Talk:Altria

United States of America v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.

This article contains virtually no information regarding the September 22, 1999 lawsuit filed against Phillip Morris Inc. by the United States of America. Subsequently, there is no unique article about this very lawsuit. I am inclided to incorporate the lawsuit in this article but I would like to hear any objections from the community.

There is a unique article to this lawsuit. It just wasn't specifically against Philip Morris, but against the companies as a whole. I don't know how to do this, but you should add a "See also..." for the Master Settlement Agreement (and probably reference it somewhere in the article). The MSA is the lawsuit against the tobacco companies in 1998 at the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a short article, however. Perhaps if someone here has the time, they can work on it? Smokeresearcher 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dessources 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I removed the section on lawsuit, since it contained mostly anecdotal information very loosely connected to Altria and was generally misleading. The story of the "insider" Jeffrey Wigand concerns Philip Morris in only a very, very indirect way. Wigand worked for Brown & Williamson and his whistleblowing and struggle were related to B&W. Since then, Brown & Williamson has been acquired by R.J. Reynolds and completely merged with RJR. A section on lawsuit is probably needed.

Bias and Neutrality

"The article contains almost nothing positive about the company as well. Isn't that a basic definition of neutrality?"

Virianflux: No actually, it's not, it means it's less *likely* to be biased, but that's just a heuristic. True neutrality would be to say that this company has a big ethical issue, they do sell things that do kill lots of people, they aren't alone in it, but they are a part of it, criticism is valid, and required, it is the duty of the Wikipedia to not exclude important information like that. People shouldn't have to dig deep to get obvious facts about companies, the Wikipedia is meant to provide people with relevant information, a key criticism of the Altria Group, cited by many, many organisations and people, is that they are affiliated with lawsuits and unethical behaviour, this should be reflected in the article, if it is not, we are doing something wrong. Since it is a clear criticism, and is pretty important, it should also be a prominent part of the article. People feel free to ensure this is so, and if you don't you are violating the principles of the Wikipedia. Virianflux 11:51, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

This article contains basically nothing negative about the company. There a link to Lung cancer in the "See also" section, and a mention of the "tobacco liability problem", but that really isn't enough. Most articles on major corporations, including ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, and Microsoft contain summaries of the criticisms and allegations made against the corporation. There should be plenty here. Also, the paragraph about the name change to "Altria" sounds like it was taken right out of the press release. The article should be more neutral there, and it might even be desirable to point out critics' opinions of the name change. --Joel7687 20:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on, "See also: Lung cancer" on an article about a corporation is extremely negative. It's not criticism, it's not a comment, just a pointer saying "this company is evil". There should be links to tobaco, and from tobacco to lung cancer. However, a "Criticism" section should be added.

But still, I do not think the article is biased. It contains factual information only, as far as I can see. Jobjörn 16:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Tobacco use seems to be a 'hot issue' these days. No matter how nuetral, favorable, or unfavorable the article is, someone will object. --Zapato 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that a criticism section is necessary on the basis that other corporations' articles have them. Find me one alcohol companies' page with criticism about liver cancer or cirrhosis on it. There shouldn't be discriminatory inclusion or exclusion of critisism based on people's perception of the product the company makes. We have to set a standard on the inclusion of criticism. For this type of criticism I propose that the product critisicm belongs in the page specifically about that product. Links to that criticism can be contained on the company page, but it isn't necessary to duplicate that information here. What would be relevent criticism on the company page would be a quick summary section of the major lawsuits against the company to highlight the troubles they've created because of their product and lack of adequate warning labels. -JJH

Hi, I've just added a section about criticisms and litigations. Acrilico 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Added more info in the Allegations section

Can we remove the dispute tag? Smoking is linked to negative effects and this company produces smoking related products. Just because Wikipedia remains non-biased, does not mean it cannot report on negative and unethical things a corporation does. Selling a product which increases the rate of cancer in its users, is addictive, causes discomfort, and almost certainly would not be made legal were it to be introduced today is largely unethical and Wikipedia's policy of neutrality does not mean it cannot be included in an article. - Kuzain 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Revenue

Can I get a source for this article's quoted revenue of the corporation in 2004? Currently this article states it to be $89.610 billion USD from 2004, but Yahoo Finance says 63.963 billion for the same year ^[1]. Thanks. Kurieeto 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some information on Philip Morris himself, the man, most of all how he died? I heard a rumor that he died of lung cancer but couldn't find anything to support that on the internet... though I strangely couldn't find anything on him, everything I found was on the company. Can anyone clarify?

Hi, I've just added some new stuff who tries to answer to this question: "I'd like to see some information on Philip Morris himself, the man, most of all how he died? I heard a rumor that he died of lung cancer ": In fact, it was the actor who announced Marlboro in the fifties (the one who was the protagonist of the photographs for Marlboro's publicity) died of lung caner. And I'm not sure, but I think it was more than one announcer of Marlboro who died of lung cancer-Not sure, but at least one died of that. And I'm not sure of the exact date, I've written "in the fifties". I think it was many years ago, many decades ago, to be exact. This "many" means at least forty years ago. A.Anso (jlanso@yahoo.es) 14 Jan 2006, 20:11 (GMT)

Philip Morris the man did not die of lung cancer

-Indeed. While the details of his death are somewhat fuzzy due to the time he lived in, he definently did NOT die from lung cancer. It is interesting to note however that Morris died somewhat shortly after he started his company. --146.148.99.37 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The revenue information on the front page is out-dated. If you view the Altria Group 2005 annual report (http://www.altria.com/download/pdf/investors_AltriaGroupInc_2005_AnnualRpt.pdf), you can see that their net revenues were 97,584 (in millions of dollars). Dragnilar 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Free stuff

Is it true that Philip-Morris gives out free cigarettes to minors at youth-targeted concerts? No this is absolutely untrue and is probably a rumor spread by anti-smoking groups to show how bad and evil tobbaco companies are, it is against the law to distribute tobbaco freely, while providing tobbaco to minors is a criminal offense with immense litigation risksRajatster 12:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)Rajatster

Oh, so the bad guy isn't the tobacco companies who are in the business of selling a high priced ADDICTIVE death to lower class and impoverished people who are going to smoke regardless of any I-Decide or Just say No campaigns because that is just the world they live in, and the tobacco companies know it. It's those anti-smoking groups, boy. Those evil rumor-starting little scumbags. Heck, didn't Jesus Christ say something about not starting rumors? I'm gonna start smoking tomorrow just to spite those anti-smoking gossiping hens. Thanks for clarifying. --not a wikipedian and never will be, so no sig. sorry--

This was a practice in the U.S. in the past, but is now illegal. I last saw such a thing in downtown Milwaukee, perhaps twenty years ago. But it was not peculiar to this particular company, and is thus irrelevant and inappropriate to an article about this particular company (and I say that as a virulent anti-smoker).--Orange Mike 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Once here in Mexico our whole classroom went to visit one tobacco factory, and they gave us a bag full of cigarrettes, to each one! We were about fifteen years old. And our teacher was there.

EDIT: Just reading the above comment, is an offense to give it freely? They gave it to us free of charge, and I'm telling the truth. And it's not just me, the whole classroom was there.

Acrilico 05:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps laws are different in Mexico? Also, how long ago did this occur? 68.64.43.101 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this happened about 12 years ago, aproximately in 1992.

Being honest, I don't expect much from the law in Mexico. Too much corruption. Acrilico 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the laws in Mexico may be different. There is also a concern in the U.S. with this kind of practice and more than violating state laws (which it would), such a practice would also violate the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The Attorneys General in various states often receive information that companies are breaking the agreement, though usually these issues are resolved before any litigation. Because the penalties in the MSA for such behaviors are pretty minimal, there may be a question of whether a tobacco manufacturer might take a calculated risk in breaking the MSA. Here is a copy of the MSA if anyone is interested. 68.11.44.167 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: I have also been given free cigarettes in pubs in both Bandung Indonesia and Amsterdam Netherlands. But to be fair I have been offered Camels (from R.J. Reynolds) as well as Marlboro and I did not witness any given to minors. I last saw this in Amsterdam a few years ago and they were well organised campaigns with attractive women dressed up like brands of the cigarettes they were promoting (skintight suits not box shapes :). In both places the promoters were going from bar to bar in touristy areas but In Bandung Indonesia they also distributed 'sample' Marlboros outside the cinema of the big mall there. spoonman

Hi spoonman, thanks for the info, I also have seen this kind of "advertising". My personal opinion is that companies are in need of new markets, why? Because the laws are getting tighter and tighter in many developed countries, so they need new clients. And also, their "old" clients are dying, that's why we see this more and more. Also, the laws in underdeveloped countries are lame to none, so they have a great place to grow.

Take for example these two new markets: The "black/color" (no offense) people, and older women. They have specific advertising to these two groups.

I remember a teacher from University; he, being a person with deep knowledge of statistics, told us once that there was an increase in older women (40+) smoking.

Damn i'm angry :( Acrilico 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Other

Err, there are several Australian philip morris brands missing, if I can recall Peter Jackson is philip morris owned (or by Brittish American Tobacco, can't remember), but also Longbeach, they also sell Marlboro and Benson's here as well.

Please add them! :) Acrilico 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having the company headquarters address in the article, or at least in the body? Perhaps people would want it at the end for reference, but it detracts from the article as a whole. Dcteas17 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there is an article from tobaccodocuments.org [2] which is a deposition transcript where they talk about a survey of kids (10-17 years old). Apparently the survey found that (among those who recognized Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald, respectively) a higher percentage were able to link Joe Camel with Cigarettes than Ronald McDonald with hamburgers -- this despite the official line that RJR doesn't advertise to children.

Benson & Hedges

Benson & Hedges are listed as a product of the Altria group, however, taken from the B&H link "In the 1930s, Benson & Hedges (Overseas) Ltd. was established by Abraham Wix to handle overseas trade. This branch was acquired by British American Tobacco in 1956. Today, British American Tobacco markets Benson & Hedges throughout Asia and the Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand, but excepting Taiwan and the Philippines. They also own branches in the Middle East and Africa. B&H is popular amongst young smokers in Australia."

I think the same might go for West as well - I'm 99% sure it is not PM

There are two different brands of B & H. The British American Tobacco brand and the Philip Morris Brand (Sold only in the US market).

60 minutes interview

I've removed the all caps comment above the interview and captioned it. I also changed the section heading to be more reflective of the content. I wonder though if the interview is really constructive in the article. Cheers, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell is the 60 minutes interview? --139.179.219.47 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get real here...

Look, this name change should be noted and little else. Cigarettes kill people and this company knows it but America does not outlaw tobacco so just report the facts about the CORPORATION and, it you want to outlaw tobacco, then please do it elsewhere, like at Wikia or something like that. And please do not explain WHY the Corp did something the this or that acquisition: just report the acquisition and let it go at that. -- 75.24.111.183 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Looking at the article on the Altria subsidiary Philip Morris USA I note that it adds little information that's not in this main article, and the few additions are largely informally written, and only one section (i.e. this. If the PMUSA page were an extensive breakdown of the company's tobacco history, etc, I could certainly see reasons for keeping it separate, but as it currently exists it's little more than a stub that can be used to flesh out this main article. -Markeer 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for editors consensus, so setting this as a straw poll:

• Merge -Markeer 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge ---Orange Mike 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip Morris misspelled brings you here.

Hi,

This is my first ever Wikipedia post. Just noticed that you get to this article if you do a search on "Phillip Morris". This is a misspelling of the tobacco company. It's Philip Morris and that should point to another page on Altria.

Thanks.

24.37.131.35 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section gone?!

Is this some kind of joke? ... Brodder 08:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

i think this article was a byproduct of someone from the atira group editing as the product lists were almost completly wiped out as well i took the privilage of restoring those the critisism page should also be reintroduced danieljackson (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)