Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Nominator(s): Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it covers the matter wholesomely. The article is listed as a History good article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support well written artice on a topic most know from trivia questions. One thing. Some sentences seem to be long and slightly choppy. I will not give particulars, just as a general note. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Sources looked good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply Hi, thanks for the comment. But I am not sure where the problem occurred. I have checked the article, but cannot point it. Could you please give the cite numbers with which the problem occurred. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that I found them with a footnote, but I click on the "edit this page" tab and scroll to the bottom where the templates used are listed. It lists both Citation/core and some of the cite templates. Are you trying to link the footnote itself to the bibliographcial entry with citation? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Further, it's your {{cite journal}} refs. The journal articles use the cite template while the book ones use Harvard, which relies on citation. You can't use Harvard with the cite templates. Hope this helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Since this is my first FA nom, I am bit confused. Are you suggesting I should replace all the Harvard referencing with {{cite book}}? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. If you want to use Harvard, you need to not use any cite templates. So you'd need to replace the cite journals with the appropriate form for Harvard (I don't do Harvard, so I can't help you there.). Alternately, you can replace all the Harvards with the cite templates that are appropriate. Or you can type all the citations out manually. (That's the option our Sandy prefers). You just can't mix up the Harvard style citations with using the {{cite journal}}, as I'm told it can cause occasional glitches in formatting. Does that make sense now? I'm not going to tell you which style to use, I really don't care, I'm just letting you know that you can't mix the styles, that's all. Hope this explanation makes a bit more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • This one is more complicated than the norm: I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany#Referencing system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I have changed all the references to citation format. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments: This is a very interesting article, and one that I think has promise. I'm not sure it's written as clearly as it can be, however, especially as to the why Nazi Germany was initially anti-tobacco, even before the researching. A few suggestions (I haven't read the entire article as of yet):

• The first paragraph of the lead seems to repeat itself a few times. "led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history" and "It was the most powerful anti-tobacco movement in the world in the 1930s and early 1940s" could easily be combined and condensed.
• The Nazi leadership condemned smoking[5] and several of them openly criticized tobacco consumption. Why?
• the most important research on smoking and its effects on health was conducted in the Third Reich. What effects?
• Anti-tobacco sentiment and criticism of smoking..." again, why? What does this entail?
• These groups started publishing journals critical of smoking. This sentence is confusing; that were critical of smoking?
• This opposition to alcoholic beverages remained significant for the anti-tobacco campaign by the Nazis. How so?
• However Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco was not the main cause behind Nazi anti-tobacco movement; it was only one of several catalysts behind the anti-smoking campaign. Why is this sentence at the very end of the section? It doesn't act as a hook because the next section switches gears entirely; perhaps it can be moved to the beginning as an introductory transition?
• "Reproductive policies" sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Some of it contains areas of research while most of it has to do with social stigma pregnant women received if they were smokers. I suggest incorporating the information elsewhere or finding a unified purpose for its existence.

That's it for now. María (habla conmigo) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Response I have made a slight rewording in the lead. However the sentence It was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world in the 1930s and early 1940s bears a different message than the opening sentence, This is why I kept it as it is. The three main points in the first three sentences are 1. Nazis initiated first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history, 2. it was the only government sponsored successful anti-smoking campaign at that time and 3. It was the most powerful anti-smoking movement.

• The reason Nazi leaders were against smoking was that it was the Reproductive policies of the Nazis which were a significant factor behind Nazi anti-tobacco movement. To answer the exact question why, I have to add it if this has been discussed in WP:RS. But the sources do not explain this particular fact, only mention this. But you will understand it in the later paragraphs where the reasons for the anti-smoking movement is described.
• The effects of the most important research on smoking and its effects on health is described in Research section. You will find several effects, for example, to prove the link between lung cancer and tobacco, first case-control epidemiological methods, finding general causes behind lung cancer like dust, exhaust gas etc etc.
• Anti-tobacco sentiment and criticism of smoking I don't understand the reason behind your question. The answer is petty much simple because it is harmful to health, this is why pre-Nazi activists criticized it. The section Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign actually describes anti-tobacco activities by non-Nazis in pre-Nazi Germany, thus it is a short background of the Nazi anti-tobacco activities.
• These groups started publishing journals critical of smoking, I have properly reworded the sentence These groups started publishing journals advocating nonsmoking.
• This opposition to alcoholic beverages remained significant for the anti-tobacco campaign by the Nazis. This is what Proctor is saying. It is because the Nazis, apart from opposing tobacco, opposed consumption of alcohol also. Actually there was a parallel anti-alcohol movement in Nazi Germany.
• However Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco was not the main cause behind Nazi anti-tobacco movement; it was only one of several catalysts behind the anti-smoking campaign. Actually the sections Hitler's attitude towards smoking, Reproductive policies and Research describe the factors which motivated the Nazis to implement anti-tobacco measures. Hitler personal attitude was a major factor behind their anti-tobacco movement, but it was not the only factor, This sentence is clarifying this fact.
• Although the "Reproductive policies" section is short, it is important one and as mentioned in the section, Nazi reproductive policies were a significant factor behind their anti-tobacco campaign. This section gives a view why the Nazis were so eager to implement anti-tobacco laws. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments An interesting read, but

• I don’t like all the refs in the lead, don’t suppose it’s a big deal
• The combination of very short sentences with very long paragraphs doesn't make for easy reading
• This world's first public... as opposed to which world?
• first group in the country named the Deutscher Tabakgegnerverein... something missing here, presumably anti-smoking
• Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM).^[22][14][26] and others, could you put refs in numerical order?
• Any soldier in the Wehrmacht was not given more than six cigarettes a day. What?
• The number of people who used smoke 30 or more cigarettes per day presumably to smoke
• Controversies I don't like two subheadings, each of only one para
• Refs as above

Hope this is helpful, jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Response I don’t like all the refs in the lead, don’t suppose it’s a big deal Actually all the information added in the lead, the references are supporting those information. If I don't give the references, many of the information will remain unsupported by third party reliable source. Also the lead summarizes the rest of the article, but it has vital information where the references are necessary.
• The combination of very short sentences with very long paragraphs doesn't make for easy reading - I have merged some small sentences for a better flow. If you think some more sentences needs some rework, please tell that.
• This world's first public - properly reworded The world's first.

  done

• first group in the country named the Deutscher Tabakgegnerverein... something missing here, presumably anti-smoking

  done

• Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM).[22][14][26] and others, could you put refs in numerical order?

  done

• Any soldier in the Wehrmacht was not given more than six cigarettes a day. What? Properly reworded the sentence Cigarette rations in the military were limited to six per soldier per day.

  done

• The number of people who used smoke 30 or more cigarettes per day presumably to smoke

  done

• Controversies I don't like two subheadings, each of only one para

  done

• Refs as above

  done Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAC instructions on the use of graphics (I've removed them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very interesting! one question, article contends that smoking policy was succesful due to reduction in production of cigarettes and number of cigarettes smoked by army during 1943 - 1945. Is it not possible that reduction in amount smoked and produced was due to embargoe, rationing and bombing raids? I find it hard to believe that a Wermacht soldier on the eastern front of 1943 - 1945 would give a damb about health effects of smoking, the stress must have beem enormous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.68.56 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some other editors also asked this question. May be lack of access to cigarettes was a catalytic factor behind decline in tobacco smoking. But per this reference, The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. It is necessary to add information according to WP:V and WP:RS which is done here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the lead is making assertions the rest of the article doesn't, it's not a summary. That's bad structure. (As a minor note on other bad structure, the article by Proctor should have its own line in the bibliography. How often is it cited?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply There is no assertion in the lead which is not discussed in the article.
  • If so, then there would be no need for footnotes in the lead. Assertions only need to be sourced once. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you want to discuss about the statement Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history. This is a single line fact and the description of the movement is discussed in the article. Please look at the featured article Encyclopædia Britannica. The lead of the article has references and states It is widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopedias, but it does not explain why it is perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopedias? The reason is that it is a one sentence fact. I have followed the structure followed in the featured article Encyclopædia Britannica. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history

• This is a historically significant and most important fact regarding Nazi anti-tobacco movement and I think the lead is the appropriate to mention this. This has been discussed later i.e. what was their strong anti-tobacco movement.

Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century, but these had little success, with the only exception being Germany, where the campaign was supported by the government after the Nazis came to power.

• This is an elementary fact mentioned in the lead.

It was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world in the 1930s and early 1940s.

• Another important and elementary fact.

The Nazi leadership condemned smoking and several of them openly criticized tobacco consumption.

• Another important and elementary fact.

Anti-tobacco research thrived under the Nazi rule and at that time, the most important research on smoking and its effects on health was conducted in the Third Reich.

• Discussed in detail in the Research section.

The anti-tobacco campaign established by the Nazis included restrictions on smoking in public spaces, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, restrictions on tobacco advertising, promoting health education, imposing restrictions on restaurants and coffeehouses, banning smoking in trams, buses and city trains, limiting cigarette rations in the Wehrmacht, organizing medical lectures for soldiers and raising tobacco tax.

• Discussed in detail in the Anti-tobacco measures section.

The anti-tobacco movement did not have much effect in the early years of the Nazi regime and tobacco use increased between 1933 and 1939, but total tobacco consumption by military personnel declined in the later years from 1939 to 1945.

• Discussed in detail in Effectiveness section.

The world's first public anti-smoking campaign was more powerful and serious than the anti-tobacco movement in Germany at the beginning of the 21st century.

• Discussed in detail in the After World War II section.

Regarding your second suggestion, I did not understand it clearly. Can you please elaborate? Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article has a controversy section. Normally, these have problems with NPOV; this section is no exception. In particular, "there is some controversy" is rather weasely. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is controversy, then it should be mentioned. How on Earth mentioning a controversy associated with the Nazis is violation of NPOV? Will it be POV to mention in the article Nazi Germany that the Nazis killed 6 million people? I have removed the "some" to fix the weasel word problem. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The core problem isn't fixed yet. Why not rename the section "association to anti-semitism"? Reading the section, that's the only thing that's in the section. It's a fact that it was associated with antisemitism (antisemitism in its dictionary form, not any skewed-by-culture form). I see no evidence that's a controversy exists. If it does exist, name proponents. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the clarification makes sense. Now it is clear to me. I have properly renamed the section Association with antisemitism and racism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few edits to the section to remove the weasel phrase and to make it flow better. Support now. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, referenced and comprehensive. Axl (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments on images - Fair use rationales are insufficient and I am unconvinced the article requires so many fair use images (see WP:NFC):

• Image:German anti-smoking ad.jpeg - "to illustrate the article" is not sufficient - What function does the image perform beyond this and how does this image significantly increase the reader's understanding?
• Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg - "illustrates points of the article" is not sufficient - What points? How does the image significant increase the reader's understanding?
• Image:Tabak-Kapital.gif - "to illustrate the article" is not sufficient" - What function does the image perform beyond this and how does the image significantly increase the reader's understanding?
• Image:German cigarette production.jpeg - "to illustrate the article" is insufficient - I would suggest making this graph yourself and including a reference to the source in the article description page. There is no need to use a fair use image of this graph.

I'm sure we can easily fix these issues. Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The images simply describe the efforts of the Nazi Germany to stop smoking. Two images (:Image:German anti-smoking ad.jpeg and Image:Tabak-Kapital.gif) are anti-smoking ad, and one image (Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg) is about the cover page of the main Nazi anti-tobacco magazine. I have slightly expanded the fair use rationales of these three images. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These rationales basically say the same thing, however. You need to provide compelling reasons why these images are essential to the article. Why must images be used, for example? Why aren't words sufficient to describe what is in the ads? Please read WP:NFC. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The images are needed to depict the anti-tobacco efforts by the Nazis. The Nazis produced many anti-tobacco ads and "posters showing the harmful effects of tobacco were published" as written in the article. The images are necessary to illustrate the anti-smoking ads published by the Nazis which were part of the anti-tobacco measures. The Nazis published several magazines advocating non-smoking and spreading warning on the dangers of tobacco smoking. One of this journal was Reine Luft, the image of the cover page of the journal is included in the article to illustrate one of Nazi anti-tobacco journal. The images pass the 10 policies as required by WP:NFC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are the following: WP:NFC 1 (two of the images indicate they might be PD because of age and need to be checked and might be replaceable with a PD image), 3a (why do we need all three images plus the graph?), and 8 (why are the images plus text necessary to convey the ideas in the article?). Please note that "Posters, programs, billboards, ads" can be used "for critical commentary". The fair use rationale must briefly explain that critical commentary. Importantly, one of the kinds of fair use images listed as unacceptable is "A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data." Please read the policy carefully. I'm sure we can find a way to work within it. Doing so is important to protecting Wikipedia legally, which I am sure we all want to do. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about removing all the posters, other than the fist one? 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Including one is fine, but whichever one we include must be discussed in the article ("critical commentary") in such a way as to necessitate having the image. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the images except the first one. But unfortunately regarding the graph, I cannot make it because I am not well-versed in making graph or chart, I will need help of someone other for the graph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with removal of Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Critical commentary is not required, that is only one way FU can be met. This poster directly pertains to the subject of the article and illustrates precisely what is being talked about. This is precisely what FU is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)