Talk:FOREST

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oppose deletion

Looking at Google, [1] this group seems to get a fair bit of media attention. I think it's important that interested members of the public should be able to check its Astroturf status. That's clear from the article but could be bolstered a bit, looking at the Google results.JQ 09:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of having overly stringent notability standards. :) Let's collate and work in some solid secondary sources, in that case. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

astroturf

Since "astroturf" is a derogatory term, it would be nice if we could quote a reliable source using specifically that word rather than applying it ourselves. Alternately, if reliable secondary sources use some other term, we could use whatever term they do use. --Delirium (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is like adding "-gate" to any scandal, it also makes clear that Forest is not an independent Smoker's consumer pressure group, but more a front group representing the Tobacco Industry more than the health of Smokers and those around them. 86.140.121.253 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Lord Harris

Harris' age (81) at time of death appeared here, juxtaposed with the fact of his long-term pipe smoking. This is a clear attempt at an argument by stealth against the fact of smoking's dangers. Editorially, it is irrelevant; as an argument on smoking it is fallacious. Either way, it has no business here. Cmsg 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased tone

A recent anonymous edit added this passage to the introduction:

FOREST fails to recognise the rights of non-smokers for a tobacco-smoke free environment and they believe that their right to smoke, as a minority in a democratic society, outweighs the rights of non-smokers who are now in the majority. FOREST have difficulty in accepting that the majority of smokers in the United Kingdom wish that they had never started smoking in the first place or wish that they could quit smoking now. Thankfully, its [FOREST] members are proving ineffective in influencing tobacco legislation.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees an inappropriate tone in there. The penultimate sentence was sourced to an NHS statistics page, but apart from that I still think the paragraph needs to be entirely rewritten to state the facts without leading language if it is to be included in the article. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.127.231 (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Is there a relation between the name of FOREST and their "opponents", ASH? I'm assuming one of them is a pun of some kind, but I can't find a reference. — sjorford ++ 09:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - Brits can be attracted to corny acronyms, and ASH predated FOREST by a few years, so pun points may have to be awarded to the tobacco lobby on this occasion!Hypocaustic (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly biased

While I am a non-smoker and don't want anyone to smoke anywhere near me, this article is rather childish in its bias.

'FOREST has also, on occasion, sought to dispute the health risks of smoking.' Really? Needs a citation.

'opposing measures to reduce tobacco consumption on the grounds of defending a perceived right to smoke tobacco.' Obvious POV pushing.

I am editing the article to reduce this silliness. 86.175.243.7 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am removing the 'A Consumer Group A Proposal' document, as it:

lacks any details on authorship
states that it is a proposal, and is dated 1981, after FOREST had already been established, and is therefore clearly not a description of how FOREST actually did operate
it doesn't fit with this similar document, which doesn't appear to be about FOREST necessarily, but about a hypothetical ideal front group. [2] 86.175.243.7 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, anonymous contributor, you've not got this right - sorry. The entry gives a dispassionate account of the activities of what is evidently a tobacco industry front group with admirable neutrality given the potential for controversy. Your attempted edits, which borrowed material recognisable from other sites, actually detracted from NPOV and did not meet Wikipedia's standards as regards attribution. They have rightly been removed. Please, don't attempt such sweeping edits if you are not properly informed on the subject and unfamiliar with Wikipedian norms.Hypocaustic (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. You appear to have very little Wikipedia editing experience yourself (I could tell you how much I have, but I don't see the point), 'Hypocaustic', a meaningless nom-de-plume is far more anonymous than my IP (which can be geolocated, and potentially traced to my name and address with ISP assistance) in any case.

I see you have made very many edits on the subject of smoking bans, apparently it is an issue important to you, this does not exempt you from the requirements to write a neutral article however.

No material has been 'borrowed', this is absurd, you should specify which site(s) you feel have been plagiarised from, or this just looks like mud throwing. 86.175.243.7 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the feedback irked you - this was not the intention, and it's regrettable if it was received as a personal comment, which it most certainly is not. Rest assured that I have no interest at all in tracing you - you're welcome to stay as anonymous as you like - and there are doubtless indeed many areas of the site in which your energies will be able to make a valuable contribution. This, however, really isn't one of them. I appreciate that such a full and rapid rejection of material that must have taken some time to collate can cause frustration, but please desist from further such input - whether borrowed, adapted or original research, the effect unfortunately detracts from the encyclopaedic tone and neutrality in this instance. I suggest we agree to disagree and now let the article rest rather than risk wasted energy all round. Thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. There is no 'ownership' here, you have a lot to learn about Wikipedia it seems....86.175.243.7 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not quite sure what you were trying to achieve with your series of undid revisions, quite apart from the merits of the content, a reversion such as this: [3] is no better than spam in the page's history and rather damaging to attempts for others to understandyour intent.86.175.243.7 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No implication of ownership, you're quite right, just appropriate care to preserve the quality of a shared resource. Over and out.Hypocaustic (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia Preservation Society, it is an organic resource, it changes and grows. You might like to review WP:OWN, WP:ROWN and also WP:3RR. Best wishes. 86.175.243.7 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - more about judicious pruning and the occasional application of fertiliser than preservation in aspic. Best wishes to you too.Hypocaustic (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Ideas

What looked like a wikilink to an Institute of Ideas page has been removed, and Britmax has helpfully inserted a reference to that external organisation's website. Does anyone know what happened to the WP article on the Institute, if there was one? Hypocaustic (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. The existence of a random wikilink does not guarantee the existence of the corresponding article. 86.175.243.7 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's not altogether clear that the link to the website is helpful. Clare Fox is de facto notable, given that she has a wiki page, that doesn't mean it's useful to mention her website/pet-project/whatever-it-actually-is, unless that project is at least as notable, and probably more notable, than she is.86.175.243.7 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - anyone who really wants to know more about the Institute can Google their website readily enough and the existing content is sufficient.Hypocaustic (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FOREST. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]