Talk:Altria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Altria has purchased 100% of NJOY.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/03/09/altria-group-inc-acquiring-njoy-holdings-inc.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.204.68 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altria bought NJOY on Monday 6th of March 2023. Just google it. If you do not believe it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.204.68 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3th of March 2023: Altria Exchanges Minority Stake in JUUL Labs for Heated Tobacco Intellectual Property Rights

https://investor.altria.com/press-releases/news-details/2023/Altria-Exchanges-Minority-Stake-in-JUUL-Labs-for-Heated-Tobacco-Intellectual-Property-Rights/default.aspx?_gl=1*uvwzat*_ga*NDM1MzkwMjUwLjE2NjA2MjY3MTE.*_ga_C2S9D1BW3S*MTY3Nzk2MjM4NS40OS4wLjE2Nzc5NjIzODUuMC4wLjA.


AB InBev ?[edit]

How much? Altria also maintains large minority stakes in Belgium-based brewer AB InBev. What is a large minorty stakes?

Altria owns ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV 185 115 417 + ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV (ABI) 12 341 937 (together 197,457,354) shares from AB InBev 1,982782 billion shares all together.

AB InBev ?[edit]

How much? Altria also maintains large minority stakes in Belgium-based brewer AB InBev. What is a large minorty stakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:BF0D:A400:953F:FBD:A2E:8258 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helix?[edit]

What about this Altria company? Helix Logo In 2019, Altria announced an agreement to acquire 80% ownership of certain companies of Burger SÖhne HoldingAG, based in Switzerland, that commercialize on!® nicotine pouches globally. In December 2020 and April 2021, Altria subsidiaries closed the transactions to acquire the remaining 20% of the global on! business for a total of approximately $250 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:BF0F:6400:20C4:5702:493B:4881 (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


United States of America v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.[edit]

This article contains virtually no information regarding the September 22, 1999 lawsuit filed against Phillip Morris Inc. by the United States of America. Subsequently, there is no unique article about this very lawsuit. I am inclided to incorporate the lawsuit in this article but I would like to hear any objections from the community.

There is a unique article to this lawsuit. It just wasn't specifically against Philip Morris, but against the companies as a whole. I don't know how to do this, but you should add a "See also..." for the Master Settlement Agreement (and probably reference it somewhere in the article). The MSA is the lawsuit against the tobacco companies in 1998 at the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a short article, however. Perhaps if someone here has the time, they can work on it? Smokeresearcher 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dessources 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I removed the section on lawsuit, since it contained mostly anecdotal information very loosely connected to Altria and was generally misleading. The story of the "insider" Jeffrey Wigand concerns Philip Morris in only a very, very indirect way. Wigand worked for Brown & Williamson and his whistleblowing and struggle were related to B&W. Since then, Brown & Williamson has been acquired by R.J. Reynolds and completely merged with RJR. A section on lawsuit is probably needed.[reply]

Bias and Neutrality[edit]

"The article contains almost nothing positive about the company as well. Isn't that a basic definition of neutrality?"

Virianflux: No actually, it's not, it means it's less *likely* to be biased, but that's just a heuristic. True neutrality would be to say that this company has a big ethical issue, they do sell things that do kill lots of people, they aren't alone in it, but they are a part of it, criticism is valid, and required, it is the duty of the Wikipedia to not exclude important information like that. People shouldn't have to dig deep to get obvious facts about companies, the Wikipedia is meant to provide people with relevant information, a key criticism of the Altria Group, cited by many, many organisations and people, is that they are affiliated with lawsuits and unethical behaviour, this should be reflected in the article, if it is not, we are doing something wrong. Since it is a clear criticism, and is pretty important, it should also be a prominent part of the article. People feel free to ensure this is so, and if you don't you are violating the principles of the Wikipedia. Virianflux 11:51, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

This article contains basically nothing negative about the company. There a link to Lung cancer in the "See also" section, and a mention of the "tobacco liability problem", but that really isn't enough. Most articles on major corporations, including ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, and Microsoft contain summaries of the criticisms and allegations made against the corporation. There should be plenty here. Also, the paragraph about the name change to "Altria" sounds like it was taken right out of the press release. The article should be more neutral there, and it might even be desirable to point out critics' opinions of the name change. --Joel7687 20:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, "See also: Lung cancer" on an article about a corporation is extremely negative. It's not criticism, it's not a comment, just a pointer saying "this company is evil". There should be links to tobaco, and from tobacco to lung cancer. However, a "Criticism" section should be added.
But still, I do not think the article is biased. It contains factual information only, as far as I can see. Jobjörn 16:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco use seems to be a 'hot issue' these days. No matter how nuetral, favorable, or unfavorable the article is, someone will object. --Zapato 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a criticism section is necessary on the basis that other corporations' articles have them. Find me one alcohol companies' page with criticism about liver cancer or cirrhosis on it. There shouldn't be discriminatory inclusion or exclusion of critisism based on people's perception of the product the company makes. We have to set a standard on the inclusion of criticism. For this type of criticism I propose that the product critisicm belongs in the page specifically about that product. Links to that criticism can be contained on the company page, but it isn't necessary to duplicate that information here. What would be relevent criticism on the company page would be a quick summary section of the major lawsuits against the company to highlight the troubles they've created because of their product and lack of adequate warning labels. -JJH

Hi, I've just added a section about criticisms and litigations. Acrilico 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Added more info in the Allegations section
Can we remove the dispute tag? Smoking is linked to negative effects and this company produces smoking related products. Just because Wikipedia remains non-biased, does not mean it cannot report on negative and unethical things a corporation does. Selling a product which increases the rate of cancer in its users, is addictive, causes discomfort, and almost certainly would not be made legal were it to be introduced today is largely unethical and Wikipedia's policy of neutrality does not mean it cannot be included in an article. - Kuzain 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Calling The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition an "astroturf organisation" seems like a weasel word. C. Kilpatrick (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The organization had a stated strategy to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition" (source on main page), which I believe is the definition of astroturfing. If the source is valid, it's quite a good example in fact and should be left in. Mattximus (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue[edit]

Can I get a source for this article's quoted revenue of the corporation in 2004? Currently this article states it to be $89.610 billion USD from 2004, but Yahoo Finance says 63.963 billion for the same year [1]. Thanks. Kurieeto 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some information on Philip Morris himself, the man, most of all how he died? I heard a rumor that he died of lung cancer but couldn't find anything to support that on the internet... though I strangely couldn't find anything on him, everything I found was on the company. Can anyone clarify?

Hi, I've just added some new stuff who tries to answer to this question: "I'd like to see some information on Philip Morris himself, the man, most of all how he died? I heard a rumor that he died of lung cancer ": In fact, it was the actor who announced Marlboro in the fifties (the one who was the protagonist of the photographs for Marlboro's publicity) died of lung caner. And I'm not sure, but I think it was more than one announcer of Marlboro who died of lung cancer-Not sure, but at least one died of that. And I'm not sure of the exact date, I've written "in the fifties". I think it was many years ago, many decades ago, to be exact. This "many" means at least forty years ago. A.Anso (jlanso@yahoo.es) 14 Jan 2006, 20:11 (GMT)


Philip Morris the man did not die of lung cancer

-Indeed. While the details of his death are somewhat fuzzy due to the time he lived in, he definently did NOT die from lung cancer. It is interesting to note however that Morris died somewhat shortly after he started his company. --146.148.99.37 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revenue information on the front page is out-dated. If you view the Altria Group 2005 annual report (http://www.altria.com/download/pdf/investors_AltriaGroupInc_2005_AnnualRpt.pdf), you can see that their net revenues were 97,584 (in millions of dollars). Dragnilar 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free stuff[edit]

Is it true that Philip-Morris gives out free cigarettes to minors at youth-targeted concerts? No this is absolutely untrue and is probably a rumor spread by anti-smoking groups to show how bad and evil tobbaco companies are, it is against the law to distribute tobbaco freely, while providing tobbaco to minors is a criminal offense with immense litigation risksRajatster 12:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)Rajatster

Oh, so the bad guy isn't the tobacco companies who are in the business of selling a high priced ADDICTIVE death to lower class and impoverished people who are going to smoke regardless of any I-Decide or Just say No campaigns because that is just the world they live in, and the tobacco companies know it. It's those anti-smoking groups, boy. Those evil rumor-starting little scumbags. Heck, didn't Jesus Christ say something about not starting rumors? I'm gonna start smoking tomorrow just to spite those anti-smoking gossiping hens. Thanks for clarifying. --not a wikipedian and never will be, so no sig. sorry--
This was a practice in the U.S. in the past, but is now illegal. I last saw such a thing in downtown Milwaukee, perhaps twenty years ago. But it was not peculiar to this particular company, and is thus irrelevant and inappropriate to an article about this particular company (and I say that as a virulent anti-smoker).--Orange Mike 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Once here in Mexico our whole classroom went to visit one tobacco factory, and they gave us a bag full of cigarrettes, to each one! We were about fifteen years old. And our teacher was there.

EDIT: Just reading the above comment, is an offense to give it freely? They gave it to us free of charge, and I'm telling the truth. And it's not just me, the whole classroom was there.

Acrilico 05:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps laws are different in Mexico? Also, how long ago did this occur? 68.64.43.101 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this happened about 12 years ago, aproximately in 1992.

Being honest, I don't expect much from the law in Mexico. Too much corruption. Acrilico 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the laws in Mexico may be different. There is also a concern in the U.S. with this kind of practice and more than violating state laws (which it would), such a practice would also violate the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The Attorneys General in various states often receive information that companies are breaking the agreement, though usually these issues are resolved before any litigation. Because the penalties in the MSA for such behaviors are pretty minimal, there may be a question of whether a tobacco manufacturer might take a calculated risk in breaking the MSA. Here is a copy of the MSA if anyone is interested. 68.11.44.167 18:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have also been given free cigarettes in pubs in both Bandung Indonesia and Amsterdam Netherlands. But to be fair I have been offered Camels (from R.J. Reynolds) as well as Marlboro and I did not witness any given to minors. I last saw this in Amsterdam a few years ago and they were well organised campaigns with attractive women dressed up like brands of the cigarettes they were promoting (skintight suits not box shapes :). In both places the promoters were going from bar to bar in touristy areas but In Bandung Indonesia they also distributed 'sample' Marlboros outside the cinema of the big mall there. spoonman

Hi spoonman, thanks for the info, I also have seen this kind of "advertising". My personal opinion is that companies are in need of new markets, why? Because the laws are getting tighter and tighter in many developed countries, so they need new clients. And also, their "old" clients are dying, that's why we see this more and more. Also, the laws in underdeveloped countries are lame to none, so they have a great place to grow.
Take for example these two new markets: The "black/color" (no offense) people, and older women. They have specific advertising to these two groups.
I remember a teacher from University; he, being a person with deep knowledge of statistics, told us once that there was an increase in older women (40+) smoking.
Damn i'm angry :( Acrilico 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altria's Origins[edit]

Did Altria start in 1985 (sidebar) 2003 (body) or as far back as 1955 (Fortune 500 has data on them online going that far back). Whats the source for the 1985 date??? What did Altria do in between inception and 2003? Thanks 128.193.8.12 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just vaguely remembering this from working there, but I believe that they paid some marketing company a lot of money to come up with the name (can anyone confirm that)? I just mention this because perhaps we can use that to determine Altria's origin? Forbe's Fortune 500 must be combining PM and Altria in dating the company info back as far as 1955... even 1985 sounds way too long ago to be correct (?)

128.193.8.12 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

Err, there are several Australian philip morris brands missing, if I can recall Peter Jackson is philip morris owned (or by Brittish American Tobacco, can't remember), but also Longbeach, they also sell Marlboro and Benson's here as well.

Please add them! :) Acrilico 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see the point of having the company headquarters address in the article, or at least in the body? Perhaps people would want it at the end for reference, but it detracts from the article as a whole. Dcteas17 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dcteas17: Not that I feel strongly, but I think the idea in this case is that people are recognizes the large correlation between PM/Altria, the American South, tobacco, culture/law variation associated with this and etc. But again, that's just my assumption as to why other people mention the fact that it is concentrated in the South, particularlly Richmond. It was, until recently (the past several years), the largest employer in that city, for instance.

128.193.8.12 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is an article from tobaccodocuments.org [2] which is a deposition transcript where they talk about a survey of kids (10-17 years old). Apparently the survey found that (among those who recognized Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald, respectively) a higher percentage were able to link Joe Camel with Cigarettes than Ronald McDonald with hamburgers -- this despite the official line that RJR doesn't advertise to children.

Just to answer the first question. Yes, they do target children at large youth concerts. This will not be found in the US but it is found in many countries such as India where there are less restrictions on tobacco. Yet, the tobacco industries morals should still be in tact. I suppose it it hard having morals though when selling a deadly product for a living. A product that puts a strain not only on health care but the economy as a whole. Although it causes a strain, I have recently read an article where it was less expensive to just let people die instead of trying to overcome their diseases. Just thought I would share 216.159.169.116 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Adifferentperspective216.159.169.116 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benson & Hedges[edit]

Benson & Hedges are listed as a product of the Altria group, however, taken from the B&H link "In the 1930s, Benson & Hedges (Overseas) Ltd. was established by Abraham Wix to handle overseas trade. This branch was acquired by British American Tobacco in 1956. Today, British American Tobacco markets Benson & Hedges throughout Asia and the Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand, but excepting Taiwan and the Philippines. They also own branches in the Middle East and Africa. B&H is popular amongst young smokers in Australia."

I think the same might go for West as well - I'm 99% sure it is not PM


There are two different brands of B & H. The British American Tobacco brand and the Philip Morris Brand (Sold only in the US market).

60 minutes interview[edit]

I've removed the all caps comment above the interview and captioned it. I also changed the section heading to be more reflective of the content. I wonder though if the interview is really constructive in the article. Cheers, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell is the 60 minutes interview? --139.179.219.47 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get real here...[edit]

Look, this name change should be noted and little else. Cigarettes kill people and this company knows it but America does not outlaw tobacco so just report the facts about the CORPORATION and, it you want to outlaw tobacco, then please do it elsewhere, like at Wikia or something like that. And please do not explain WHY the Corp did something the this or that acquisition: just report the acquisition and let it go at that. -- 75.24.111.183 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger[edit]

Looking at the article on the Altria subsidiary Philip Morris USA I note that it adds little information that's not in this main article, and the few additions are largely informally written, and only one section (i.e. this. If the PMUSA page were an extensive breakdown of the company's tobacco history, etc, I could certainly see reasons for keeping it separate, but as it currently exists it's little more than a stub that can be used to flesh out this main article. -Markeer 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for editors consensus, so setting this as a straw poll:

Philip Morris misspelled brings you here.[edit]

Hi,

This is my first ever Wikipedia post. Just noticed that you get to this article if you do a search on "Phillip Morris". This is a misspelling of the tobacco company. It's Philip Morris and that should point to another page on Altria.

Thanks.

24.37.131.35 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section gone?![edit]

Is this some kind of joke? ... Brodder 08:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this article was a byproduct of someone from the atira group editing as the product lists were almost completly wiped out as well i took the privilage of restoring those the critisism page should also be reintroduced danieljackson (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article should be "locked" so that hacks at altria p.r. firm don't have to spend as much time keeping the page's pov on each of the company's deeds "neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.132.146 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning...[edit]

Plans to split off Philip Morris' international operations: Wall Street Journal article. MastCell Talk 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off is now complete [3]--24.20.76.114 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

This page is nothing but advertising for the company: it provides virtually no information except a long list of their tobacco brands, one per line so they stand out. This is nothing but subversive advertising by a bunch of criminals who make their money off the misery of others and have lost legal avenues to promote their wares. Why is this page not being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.11.4 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

This page is nothing but advertising for the company: it provides virtually no information except a long list of their tobacco brands, one per line so they stand out. This is nothing but subversive advertising by a bunch of criminals who make their money off the misery of others and have lost legal avenues to promote their poisonous wares. Why is this page not being removed? 119.11.11.4 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturfing[edit]

Regarding this sentence here;

Altria also funded astroturf organisations such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition which lobbied against the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.[21]

Problems;

  • it is phrased to suggest that the example given is one of more. However the reference cited only deals with this one, and make no mention of others. We either need cites of others, or the plural on organisations, and the "such as", should be removed.
  • the term "astroturf" does not feature in the cited reference.
  • defining an organisation as an "astroturf organisation" is a opinion that should be properly attributed to appear here. If the source has this opinion, then it should be clearly attributed to the source.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about phrasing, that seems like a reasonable change. However, the organization does engage in astroturfing. Now, are you proposing this term be eliminated from all wikipedia articles? It is a term with a concrete definition. This organization fits that definition. There are many articles that state this. The most reliable is probably [4]. This article quotes memos involving Philip Morris explicitly stating that they want to create fake citizens groups to oppose tobacco regulations and also global warming denial. That's what astroturfing is. I think removing the term or assigning it to an author's opinion will make this organization seem legitimate, and with a name that contains the word science, we need to make that distinction very clear. Mattximus (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that Wikipedia does not append terms to organisations, especially pejorative ones, that are not from any cite. If there are many articles that state Altria creates astroturf organisations, plural, then please cite them. Until then, this article shouldn't be saying it, and certainly shouldn't be suggesting whether an organisation is "legitimate" or not. Our only responsibility is that we state the facts and let the reader decide. Beyond that we have opinions that should be attributed, so that the reader may determine their value.
To my understanding, the article you are citing does not say that Philip Morris explicitly stated that the want to create fake citizen groups. It alleges the public relations company APCO, hired by Philip Morris, said it. Yes, Philip Morris could be implicated in this, but there is a difference. And again, this is just one instance. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the "astroturfing" description and implied plural from the article. Left the fact that they funded a organisation, as the cite discusses. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name[edit]

The Latin word for "high" is "altus". For me, however, the more correct word should be "alter", meaning "the other one" or "the opposite one" (which makes more sense when reading the rest of the paragraph). 185.46.214.76 (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Altria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced[edit]

The following is unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall. Please note that per WP:PROMO Wikipedia articles are not proxies for the company website.

Brands


Holdings

Altria Group, Inc. owns 100 percent of Philip Morris USA, John Middleton, Inc. and Philip Morris Capital Corporation. It also owns 28.7% SABMiller PLC, one of the world's largest brewing companies, where it has 3 seats on the 11-person board of directors.

Below are the current financial highlights of Altria:

Activity Net revenue
in 2016
(millions USD) 		Net revenue
in 2015
(millions USD)
Change '16 vs '15
(%)
Total Net Revenues $25,744 $25,434 1.2%
Total Operating Income 8,762 8,361 4.8%
Net earnings attributable to Altria Group 14,239 5,241 171.7%
Basic & Diluted EPS attributable to Altria Group 7.28 2.67 172.7%
Cash Dividends declared per share 2.35 2.17 8.3%
Smokeable Products

Net Revenue

$22,851 $22,792 0.3%
Smokeable Products

Operating Companies Income

7,768 7,568 2.6%
Smokeless Products

Net Revenue

$2,051 $1,879 9.2%
Smokeless Products

Operating Companies Income

1,177 1,108 6.2%
Wine

Net Revenue

746 692 7.8%
Wine

Operating Companies Income

164 152 7.9%

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old name (Philip Morris Companies) in lede sentence[edit]

I have added the old corporate name to the lede sentence, but feel free to discuss here if you disagree. Thanks! Minding (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News from 2023[edit]

Some guy always deletes the news from 2023. This is insane. 2003:F2:BF0D:A400:B830:DC39:348:2B41 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It´s missing news about Juul and news about NJOY Njoy belongs to Altria now. 2003:F2:BF0D:A400:B830:DC39:348:2B41 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Altria&oldid=1204763860"