Talk:Truth (anti-tobacco campaign)/Archives/2013

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

09/09/2013

New to editing -- adding here just to follow the procedure I was given.

I added the NPOV tag to the Marketing section because I felt it exhibited a blatant bias.

I see from the discussion that it's been contested before, but I believe the article is of great enough interest and the article is of a poor enough quality that I ought to say something about it. Do with it as you may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.19.107 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Various comments

"The latest truth commercial? Well as an intelligent person its an assault on my intelligence. How on earth can you isolate that tobacco itself is causing these deaths? What about pollution from cars (which is 1000 times more toxic), or pollution from industrial plants, (abandoned and in present use.) by private and gov. entities, or the chemicals in our drinking water, or the residue radioactive particles, or the side effects of Pharmaceudical drugs. It smells fishy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.219 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Truth campaign has not proven to be effective. Smoking rates among youth have decreased dramatically since the campaign was first introduced. But it has been shown that youth these days do fewer illegal activities such as crime, drugs, drinking alchol, etc. and are much more intelligent than older generations because of the usage of the internet. None of these things have happened as a result of the Truth campaign." This is in the article without any sources or references cited, its completely biased and unencyclopedic tone aside. 24.199.113.234 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"much more intelligent than older generations because of the usage of the internet"??? Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing. 75.19.180.211 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore it IS effective? This is the same kind of correlation=causation argument that kills every attempt at rational public discussion of health issues.

"Regardless, the Truth campaign has proven to be effective. National smoking rates among youth have decreased dramatically since the campaign was first introduced." This requires a source.Xombie 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• • more than a source, it needs to be removed. Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc is still a logical fallacy last I checked.CodyM 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This claim does have a source. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health shows that the truth campaign was responsible for 22% of the decline in the youth smoking rate between 1999 and 2002. Also, the Wall Street Journal did a very good analysis of the study. While the American Legacy Foundation may have gotten ahead of itself in saying that the truth campaign was the sole cause, it seems clear that the campaign is certainly a significant contributing factor. Here are the links to the study (abstract only, full version has to be paid for) and the Wall Street Journal article:

• http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/425
• http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB111107526788482378-W9FMmrLm_u2CdjCnkpgDV3Y4e8U_20071216.html?mod=blogs

Are the descriptions of every Truth advertisement really important to this article? They feel redundant and needless. 24.29.81.74 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There were many more Truth advertisements than that. Some of the ones aimed at Spanish speakers were so hilariously badly translated I laughed aloud.

I've made a new page for the Truth advertising campaigns.

First of all, as someone trained and versant in all forms of propaganda, I could tell immediately that these advertisements were a) Tobacco Industry-produced and b) a total crock--worse, their amount to a return of cigarette advertising in television.

Secondly, as to how people could claim smoking kills, this sounds like a question a tobacco lobbyist would ask, or a serious addict who needs to live in denial of their pending doom, should they fail to be struck by a bus. The result of the lawsuit which forced tobacco to insult the intent of the courts by creating this thetruth.com garbage came because of the unarguable connection between smoking and unnatural death. Further yet is the fact that producing cigarettes contributes significantly to the environmental pollution in the air, drinking water and food supply.

Is there a reason the link for this page is under Derrick Beckles's name? He is not the originator of the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slightlyleft (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)