Talk:Philip Morris USA/Archives/2015

Untitled
19/9/08 This page reads like a business statement, not an unbiased encyclopaedia article; not that I have any idea on how to change it but I assume a smarter person could rewrite this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.133.155 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Untitled 2
"Corporate Position on Health Hazards" sounds like it's written by someone working at the company to promote a positive image or something along those lines. In any case it's ridiculous that it's such a large part of this (admittedly short) article, especially as Philip Morris spent decades denying the health hazards of tobacco and only admitted that there are some in 1999... 86.50.3.60 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No part about controversy over Philip Morris's ads that target young kids? Furthermore, I believe that the anti-smoking commericals is because of a court case.


 * Yes. As I recall, it was part of some sort of settlement... Did some looking around, and the Master Settlement Agreement must be the one, though it's a bit short... I'll put a little context next to the "related links" section so people know why it's relevant. 192.211.25.9 06:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That was me back there. In any case, nevermind on the "adding context" thing, since I'm not sure how to handle this... Logically speaking, Phillip Morris wouldn't stand much to gain from anti-smoking ads except as an image tactic--they're a tobacco company. I'm thinking it's that they were required to run those Joe Chemo ads because of some agreement. I'm not sure it's this Master Settlement one, though... The current article on that is a mess and I'm uncertain as to how I'll get a balanced picture, and whether the rumors on the Settlement page are true. I'm now confused as to what the Settlement actually is at this point.


 * Blah. The main point is that it's going to be hard to connect the antismoking ads and that paticular settlement without some outside verification, and a lot of stuff out there is either biased or unreadable. Does anyone know what the heck is going on with this ad situation? Kennard2 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)