Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colleen mccann (article contribs).

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)

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."[2] 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.[3][4]

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.[5][6] Any other reasons? HLHJ (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

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)