Talk:Tobacco

Tobacco In Canada

I think it might be worth mentioning the Tobacco industry as it is in South Western Ontario. Primarily within the regions of Norfolk County, Oxford County and Haldimand County. There is no mention of this in the article at all.

Tobacco Culture

Why is there no mention of tobacco and cigar culture? Tobacco consumption is largely a social indulgence akin to alcohol. The lack of mention of this (especially in the introduction) with the focus on the negative effects of tobacco on the body make it read with a political bias.

Clarification in the Third Paragraph

The first paragraph mentions different ways to use tobacco, and then the third paragraph starts with: "Long term tobacco use carries significant risks of developing various cancers as well as strokes, and severe cardiovascular and respiratory diseases." This just says "tobacco use," however the reference sited is specifically for smoking. Cancer should be a no-brainer for most people, but it's unclear as to whether or not all of these problems are caused by all tobacco use, given the reference.

History?

tobbaco is a very important plant so wheres the history the plant is almost as important if not more important historicly than some of the other plants like sugar the number of spices europeans were looking for in the 16th century cotton salt its way up on the list of historicly significant resources so where is the history

No-Till Section

A large section was added here, and there has been minor discussion in edit summaries removing and adding it since, including my most recent removal of this 14KB block of text.

I am concerned that it was added wholesale with the comment that it is a student's work. No attribution to the student is given, and although references are provided, the student is not credited. I believe this violates the terms of copyright that said student is entitled to, and therefore would violate the GFDL that Wikipedia adheres to for all its content. In particular, regarding the GFDL, I am thinking of this section: "Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein." Since the student who wrote the work in the first place holds copyright, some release or grant of rights would be needed in order to include it here.

Furthermore, it seems a large chunk to add to an article, giving a lot of weight to a particular method of farming tobacco, while this is an article on tobacco in general. If the material can be properly included in Wikipedia (see above), it might be more appropriate to make it a separate article with one paragraph in this article, and a link to the other article.  Frank  |  talk  18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That section would fit better in an article about no-till farming. Frotz (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

my response .....

I agree that this may be too much for this article. I propose it be put in a new section called no-till tobacco and it is referenced from this page and the no-till page. I'm open to suggestions.

I tried to get all the students to post them their selves but this one didn't work out. This is a quote from one of my last emails with the author this semester

"If you post my Wikipedia Project do I have to be there with you, or can you just post the one I emailed you the other day? If I dont have to be there, you can go ahead and post it. If I do need to sign something or whatever, I can do that early thursday afternoon. Thanks for all your help and understanding this semester. This one was much different than my first 4 semesters because of the big changes concerning the long commute and living in a place without internet. "

I will contact the student to determine whether or not the individual would like to remain anonymous ... I've had trouble getting ahold of him.

in addition to 3 drafts during the semester, two university faculty who may be the foremost experts in the world on this technology ... reviewed this, gave editorial comments (the student responded and made the required changes), and approved this work. Its really good stuff and I don't think you can find this anywhere in the world. Hopefully, making this available could have a big environmental impact. SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your paper. No original research allowed. Beam 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You must not have read. By the way, it is not research. SoilMan2007 (talk)

Oh, I read. Beam 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that a whole bunch of work went into the paper. Unfortunately, posting someone else's work without attribution is not a good thing, and more to the point, when you say "I don't think you can find this anywhere in the world", you kind of disqualify the content from appearing on Wikipedia at all. The reason for that is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That the paper was reviewed by "two university faculty who may be the foremost experts in the world on this technology" is not the point. What counts here is that the source material can be verified, so that other editors can check the content, modify it, add to it, delete from it, etc.

Again - it's great that research work has been done. I encourage you or your student to add to the article from the material. As long as the work can be properly cited from reliable sources, it's great to add to an article or even to create a new article. But as has been pointed out above, original research is not what Wikipedia is about.

Please read the links above in this response, about verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. These links provide valuable information regarding what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia can always use new editors.  Frank  |  talk  00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, your points are well taken. I withdraw this submission ... at least until we can get more cite-able I think much of this was created from very in depth practical knowledge about the subject and personal communications with university experts in the subject. I'm thinking that next semester I should invite some wikipedians to edit contributions as the students are writing .... perhaps in sandboxes. I want you to know that I really appreciate your suggestions! Best Regards, SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't want you thinking that we don't appreciate the hardwork, Frank has put it very well. Beam 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Wikipedia works because the community supports it, especially with individual effort. (I presume money helps but I haven't contributed in that way myself yet.) The community is large and growing, and as it gets larger, it helps to have more editors who are able to provide valuable content that is consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. Essentially, Wikipedia is never a source of original research, and always a point where people can start, but find links and references to more information. If you look at articles which have controversial content, you can find that people get into heated discussion and "edit wars" over one phrase or even word. (Try George W. Bush or Barack Obama, for example.)

Anyway - again, thanks for your contributions. I hope you'll find this an interesting and rewarding place to spend some time!  Frank  |  talk  02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Levels of AGE's are dependent on the curing method used.

Depending on the curing method used, there are different levels of AGE's produced. This is an important distinction to make. I have added this to the Curing page. In addition I have added which curing methods produce higher and lower sugar and nicotine levels.70.137.162.131 (talk)Martin M. Haffner70.137.162.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple additions in the direction of the historical use of tobacco for medicinal uses.

This is something that I feel that has not been fully addressed in this Wikipedia article. Every addition is fully referenced from reliable sources. (Universities.)~~Martin M. Haffner~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.145.125 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shade tobacco

I'm not interested in working on this article myself, but a colleague just emailed me a reference someone might want to use in expanding (or just referencing) the Shade tobacco section: Tobacco-Growing in Connecticut, New York Times, January 27, 1873. - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article restructuring

Splitering article

This article is becoming increasingly large and detailed that it is to the point where it could easily splintered off to form other articles describing each element of this article, which include but are not limited to: Types of tobacco, Tobacco products, History of tobacco, Tobacco control, and Processing of tobacco. We do not need to enact the entire list at once, but we should being splintering off the larger pieces. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm....Wouldn't it make more sense to create the articles first, and then remove the content from the main article?  Frank  |  talk  20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the first two articles have been created, we now need to write the summaries form the main article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has almost completed splintering, it is important to coordinate updates in content and so forth.

• Types of tobacco
• Tobacco products
• Cultivation of tobacco
• Curing of tobacco
• History of tobacco
• Usages of tobacco remains as the only stub.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Outline

In an effort to provide this article a means of reaching GA or FA class, we need an outline and defintion of how we are to arrange the growing amount of content:

• History, contains three subsections.
  • Early developments, discusses its usage to just before its popularization in trade
  • Popularization, discusses its popularization to its usage before the scientific revelation
  • Contemporary, discusses its scientific revelations and recent developments
• Biology, contains two subsections.
  • Nicotiana, summary of the article
  • Healthy effects, how it affects human biological processes.
• Usages, contains two subsections.
• Processing, contains four subsections.
  • Cultivation, how its grown.
  • Curing, how its cured.
  • Types, types of tobacco, summery of Types of tobacco.
  • Products, tobacco products and paraphernalia, summery of Tobacco products.
• Cultural impact, details popular culture such as advertisements and so forth, and clubs or groups centered around it
• See also, related articles.
• References, contains two subsections.
  • Notes, inline citation.
  • Bibliography, non-inline citation.
• Further reading, list of books providing background information.
• External links, list of links.

I hope this helps. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is possible to better place the section Usages. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New sections

There have been several new sections which include: Biology, and its subsection (Health effects and Herbatology); Usages (Medicine, and Controlled substance); and Culture. Many of these sections already have a main section which can be summarized to complete these new sections. Comments can be found in these new sections describing where information can be summarized. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is now a lot more colorful than it was before with all the expansion and referencing templates. About three sections contain only a single sentence and require expansion, the rest still need to be expanded, but it is not in such dire need. Once again, comments can be found within each section detailing what remains to be added and where to find it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)