Talk:Tobacco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateTobacco is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

The Market between Buyers and Sellers of Tobacco Crops[edit]

I think it warrants a section that details how the buying and selling of tobacco crops has changed over the years. Previously tobacco was bought and sold in an open air auction/market between farmers and big companies. That has shifted to where big companies contract out tobacco production with farmers directly and this has caused the open market auction of tobacco to collapse. 15:02, 13 August 2010 Albyva (talk | contribs)

Spanish Monopoly prior to Rolfe[edit]

If tobacco was used all over the pre-columbian Americas why would Spain have a monopoly. Neither this page nor the History of tobacco page speak to this.

Child labor and failed verification[edit]

The article makes statements about child labor and cites source as "ILO. International Hazard Datasheets on Occupations: Field Crop Worker" with no online source. If one googles this datasheet one finds there's no mention about child labour, tobacco or nicote in it at all. The same claims with same citation are in article Cultivation of tobacco.--Custoo (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some of the statements might be from a Human Rights Watch report cited in the Cultivation of tobacco article.--Custoo (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Custoo: Just a reminder: sources don't have to be online. WP:RS:
The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
--Thnidu (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thnidu: what is the relevance of your reminder? The source can be found online and it doesn't containg any of the things that it is cited for in this article? --Custoo (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cushoo: You wrote
The article makes statements about child labor and cites source as "ILO. International Hazard Datasheets on Occupations: Field Crop Worker" with no online source.
I see that I reacted too quickly; I could have read your comment more carefully. I apologize. --Thnidu (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Usage[edit]

I question the edit of even date by "2601:2c4:c700:4f37:3d68:bbee:7c4:5084" to replace "thousand million" with "billion". It is not a typo; it is explicit usage. "Billion" unfortunately is consistent with usage throughout the article, but it is ambiguous: In North America 1 billion is one thousand million, but in most of the rest of the English-speaking world it is not: 1 billion = one million million. "One thousand million" is unambiguous. I am not going to revert the edit, as "billion" is used passim in this article (presumably in the American sense) and I am certainly not about to change the whole article, especially as I suspect this ambiguity is very widespread in WP; but I wanted to make the point that not all WP users are North American and will interpret "billion" differently. en.wikipedia allows both American and Received English spelling and other usages; I would recommend the Received English usage wherever possible ("one thousand million") because it is unambiguous and can be understood by all. It may also help avoid errors in translation, e.g. French milliard vs. billion. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

health effects in humans section?[edit]

I came here to learn about the health effects of tobacco consumption. Why isn't there a section on that? nhinchey (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology section is bizarre[edit]

I’m not even sure how to describe it… it’s like they just copied and pasted excerpts from a religious text, with zero citations or attributions, and no context. It’s a narrative about demons and enlightenment written in nonstandard English, with what appear to be prayers included? It does not seem like something that belongs in an informational article. 2600:1700:6D80:1B4F:7D0A:573F:B389:A954 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]