Talk:RAW (rolling paper)/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Advertisement?
This article looks wery much like an advertisement, and contains little real information about the product, and does not discuss the quality of the product. vidarlo 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The article was since redone and edited by multiple users to acheive an unbiased non-ad article. Thus the ad warning was removed, hopefully no other ad text will cause this warning to come back --Mrtobacco 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the article had to be reworked to remove substantial POV. 64.178.101.32 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- MrTobacco, I'd be glad if you did take the issues raised seriously, and not remove the notice, until it is indeed fixed. It is not a personal attack of any kind.vidarlo 10:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section claiming research showed unbleached papers as superior, as the link was to a Health Consultant page showing no research data. Feel free to revert if I missed something. --Randomdestructn 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
2007 Discussions
I removed the section claiming research showed unbleached papers as superior, as the link was to a Health Consultant page showing no research data. Feel free to revert if I missed something. --Randomdestructn 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. However the text is useful so I put it back up with corrections. I hope you approve, if not please post and let's discuss it more. Please check your user page, I put up something else that I would like to discuss. --Mrtobacco 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No I am not that other user, but do whatever you wish. I feel no need to defend myself. Re: the page, I still feel that the claim in bold, to some random 'health consultant' doesn't belong. I find your accusation that I am somehow affiliated with a brand and protecting some personal interest a bit humorous, as it really seems like thats what you're doing here. I thought that claim was unfitting enough to make removing it my first wikipedia edit. I guess what we really need is another wiki'ers opinion on it, as I don't think we're going to get very far. --Randomdestructn 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that you (Mrtobacco) uploaded the picture with permission of the 'brand owner'. Could you elaborate on this, as it seems to support my theory. --Randomdestructn 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just like the many other images I have posted, I simply email the company via their website and ask permission to post their image on Wiki. This is S.O.P. for many Wiki images - if you were a Wiki writer you would understand. The text was put in bold because another writer had posted that a different rolling paper was the 'healthiest', when it was really made out of cellophane. That really offended me and so I did some research and then posted the text as you see it. I'll change it from bold since that seems to be your issue with it. If you have anything you would like to add (as oppose to remove) then please do this. I encourage you to contribute to Wiki (but Contribute does not mean negate or delete). Perhaps there are topics you would like to write about that have personal meaning to you or what you have done with your life (if you're old) or maybe what you plan to do (if you're young). Search Wiki for topics that interest you and please contribute! If you are in Oregon and would like to attend a Wiki user meeting please let me know and I will send you the info on your talk page. If you are in a different area again just let me know where and I'll have that user group post to you. --Mrtobacco 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some believe that those cellulose papers are more healthy. I see the page you're talking about. I think you would greatly add to your credibility if you cited actual research, and perhaps more than a single source. --Randomdestructn 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some? How can the burning of a bleached clear glycerin mixed Wood-Cellulose at 30gsm be more healthy then any 12gsm white or unbleached paper? The sheer volume / thickness of the Cellulose papers is 150% thicker then a Rizla Silver or the Raw papers. Just being realistic, how can a paper that is 2.5 times thicker, meaning it will yield 2.5X more smoke / carcinogens be healthier?
--Mrtobacco 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
October 2007 argument between Onyx86 and Mrtobacco
In hopes of making this article less like a promotional piece, I have removed the claim that RAW papers are healthier than other tobacco rolling papers. The reference link leads to a "health consultants" report on Dioxin, mentioning nothing about the healthiness of smoking RAW papers. The health consultant also mentions that they do not respond to emails or phone inquiries, which seems suspicious. Their are also some concerns about the contributing authors Conflict of Interests with this product. [1]Onyx86 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This ia an archive and I am not going to waste any more time arguing with this person who is paid to post here. This page will be listed for Speedy due to the profanity, sock puppet posts and personal attacks (which am also guilty of attacking)
