Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/Truth in the advertisement of tobacco

Hi! I think we need to focus more on TRUTH in the introduction and it seems like there are too many disciplines. The word limit is only 1200 words!Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking on writing about teenagers in the sociology section. Also, do you think the fact that people trusted doctors should be included in the medical section or in the psychology section? Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that it is important to talk about bans, prices and taxes and how effective they are (or not)? Or is that off topic? Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph about research on tobacco is the great way to link it to ban and regulations. However, we should not go into to much details about it because it does not refer to "truth". We should say that given the true facts based on science knowledge discovered in the 20s century, government had to react to prevent citizens, and then introduce regulations and the ban of advertising. Claramichel18 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree! I did consider discussing law as another disciplinary approach, but it is probably just not as relevant; since its primary focus is not truth or advertisement; it is however good if we mention how at the end governments tackled the issue of truth in advertisement by banning it/putting restrictions on it (due to also increased medical research, and more and more "undeniable facts")Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I cut this out :

2.1.	Sociology Peers (age, family, social class, ethnicity…) individual who is being targeted? Why are some ppl more affected? More susceptible to be targeted. Advertisement in a way (we see the cigarette)

2.2.	Psychology media (movies, series ex Peaky Blinders) global who is being aimed at?

One of the popular examples was mitigating negative effects of tobacco, or even making claims of positive effects on the smoker's health. Popular examples are advertisements using medical professionals as advocates for smoking - physicians assuring you smoking Luckies protects the throat; reduces irritation and cough, doctors recommending Camel cigarettes or advertisements proposing cigarettes as a way of losing weight. Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

other stuff that was cut out : In the past objective truth was an issue due to two things: lack of actual research or simply false information spread by tobacco firms in order to increase their profit.

With increasing medical research through the century, and more and more universally recognized negative health effects related to smoking, governments tackled this issue by various restrictions on advertising - resulting into a complete ban of advertising tobacco products in most countries at the end of the century. Moreover, recently there has been an increase in anti-advertising, with vivid images of smoking related diseases on the boxes, different warnings about smoking, etc. One of the successful anti-smoking campaigns took place in Florida, where their anti-smoking advertising campaign, the so called “truth” campaign, "exposed the duplicity and manipulation of the tobacco industry"[2]. This became “truth’s” rebellion. By making truth a brand they successfully exposed the marketing techniques of tobacco firms, that promoted misleading information about health effects of smoking. Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Medical Approach In the 1920's and 1930's doctors noticed a rise of lung cancers. Upon asking the patients questions, they realized that most of them were smoking, encouraging research of the smoking related causes of lung cancer. They published their article in 1950 stating that smoking had negative health consequences, lung cancer among them. Since then, more research has been done. In fact, « In 1990 the US Surgeon General concluded that smoking was the most extensively documented cause of disease ever investigated but governments worldwide have been ambivalent and slow in taking action to reduce smoking. ». (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00483.x). The biological approach to smoking has been taken seriously by scientists who have investigated the issue. Nowadays, it is undeniably true that smoking has major health consequences such as breast cancer, ectopic pregnancies, heart diseases and more.

regulations (taxes, bans...) because of truth. MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES, RESEARCH, HOW TRUTH (FALSE CLAIMS) AFFECTED PUBLIC HEALTH, RESTRICTIONS (LAW?) Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Marketing techniques (economic view?)- Women

- Children, infants

- selling sex, more attractive

- cartoons (Camel) for children

- health claims (inbetween)

- teenagers

Truth was an issue in the advertisement of tobacco for the large part of the 20th century, since lack of research and lack of universally accepted facts allowed tobacco firms to incorporate misleading and untruthful claims in their advertisement to appeal to the consumers. The issue of truth in advertisement of tobacco had and has a far-reaching consequences as discussed in medical and sociological approach. By studying the methods of marketing in tobacco industry through historical and psychological perspective, we can see the truth as a big issue with many implications on individuals, interpersonal relations, and society as a whole.

SourcesLumos394 (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

..... Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

https://cejph.szu.cz/pdfs/cjp/2011/02/03.pdf I'm adding this link to an interesting article about how tobacco advertisement is targeted at women.Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I cut out the law approach that we were thinking of writing, as we said it is not link to our work much.

I edited some of the intro and the historical approach, however it is still not there yet. Also when I tried to upload some images as examples I couldn't, because of the author's rights I guess - you can either search for the images already used in wikibooks (where I did not find anything relevant to our topic) or you can upload them if you have special status as a Commoner or Administrator or something. We should ask Nicola how we can do it, if we can do it, since images would be great to showcase the examples.Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I also went over the prominent figures part in psychological approach; now, for women I do not have that much material, I have babies to attract them, losing weight claims, and cigarettes as a way to make them more attractive. This might be enough, but I do not have an actual research how this affected women's consumation of cigarettes if you know what I mean. I haven't read your article yet, but is there something in this way?

Also, we need more sources and citations!!

+ sociological approach can be incorporated to the psychological one, I just do not know how to do it in the nice manner - since we mention targeting different social groups, etc. - but it is obviously connected with psychology. It might be best if we just stick to psychology alone?

Moreover, I have problems with medical approach. It is a big topic, but we still have to link it to the advertisement and truth, and it also comes at a very end, while we already talk about certain medical issues. Should we might put it in the beginning? Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the article now, it looks promising! Did you maybe pick some points out of the things that might be relevant to the topic? Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So, we have one major thing to do - we have to focus more on the truth within the discipline - so for example, how psychology sees truth, and why it is not enough, and we need also the "truths" of other disciplines for example from medical approach. I will replace the historical approach with medical one, since in terms of the truth that makes more sense (as we discuss). Then we have therefore two major disciplines: medicine and psychology and truth (objective and subjective) within them. Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Perfect!! I think it's also interesting to use the terms we saw in the lecture: normative, subjective,objective, empirical truths...as it will reinforce our arguments.Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Perfect for the "introduction" about truth in our disciplines, it is very clear and well linked to our subject. Well done team ! Claramichel18 (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hard with the picture adding, at worst we would not be able to add any. Anyway, I sought it was relevant for our work and show evidence of 20's century advertisements.Claramichel18 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I found a good website for the women's section!! It also shares a lot of images that illustrate our point. Take a look at the "believe in yourself" image http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images.php?token2=fm_st025.php&token1=fm_img0541.php&theme_file=fm_mt012.php&theme_name=Targeting%20Women&subtheme_name=Let%27s%20Smoke%20GirlsMariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, I also found out how to insert images! Thanks for the link!Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So I managed to insert the images and write the descriptions for them; I will work on the psychological approach and provide maybe a bit more and then introduction and conclusion. We also need more references and research supporting the claims and make a list of sources. But otherwise we are good:)Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

final touches
Did some revision, I think we are almost there yet, though I think we need to more clearly explain our claim/reasoning in advertisement aiming at women.

Also references and sources! Lumos394 (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to do the sources by 9 pm tonight, so don't worry about it!

And also, I proofread our work and corrected some mistakes

We need to check word count tonight!!

other than that, I think we did pretty good!:) Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I just counted all the words we have ( putting out pictures caption and everything that will no count at the end). We have 1228. I don't know if this 30 words more is an issue. Do you think ?Claramichel18 (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I took care of that, we should be at 1177 words now! I think we really have to respect the word count!!I also made sure the word structure was okay:) ahh sorry, I wasn't logged in with my username!! But it was me who typed this!!Mariablackburn (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)