Courtesy of a fellow jewel robber via e-mail, the talk section of Wikipedia's plain cigarette packaging page shows signs of it being distinctly one-sided.
I have added new information to this page, on the evidence and arguments for and against plain packaging, and a link to a Cancer Research UK campaign site that contains more information. A disclosure - I work for Cancer Research UK, who are actively lobbying for plain packaging. However, I hope the information I have added to this page will be seen as an attempt to enhance its usefulness, and I welcome constructive criticism about how this can be improved. I don't want to get into a fight over this! :) HenryScow (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Hmm, that would surely be kicked out on Wikipedia's principle of neutrality, wouldn't it? Apparently not, no.
Thanks for improving the article, Henry: it's definitely relevant to have info about anti- and pro- plain packaging campaigns in the UK, including that of a major national charity such as CRUK.So Henry had another go in July, just after the consultation - which his employer was deeply involved in, and beginning to realise was foundering somewhat - was extended.
I have replaced the text that stated:Well, if it really is that easy to publish political campaigning literature on a site which prides itself on impartiality, perhaps those evil tobacco companies and their all-pervasive buckets of cash might have done so earlier, eh? After all, the moderator has specifically stated that info on anti-plain packaging arguments would be equally welcomed.
Because it hasn't been implemented anywhere yet, all the evidence available to date is anecdotal and based on statements of intentions or surveys.With a paragraph stating:
Direct, concrete evidence of plain packaging’s effectiveness is unavailable as it has not yet been rolled out in any country. However evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion.
It's not like there isn't a huge amount of evidence showing that the pro-plain packs campaign - including Cancer Research UK - is corrupt, fuelled by state funds, and peddling biased untruths, is it?
Anyone good with Wikipedia?