Talk:Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

wow

This article is very well-written. I've often heard the the anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany used as a straw person argument against all anti-smoking campaigns. I'm glad to see that Wikipedia was able to produce a neutral and highly informative article about a subject which is too often only a talking point. Savidan 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have studied the subject well before creating this article. Actually it is Robert N. Proctor, he did extensive research on this topic and in his book Nazi War on Cancer detailed the Nazi anti-tobacco measures very well. As you can see from the article, Nazi Germany was the first nation to identity the link between lung cancer and tobacco and Nazi sponsored anti-smoking movement was the strongest in the 1930s and 1940s until the collapse of the Nazi government. And what you have heard is right that pro-tobacco advocates try to depict the present day anti-tobacco movement as being borrowed from Nazis, thus they label any anti-smoking movement as a Nazi method. Here is an article which says " Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis". But it is misrepresentation of historical facts. By that definition, any ballistic missile will be "Nazi missile" because the V-2 rocket was world's first ballistic missile. There is no relation between modern anti-smoking movement and Nazi anti-smoking campaign. The tobacco industry try to misrepresent historical facts and apply several logical fallacy to weaken the anti-tobacco movement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

however, today's anti-smoking advocates actually use some of the same odious techniques utilized by the nazis, depicting smokers as lesser individuals and hopeless addicts. now, today they don't actually say 'subhuman', etc. but the implication is clear. single-minded, bureaucratic, one-issue individuals such as today's rabid anti-smoking advocates are cut from the same cloth as the people that 'just went along' with the nazis. that is why the anti-tobacco people often use that particular argument. big business capitalism (pro-tobacco) vs. big government socialism (anti-tobacco)... neither one is more evil than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange, well if we are talking in terms of "evil" then cigarettes are certainly a lot more evil than other addictions/habits. I really don't see how people trying to get others to quit smoking for health benefits are as evil as a billion dollar comapnies getting people addicted (at an early an age as possible) to cigarettes, still if it helps you feel better as you inhale toxic chemicals then feel free.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that tobacco increases the chances of contracting cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and so on, and there is certainly nothing wrong with helping people to give up if they wish to, nor is there anything wrong with advising on the dangers. It is the whole "ideological" part of the debate that irritates me; the way that smokers are villified and treated as second class citizens even if they confine their habits to their own homes. That is where the similarity lies between the Nazis and the current anti smoking "fashion", and its not the only similarity either. By the way, I think you'll find you're inhaling toxic chemicals too, unless you live somewhere where nobody uses a petrol or diesel angine, so you can wipe the smug grin off your face too. (And yes, I did give up. 2006, and it was EASY). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles or streetcars?

Resolved

The Anti-tobacco measures section contains the two sentences "In 1941, tobacco smoking in automobiles was outlawed in Germany's sixty large urban settlements.[25] Smoking on trams was also banned in many cities.[11]" However, this online reference by Proctor says that "Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941." Was smoking really banned in automobiles, or was this just a misunderstanding of the meaning of "street car" (tram)? --DAJF (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is tram. Fixed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA first impressions

Lead:

• this is very short (see Wikipedia:Lead) for guidance. Also at some point in the lead give the full proper title to Nazi Germany. Nationalist etc.
• ...Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century,... can this be referenced it is quite an important statement, which also enhances the difference in Germany at that time.
• ...the most important research on smoking and its effects on health was conducted in the Third Reich... why in the third reich and not by the third Reich.
• An image top right would follow accepted layout for articles.

Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign

• the whole section is totally reliant on Proctor for reference, not the B.M.A. article which is accessible on the web but a book the text of which is not. Are there any other references which will support this section.

Image:

• "The chain-smoker" saying "He does not eat it [the cigarette], it eats him" What is gained from [ ]a wiki format for external web pages rather than ( ) bracketing the cigarette

Image: production of cigarette. the text is far too long, crosses into another section and is a paragraph in itsellf. Can this be edited / some of the text placed in a reference / some of the text placed in the article.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers) mentions when numbers weights etc are used, the format is (for example) 000 tons

An interesting story that I knew nothing about. I look forward to reading this article again shortly. These are first impressions, I will go through the article more closely in the next day or so. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• Short lead- I have expanded the lead.  Done
• Reference for the statement Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century - the reference for this is Richard Doll, Uncovering the effects of smoking: historical perspective, reference number 3.
• the most important research on smoking and its effects on health was conducted in the Third Reich - actually I used in as general. For example it is said military research in the United States rather than military research by the United States.
• image top right - I have moved one image to the lead.  Done

Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign Actually Proctor describes it carefully, but I did not find any other reference other than Proctor. Actually very few people have studied on this subject.

Image

• Bracket: Changed the bracket style.  Done
• Caption: I have shortened the caption.  Done

Number - changed the style. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

GA first review

I have yet to find major fault when comparing the article to the good article criteria, except maybe for the occasional prose / use of /or the order of words. For example ...Smoking was outlawed in schools also... change to ...Smoking was also outlawed in schools ... If you are happy with a change like this I am quite prepared to go through the article in one go, you could always (undo)! The thoughts below are that, from a new reader to the subject.

• Hitler's attitude towards smoking, why is this the second section of the article. I know that he is relevant to the history of this subject, but should we cover the subject first, then bring him in. It is mentioned that ...Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco was not the main cause behind Nazi anti-tobacco movement; For example something like / Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign / Anti-tobacco measures / Effectiveness / Research / Reproductive policies / Controversies / Hitler's attitude towards smoking / After World War II / This is a quick attempt of highlighting the article and assisting the reader as they discover the subject.
• ...Deutscher Tabakgegnerverein zum Schutze der Nichtraucher... Is it worth translating a title (or all titles) as this might give an idea of the feeling towards smoking and smokers at the time. for example babelfish (I know basic but)comes up with ...German tobacco opponent association for the protection of the nonsmokers... which is in itself quite a bold maybe aggressive statement. Maybe so as not to break up the article they could be in referenced in the notes?
• ...was published in 1912 and this journal continued to be published until 1932.... could this and like examples be pared down e.g. ...was published between 1912 and 1932...

I am impressed, informative factual and a reasonably easy read. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prose/order of words: Yes, I have changed many wordings like the one you pointed, in the section Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign etc.
• Section: Actually the sections Hitler's attitude towards smoking, Reproductive policies and Research are the background of Nazi anti-tobacco measures or in other language these were the factors due to which the Nazis tried to control tobacco smoking. Hitler's personal feelings on tobacco was a factor, the reproductive policies of the Nazis were a major factor behind this anti-smoking movement. They wanted more children from German mothers, and when it was revealed that smoking may be the cause of stillbirth and miscarriage, they became afraid of this. Hence they became eager to control smoking. Research was another factor which motivated the Nazi leaders to implement anti-tobacco measures. This is why I arranged the sections Hitler's attitude towards smoking, Reproductive policies and Research first.
• Translation: English translation added for all German names. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA second review

• Nazi Germany was and is a common name for Germany under the Nazis but is not universal (see Nazi Germany), and as I have mentioned before I think a link needs to be made from Nazi to the Nazi Party. For example the first sentence: [[The “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” —(NSDAP)of Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[1] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[2]
• Surely it would be better to wikilink ...The Nazi leadership condemned smoking[5]...to List of Nazi Party leaders and officials and change the wikilink for ...the Nazis came to power.[3]... to Nazi Germany. The same link acn be left for the Third Reich, as there maybe readers unaware that the Reich and Nazi Germany were one and the same thing.
• I am not sure of the relevance of the wikilink from ...imposing restrictions on restaurants to a list of Germany restaurants today.
• ...existed in Germany in the early 1910s,...has Germany linked again, but to another page. Can the sentence be changed to bring this to people's notice?
• ...The Nazis used several public relations tactics to influence the general population of Germany into not smoking... has a link to modern day demographics, can the reader on this subject gain anything from the linked article? I can ask the same question about the link from ...In 1941, tobacco smoking in trams was outlawed in Germany's sixty large urban settlements.[26]...to List of cities in Germany with more than 100,000 inhabitants; and the link Economy of Germany from ...American cigarette manufactures quickly entered the German market...
• I believe the article is written in British English, which is fine American or British has no baring on the GA review but in the text for Image:Tabak-Kapital.gif labour is written as labor (American English)

As you can see from the above I have a couple of concerns. I think the wikilinks to specific sections of article is very well done, but let down by links to articles that discuss Germany or its structures post war or of today. An other is making a link from Nazi Germany to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. One more is the reliance on Proctor for many of the references, as soon as any others come about please update the article. Any thoughts / questions please let me know, as I have said a very good and interesting article. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it is right Nazi Germany is not the universally accepted name, but I think the first sentence if we start as "The National Socialist German Workers’ Party of Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement", it should be noted that Nazi party existed before 1933 also. Thus it may become confusing whether the movement was started before the Nazis formed government or after 1933. While Nazi Germany is not the official name, it is generally used in English to describe Germany from 1933 to 1945. And the anti-tobacco movement was started after they formed government.
• You have raised a good point, I have removed the problematic wikilinks.
• Actually the article uses American spellings like organization, so I think it may be an option to change all the spellings to American. Hence I kept the spelling labor and changed ageing > aging.
• I have removed all the wikilinks which are linking to present day Germany. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA third review

Dear Editors; I have accessed the article (before I escape these shores for a brief while) with an idea to see if it could be awarded the GA. At this moment not, but only for the reasons below. I will review again upon my return.

• You have just about convinced me of the value of Hitler section being so early in the article but, ..."it was a mistake, traceable to the army leadership at the time, at the beginning of the war". He also said that it was "not correct to say that a soldier cannot live without smoking".... is an important quote that needs to be referenced.
• Images "bleed" over into other sections. Look at what <br></br> does to the layout in your sandbox. I tried it at the end of effectiveness section and found it acceptable. Practical layout is not my skill though, seek advise if you have too.
• Image ...Production of cigarettes... still has a long text caption I believe but that itself has wikilinks that are repeats of ones in the main article. / cigarettes / Germany / Tobacco / World War Two / Wehrmacht / Too many wikilinks can make the reading of, and therefor the enjoyment of an article quite a problem. Unless it is to different sections of the same article words need only be wikilinked in their first instance, (unless that is in the lead when the second instance is acceptable).
• Not sure why you chose american english and it is fine, but can you do a quick run through to check spellings. I am quite happy to upon my return, if necessary. Edmund Patrick – confer 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GA final summary

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A good article. Checks need to be kept on wikilinks and as soon as other suitable cross-references become available they should be added.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   verify and reference Hitler's statements on ...it was a mistake, traceable to the army leadership at the time, at the beginning of the war... and ...not correct to say that a soldier cannot live without smoking...

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   excellent selection of images, keep captions short and layout needs tightening at some point but both are minor.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   verify the statements / quotes from Hitler and this becomes an excellent GA.

The reference for the entire paragraph including the Hitler quote is The Nazi War on Cancer by Proctor, page 219. It is given at the end of the paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   add new alternative references when they become available, and well done I have learnt from the article.

Tobacco decline during WWII

Looking at the data, the success of the antismoking policy appears to be confined to the war years. An obvious alternative explanation is that Germany had limited access to imports of tobacco under conditions of wartime blockade. Is there any info on this?JQ (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the "alternative explanation" is not supported by any reference. I have added the information exactly what the reference is saying. What Proctor described is that the decline in tobacco consumption in the later years in the military is due to the policies implemented in the military. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I fully concur with John's comment. By the middle of the war Germans were being supplied with ersatz cigarettes, which clearly demonstrates that they had insufficient access to tobacco to make real ones. Also, the source is clearly contradictory as it says that of its study group of 1000, 100 soldiers took up smoking during the war as opposed to only seven who quit. The obvious conclusion is that the overall decline in smoking was due primarily to lack of access to the product, not to the alleged effectiveness of the anti-smoking campaign. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

May be lack of access to cigarettes was a catalytic factor behind decline in tobacco smoking. But per this reference, The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. It is necessary to add information according to WP:V which is done here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right that according to WP:V this data should be included however I am unsure of the wording. A few times in the article it mentions the decline as specifically the result of the anti-smoking legislation and policies. Given that there is the clear potential that this isn't the case it should be said perhaps that "such and such" said that the policies were the cause. Of course until there is a source saying otherwise it shouldn't be said that "such and such" said that the poor quality and lack of tobacco was the cause ... but making a definitive statement based on 1 reference is an a mistake based on the neutrality guidelines.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article really looks weird without any references at all to the geo-political situation regarding tobacco import. Maybe it is because I'm European, and remember my grandparents talking about all the imported stuff they didn't have access to during the occupation. I'm sure coffee consumption was down too.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have to understand that the topic of the article is researched by very few people, this is why there are very few references. As I have repeatedly said, I will be glad to add it if I can find reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant

This article is like my new favourite article lol, im a smoker of rolleys and i find this at once informative, easy to read and understand and (subtly) funny all in one glorious artcile, Top Marks, especially for the propaganda pic! xD :D ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good read, but for the record: beware Godwin's law. It just needed to be mentioned. --Bobak (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ecomed-medizin

On June 24, 2008, Dessources (talk · contribs) added this reference in the article to support the claim The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proved in Germany before the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s by Prof. Fritz Lickint in this edit. But there is no mention in the reference that Lickint was the person who first proved the link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking nor there is any mention that the paper "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as aetiological factors for carcinoma" by Lickint was the first to prove this link. The reference is only saying:

“ Bereits 1930 veröffentlichte Lickint einen Beitrag zum "Tabak und Tabakrauch als ätiologische Faktoren des Carcinoms" in Form eines Übersichtsbeitrages mit 167 Literaturzitaten (Lickint 1930). Aus den Ergebnissen des damaligen Schrifttums und nach seinen Daten kam er zu einer Geschlechterhäufigkeit von 5 : 1 zwischen Männern und Frauen. Er machte den Tabakrauch für diese Veränderungen verantwortlich und wies bereits damals auf seine Gefahren hin. ”

“ As early as 1930 Lickint published a contribution to the "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as etiological factors for Carcinoms" in the form of an overview with 167 literature citations (Lickint 1930). From the results of the then Literature and according to his data, he came to a Gender frequency of 5: 1 between men and Women. He made the tobacco smoke for these changes responsible and dismissed were already on its dangers. ”

On the other hand both Proctor (pp. 173) and Johan P. Mackenbach clearly mentions that the link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking was first proved by Nazi scientists in Nazi Germany. Since the claim Dessources (talk · contribs) added is not supported by his reference, I am removing the unsourced claim and his reference and mentioning what the two reliable sources, Proctor and Mackenbach, are saying. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Table in "Effectiveness" section

I see that Otolemur Crassicaudatus has reverted my adjustment of the table in the effectiveness section (with the addition of a brief title). In my opinion, the table should stand alone as useful data, without requiring qualification from the main text.

Here is the current version of the table:-

Comparison of cigarette consumption

Country	1930	1935	1940	1944
Germany	490	510	1,022	743
United States	1,485	1,564	1,976	3,039

Here is my proposal:-

Cigarette consumption per capita per year in Germany & the United States

	Year
	1930	1935	1940	1944
Germany	490	510	1,022	743
United States	1,485	1,564	1,976	3,039

Problems with the current table:-

1. When reading the top row: Country | 1935 | 1940 | 1944

   It is not immediately obvious why "Country" is followed by a series of numbers. Only when I look down the the left hand column does the purpose of "Country" become clear. Indeed when I see that the column consists of Germany and United States, the label "Country" becomes redundant. All readers of this article know what "Germany" and "United States" are.

2. Every column has an in-line citation, but these citations are all the same. Rather than listing the citation separately for each column, I used a single citation with the table's title, indicating that all the data derives from that source.
3. It is not immediately obvious what "1930", "1935", "1940" and "1944" refer to. Given the sequence and similarity to the Nazi era, a reader might infer that they are years.
4. It is not obvious what the numbers "490", "510", etc. refer to. It is necessary to read the text preceding the table to find out. With my version, the preceding text becomes superfluous. Axl (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for discussing. I have no strong opinion here. The table at first had no table caption and since it started with the sentence "Below is a comparison of per capita cigarette consumption rate per year in Germany and the United States from 1930 to 1944", I though it will be unnecessary to give a table caption. You have a good point here about the reference and column issue, so I am reverting it back to your version. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Axl (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Consensus is for inclusion of the image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over the inclusion of the Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. So it will be better to seek a consensus if the image should be included or not. I have informed the involved users. The arguments for the inclusion of the image are:

• The image gives the reader a picture of a Nazi anti-tobacco magazine
• Reine Luft was the main Nazi anti-tobacco magazine.

Arguments against the inclusion of the image is it does not mention the fair use rationale clearly and the image is unnecessary to describe Nazi anti-tobacco movement.

Lets seek a consensus to solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

People for inclusion of the image

• I am for the inclusion of this image, as long as the fair use rationale is strengthened. To do this, the "main points" phrase needs to be specified. What main points does the image convey to the reader? Why is this image necessary? Why won't words suffice? This needs to be explained in the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Awadewit. The rationale needs to be clearer, but fair use is justifiable. For what it's worth, the main image on that page is public domain anyway, although I realise that doesn't help. Is there actually a copyright holder for Nazi stuff? jimfbleak (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Include The image directly depicts what the article is about and shows Nazi attittudes towards smoking, and you don't have to read German to tell this. This is precisely what FU is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  I see an image of a lobster, an image of a joker (possibly malevolent), and (I think) an image of a medieval knight. I can guess that the caption next to the lobster says "Tobacco and crabs". Axl (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

People against inclusion of the image

Remove. I can't read German. Hence the picture doesn't add to my understanding of the article's topic. However I expect that this picture might be helpful in the analogous article in German Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove. I agree with Axl. I can read German somewhat, but the picture does not enhance my understanding, unlike the lead one. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A translation in the caption could solve this problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: I have given the detailed rationale in Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to discuss the imagery in more detail (if only in the image summary). The crustacean representing cancer (Krebs means both crustacean and cancer in German) and the devil singing "so appetitlich frisch (ca. so deliciously fresh) as "Propaganda" (this is a reference to a Bergmann cigarette slogan/jingle/advertisement, btw). I'm forced to wonder, also, if reading the German is unnecessary, why we are using such a high resolution (742x1,080)? I'm able to read and see everything in the right column (the meaningful one) at my 200px thumbnail preference; see WP:NFCC#3B. Also, if we're dotting Is and crossing Ts for FAC, the copyright holder should be attributed (NFCC#10A). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolution is unrelated to German language. The purpose of the image is that readers can understand how a Nazi anti-tobacco journal looked like. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However I will say I do not have any strong opinion here, and if other editors think the image is inappropriate, I will remove it after a consensus is achieved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus seems to be for keeping the image. Hence I am closing the discussion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

"Consensus"?

I accept that the "Keep" !voters present good arguments. However three good quality "keeps" vs. two good quality "opposes" does not represent "consensus". Rather this discussion should have closed as "no consensus". Axl (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last lead sentence

"The world's first public anti-smoking campaign was more powerful and serious than the anti-tobacco movement in Germany at the end of the 20th century."

Perhaps I'm simply not fully awake, but this is hard to read. I understand it to mean the Nazi anti-smoking campaign was better than the modern anti-smoking movement in Germany. This should be said another way, such as "The current anti-smoking movement in Germany is not as forceful/powerful/effective/visible as the Nazi anti-tobacco movement." - RoyBoy 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence "The anti-smoking movement in Germany even at the end of the 20th century was not as powerful as the Nazi anti-smoking campaign". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Image

Is is reasonable to discuss replacing the image of Hitler, or removing it altogether? Do we really need an image of AH in this article, first of all, and, if we decide we do, does it have to be so, -well- iconic? Isn't there a photo of him picking his nose or something somewhere on the web? I would suggest that the image adds nothing to the article. And, as this is a neutral article, with regards to the Party itself, it may be less than fully appropriate to have an image of the Party leader that is clearly complimentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.81.205 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the image is to illustrate the article. It is added in a relevant section Hitler's attitude towards smoking. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, accepted as valid that there should be an image of AH. My final point was: does it have to be such a complimentary one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.81.205 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does there have to be an uncomplimentary? That would be POV-pushing.... SGGH ^speak! 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of supply

I find it disappointing that this article still has no mention whatever of the fact that Germany was unable to access tobacco through the war years because of the naval war, and consequently had to substitute the atrocious ersatz-tobacco instead. That, along with the difficulty in actually supplying troops with even their basic needs, let alone luxuries like cigarettes, could surely account for the drop in consumption, but this article stills naively asserts it was all due to the Nazi propaganda campaign. Gatoclass (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are asking this question for the second time. I have answered to your question, see this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but you only have one reference which says that, and that reference itself admits that little research has been done into the Nazi program. People do make mistakes you know. I note that article also says French consumption declined even more sharply during the years of occupation than in Nazi Germany. Was the Nazi anti-tobacco campaign also extended to France? Or is the more likely explanation, as for the decline in Germany, lack of access?

I accept that you have a reference to support the statement in the article, but I do think this article is incomplete without at least some discussion of the shortage of tobacco and the difficulties in supplying troops. I mean, German soldiers on the Eastern Front were literally starving at times. The war led to all kinds of shortages. Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your argument, you have raised a good point and a thought provoking question. But right now I have nothing to do because almost all the reliable sources available on this topic is included within the article and none of them discusses this fact. Very few people have researched this topic, this is why there are very few references on it. The only reference on this particular issue (i.e. effectiveness) I have is Proctor. If I can find any reliable source which discusses the issue of effectiveness and its relation with war-time lack of supply, I will add it. Otherwise it will be original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

its not the first

Murad IV, sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1623-40 was among the first to attempt a smoking ban by claiming it was a threat to public moral and health. see the Smoking page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the qualifier "in modern history" makes this still fine. There were other bans historically, but this was the first serious attempt in the past few hundred years. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide, when modern history started. The introduction is simply POV. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the article Modern history, there is a definition of Modern history. Modern history refers to the history of the Modern Times, the era after the Middle Ages. I completely failed to understand on what basis you are saying "The introduction is simply POV". The fact is supported by a reliable source Science in the Third Reich by Margit Szöllösi-Janze, professor of history at the University of Salzburg. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First Two Sentences Contradictory

As noted in the second sentence of the article, there were public anti-tobacco movements from the start of the 20th C, for example in Illinois in 1907. The first sentence claims that Nazi Germany led the first campaign. Nazi Germany, under any history I have seen, did not exist then. Possibly this should be ammended to 'first successful public' or similar? Mharward (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is not saying it was the first anti-smoking campaign, the first sentence is saying it was the first public anti-smoking campaign. The campaign by Nazi Germany was characterized by attempt to influence the public (though the use of almost all government-public interaction means), not only by implementing laws. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did it help loose the war?

Can't seem to find the source that said this. Anyone seen it?Peas & Luv (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought attacking the Soviet Union and declaring war on the USA would have lost them the war, any source that says the anti-tobacco movement lost the Nazis the war isn't worth referencing.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

repulse

i must say, looking at a picture of Adolph Hitler on the main page of wikipedia... is of such great repulse at this times of history... In an article, where the inhumanity of Nazi facts is not at first hand mentioned. I am deeply sorry some people condemn cigarette or any other kind of drug or even petty vice abuse. But, im afraid every nation and human rights defender person has a right on this matter. We cannot allow any issues defended under the nazi flag. Any, for that matter. It's inmoral, it's repulsive. This will be taken to the higher levels of Wikipedia, i so hope. Maybe tomorrow we will feature an article on the dissapearing of Roma, Iranian or whichever race or habit by nazi standars. Im enraged at this, and this, should be answered by ethical standars of Holocaust denial. I might have missed the whole point of the article, yet it doesnt look so clear, nor does Adolph Hitler's picture in the main page (Abestrobi (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, what is your objection? This is an article on the 'Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany', anything repulsive the Nazis did isn't particularly relevant to the article, even so you will notice their anti-semitism is mentioned in the article as the Nazis used Jews in this propaganda piece as was their custom.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Abestrobi, I think, as you yourself say, that you "might have missed the whole point of the article"! This article is not the place to condemn the terrible things done by the Nazis. There are plenty of relevant pages in wikipedia for that. I'm sure it must be hard to accept by some people that evil/totalitarian regimes actually managed to do some good/useful things (even if for the wrong reasons and even if vastly outweighed by the bad things they did) but facts are facts. So if the Nazis were the first to do a major anti-smoking campaign, it has to be recognized, no? (They were also the first to build modern motorways were they not?) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When a member of the Yehudim faith opens wikipedia this is how they are to be greeted?!?!?! A picture of the evil aryan races number 1 :@:@:@:@ THIS IS DISGUSTING!!! Anyone who advocates an article which PRAISES ANY FORM OF NAZISM/ARYAN PRIDE IS A NAZI AND MUST BE SOUGHT OUT AND NAMED AND SHAMED!!! :@:@:@:@ We cannot allow any issues defended under the nazi flag!!! I will be taking this further, anyone who supports or supported this pathetic excuse for an article will get theirs!!!58.107.179.146 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Wikipedia is NPOV, and thus does not advocate or support anything. This article does not approve of either the Nazis or their anti-tobacco campaign. Brutannica (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you react in such an enraged way, you should maybe give some things a second philosophical thought. What should somebody think who sees today's featured picture about work on an "A-31 Vengeance dive bomber" and whose siblings and mother burned to death because of the allied attacks. Thousands of children were deliberately burned to death in the allied bombing raids against civilians.
So what it ends up to today is the following – mankind is divided in absolutely good on the one side and absolutely evil on the other – therefore ALL actions are looked upon not according to the nature of the action but who was the actor. What do Americans know about the hundreds of thousands of girls and women – mothers, sisters, and daughters who were raped after "the good side" won? Who knows about the millions of Germans and East Europeans who were butchered after "the good side" won? If it ever enters articles it's downplayed because of the modern commandment not to relativize the guilt of "the evil side".
It's not in the media and you're not close to personally told stories.
Sadly the world stays the same – just count the murdered and the wars since 1945 or before 1900.
Greetings, 217.236.224.46 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NPOV, saying that Hitler is "disgusting and evil" is POV, not to mention one-dimensional. SGGH ^speak! 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, I echo the sentiments from further up the page, this article is an excellent job :) SGGH ^speak! 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on rationing

Just thought I'd mention, since it's on the Main Page, that:

The Nazis also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising, tobacco rationing for women, and smoking in public spaces, and they regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.

...isn't a featured-quality sentence. Does someone want to fix? [I'm not watching this page]. AndyJones (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your alternative suggestion? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. How about:

The Nazis also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising and smoking in public spaces, introduced tobacco rationing for women, and regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.

...? I think the problem with the original is pretty obvious. AndyJones (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, the Nazis actually prohibited tobacco rationing for women, not "introduced tobacco rationing for women". The structure of your alternative suggestion, which is not so different from the previous structure, is ok except the tobacco rationing for women part, I will add this removing that particular part. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another point: "Pregnant women and women below the age of 25 and over the age of 55 were not given tobacco ration cards during World War II." Shouldn't that be over 25 and under 55? I don't think there would have been many pregnant women over 55. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The Nazis targeted two groups:

1. Pregnant women
2. Non-Pregnant women

Actually the sentence means pregnant women were not given tobacco ration cards during World War II; women who were not pregnant were also not given tobacco ration cards during World War II. In case of women who were not pregnant, the age structure was below the age of 25 and over the age of 55. The age structure only applies for women who were not pregnant, not for pregnant women. All pregnant women, regardless of their age, were not given tobacco ration cards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I get it now! My misreading. Thanks! Harry the Dog WOOF 12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

most influential vs. not effective

I think it is contradictory to claim, that the campaign was the most influential of 20th century, and on the other side to claim, that it was not effective. That smoking declined during war time has probably something to do with the war. Proctor himself writes, if I remember correctly, that the NS government stopped or interrupted the campaign during the war in order to enhance public morale. --Alex1011 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Powerful movement does not mean it have to be completely effective. According to Proctor, it was the most powerful movement during the 1930s and early 1940s, but it was not as effective as expected. It is wrong to claim the movement was completely ineffective, it had some degree of effect. The Nazi anti-tobacco campaign was also more powerful than the present day anti-smoking movement in Germany. This means there is an anti-tobacco movement in Germany, but the campaign the Nazis started was more expensive and larger (in terms of government expense, use of the mass media, legislation effort, propaganda etc.) than the present day movement; the Nazi campaign involved the mass media and almost all government machineries, see the measures section. It was not so effective does not mean it was not larger in size than other contemporary movements and the present day movement in Germany. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Youth Division

I'd have to find the reference, but I believe the 12th SS "HitlerJugend" Division - made up largely of underage teenagers from the Hitler Youth movement - were denied tobacco rations and were actually given additional hard candy rations in lieu, a fact often mentioned in their divisional histories. In the context of this article (great article, by the way - this is why we have Featured Articles, I think, for I had no idea this existed) - it makes even more sense, now.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a good information. I have added the reference properly. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the information on 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division by Hubert Meyer, 2005, ISBN 9780811731980, published by Stackpole Books, states:

“ Efforts by departments at home to provide additional rations were unsuccessful. The troops were supplied with the regular provisions by the supply offices of the Heer. However, the recruits were not issued with tobacco products but received candy instead. ”

I have reworded the information properly per the reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation?

By way of comment: odd that such an excellent article does not have a counterpart on the German Wikipedia. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)