Talk:Skoal (tobacco)

message: I basically grabbed a random article from Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified and it happened to be this one.  I've tried to clean it up a little, added a reference, and added an external link.  If the article indicates any POV (or anything else goofy), please feel free to make any changes you see fit.  As I said, I more or less stumbled into this article, and made a few quick changes. --Bugwit grunt 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikified? 

message: What supposed flavor is added to make a tobacco "straight" flavored.  I have been a dipper for years and I still have no idea what "straight" means.  Although some say it is simply unflavored, that is not true as cope snuff or long cut is unflavored tobacco, and straight is a completely different concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.154.56.139 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that topic, what exactly is Classic?  I think it tastes like a short-circuited vacuum cleaner, if you can imagine that.  I think straight is just USSTC's way of marketing basically the cope snuff flavor under the skoal name.--214.13.212.180 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a straight fan but I think it is supposed to be a little sweet isn't it? --JaymzRR 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straight has its own flavor. it almost smells minty and is sweet, and stronger than most other flavors (but not mint, ha ha) Superbowlbound (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Straight is sweet.  Cope has a "straight" flavor in addition to regular cope.  I would say Skoal Natural is their attempt at the Cope market.  I'm thinking both brands' "straight" is an attempt to get the sweet almost raisin-ish taste of old-school chewing tobacco that comes in a bag/pouch (such as Beech-Nut). --Lmusielak (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is "Straight' 

message: "As with other types of tobaccos, there are different graduated 'levels' of Skoal products, marked by how much nicotine is in the certain flavors, or styles. Flavors such as Spearmint, Mint, Wintergreen, Classic, and Straight contain large amounts of nicotine, thus people say they are the "strongest". Berry Blend, Apple Blend, Peach Blend and Vanilla Blend do not contain as much nicotine and is refered to as "weak" or "beginners chew""
I don't know how accurate this section is. The more traditional Mint, Spearmint, Class, Straight, Wintergreen etc. are considered more "Manly" dips, but due to the processing the tabacoo goes through when strong flavor is added, some of the fruit flavored dips may actually have more nicotine content.
:I think this is completly bogus. My guess is the poster has heard those are referred to as the strongest and just thought up a reason. They are often "stronger" only in that they have a much stronger tobacco flavor, or rather less "fruity flavor" covering up the tobacco flavor. But I've never heard various flavors of Skoal have different levels of nicotene.--JaymzRR 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of nicotine in certain flavors? 

message: Recently, US Smokeless introduced a new form, called Bandits and Pouches. 
This is incorrect. I remember seeing Bandits available as far back as 1994. That's hardly recent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BravosquirrelX (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I first tucked a Bandit in my lip in 1988; I remember seeing promotional materials for them at least seven years earlier. Dobermanji (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bandits had existed prior to their final release in the mid 90's. However prior to that they were simply called "pouches."  There was a massive advertising campaign in '95 that directly targeted the typical user, saying in part that the Bandits were cleaner, and less visible than the usual smokeless tobacco.  Skoal took the existing line, rebranded it, and then released it as a new "stand alone" in an attempt to distance itself from the social stigma usually associated among users in regards to pouches. Kitsunedawn (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandits/Pouches 

message: Cacaphony - You removed any mention of health concerns for skoal tobacco.  Your reason is that it is not encyclopedia appropriate for the specific entry.  I disagree, primarily for two reasons.  One, that skoal tobacco is largely synonymous with dipping tobacco, as seems apparent from the dipping tobacco article.  Two, that if it is appropriate to describe the flavours and packaging of the tobacco that surely it is equally relevant to mention health concerns over its use.  Perhaps the article should be simply merged with dipping tobacco.  Your input is appreciated.  Halogenated (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the health concens specific to Skoal?  The stuff that I removed was very general and seemed to be a rehash of the health section of the dipping tobacco article.  If there are health issues that are specific to Skoal tobacco then they certainly belong here, but this isn't the place to discuss health issues of using dipping tobacco.  Cacophony (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because they apply to dipping tobacco as a whole does not negate their relevance to discussion of skoal tobacco specifically.  If skoal is described separate from dipping tobacco, this point needs to be made on both pages. At the very least a note linking skoal to the health section for dipping tobacco should be applied.  Otherwise, the skoal article should probably just be incorporated into the dipping tobacco article, as there is little specific to skoal tobacco that does not apply to dipping tobacco as a whole.  Simply describing the different flavours and shape and type of packaging is hardly worthwhile as a separate entry.Halogenated (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about one particular brand of dipping tobacco and should only contain information specific to that brand.  Global issues related to dipping tobacco belong on the dipping tobacco article.  I think that talking about the health issues related to dipping tobacco on this page is contrary to WP:SOAP, which states: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda.  Your concern and wanting to put a health disclaimer here is not consistent with a neutral point of view.  Cigarette brand articles (such as: Marlboro (cigarette), Lucky Strike, Camel (cigarette), KOOL (cigarette), Winston (cigarette)) do not contain discussions about the danger of smoking tobacco, and likewise articles about brands of alcohol (for example Jack Daniel's, Smirnoff, Sloe gin, Jägermeister, Captain Morgan) don't contain discussions about the risk of drinking alcohol.  Why should brands of dipping tobacco be different? Cacophony (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over the same articles you mentioned, and I noticed it seemed somewhat odd to me that they did not have specific health sections either, although the article on cigarettes contained some mention in the introduction and a few other places.  Not to mention some of the articles (e.g. Marlboro) were written terribly as well and need some serious work.  I see your point re WP:SOAP, but I don't agree that it constitutes propaganda or advocacy provided it is not written to suggest one should not use the product, but rather this type of product carries inherent known health issues that in current contemporary society are irrevocably tied to it - that would certainly be a NPOV.  It is simply an important characteristic of skoal that is as relevant as the flavours and textures it comes in.  Neither of these characteristics are unique to Skoal either.  Otherwise, there is no point in discussing skoal tobacco as an entity separate from dipping tobacco period.  In fact, as I suggested, the only differences are a few varieties of flavours, packaging, and the name.  AFAIK it carries no real significance in terms of culture and history, and is therefore not worth more than a cursory mention on the dipping tobacco page.  If you have information to prove otherwise, go ahead and write it up, but as it stands it is barely more than an advert.  Halogenated (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is exemplary of problematic pages on WP. It reads like a neutralized advertising platform for the product. Skoal is a highly addictive human carcinogen, but there's no mention of that on the page. THSlone (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health issues 

message: This article is spam, pure and simple. It should be speedied. Bielle (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (criteria #11 states: Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.)  How, specifically, does this article fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability and/or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines? If you would like to nominate it for deletion you may do so at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.  Cacophony (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this "article" does is describe a product. There is no cultural hook, no social significance. There are not even any claims for notability, other than, and we are stretching "notability" here, its age. It is localized in its sales, according to the article itself. There is nothing on its page that could not be found on any advertisment for the product or even on the packaging itself.  It is just advertising placed here by editors who may or may not be part of the company or its distribution network. At best, it is one of a group of similar products generally lumped under the heading "smokeless" or "chewing" tobacco. Not only would this need to be "fundamentally rewritten", but I doubt there is enough specific data to make it into an article. I could support the merge, as anything added here to make the article worthwhile would also be applicable to the topic generally, and not, so far as I know, to this product specifically. 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bielle.  I have tagged this article with a Prod, for the reason that it may fail CSD G11 in that it is blatantly advertising the product, describing the tin size, flavours available and all the dfifferent types along with Market share, sales, etc.  IMO this may fail CSD G11 but I tagged it Prod for now and see what arguments people come up with against it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I made the Grizzly tobacco page and decided to help clean this one up. I didn't add anything new, just put it in an easier to read format and deleted some redundant or unnecessary parts. If we are going to have articles on anything commercial than this article should be included. Users from outside of the south may not realize just how pervasive "dip" is. Especially telling is their sponsorship of a NASCAR racing team and College Rodeo events throughout the country. Skoal is notable and culturally significant. If there are going to be articles on different brands of cigarettes than there should be articles on different brands of dip. Tell me what you think!Jim Steele (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy

message: :Image:Skoal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skoal.png

message: I have heard rumors that if you send 100 cans of chew into the company you get a root beer chew can. I haven't found any source and doubt it is true. But if any avid chewers know, please tell. Superbowlbound (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root beer Skoal 

message: I like the direction this page is going.If anyone has any picture of a tin of Skoal, preferably one you've taken please post it. Jim Steele (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got you the picture you need Jim! And it's used tin of Mint Skoal.. Respect..  Xander.Dedeche (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever makes you happy bro.. :) Xander.Dedeche (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking Good 

message: I found this link which is the source for the discontinuation of dry and the intro of snus
http://tobaccoproducts.org/index.php/Skoal_Dry
Derek (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry/snus 

message: There is as of yet no verifiable proof of this coming out. Until there is something in print I'll keep removing it. Jim Steele (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermelon Skoal 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Skoal-10-ct.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: A recent vandalism edit did note that quote "Fine cut is killer on your gums."  While this was a vandalism, as was correctly reported, I wonder if some note should be made on the "mouth feel" of the tobacco.  Meaning the way which it feels when packed in the lip.  Typically, fine cuts such as Copenhagen Snuff, and Grizzly fine cuts (as well as Skoal), have a gritty feeling. Not unlike small grains of sand. I'm thinking including a note on this.  Perhaps something like: "While Skoal does provide a number of fine cuts, the majority of its cuts are a long cut variant. This being preferred by many users, due to the tendency of fine cuts to have a gritty texture when packed in the mouth."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunedawn (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouth Feel