Talk:Tobacco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The early use of pipe

In the article there is a woodcut noted as a first depiction of a smoking European (1595). Perhaps he is burning cannabis or some other herb, but, in fact, the Chute's 1595 picture can't be counted as an earliest depiction of a smoking European! For example, take a look at the mediaeval picture of a skipper smoking a pipe, showing an amazingly resemblance with modern skippers or fishermens custom. Please take a look at British Library manuscript, #12 Yates Thompson collection (Histoire d’Outremer), dated c. 1232-1261 folio 58v (initial C - Bohemund and Daimbert sailing to Apulia) - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bohemond_daimbert.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.202.180 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Surgeon General Sets Tobacco End-Game as Smoking Persists (Lihaas (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).

Parrish

This might be a good place to slip in a nice movie, name of Parrish. Tell all things of Tobacco. Inspiring readers to take a look at the subject.Longinus876 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo Noticed

Hi, just wanted to note that there is a typo, instead of saying "use" the article says "us." The typo in question is under the demographic section, in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.248.237 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tobacco industry scandals of the 1990s

Is there a comprehensive article on this subject? These scandals started with the Wall Street Journal and 60 Minutes exposes on Brown & Williamson, included tobacco executives claiming in a U.S. Congressional hearing that tobacco wasn't addictive, and leading to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. If there's not an article, this is a subject by itself that could be summarized in an article. Also, I'd like to note that the general collection of articles on the history of tobacco and related controversies seem to need a lot of rework/cleanup. (Yes, I can do some of this work myself while noting that it's a big job and many can help out.) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pharmacology section

This article makes no mention of the arguably important MAOI effects or any mention of the pharmacology. Though most should be covered in nicotine I feel some minor coverage is necessary. Testem (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal use of marijuana

The article briefly touches upon the legalization of marijuana and use in the 1990's. Has there been an interest in adding a section for the legalization movement and/or the medical use of marijuana in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.35.227 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate, colonial and new age content

I'm updating the article to reflect recent page renames.[1] Sorry, the sources @Robert the Boof: wants, Awareness Mag and the colonial thing, are not WP:RS. The first one is a personal new age site, and the article is personal observances by someone of unknown notability. Both the new age site and the colonial description of Mi'kmaq people are full of misinformation. I left the colonial source, but cut the offensive quote. Tell us why these sources are good. And why are you wholesale reverting when the changes are not just about that source. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove reliably sourced information based on what you consider to be your own superior knowledge of the topic, or using purported "offensiveness" as a rationale for removing quoted observations of colonial situations. If you were offended by this quote then I apologize for you on your behalf, however it is not a now that we begin rewriting history to suit your personal feelings. Robert the Broof (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote is still in there in the footnote. The colonial source is still there for historical perspective. The new age zine is not usable. Neither is accurate. Just because some colonist wrote their opinion, and some new age zinester wrote theirs, does not make these sources WP:RS. Please go read WP:RS. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken; it is published specialist sources, versus you a random wikipedian editor, regarding relevant verified information you personally find offensive or wish to suppress. Robert the Broof (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"Relevant" (in your opinion) and "verified" (as in yes, it exists on the intarwebs) - neither equal WP:RS. I am going to gently suggest you spend some time reading over the sourcing policies, and familiarizing yourself with Indigenous topics, if you want to work in areas that involve these things. I'm not trying to be mean here, but it's clear you don't yet understand what is and isn't a WP:RS source, and you don't know enough about Indigenous cultures to understand why the content you want is inaccurate. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are exposing your ignorance and your tendency to rush into unwarranted assumptions, by drily insinuating that I need to learn about "indigène" culture, when in fact I myself am Native American. And I suppose you are a self-styled "expert" on all the tribes who knows when he is right and all the sources are wrong? Your expertise or mine is irrelevant here but I will stand by material that can be found in multiple other sources regardless of how "offensive" you perceive it. Robert the Broof (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the word relevant in proper English means on the topic, which is tobacco. How is this not relevant in your opinion? I know some people use 'irrelevant' as a slang term to mean their opinion of something they dont LIKE but I believe this is certainly relevant and that it is not an opinion to say it is relevant. Robert the Broof (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a comment about how carbon monoxide and cyanide in tobacco smoke along with carcinogens are the primary health problems, I know it seems obvious to most people nowadays but I think it needs to be stated clearly as an introduction at the start of this section, it's from the page on health risks of tobacco smoking.Chuangzu (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Single greatest cause of preventable death?

While it's true that the WHO did classify it as such, a quick check reveals that malnutrition is linked to 3.1 million childhood deaths per year, and an estimated 21,000 deaths per day (or about 7.67 million per year). While figures on adult malnutrition deaths are harder to find, the cited WHO paper (which is far from neutral in tone) gives a figure of 5 million from tobacco. Should this statement stay on the page, or be altered to reflect this? Allan533 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A study by Glasgow University states that nitrate fertilizer causes death in vegetables. Modern fertilizer makes al food grown with it to be cancerous. WHO seems to be controlled by some group/s that don't give a hoot about health. Follow the $$$$ on this group. 2601:181:8301:4510:39D9:6474:3C77:9843 (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Child labor and failed verification

The article makes statements about child labor and cites source as "ILO. International Hazard Datasheets on Occupations: Field Crop Worker" with no online source. If one googles this datasheet one finds there's no mention about child labour, tobacco or nicote in it at all. The same claims with same citation are in article Cultivation of tobacco.--Custoo (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems that some of the statements might be from a Human Rights Watch report cited in the Cultivation of tobacco article.--Custoo (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Custoo: Just a reminder: sources don't have to be online. WP:RS:

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: what is the relevance of your reminder? The source can be found online and it doesn't containg any of the things that it is cited for in this article? --Custoo (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cushoo: You wrote

The article makes statements about child labor and cites source as "ILO. International Hazard Datasheets on Occupations: Field Crop Worker" with no online source.

I see that I reacted too quickly; I could have read your comment more carefully. I apologize. --Thnidu (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Billion Usage

I question the edit of even date by "2601:2c4:c700:4f37:3d68:bbee:7c4:5084" to replace "thousand million" with "billion". It is not a typo; it is explicit usage. "Billion" unfortunately is consistent with usage throughout the article, but it is ambiguous: In North America 1 billion is one thousand million, but in most of the rest of the English-speaking world it is not: 1 billion = one million million. "One thousand million" is unambiguous. I am not going to revert the edit, as "billion" is used passim in this article (presumably in the American sense) and I am certainly not about to change the whole article, especially as I suspect this ambiguity is very widespread in WP; but I wanted to make the point that not all WP users are North American and will interpret "billion" differently. en.wikipedia allows both American and Received English spelling and other usages; I would recommend the Received English usage wherever possible ("one thousand million") because it is unambiguous and can be understood by all. It may also help avoid errors in translation, e.g. French milliard vs. billion. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)