Talk:Tobacco control movement

Canada is in the USA?

In the "United States" section of "History of opposition to smoking" it lists one of the major organizations as Canadian Council for Tobacco Control LoL 66.214.218.24 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

To do:

Who were/are its leading figures?
Influential works by anti-smoking activists
Structure of anti-smoking organizations: funding, affiliations?
Medical support of anti-smoking goals

-- The Anome (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be interesting to see smoking rates over time, to see the impact of the movement. scattered stats-- Beland (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again

I've again removed this material. Its problems are several. Most of the sources range from poor to completely unacceptable. At best, they're partisan organizations of unclear significance; an encyclopedic article should aim higher, for independent, reliable sources. The few sources that satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing criteria seem to be cherry-picked or misused to advance an editorial point of view, in a manner which constitutes original synthesis. I'd welcome more discussion of these proposed edits before they are once again reinserted. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material you removed only asserts that there are grassroots organizations not associated with the tobacco industry that are opposed to the juggernaut of the anti-smoking movement, and lists a few of those organizations. There might be elements within the anti-smoking movement who don't want it to be publicly known that such independent grassroots organizations exist. BidingMyTime2 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to say that all opposition groups are funded by the tobacco industry is very misleading. The way the article reads right now leaves the impression that they are. This needs to be rewritten.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words/Sloppy Writing

Under "Modern Anti-Smoking Movement", I spotted this:

"Some contend this this is actually be the primary motivation of the anti-smoking movement and that it is publically downplayed."

Who contends? There's no source, and it just seems like a way of the author putting forward their own opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.182 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very weak sentences in this article, I just removed "Smoking did not pose a threat to people in the United States until medical research proved that it was a threat to peoples health." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.107.254 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this page "Tobacco control movement"

There is no reason to prefer the "slightly pejorative" name for this "movement" (even the term "movement" has some conspiracy connotations, but we could live with it). Clearly, the term in usage today is "tobacco control". The international public health treaty dealing with the issue of tobacco is called Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the main publication in the field is called Tobacco Control.

--Dessources (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The anti-smoking movement is very much a political entity, even down to the corrupt pseudo-science that it relies on for its social engineering efforts. BidingMyTime2 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

I read through the article and it strikes me that it spends most of the "Advertising to youth" section talking about the successes of the anti-smoking advertising doesn't sound particularly neutral, particularly "Once the general public was informed that tobacco use is directly correlated to respiratory disease, heart disease and emphysema, the United States was ready to learn more. Advertising was a way to make this national." This whole section, and that small paragraph in particular, strikes me as if I were being read to by the anti-smoking lobby itself. Sources 26 and 27 in particular are concerning - they're provided by the anti-smoking lobby, instead of some neutral party equipped to do that kind of statistical research. By its nature I think the page fails to report on the overexposure to anti-tobacco sentiment I'm sure most people born since 1990 have dealt with - I personally, as a child of the generation in question, have never seen any of my peers do anything but dismiss the anti-tobacco lobbyists. I think this section of the article ought to be rewritten from a more neutral standpoint; if the statements backed by sources 26 and 27 can be supported using a neutral source then I have no issue with them, but as they are keeping them there is like asking a starving plastic surgeon if one should pursue breast enhancement. I also think that the section should include something about the over-saturation of anti-tobacco ads and the potentially counterproductive effects I think most Americans under the age of 21 will agree they've had; research would seem to agree -> [[1]]

Morganbored (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not neutral. In addition to the areas you mentioned, the opposition movement section needs to be rewritten. Not all opposition groups are funded by the tobacco industry. Source 13-15 does not seem to be neutral eithier. Also, I agree with your assement of how youth views the anti-smoking movement. I think the episode south park did actually is closer to reality and at this point the anti-smoking groups are as guility of lying to the public as the tobacco industry was in the past.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a major edit?

This article appears to have become cluttered and unclear as to its scope. I'm proposing that we cut most of the material and deal straightforwardly with the title - i.e. link to a definition of tobacc control then discuss briefly the internal and external (or, conceivably, the positive and pejorative) uses of the term 'movement'). Hypocaustic (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. No offence whatsoever intended to previous contributors, some of whose efforts have been preserved in the more clearly relevant Tobacco control article. The latter may retain something of a UK-centric flavour and assistance in ensuring international relevance will be welcome.Hypocaustic (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add a link to the Tobacco Control article somewhere in the main article? I'd do it myself, but HTML and I do NOT get along. If there was a way to muck up a web page without trying, I'd find it. Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Just found it. :( --Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokers Opinions?

Right now in the "pejorative connotations" section it only expresses the tobacco industries' thoughts on the movement. Would it be possible to get some thoughts from the smokers themselves? I see from the history of the article that some have tried to insert some independent, pro-smokers' rights info and have been instantly shot down for reasons of "unqualified sources" or "biased articles" (LOL like the anti-smoking ones AREN'T biased?). I don't know if those who deleted them were being neutral about it or if they were strongly in favor of the anti-tobacco movement themselves. To be a completely rounded and informative article, I believe we need to hear what the tobacco users themselves think about the control efforts. (Coming from a neutral-minded non-smoker) --Rpm2004 (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly include such info if it is verified in reliable sources. Feel free to provide some here and we can figure out how best to format and include. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]