Talk:Snus

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Source funded by the tobacco industry

This article includes the following web page as a source: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org (added as a source back in 2013). The main author of this source is listed as "Carl V. Phillips". The page says that he "works as a consultant and advisor for various organizations and companies involved with tobacco harm reduction". Digging a little further, many of the articles written by this author (e.g. 1, 2, 3) are funded by the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of Altria (formerly Philip Morris), and one of the largest manufacturers of smokeless tobacco.

Furthermore, TobaccoTactics (a research project of University of Bath) has identified Carl V. Phillips as having received financial backing from the tobacco industry: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/carl-v-phillips/.

I believe this source should be removed as per WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPONSORED. – Mandelbr0t (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not a good source.

However, it was used as a source for a bad paragraph in general, so I simply removed the myth and rephrased the paragraph. Wikipedia isn't Snoopes, it's an encyclopedia. KristofferR (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Creative use" section?

The section about creative use feels really out of place, just like vodka tampons would, if we had added a "Creative use" section on the Vodka article. In my mind it conflicts with several notability requirements, like WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED etc.

Most importantly of all, it just feels stupid, and cheapens the article quality to include the latest teenager scandal of some Danish tabloids. KristofferR (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Health risks

Parts of this section, which has a warning label, are muddled and have little to do with the subject of the article. I've tried editing it. Material cut appears below. Chrismorey (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reduced smoking is not something unique in the United States, but rather a global trend that is most likely due to a greater awareness of the harmful health effects that smoking comes with. However, the United States is not a heavy smoking nation, but there are other countries that have significantly more problems with a large proportion of the population using cigarettes. Most are found in Europe, where The big problem with smoking in Europe is something that

• Someone came in a couple of years ago and insisted on radically expanding the "dangers" section, ignoring 200 studies showing the risks are minimal, and instead lumping snus with American dipping tobacco. I just stepped back knowing they would get bored eventually. The majority of the prose should be on the product and history, not dangers. Obviously snus has risks (pancreatic cancer in particular) but the risks are a fraction of a fraction of other tobacco products, and really, we should be presenting the studies that demonstrate this instead of generalized "tobacco is bad" stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Studies on snus

"Snus users had lower systolic blood pressure than tobacco nonusers in the unadjusted data." Do we really want this in an encyclopedia? If it is unajusted, it does not mean much. In general, I feel the article should rely more on reviews and healthcare recommendations than single studies, per WP:SECONDARY. Ffaffff (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remove that bit then. Ffaffff (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Upperdecky

Upperdecky is common name 2600:1017:B01F:1063:C571:CF2:893B:4556 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)