Talk:Juul

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charleneguo. Peer reviewers: Mdoherty44.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 March 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aareyesunm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page move

(cur | prev) 10:54, 22 June 2018‎ Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) +35‎ . . (Graeme Bartlett moved page Juul (electronic cigarette) to JUUL: requested on my talk page) (thank) Tag: New redirect In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

EU non-sales

I won't add it to the article but it is clear from vaping forums etc that JUUL used to be available as a special import in the EU before the 20mg limit came in, when the suppliers dropped it. If they want to enter the EU market directly they would have to drop the strength of their juice. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved JUUL to Juul, and Juul to Juul (name). (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• JUUL → Juul
• Juul → Juul (disambiguation)

– The vast majority of reliable sources use "Juul" without all-caps ([1], [2], [3], [4]). With that in mind, the e-cigarette is clearly the primary topic over any of the articles listed on the disambig page. Conifer (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support de-CAPS Certainly should not be CAPS, but is there a primary? Juul is a Danish surname, first name, and very occasionally in Denmark context English, variant spelling for Christmas. Restore to Juul (electronic cigarette). per "Juul was" test in GBooks In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose it isn't that clear cut; lots of reliable sources use the all-caps ([5], [6], [7], [8]), including the FDA ([9], [10]) and CDC ([11]). For what it's worth, this is also how JUUL Labs refers to its product: https://support.juul.com/learn/read/juul-labs-fda-request-statement. --Chumash11 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose move. JUUL in all caps is the correct and official name. See the company website. QuackGuru (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• A better name I would support would be "Juul (electronic cigarette)" if all caps are not allowed to avoid confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but per MOS:TM we don't use all-caps formatting even if just because the manufacturer considers it the "official" style. Conifer (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I didn't see where it is clear-cut it can't be all caps for a title of an article. I would be confused if it was de-capped. Please quote where it says it can't be all caps for a title of an article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

“

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (But see exception below under § Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter.)
  • use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile. (Capitalize IKEA, IBM, as acronyms/initialisms.)
  • avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile

”

So the important factor is whether the all-caps version is in "widespread use" in reliable sources. Reasonable editors can disagree on that (see Chumash11's links above), but the manufacturer's preference for all-caps is not important at all. Conifer (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Edited my previous comment to clarify what I meant. Hope that clears things up. Conifer (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You are most likely correct that we usually don't use all caps for the article title but if the page was changed to Juul it will cause confusion. I think we might be able to make an exception in this case. If the rules are rigid then my comment will be irrelevant and the page will be moved. I think more editors need to comment on this specific situation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - that's a name page and not a disambiguation page. I'm neutral, but should that request be to "Juul (name)"? Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The name is not an abbreviation; the caps are a stylisation to be eschewed per WP:MOSTM. The current Juul name "article" is an unsourced two-sentence intro to a list of people, none of whom is called simply "Juul". Simply put, the e-cigarette is the only entity at Wikipedia called "Juul". Move the name to Juul (name). —  AjaxSmack  02:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support under MOS:TM, which states "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Among all of the spellings used by independent reliable sources, "Juul" most closely resembles standard English. The electronic cigarette is the clear primary topic for "Juul", with over 140,000 views in the last 30 days, whereas all of the names listed at Juul each have less than 1,000 pageviews for this time frame. I don't think any of the names have greater long-term significance than the electronic cigarette, either. Juul (name) would be the best location for the name page. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support: MOS:TM / WP:ALLCAPS. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Objection Juul is not a disambiguation page It is a name page. The proper target would be Juul (name) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question: do some reliable sources count for more than others? Because there are a few categories of sources here—news media, government regulators, and academic journals and tobacco control nonprofits—who use different styles. As In ictu oculi notes, reputable news sources use Juul. But American public health agencies, namely the FDA and CDC, the former of whom regulates the company, call it JUUL. So do nonprofits involved in tobacco control, like the Truth Initiative, and at least that one article in the academic journal Tobacco Control. Advice from those with more experience would be appreciated. --Chumash11 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia guidelines say that when independent reliable sources exhibit mixed usage, we should pick the form that most closely resembles ordinary English formatting, and generally avoid all-uppercase. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Juul (company). oppose move of Juul. - This should be named in normal case, but it is not primary over the surname/given name. -- Netoholic @ 12:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support any number of changes as long as the current name is replaced. Here are a few options

1. Juul (company), as mentioned by BarrelProof, is a viable option.
2. Juul is also widely accepted and likely the clear favorite.
3. JUUl, with a lowercase L, could also work, given that it reads as such on the packaging.
4. Juul (e-cigarette), with that specific disambiguation, is unprecedented but applicable here.

––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Change 13 billion to 12.8 billion 2407:7000:973A:C600:A5A6:8D27:1E7E:C69E (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

User A3f148b10d57987f claims that the pronunciation of Jewel cannot be equated with that of Jewel. I think it now warrants a discussion. Should the snippet be retained or does just the IPA suffice? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, @A3f148b10d57987f:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation in the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Outcome is to use only IPA in the lede. Have spotted this discussion for some time. Apart from IPA, three other alternate pronunciations have been proposed here, jool, jewel and joule. None of these have sufficient consensus to add to the lede, and arguments have been made for and against each option. IPA is the only standout that has some level of consensus. If down the road editors agree on an additional alternative pronunciation, this can be revisited of course, but for now, this is the only outcome I see here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should we include both JOOL and jewel or just JOOL or just jewel for the pronunciation? QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support including at least jewel. So for I have not found a source for JOOL. See diffs for the dispute.[12][13] Ref says "The Juul (pronounced "jewel") appears to have a loyal and growing following among young people, who brag on social media about being able to sneak puffs in class or in the bathroom."[14] QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Your point that you “have not found a source for JOOL” is interesting. The respelling JOOL is not based on a source, but on a Wikipedia help page, Help:Pronunciation respelling key. In my opinion, a help page like this one that will impact article content is subject to WP:NOR (precisely because it impacts article content) and should therefore be based on sources. However, this opinion is not shared by everyone. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support jewel, assuming it is supported by sources. Jool is pointless - saying that one made up word is pronounced the same as another doesn't help anyone, since nobody can be sure how to pronounce 'jool' either. “WarKosign” 07:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose jewel because "jewel" pronunciation can be either "dʒuːl" or "dʒuːəl" in common dialects of English. I'm indifferent to the inclusion of "jool", as that is pronounced "dʒuːl" in my preferred dialect but we lack a reliable source supporting this directly. IPA is clearest IMO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  An alternative would be to include joule, which I believe is pronounced /dʒuːl/ in all English dialects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Joule isn't a word most people know, thus its pronunciation is unclear to many of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both as useless. Jool is not a word, and jewel has alternative pronunciations, one of which is wrong, so will be confusing. Joule would be functionally useful, but has been opposed for being "synthesis" as there is no available reference, regardless of actual functional value. The same argument could probably be applied to the IPA version if one chooses to split hairs over what constitutes original research or synthesis. Personally I would be quite happy with either IPA, or joule or both, as they work. Otherwise leave it it out until something suitable comes along. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Use IPA. It exists for a reason. Jewel doesn't work because it has multiple pronunciations in English; joule is too unfamiliar to too many readers; jool is just gibberish.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• The bot sent me. As per the questions pertaining to the first and second formant frequencies (and their ratio) from the voiced phonemes in an answer to this question, and in the manner of [15], "JH UW AH L" or "JH UW L." EllenCT (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support jewel or joule and IPA. The reference indicates that it's pronounced "jewel" in the United States, and we can have the IPA there for those who pronounce jewel differently. The reason I think the homonym is important is that to very many people (myself included), IPA is gibberish, And "JOOL" is kinda useless, given that the only example of that word I can think of is the Kerbal Space Program planet, which I imagine is even more obscure than the e-cig.--Chumash11 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per QuackGuru. The videos they've mentioned below are enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per below videos. Summoned by bot. FWIW, I used to work for someone with the last name Juul, and she pronounced it joule, which is of course WP:OR. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Use IPA since that is the standard method we use AND perhaps including some language that states news articles refer to the name being pronounced like "Jewel" with references. That way, however you pronounce the word 'Jewel' - you're covered. IPA and media references using the word "Jewel" leave it up to the reader to interpret in their own dialect. It covers a multitude of slight variations without having to spell them out. I know, it's the easy way out, but that's the best I can offer when summoned by a Bot.LiPollis (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose “jewel” due to its ambiguity; support IPA and mildly support the respelling JOOL according to our Help:Pronunciation respelling key. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • IPA + optional respelling is also what our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation proposes. Surely you are not intending to suspend the MoS on this isolated page? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support jewel per sources, weak support IPA due to lack of ambiguity with IPA pronunciation, and weak support Joule per identical pronunciation --DannyS712 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• A surreal topic for a squabble! IPA is a definite yes, but does not meet the needs of most readers. To pronounce "jewel" as jool, not only is not universal, but is gives a bad impression of Wikipedia, as promoting an uneducated, comic-book caricature pronunciation. Just because it is pronounced that way in the Bowery, does not make it the "American" pronunciation, and even if it did, Wikipedia is not just for Americans. Furthermore, when presenting anything as a standard example or illustration, what one needs is neither one accepted American pronunciation, nor an artificial and accordingly ambiguous construction such as "JOOL". "Cool" however, is unambiguous and widely used, so I recommend something like: (/ˈdʒuːl/ to rhyme with COOL, stylized as JUUL Labs) JonRichfield (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Use IPA per the guidelines, and optionally either include the standard respelling form JOOL, or add as suggested by JonRichfield that it rhymes with COOL. "Jewel" should be flat out rejected: source or no source, a word with an ambiguous pronunciation has no place here. "Joule" is not likely to be very familiar to many English readers, and its pronunciation is likely to be unknown to most second-language speakers. – Uanfala (talk)
• Support "jewel" and IPA. Indicating that a made up word is pronounced like a different made up word is a particular kind of unhelpful. I understand that some people have concerns about the multiple ways that the word "jewel" can be pronounced, and that's why it's important to have the IPA as well. Having both "jewel" and the IPA as help is going to create the most useful and the least ambiguous way of conveying this information. No other option even comes close. PraiseVivec (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Joule" and IPA because I don't see how joule isn't well known in america. (But thats just my opinion) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Of the choices, I prefer jool alone. But I prefer IPA + respell to all of the choices. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support IPA and JOOL (it's our standard practice across the encyclopedia to use IPA plus these standardized layperson-friendly respellings). Weak oppose jewel—yes it's sourced, but the source is a local paper and not all varieties of English pronounce the word "jewel" the same way people do in the San Francisco Bay Area; it's therefore likely to mislead readers with certain accents. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:QuackGuru left a message on my user talk page to inform me that there's more than one source supporting "jewel". That's good, but the problem remains that "jewel" doesn't have a unique pronunciation in English. Is your claim that "Juul" has two different pronunciations and we should cover both of them? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think we can use "jewel" and the other different pronunciations according to the IPA. I can't tell from the videos[16][17] the exact pronunciation. The IPA will cover the different pronunciations. That way there is no confusion when we use both jewel and the IPA. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support IPA, oppose "jewel". "Jewel" can be pronounced with either one or two syllables, so that's ambiguous and in one of those cases incorrect. "Jool" would have only one pronunciation, so that would be clear enough as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments on Pronunciation in the lede

@Rosguill: there is no source for "joule". QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources for "jewel". See another source: "JUUL (pronounced jewel) looks like a USB drive, and is promoted as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and existing e-cigarettes or vaping devices.1"[18] See another source: "There are a few things stopping me from vaping full-time, things that Juul (pronounced "jewel") has to fix to win my affection."[19] QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, admittedly joule is technically synth, albeit synth that's based on them both having the same IPA transcription. That having been said, I can't help but notice that all of the sources you've provided are American––most standard American dialects pronounce "jewel" as "dʒuːl". Received pronunciation, and other non-American standard English dialects use "dʒuːəl". Including "jewel" would thus be confusing to many (most?) non-American readers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The company is from the US. If someone contacted the company and asked them the pronunciation that could help resolve this dispute.

There are numerous words that have more than one pronunciation. The sources say it is "jewel". Different people can pronounce the word "jewel" differently. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Any word that has more than one pronunciation is unsuitable as an example for pronunciation unless the specific pronunciation intended can be stipulated, which may well make the example redundant. If jewel is used, it will be necessary to explain that it is the American pronunciation, and refer the reader to the description of the American pronunciation, which could get a bit redundant, or possibly circular. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found this video of the JUUL founders discussing their product and pronouncing Juul: https://newsroom.juul.com/2019/02/27/our-founders-story/ ("Juul" is first said at 3:45 in the video). Also, here's the current JUUL CEO pronouncing Juul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cVBkj0pTzY. They all seem to be saying it like jewel or joule, so one could put either of those spellings in the article. --Chumash11 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think including both "jewel" and the IPA is the best way forward. QuackGuru (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Interviews with an editor are not reliable sources; remember that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, not what is true. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources are for facts, not style. The sources tell us how people pronounce the name, but can't tell us how to tell our readers that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

The North Carolina attorney general sued juul. that should be added, and you should have an entire section on investigations: 1) the FDA investigation, 2) the NC AG lawsuit, 3) the class action lawsuit, 4) the MA AG investigation, and 5) the US House investigation. 108.2.127.40 (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources for expanding article

https://www.courthousenews.com/house-panel-grills-juul-chief-over-e-cig-marketing-tactics/

https://www.ibtimes.com/juul-vape-spent-200k-market-e-cig-teens-despite-youth-vaping-apology-2809538

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/talk-teen-vaping-yesterday-161800793.html

https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/juul-targeted-teens-by-spending-over-200k-on-influencers/

https://www.inc.com/betsy-mikel/juul-vehemently-denied-it-was-marketing-to-teens-then-its-ceo-apologized-to-parents-of-addicted-teens.html

These are related to the FDA investigations. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted

On September 09, 2019, the US FDA warned Juul to stop its deceptive marketing practices.[123] On September 25, 2019, Juul announced that they would stop all marketing in the United States.[124]

Both the FDA and Buzzfeed News are strong sources. Both sentences are highly relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What backing do you have to support your claim that Buzzfeed News and an FDA press release are reliable sources and that this content is not WP:UNDUE?

Buzzfeed News[20] is heavily used on Wikipedia. The FDA is even WP:MEDORG compliant.

Juul has been heavily marketing in the US and the company has spent millions. They were warned by the FDA and then they stopped advertising in the US. QuackGuru (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2019

The "Investors" section contains the following sentence:

Critics have cited the acquisition as proof that the vaping industry and "big tobacco", who for years denied the link between smoking and health complications, are increasingly one in the same.

In this sentence, the phrase "one in the same" is grammatically incorrect and should be replaced with "one and the same". See https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/one-in-the-same/. 73.189.35.72 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

On the JUUL logo

The JUUL logo on the page looks slightly different than the one found on the website. The letters on the article's page start to curve in a bit further from the bottom than the one found on the current website. I can't find a press kit that features the logo properly, so I'm not sure what the official logo is. Is this something that should be changed? (The logo was pulled from the site by right clicking the logo in the upper left of the homepage and opening the image in a new tab) CubeBag (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CubeBag, I've updated it with the code from the address you linked. That's their official site - the version we had said it came from "The company Facebook page" but it's not clear how it was vectorised or what the true provenance of the "facebook" source was. I think the version you linked (and which I've now uploaded) is the correct one. If the new one doesn't show for you in the article yet, bypass your cache. -- Begoon 00:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's also been pointed out to me that this "updated" version is a darkish "grey":  #424242  rather than pure black. Since that is the colour used both on their home page and in this linked SVG "asset" I do believe that is the correct "official" colour for us to use, at least in the absence of any corporate style guide saying otherwise. They may well use other colours too, in other places, but this is the closest we have to "official" imo. -- Begoon 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Begoon, thank you! CubeBag (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable quote

Read the quote: "Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos,...". QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

change "seemingly allow users to inhale much higher nicotine concentrations that they would otherwise be able to." to "seemingly allow users to inhale much higher nicotine concentrations than they would otherwise be able to." Pawlstothewall (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Pawlstothewall:  done, and thank you very much! Good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicotine-related health consequences link

Nicotine-related health consequences seems to be linked to the article "Health effects of tobacco", which seems not 100% relevant. Can that be removed, please?

JPprivate (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

American Journal of Health Behavior

The New York Times is reporting Juul paid "to have the entire May/June issue of the American Journal of Health Behavior devoted to publishing 11 studies funded by the company offering evidence that Juul products help smokers quit." This seems to be related to the ongoing FDA investigation and/or lawsuits, and seems to be the sort of thing the article should mention. I'm not involved in this topic area and don't have time now to look into any more detail, so this is a heads-up to editors who are rather than a specific request or plan. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

In the "Research" subsection under the "Health Concerns" section, the citation should include a link to the viral story that brought the issue to the public consciousness and explained the nuances and implications of Juul's arrangement with the American Journal of Health Behavior, as the original Times story that is referenced did not focus on the incident and provided few details: https://prospect.org/health/juul-taking-academic-corruption-to-new-level/ Aaap91597 (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not sure this is really necessary, as the relevant bit in the piece from The American Prospect is just quoting the NYT anyway. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Remove "As of September 21, 2019, Juul Labs is a defendant in 56 lawsuits in federal court." in lawsuits section.

Add: Since 2019, many hundreds of personal injury, government entity, tribal, and class action cases have been filed against Juul in federal court. In October 2019, all federal lawsuits against Juul were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before Judge William Orrick III. General Lafayette 2785 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a change X to Y format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Grayson Indica (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please change this sentence: "As of September 21, 2019, Juul Labs is a defendant in 56 lawsuits in federal court" to the below two sentences (the current sentence is out of date and the below provides more detailed information on the status of lawsuits and where they are being filed):

Since 2019, over 2,000 personal injury, government entity, tribal, and class action cases have been filed against Juul in federal court. In October 2019, all federal lawsuits against Juul were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before Judge William Orrick III. General Lafayette 2785 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

The logo is incorrect. The current image is for the Juul device. The new logo is for the company "Juul Labs" which is the parent of the Juul device. Johnadamsz (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide a suitable image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

FDA to Order Juul E-Cigarettes Off U.S. Market

The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to order Juul Labs Inc. to take its e-cigarettes off the U.S. market, according to people familiar with the matter.

The FDA could announce its decision as early as this week, the people said. The marketing denial order would follow a nearly two-year review of data presented by the vaping company, which sought authorization for its tobacco- and menthol-flavored products to stay on the U.S. market.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-to-order-juul-e-cigarettes-off-u-s-market-11655904689 Omarmojica (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Let's wait until something actually happens. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Change “middle and highschool students” to “middle and high school students”. High school is two words. DerekLedbetter (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Done by User:Actualcpscm. --Mvqr (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Book

Hello. Could this book be added to the 'further reading' section?

• Etter, Lauren (2021). The Devil's Playbook: Big Tobacco, Juul, and the Addiction of a New Generation. Crown. p. 496. ISBN 0593237986.

Thanks. 2001:1713:EA72:E500:5CF5:7734:CA29:985A (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC).

Done. Judkessler (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

"A 2021 study in Tobacco Control found that less than half of clinical trials sponsored by Juul were properly reported, although such actions are common practise in most clinical trials" -> "A 2021 study in Tobacco Control found that less than half of clinical trials sponsored by Juul were properly reported."

Rationale: we need to delete original synthesis. The later two sources have nothing to do with Juul. It seems to me that someone added this original synthesis in trying to minimize Juul's research misconduct. This is a manipulation! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:C539:1FB0:5B12:BDA6 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

In the introduction, "one-time use cartridges" redirects to razor and blades model. Could it be corrected as "one-time use cartridges" (redirecting to disposable product)?

2001:1715:4E20:7530:DCAA:FBA9:1FDB:E3FA (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC).

Article statement greatly exceeds the source citation.

The article says, “Juul bought ads on seventeen different educational, gaming, and crafting sites directed towards middle and high school students.[14]”. But the citation alleges Juul bought ads on the single website “seventeen.com” and not on seventeen different websites. JamesEJia (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)