Talk:TheTruth.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"The Truth campaign has not proven to be effective. Smoking rates among youth have decreased dramatically since the campaign was first introduced. But it has been shown that youth these days do fewer illegal activities such as crime, drugs, drinking alchol, etc. and are much more intelligent than older generations because of the usage of the internet. None of these things have happened as a result of the Truth campaign." This is in the article without any sources or references cited, its completely biased and unencyclopedic tone aside. 24.199.113.234 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"much more intelligent than older generations because of the usage of the internet"??? Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing. 75.19.180.211 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore it IS effective? This is the same kind of correlation=causation argument that kills every attempt at rational public discussion of health issues.

"Regardless, the Truth campaign has proven to be effective. National smoking rates among youth have decreased dramatically since the campaign was first introduced." This requires a source.Xombie 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    • more than a source, it needs to be removed. Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc is still a logical fallacy last I checked.CodyM 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This claim does have a source. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health shows that the truth campaign was responsible for 22% of the decline in the youth smoking rate between 1999 and 2002. Also, the Wall Street Journal did a very good analysis of the study. While the American Legacy Foundation may have gotten ahead of itself in saying that the truth campaign was the sole cause, it seems clear that the campaign is certainly a significant contributing factor. Here are the links to the study (abstract only, full version has to be paid for) and the Wall Street Journal article:

-http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/425
-http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB111107526788482378-W9FMmrLm_u2CdjCnkpgDV3Y4e8U_20071216.html?mod=blogs


Are the descriptions of every Truth advertisement really important to this article? They feel redundant and needless. 24.29.81.74 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There were many more Truth advertisements than that. Some of the ones aimed at Spanish speakers were so hilariously badly translated I laughed aloud.

I've made a new page for the Truth advertising campaigns.

[edit] NPOV

This article is so blatantly NPOV. This is the last section of the article:

"In at least one of the commercials, an analogy between murder and smoking were made. Which, while smoking may kill much more than murder, most people who are murdered don't make a continuous, constant decision on the process of the murder. Relatively, another commercial used an example of the corrosive nature of sodium hydroxide; what they failed to tell you, is that many of our every day products are also created with this common base. Do we condemn salt because it's partly composed of chlorine?"

Do I need to say anymore? --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" area of this article needs to be re-done. The only factual part could be the "Race" paragraph. The rest sounds like defense on the cigarette's side.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7ETheTruth.com_a9c7.html"