Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

Template:Ecig sanctions This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dumbpepper, Grracelee, JenniferKaiser2020, Colleen mccann (article contribs).

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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."[1]

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[2]

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."[3] 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."[4] 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."[5] 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."[6] 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.[7][8] 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."[9] 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?[10] 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)