Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

Article scope

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

This article is littered with off-topic content and unreliable sources and failed verification content. For example, the article contains content about safety, addictiveness, harm to bystanders, use by non-smokers, stress, dieting, cost, and smoking cessation. Those are not about marketing. There is also a lot of unsourced content. The article is called "Marketing of e-cigarettes" but it is about e-cigarettes in general which cover different topics. That is what the main page is for. That is by definition a WP:CONTENTFORK. You have not cleaned up the content fork.
— User:QuackGuru

If this article contained only the advertising claims, it would be making biomedical claims and citing marketing materials to support them. If the article presents a marketing claim about biomedical information, it must also contain a MEDRS-sourced statement about that claim (whether the claim is true or not). E-cigarette marketing frequently contains biomedical claims, so just leaving them out would result in the article having inadequate coverage of the topic.

I agree that I frequently haven't tied the biomedical information properly to the marketing claims, despite having relevant sources, and I need to fix that; biomedical information not related to marketing does not belong in this article. It's an easy blind spot to develop, and I am grateful for having attention drawn to omissions I've somehow not seen. I have made some edits to improve coverage of topical tie-in. I would welcome any comments and criticism posted here. HLHJ (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole article seems like someone has a dislike for vaping and is on a personal crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.142.116 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

HLHJ, you wrote "I agree that I frequently haven't tied the biomedical information properly to the marketing claims, despite having relevant sources, and I need to fix that;...". You don't need to "fix" that. It can't be fixed because the content is off-topic. The source must make the connection. Not the editor. If this article contained only the advertising claims, then it would be on-topic. This content is off-topic. You didn't fix it. The sentence can de deleted because it is off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. There are cases where I have sources that make the connection between biomedical information and marketing claims, but haven't written it into the article. I can fix that. HLHJ (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The amount of direct and implied misinformation in this article is incredible.

This reads like a first draft. Double words, weasel words, grammatical errors, punctuation errors.

I fixed a few things, but I gave up when I noticed that on top of that, most of the information is only tangentially relevant to marketing of e-cigs at all, and appears to be little more than a compendium of concerns that the writer has about the relevant industry. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I really have to wonder at the neutrality of the person who submitted it with regards to whether the article passes NPOV and COI guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.90.122 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes. You added off-topic content. See "Most e-cigarettes are sold by manufacturers independent of traditional tobacco companies." That is not about marketing. Safety information about the "buttery" flavor diacetyl is also off-topic.

There is also unreliable sources such as Truth In Advertising because it is a watchdog group rather than a secondary source.

There is also failed verification content. For example, see "Some often implicit marketing claims made both online and by some sales reps in vape shops are that[9][1]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to make this article neutral and balanced. I welcome assistance in doing this. We all have our points of view, and have to work with them; hopefully a variety of editor POVs will strengthen the article. I have no COI on this topic, unless you count knowing some people who are addicted to nicotine, which is a pretty unavoidable state. HLHJ (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising (organization) 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 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)

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".[1] 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)