Talk:Nicotine marketing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 305: Line 305:


{{u|QuackGuru}}, I think this will resolve your complaint ("original research"), and you are currently not around to ask, so I will provisionally re-instate it with better sourcing. I'll leave in your brand wl, too, though I'm not sure it's needed. If you have other suggestions for improving the caption, I would welcome them. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
{{u|QuackGuru}}, I think this will resolve your complaint ("original research"), and you are currently not around to ask, so I will provisionally re-instate it with better sourcing. I'll leave in your brand wl, too, though I'm not sure it's needed. If you have other suggestions for improving the caption, I would welcome them. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicotine_marketing&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=844242733&oldid=844240484 This caption misrepresents the image and includes off-topic content not about marketing].

:See caption: ''This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion<ref name=reactance_smoking/> ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in [[addiction]].<ref name=FDA_review/>{{rp|150}} It plays on social anxieties<ref name=media_role/>{{rp|216-217}} with the phrase "'''Nobody likes a quitter'''". The topmost line, "WHY QUIT?", also contradicts the narrative that [[Electronic cigarette#Smoking cessation|e-cigarettes help smokers quit]].<ref name=WHOPosition2014/> The ad is explicitly addressed at the "concerned smoker", someone considering quitting,<ref name=media_role/>{{rp|146, 166-168}} and it suggests a more harmful<ref name=WHOPosition2014/> alternative to quitting. ([[blu eCigs|blu]], a brand of [[Imperial Brands|Imperial Brands, formerly Imperial Tobacco''

{{ref-talk}}

:Where do the sources specifically mention the 2011 ad? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


==Types of messages==
==Types of messages==
Line 313: Line 320:


are on-topic. The "only water vapour" claim might be cited, too. {{u|QuackGuru}}, would you be willing to restore this? [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
are on-topic. The "only water vapour" claim might be cited, too. {{u|QuackGuru}}, would you be willing to restore this? [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:You did not explain exactly which claim you think can be restored that is about marketing. Which text about passive vaping are you referring too? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


== Nicotine price discounts ==
== Nicotine price discounts ==

Revision as of 17:07, 3 June 2018

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): Ryan.ng22, Ameercat, Themis.Wilson, Kristy.hwang (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Miraj610, Tuba.nemati. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kam4441.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

1930-1999

The 1930-1999 section contains information from after 1999. -KaJunl (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar for the advertisement control section, especially for Asian countries, could be improved. -KaJunl (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-smoking campaigns

Would the "truth" campaign be notable enough to add? I think it is significant. -KaJunl (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tobacco advertising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tobacco advertising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Advertising

Under the campaign title there is not much information on web advertisement of tobacco and when Microsoft and google began their policies and why. The effectiveness of tobacco advertisement could most likely be expanded upon. There seemed to be quite a bit of information on tobacco companies sponsoring NASCAR drivers, but not too much about other sports. It might be better to stay consistent with the amount of information on each sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.169 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tobacco advertising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section on tobacco advertisement in poor communities

I would like to propose a new section on the page, focusing on the history and impact of tobacco advertisement in low-income communities. It is known that the tobacco industry is targeting more vulnerable communities that have less access to healthcare information. --Themis.Wilson (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review (UCSF Health Policy CP 133 2017)

This group's edits accurately reflected the goals they set out to achieve and provided good information regarding the background on the tobacco industry's impact on lower-income communities. Additionally, their references are all publicly available however, if possible include an accessible link to the source if available so that viewers won't be confused if they are correctly searching the right source (referring to source 22 under target youth).Miraj610 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All additions/edits from the UCSF SOP student group and very valuable additions. Each individual edit is carefully thought out and show no sign of plagiarism or copyright infringement.Sparella12 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made by this group reflected a neutral point of view. The group used supporting facts with proper citation to address how tobacco industries target young people, especially the teenage population to use their products through misrepresentation of what tobacco is and its impact on the body. One way of improving the article would be to briefly explain what the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is since it was not very clear in the article. Beliang (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgrigsby (talk • contribs) [reply]

The group nominally met their goal of adding information regarding targeting of tobacco advertising. There was not a substantial amount of information added. --Scottgrigsby (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with wikipedia’s manual of style for medici-related articles? If not, specify…

Yes, the edits follow wikipedias manual of style for medicine-related articles (found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles)

They have written in a style that is directed to a general audience, and not just towards a health care professional or patient. They used laymen terms, and have used the proper citations needed. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuba.nemati (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Edits/Response to Peer Reviews

I chose not to make edits at this time due to the positive reviews from Group 11. Additionally, the article has already been relatively well populated with good information. I did take a look at the citations per Group 11's suggestion and my particular citation is associated with a first, last error. From my understanding, this is due to an unpopulated field in the citation generator (author last name specifically) and I tried to remove this field unsuccessfully. Perhaps there is a bug in the code preventing this from being achieved. Overall, I felt our edits have expanded on the targeting of youths by the tobacco industry by not just simply stating the fact, but by exploring the motives as cited by our sources. Ryan.ng22 (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Nicotine marketing

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nicotine marketing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Rom2014":

  • From Electronic cigarette: Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2014). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1340 (1): 65–74. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.
  • From Regulation of electronic cigarettes: Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2014). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1340: n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.

Reference named "England2015":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru's diverse edits, mostly on e-cigarettes

Hi, QuackGuru. Thanks for editing the article; it could do with more eyes. I had a few questions, bear with me, you did a lot of edits :) .

  • Are list-defined references, which you removed, deprecated? I'd put some of them in that format to declutter the main text a bit.
  • Apparently Template:See below is deprecated. Thank you. Do you happen to know what the current best method for writing within-article references is? Anchors?
  • I was trying to describe common marketing claims and then comparing them to available evidence (for concrete claims, not vague "This product is super!" stuff that one cannot really factcheck). I therefore think that summaries of the available evidence are on-topic. For instance:
    • the image on the adverse effects of vaping contrasts with marketing claims that vaping is harmless
    • the quoted text on the effect of smoking on stress not only contrasts with the marketing claims, it also came from a ref that was cited as the only source supporting that paragraph. The paragraph is now unsourced, which I assume was unintentional.
Do you think giving information that contradicts marketing claims is off-topic in principle? Where would you draw the line?
  • I copied a lot of the evidence claims from related articles (as it says in my edit summaries), and I didn't read all the references supporting all the things I copied. I should go through and check these.
  • I used the e-cigarette ad to illustrate the statements in the text, with specific discussion of the ad. If it is just captioned "A 2011 blu e-cigarette advertisement", it fails to meet the fair use criteria; we'll need to discuss it in the article. I take your point that the caption also needs references, and I will try to fix this. I think some of the statements are not WP:Likely to be challenged (that an ad saying "WHY QUIT?... SWITCH TO BLU/ blu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change... Nobody likes a quitter, so make the switch today" is suggesting e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting, for instance).
  • I don't understand this edit. For instance, the claim "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" is made in marketing, and a Cochrane review is a solid medref to support the statement that evidence for this message is weak. I didn't support the statement that the messages were used in marketing, though, which I should have. I assume that's why you removed it as off-topic, not because you felt that e-cigarettes did not belong in a discussion of products marketed as less-harmful alternatives for the nicotine addict :). So I've restored it with a cited statement that clearly ties it to the topic, and also supports the statement that you flagged as FV and then deleted.
  • I changed one of the statements you tagged as having failed verification; the last para of the section "Marketing and Media Research" in this ref,<ref name=Grana2014> seems to me to support the claim it is now attached to ("Television and radio e-cigarette advertising in some countries may be indirectly advertising traditional cigarette smoking, as there is evidence suggesting that "viewing an e-cigarette commercial may induce thoughts about smoking and cue the urge to smoke".")
  • If you think my sentence about trends in e-cigarette use is off-topic, I'll drop it. You're right; I'm not really using it to support any other statement, and besides, it's a bit outdated.
  • You removed this example; I grant it's not adequate as a source, as that would be WP:Original research, but I have a source already; I just wanted to use it as an illustration. Would you prefer I discussed it inline?
  • The statement about e-cigarette being used to "delay and deter quitting" did seem really off-topic, as I didn't discuss the message's use as a marketing tool. Fixed.
  • Thanks for catching the duplicate "rapidly expanding" quote. I agree with you about the position it is better to have it in.

Hope this, and the accompanying edits, adequately fix the problems you pointed out. If not, please leave a note here and ping me. Thank you for helping me improve this article. HLHJ (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable sources I removed were restored.[1] The claim "e-cigarettes help smokers quit is made in marketing" seems to be unsupported by the Cochrane review. Where does the source verify is it a marketing claim? Adding an additional source does not make both sources verify the same content. For example, the source says "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting."[2] That does not verify "There are concerns that this is a marketing strategy to delay and deter quitting, by giving users an excuse to keep using nicotine." I deleted content that was off-topic and now the content was slightly changed to make it look relevant but the source does not verity the changed wording. Off-topic content was also restored. Adding more sources created more problems. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, please give me a notification when you write about me. I would really appreciate it.
Sorry, misunderstanding. The vape_shops ref and the Grana 2014 ref, which I added to the statement "Some often implicit marketing claims made both online and by some sales reps in vape shops are that" in the para just before the bulleted list, support the claim that the claim "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" is made in marketing; the Cochrane review supports the statement that the evidence for the truth of this claim is weak.
Grana says "...expanding their cigarette line while touting their ability to offer a product [e-cigarettes] they claim reduces harm from cigarettes. This allows the cigarette companies to have it both ways... adopting “harm reduction” rhetoric to protect their cigarette business as long as possible... the tobacco industry has used every iteration of cigarette design to undermine cessation and prevention." I'll improve the statement and get better sources for it, but I'm out of time just now.
Can you tell me which sources you consider unreliable? If you could give me a bulleted list, with the reason you think them unreliable, it would be easy to look into it. As it is, I'm left guessing that you probably didn't think that the Cochrane review was an unreliable source, but maybe thought Truth in Advertising (organization) was. I'm sorry if I restored specific sources you unequivocally designated as unreliable without discussion. I tried to go through all your edits stepwise, but I got confused in parts, especially when you edited the same section multiple times. Please tell me which sources they are so I can fix.
Could you please tell me whether you think that giving information that contradicts marketing claims is off-topic in principle?
Did any of the changes I listed above please you? HLHJ (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the content was restored with the slight changes. Off-topic content and other problems were restored.[3] You added content that does not mention marketing. The sources did not state it contradicts marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, QuackGuru. In order to avoid further mistakes, I'm responding to your edits one-by one in detail.

  • 15:24, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-43)‎ (cleanup)
    • removed "see below|"Harm reduction" advertising" template
      • fair enough, it's deprecated. I should replace it with something modern. Suggestions?
  • 15:30, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-1,171)‎ (cleanup orginal research and off-topic image.)
    • replaced the caption discussing an e-cigarette ad with "A 2011 blu e-cigarette advertisement"; removed image summarizing adverse effects of vaping
      • I believe that the first image's caption is not OR; it's not recondite to say that the sentence "take back your freedom" "emphasizes choice, freedom, and rebellion", and the sentence "Nobody likes a quitter" plays on social anxieties, and that an ad saying "WHY QUIT?... SWITCH TO BLU/ blu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change... Nobody likes a quitter, so make the switch today" is suggesting e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting. In the main text, I have described all of these strategies in detail, with refs discussing their use in nictoine marketing; we have to say how this image provides examples, or it will not be fair use. Do you approve this rationale in principle? You are apparently OK with a parallel ad-and-caption for combustible cigarettes?
      • I believe that the second image is on-topic because it addresses the factual accuracy of marketing claims, with good medrefs.
  • 15:32, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (+15)‎ (move to right and WL blu)
    • formatting and wl brand name in new ad caption
      • discussing the marketing methods in the ad is, I think, on-topic; I'm not so sure about naming the product
  • 15:34, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-1,098)‎ (cleanup and remove off-topic content)
    • removed unsourced statement "Any reference to addictiveness is avoided"
      • totally fair, I found a source and put it back
    • removed "see below" template
      • OK, it's deprecated. Again, replacement.
    • removed "Does cigarette smoking cause stress?" source and quote from it, leaving the entire para with no sources. I copied the para from another article, either Smoking or Health effects of tobacco use, so if you object to it you should also go look at its uses there. The same author also wrote to review articles on the same topic, so I can find a MEDRS for this paragraph and re-write it. I think this is on-topic because it addresses the factual accuracy of marketing claims.
  • 15:36, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (+9)‎ (MEDRS)
    • Asked for MEDRS on "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."
      • Fair enough; article is not a review, but a longitudinal survey of attitudes and frequency of taking up vaping. We could debate whether this is WP:Biomedical information, but I have now added a review which I think is MEDRS which also supports this statement.
  • 15:38, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-881)‎ (remove off-topic and unreliable sources)
    • The sources removed are
      • The Stanford Research Into the Impact of Advertising (SRITA) research group public information website, which is widely cited in mainstream media outlets
      • A 2016 Cochrane (organisation) review, which is definately MEDRS
      • A ref that is a footnote, not a source, referring the reader to an example image
      • The aforementioned longitudinal study
    • The information removed as off-topic (shorn of its sources, which were also removed) is
      • the marketing claim "e-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air"
      • the marketing claim "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" and a parenthetical statement that the evidence for this is weak, with MEDRS
      • the statement that the claims "e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user" and "e-cigarettes are only used by smokers" are false.
      • the statement "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.", on the effects of belief in these marketing messages.
    • If one source says "e-cigarettes do X" and another says that they don't, I don't think we need a source that explicitly says that they contradict each other, especially if we haven't explicitly stated that they contradict each other. If we juxtapose both claims, the reader can judge to what extent they are consistent.
  • 15:54, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (+6)‎ (FV)
    • Unsourced statement marked as FV
      • Fair. I modified the statement, split it into two statements, and added sources.
  • 16:01, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-80)‎ (cleanup failed verification content)
    • remainder of the list of marketing claims removed in the last-but-one edit replaced with the para: "E-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user are marketing claims.(england ref) Unsupported claims of safety and quitting smoking are common marketing claims targeting at smokers.(WHO ref)"
      • an improvement over the last edit, as it at least mentions that one of the marketing claims is "unsupported" rather than stating them with no critical discussion of their accuracy
  • 16:03, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-116)‎ (tag FV; remove off-topic)
    • Tagged the statement "television and radio e-cigarette advertising in some countries may be indirectly encouraging traditional cigarette smoking", citing Grana 2014, as failing verification
      • Maybe not a very close reflection of the source. Changed to say: Television and radio e-cigarette advertising in some countries may be indirectly advertising traditional cigarette smoking, as there is evidence suggesting that "viewing an e-cigarette commercial may induce thoughts about smoking and cue the urge to smoke". (quote from Grana ref) I can get some more refs for this statement
    • removed statement "The use of e-cigarettes has been increasing exponentially since 2004" and its refs
      • OK, if you think that's off-topic, I'll leave it out, it doesn't add much to the article
  • 16:16, 30 May 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+224)‎ (Rescuing orphaned refs ("WHOPosition2014" from rev 843654338; "ncbi.nlm.nih.gov" from rev 843655826)) )
  • 16:28, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-6,603)‎ (tag; remove unreliable sources; remove unsourced; remove off-topic)
    • This edit edits the section on e-cigarettes, which covers the claims in the summary of marketing methods, but in more detail, and discusses some more minor claims
    • added citation-needed tag to sentence "E-cigarettes are marketed as a cheaper, more pleasant, and more convenient complement or alternative to smoking"
    • tagged Truth in Advertising article as an unreliable source.
      • This is an investigative journalism organisation, can you tell me why you think them unreliable?
    • removed statement that there exists a marketing claim (citing Truth in Advertising source) that "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" and that there is weak evidence for this claim, citing Cochrane review
      • This statement seems to me to be reliably sourced and very on-topic indeed. As I recall Truth in Advertising found that this was the most common or one of the most common claims made for e-cigarettes
    • removed statement that there exists a marketing claim that e-cigarettes are only used by smokers (citing Truth in Advertising source, but not citing another source on the accuracy of the claim)
      • I should have added a source here. I think the same statement was sourced in the section on marketing methods, so I or QuackGuru could have copied the sources.
    • removed the summary statement "The evidence for these claims is weak to negative."
      • This statement is unsourced, but its a sub-lede summarizing the entire heavily-cited section.
    • Added a citation-needed tag to the statement "It is claimed, for instance, that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor"."
      • This statement is well-sourced in the next reference, which says "these findings made false the popular statement that e-cigarette emissions are "only water vapor", or that they only include glycerin and propylene glycol beyond nicotine." The ref can be repeated at the end of both sentences if need be. I will do this.
    • removed entire paragraph on e-cigarettes being addictive
      • there was no statement right here that avoiding mention of addiction is a marketing strategy; I can source this, though, and will do so and re-instate the content
    • Removed statement "It is plausible that vapourizing cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, but not that they are harmless. There is evidence of short-term harm (see image) and no evidence on the long-term health effects, as e-cigarettes were introduced in 2004."
      • the first half of this sentence relies on the refs of the "harms of vaping" image, which QuackGuru had previously removed. I will copy the refs over from the image, I should have doen that in the first place. The latter half relies on common sense, though perhaps I should source that they were introduced in 2004.
    • removed statement "As with ventilated cigarettes, branding is used to imply healthiness, with brands named "Safe-cigs", "Lung Buddy", "iBreathe", and "E-HealthCigs"", which cites SRITA (Stanford Research Into the Impact of Advertising research group).
      • As mentioned above, I think this is a reliable source for statements about marketing messages.
    • removed two entire heavily-cited paras on messages about passive vaping and their accuracy.
      • This is a major marketing message, and I think omitting it seriously harms the article. Please give more detailed reasons.
    • removed half a heavily-cited para on messages about smoking cessation and their accuracy, and marketing e-cigs as a reason not to quit
      • This is a major marketing message, and I think omitting it seriously harms the article. Please give more detailed reasons.
    • removed entire short para about never-smokers starting vaping.
      • the first ref in this para is actually totally irrelvant, I think I got it switched somehow. The second source is not MEDRS, although I am not sure if MEDRS applieshere. It doesn't matter, as I have a MEDRS source for these facts
    • removed mentions of marketing to young people, replaced with "minors" and "youth" removed "adage.com" ref and statement about earlier strategies to target kids being banned
      • If you think that "adage.com" is an unreliable source, I can replace it, but I'd like to hear about what's wrong with it.
  • 16:29, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-721)‎ (cleanup)
    • removed the rest of the summaries of e-cigarette marketing claims
  • 16:36, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-97)‎ (cleanup)
    • removed footnote giving an example of the marketing message discussed
  • 16:37, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-5)‎ (minor)
  • 16:40, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-862)‎ (off-topic becuase it is not about marketing)
    • removed sentence "There are concerns that e-cigarette use may delay and deter quitting, by giving users an excuse to keep using nicotine"
      • This tied in quite closely with the removed material about marketing efforts to retain "concerned smokers". I could re-instate that material and make the topicality clearer
  • 16:41, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-232)‎ (duplicate quote)
    • removed one copy of duplicate quote
      • fair, and I think QuackGuru removed the right copy. Good catch.
  • 16:43, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-1)‎ (wording) (thanked)
    • grammar fix
      • Thanked QuackGuru, good copyediting
  • 17:03, 30 May 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+42)‎ (Dating maintenance tags: [failed verification] [citation needed]) )
  • 17:54, 30 May 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+270)‎ (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Grana2014" from rev 843663663)) )
  • 19:11, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-16,708)‎ (move refs out of ref section)
    • converts article away from list-defined references
      • Could you explain why you changed this, please?
  • 19:23, 30 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (-11)‎ (sourced now)
    • changed "It is claimed, for instance, that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor"" to "It is marketed that e-cigarettes emit merely "water vapor"", and removed the citation-needed tag added earlier, replacing it with a reference
      • while it is nice to cite uncited things, this statement had a better soure in the first place, as detailed above; I assume you overlooked it, and I will fix. I think "it is marketed that" is a bit awkward.
  • 19:37, 30 May 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+11,676)‎ (Rescuing orphaned refs) )
  • 00:27, 31 May 2018‎ QuackGuru (+1)‎ (move image)
    • Moved e-cigarette ad
      • This ad needs to be next to the things it is illustrating, but you cut that material, so I suppose the move makes sense
  • 02:28, 1 June 2018‎ HLHJ (+124)‎ (→‎Healthiness and non-addictiveness: The statement "Any reference to addictiveness is avoided" was removed, presumably as uncited; I've restored it with a citation) )
  • 03:18, 1 June 2018‎ HLHJ (+208)‎ (→‎E-cigarettes: fixed verification fail, more precise statement, split out separate statement that could do with a better, more global ref)
    • Closer reflection of ref, hopefully now passes your verification
  • 03:38, 1 June 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+15)‎ (Dating maintenance tags: [citation needed]) )
  • 04:50, 1 June 2018‎ HLHJ (+3,779)‎ (→‎Non-addictiveness and healthiness: content restored with changes to make relevance to topic obvious and generally address concerns by QuackGuru; see talk page discussion for details.)
    • restored content on marketing claims to section on marketing methods, but with more refs and rephrased to try and take QuackGuru's concerns into account.
      • The removed content in this section did not have a source for the marketing claims being common marketing claims, and I assumed that the lack of such a source was why QuackGuru deleted it as off-topic. So I inserted such a source and a few other fixes and restored it. I did not notice that he had earlier, and in a later part of the article, explicitly tagged the Truth in Advertising source as unreliable (edit of 16:28, 30 May 2018‎). I should have seen that, and I apologise; I made a mistake. I would like to discuss it. If you will explain what is wrong with the source, QuackGuru, I could go find a better replacement. The source seems good to me, though.
  • 05:14, 1 June 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+300)‎ (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Cochrane2016" from rev 843660940))
  • 15:17, 1 June 2018‎ QuackGuru (+264)‎ (Off-topic content was restored; unreliable sources was restored; tag failed verification content.)
    • SRITA tagged as unreliable again
    • sentence "There are concerns that this is a marketing strategy to delay and deter quitting, by giving users an excuse to keep using nicotine.", citing Grana 2014, tagged as failed-verification
      • commented above: Grana says "...expanding their cigarette line while touting their ability to offer a product [e-cigarettes] they claim reduces harm from cigarettes. This allows the cigarette companies to have it both ways... adopting “harm reduction” rhetoric to protect their cigarette business as long as possible... the tobacco industry has used every iteration of cigarette design to undermine cessation and prevention." I will improve the sourcing on this bit.
    • tagged "Some often implicit marketing claims made both online and by some sales reps in vape shops are that" as having failed verification.
      • There are three claims; could you please provide me with information about which claims failed verification in which if the two sources give, QuackGuru?
    • mention of the claim "e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking" tagged as irrelevant
      • This is a very common marketing claim and seems to me to be very relevant. Can you please explain why you disagree, QuackGuru?
    • mention of the claim "e-cigarettes are only, or mostly, used by smokers" is tagged as irrelevant
      • ditto
    • The statement "The evidence for these [marketing] claims is weak to negative", newly sourced, is now tagged as irrelevant
      • I think the factual accuracy of marketing claims is very relevent to this article. Without such content, we risk simply parrotting the marketing claims in Wikipedia's voice, uncritically; it could give the impression that they are true, even when the MEDRS I have cited do not support them. This seems neither neutral nor ethical.
    • The statement that believing some of the marketing claims makes one more likely to take up smoking, newly sourced to a MEDRS, is tagged as irrelevant
      • This seems very relevant to me. I think that the effects of marketing claims are in-scope for the article.
  • 15:38, 1 June 2018‎ AnomieBOT (+60)‎ (Dating maintenance tags: [failed verification] [unreliable source?])
  • 17:15, 1 June 2018‎ QuackGuru (+36)‎ (Template:Unreliable-inlinedate=June 2018)
    • Truth in Advertising ref re-tagged as unreliable
      • We obviously need to resolve whether this ref is reliable.
  • 17:17, 1 June 2018‎ QuackGuru (+72)‎ (Template:Unreliable-inlinedate=June 2018)
    • ditto

As you can see, I have put considerable effort into answering your points. I hope you will answer the following requests:

  • Could you tell me whether you think that giving information that contradicts marketing claims is off-topic in principle?
  • Could you tell me why you think the very common marketing claims about passive vaping and smoking cessation are off-topic?
  • Why do you consider SRITA (Stanford Research Into the Impact of Advertising research group) to be an unreliable source?
  • Why do you consider Truth in Advertising (organisation) to be an unreliable source?
  • Could you please ping me when you respond to my edits or talk page posts?

Let's keep the discussion of this article here. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

You restored this content and made slight changes, but the content contains off-topic content, unreliable sources, and failed verification content. Do you agree you will stop adding or restoring off-topic content, unreliable sources, and failed verification content?
— User:QuackGuru

I'm sorry, QuackGuru, I thought I'd fixed the problems you mentioned (see details above, edit of 04:50, 1 June 2018). I had no intention of deliberately adding off-topic content, unreliable sources, and failed verification content, and I still have none. Thank you for adding tags that more narrowly define the specific issues you are raising. I've gone through your edits point by point, and if you respond to the requests for clarification above, hopefully we can progress towards consensus. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You restored it claiming you addressed the concerns? Whether it contradicts marketing claims is not the point. Content not about marketing is usually off-topic. The source must make the connection. Not the editor. The website stanford.edu is a primary source. Truth in Advertising is a watchdog group. It is not a secondary source. "There are concerns that this is a marketing strategy...". was tagged. Where does the source verify "concerns that this is a marketing strategy"? Other content failed verification and you have not been able to verify each claim. The image's caption had a WHO source that was unrelated to the image. There are too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Remaining issues; sorry, I should have been more specific about what concerns I thought I'd addressed. I will try to be more specific in future.
Kalkhoran says "As currently being used, e-cigarettes are associated with significantly less quitting among smokers." Grana says "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." Neither of these is a very good match for "concerns that this is a marketing strategy". I have changed the claim and sources. I hope you will now agree that it is verifiable.
The WHO citation supported a claim made in the caption, namely that vaping is more harmful than not using any nicotine product. I can restore the caption with more references, including one discussing the image, but I think it's OK to have references in the caption that support the caption without directly discussing the image.
You don't have to list all the problems at once, QuackGuru. :) Let's start with the big ones, like article scope (see Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes) and then move down to the smaller ones. HLHJ (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the claim but created a new problem. For example, it is a SYN violation to claim "As once with the similarly-marketed...". The content about "...there are concerns that they might delay and deter quitting..." is not relevant because it is not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources that X marketing strategy used for Y caused concern Z, and I have sources that X marketing strategy used for W and formerly used for X causes concern Z. I then state that as X for Y, so X for W causes concern Z. The only originality is that I identified that concern Z is concern Z, and if we can't use that level of originality, we are scuttled, because we can never cite anything :). So I think that there is no novel synthesis, QuackGuru; putting statements from multiple sources in the same sentence is not necessarily WP:Synthesis. HLHJ (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content "...there are concerns that they might delay and deter quitting..." is still off-topic. Using other sources to make it look relevant is not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if something is marketed as a cessation aid, and there are concerns it might actually hinder cessation, and reliable sources say so, it's relevant. But this is the scope debate at RFC, so let's wait on the outcome of that. HLHJ (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images and captions

File:No-one likes a quitter, e-cigarette ad.jpg
This 2011 e-cigarette ad emphasizes choice, freedom, and rebellion ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in addiction. It plays on social anxieties with the phrase "Nobody likes a quitter". The topmost line, "WHY QUIT?", also contradicts the narrative that e-cigarettes help smokers quit. The ad is explicitly addressed at the "concerned smoker", someone considering quitting, and it suggests a more harmful(WHO ref) alternative to quitting.

This edit removed an image on the harms of vaping as off-topic and replaced a caption discussing the examples of advertising methods given by an e-cigarette ad with a mention of its brand name. The first is part of the RFC scope disagreement, so let's put a hold on that.

The ad caption (shown), on the other hand, tied it to the topic of the article and gives examples of the ad methods given in the once-adjacent discussion. That's why I added it, to illustrate those methods. If the caption says nothing much, I'm not sure we have a fair-use rationale for using it. While I do not have any sources specifically commenting on this image, that is normal for illustrations on Wikipedia (I mean, see the dog article; I don't think that a single image cites a reliable source that states that that image is an image of a dog). I can find sources that each of the methods mentioned:

  • emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion (reactance) (Joseph 2003)
  • de-emphasizing addiction (Davis et al. 2008)
  • playing on social anxieties and desire to conform and fit in with a chosen identity (Davis et al. 2008)
  • smoking cessation messages (in this case, you don't need to) (WHO source)
  • vaping is a more harmful alternative than not using any nicotine product (already cited)

The rest is just description of the image; the reader can, without reference to sources, evaluate the statement that the sentence "take back your freedom" "emphasizes choice, freedom, and rebellion", and the sentence "Nobody likes a quitter" plays on social anxieties, and that an ad saying "WHY QUIT?... SWITCH TO BLU/ blu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change... Nobody likes a quitter, so make the switch today" is suggesting e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting.

QuackGuru, I think this will resolve your complaint ("original research"), and you are currently not around to ask, so I will provisionally re-instate it with better sourcing. I'll leave in your brand wl, too, though I'm not sure it's needed. If you have other suggestions for improving the caption, I would welcome them. HLHJ (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This caption misrepresents the image and includes off-topic content not about marketing.
See caption: This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[1] ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in addiction.[2]: 150  It plays on social anxieties[3]: 216–217  with the phrase "Nobody likes a quitter". The topmost line, "WHY QUIT?", also contradicts the narrative that e-cigarettes help smokers quit.[4] The ad is explicitly addressed at the "concerned smoker", someone considering quitting,[3]: 146, 166–168  and it suggests a more harmful[4] alternative to quitting. (blu, a brand of [[Imperial Brands|Imperial Brands, formerly Imperial Tobacco

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference reactance_smoking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference FDA_review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference media_role was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WHOPosition2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Where do the sources specifically mention the 2011 ad? QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Types of messages

Advertising messages about passive vaping

Text on passive vaping was removed in this edit. This is a major marketing message, and I think omitting it seriously harms the article. While the section could be improved, removing it entirely seems excessive. Even allowing for the viewpoint that the accuracy of claims is off-topic, I think the actual claims:

"E-cigarettes are marketed as harmless to bystanders. Messages imply that users need no longer go outside to satisfy nicotine cravings. Phrases such as "No second-hand smoke" and "No passive smoking" are also common." (shorn of refs)

are on-topic. The "only water vapour" claim might be cited, too. QuackGuru, would you be willing to restore this? HLHJ (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not explain exactly which claim you think can be restored that is about marketing. Which text about passive vaping are you referring too? QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine price discounts

Since according to the The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use source, these are the dominant form of advertising (not marketing) by cost, I think we should include info on this. HLHJ (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on describing the accuracy of marketing claims

There is an RfC at Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#RfC about evaluating the accuracy of marketing claims on the question "Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate?" HLHJ (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicotine_marketing&oldid=844244883"