Talk:Smokeless tobacco

Disambiguation
Make this a disambiguation page linking to chewing tobacco and dipping tobacco? Jmz9466 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this should not be a disambiguation page at all. All of the links are to different products that are simply types of tobacco that can be consumed without being smoked. The phrase "smokeless tobacco" only appears in a single one of those links. Would anyone object if I turn it into an article? bd2412 T 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Top image
If there's no objection, I'm going to place the historical Schnupfer painting as the top image, but keep the other one on the page. The current image isn't really a very good one (nor accurate in what it claims to portray). It's also what looms large with a hovering pop up, and to be honest, with the unnecessary snarl, it's a bit jarring. Smokeless tobacco, for better or worse, is also a long standing part of human culture, and I think that this, along with the Edison film, displays this quite well. Like I said, the image will be retained until a better and more accurate one can be produced. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No Evidence
There is no evidence whatsoever that smokeless tobacco is linked to any form of cancer. Those references should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.39.0 (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you a paid spokesperson for Big Tobacco? LOL MightyArms (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As of the most recent IARC monograph, "Smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)", based on sufficient evidence in humans and animals. So... no. I could add the monograph to the article though? --tronvillain (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing information
The last four sections of the article, Effects on Pregnancy, Management, History and Public Perception, were very hastily written with poor, fragmented writing. The first two sections should be part of the Health Effects section above.

ALSO, the neutrality of the page could be questioned, but I am not sure on how Wikipedia wants to position itself. The Safety section both says that smokeless tobacco has a 1% mortality risk to cigarettes, and then also goes on a fragmented rant on how it isn't safe. Not that it is, but it seems that the safety profile is being understated in lieu of more traditional scare tactic messaging.

Lastly, the over-use of the word "chemicals" is tiring and a holdover from scare messaging. A more accurate term would be carcinogens. Note that the carcinogen article does not abuse the word "chemical" in its composition. Oxoferryl (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)