Talk:TheTruth.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The latest truth commercial? Well as an intelligent person its an assault on my intelligence. How on earth can you isolate that tobacco itself is causing these deaths? What about pollution from cars (which is 1000 times more toxic), or pollution from industrial plants, (abandoned and in present use.) by private and gov. entities, or the chemicals in our drinking water, or the residue radioactive particles, or the side effects of Pharmaceudical drugs. It smells fishy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.219 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"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.

Contents

[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.

TheTruth has been the target of criticism. This criticism cannot be ruled out on the basis that it is helpful to the tobacco (or smoker) lobbies. Joestella 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section definitely needs to be expanded.

Okay, I did a bunch of work on the article to try balancing it out. I added "Support" and "Awards" and cleaned up what I could on the Criticism. FrostedTheFlake (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

      • The very first line of this article is wrong. Truth is not anti-smoking, it's anti-corporate tobacco. They work against the companies who manufacture the products and try to expose their inconsistencies; they do not target the people who use the product. That is the key difference between the Truth campaign and every other anti-smoking program out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.122.34 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the section on "Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Campaigns." The last sentence says that the study never even mentions Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.155.103 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Just coming to this page and reading it sounds like it is definitely on the cigarette defense. Some revisions need to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.77.207 (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed some of the criticisms for this reason. The "graffiti" section cited no sources, so who knows who is actually criticizing the use of Graffiti, other than the author of section. As far as legitimacy of Graffiti art...Keith Haring, anyone? I deleted it. I also completely rewrote the last criticism. The other one just linked to someone's blog (and the author even misinterpreted that). The study actually said that while many ads weren't effective, even counter-effective, some were effective. It's unclear from the study what camp thetruth.com fell in, but the section did not reflect that. Ugh! FrostedTheFlake (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How could they miss the World Trade Center comparison?

This article levels many criticisms, but does not explain the timidity of many anti-tobacco campaigns. Consider that the collapse of the World Trade Center caused the tragic death of 2,750 people, while tobacco claims 1.4 million lives annually[1]. Comparing one year of tobacco fatalities with one thousand World Trade Towers seems too obvious to miss. In fifteen years the World Trade Towers equivalent to tobacco fatality rates would cover every square inch of Manhattan, and the simulated collapse of even a third of that number would be a most memorable image for television. Instead a visit to their site yields only a cow-milking game. Are they serious? Mike Serfas 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain that mathematic[s]? I had thought that "multiply by ten" would mean to move the digits to the left by adding a zero or moving a decimal. Are you counting one tower, two, or the several neighboring towers?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whadfxup

Every time that I look, I find that it is impossible f/ me to figure the meaning, the definition, of "whadfxup". Someone should write about who had coined this, & why.

truth_(disambiguation)

the_Truth

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. {< http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth >; < http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?truth >; < http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?reality > } The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

reality_(disambiguation)

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist."

I do find it difficult that reality & truth seem to share the same operational space far less often than they should. An excellent start would be an agency calling itself "truth", explaining any word [or phrase &/or term], such as "whadfxup".

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The website presents statistics or 'truths' about smoking. 'What the Fuck's Up' is a way to appeal to a younger generation as it is somewhat edgy for network television. the_undertow talk 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did they start their new ads?

It went from Whathefxcksup to "The Brighter Side of Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.62.107 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to their press release, January 22nd (http://americanlegacy.org/2191.aspx) --Mblumber (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)