Talk:Brown & Williamson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Major Edit[edit]

Took out "The US Tobacco Industry" section since all of it was unsourced. I rearranged the format so that B&W's brands are listed at the bottom. Also removed dead external link.Grifter tm (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

Is it just me or does anybody else get 404'd when trying to use the external link?

Biased much?[edit]

"A crucial and historic battle in the war between the tobacco industry and its victims"

I don't know enough to edit this, but this seems blatently biased against the tobacco industry. Boredgirl260 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had the same impression. Statements such as the following seem inflammatory, and perhaps deliberately misleading:

"The tobacco interests responded by getting a Kentucky judge to issue a gag order that subjected Wigand to arrest upon returning to his home state." (Added to the article by Eyefire.)

  • How does the writer know it was "tobacco interests"?
  • There's an implication in the sentence that the judge was bought off. If that's true, then evidence should be supplied.
  • A "gag order that subjected him to arrest"? What does that mean?
  • Was Wigand, in fact, arrested? Or did he know about this, and the judge's actions were pro forma?

Much of the other biased language was added by Som08, who has not made contributions to any other Wiki article.

Articles such as this may have the opposite effect the editors intended, which is to make readers examine the side of the tobacco industry with more sympathy. (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is a joke and should be deleted, though it's no surprise given the current views on tobacco by Liberals and we all know who runs this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The movie "The Insider" used as source[edit]

The section regarding "60 Minutes" seems to follow the same timeline as the movie "The Insider" did. But an FBI affidavit filed as the result of a search warrant on Wigand's home after he found a bullet in his mailbox suggests the events happened in a different order. It was immediately after the "bullet in the mailbox" incident that 60 Minutes terminated all protection for Wigand (according to the affidavit). Although the movie is based on a true story, the statement that some things have been fabricated is stated at the beginning of the film. So the film should not be considered a reliable source, or at the very least not overruling of other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmiller123456 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Addictiveness of nicotine - not a secret then or now[edit]

"At the time, both the addictiveness of nicotine and the health hazards of cigarettes were well known by the company and the industry..." and almost everybody else on the planet, I guess. What sort of a secret is that? What proportion of the population believed the tobacco companies when they claimed or implied that nicotine was not addictive and that smoking cigarettes was not harmful? The doublethink on the part of the industry and its customers is much more subtle and involved than that. Moletrouser (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

predatory pricing[edit]

It was rivalry between Brown & Williamson and another tobacco company, The Brooke Group, that resulted in an important decision by the US Supreme Court limiting the scope of antitrust liability for predatory pricing. It might be good to mention this somewhere here. --Christofurio (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)