Talk:Camel (cigarette)

I just googled this to see why kamel red originals are different than the new Kamle red blend. All i wanted was information, not an anti smoking ad. I made my choice, let me smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.160.34 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Clever Troll

Someone has added a picture of Mexican "Dromedary" cigarettes and passed it off as an old picture of Camels. These were a knock-off brand that capitalized on the iconic packaging of Camels. Interestingly, the Dromedary package shows a Bactrian Camel whereas genuine Camel Cigarettes have a picture of a Dromedary. This is the type of thing you would expect to see in the background of an old Merrie Melodies cartoon. It seems the picture has remained for a long time and I will not touch it myself as it stands as a testament to the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia. 70.169.14.56 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

POV

I removed some POV stuff (eg. "Known among cigarette enthusiasts for its high quality and smoothness, Camels contain a unique blend of..."). Please cite something that proves this - otherwise its an unabashed advertisement. 66.75.49.213

Bad link?

The link in the first paragraph of the 'History' section takes one not to any image, but to what I think is a 404 page (it's in German) featuring an elderly woman flipping the viewer the bird. Is this a prank, or what?168.215.249.176 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

urinating man wtf?

WTF indeed----I grew up in Winston-Salem, the "Camel City", went to RJ Reynolds High School and numerous members of my family worked at RJR way back in the begining---back then MOST folks in town did. But never ever had I heard about a guy with an erection in the Camel's foreleg (his name is Old Joe btw)on the package. I do not now nor have I ever smoked. But just to verify this really weird story I went to a store and asked to see a package of Camel cigarettes. I looked and looked. I can only say that a person would have to be really really eager to see a man with an erection to see one on the Camel package. Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination can one see a guy period, much less one with an erection. It's the daftest thing I've ever heard. I thik this is just wishful thinking on some fool's part. 69.154.219.220 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Jim H

I never heard of him urinating, all I heard is he's got a huge dick. ReverendG 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've smoked camels for quite a while now and never noticed this so-called urinating man. But I suppose it fits well with the theory that the late Joseph Camel's snout looks like cock'n'balls. Seriously though, shouldn't we maybe refrain from any air of certainty when speaking about unflattering image resemblances? At least until we have a credible source stating it was, in fact, intentional. Maybe something like "some observers have noted that .... bears an uncanny resemblance to ...." — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone in my army unit saw a naked woman in the leg. This tends to bear out the person who said you see what you want to see (g). Is there some documentation for this? 24.4.136.172 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My father smoked Camel and poited this little guy out to me when I was a kid. He didn't say anything about the guy urinating, hough. Maybe that's something the Belgians saw in it. :) DirkvdM 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's there all right. Someone showed me when I was like 10 years old. The left foreleg of the Camel is his thigh. The area where it's "armpit" is would be his penis (I always knew it as "the guy taking a leak", but I guess "erection" works too). The rear curve of the Camel's flank muscle is the man's chest, the slightly triangular shape in the muscles on the front of the flank form his crooked arm: he's standing in profile to you, facing the (Camel's) rear, right leg slightly to the rear, left leg slightly to the front, his right arm crooked behind him, hand resting on his hip, left hand presumably holding his...equipment. Above the flank there is a smaller, roundish light patch which is his head. It's really quite clear if you know what you're looking for, assuming the package is the same all over the world (interesting they've changed other parts of the package, but not that Camel). Of course, I'm pretty sure people have pointed out other things they "saw" in the pack, but I can't even remember what they're supposed to be let alone find them. The Pissing Man is always easy to see, although I doubt I would have ever noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out to me. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Image of little guy

Why was the photograph highlighting the image of the little guy removed (be he urinating or not)? Many words are needed to describe this and people may till not notice it. But an image shows it instantly and is therefore preferable. Admittedly, it was a lousy image, but it was still better than none. DirkvdM 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Assorted, ehm..... something

I haven't smoked for a while, but distinctly remember different text on the back of the soft-packs. Perhaps someone knows it? Something about the cost of the tobacco prohibiting special offers or discounts. Maybe I can find someone who smokes them and read the back.

> "To say that Camels were "known" for their "high quality" is to say that the concept of high quality is even applicable to a product that kills when used as directed and that furthermore the product is of high quality" Then why do we apply quality judgements to alchoholic beverages, which can have just as deadly an effect?

The article about Bogart states that Bogart had cancer of the esophagus; not lung cancer. Something is wrong.

Chip Says...

Hey I added the bit about the Blue ball, any know what the hell that it is used for???

Original pack

This should be used for the article illustration. The front has the one-hump dromedary camel with palm trees and a couple of pyramids, the back has a minaret-bearing city, and this slogan:

“Don't look for premiums or coupons, as the cost of the tobaccos blended in CAMEL Cigarettes prohibits the use of them”

This is the single most familiar face of Camel cigarettes. Anyway, it shows the camel that so many say they can see something in, in the article. The reader might like to look himself.2601:647:5800:3B60:9091:B4DD:6155:D2CC (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"for all you smokers"

for all you smokers i bet that they dont tell you that the cigarette that you are are puffing, that if you set the all those ingredience in a bucket and combine them in the closed space would kill you. that is just a little imput and for those who quite after reading this you are smart you who dont quit are really dumbfounded and need your but kicked. thats it............—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.113.244 (talk • contribs)

Please do not turn Wikipedia into a forum for your own agenda. I myself do not smoke but do not go around trolling pages telling people not to smoke. Normally I would consider such an edit vandalism but since this statement was made in March it doesn't matter. In short, please do not add off-topic rants. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think this article needs more information about how bad Camel cigarettes are for you. Because they're allegedly one of the cigarette brands with the highest content of tobacco. Crazy Eddy 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats all this??? Cigarettes are bad????? I've NEVER heard that before. Ever. Ever...everever. Seriously tho, we all know cigarettes are bad. Its a choice I make, none of ur damn buisness. And if they help me get off this world with some of you a bit quicker, all the better.Duluoz

God, someone get this guy a chill pill. Crazy Eddy 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Don't smoke cigarettes, take drugs instead!--76.31.51.119 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first reply to this section. You're narrow-minded, and you did not in anyway contribute any valid arguement. Hell, I'd bet an arm and a leg you're a religious, pre-adolescent 13-year old who never so much as smelled a cigarette. Impressionable and irrational nonsense.

Now that was UNCALLED for! --Austinsimcox 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Allegedly one of the cigarette brands with the highest content of tobacco"? I certainly hope that was mean to be some sort of sarcastic joke. I should certainly HOPE Camels are sold with a "high tobacco content", since they're supposed to be "high quality" and what I am trying to buy is tobacco rolled in paper, not a bunch of shitty filler and reprocessed scraps swept off the floor like you get in cheapo brands. What do you propose as a "Safe alternative" for people to smoke in their cigarettes, pray tell? All I know is that if I get drunk or high and chain smoke a whole pack of cigarettes in a night, if they are cheap ones, the next day my throat is sore and I'm coughing. If they are Camels, the effect is not nearly so bad. Same is true of other "premium" brands. People can take out all the "POV" stuff they want, but Camels and other more expensive smokes DO taste better and are smoother, and I'm sure that person knows damn well you're not going to find a "published source" that says that, other than Camel's own promotional literature. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about TRUTH, it's about what you can find references for in a published source. Or whatever you can get away with without anyone noticing, that works pretty well too. I like the above complaint about the knockoff "Dromedary cigarettes" pack that was made almost FOUR YEARS ago, and the picture is still here: if Camels were sold as "Dromedary Cigarettes", then why the hell is the article talking about their viral and campaign for CAMEL cigarettes when they first came out? "The Camels are Coming" was talking about "Dromedary" cigarettes? Which just happened to use a very similar, but-not-quite-the-same TWIN humped Dromedary instead of the well-known Camel logo? Sure. I buy that. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Art Packs

Camel has lots of art packs, and those seem to be a tradition. If that's unique, maybe there should be a section on it. I'm not the person to write it, but I'm sure there's something interesting to know. http://stores.ebay.com/Romanini-Collectibles_Camel-Cigarette-Packs_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm

Removal of "Cigarette brands" category

I have removed Category:Cigarette brands from this article because Category:R.J. Reynolds brands is a sub-category of the former. It defeats the purpose of having this subcategory if we're going to list the articles in both. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

The photographs of ALL tobacco products should be removed from Wikipedia because it is letting a deadly product be advertised for free, which is morally and ethically wrong. Tobacco kills millions of people each year. It is not necessary at all to have pictures of these products on Wikipedia, and if people are searching for pictures of tobacco products, then they can use a search engine or the tobacco companies website, not Wikipedia. Please do not let photos/pictures of tobacco products be placed on Wikipedia. I am removing the photographs from this page. Thanks, Gillies corner 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Although it may be viewed as advertising in some opinions, it can also be looked on as a reflection of American art through the ages. Mechroneal 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Morally and ethically wrong" is an entirely invalid statement when refering to the context of a Encyclopedic database. The description and purpose of Wikipedia.org is to provide solid, verifable and reliable information on ANY given topic. I suppose you would also like every page describing bands to be removed for "Free advertising", along with every religious page removed for "Moral and ethnic controversy". It would be also rational to assume you would also prefer that the words "Homosexual", "Vagina", and "Terrorist" be removed because they're just supporting gay hate crimes; teen pregnancy; and suicide bombings. It is in my opinion that an online Encylopedia shouldn't have to refrain from offensive images or descriptions considering that- to be considered an information source- it should provide ALL the information possible on a given subject. I, not being a smoker, find more offensive to the narrow-minded oppresive opinions expressed in this section more than I've seen on any tobacco pages.

id think the memory of wiki should be more of an issue seeing as they are free with no adds however THE PRODUCT SHOULDNT MATTER i dont care if you go through the brands of some sort of legalised heroin or if you list brands of paint that are commonly huffed with pictures morals realy dont matter in an encyclopedia maybe a single picture with all the packages but if they are already being used and are on wiki i dont see why you shouldnt be able to put them there--Ggohtrin 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the photos back. Some one took it on himself to remove them because he thinks they are immoral? What do I do if I want the information?

Let’s remove all the liquor pix too. Now I think of it, let’s also remove all the information about [your least favorite political movement here]. That’s a *real* killer! 2A01:4C8:1163:7CDB:E40C:3BEC:96E0:A239 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

I don't want to start a flame war here, so please don't take this as that. I'm not even a smoker, but including "Chemicals in a cigarette" and "List of additives in cigarettes" in the See Also section seems completely non-NPOV. What do these articles have to do -specifically- with the Camel brand of cigarettes? It just seems like a political statement. Again, I'm not a fan of smoking. But I can't imagine tolerating a See Also link to "Vicitims of Drunk Driving" on an article about red wine, either. Thoughts? SlapAyoda 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about linking to "Chemicals in wine"? The links are not to "Victims of a cigarette in the eye".--In1984 09:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah Hah, I am not allowed to comment on the NPOV thing - everyone knows I used to work for these guys and I'll get a lot of flack... You must beleive that I and certain other posters really do worry about the NPOV thing but certain facts must be corrected when they are outright wrong. --Mrtobacco 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe the see also is justified but a list in the middle of this artical i realy dont think so --Ggohtrin 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

167.106.255.101 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)== signature blends? Blue Bead inside filters ==

as a person who hangs out at gas stations (looking at dirty magazines and joking with the cashier) ive noticed signs for the Signature Blend cigarettes i was hoping to find out if they even exist seeing as no one has them the signs just apeared at the beggining of the month anyone know anything about them? --Ggohtrin 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggohtrin (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC). forgot to sign--Ggohtrin 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

signature blends come in 6 flavors, you can read all about them on the camel website. They are priced the same but have "fruity flavoring". The question I have is what is the little blue beads in the filters? The beads can be found in all signature blends. If you tear the filter apart you'll find them in the middle; 1 in each smoke, little tiny thing. I looked around on google, no answer. Current working theory, nano-distribution system for tracking camel cigarette smokers. Any better ideas?

Yeah, here's one. They are for flavoring. The Signature brands do not have a 'fruity flavoring'; they are normal tobacco flavors i.e. menthol, full flavor, robust, etc... The diferentiation on Signatures is that actual smokers design the packs. Thay are sublitted to the website and voted on, the chosen design then goes on x nnumber of packs until another rotates in. The beads are not used to track anyone. In the interest of full disclosure I work for RJR. 167.106.255.101 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Angelus67

Fair use rationale for Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg

Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post this. The image is an integral part of this article and should not be unfairly deleted. I will try to correct it myself - do not delete it please and don't nominate! --Put that in your pipe and smoke it 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg

Image:LST-266 Camel ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Browner smell"?

"It generally has a darker, browner smell to the smoke."

I thought brown was a color... 67.180.15.227 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This cigarette was also used, as kind of money

After the World War II, this american cigarette was used as a form of money, in Germany and in many other parts of Europe.Only in late 1948, the use of cigarettes as a money, was over in Europe.Agre22 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Endangering children

Yeah, well you people are endangering children. Each and every article on tobacco in wikipedia needs a "Surgeon General's Warning" concerning the known and scientific facts: tobacco causes sickness and death and is addictive. Children are accessing wikipedia to do their homework, exploring this content, and being reassured by the absence of any indication to the contrary that "tobacco is safe".

Murderers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is neutral, and to put a message like that is anything but neutral. 83.67.39.175 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because when I read this article I TOTALLY come away with the idea that "smoking is safe", and not "Jesus, don't they know that saying the same thing over and over and over again is more likely to just make people tune out and ignore them?". I'm curious about what your opinions are on the freely accessible photographs of penis, vaginas, anuses, erections, diagrams on anal sex, different sexual positions, etc, which can be found on the suitable articles here on Wikipedia? Do this not worry you, but photographs of cigarette packages are somehow "Evil"? Also curious where you got the idea that ANY kid, EVER, started smoking because of some picture he/she saw of a pack of cigarettes, on the internet, off of it, whatever. Kids start smoking because people they know, or people they look up to, smoke cigarettes. I've seen hundreds of pictures of caviar, but I'm not particularly interested in trying it. Kids aren't going to smoke because they saw photos of cigarettes on Wikipedia, and i hate to say it, but it's pretty stupid to even think that. You can do a Google search and come up with thousands of images of cigarette packs and cigarettes. Good luck censoring your kids safe. It's not going to work. AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment is almost 10 years old, I really doubt that the anon editor is going to see this. Greyjoy ^talk 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

C-note

Embarrassingly Basic Error ("C-NOTE")------------- The article says: "(C-Note = 5 US cents)"

That's ridiculous. Any American over the age of 8 knows a "c note" is a $100 bill. C, like the Roman numeral for 100... like the English prefix "centi-" (also from the Latin/Roman). So the claim in the article is off by 2000%.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.250.33 (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what's up with that; each "C-note" (Camel Cash) had a "Cash Value" listed on the back, but it was something like 1/100th of a cent. If it had been .05 each, I would have gladly saved them up and cashed them in. It's possible the person meant that if you did the math, when purchasing a typical item with Camel Cash, it works out to each one being worth about .05 (100 CC will buy you a $5 item, for example), which is a shitty return for the amount you spent on the pack of smokes to get that pack. But that misses the point that people were going to buy that pack anyway, and this was just a technique to keep them from switching to other brands while saving up their tickets. If that's what the person was trying to say, it was a bad way to put it, and I think I'll remove it after all. Along with the counterfeit Camel pack that's been up for years now). AnnaGoFast (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The "C-note" still points to the $100 bill. Also, when I was a kid (now 67) the joke was that people were saving up their Camel Coupons for an Iron Lung. Alas, no independent source to back that up. Stargzer (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Camel Crush should be merged or deleted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus, not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Camel Crush should be... uh, merged or deleted. Right? Belasted (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Mark Shaw (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article only has one source, which is an external wiki—most wikis don't meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources. The article would need more sourcing to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for notability. Generally merging allows less notable topics to stay on Wikipedia, and strengthens the quality of both topics.

However, if more reliable sources are found in regard to the topic's notability, then it should stay where it is. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh, sorry - I was under the impression that Belasted's comment was referring to the "Camel Crush" entry in this article, rather than to the separate WP article Camel Crush. (I hadn't had enough coffee, I suppose.) Yes, I agree that it should be merged into this article, but with a short note about the menthol capsule and a ref to, for example, this: [1]. (Note also that "Camel Crush" is listed twice in the "Varieties" section; I'll fix that now.) Mark Shaw (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree (see discussion above). Mark Shaw (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. BGinOC (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC) It is possible using neutral research to categorize and describe each brand and style of cigarette. The way things are going in the United States, this may become history. Secondly, if most flavors of Coca-Cola can be broken out and accurately described, so should cigarettes.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turkish and Egyptian Theme

The article needs to cite a bit more about the Turkish theme. Tobacco came from the US, however, cigarettes came from Turkey. Around the later half of C19 so-called Turkish cigarettes, mostly exported from Egypt, were marketed in many European countries. Turks had invented cigarettes during the Crimean War, as way to use old cigar butts, and to economize on scarce tobacco. The British took the invention back home. In 1913 cigarettes still had a middle-Eastern image, and that is probably the reason for the Camel name.

Having articles about cigarette brands is fine by me, provided that they contain useful historical information. For example, Rothmans brand, and the aprtheid controversy during the 70s and 80s deserves its own article.

One must guard against the self-righteous and the self-appointed from parasiting their ideas into genuinely written articles. This is Sh*tipedias greatest weakness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.140.197 (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. Cf http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-1.html

Turkish cigarettes never contained cigar scraps (Spanish did). 87.122.138.220 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Camel menthol new.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Camel menthol new.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Camel Reds

on the list tof brands it leaves out Camel Reds and Camel Red Lights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.111.211 (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. They we're removed for some reason, no telling why, a lot of anti-tobacco nut jobs troll this page becuase they apperantly have no life. I atte,pted to add them back to the list, but for some reason they won't appear in the list right. I believe the page is protected, so I would appreciate it if someone would add Kamel Red and Kamel Red Lights back to the list of "current" us brands, as I myself smoke them on occasion.

(And yes, the Kamel Red's and Kamel Red Lights are actually spelled with a "K". For those who don't know, Kamel Red's are a classic cigarette the company introduced shortly after it created the original Camel. I believe they we're made in 1914, but don't quote me on that. Anyway, for unknown reasons, they decided to render it "Kamel Red" with the "K", most likely for stylistic purposes. Anyway, they no longer make the original Kamel Red, as it was a VERY strong non-filter cigarette, but they do produce two filtered varieties that are very similiar: a full flavor and light version. Any help from someone would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added green cigaretteby 24.98.250.155 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why do more doctors smoke Camels?"

[2]

I vaguely remembered that back in the 1940's I heard this slogan on radio. I did a search and found confirmation. I am sure the slogan got adverse public reaction and was withdrawn. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to include that in the article. --Laber□^T 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Radio adverts

Lots of info on radio sponsorships for Chesterfield and Lucky Strike here, but not Camel, which sponsored Benny Goodman and Bob Crosby, as well as, numerous comedy shows in the 30s. The adverts stressed smoother, slower-burning, finer tobaccos, and frequently mentioned they were good for soothing nerves and relaxation. Slower-burning meant longer-lasting and hence less expensive, which, it was pointed out, also meant paying less in taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the product list

please see WP:NOADS and WP:NOTDIR Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How is a listing of product names advertising? Personally, I think the list is overly long and distracting from the article, but I don't see how it's promotional. and WP:NOTDIR doesn't seem to apply at all.

Mark Shaw (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:NOTDIR "5. Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention." A product list is simply a statement of what products are available. Here it was taken to 2 further degrees, what products are available in the US, and in other countries, and what used to be available. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... I disagree that a listing of product names amounts to "pricing or availability information." But as I wrote the list was also (in my opinion) distracting, so I won't kick. Cheers!

Mark Shaw (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Winston-Salem nickname part of Camel cigarette's history?

I'm a little confused about why this line: "Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the city where R.J. Reynolds was founded, is nicknamed "Camel City" because of the brand's popularity", is in the middle of this page's history section. It doesn't really seem to fit in the flow of the section, since no point in time is given for its occurrence (certainly it wasn't between 2005 and 2012, the two dates the statement lies between in the article). It seems to me that this statement should be moved to a new section (Cultural References?), or removed from the article. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved the nickname comment to the opening paragraph.GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Camel Crush

I don't think that Camel Crush meets WP:GNG, and in any case its a tiny, unreferenced stub. Still, it probably warrants some mention here ([3], [4], and there is a bit more on the Bold subbrand like [5]). Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel Crush was closed as keep few years back. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged. A 524-character stub does not need its own page. Otherwise, there might as well be a separate page for every variety of Marlboro. Just my 2¢.

17.255.233.9 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Darwin

I looked at the history of it to see if this is some sort of attempt to delete an article by removing the contents then asking for a merge, but no, it appears to have always been a stub. I suspect that it's not impossible that enough material to justify a full article could be found, but given the number of years, that seems unlikely. Merge. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Camel cigarette pack ~ reverse side 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

T-zone

T-zone redirects here, but there is no reference to it in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First packaged cigarette?

The History section says that Reynolds "innovated the packaged cigarette. Prior cigarette smokers had rolled their own". Really?

There are tons of earlier ads for rolled cigarettes, mentions in books and newspapers etc. The 19th century saw several cigarette rolling machines invented and used (I can't find an article about the machines but they are mentioned in eg James Albert Bonsack who developed his machine in 1880). I haven't been able to check the source given, but you could certainly buy rolled cigarette well before 1913. -- Hexmaster.se (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)