|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
I think this article needs an overhaul because there is not enough distinction made between coal tar and wood tar. I also disagree with the statement that wood tar is non-poisonous. It might well be contaminated with methanol which is very poisonous. Biscuittin 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And i think something needs to be done about the 'tar spring' artical. Is it a tourist advertisement for iran? too much fluff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
For the reason given above, I don't think it is appropriate to have tar in "Category:Food additives" so I intend to change it to "Category:Chemical mixtures". Biscuittin 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And you should not mix Pine Tar with Tar. Thats just mean. Clearly you have never used Pine Tar or Tar, or you would never suggest such a preposterous suggestion.
Merge with Pine tar???=
I strongly disagree with the suggestion of merging "tar" with "pine tar". Suggest instead distinguishing between "mineral tar" and "pine tar" (or perhaps more generally "plant tar", although I am not familiar with any other plant tars beside pine tar). It is increasingly important to distinguish between renewable resources (e.g. pine tar) and non-renewable resources (e.g. mineral tar). They are not the same material.Ekotekk 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Under uses it says "as an ingredient in cigarettes". That is NOT true. "Tar", as it's called in relation to cigarettes, is the resin left over from the smoke. It is NOT actually tar, it's simply a resin (though of course it's harmful). Apart from that, it is NOT an ingredient in cigarettes, but instead, a result from then chemical process of burning tobacco. That's almost like claiming fecal matter is an ingredient in food (you do the math). I'm not trying to defend cigarettes or "big tobacco", but let's at least tell some truth here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)