Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unsupported weasel word

"E-cigarettes are widely marketed on social media, where age restrictions are often not implemented.[39][40][41]" Too many sources is a source of confusion. I could not verify the whole sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

By all means remove the word "widely". The sources all mention multiple brands of e-cigarettes or electronic cigarettes being marketed on Facebook. The middle one mentions "92 e-cigarette brands". The lack of implementation of age restrictions is in these quotes:"The researchers found only 48 out of the 108 tobacco brand-sponsored Facebook pages had a safeguard in place to restrict access to minors."(source 39, the CBS one) "Tobacco products are marketed and sold through unpaid content on Facebook — in some cases, without regard for the age of potential buyers... Though Facebook requires restricted access for people under 18 from pages promoting what it calls the “private sale” of regulated goods or services, including tobacco, fewer than half of the brand-sponsored pages included such an “age gate.”... On many of the pages, the researchers found a lack of safeguards meant to prevent access to minors... The platform’s “page terms,” which apply to all Facebook pages, require restricted access to people under 18 from pages promoting the private sale of tobacco products. According to the researchers, it was unclear what was meant by “private sale” and whether the policy would apply to the public sale of tobacco products by commercial entities. Regardless, the study found that a majority of the examined pages — 56 percent of the tobacco-brand-sponsored pages and 90 percent of the online vendors’ pages — failed to incorporate measures to screen out underage consumers..."(source 40, the "Tobacco products promoted on Facebook despite policies" one). The sources all seem to count e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, presumably following the FDA deeming ruling.

Apart from that, I think we can agree that Facebook is social media; if not, feel free to replace "social media" with "Facebook". If you could give me slightly more specific descriptions of your verification issues, I would really appreciate it, as it would save me time spent chasing and documenting irrelevant info. HLHJ (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what to write using what source. This thread shows using too many sources is a source of confusion and is wasting my time (and the readers time) trying to verify failed verification content. I tagged the content with two tags. Moving forward there should be one citation per claim to avoid these problems again. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We could lose the last source, I don't think it adds much. I'd suggest just keeping the middle source, but it's SRITA, so I'd say keep the first two. Two citations for a statement is acceptable, I think, as per wp:Citation Overkill and WP:BLUE. What about the statement fails verification? HLHJ (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the source is making a much narrower claim than the proposed content even if the word "widely" is removed. See "The first source fails to verify "E-cigarettes are widely marketed on social media, where age restrictions are often not implemented." It is about Facebook rather than about social media in general. The content is making a much broader claim the source presented."[1] The source is still useful and can still be summarised. QuackGuru (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to remove "widely" and replace "social media" with "Facebook", that's fine. But there were once sources on Microsoft and Google's networks too, if I remember correctly. They will be somewhere in the article's history. HLHJ (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The following content was deleted: "E-cigarettes are widely marketed on social media, where age restrictions are often not implemented." Three sources were used for the claim. All three failed verification.

I am not interested in adding different sources for a claim when different sources made different claims. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here and here. It said "Facebook" in the latter, too. HLHJ (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See "On Facebook, unpaid content, created and sponsored by tobacco companies, is widely used to advertise nicotine-containing products, with photos of the products, "buy now" buttons and a lack of age restrictions, in contravention of ineffectively enforced Facebook policies." The wording was too wordy. It did not mention e-cigarettes. Thus it appeared off-topic. The same as before, excessive citations were used where different sources made different claims. That sentence also had the word "widely". No content is better then confusing or ambiguous content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example of phrasing that would be less wordy, less confusing, less ambiguous, and mention e-cigarettes? HLHJ (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I can but I won't agree to using more than one source per claim. That wasted a lot of my time reading multiple sources to only find out that all the sources failed to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Having a consensus that SRITA is RS makes this easier. What phrasing and sourcing do you suggest? HLHJ (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Article creator weighs in

Hello, fellow editors. I created this article, on the 26 May 2018‎. It was far from perfect. I was aware that my POV would lead to bias in the article, and I worked to reduce it and deliberately sought review from others. But large chunks of the article have been removed or re-written, and the current article bears little resemblance to what I was working on. The information which was removed was generally that which might produce a negative impression about e-cigarettes. I think that the current article has serious problems with WP:POV and bias as a result.

I would ask anyone editing this article to read the article I was editing. You may dislike it, especially if it does not match your point of view. I hope you will be able to see and use its strengths. HLHJ (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The version you linked to is littered with mass policy violations, including an image that is a copyright violation. The off-topic content such as copying content from Cigarette smoking for weight loss does not improve the article. Content about cigarette smoking and weight loss is unrelated to e-cigarette marketing. The content "E-cigarettes are also advertised as dieting aids." was unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that image was fair use. It was clearly used to illustrate the article. It was also a picture of an ad. It is thus difficult to argue that its presence on Wikipedia will substitute or reduce demand for the original ad.

I should note that I credited the source of my copied text in my edit summary. If you think I even might not accredited anything correctly, please say so explicitly. It is important to me to correct such errors.

E-cigarettes are marketed for weight loss, stress reduction, mood, and insomnia; there is substantial research on the effect of nicotine on these things. I juxtaposed this data with those claims. I think that this is in accord with the RfC above; I am using the best available MEDRS to address the accuracy of the claim. For example:

“Nicotine may in fact be an appetite suppressant; however, getting addicted to nicotine in order to lose weight is widely discouraged by public health professionals.[31]” and

“The American Psychologist stated "Smokers often report that cigarettes help relieve feelings of stress. However, the stress levels of adult smokers are slightly higher than those of nonsmokers, adolescent smokers report increasing levels of stress as they develop regular patterns of smoking, and smoking cessation leads to reduced stress. Far from acting as an aid for mood control, nicotine dependency seems to exacerbate stress. This is confirmed in the daily mood patterns described by smokers, with normal moods during smoking and worsening moods between cigarettes. Thus, the apparent relaxant effect of smoking only reflects the reversal of the tension and irritability that develop during nicotine depletion. Dependent smokers need nicotine to remain feeling normal."[30]”

I later modified the latter to read "E-cigarettes are advertised as good for stress reduction, mood, and insomnia.[35] This claim is true only for those addicted to nicotine, who need nicotine in order to feel normal. Nicotine products such as e-cigarettes temporarily relieve nicotine withdrawal symptoms (which include irritability, anxiety, stress, and depression). However, when people become addicted, they report worsening mood, and people who have broken a nicotine addiction report lasting improvements in mood.[36]"

The sentence "E-cigarettes are also advertised as dieting aids" was unsourced. I can source it (here), and should have. HLHJ (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the image was a copyright violation and you have not shown how the image meets fair use. On the other page two images were deleted.[2][3]

The source tobacco.stanford.edu is unreliable for "E-cigarettes are also advertised as dieting aids."

E-cigarettes are advertised as good for stress reduction, mood, and insomnia.[35] The source is tobacco.stanford.edu. That is unreliable.

This claim is true only for those addicted to nicotine, who need nicotine in order to feel normal. Off-topic and unsourced.

Nicotine products such as e-cigarettes temporarily relieve nicotine withdrawal symptoms (which include irritability, anxiety, stress, and depression). However, when people become addicted, they report worsening mood, and people who have broken a nicotine addiction report lasting improvements in mood.[36] Completely off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, QuackGuru. We are discussing the "No-one likes a quitter" image you mention at Talk:Nicotine marketing#Images and captions. I've replied there.

If you don't like SRITA, I can also source weight loss here, and I'll look for a second source on the mental health claims. The notability of SRITA is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group.

I maintain that the truth of the claim is on-topic, see RfC above. I should note that we are discussing a past version of the article, not the current one. The next source after the sentence you quoted as unsourced says "Regular smokers need nicotine to remain feeling normal, and suffer from adverse moods without it... It is the repetitive experience of adverse feelings in-between cigarettes which causes the smoker to suffer worse daily moods". I think that sources the statement that nicotine addicts need nicotine to feel normal moods. The source says that nicotine dependency does not improve mood, but worsens it. It seems to cause a sort of artificial low-level depression, briefly relieved by a nicotine hit, and lastingly reversible if the addict quits. IMO, all of this is on-topic to a marketing claim that e-cigarettes improve mood. HLHJ (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is a study. I am a bit concerned with using a study. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your concern? A peer-reviewed article should be RS. The statement "e-cigs are marketed for weight loss" is not biomedical and thus does not need MEDRS. HLHJ (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing topics

A number of topics have gone missing from this article:

• Historical context. This sentence has been removed for unclear reasons "A 2014 review said, "the e-cigarette companies have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing messages similar to those used to promote cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s."" The sentence "Medical claims are also made, including "pharmaceuticalization", presenting e-cigarettes as medical or therapeutic devices" once continued "claims formerly also made for combustible cigarettes.", but this was removed as off-topic.

• There is no reference at all to addiction or smoking cessation in the current article. Marketing claims about these topics are common. Marketing addictive products is also fundamentally different from marketing non-addictive ones, as they are extremely demand-inelastic. While e-cigarettes can be used with non-nicotine-containing fluid, they often aren't. Information on the proportions of nicotine vs. non-nicotine use has been removed. The conflicts between vaping promotion marketing messages and traditional public health marketing messages were summarize in a WHO quote, but this was removed. I suggest we replace it. It is neutral and topical, from a good source.

• Safety to vapers; lots of claims made on this topic. Even truthful marketing claims, for instance that there is weak evidence that e-cigarettes may be useful for smoking cessation, and that it is likely to be less harmful than smoking, are missing. Not sure why this text was removed: "E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites; for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor"." Grana 2014 also supports these statements.

• Safety to bystanders. The section on this was removed with the comment "unreliable sources used. A blatant anti-vaping website is not a reliable and neutral source". Again, bias is not an indicator of unreliability, and the section removed cited a Stanford university research group, the World Health Organisation, Public Health England (which said it wasn't that unsafe), and a 2016 academic paper called "A systematic review of the health risks from passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour" published in the journal "Public health research & practice". If all those sources were blatantly anti-vaping, one might wish to consider whether they might be right. Another edit deleted more information on this as OR, although Grana 2014 was cited as well as SRITA, and there were no unsourced statements. I can only assume that the editor mistyped the wrong comment.

• "Smoke anywhere" claims were removed here

• There is no information on cost. Cost is an important part of marketing. The cost section was removed for original research; while some OR had been added six minutes earlier, the rest was sourced. It was sourced to TINA, but there must be other sources out there if you are against TINA, and the reliability of that source is under discussion above.

• Marketing claims about mood changes were removed on grounds that one of the two sources was non-neutral. Sources are not required to be neutral. Even if the source is bad, one should consider requesting a better source or adding another source rather than deleting content.

• One edit comment was "corrected implication that e-cig manufacturers are, or are controlled by, tobacco companies". Information on the market share of independents and the big transnational tobacco companies (who would generally rather not call themselves "tobacco companies" anymore) is readily available, and the two groups of market players use different marketing techniques. "While, initially, most e-cigarettes were sold by manufacturers independent of traditional tobacco companies, this is increasingly not the case; all the transnational tobacco companies now sell e-cigarette products, and they have been entering into lawsuits for patent infringement, which may make the positions of the smaller companies untenable."

• The article has no images. An image on vaping harms was removed on the grounds that it was unsourced. The image is sourced, and the sources are linked from the image page and from the caption; at one point I also put them in the reference list, on request, but they were later deleted.

• Marketing e-cigarettes as dieting aids, despite medical advice; needs to be covered

• Use by never-smokers is an important factor in the market, and marketing targeting this market segment needs coverage. This content was removed: "E-cigarettes are marketed to non-smokers. "

• Market trends are, I think, in-scope. "The use of e-cigarettes increased exponentially from 2004 to 2015. However, from 2015 to 2016, e-cigarette use by US high school students dropped from 16 percent to 11.3%. Use of any nicotine product also declined, with 79.8% of high school students not using."

• We should have something on flavourings. They are clearly a major marketing strategy, and an IP added (unsourced) info on them, only to have it removed by another IP.

• Reasons/motivations for marketing claims are, I think, in-scope: "Nonsmokers are more likely to start vaping if they think e-cigarettes are not very harmful or addictive; beliefs about harmfullness and addiction don't affect the probability that smokers will start vaping."

False advertising

I'm not saying that information about false advertising should dominate the article; I put it in a little section at the end for a reason. But it is notable if it is either widespread or has serious consequences, and is reliably covered. Mislabelling of nicotine levels seems to be widespread; scams have been widespread; and popcorn lung is a serious permanent disability.

• Purchasing scams, removed as "not related to the article". Dishonest marketing practises are still marketing practises, and these scams have received extensive coverage even in the vaping press

• Information about mislabelling of the nicotine content of fluids has been removed on the somewhat odd grounds that labelling is not a form of marketing (the FDA disagrees, and deems mislabelling "false advertising"). Labelling a nicotine-containing fluid as containing less or no nicotine is dishonest and harms the industry. There are lots of sources for this practise (I cited the CDC and the FDA, but there's also a CBC report that says that this has been detected in Canada, too). We need to cover it. "Some e-fluids that labeled and marketed as containing no nicotine have been found to contain nicotine."

• Really worringly, information about toxic contaminants was edited to allege that a contaminant was harmless. The original claim that diacetyl, when inhaled, is toxic and causes popcorn lung, was sourced to information provided to GPs by the Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a public information doc issued by the FDA. The edit summary was spelling, correcting misinformation about the safety profile of the common flavorant diacetyl., which is really worrying. I hope that they meant food, and diacetyl is not a common flavourant in inhaled products. Lots of things are safe to eat but not safe to inhale, although the reverse is often claimed in e-cigarette marketing. Consider what Grana 2014 says:

"Propylene glycol and glycerin are the main base ingredients of the e-liquid. Exposure to propylene glycol can cause eye and respiratory irritation, and prolonged or repeated inhalation in industrial settings may affect the central nervous system, behavior, and the spleen. (66) In its product safety materials, Dow Chemical Company states that “inhalation exposure to [propylene glycol] mists should be avoided,” (67) and the American Chemistry Council warns against its use in theater fogs because of the potential for eye and respiratory irritation. (68) When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form [propylene oxide], an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen, (69) and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation. (70,71)"

Or the FDA responding to a comment on a regulation:

"(Comment 46) A few comments suggested that FDA review and authorize marketing of products at the ingredient level. For example, if a tobacco product contained only preauthorized ingredients, the product could be marketed, possibly through self-certification. If the product used unapproved ingredients, the manufacturer would be required to submit a PMTA containing information on only those ingredients or meet established testing guidelines. The comments suggested that standards that could be used to assess the ingredients may include the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) standards, the New Drug Products Q3B(R2) guidance; and the Food Chemicals Codex or FDA Redbook of Foods.

(Response) FDA disagrees. Section 910 of the FD&C Act requires FDA to evaluate the new tobacco product as a whole to determine whether the authorization of marketing of the product is appropriate for the protection of the public health. In addition, we note that GRAS status for a food additive does not mean that the substance is GRAS when inhaled, since GRAS status does not take inhalation toxicity into account and applies only to intended uses that may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food (section 201(s) of the FD&C Act.)."

• There was some similar information removed here, including some unsourced but intriguing and possibly sourcable data about flavourings.

Marketing to children

E-cigarettes have been marketed and sold to children. We need sources on widespread this is, and the methods used.

The content "Easily circumvented age verification at company websites enables young people to access and be exposed to marketing for e-cigarettes." was removed for no obvious reason. This edit removed half a ref, following which QuackGuru removed the rest on the reasonable ground that "a name is not a source". (content by HLHJ)

The source was biased, written someone better known for being a reality TV cast-member than for any medical qualifications. 124.106.142.116 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be unbiassed, see WP:BIASED. Who is the reality TV cast-member, out of curiosity? They both seem like academics to me.[4][5] Any other reasons? HLHJ (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

Topicality of safety information

This edit removes most of the information on safety claims on the grounds that it is "Undue weight". I think that "the product is safe" is a basic and important marketing claim, and relevant to the article. User:124.106.142.116, could you please explain why you disagree? HLHJ (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It is obviously off-topic. Safety claims are not marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, could you please explain why you think that marketing claims about safety are off-topic? HLHJ (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "This edit removes most of the information on safety claims on the grounds that it is "Undue weight".

See "However, e-cigarette vapor contains other substances, such as nicotine, carbonyls, heavy metals, and organic volatile compounds, in addition to particulates.[21] It is plausible that vapourizing cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes,[7] but not that they are harmless. There is evidence of short-term harms (see image) and no evidence on the long-term health effects,[14] as e-cigarettes were introduced in 2004 and studies mostly run <12 months.[22]" These safety claims are not marketing claims. I did not say marketing claims about safety are off-topic. Most of the information removed was off-topic. There may have been two sentences that were on-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The removed text (minus source) begins: "E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites; for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor". However..." It then discusses the actual safety data, contrasting it with the marketing claim. In the first section of this talk page, I explain why I think that this is necessary. Let's put this topic on hold until we've resolved that more basic disagreement. HLHJ (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not object to the following text as long as it is sourced: "E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites; for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor". I objected to the safety claims. The actual safety data is off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Addictiveness

Off-topic content restored and the content "Some e-fluids that labeled and marketed as containing no nicotine have been found to contain nicotine." appears to fail verification. It does not state it was a "marketed" claim. For example, the source says "Nicotine is very common in e-cigarettes, and e-cigarettes may not be labeled to accurately show their ingredients".[6] Is there any reliable source that verifies it was a marketing claim? QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Labelling of ingredients is a marketing claim by definition, I think. HLHJ (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The source did not make the connection. You did. The content still fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the common ontology of the English language makes that connection, but so does this website, which implies that labelling is "marketing communications related". Shall we get a third opinion on this? HLHJ (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The third opinion was the reader. Using another source does not verify the current text. Trying to make a connection using another source is a SYN violation. The current source fails to verify the claim. After the failed verification content is removed the remaining text would be off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. The article requires more cleanup to remove more off-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

HLHJ "Labelling of ingredients is a marketing claim by definition" and that sir, is original research.

Half of the addictiveness section was removed by User:72.49.132.145, the rest by User:124.106.142.116. I restored a modified version that seemed to me to resolve both the concerns they stated in their edit summaries, with the edit comment: "restored section on addiction, fixing 72.49.132.145's problem that it does not link to stuff on addiction, and 124.106.142.116's problem that "Nicotine-free vaping is a thing" and the first half of the section is thus "blatently untrue" "

Then these changes removed the entire section on addictiveness with the comment "Sorry, but your changes do not address the issues. I think that as your content is disputed and not supported by consensus, you should attempt to gain consensus before restoring this content or adding more".

User:72.49.132.145, it would be good to gain consensus before deleting it. Your edit summary doesn't say why the changes do not address the issues, and what the issues are; could you please post that here?

QuackGuru, I have a source for you. The FDA says that e-liquids are "marketed as “Nicotine-Free”"(source). Are you in agreement with restoring the addictiveness section with this reference added?

Copied from Article scope section above

You wrote "As I said, if it can't be connected to marketing, it does not belong in the article." However, you did restore off-topic content and restored content that failed verification. The source did not verify it was a marketing claim. I did state "The actual safety data is off-topic". We don't include off-topic content about safety when no connection was made in the source used. Using other sources not used in the article to justify including off-topic content is not acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The thing I restored was the entire section on addictiveness. I restored it only after addressing the concerns (missing piece of information, and a lack of a certain type of source). Neither of these concerns was that it was off-topic or had failed verification. The section did discuss marketing claims, although perhaps it should have more such discussion. Removing the section would only be appropriate if all discussion of anything related to addiction, including marketing claims, is off-topic; is this your view? I have now provided a source which unequivocally describes saying that something is nicotine-free as marketing. If there are other statements in this section that fail validation, please tell me which statements fail. HLHJ (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:72.49.132.145, User:QuackGuru, please describe any problems you have with this section. If you now have none, I will restore it. HLHJ (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The website clivebates.com is not the FDA. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You are quite right, QuackGuru. But the statement is made by the FDA in the court document I linked to. That's why I said "The FDA says". HLHJ (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A personal website is unreliable. Court documents are primary sources anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

When someone puts an incorrect ingredient list on their products, the local regulatory authority dings them for false advertising. The FDA letters we just discussed, for instance, warn sellers about mislabelled nicotine levels, and other mislabelled ingredients. If an incorrect ingredients list is false advertising, clearly an ingredients list is advertising. Would you agree, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The source must explain it is about marketing and the text in the article must be about marketing. If the sourced explained it was about marketing but the text is not about marketing then the content is off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The source categorises ingredients declarations as advertising claims. I trust we agree that advertising is a form of marketing? So I'd say that a statement about inaccurate ingredients lists is on-topic, and this view is supported by the source. HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The source is a website run by one person. We can't use that source for anything. We can't use other sources to justify including other content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, by "the source" I meant the FDA warning letters. I was ambiguous. HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, this has taken some time, but the phrase "e-liquids marketed and sold as nicotine-free" appears in an article by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think that this establishes that labelling an e-fluid "nicotine-free" is marketing. Would you agree, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Editors can't use that source to justify adding other sources or content that does not mention it is about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One source, the CBC, says that labelling an e-fluid "nicotine-free" is marketing, and that this label is sometimes not accurate. I think that the CBC source is therefore enought to verify the statement "Some e-fluids that labeled and marketed as containing no nicotine have been found to contain nicotine", as the source says "Beaulieu of the Canadian Cancer Society said a recent study conducted in partnership with the University of Montreal showed that even e-liquids marketed and sold as nicotine-free actually contained the addictive substance". Would you agree, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That wording contains the weasel word "some" and the word "labeled" seems irrelevant. The common name is "e-liquid". The source mentions something that is relevant. I think the article should be cleaned up before adding new content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think all uses of the word "some" are necessarily weasel words. I assume, subject to correction, that you don't think it should say or imply "all". The fact that you argued that labelling is not a facet of marketing seems to me inconsistent with the idea that labelling and marketing so closely imply one another that saying both is superfluous. If you needed to know, so might the reader. HLHJ (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of specific sources

Truth in Advertising (organization) (TinA) a reliable source?

Hello, User:124.106.142.116. You removed a section sourced from Truth in Advertising (organization) with the comment "unreliable sources used. A blatant anti-vaping website is not a reliable and neutral source". Could you please state what requirements at WP:RS the source does not meet? My understanding is that TINA is an investigative journalism organization opposing untrue ads, not an anti-vaping website. Saying negative things about some aspects of vaping, or even saying only negative things about vaping, would not be enough to disqualify it as a source; sources are not required to be nuetral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. HLHJ (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising is an unreliable source. It is a watchdog group and not a secondary source. I already explains this on another page. I flagged the source and other sources on another page that has similar problems. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuackGuru. Would being a watchdog group make it an unreliable source? WP:RS do not have to be secondary sources; journalistic sources are widely accepted. One might also consider the group experts in advertising. One could even say that journalism about advertisments, in an article about marketing, is a secondary source. We can RFC this if you like. I'm sorry, I hadn't seen your other comment yet. HLHJ (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a consumer advocacy group with an agenda. We would not allow other groups that promote nicotine. It looks like the readers are trying to cleanup the article. But you are undoing the cleanup. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. And the agenda is, according to it, "to empower consumers to protect themselves and one another against false advertising and deceptive marketing". This does not seem to me to be a problem. It doesn't cause a conflict of interest with reporting on vaping marketing.

Reliable sources that promote nicotine are not disallowed in principle, but finding reliable sources, especially reliable medical sources, that think nicotine is worthy of promotion is hard, and could easily lead to WP:UNDUE concerns. HLHJ (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with unreliable sources used. A blatant anti-vaping website is not a reliable and neutral source. See WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it your position that Truth in Advertising (organization) does not have either editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking, QuackGuru?

Reputation-wise, they seem to have a good reputation with reliable news organisations, as the latter ask them for comments and run stories about their work (see here). Admittedly, that's a list of TINA-mentioning news coverage from TINA's own website, and so biassed, but do you have any sources/reasons for a lack of editorial control or fact-checking? HLHJ (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reputation-wise, they are known as a watchdog advocacy group. I don't have information on their editorial control or fact-checking. They are not-neutral and there are better sources available. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. They seem to have a good reputation for fact-checking, as they get cited in everything from Reuters to lawsuits (WP:USEBYOTHERS). They describe themselves as having a journalist join their "editorial staff", which seems to me to mean editorial control. As WP:NEWSORG says, "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies". I can e-mail them and ask. HLHJ (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

They are a watchdog advocacy group and they are actively running campaigns against advertisements. This type of consumer advocacy group is usually unreliable. I'd rather not cite consumer watchdog groups who are aggressively running campaigns against advertisers. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

They actually have a section on ads they like; they seem to quite selectively oppose "false advertising and deceptive marketing". They have been involved in bringing many court cases and regulatory actions just in this field; they must check their facts fairly well to do that in the US and not get sued into the ground. There is no way anyone could do that sort of work for years on end without meeting WP:SOURCE's criterion: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." They have a staff attorney, who also has a journalism MS; she is one of at least three lawyers on the staff. They have a number of staff who might be called "specialists" in sub-areas of TINA's field, and the organization members, collectively, seem to me to be "recognized experts" (WP:NEWSORG), recognized by unquestionably reliable journalistic sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS). WP:NEWSORG also says: "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest". TINA do publish corrections, and their website says: "Corrections: TINA.org takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the content of its website very seriously. If you think you’ve spotted an error, please use the form below and enter “Correction” in the subject line." (my italics). I could not find a COI declaration. I did not get a response to an e-mail asking for links to a COI disclosure and a formal editorial policy (if a professional journalist is reading this, please ask TINA about this next time you interview them). However, WP:NEWSORG also says: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.", and COI disclosures are clearly not mandatory for RS status, so I don't think that this is enough to disqualify the source.

I have not come across any source calling TINA a "watchdog advocacy group", but the description would fit the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids or Amnesty International or Médecins sans Frontières (all of which run aggressive campaigns) just as well. I am not aware of any policy that advocacy groups cannot be RS, and some are very widely cited indeed on Wikipedia. Biassed sources, as you quoted, just have to meet "normal requirements for reliable sources". And a bias against misleading ads does not seem very problematic. Certainly it is not an "apparent conflict of interest" in the sense of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I have given you my reasons for thinking that TINA have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, and comply with RS policy. If you still disagree, could you please give your reasons for disagreeing? HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising research group (SRITA) a reliable source?

I think it is. They are widely cited in the media and I've seen no indications that they don't have a good academic reputation for reliability. QuackGuru, I know you disagree, and I invite you to explain why. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "The website stanford.edu is a primary source". I'd say that the ads are the primary source, and SRITA's discussion of them is secondary. What do you think? HLHJ (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

They are conducting research and it is a University website. There are better sources available on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This source comments on the e-cigarette marketing claims but there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources that make very similar claims. That's the reason we should not use that source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the timing of your post, I'm assuming that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group, which found it was WP:RS but not WP:MEDRS (which I entirely agree with). If there are MEDRS sources that would support the same statements as SRITA, I'm happy to cite them too. I don't think statements about the existence, prevalence, and purposes of e-cigarette marketing claims are biomedical information needing MEDRS (even if statements about their truth are). I can't see that the existence of other sources on similar material means that we should not cite a reliable source; indeed, as MEDRS are often less reliable for non-medical information, citing both might be appropriate, where possible. HLHJ (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids a reliable source?

User:124.106.142.116, in this edit you state that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is not a reliable source. Can you explain why you came to this conclusion, please? HLHJ (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:124.106.142.116, if you are now convinced that it is a reliable source, could you please re-instate it? HLHJ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The source cites references. It might be reliable. It did not appear to verify the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that it is reliable?

You're right, the current sources do not mention chewing tobacco. Apparently flavoured chewing tobacco is still legal in the US, too. I'm happy with striking the words "chewing tobacco and".

legal in US: Hoffman, Allison C.; Salgado, Raydel Valdes; Dresler, Carolyn; Faller, Rachel Williams; Bartlett, Christopher (2016-11-01). "Flavour preferences in youth versus adults: a review". Tobacco Control. 25 (Suppl 2): –32-ii39. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053192. ISSN 1468-3318 0964-4563, 1468-3318. PMID 27633764. Retrieved 2018-06-03. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It is reliable, depending on the content. They have been discussed in many news articles related to this topic. They also cite references for many of the articles they wrote. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wired.co.uk a reliable medical source?

I don't think Wired.co.uk meets WP:MEDRS. It's popular press, not a medical source. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:124.106.142.116, you made this edit, which cites Wired. Could you comment, please? HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a publication known for its science related content, so yes I consider it to be reliable. Besides, the source is used to support the inclusion of the report from the BMJ which is also sourced, so unless you dispute the accuracy of that report, the source is sufficient.124.106.142.116 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Background: I originally wrote that the statement "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" was supported by weak evidence, and cited the Cochrane review. The statement is now presented as a "scientific fact", with the phrase "This claim has been supported by a report in the British Medical Journal" and citations to Cochrane, TINA (which just supports the statement that the claim is a marketing claim, being non-MEDRS for sure), Wired, and the BMJ article.

User:124.106.142.116, my interpretation of the WP:MEDRS policy is that it would not consider Wired to be reliable for biomedical information. I don't think that we need, in principle, to cite Wired to support the inclusion of a BMJ article; it might have value as a lay overview of the same material as a medical article.

I am not questioning the accuracy of the BMJ report, but whether it is MEDRS. Individual scientific studies are often idiosyncrasy-laden and variable (see Law of large numbers) and there are a lot of them, so it is very likely that some will reach contradictory conclusions. MEDRS therefore favours recent medical reviews for this sort of information, to ensure that all the available evidence is considered. It would be unconventional to evince the efficacy of a medical treatment purely with a population survey, which gives correlation, not causation, as the authors note when saying "was associated with" in their conclusions. A reading of the Cochrane review cited right next to it, which I realise you may not have access to the fulltext of, and a reading of Cochrane (organisation)'s quality criteria for evidence, would give a background here (although you should be aware that some consider Cochrane's evidentiary standards too strict; Cochrane's guidelines for their review authors, and their guidelines for assessing the studies they review). Assessing medical evidence is a fascinating area of study. You could also ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for advice on selecting good medical sources, although I guarantee they'll start with "Read WP:MEDRS", so I'd start by telling them that you have.

I believe my selection of sources for this article does exhibit POV bias. I didn't, for instance, cite the British "95%" review. I welcome the addition of MEDRS sources that run counter to my bias. HLHJ (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The content is off-topic. It is not about marketing. Too many sources per claim is also causing confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaping Post a reliable medical source?

I don't think the Vaping Post meets WP:MEDRS. This article is not a medical review; nor does it even report on one. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

the source is used to support the inclusion of claims made by Dr. Michael Siegel on air sampling performed by the CDPH, so unless you dispute the accuracy of that quote, the source is sufficient. Besides, while the article doesn't report on a medical review, it does report on scientific analysis of air quality and scientific conclusions based on that analysis, so it's all good. 124.106.142.116 (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My comments above apply here, too. WP:MEDRS applies to sources for statements about the accuracy of the common advertising claim "e-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air".

There are other concerns about using just the Vaping Post report. For instance, unlike a scientific report, they do not give detailed methodology, or even the detection thresholds for any of their measurements. The post ends "The CDPH has still not released any official data pertaining to this study – last updated on 04/07/17", so we may not be able to get hold of this data. While publication bias is an issue, Wikipedia citations can't fix it. Some techniques used to detect it in systematic reviews can help, though.

Also, while I do not accuse the Vaping Post of such behaviour, I have seen journalists get quotes from scientists egregiously wrong, mostly though lack of context. As in, a scientist says that X has trait x, and a journalist records notes and publishes a story about Z, quoting the scientist as saying "This has trait x, which is x-like". And then the scientist's friends call and say "Umm, they misquoted you on the news. I know you couldn't be so stupid as to think that Z has trait x. I mean, you've written several papers on the non x-likeness of Z". And the scientist says "Oh no! X is not Z! I didn't say that! How regrettable!", but possibly in a less family-friendly way, and they send an e-mail, and if they are lucky they might get a retraction from the careless journalist (who was probably on a tight deadline and might not have formally studied science since grade school, because, say, they are actually a sports reporter pinch-hitting as a science journalist due to cutbacks, and didn't quite manage to patch their ignorance sufficiently in a frantic half-hour skimming Wikipedia). I don't exaggerate much.

Finally, as I mention above, small studies vary. Simply by cherrypicking studies out of the variability in results we'd expect from the law of large numbers, we can produce almost any impression we like. I suspect that the Vaping Post might have a sampling bias towards studies with results that can be cited in favour of vaping. This is why we prefer to use systematic reviews on Wikipedia, and why people writing systematic reviews give persnickety amounts of detail on exactly how they found and selected the studies they include. HLHJ (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The source was not used for marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Unclear and vague content

See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3]" What are the "some jurisdictions" where they are legal to market? The part "spending is increasing rapidly" is vague and both sources verify different claims. This is becoming a problem with the additional citations after each sentence because both sources do not verify the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Globalize" tag

QG has reverted my addition of a "globalize" tag to the article, with the edit summary "(No specfic proposal on the talk page.)" There is of course no need for a "specific proposal" - as nearly always, the tag means that the article almost entirely ignores the rest of the world outside the US. But if he wants some specific proposals:

• The article should deal with some other countries
• The article should recognize how unusual the US is in the dominance of cigalikes owned by Big Baccy.

In general, the article is very poor, hamstrung by using medical writers out of their depth in marketing, as well as by the difficulty of getting accurate figures for the market. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No specific proposal has been presented because no sources were presented. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

?? Programming fault? This statement has no meaning. You need a source fror the existence of the rest of the world outside the US? Yes, I suppose I can believe it. The tag goes back; please don't remove it without a proper discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes October 2018

Failed verification content

It appears failed verification was added.[7] Where does the source mention e-cigarettes? QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed

The tag was removed without fixing the problem. The content is outdated and fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Content Fork

This edit added copied content from the electronic cigarette article. Most of the content on this page is copied content. There is not enough content in the electronic cigarette article to delete it and move it to this page. QuackGuru (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Undone tag removals. I understand the issues over content forking, but this is the main page for the subject. If you think that there is not enough content to delete on main page, then I understand, but surely the main page on the marketing of electronic cigarettes should include all the points mentioned at Electronic cigarette#Marketing and more, since it is the main page for the subject? Why should points be made on that page and not here? am I missing something? --Bangalamania (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There is not enough content for a separate page. This page does not have a solid lede. The majority of content on this page is copied content. That's not a reason to create a new page. Either move it to draft space or redirect it is best for now. The Electronic cigarette#Marketing should have at least 4 solid paragraphs on the subject. This page does not have one solid paragraph in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"There is not enough content for a separate page." – in that case, shouldn't all of this article be moved there, and this article deleted? Otherwise, this should be the main page for the topic, surely? I have not created any new pages at all. I agree that there are problems with this page, but it is the main article on the topic of e-cigarette marketing and it doesn't make sense for it to have less information than that section within the Electronic cigarette article. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You claim "it is the main article on the topic of e-cigarette marketing". I disagree. It is not an article. It is a content fork. Content forks are redirected. All the content would not be added to the electronic cigarette article. See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3][clarification needed] The content failed verification and makes no sense. I can copy content from the electronic cigarette article and create a new page on Smoking cessation and electronic cigarettes but that would also be a content fork. In order to create a new page there should be significant new content for a new page or if the content in the electronic cigarette article is way too long a new page can be created. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no objection to this article becoming a redirect until more enough info is included on the main article to meet WP:SPINOFF. – Bangalamania (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on past behavior in this topic area a redirect could result in endless debate on the talk page. The way forward would be to AFD the content fork. See WP:AFDHOWTO. QuackGuru (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to me, QuackGuru, and honestly no offense. I haven't been around here much lately; now that the RfC has run its course and I'm less involved in other commitments, I'll try to clean up the article and make sure it has substantive content. Earlier versions, including the one that passed a new-article review, contained more content. Some of this was removed by inexperienced editors who are not yet familiar with some aspects of policy. The resolution to the dispute about the reliability of SRITA, which has a lot of information about marketing practices, should help add substantive content. HLHJ (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and non-neutral content

See "E-cigarette companies have been accused of using similar to pre-regulation tobacco advertising." Please do not add unsourced or uncited content. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Elaborating on Flavored Tobacco Marketing Strategies

I would like to propose adding more information to the following sentence:

"According to a 2014 review, e-cigarettes are aggressively promoted in the US, mostly via the internet, as a healthy alternative to smoking.[5] "Big tobacco" markets e-cigarettes to young people,[6] with industry strategies including cartoon characters and candy flavors to sell e-cigarettes."

As banning flavored tobacco is the target of recent legislation, elaborating on this topic is critical. I propose that we add a section elaborating on:

1. The strategies used to attract young people 2. The impact on public health JenniferKaiser2020 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, 2601:645:4101:365C:537:A9DA:693C:239F. If you look through the article history, you will find such a section (here), which might be a good starting point. If you have problems with sources to cite or anything, please leave me a message on my talk page (click the "talk" link in my signature here: HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article scope. The content must be directly related to e-cigarette marketing. General content about banning flavored tobacco is generally off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Grana, Rachel A.; Ling, Pamela M. (2014). ""Smoking revolution": a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 46 (4): 395–403. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010. ISSN 1873-2607.
• Richardson, Amanda; Ganz, Ollie; Vallone, Donna (2015). "Tobacco on the web: surveillance and characterisation of online tobacco and e-cigarette advertising". Tobacco Control. 24 (4): 341–347. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051246. ISSN 1468-3318.

• HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not relevant and failed verification

This edit removed the FV tag and added another source. The original source still does not verify the entire claim and the new source does not mention is it about marketing. Do both sources verify "other cities expected to follow their lead"? Regulation and marketing are different. The content is also off-topic unless it is established it is related to marketing. Please read here about the scope of this article is supposed to be. QuackGuru (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Pharmacy Student Peer Reviews

Group 29 Peer Review:

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… - It appears as though most of the edits this group did was deleted, however the work that is still published does reflect a neutral point of view.

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify. Laurencline (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

-It seems like many edits made by my classmates were are removed. In regards to the current state of the article, the formatting of quotes should be fixed. Proper capitalization should be used. Wikipedia's manual of style likes to use stated instead of said. Periods should be placed after quotation mark. The article should begin with an introduction with a concise summary of the article. I do not believe that the current intro is a good summary of the article's contents. Quotation of "harm reduction" may be inappropriate because it may imply doubt. Quotations around Big Tobacco are not consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. A lot of the quotations seem inappropriate and seems overused. Please see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations for details. ThomasLeung1 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Edit review: The article is not about regulation of flavored tobacco or use of tobacco products.
• Edit review: The article is not about general safety of e-cigarettes unless the source directly linked the safety content directly to the marketing.
• Edit review: The part "To combat marketing aimed at minors" and "with other cities expected to follow their lead" appears to fail verification.
• Edit review: One sentence was uncited and another sentence contained the unsupported weasel word many. The amount of flavored e-cigarettes appears to be off-topic.
• Please read the article scope. The content must be directly related to e-cigarette marketing according to the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a pharmacy student peer-reviewer here, but responding to the comment above, which is also not by a pharmacy student peer-reviewer. QuackGuru, I do not think that your review is entirely fair.

• Flavouring e-cigarettes is a means of marketing them, as reliable sources clearly state. While some of the content you removed was not about e-cigs and was off-topic, some of the content you removed was about flavoured e-cigarettes, not more traditional forms of flavoured tobacco, and thus, in my view, on-topic.
• Your second and last points seem to me to directly contradict the conclusion of an an RfC on this page. It said "We should prefer sources which directly refer to the marketing claims, though sources that address the same health claims as a marketing claim can be used sparingly if no direct critique is available and an alternative source is needed to accord due weight."
• Deleting a sentence by a new editor because it contains the word "many" and the source did not seems like overkill. You could have just removed the word "many". I have done this, and rephrased the content to make the link to the topic clearer.

Please let me know if you have problems with these edits. HLHJ (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

- It looks like most of the edits done by this group are removed. The original points included and the rest of the work are verifiable with cited secondary sources. All the cited sources were freely available and appropriate. Jetuaimer (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Group 15 Peer Review:
1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the pharmacy students' draft submission reflects a neutral point of view since the statements are facts of events that have occurred. In regards to the actual article, there are certain phrases that could have a more neutral tone. For example, in these two phrases, "E-cigarette companies have been accused of…" and "…but this assertion is misleading," I believe the terms "accused" and "misleading" can have a negative connotation, respectively. Lastly, it seems like many of the edits were deleted due to claims regarding the relevance and validation of the edits, however, I believe that some of the edits are relevant and could be included in the wikipedia page. One possible suggestion for resolving the relevance claim would be to directly link the comment to marketing of electronic cigarettes in the same sentence. Overall, I believe this group has great ideas for potential edits and all of their draft edits sound neutral to me! -Stephanie Sin (Stephaniesin (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC))
2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This group chose to edit a start class article that has many areas for improvements. The edits they made were cited to secondary sources that are freely available, and easy to access to the open public. Some of the secondary sources the group cited included the FDA website as well as the FTC website. While the sources were valid, the edits were deleted by another user because the user deemed the information as not appropriate for a page about marketing. Maus0792 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)(Maki Usui)
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears the edits the group made were deleted. The original article's format is generally consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style, which encourages a simplistic writing style for ease of understanding. However, there are various instances where improvement can be made. The article would benefit with an introductory summary of the topic. In addition, there are a number of instances where quotations have been inappropriately used. Quotations around "pharmaceuticalization" and "Big Tobacco" are not appropriate. Looking further in the sandbox it seems the group's previously proposed edits also fit the criteria for Wikipedia's manual of style. The proposed edits were grammatically correct and organized to appropriately fit the original article. (Vinh Ho) -Butter121 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is well written and supported by appropriate references wherever needed to support a particular fact and/or specific information. There is no plagiarism or copyright violation based on my reading. In general, the information presentation follows a logical pattern and would be a resource for someone who wants to understand how the marketing of electronic cigarettes is being done. Notwithstanding paraphrasing of information, there is no clear sign of plagiarism within the information presented in the article. There are few grammatical errors and writing syntax that may need a careful editing.-Praveen Shukla (praveenniper05)

Looking at the edits that were removed, there was no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. I compared the written statements with the references and they were well summarized and explained in their own words. The statements made were also cited. Sallytpham (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues have not been resolved

See the close here.

Cunard (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1 and see Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2 for previous discussions.

There are still serious issues with this page. The page is still a WP:POVFORK. I recommend this page be nominated for deletion or merged to Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the issues are resoluble. I would like to reference this old version of the page; it has some problems, and some of the content has quite reasonably been challenged and removed, but I think both it and the current article contain enough solid material to make a good article. The current version is stiff with inline tags added in the last dozen days, but most of them appear resoluble. HLHJ (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The content here can be merged into Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes.

Bangalamania stated "Fair enough. I have no objection to this article becoming a redirect until more enough info is included on the main article to meet WP:SPINOFF."[8]

I think it is requires redirect or an AFD discussion for the POV Fork. The version you cited runs against the RfC. See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Article scope. The current version also has multiple issues that have not been resolved. I recommend a redirect for now. We don't keep POV Forks in article space. Disputed content is not solid material for a good article. WP:SPINOFF has not been satisfied. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Is 600 page views a month a lot of views? If so, then I'd support a redirect. If not, then I think an AFD discussion is warranted. But I concor, there seems to be far too many problems with this article: false citations, irrelevantness, and unsourced material. Seems like a complete mess to me. I personally would go with an AFD discussion since there doesn't seem to be any solid-level evidence to designate that a redirect is needed to prevent re-creation of this page. Also, issues doesn't seem to have been addressed (and doesn't look like it will be in the future), even though months of fixes and tweeks have taken place. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Issues have not been addressed:

"The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3][clarification needed]" The first sentence is badly written and does not summarize the page. Content throughout the page is badly written.

The off-topic content is still in this page that is a violation of the RfC. See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Article scope.

There is also a dispute over content on the main page for Nicotine marketing. See diff and diff. The dispute over e-cigarette content has bubbled over to this page.

The page is a WP:COATRACK as well as WP:POVFORK because it contains disputed content as well as off-topic content. The scope of the article is about marketing of e-cigarettes. There is content about safety, usage and regulation, among other off-topic content. The off-topic content includes:

"The youth have been a primary target for the tobacco companies because the "use of tobacco products, no matter what type, is almost always started and established during adolescence when the developing brain is most vulnerable to nicotine addiction."[14][relevant? – discuss] According to the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), there was a sharp increase of 1.5 million more middle and high school students using e-cigarettes compared to 2017. From the analysis of the 2016 NYTS, the CDC and FDA were able to highlight some of the most common reasons why students use e-cigarettes, which included the various options of e-cigarette flavors and the false belief that they are safer than other tobacco products.[15][relevant? – discuss]" Flavoured products have been shown to be particularly attractive to younger people.[19][relevant? – discuss] In 2017, there were more than 15,500 different e-cigarette flavors available online,[20][relevant? – discuss] up from 7,700 in 2014, with over 240 new additional flavors being added each month.[20][relevant? – discuss] Fruit, candy, and dessert flavours are common,[21][relevant? – discuss] The branding of some e-liquids also attracts children.[relevant? – discuss] E-liquids have been sold in packaging that resembles kid-friendly foods, beverages, or candies.[23][relevant? – discuss] Some e-liquids are sold in packaging closely resembling Tree Top-brand juice boxes, Reddi-wip whipped cream, or Sour Patch Kids gummy candy, for example,[24][relevant? – discuss] and children have accidentally drunk these misbranded e-liquids and become sick.[23][relevant? – discuss] Nicotine is poisonous, and ingesting an average e-liquid bottle can seriously injure or kill a young child, with the risk being greatest for 1-year-olds.[25][relevant? – discuss] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a stand on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in 2018.[37][relevant? – discuss] The ban targeted the sale of flavored tobacco at certain establishments such as retail stores and gas stations.[38][relevant? – discuss] Additionally, the administration planned to require age verification for online orders to ensure that these flavored products did not reach underage patrons. [38][relevant? – discuss]

Violation of WP:SPINOFF: Before creating this page the main page should be expanded first. The section Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes is too short and requires expansion.

There also appears to be primary medical sources in this page:

See "Ads for flavoured e-cigarettes have been shown to cause children to be more interested in buying and trying e-cigarettes, as compared to ads for unflavoured e-cigarettes.[22][unreliable medical source?]" The source is unreliable for the claim. See WP:MEDRS.

There is some content in this page that was copied from other pages. See diff and see diff. This does not make a good independent article when it relies on content from other pages, contains off-topic content, and is badly written. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'd be willing to go over this whole article, source by source and tag by tag, and re-write it. However, I've been busy running around talk pages answering your arguments, QuackGuru, including four RfCs and three page move requests, all for the same page, and a post on the reliable sources Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard alleging that I had committed copyvio, and there's still your bold reversion including uncontroversial bibliographic content I'd added, which I really don't want to manually restore. I can't really spend as much time on the wikis as you do, and interactions with you have been consuming most of my time. I have other interests and would like to spend some time on them.

I also find arguing with you difficult, because you are inconsistent, repeat arguments without responding to my rebuttals, and express criticisms of my content as threats. I often find dealing with your tags really frustrating, as I often disagree with your judgment in tagging statements. I have not been able to discuss these differences with you effectively. Sometimes you've removed verification work I've done at your request, which makes me feel that my efforts are futile.

My previous attempts to improve this article were largely removed by IPs giving odd reasons (like working in the industry and thus having personal knowledge contradicting the sourced statement, or the Vaping Post contradicting a cited Cochrane review). You supported these edits, but I think they made a mess of the article. I know that I will have to argue any edits to this article with you, which I don't find very productive or pleasant. If you nominate this article for deletion, which I find odd given the amount of work you've put into it, it will bump it up my priority tree, but right now I'm feeling really fed up.

I don't know what to do about this situation. I'm not sure this will help, but I thought I should at least explain some of the sources of my frustrations with this article. HLHJ (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Instead of cleaning up the page more off-topic was recently added. Under "Issues have not been addressed": do you think I am correct and the content can be deleted or should we discuss this more?

Please focus on the issues I raised above. It was a ‎possible NFCC#8 violation rather than a copyvio. That is being addressed by others. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello QuackGuru,

You added these maintenance tags. Please don't add maintenance tags and then say that the tags mean that the article should be deleted. If these issues bother you, please Be Bold and fix them. Speaking of being bold, I apologize if this is inappropriate to point out but I noticed that you have a good draft of this article at User:QuackGuru/Sanx. Would you be open to moving some or all of that draft to this article?

Otherwise, I'm not sure that the claim that ""Ads for flavoured e-cigarettes have been shown..." is supposed to be a medical one. It concerns marketing effectiveness rather than medicine. Best, --Chumash11 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Recently I created a draft. See Draft:Electric smoking system. It is going nowhere and that draft could be deleted. The sandbox page you mentioned is a broader topic than this page. I archived the sandbox you mentioned so that it would not distract from this discussion. It includes several aspects of marketing. It does not match this page or its title. I think it would be best if this POV Fork is redirected or deleted because the issues have not been resolved and the page is badly written. I can't fix the problems with this page when my edits are being reverted and some of the tags are being removed. You also removed some tags without fixing the issues IMO. "Ads for flavoured e-cigarettes...". uses a primary source. It is still unreliable.

The article contained off-topic content such as content from the article Cigarette smoking for weight loss[9]

This old version of this page contains failed verification content throughout the page as well as off-topic content. From beginning to end this page violates WP:COATRACK. The way to fix the problems with this page is to start over. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

See "The proportion of American youth who are exposed to e-cigarette marketing has risen by more than 10 percentage points since 2014, and there has been a sharp increase of 1.5 million more middle and high school students using e-cigarettes compared to 2017 according to the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS).[17]" Where does the source verify the claim? There are a lot of different links when you go to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• See "SURGE IN YOUTH CURRENT IN E-CIGARETTE USE: 1.5 Million More Students Used E-Cigarettes in 2018 vs 2017". The first half of the sentence came from a different source, which I just added in. --Chumash11 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Are the problems ever going to be fixed or just ignored? At one point, the same problems were happening on both articles simultaneously. See comment on 2 June 2018: "Since some of the questions at issue here are identical to those discussed at Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes (stanford.edu source, Truth in Advertising source), I have responded there."[10] How come the problems were forked to this article last year? I have been more than patient. It has been over a year now and little progress has been made. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See "I'm afraid that addressing every issue you raise would take more time than I can spend editing."[11] HLHJ is not intending to address the issues? I tried fixing some of the content and got reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There are now even more problems added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than collaborate and fix the problems the editor is complaining on their talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The editor who added the duplication states "I was fixing the duplications."[12] If they were fixing the duplications how come the duplication is still in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I didn't save the edit, due to an edit conflict. I have now saved it. HLHJ (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you remove any of the tags without fixing the problems. See "Marketing often falsely claims that e-cigarettes emit only water vapour.[1]:5[5] More moderately, e-cigarette companies commonly advertise that their products contain only water, nicotine, glycerin, propylene glycol, and flavoring; this assertion is also misleading.[2]" See the part "only water vapour" and "only water". The part "More moderately" is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See "Among children, e-cigarettes are the most commonly-used tobacco product."[13] This content is off-topic and clearly was a violation of the RfC. See Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Article_scope. The editor who disagreed and wanted to include off-topic content was the same editor who added the off-topic content about e-cigarettes are the most commonly-used tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

One sentence has 4 ([10][11][12][13]) citations. But each citation makes a different claim. This page is not fixable when there are way too many unresolved issues. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence is still poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is consensus on two points:

1. Selectively merge marketing of electronic cigarettes to Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes.
2. The merge is without prejudice against a future spinout.

The consensus is that a merge should take place because as summarized by Blue Rasberry, "the content of this article is almost entirely about nicotine marketing".

The consensus is that marketing of electronic cigarettes can be restored if it excludes discussion of nicotine products. As Blue Rasberry noted, "there are published sources about marketing e-cigarettes outside the context of marketing nicotine".

There is a consensus for a selective merge but there is no consensus on how much or what to merge over. I recommend that editors hold off on redirecting marketing of electronic cigarettes to Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes for a few weeks to allow for further discussion about what to merge. I recommend that editors who participated in this merge discussion be pinged about what they want to be merged over since most editors in this discussion did not discuss that.

Cunard (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the page a WP:POVFORK and/or a violation of WP:SPINOFF? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. See comments in the above section for more info. I recommend a redirect to Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes. The Nicotine marketing page can accommodate any content if anyone wants to merge the content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Fix it don't fork it. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, at one point you wrote an entire draftspace replacement version of this article. You then abandoned it; why? Re-writing from scratch, with no other editors, were you not able to make it neutral to your satisfaction? HLHJ (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at my talk page notifications, you've proposed this article for deletion as a POV fork twice before, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Do not merge to Nicotine marketing#Electronic cigarettes. That section is one short para. Giving e-cigarettes more space than the other modifed-risk nicotine products would be WP:recentism and unbalance the article. As I recall I started this article because the material for that section was overwhelming the rest of the nicotine-marketing article. There was no-one else working on the article at the time, and I got a third-party review for neutrality just after I split it off. I responded to the review with modifications and the reviewer was then satisfied that it was neutral. QuackGuru arrived shortly afterwards and was unfortunately not satisfied. HLHJ (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You stated you split it off. This edit restored disputed content to the Nicotine marketing article. That's not splitting it off at that time. The problems on the main page were a lot. There are still problems with the main page. Both articles have some of the same type of problems with accuracy.[14][15] Maybe we should not merge it. A redirect would be better. This page is very poorly written and littered with policy violations. For example, see the introductory sentence: "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3][clarification needed]" That is utter nonsense. If it were merged there would not be much to merge given the policy violations. You wrote above "QuackGuru arrived shortly afterwards and was unfortunately not satisfied." Rather than thanking me for catching the policy violations and other problems your stated that I was "unfortunately not satisfied". That is offensive. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that I offended you with that statement, QuackGuru. It was not my intent. You have made some useful contributions to this article. You could do more useful things. The current version has a 19-page article tagged as needing a page number, for instancel; in the future, you could find and add the page number instead of tagging. If you are really upset with the article and feel that it should not exist, please nominate it for deletion as you suggested in your null edit. Alternately, please do not take up my time and that of other editors arguing informally for deletion. I've never used that formal process, but I expect it is a well-thought-out system, with some advantages to use, or it would never have replaced this sort of informal discussion. HLHJ (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • According to you, "Since some of the questions at issue here are identical to those discussed at Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes (stanford.edu source, Truth in Advertising source), I have responded there."[16] Forking disputed content to this page is by definition a WP:POVFORK. How much more time does an editor need? After a year it is time to move on. Copying content from other pages and the e-cig page creates a strange article. How come the primary sources and off-topic content have not been removed? QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't think that discussing the reliability of the same source on multiple talk pages, which as I recall was what we were debating, implies a POV fork. I split content off to this page because there was too much to include in a more general article, and as I recall you had not yet disputed the content when I created this article. While the number of primary sources could be reduced, eliminating them is not required, and I have not yet gotten around to it. Nine RfCs are a lot to keep up on. You have disagreed with several editors on what constitutes off-topic content, and I'll try and get around to discussing it with you in detail again at some point. However, if you want to delete this article, start an AfD process, and we'll settle the matter; discussing something that is to be deleted is a waste of both our time. Maybe waiting for the RfCs to be over first would be good, tho. HLHJ (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
          • There was a dispute on another page and then the problems were also happening here. That's not good they ended up here. Random off-topic content is not allowed according to the RfC. See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Article scope. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes merge to nicotine marketing I came here through WikiProject Medicine, which gets regular alerts about e-cigarettes. I support the merge because the content of this article is almost entirely about nicotine marketing. E-cigarette marketing could be a separate issue, but this article's content currently is not actually about e-cigarettes, and instead is about nicotine marketing. I know there are published sources about marketing e-cigarettes outside the context of marketing nicotine, but because this article's content is currently focused on nicotine, a merge could bring clarity if anyone wanted to do the labor of sorting it out. I would not oppose the establishment of an e-cigarette marketing article which was careful to exclude discussion of nicotine products. Having separate marketing articles makes more sense in places where there the regulations on cigarettes and e-cigarettes are very different. For example, in San Francisco this week, the city applied a ban to e-cigarettes while not banning cigarettes. I see that as one of the unusual cases where e-cigarette marketing is specifically different, whereas the normal situation is that all kinds of marketing discussion encourages nicotine use. Currently this marketing article is getting 900 views/month, while the nicotine marketing article gets 3600/month. Better to put most content there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes merge Per Blue Rasberry, there appears to be nothing specific in this article that should not be in Nicotine marketing, and the latter has more page views. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes merge Per Blue Rasberry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the final state people would like to see? Would a very long section in Nicotine marketing#E-cigarettes be acceptable? Each successive "modified-risk" product is marketed in a very similar way; should we have content on each parallel marketing trajectory? There seem to me to be two main differences between e-cigarette marketing and other nicotine marketing. Firstly, specific health claims made about e-cigarettes (now largely deleted, mostly by IPs on June 2nd). Secondly, the fact that in many jurisdictions, e-cigarette ads are under fewer or no legal restrictions. For example:

It is commonly stated that the non-nicotine ingredients in an e-fluid are all deemed safe for food use. However, the Food and Drug Administration has stated that food ingredients it has approved (GRAS, "generally recognized as safe" ingredients) are only approved for eating: "GRAS status for a food additive does not mean that the substance is GRAS when inhaled, since GRAS status does not take inhalation toxicity into account."[11]

What are we going to do with this sort of content in the event of a merge? Should each techniques section in Nicotine marketing have e-cig examples where sourcable? HLHJ (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is a complete disaster and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I am still removing policy violations from the article. I think nothing should be merged because there are way too many problems with the content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discusssion moved from User talk:HLHJ

I have been patient for over a year. If you want me to fix the pollution in mainspace I expect you to redirect it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. You expect me to turn Marketing of electronic cigarettes into a redirect if I want you to fix what, exactly?

I'm also sorry not to have fixed everything you wanted me to fix. I'm afraid that addressing every issue you raise would take more time than I can spend editing. In the past, when I've spent more time, you've tagged and debated and requested more things, so the more time I work on it, the longer the list of tasks gets. It frustrates me too. HLHJ (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please collaborate and help fix the issues or support a redirect. After it is redirected the content won't be lost. I can fix it and rewrite it. But when I make a small change and you revert you are not helping fixing the problems. You are causing the problems when you don't let me fix the high level of pollution. You know I can write mass content. See a few e-cig subpages I edited. For example, over 95% of the content I wrote alone for this page. You are blocking me from improving the Marketing of electronic cigarettes page. Either collaborate or move on and support a redirect is the best option IMO. It only takes me a few weeks to create a massive article from scratch. I'm not going to waste my time when you are getting in my way. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I went and started working on that article. The first inline tag in that article was a demand for a page number for a 13-page document with a lot of whitespace. I fixed. I went on to fix more inline tags. As I was working, you cane and started adding more inline tags, thus edit-conflicting me. I can't remember how many inline tags which you have put in articles I've worked to resolve; certainly many dozens. A lot of them, like the 13-page one, seem like a waste of time to me. The edit (and the pervious one) you link to are not plain reverts; I was directly fixing the problems for which you removed the text, restoring the fixed text, and adding more new content. I really am trying to collaborate. If you can try not to cause needless frustrations, by looking up page numbers where you really think them necessary, and postponing re-tagging for long enough not to cause me to have to merge edits by hand, it would save me a lot of time. HLHJ (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

They were not plain reverts, but they did not fix the issues. There are more problems now.

See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1]:10 and spending on e-cigarette marketing is increasing rapidly.[2][3]" The part "some jurisdictions" makes no sense. "spending on e-cigarette marketing is increasing rapidly" is inaccurate. The first sentence should be an introductory to the topic. I would delete the current first sentence and rewrite it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I fixed some tags, you add two more inline tags, one of them a problem that I was fixing when the addition of the tag edit-conflicted, the other questioning whether the WHO's statement that a marketing claim was both common and inaccurate was relevant to the Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. Then you post a complaint that I've added more problems to the article to the talk page, and link it from my talk page. Can you see why this does not encourage collaboration? HLHJ (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See "Marketing often claims that e-cigarettes emit only water vapour." This is duplication. See "The assertion that e-cigarette emit "only water vapor" is false..." See "e-cigarette use exposes bystanders to a number of toxicants" is unrelated to marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I can see the tags. I was fixing the duplications. I made one edit, stating in the edit summary that it was a first step towards fixing the duplications, and you seem to have reverted it, thus edit-conflicting the second step. You say, above, "I'm not going to waste my time when you are getting in my way". Can you see why your actions feel inconsiderate of my time? I'm taking a break. HLHJ (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Recap. See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1]:10 and spending on e-cigarette marketing is increasing rapidly.[2][3]" The part "some jurisdictions" is misleading and inaccurate. The part "spending on e-cigarette marketing is increasing rapidly." is also inaccurate and both sources[2][3] are making very different claims.

See "Marketing often claims that e-cigarettes emit only water vapour." This is duplication of the following sentence. See "The assertion that e-cigarette emit "only water vapor" is false..."

See "e-cigarette use exposes bystanders to a number of toxicants" is not about marketing.

See "E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites.[4][clarification needed]" Also see "Marketing claims that e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user[duplication?][4]" The same source is being used for making similar claims and both claims are misleading. The source used the word "concerning". That is an entirely different meaning than the claims made in the article.

See WP:COPYWITHIN. Do you agree to abide by WP:COPYWITHIN and fix the issues with copying within Wikipedia. The Marketing of electronic cigarettes page continues to violate WP:COPYWITHIN for over a year. Attribution is required for copyright. See WP:ATTREQ. Content was copied from the electronic cigarette page and other pages without following WP:COPYWITHIN. This means attribution is also required on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I do not think that shuffling the order of content within an article, while stating in the edit summary that I am doing that, as I have just done, is copyvio. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you provide diffs for the copywithin problems you describe?

How is "some jurisdictions" misleading and inaccurate? I think I have at least tried to fix the other texts you are complaining about. Per the old RfC, I"m adding content challenging the marketing claims by providing accurate information which contradicts them, cited to sources that discuss the accuracy of the marketing claims and compare it with reality, like the WHO. This is not off-topic. HLHJ (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

How is "some jurisdictions" misleading and inaccurate? The content is vague. If the content in the source does not mention it is related to the accuracy of the marketing claims then is it off-topic? QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree to abide by WP:COPYWITHIN which includes providing attribution on the talk page? See this diff. See WP:ATTREQ. Content was copied from the electronic cigarette page and other pages without following WP:COPYWITHIN. This means attribution is also required on the talk page. For example, where was "Celebrity endorsements are also used to encourage e-cigarette use.[34]" copied from? QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you mean! I was not aware of that requirement when I created this article, and it hadn't come to mind. Why didn't you just fix it? It would have taken far less effort on your part than this exchange. I've added the sources I gave in my edit summary to templates at the top of this page. HLHJ (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See where was "Celebrity endorsements are also used to encourage e-cigarette use.[34]" copied from?[17] Was there attribution in the edit history of the article and the talk page? QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to look through the page history, I can't recall. Please feel free to fix it (I'm not sure how). It is important that there be attribution, and I will do my best not to forget talk pages tags again. I would take it kindly if you would fix any such oversights of mine you encounter, and inform me of what I should have done. I hope you will not spend more time condemning me for errors of which I am aware than it would have taken for you to fix them; it is not necessary. HLHJ (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Violation of consensus and violation of RfC

Moved from User talk:HLHJ § Violation of consensus and violation of RfC

This edit was a violation of consensus and a violation of the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I restored the content in line with a consensus that the SRITA source was acceptable for marketing claims. Have I missed and broken some other consensus?

The RFC could only be taken to apply to the sentence "As of 2014, vaping in enclosed public places is banned in 30 countries (containing 35% of the global population)". I interpret this as an acceptable thing to juxtapose with the "smoke anywhere" marketing message. Do you interpret the RFC to mean that no sources not mentioning marketing can be used? If not, can you give a counterexample? Would you be OK with restoring all the other sentences? HLHJ (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group. It did not find it to be a reliable secondary source. It appears they are a collection of WP:primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) This is also off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please, let the discussion stay moved; I don't want a fork. Looking closely at that archive link, you will see that the secondary commentary was initially not seen by the reviewers (it is not present in some sections of the site). The judgement that the source was primary was conditional ("unless there is actually commentary there that I missed"). When I drew attention to the commentary that had indeed been missed, it was agreed that the commentary was RS. HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it is off-topic think that some statement about the health harms of e-cigarettes is required by that same RFC, given that we have described marketing claims that they are harmless. I agree that the current statement could be improved. HLHJ (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)