Talk:Skoal tobacco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ííííííÔÜThis page has a large POV problem. The article was obviously written by someone who was strongly biased against this product. I removed some of the more obvious POV problems (messages written in bold font, or typed in all caps), but a lot more work is needed. DaveTheRed 04:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have done a nice job cleaning up the POV language of this article. Would you object to removing the POV dispute template from the article, or do you still have specific concerns? On a separate note, it seems to me that the article now has mostly language that needs copyediting and is perhaps in need of an image. Also, the "health concerns" section is a bit short (compare to similar sections for cigarettes, for example). Is there a separate page about the dangers of tobacco products that would be more apropriate to link to in lieu of the very very short current section? --ABQCat 10:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After removing an offending sentence or two, I've decided to remove the POV template, as I think this article is much closer to NPOV. The Health Concerns section needs to be expanded by someone who knows more about Skoal than I do. Dave the Red (talk) 18:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree there are major problems with this article. It should be specific to Skoal, not Dip in general. Also the Health Concerns sections is unsubstantiated. There is evidence that Dip is safer than Cigarrettes, look into the Swedish experience. Kfort 3 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article name

It seems to me that the article should have a different name. Maybe "Dip (tobacco)" or something like that. This title seems far too specific. Joyous 16:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think this was meant to be an article about the Skoal brand of dipping tobacco. The tobacco article already has a section on snuff, which mentions Skoal. I would recomend finding more information that is specific to Skoal, rather than generalizing the article to include all dipping tobaccos. Dave the Red (talk) 18:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikified?

I basically grabbed a random article from Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified and it happened to be this one. I've tried to clean it up a little, added a reference, and added an external link. If the article indicates any POV (or anything else goofy), please feel free to make any changes you see fit. As I said, I more or less stumbled into this article, and made a few quick changes. --Bugwit grunt 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ʑÁÉ

www.lostjaw.ca is a horrible site it dosen't contain unbias information about Dip anyone have a better sight with a better POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.175.230 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is "Straight'

What supposed flavor is added to make a tobacco "straight" flavored. I have been a dipper for years and I still have no idea what "straight" means. Although some say it is simply unflavored, that is not true as cope snuff or long cut is unflavored tobacco, and straight is a completely different concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.154.56.139 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

On that topic, what exactly is Classic? I think it tastes like a short-circuited vacuum cleaner, if you can imagine that. I think straight is just USSTC's way of marketing basically the cope snuff flavor under the skoal name.--214.13.212.180 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a straight fan but I think it is supposed to be a little sweet isn't it? --JaymzRR 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Straight has its own flavor. it almost smells minty and is sweet, and stronger than most other flavors (but not mint, ha ha) Superbowlbound (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Straight is sweet. Cope has a "straight" flavor in addition to regular cope. I would say Skoal Natural is their attempt at the Cope market. I'm thinking both brands' "straight" is an attempt to get the sweet almost raisin-ish taste of old-school chewing tobacco that comes in a bag/pouch (such as Beech-Nut). --Lmusielak (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levels of nicotine in certain flavors?

"As with other types of tobaccos, there are different graduated 'levels' of Skoal products, marked by how much nicotine is in the certain flavors, or styles. Flavors such as Spearmint, Mint, Wintergreen, Classic, and Straight contain large amounts of nicotine, thus people say they are the "strongest". Berry Blend, Apple Blend, Peach Blend and Vanilla Blend do not contain as much nicotine and is refered to as "weak" or "beginners chew""

I don't know how accurate this section is. The more traditional Mint, Spearmint, Class, Straight, Wintergreen etc. are considered more "Manly" dips, but due to the processing the tabacoo goes through when strong flavor is added, some of the fruit flavored dips may actually have more nicotine content.

I think this is completly bogus. My guess is the poster has heard those are referred to as the strongest and just thought up a reason. They are often "stronger" only in that they have a much stronger tobacco flavor, or rather less "fruity flavor" covering up the tobacco flavor. But I've never heard various flavors of Skoal have different levels of nicotene.--JaymzRR 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no health concerns with skoal. It is perfectly healthy. It's the stuff that turns people into wolves.


i use Skoal and thats all so i dont know about other tobacco products but from what i have hered is that dip contians more nicotine than 5+ cigs per dip. I dont know if this is true or not.

In regards to the person talking about nicotine leves and Stright skoal, in my experiance stright seems to be a little more powerful than the wintergreen i have in now. id also like to know where in pennselvania i can get some of the watermelon flavor. -thekramer

I'm not sure of the exact numbers off hand, but I live in Canada and here all of the dip cans have the amount of nicotine listed on it as part of the government warnings which show levels of nicotine, nitrosamines, and lead in smokeless tobacco products. The levels listed here aren't accurate. I know for a fact that the two with the higher nicotine content, which is listed in mg/gram of tobacco, are Wintergreen and Straight. But some of the newer ones are right up there, I think mint is among the lowest. Wintergreen is 28.1 mg/gram. Maybe someday I'll save a puck of each and add the actual numbers lol. But the common perceptions people have that the classic flavours are stronger and the newer blends are weaker isn't accurate. Same thing goes for how people always argue that Copenhagen is stronger than Skoal, though other factors like listed here such as surface area also have an effect, I know for a fact that regular Copenhagen long cut has less nicotine than most of the common Skoal flavours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.101.239 (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bandits/Pouches

Recently, US Smokeless introduced a new form, called Bandits and Pouches.

This is incorrect. I remember seeing Bandits available as far back as 1994. That's hardly recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BravosquirrelX (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pouches, and even more recently Bandits, were rereleased much more recently- early 2007- which i believe is where that line came from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.116.210 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bandits definitely predated pouches. Can't find a reference, but I know when pouches came out everyone was wondering how they were going to be different then the already available Bandits. If you can find a reliable reference please do. That is just my anecdotal memory. Lmusielak (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health issues

Cacaphony - You removed any mention of health concerns for skoal tobacco. Your reason is that it is not encyclopedia appropriate for the specific entry. I disagree, primarily for two reasons. One, that skoal tobacco is largely synonymous with dipping tobacco, as seems apparent from the dipping tobacco article. Two, that if it is appropriate to describe the flavours and packaging of the tobacco that surely it is equally relevant to mention health concerns over its use. Perhaps the article should be simply merged with dipping tobacco. Your input is appreciated. Halogenated (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How are the health concens specific to Skoal? The stuff that I removed was very general and seemed to be a rehash of the health section of the dipping tobacco article. If there are health issues that are specific to Skoal tobacco then they certainly belong here, but this isn't the place to discuss health issues of using dipping tobacco. Cacophony (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because they apply to dipping tobacco as a whole does not negate their relevance to discussion of skoal tobacco specifically. If skoal is described separate from dipping tobacco, this point needs to be made on both pages. At the very least a note linking skoal to the health section for dipping tobacco should be applied. Otherwise, the skoal article should probably just be incorporated into the dipping tobacco article, as there is little specific to skoal tobacco that does not apply to dipping tobacco as a whole. Simply describing the different flavours and shape and type of packaging is hardly worthwhile as a separate entry.Halogenated (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about one particular brand of dipping tobacco and should only contain information specific to that brand. Global issues related to dipping tobacco belong on the dipping tobacco article. I think that talking about the health issues related to dipping tobacco on this page is contrary to WP:SOAP, which states: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda. Your concern and wanting to put a health disclaimer here is not consistent with a neutral point of view. Cigarette brand articles (such as: Marlboro (cigarette), Lucky Strike, Camel (cigarette), KOOL (cigarette), Winston (cigarette)) do not contain discussions about the danger of smoking tobacco, and likewise articles about brands of alcohol (for example Jack Daniel's, Smirnoff, Sloe gin, Jägermeister, Captain Morgan) don't contain discussions about the risk of drinking alcohol. Why should brands of dipping tobacco be different? Cacophony (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked over the same articles you mentioned, and I noticed it seemed somewhat odd to me that they did not have specific health sections either, although the article on cigarettes contained some mention in the introduction and a few other places. Not to mention some of the articles (e.g. Marlboro) were written terribly as well and need some serious work. I see your point re WP:SOAP, but I don't agree that it constitutes propaganda or advocacy provided it is not written to suggest one should not use the product, but rather this type of product carries inherent known health issues that in current contemporary society are irrevocably tied to it - that would certainly be a NPOV. It is simply an important characteristic of skoal that is as relevant as the flavours and textures it comes in. Neither of these characteristics are unique to Skoal either. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing skoal tobacco as an entity separate from dipping tobacco period. In fact, as I suggested, the only differences are a few varieties of flavours, packaging, and the name. AFAIK it carries no real significance in terms of culture and history, and is therefore not worth more than a cursory mention on the dipping tobacco page. If you have information to prove otherwise, go ahead and write it up, but as it stands it is barely more than an advert. Halogenated (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy

This article is spam, pure and simple. It should be speedied. Bielle (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (criteria #11 states: Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.) How, specifically, does this article fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability and/or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines? If you would like to nominate it for deletion you may do so at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Cacophony (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
All this "article" does is describe a product. There is no cultural hook, no social significance. There are not even any claims for notability, other than, and we are stretching "notability" here, its age. It is localized in its sales, according to the article itself. There is nothing on its page that could not be found on any advertisment for the product or even on the packaging itself. It is just advertising placed here by editors who may or may not be part of the company or its distribution network. At best, it is one of a group of similar products generally lumped under the heading "smokeless" or "chewing" tobacco. Not only would this need to be "fundamentally rewritten", but I doubt there is enough specific data to make it into an article. I could support the merge, as anything added here to make the article worthwhile would also be applicable to the topic generally, and not, so far as I know, to this product specifically. 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs)

[edit] Merge

I think the subject has plenty of information to justify its own article. It needs to be expanded, not merged. Cacophony (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you plan to add more information? If not, I still move to have this article merged, as it lacks any real substance. Halogenated (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. A lot more on the relationship / sponsorship with car racing could be added. More on the introduction of bandits (I believe they were the first to sell a pouch form of chew). I don't think it needs to be a huge article but it belongs here as much as any other article in Category:Chewing tobacco brands. Cacophony (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - you intend to keep an eye on it for vandalism? Seems to be a frequent target for vandals. I'll keep it on my watchlist too. Also, I stand by the fact that it needs some reference to health concerns. A link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking at the bottom in a Resources section should suffice. Halogenated (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, make that Health issues related to smokeless tobacco - as added.Halogenated (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I also do not think this article should be deleted. I have been working on filling out other dipping tobacco brand pages (Grizzly tobacco and Kodiak tobacco), and I will keep an eye on this article as well to keep it from being vandalized, as well as add more to it as I find information. I just would rather it not be merged. DJ SlimJim(talk) 06:16, 4 December 2007

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Skoal.png

Image:Skoal.png 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) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Root beer Skoal

I have heard rumors that if you send 100 cans of chew into the company you get a root beer chew can. I haven't found any source and doubt it is true. But if any avid chewers know, please tell. Superbowlbound (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is not true, but there are other items to be gotten!! check out www.skoalbrotherhood.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.234.5 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)