Talk:Tobacco industry

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)

Lawsuits

Is there really nothing on Wikipedia on the $280bn tobacco lawsuits? Or the recent (failed) UK lawsuit? [1] Rd232 15:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have searched high and low for such references, and cannot find any. Then I searched Google for news reports of possible censorship of Wikipedia, and also found nothing. However I find it difficult to believe that Wikipedians wouldn't have been falling over themselves to write something about this. Court TV has comprehensive and reliable resources. Caravaca 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the recent additions about the majority of lawsuits ending in victory for the tobacco industry; my request for a citation was met with a link to BAT's website, and a comment from, er, their litigation counsel. PerWikipedia policy on reliable sources, this is a promotional source and so not suitable for use here. This claim needs details from independent sources to be included, and in the meantime an encyclopaedia is not the place to parrot industry PR material. Nmg20 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure BAT knows the status of their litigation more than anyone else. Sources from RJ Reynolds have detailed listings of there litigation status, however this is swayed by RJT status as an US based company. It is frustrating that an enyclopedia should be restrained from showing the truth regarding tobacco litigation. Biritix 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in putting together the guidelines above - but I think it's safe to say that an industry which is interested in making money selling something is unlikely to be the best possible source for information on the state of lawsuits being brought against them relating to their product - hence, Wikipedia regards them as not a suitable source.

Hence, the first reference you've added back in is still invalid. The second one, Steve Sugarman's homepage, doesn't appear to be a reference at all - it's a set of family photos plus a series of links to other articles. The third one, "A Smoking Gun", is 20 years old, not peer-reviewed, describes the tobacco industry's defence of its products at that time as "contradictory", outlines the absurd lengths tobacco companies go to to undermine litigation ("Braly had to get a court order to keep defense lawyers from looking over his shoulder while he was examining documents in their offices. When the order came through, the firm knocked down a wall in the office and put in a window."), describes upcoming cases against the industry as "promising", and closes with the line "contrary to the hopes of the tobacco industry, the field promises to get much more exciting." This in no way supports what you're trying to say. Your 4th reference is a page of Altria's website, and is not an article. You yourself have already highlighted why your fifth reference is unsuitable - they are lawyers specialising in defending tobacco companies at trial.

Good luck to you if you believe that BAT press releases are God's Honest Truth, though, and thanks for posting the link. I'm afraid I will continue reverting this change unless valid supporting evidence per Wikipedia criteria can be found.Nmg20 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will be simply forced to create a more cohesive set of references regarding BAT's, RJT's, Altria's and JTI's claims. Thanks for pulling me up on this. Ill work on it soon. Biritix 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are exactly what's needed. I've included the full Pubmed citations, and included info from the first article to convey its sense - but thank you. Nmg20 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A quite good article

But figures (market shares) are becoming a bit old (1999)

Rankings

I dug up various rankings for tobacco companies. Most use vague quantifiers and have different ordering.

BBC News "bigness" ranking [2]:

1. Philip Morris (Altria)
2. British American Tobacco
3. Japan Tobacco
4. Imperial
5. Gallaher

Ranking by "volume," according to the Altria Group article:

1 & 2: China National Tobacco and Japan Tobacco

3: Philip Morris (Altria)

Ranking by "largeness," according to the Japan Tobacco article:

1. China Tobacco
2. Philip Morris (Altria)
3. British American Tobacco
4. Japan Tobacco

Ranking by "sales," according to the China National Tobacco Co. article:

1. China National Tobacco

Ranking by "largeness," according to the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company article:

1. ???
2. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Ranking by "market share," according to the Tobacco company article:

1. China National Tobacco
2. Philip Morris
3. British American Tobacco
4. Japan Tobacco
5. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (tied with two other companies)

Ranking by "sales," according to the Tobacco company article:

1. Philip Morris
2. British American Tobacco
3. Japan Tobacco

--61.115.196.42 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

US-centred article

This article is pretty US-orientated. Could anyone write more about the international industry ? Arsine 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of Euromonitor

I note someone's added statistics on the tobacco (damnable typos 203.129.34.62) industry from Euromonitor. I remind people that Euromonitor is not a PD resource; I'm quite sure they mention something about red hot pokers in bums for copyvios when you log in. Perhaps an alternate, free source could be found for this information? Prospectus' usually include information about the composition of the business.203.129.34.62 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No info about the tabocco industry

I came to this article to look for articles about the tabacco industry:

• How many companies, whats there name
• How much do they sell in USD market share etc
• Who is producing and how much (how many tons)
• etc etc

Instead I find some general info about some lawsuit in the US... This artical needs reworking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.135.68 (talk • contribs)

Um - how hard did you look...?

• Companies are listed in order of market share from 1 through 16.
• Global market shares are given in the same table
• Production data in tonnes is also in there by country
• etc etc

No reworking needed as a result of your post, anyway! Nmg20 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion not related to improving article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DO NOT SMOKE IT BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH .. Smokeing is bad and not health for u .you can die form lung caner so call now 1800-stopsmokeing and they will help u to stop smokeing and keep u smoke free for year just call that number and stop smokeing today there a lot of smokeing company that say it make u younger and feel good but it don't it bad to do there a lot of people in the world that smoke like teen and younger kids, adult that do it SAY NO TO SMOKE AND DRUGS .GIVE TOBACCO THE BOOT AND JUST SAY NO..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.125.201 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Production by country or region

Soviet Union...? (Dissimilation (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Over 40 years ago tobacco companies discovered tobacco and its smoke contains Polonium -210 and suppressed the findings to avoid public attention

"Abstract:The major tobacco manufacturers discovered that polonium was part of tobacco and tobacco smoke more than 40 years ago and attempted, but failed, to remove this radioactive substance from their products. Internal tobacco industry documents reveal that the companies suppressed publication of their own internal research to avoid heightening the public’s awareness of radioactivity in cigarettes. Tobacco companies continue to minimize their knowledge about polonium-210 in cigarettes in smoking and health litigation. Cigarette packs should carry a radiation-exposure warning label."

• Waking a Sleeping Giant: The Tobacco Industry’s Response to the Polonium-210 Issue ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.84.152.55.83 (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Conflicting Points of View"

The conflicting points of view section appears relatively skewed towards the Tobacco Industry. The first paragraph itself is somewhat fair, but the second paragraph provides a completely unsupported statement in favor of the industry, which is not in any way offset by any statement in opposition of the industry (that produces a product proven to carry severe health issues).

Also, "conflicting points of view," seems like an odd choice for a header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupreem (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the Synthesis tag because the only reference for that section is simply a table of tax revenue, and has no direct information that supports the claim made in the section. I vote for removal of this section unless better citations are found to support said argument. Pdinc (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

There's at least one (anon) editor pushing to move Cannabis industry into another category. Right now it's in the base industry category, Category:Industries (economics). Would it make sense to create a category "tobacco and cannabis industry" and put this and the other article there? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not for you to give a name and location to an industry. That's already been done for you. Example: Industry Classification Benchmark. Dow Jones and FTSE define the eleven top-level industries. They're the same eleven top-level industries defined by MSCI and S&P. Everything else is in a hierarchy below those eleven. Specifically, you have:

• Health Care ≫ Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology ≫ Cannabis Producers (20103020)
• Consumer Staples ≫ Food, Beverage and Tobacco ≫ Tobacco (45103010)

Let's put the leaves on the branches, not the trunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.214.198 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Another way of saying it, it's not a category if it contains everything you can think of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.214.198 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)