhaps you should add it? 132.38.190.22 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What sources do you have concerning second hand smoke not being harmfull? And i am a little confused about what nazi's and social engineering addiction has to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkStraw532 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Tobacco politics → Tobacco politics in the United States – To reflect scope. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Redirecting Foo to Foo in the United States doesn't make much sense, just as we wouldn't redirect Foo (bar) to Foo. Better to keep a broader title to allow for expansion of the article. It's already tagged as needing globalizing. While the rename would better reflect the article's current scope, it would also limit that scope in the future. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This article is about the US specifically, it's not a global article that just focuses too much on the US. By being at this title its preventing the creation of a global article. It'd be easier to create a global article then it would be to turn this US article into a global article. I was considering creating a global article by copying parts of this article, but the only thing I could find to salvage into a global article was the lead sentence. Everything else is about the US specifically. If I knew more about this topic I might be able to create a global article, but I don't, so better to free up this title for someone who can.

About the redirect, I share you're concern and I don't know what to do about it, but preventing the creation of a global article, and destroying the US article, is not the answer. We can always send the redirect to RFD if we can't figure out what to do with it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving this article does nothing to prevent future work on the topic on a global scale. But keeping the article at the wrong title for possible future expansion goes against the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL. —  AjaxSmack  23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, unless you assume there are no political issues with tobacco in other countries worth discussing. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not. I agree with you in spirit but years of no such content being added along with User:In ictu oculi claim that such content is not readily extractable from open sources leads me to believe that this is unlikely to happen soon. Let the title of this article reflect its actual content. —  AjaxSmack  00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this isn't a normal globalisation issue. Outside the US there is virtually no such thing as tobacco politics (at least print sources don't seem to produce notable coverage)... yes there is a bit of info on EU appeals like this, but would be a very thin stub. Trying to globalize this article won't work. I just spent 5 minutes looking at sources and thinking about doing it, and I'm strongly in favour of globalizing all articles, but this one, put simply, is a US subject, but that isn't clear from the current title. We could consider turning hatnoting back from Tobacco politics to generic Tobacco industry In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, the idea of tobacco politics is limited to the U.S. Thus WP:CONCISE is applicable. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea might not be limited but this article is. —  AjaxSmack  23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I misread your comment. The idea of tobacco politics is not limited to the U.S. but the propensity for anyone to write about it at Wikipedia in the near future is low. —  AjaxSmack  03:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hot Stop, I think at this point the Crystal Ball aspect of this really needs to be justified by actual edits before assuming that there will ever be a Governments and tobacco industry lobbying (which is what "politics" means in this context since tobacco companies can't vote they can only lobby) article that covers more than US. Note that searching for usable sources on "governments and the tobacco industry" produces only 1 hit "governments and the tobacco industry in Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom" and a whole slew of hits where "governments" means US State governments. At this point in this RM anyone arguing a stub can be produced in future is getting near to being obliged to demonstrate it by starting the stub here and now. The bytes in this RM have already been four times what is needed for a basic stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: You lost me there. I'm not arguing another article should be created. I'm saying this topic is limited to the U.S., so there's no need to move the page per WP:CONCISE Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This article has been around for several years (compiled from even older articles) and has been tagged with {{globalize}} for a year and a half but remains almost exclusively about the U.S. Move the article to the proposed title and redirect the article to Tobacco industry as User:In ictu oculi suggests above. Alternatively create a new stub or redirect page to allay the fears of those like User:BDD who fear that lack of an article titled tobacco politics would stymie future input. —  AjaxSmack  23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not object to that; I would only object to the base title redirecting to a longer form. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would, too. —  AjaxSmack  00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed move. If the scope of this topic is really and appropriately just the USA (which seems unlikely but is possible) then there's no call to move. If not then expand in time. What's the rush? Yes, a merge might work. But this move proposal doesn't. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible improvements

Hello,

I will be working on improving this page over the next few weeks. Here are some ideas I have:

I think the introduction, taxation section, lobby section, and history section can be expanded. It looks like citations need to be added for several points, and the grounds of claims and defenses sections have been marked as needing expansion. I also think a section on e-cigarettes should be included (possibly within lobbying). There could also be a cross-national section to look at other countries as well.

Lobby

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1965/09/the-quiet-victory-of-the-cigarette-lobby-how-it-found-the-best-filter-yet-congress/304762/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas24.pdf

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/02/500212602/why-tobacco-companies-are-spending-millions-to-boost-a-cigarette-tax

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-tobacco-in-2017-full-steam-ahead_us_590a3e36e4b05279d4edc24b

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-america-poor-west-virginia-north-carolina

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-tobacco-is-still-in-the-business-of-deceiving-americans_us_5a202d96e4b0392a4ebbf5f3

History

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/timelines/fullindex.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/tobacco.decline/

DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2012.tb00732.x

https://www.gq.com/gallery/blowing-smoke-tobacco-us-politicians

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3331040

http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation (could also be used for grounds of claims/defenses)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x

E-cigarettes

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/e-cigarettes-vaping-cigars-fda-altria.html

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/03/25/19468/how-big-tobacco-lobbies-safeguard-e-cigarettes

Cross-national perspective

Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/23/commentary/japan-commentary/poverty-politics-tobacco-policy/#.WpMUlma-IWo

China: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-political-mapping-of-chinas-tobacco-industry-and-anti-smoking-campaign/

Defense

DOI: 10.1136/tc.2006.016956

Kmm257 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Kathy

Suggestions

Hi Kmm257!

The article looks very thorough already! Perhaps finding some more recent reviews/sources would provide more up-to-date information about tobacco politics (most recent seems to be 2013). Additionally, some of the information might be re-organized/elaborated upon to make the article flow better (e.g. vary sentence length in "Litigation" or expand upon Sir Richard Doll's study). Some of the terms under "Grounds of claims" have a lot of potential to be further explained, as well (e.g. strict liability). Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli 17 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources for the article

The 5th International Conference of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (archived on March 29 2021 from semanticscholar.org) is an annuale free e-book written by the [tobaccopreventioncessation.com European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention]. It shows a list of abstracts of free academic papers providing an overview of the Tobacco politics for each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.34 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Smoking Lobby website is for sale

The Smoking Lobby website is now for sale. Should we keep it?--129.222.138.185 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)