Talk:Tobacco industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tobacco industry article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Lawsuits 2 A quite good article 3 Rankings 4 US-centred article 5 Use of Euromonitor

[edit] Lawsuits

Is there really nothing on Wikipedia on the $280bn tobacco lawsuits? Or the recent (failed) UK lawsuit? [1] Rd232 15:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have searched high and low for such references, and cannot find any. Then I searched Google for news reports of possible censorship of Wikipedia, and also found nothing. However I find it difficult to believe that Wikipedians wouldn't have been falling over themselves to write something about this. Court TV has comprehensive and reliable resources. Caravaca 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the recent additions about the majority of lawsuits ending in victory for the tobacco industry; my request for a citation was met with a link to BAT's website, and a comment from, er, their litigation counsel. PerWikipedia policy on reliable sources, this is a promotional source and so not suitable for use here. This claim needs details from independent sources to be included, and in the meantime an encyclopaedia is not the place to parrot industry PR material. Nmg20 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure BAT knows the status of their litigation more than anyone else. Sources from RJ Reynolds have detailed listings of there litigation status, however this is swayed by RJT status as an US based company. It is frustrating that an enyclopedia should be restrained from showing the truth regarding tobacco litigation. Biritix 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in putting together the guidelines above - but I think it's safe to say that an industry which is interested in making money selling something is unlikely to be the best possible source for information on the state of lawsuits being brought against them relating to their product - hence, Wikipedia regards them as not a suitable source.

Hence, the first reference you've added back in is still invalid. The second one, Steve Sugarman's homepage, doesn't appear to be a reference at all - it's a set of family photos plus a series of links to other articles. The third one, "A Smoking Gun", is 20 years old, not peer-reviewed, describes the tobacco industry's defence of its products at that time as "contradictory", outlines the absurd lengths tobacco companies go to to undermine litigation ("Braly had to get a court order to keep defense lawyers from looking over his shoulder while he was examining documents in their offices. When the order came through, the firm knocked down a wall in the office and put in a window."), describes upcoming cases against the industry as "promising", and closes with the line "contrary to the hopes of the tobacco industry, the field promises to get much more exciting." This in no way supports what you're trying to say. Your 4th reference is a page of Altria's website, and is not an article. You yourself have already highlighted why your fifth reference is unsuitable - they are lawyers specialising in defending tobacco companies at trial.

Good luck to you if you believe that BAT press releases are God's Honest Truth, though, and thanks for posting the link. I'm afraid I will continue reverting this change unless valid supporting evidence per Wikipedia criteria can be found.Nmg20 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will be simply forced to create a more cohesive set of references regarding BAT's, RJT's, Altria's and JTI's claims. Thanks for pulling me up on this. Ill work on it soon. Biritix 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are exactly what's needed. I've included the full Pubmed citations, and included info from the first article to convey its sense - but thank you. Nmg20 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A quite good article

But figures (market shares) are becoming a bit old (1999)

[edit] Rankings

I dug up various rankings for tobacco companies. Most use vague quantifiers and have different ordering.

BBC News "bigness" ranking [2]:

1. Philip Morris (Altria)
2. British American Tobacco
3. Japan Tobacco
4. Imperial
5. Gallaher

Ranking by "volume," according to the Altria Group article:

1 & 2: China National Tobacco and Japan Tobacco

3: Philip Morris (Altria)

Ranking by "largeness," according to the Japan Tobacco article:

1. China Tobacco
2. Philip Morris (Altria)
3. British American Tobacco
4. Japan Tobacco

Ranking by "sales," according to the China National Tobacco Co. article:

1. China National Tobacco

Ranking by "largeness," according to the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company article:

1.  ???
2. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Ranking by "market share," according to the Tobacco company article:

1. China National Tobacco
2. Philip Morris
3. British American Tobacco
4. Japan Tobacco
5. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (tied with two other companies)

Ranking by "sales," according to the Tobacco company article:

1. Philip Morris
2. British American Tobacco
3. Japan Tobacco

--61.115.196.42 13:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-centred article

This article is pretty US-orientated. Could anyone write more about the international industry ? Arsine 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Euromonitor

I note someone's added statistics on the tobacco (damnable typos 203.129.34.62) industry from Euromonitor. I remind people that Euromonitor is not a PD resource; I'm quite sure they mention something about red hot pokers in bums for copyvios when you log in. Perhaps an alternate, free source could be found for this information? Prospectus' usually include information about the composition of the business.203.129.34.62 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)