Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I explained above about the off-topic content and failed verification content. Do you think they can be removed now or do you want to discuss this more? QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, QuackGuru, I'll go through the specific statements to find what failed verification. Setting aside the reliability of the TINA source (discussed in a separate section below), the two sources you mention are used to support the statement that the following are marketing claims. I've included quotes.

• e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking TINA:"TINA.org’s investigation found that most sales representatives at the shops visited did not warn about any potential dangers. A sales associate in a shop in Fairfield told a TINA.org investigator who was posing as a customer that there was “nothing bad for you at all” in e-cigarettes." GRANA:"Health claims and claims of efficacy for quitting smoking are unsupported by the scientific evidence to date... Grana and Ling reviewed 59 single-brand e-cigarette retail Web sites in 2012 and found that the most popular claims were that the products are healthier (95%)... can be smoked anywhere (88%); can be used to circumvent smoke-free policies (71%); do not produce secondhand smoke (76%)... Health claims made through text and pictorial and video representations of doctors were present on 22% of sites. Cessation-related claims (direct and indirect statements) were found on 64% of sites. Marketing on the sites commonly stated that e-cigarettes produce only “harmless water vapor.” "
• e-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air TINA:"Some claimed they could be used anywhere... In Monroe, a sales representative said... the vapor emitted is “completely harmless.”" GRANA:"E-cigarettes are marketed... as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws by enabling users to “smoke anywhere.”... Grana and Ling reviewed 59 single-brand e-cigarette retail Web sites in 2012 and found that the most popular claims were that the products... can be smoked anywhere (88%); can be used to circumvent smoke-free policies (71%); do not produce secondhand smoke (76%)... Marketing on the sites commonly stated that e-cigarettes produce only “harmless water vapor.”"
• e-cigarettes help smokers quit (weak evidence); TINA:"Nearly three-fourths of vape shops that TINA.org visited in Connecticut made health and smoking cessation claims... a majority of sales representatives at shops visited by TINA.org promoted the products as safe as well as an effective way to quit smoking... At least three stores had signs outside the shops that could be interpreted as claiming that vaping is a way to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes." GRANA:"E-cigarettes are marketed... as healthier alternatives to tobacco smoking, as useful for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption... Health claims and claims of efficacy for quitting smoking are unsupported by the scientific evidence to date... Cessation-related claims (direct and indirect statements) were found on 64% of sites."
• they are only, or mostly, used by smokers (THIS IS NOT VERIFIED BY THESE TWO SOURCES)

The ontology for marketing claims used in the TINA article is here: it lists, verbatim:

• Nicotine isn’t bad for you/is safe
• It’s only water vapor
• No toxins/carcinogens
• No second-hand smoke
• No negative side effects of e-cigarettes...
• Quit tobacco/cigarettes
• Stating many people have stopped/lessened smoking

The WHO source cited directly after the claim says "However, no empirical studies have been conducted to show whether the negative prospects of ENDS marketing are actually directly associated with attitudinal and behavioural changes among children and non-smokers consistent with the realization of such potential...[imagine trying to get that past an ethics comittee; it would have to be an observational study] Advertising, promotion and sponsorship of ENDS with or without nicotine, must, at a minimum... not make them appealing to or target, either explicitly or implicitly, non-smokers or non-nicotine users, and must therefore indicate that ENDS are not suitable for use by people who do not currently consume tobacco products... not make them appealing to or target, either explicitly or implicitly, minors, including through the selection of media, location or the context in which they appear or through imagery that promotes sexual or sporting prowess; never promote ENDS for non-smokers, and their use should not be portrayed as a desirable activity in its own right..." which is not a very good match. I do have good sources that ENDS are promoted to people not addicted to nicotine.

So it looks to me as if it's the "they are only, or mostly, used by smokers" fails verification here. Next time, if you're more specific, I'll be able to respond faster; blanking the entire section makes it hard to identify the problem. I will source, modify and source, or remove this statement. I assume that you are satisfied with the verification of the others; if I'm wrong, please correct me and explain why. HLHJ (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking
• e-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air
• e-cigarettes help smokers quit (weak evidence)
• they are only, or mostly, used by smokers

These are not about marketing. The text should not be in bulleted format. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have cited that the first three point are marketing claims, with two reliable sources apiece, one of them MEDRS. I have written the direct quotes from the sources that support the statement that the first three bullet points are marketing claims. So I think that they are about marketing. Please tell me why you disagree.

I've looked up Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, and I'm willing to rewrite it as prose if you have reasons to prefer it that way. Why do you object to the text being in a bullet list? HLHJ (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The bullet list is misleading. e-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking The text itself is not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I hadn't thought of that. I'd support prefixing each bullet point with "marketing claims that" HLHJ (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If the source does not support "marketing claims that" it should not be added. One source should be used per claim. Most of the sources are unrelable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sources that say that those points are marketing claims are Grana 2014, a MEDRS, and a Truth in Advertising source. If you don't think the latter is reliable, could you please give your reasons in the section titled "Truth in Advertising (organization) (TINA) a reliable source?". If you don't think the former is reliable, could you please start a new section and we'll discuss it? The other sources seem pretty solid. Which ones do you consider unreliable? HLHJ (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed addressing one of your points. It was an oversight. You wrote "One source should be used per claim". WP:Citation overkill says that two or three may be preferred form controversial topics. Also, here, I am using one RS and one MEDRS for the statement "these are marketing claims", and individual MEDRS for statements about their truth.

Some of the marketing claims about safety are not true. This information has currently been removed from the article. Instead, the article describes them as "scientific facts". This is inaccurate. I think that this is a very serious problem, and I ask that it be fixed. HLHJ (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The current wording beginning with "e-cigarettes are harmless,..." is not a marketing claim. It is poorly written.

"One source should be used per claim" because of all the failed verification content and because of all the unreliable sources added. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that one-source-per-claim is in line with WP:Citation overkill. Could you please describe what content failed verification, and list the unreliable sources, QuackGuru? I am entirely willing to fix such problems. HLHJ (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are willing to fix the problems then you can go ahead and start deleting the tagged content.

The citation overkill buster states, "One citation after each sentence for non-controversial claims is usually sufficient." QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is going to sound odd, QuackGuru, but in the current version of the article, I can't see anything tagged as failed-verification or unreliable-source. There's lots and lots of tags for relevance... am I misunderstanding something? Could you please describe what content failed verification, and list the unreliable sources?

Secondly, do you think that this content is non-controversial? There's a discretionary sanctions notice at the top of this page, which suggest to me that we might reasonably consider it to be controversial. HLHJ (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See "Some often implicit marketing claims and scientific facts expressed by the vaping industry made both online and by some sales reps in vape shops are that[6][unreliable source?][2][not in citation given]" There is so many problems I do not where to begin. Notices on the talk page are not relevant to determine if the content is or is not controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think all the sources you have marked as unreliable are TINA. I think I should wait on removing those until we have finished the discussion below on TINA's reliability. I think that the idea that these marketing claims are "scientific facts" is entirely unverifiable -- indeed, it is verifiably false -- and should be removed. The statement that all the listed claims are marketing claims is supported by both the Grana and the TINA source, with only TINA verifying that the claims are made in vape shops. I went thought this in my second edit in the section titled "The amount of direct and implied misinformation in this article is incredible.", with the exact quotes that support the statement. That claims are sometimes made implicitly is also supported. Could you please tell me what statement is unverifiable? HLHJ (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See "Some often implicit marketing claims and scientific facts expressed by the vaping industry made both online and by some sales reps in vape shops are that". Where does Grana 2014 verify the claim? QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous post, the claim was different when I sourced it. Grana supports the statement ""Some often implicit marketing claims made by the vaping industry online are [the three claims cited]". The TINA source verifies it for vape shops. If you look in the section titled "The amount of direct and implied misinformation in this article is incredible", I have given the exact quotes that support the statements that each of the marketing claims are real in a bullet-point list. Did you find that section without difficulties? HLHJ (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to make statements that are closer to the source that includes the 59 websites and other content rather than general or ambiguous claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly these could do with rephrasing. Sorry, what source that includes the 59 websites and other content? HLHJ (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Grana 2014 review I mentioned above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Marketing is an art, not a science, and it seems like a lost cause when the article attempts to apply one field towards the other. If this were an article on the marketing of orange juice what would that article say? Would it report on how the industry markets orange juice, or would it exist as a place where that marketing is analyzed when compared to other scientific studies related to product use rather than marketing or psychology? With this page, a faithful representation of how the marketing of these products takes place does not seem to be the point. Rather, the issue seems to be debating over whether the marketing is accurate or not, when as I said earlier, you cannot apply science to an artform – of which marketing is a part of.  spintendo  07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, most the content failed verification or was off-topic. The only content that did not violate policy was content copied from other e-cigarette articles. The article should give an overall perspective on how these products are being marketed as well as addressing the marketing claims. Focusing on just debunking the marketing claims with sources that do not discuss the accuracy of the marketing claims is a recipe for disaster and a waste of time for the community. The page Marketing of electronic cigarettes is a content fork. There is the Nicotine marketing article with a specific section for e-cigarettes. See Nicotine marketing#E-cigarettes. The policy violations related to e-cigarettes have been removed from the Nicotine marketing article. It was a lost cause to try to use off-topic sources about safety and smoking cessation that were unrelated to the marketing of e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Almost all e-cigarettes contain nicotine

Almost all? That isn't an improvement. Exactly what percentage is defined as "almost all"?

It would be sort of hard to tell, if an unknown proportion of e-fluids are incorrectly labelled. I would support adding more information on the exact proportion, if there exist reliable sources that give such statistics, but I am not aware of any; please let me know if you find some, I'd be interested in that information too. HLHJ (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Then if as you say yourself it is "sort of hard to tell" then why did you add "almost all e-cigarettes contain nicotine"? 124.106.142.116 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:124.106.142.116. May I suggest that you register a username? Then I will know that I am still talking to you, even if your IP changes, and a name would be much more memorable than an IPv4 address. To be more specific, I think that the exact proportion would be hard to tell. I am reflecting the sourcing when I say "almost all e-cigarettes contain nicotine". Any luck finding more exact figures? HLHJ (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that in your source. Actually, I don't see a lot of what you have put in this article in your sources. You added "in the US in 2015, 11.4% of adult users, and 40% of users aged 18-25, had never smoked tobacco cigarettes." to the article. That wasn't what the source you gave stated. It stated that they were not REGULAR smokers. You stated that all e-cigarettes contain nicotine and gave a source. Now you're staying that it's "almost all"? I don't trust your ability or willingness to accurately and neutrally add content to this article. 124.106.142.116 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My source says "Nicotine is an addictive substance, and almost all e-cigarettes contain nicotine. Even some products that claim not to have any nicotine in them may still contain it." It then goes on to cite three studies in support of the statement.

I wrote "Such use is fairly common; in the US in 2015, 11.4% of adult users, and 40% of users aged 18-25, had never smoked tobacco cigarettes" You are right that the source says "regular". However, their data here classifies that 40% as "never-smokers". I can use that term if you prefer. The caption says that they classed anyone who had not smoked 100 cigarettes as never cigarette smokers; this is a frequent cut-off used in the literature for having developed a dependence on cigarettes. So that's 40% who developed a nicotine dependence on e-cigarettes. It seems that there is a genuine difference between the US and the UK on this, so I think we should cite both rates in the article. I'm not finding much time to edit the actual article in-between talk page edits, though.

I also wrote something like "As nicotine-containing products, e-cigarettes are addictive". Not "All e-cigarettes contain nicotine", as I recall. Since they can also be used to dispense other addictive drugs, "E-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine are not addictive" would also not be accurate. "As marijuana-contianing products, e-cigarettes impair the ability to drive" would also be accurate. The source says that "almost all e-cigarettes contain nicotine", it's not just me.

I honestly wish to accurately and neutrally add content to this article. I am aware that my point of view is not shared by everyone, and I need to examine it critically. But we all have points of view we need to examine critically. HLHJ (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this content off-topic? QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The sourced statement "However, reference to the addictiveness of nicotine is avoided in marketing" (it could add "consistently") clearly makes the link. And the false advertising of nicotine levels is clearly topical. I think the effects of the marketing messages and belief in the marketing messages are also on-topic. HLHJ (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The text "As nicotine-containing products, e-cigarettes are addictive". is not about marketing. The content added to the article must also be about marketing and the text itself must be directly linked to marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-vaping marketing, which is in scope for the article, commonly makes that claim. My assertion that claims of non-addictiveness need to be accompanied by discussion of accuracy is part of the point of contention in the first section. HLHJ (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Each individual source must make the connection about e-cig marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Each source has to support one or more points relevant to the article, so points connected to e-cig marketing. I am not sure that the sources themselves all have to mention e-cig marketing. They might make a point just about marketing, for instance; you recently asked me for a source saying that labelling of ingredients is a form of marketing, and while the one I gave is related to e-cigs, in principle it need not be to support the point you wanted supported. Similarly, a source might make a point just about ENDS and still be relevant to the article. HLHJ (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources themselves should mention e-cig marketing and the content added should be about e-cig marketing. Each sentence must be directly connected to marketing from each source and each sentence must be connected to marketing according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the content added should be about e-cig marketing. I don't agree that each and every source must mention e-cig marketing, as I think other sources could also support statements about e-cig marketing; I previously gave an example. I'm not sure I understand your second sentence, could you please clarify? HLHJ (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Each sentence must be directly related marketing and the source must make the connection the specific text is directly related to marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the FDA is unlikely to write "BTW, this warning letter for false advertising is related to the marketing of e-cigarettes, and the specific statement in it about the label/packaging graphics on an e-fluid is also related to the marketing of e-cigarettes". I mean, the article should probably contain some sentences that don't include the words "marketing" or "e-cigarettes", right :) ? So we need to accept that a sentence can be on-topic without those exact words, in either the statement or the source. HLHJ (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the source. I can't make a statement on a source without reading it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But in principle, a sentence can be on-topic without those exact words, in either the statement or the source? Not that it necessarily is, but it could be? HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

More recent changes

Off topic content restored

This edit restored content. The part "...in a re-use of older (now widely illegal) strategies used to promote chewing tobacco and cigarettes.[27][2][28]" is citation overkill. The part "Some e-fluid has been sold packaged with candy and stickers.[29]" is off-topic. The content is off-topic.

Hi, QuackGuru. Selling something packaged with candy and stickers is certainly a marketing strategy, so I think it's on-topic. Wikipedia:Citation overkill says "Two or three [sources] may be preferred for more controversial material"; I think that applies here. HLHJ (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "Selling something packaged with candy and stickers is certainly a marketing strategy, so I think it's on-topic." That is you making the connection it is relevant when the source made no connection.

The part "...in a re-use of older (now widely illegal) strategies used to promote chewing tobacco and cigarettes.[27][2][28]" is also off-topic unless the source made the connection to e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that if the FDA is sending official warning letters for false or misleading advertising when someone sells e-fluid packaged like candy with candy and stickers, we may conclude that it's about marketing. The sources at the end of the next para, the one ending in "nicotine poisoning" use the words "marketing" and "marketers" in their titles to write about the FDA sending these letters.

Two of the sources do make the connection between older marketing techniques and e-cigarettes. The third, AdAge, discusses ENDS use of media that tobacco used to use. It's a bit off-topic and could be removed if you are worried about cite overkill. I've added a URL to one of the refs so you can check more easily. HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Some e-fluid has been sold packaged with candy and stickers.[33][relevant? – discuss] The text itself is not about marketing.

E-liquids made to look and smell like lollipops, pocky, sour candies, cookies, whipped cream, and fruit juice have faced regulatory action, partly because a child drinking as little as a few mL (less than one teaspoon) of the fluid could die from nicotine poisoning.[34][35][33][36][relevant? – discuss] The text itself is not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Packaged" and "made to look and smell" are about marketing. Marketing is not a synonym for "advertising"; it is much broader, encompassing promotion by any means. Package branding, including smell, is marketing, and the packaging also carries advertising, as the FDA clearly also believes. HLHJ (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the word "some" verifiable? "Some e-fluid has been sold packaged with candy and stickers.[29]" does not mention anything about marketing. Therefore, it is off-topic. Same as the other content. Including safety content is about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you think that all e-fluid has been sold packaged with candy and stickers, even though the FDA says it's illegal in the warning-letter source? I would not have thought that was WP:Likely to be challenged. However, the FDA's other warning letters, some of which do not complain about candy and stickers, will serve as an adequate source for the word "some".

Why do you think that packaging something with candy and stickers is not a marketing strategy?

Would you agree that marketing claims about safety are on-topic? HLHJ (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The part "e-fluid has been sold packaged with candy and stickers" is a statement not about marketing. The word "some" is too vague and unsupported by the FDA source. I or any editor can add content about e-fluid related to marketing. I think the article should be deleted or cleaned up first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

What source verifies in "some" jurisdictions[1]. It appears to be in unsupported weasel word. This source does not appear to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The WHO source I provided says "comprehensive advertising, promotion and sponsorship bans on ENDS [electronic nicotine delivery systems] are in place in 39 countries (in which 31% of the world’s population live)". This seems to me to support the statement "The marketing of e-cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions". HLHJ (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"39 countries" and "31% of the world’s population live" does not support the weasel word "some" added. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I can be more specific if you prefer. HLHJ (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead is poorly written. I would start over. Meanwhile, the off-topic content can be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is poorly written. It's just an opinion piece with inaccurate representations of sources. It should be deleted and there should be one small section on the e-cigarette main article on this content. 124.106.142.116 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If the tag remains on the article for 7 days it will be deleted. If the tag is removed an editor can start a deletion discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about speedy deletion, User:QuackGuru. I think the article could be improved, but is notable, and can contain encyclopedic information. HLHJ (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Content removed

Saying or suggesting that using a product is for adults only, or that an authority orders the target not to use it, or that using it is a way to rebel and be free, have been shown to be effective marketing strategies for persuading young people to use the product.

E-cigarettes are heavily promoted in the United States, mostly via the internet, as a healthy alternative to smoking. E-cigarettes are widely marketed on social media, where age restrictions are often not implemented. Easily circumvented age verification at company websites enables youth to access and be exposed to marketing for e-cigarettes.

References

The content was deleted presumably because there were excessive citations. Perhaps it can be fixed if one citation was used per claim to avoid confusing the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me as though it's editorializing by way of extrapolation. The first sentence is certainly taking a tone.

The first citation given is a paper dated 2009; the abstract is explicitly concerned with cigarette advertisements (not e-cigs, cigars or dip.) The second source is dated 2008, and likewise does not contain the terms, "electronic cigarette," "e-cig*," "vapor," "vape," or "vaping." If the content can be retooled, fine, but right now it smacks of original research; it opens with, "this sort of marketing is effective, just, in general, to sell 'the product,'" and then cites material relating specifically to another tobacco product. Cite sources asserting that such marketing is effective overall. I'm sure they exist - it's not exactly a controversial assertion, it just needs to pertain to how stuff is marketed to adolescents, rather than how a specific product other than the article subject is marketed - and that way we aren't making our own assertion.

It seems to me that there must be a plethora of literature out there which will illustrate that all sorts of things are marketed toward adolescents, intentionally or otherwise, by the same mechanisms. It's "edgy" or "grown up" or "rebellious" and it's for adults only! Cool! That makes cigarettes enticing, alcohol, adult-rated films and video games, all sorts of things.

Or else, find some sources that talk about the marketing of e-cigarettes specifically. That also shouldn't be hard to find; plenty of people assert that vaping products are being marketed to adolescents, and a lot of them are doing it in the press.

The second paragraph begins by citing a paywalled article which looks, from the abstract, like it probably contains some relevant information, and that's fair enough on its own, but it gives me the creeps that I can't check for myself, in context with what comes right before and right after. And then you've got a perfectly good sentence that, yes, cites the same Stanford study to excess. The final citation looks fine, though.

The perception that tobacco products are being marketed to children is very frustrating. That makes it all the more important that WP doesn't editorialize. --Moralis (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

The following content can be summarized: "Facebook bars paid tobacco advertisements, including ads for cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobaccos, tobacco pipes, hookahs, hookah lounges, rolling papers, vaporized delivery devices and electronic cigarettes. According to its advertising policy, images of tobacco and related products, as well as links to sites where such items can be purchased, are not permitted." QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Tobacco products are being marketed to children, according to, for example, this article:

Boseley, Sarah; Collyns, Dan; Lamb, Kate; Dhillon, Amrit (2018-03-09). "How children around the world are exposed to cigarette advertising". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2018-05-27.

and this very through review:

Davis, Ronald M.; Gilpin, Elizabeth A.; Loken, Barbara; Viswanath, K.; Wakefield, Melanie A. (2008). The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use (PDF). National Cancer Institute tobacco control monograph series. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. p. 684.

The FDA warning letters also specifically say that e-fluids are being packaged in ways appealing to minors and, indeed, sold to them:

Affairs, Office of Regulatory. "2018 Warning Letters" (WebContent). Retrieved 2018-05-26.

I think that the perception that tobacco products are being marketed to children is accurate. I realize this is a POV, but I think my POV here is realistic. There are more sources in earlier versions of the article, including, as I recall, some stating that e-cig marketing methods are similar to ones used for other tobacco products. HLHJ (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources were being used that did not even mention e-cigarettes. That is not POV. That is original research and failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

See "E-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking.[5][clarification needed]" See here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a sentence I originally wrote, but I said that it was a marketing claim that there was good evidence against, and had citations for both halves of that statement. The current article says this in Wikipedia's voice, and the citation does not support it at all, it contradicts it. Please fix this. HLHJ (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. HLHJ (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See also links

See "See also: Nicotine marketing § E-cigarettes, and Nicotine marketing § Methods"

Racerty1 is correct with removing the see also links.[2] However, the content deleted is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

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

---

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If other sources make the connection that does not mean you keep the current text and sources that are not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course. As I said, if it can't be connected to marketing, it does not belong in the article. QuackGuru, have I ever managed to do anything that you could be positive about? I'd really appreciate the odd friendly comment.

Below, in the section on safety, you say that the article should state the marketing claims that e-cigarettes are safe, but "The actual safety data is off-topic". I disagree, as I think that this would violate WP:MEDRS and give a misleading impression that the safety claims are all true. I do not see any prospect of us coming to agree on this, and it's an important topic, so I suggest that we do an RFC, either here or at Nicotine marketing; I'd prefer the latter as more general. HLHJ (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

The thing I restored was the entire section on addictiveness, so I've responded in the Addictiveness talk section below. I think an RFC on "Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using RS or MEDRS as appropriate?" would be a good idea. What do you think, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You have replied on the talk page but you have not agreed to stop restoring off-topic content and failed verification content. Again, do you agree to stop restoring off-topic content and failed verification content? QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
— copied from User talk:HLHJ

QuackGuru, we have a disagreement as to the scope of the article. That is why I wish to include content that you consider off-topic. I promise that I will consider and use my judgment on what is on-topic, but I can't promise that my judgment will coincide with yours. I may also disagree with you on whether something fails verifiability; I have before, see below. I have been trying not to restore specific things that you designate ass failing verifiability without giving the verifying quotes, but I sometimes make mistakes, especially where there is ambiguity and I guess wrongly as to what you meant. I'm sorry I've made mistakes, but I can't promise more than to seek to avoid them.

We need to resolve this scope disagreement. I suggest an WP:RFC. What do you think? HLHJ (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You claimed QuackGuru, we have a disagreement as to the scope of the article. There are others who disagree with the scope of this article. The readers are removing off-topic content. I disagree with semi-protection when others are removing off-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make that "we" exclusive. QuackGuru, we people who have edited this article have a fundamental disagreement as to the scope of the article. You have posted your disagreement with semi-protection; the admins will decide. HLHJ (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about evaluating the accuracy of marketing claims

Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate? HLHJ (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Off-topic content is off-topic content. It is better to stay on topic. See WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, in so far as I understand the question, which seems to come straight from Planet QuackGuru. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• No - creating an obligation to critique the input would be mandating WP:OR, and has the appearance of crafting a special rule for exception to WP:SOAPBOX. Instead, use normal WP guidelines for WP:RS with precautions about WP:PROMOTION and attribute properly or mark whole or section with Advert template as appropriate. Only insert a comment about a claim if that comment meets the normal criteria for inclusion of sufficient WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Markbassett. I didn't mean to request the creation of a new obligation (see box below), nor to make soapbox/marketing material permissible where it otherwise would not have been. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but this RfC is poorly framed. Articles that describe marketing claims should present what reliable sources show regarding the claims and their validity, guided by the weight given each in the RS material. That is an obligation, per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:IMPARTIAL. The first couple of pages of Google News results certainly uncovers significant discussion of the validity of many e-cig claims and non-medical sources for some claims. But if there is a claim that has received enough coverage to be included and the best source on its validity is a reliable medical source, including that doesn't make it original research, per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. Synthesizing multiple sources to form a conclusion about the marketing claims that cannot be found in the original might, but that is not what the question asks. And care with WP:MEDRS primary sources must be taken. Note that Markbassett and I essentially gave the same rule (include accuracy info based on WP:WEIGHT, etc.) but opposite yes/no answers. Perhaps this RfC should instead present a concrete editing dispute, not a philosophical question. Chris vLS (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the concrete advice. Perhaps the core of the disagreement is in this statement of QuackGuru's: "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." (italics mine, context). These claims are verifiably false. I think that, in a discussion of claims about the safety of e-cigs, information about the actual safety is on-topic, and necessary. QuackGuru and I had the same disagreement about a number of specific bits of text in three different articles, however. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The core of the disagreement is not in this statement of QuackGuru's. The disagreement includes adding off-topic content such as "There is much controversy concerning whether smokers are actually thinner than nonsmokers.[37]".[3] That content is off-topic and it fails verification. The source that is unrelated to the marketing of e-cigarettes does not verify there is a controversy.

The safety information in the second part of the sentence is a SYN violation. Trying to connect different sources together that are unrelated to one another is creating a new conclusion now found in any source. A detailed explanation is below.

See "E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites;[12] for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor".[22]"[4] The part "for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor". is a WP:SYN violation. It was not an example of a claim being regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites. The source must make the connection to the first part of the sentence and the content must not be a SYN violation. I objected to the safety claims as being unrelated to the first part of the sentence. The safety content "for instance, with the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapor" was unrelated to the first part of the sentence in this instance. Each part of the sentence must be sourced. I did not object to the following text as long as it is sourced, but the second part of the sentence was an improper synthesis. It would have to be split into a different sentence to avoid a SYN violation. Trying to contrast one claim with an unrelated claim is a SYN violation. Do you acknowledge the content was a SYN violation and unrelated (unassociated and off-topic) to the first part of the sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• If and only if WP:Reliable sources have discussed their accuracy. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes according to WP:WEIGHT based on WP:RS. (Note: I am totally in accord with Markbasett. Especially xer last sentence.) Jojalozzo (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes There is no potential for "No" here: Presenting only the claims would be equivalent to using primary sources for verifiability, which is of course not permitted. Under the obligation for balance and neutrality, we are obliged to present both what the claim is and what third-party, independent sources have said about the claim. Caveats:

-If no independent sources has said anything about the claims, we do not make stuff up. We simply present what the claim is but with extra care to make sure the user easily understands that these are claims. (We deploy "according to-", "the company claims-", etc, with emphasis.)

-We do not use what competitors said about the claims unless this has been widely reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for solving marketing arguments. Exceptions to this are dictated by sources, e.g. the case of Avis responding to #1 Hertz.-The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, The Gnome. In this case, I do not think that I am using primary sources for the marketing claims; I have been using sources like Truth in Advertising (organization) and the website of the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising research group (SRITA). I should also mention that QuackGuru disagrees; QuackGuru considers the latter a primary source and the former unreliable due to bias. There were some ads as illustrations, with captions saying what they illustrated, but QuackGuru thinks we need sources that say that the specific ad illustrates X. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Since this RfC was opened at an article talk page, consensus would apply only to this article. We should include marketing claims that have been covered by reliable sources, and we should also include reliably-sourced critiques of those claims in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Of course an RfC cannot bypass WP:WEIGHT or create an "obligation" to perform WP:OR, and if critiques cannot be found than we would not include them.

Marketing issues consist of more than just making claims and debunking them with MEDRS. Similar to tobacco marketing, many of the objections relate to whom the ad is targeting and what is implied by the imagery. We are dealing with complicated questions such as whether ads that purportedly offer a "safer" option to cigarette smokers are actually encouraging non-smokers to vape. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, we should generally only use sources which specifically discuss the accuracy of the marketing claim, however a MEDRS source which does not mention the marketing claim could be used as a backup to support the critique. –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we use other WP:MEDRS sources which do not mention any marketing claim to argue against numerous MEDRS sources that directly discuss in extreme detail all different types of marketing claims? I would think WP:WEIGHT is relevant in this specific case. I don't think we should allow editors to determine what source to use to "backup" a statement when there are a plethora of MEDRS sources available at our disposable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely we should use the best MEDRS sources on a fact available to source the fact, regardless of whether the source mentions marketing claims about the fact? It would be bad to use a worse-quality MEDRS just because it says that a marketing claim is made about the fact. The article currently contains inaccurate medical marketing claims, uncontrasted with the medical evidence; there are no proper medical statements of the sort that need MEDRS. I'm not aware of quite of the set of sources you describe, but I hope you will add them to the article. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Since marketing claims are bias and not always true and thus should be rebutted by proof or evidence which disproves these claims. Even if both the former and latter are present in the article. This evidence should obviously be from WP:RS though. Waddie96 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be solving marketing arguments – simply presenting the claims and, in addition, evidence whether the claims are true or not. I agree with The Gnome that we are obligated to do so by WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Waddie96 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Generally no, as framed here, given the broader context of this discussion. The question doesn't really mean what it looks like. See the re-RfC below for a clearer formulation. This RfC appears to be fishing for blanket license to WP:POVFORK. The article looks little like it should, and is basically a WP:OTHERPARENT attempt to rewrite the entire story of e-cigs with a different set of sources and coming to a conclusions sculpted in a different direction from the main article (which has way more watchlisters).

  This article needs to be limited to the marketing claims and to those RS (mostly medical) which directly address the marketing claims. There are many, many of these, and very few claims about e-cigs are unaddressed in such sources today. I.e., there is no case before us where a med/sci source is needed to be used in this article and which does not directly address the marketing claims; every marking claim is covered already by a MEDRS source. Instead, sources with no connection to marketing claims are being extrapolated from to try to refute what an editor thinks the marketing claims resolves to at the science level. That is original research. And we just don't need it even if it weren't.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, SMcCandlish. I'm afraid that on WP:OR, I must disagree with you and agree with Chris vLS. If deciding that two sources discuss the same thing is improper WP:SYNTH, then editing Wikipedia would be impossible. An editor should be able to tell if both a statement in a medical review and a statement in a discussion of marketing claims are on the same topic. I haven't even been arguing with QuackGuru about this :).

I don't think that working out what the marketing claim resolves to at the basic science level is necessarily OR. It can be trivial. For instance, claims are made that e-cigarettes are "safe", emit only "harmless water vapor", or contain "nothing bad for you at all" (all here, and elsewhere). It's pretty easy to find MEDRS evaluating these claims, but much harder to find MEDRS that evaluate these claims while directly describing them as marketing claims. You are right that I did do it in some cases, nonetheless. Please do give any examples of improper synthesis.

Likewise, it is easy to find reliable sources saying that some e-cigarette fluids falsely claim to contain no nicotine. But I had a really hard time finding one that explicitly uses the word "marketing". QuackGuru is still arguing against the re-instatement of a section titled "Marketing targeting youth", on the ground that the sources are off-topic because they do not use the word "marketing". These sources include an FDA cease-and-desist letter about e-fluid being sold packaged with candy and stickers, and the FDA complaining about the child poisoning dangers of e-fluid packaged to look and smell like fruit juice and candy, and articles (including a medical review) about these and similar packaging practices (like having Santa Claus endorse e-cigarettes).

So there are cases in which information is being excluded because the sources don't say "marketing" (even if they say "packaging" or "labeling"), and this is being equated with not "directly address[ing] the marketing claims". I think a source, and the article, can talk about marketing without using the word "marketing" (a general term with many hyponyms). I also think that the article, not the sources, need to be on-topic; as long as a source supports a fact which is relevant to the article, it can be cited. Where would you agree?

I agree that the current article is dreadful. Here's the article I was editing; flawed, but not, I think, as bad as the current article. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, I phrased this RfC badly. My apologies. I'll do my best to learn from it and follow Chris vLS's and dlthewave's advice to be more concrete. I should perhaps have phrased it thus: If discussing a marketing claim is on-topic, when is discussing its accuracy off-topic? Can sources be off-topic if they support an on-topic statement? For instance, if a Cochrane review or a WHO position paper say that vaping is not harmless, and Truth in Advertising (organization) says that sellers often claim that vaping is harmless, is it OK to cite those medical sources on the accuracy of the claim? If those sources don't discuss marketing, or mention a "vaping is harmless" claim, does that make sources and facts off-topic? Thanks to Chris and dlthewave for stating this point clearly. I think this question would also address QuackGuru's "Should we try to minimize or avoid using sources that do not indicate the content is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes?". For clarity, I do not intend to create a new obligation to discuss things, let alone things for which no sources exist. I agree with Markbassett (and Chris vLS and Maproom and Jojalozzo) that this is undesirable. But I also agree that there are already obligations in some cases, so perhaps I should add: If a medical/nonmedical marketing claim is discussed, when does existing policy require that the accuracy of the substance of the claim be discussed too? (assuming that there are suitable sources on the accuracy)? If there were no suitable sources on the accuracy (as is not the case here), what should be done? ...but I don't think that that last question is necessary, unless someone wishes to debate it. I hope these revised questions are clearer, please let me know if they are not. Those who responded managed to discuss the topic in detail despite my poor question. Thank you all. The consensus seems to me to be that: discussing the accuracy of a claim is not in itself problematic, though other policies (due weight, impartiality, reliable sources, etc.) must be met when sourcing the accuracy using different sources for the existence of a claim and the validity of a claim is permissible; using sources that do not mention that the sourced fact relates to a marketing claim is permissible existing policy may, under some circumstances, require that the validity of marketing claims be discussed Many of the respondents did not give any opinion relating to some of these points. QuackGuru and SMcCandlish seem to disagree with at least one and two (if anyone else disagrees, please let me know). Can we consider this settled at this point, or do we need a formal closure? dlthewave, you wrote: "Since this RfC was opened at an article talk page, consensus would apply only to this article." I am engaged in the same disagreement with QuackGuru at Talk:Nicotine marketing and Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 2. Have I not only phrased this RfC badly, but also put it in the wrong place? HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

HLHJ, you wrote "If a medical/nonmedical marketing claim is discussed, when does existing policy require that the accuracy of the substance of the claim be discussed too? (assuming that there are suitable sources on the accuracy)? If there were no suitable sources on the accuracy (as is not the case here), what should be done?" There are way too many sources on the topic. Anyone can create an article that is longer than the current main e-cig page. It is very easy to find sources on the marketing claims. There is no need to use so many off-topic sources. There is a difference of using a few off-topic sources to add context instead of using mass off-topic sources. This page has no foundation. I would not call it an article. I would AFD it and move on. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I did say "as is not the case here". I'm not sure if you are answering the question you quote, or critiquing it, or saying that you wish to debate it. May I ask again if you are willing to consider that the RfC has reached a consensus, or if you would prefer to request formal closure? HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The question "Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate?" is too vague of a question. Do you think the RfC has reached a consensus for any dispute? A consensus for what exactly? The RfC is badly framed and won't reach a specific consensus to address any specific issue. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You claimed "There are plenty of good medical sources on nicotine use; detailed sources on nicotine promotion are actually harder to find."[5] It may be harder to find sources for you but it is very easy to find them for me. MEDRS sources commonly discuss e-cigarette marketing. It would be a weight violation to add mass off-topic content when there are well over a 100 MEDRS sources that can be used. It did say "well over a 100". That is not a typo. Editors specifically mentioned WP:WEIGHT is an issue. The consensus is against including mass off-topic content in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. SMcCandlish wrote "This RfC appears to be fishing for blanket license to WP:POVFORK."[6] This article should be about the marketing of e-cigarettes. It should not also be about the safety, addiction or frequency of use unless the source indicated it is related to the marketing. The current article is a content fork. The main e-cig contains more content than this page. We usually redirect content forks. You copied content from "Cigarette smoking for weight loss".[7] What does that have to do with the marketing of e-cigarettes? Information about smoking and weight loss is unrelated to the marketing of e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I started this RfC because you insisted that any information about the accuracy of marketing claims was off-topic, and that discussion of the accuracy of the claims could only be done with sources that are about the marketing of e-cigarettes. I found that these restrictions made it impossible to write anything I could consider a balanced, neutral, and non-trivial article. Facts which are relevant to the article topic may be best cited to sources that are not about the article topic; this is implicitly acknowledged in WP:NNC. The best MEDR sources for the accuracy of assertions made in a marketing claim may not mention that the facts they establish are the subject of marketing claims.

There are reliable sources saying that the prevalence of e-cigarette use is affected by marketing; this is the point of marketing, so it's hardly irrelevant to discuss how marketing affects prevalence. There are also RS on how marketing affects attitudes, and how attitudes affect behavior; this is how marketing operates, so this information is relevant, too. E-cigarettes are marketed as non-addictive, even when they contain nicotine; they are marketed as safe and harmless when there is extensive evidence that this is untrue. E-cigarettes are advertised as weight-loss aids, and I used the best MEDRS I could find to discuss the accuracy of this claim. These discussed the effects of nicotine on weight gain. This was in the context of other nicotine delivery methods, but statements were explicitly made about nicotine. I now have some better refs for that topic; if you too have better ones, please let me know.

I think that a consensus has emerged from the RfC and comments on it. I take it from your comment that this RfC needs formal closure. I have requested it. HLHJ (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You stated "Facts which are relevant to the article topic may be best cited to sources that are not about the article topic; this is implicitly acknowledged in WP:NNC." See WP:NNC: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Citing sources that are not specifically about the article topic should still generally be about the article in accordance with weight. For example, discussing the effects of nicotine on weight gain is not relevant to the marketing of e-cigarettes and is off-topic. It is largely irrelevant to discuss things that add no context and are not about the marketing of e-cigarettes. Do you still want to include off-topic content as you did here or do you think all that content including content about "Cigarette smoking for weight loss" is on-topic?

You stated "I started this RfC because you insisted that any information about the accuracy of marketing claims was off-topic,..."

I never said any information about the accuracy of marketing claims was off-topic. The RfC you started does not ask a specific question that would have an impact on the content of this article. The question is too vague.

You stated "There are reliable sources saying that the prevalence of e-cigarette use is affected by marketing; this is the point of marketing, so it's hardly irrelevant to discuss how marketing affects prevalence." I did not say using sources related to marketing is irrelevant. I said "It should not also be about the safety, addiction or frequency of use unless the source indicated it is related to the marketing." It is off-topic if the source did not indicate it is related to marketing. It is relevant to discuss how marketing affects the prevalence of e-cigarettes when the source indicated it is related to marketing. Adding random sources about the prevalence of e-cigarettes that do not mention it is related to marketing is off-topic. Do you agree or do you think adding random sources about the prevalence of e-cigarette use that do not indicate it is related to marketing is appropriate for this page?

I believe that adding mass off-topic content would make is impossible to write a quality article that is neutral and not a POV FORK.

I wrote above "You copied content from "Cigarette smoking for weight loss".[8] What does that have to do with the marketing of e-cigarettes? Information about smoking and weight loss is unrelated to the marketing of e-cigarettes." That's the reason it makes it impossible to write a neutral article with mass-off-topic content. Why do you add content from "Cigarette smoking for weight loss" to this page when it is completely off-topic?[9] Do you think we should comply with WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK or do you think we should create different rules for this page? QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC about evaluating the accuracy of marketing claims

Should content that describe marketing claims also include other content from other sources that don't even mention marketing claims? No. Adding WP:OFFTOPIC content such as information about quitting smoking and safety is not appropriate for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what specifically this RfC is asking about. The field of marketing is a fascinating one and not strictly medical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Doc James. The discussion leading up to the RfC is just above the RfC, but looking at it now, it might not give enough context. For example, until recently, this article stated:

Some often implicit marketing claims and scientific facts expressed by the vaping industry made online.[2][not in citation given]

E-cigarettes are harmless, or even beneficial, to the user, compared with not smoking.[6][7]

E-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air.[2][relevant? – discuss]

E-cigarettes help smokers quit.[8][relevant? – discuss]

E-cigarettes are marketed to non-smokers.[citation needed] [1] [9]

These were originally listed as marketing claims, and juxtaposed with MEDRS-supported statements about their accuracy. An IP dubbed them "scientific facts" and removed most of the content about their accuracy. QuackGuru argues that the claims should be listed, but information about their accuracy is off-topic. In the current article, the medical claims made for e-cigarettes are not listed. I think that a critical, MEDRS-backed inclusion of the medical claims is important because they are among the most common marketing claims; see Grana 2014 for an overview, or, less formally, online claims (infographic summary) and vape shop claims (both with accompanying stats tables) HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes if we are going to present marketing claims we should also mention if they are true or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Better vote yes in the section above then, Doc. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If the source does not mention if the marketing claims is true or not then we should not use other sources that do not specifically address the marketing claims. For example, if a source states e-cigs are marketed to youth we should not include safety and other information about youth unless the source being used also addresses the marketing claims. That would be a content or POV fork to have another article when the main article covers safety and other content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question is. The devil is in the wording - several of these are close to what seems to be the medical evidence, if phrased more carefully. For example there is strong public health statistical evidence that "E-cigarettes help smokers quit", but inconclusive RCT evidence, even though the question is a good one for an RCT to test. But that costs money, and no good RCT on the matter has yet reported (the main one that has reported used Italian mental health patients who had not expressed a desire to quit smoking). Most of the reverses of these claims are not in accord with the scientific evidence either, eg "E-cigarettes do not help smokers quit". Whether "E-cigarettes are marketed to non-smokers" is not a matter for a medical/scientific "position"; medical writers are typically poorly-equipped to evaluate marketing strategies. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The question the RfC is asking is as follows: "Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate?" That's not what the dispute is about. The RfC is badly worded and thus has not bearing on this article. If a different question was asked there would be a different outcome.

You wrote "Yes, in so far as I understand the question, which seems to come straight from Planet QuackGuru."

Should we include content about safety and smoking cessation and frequency from sources that do not mention marketing claims and create a second e-cig article with sections such as safety and smoking cessation? It would appear to be a content fork or POV fork to create another article about safety and smoking cessation with a little content about e-cig marketing.

See the edit history with off-topic content such as "As nicotine-containing products, e-cigarettes are highly addictive.[18]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, how do you think the RfC should have been phrased to resolve the point of contention? HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of a phrase for a RfC to resolve the dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss. If you can't define the difference between your position and mine, and you are not happy with my definition of it, how would you suggest that I resolve such differences with you, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like: "Should we include other content on safety and quitting smoking from other sources that don't even mention marketing claims? If the source does not state whether the marketing claims are true or not should we use that source that does not directly comment on the marketing claims?" QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wish you'd mentioned this earlier. As Johnbod says, medical writers may not be the best sources for evaluating marketing strategies. Quoting a false-advertising watchdog or newspaper on the ad claims, and a systematic medical review on the truth of (statements that the reader can identify with) the ad claims would, I think, be using the sources "as appropriate". But I should, with hindsight, have made that more explicit. Perhaps others would give an opinion. HLHJ (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Johnbod, thanks for the query. The phrasing is my fault; see the top of this page for the beginning of this discussion, save edit comments. I agree that wording the statements carefully is critical, especially as many ad claims mislead without actually lying. For instance, ENDS fluid labelled "Contains only FDA-approved ingredients!" There is an implied claim that any chemical approved for food use is safe to inhale, which has been identified and explicitly contradicted in a statement by the FDA. Diacetyl, for instance, can cause popcorn lung when inhaled, and the FDA has sent warning to people selling diactyl-flavoured liquids for electronic cigarettes telling them so.

The evidence for "E-cigarettes help smokers quit" was at one point described as "weak and mixed", I think. I'd used the Cochrane review as a source. I think the article whinged about the lack of RCTs at one point, too. I overlooked the fact that the last claim was in this list at this point; apologies for the careless cut-and-paste, it doesn't belong, struck. "E-cigarettes are not healthier for the user than not using any e-cigarette or nicotine product" might be clearer, although I'm sure that could be better-phrased. The evidence on "E-cigarettes are not harmless to others breathing the same air" is weaker and more mixed, but, for instance, the claim that e-cigarettes emit "only water vapour" is verifiably untrue. There are no shortage of marketing claims to evaluate, even if we go along with the odd contention that mislabelling your ingredients is not a false advertising claim and labelling, along with packaging and branding, has nothing to do with marketing.

There are also looser claims. Ads for e-cigarettes online commonly show smiling people wearing white coats and stethoscopes. There are studies on what effect that has in tobacco ads. Does this evidence belong in the article, or is it off-topic because the source does not mention e-cigarettes? How about evidence on the appeal of flavourings to children initiating smoking?

The question is whether the article should discuss the truth of the claims at all, in any wording. Should it say something like "Claims X, Y, and Z are made" or "Claims X, Y, and Z are made; X is true, Y is debatable, and Z is untrue"? HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For a current dispute, rather than a general question please take a look at the Nicotine marketing article. There is a section with multiple tags. The Marketing of electronic cigarettes article was cleaned up. There is still a dispute at the Nicotine marketing article. Can we make a general statement that "The evidence for these claims is weak to negative."? Can we use sources to address the marketing claims when the sources do not specifically address the marketing claims? QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the policy violations from the Nicotine marketing article. Similar content was removed earlier from Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I gather that there is a specific content dispute taking place here. If this is the case, then it should be mentioned in the RfCs so that uninvolved editors can understand exactly what it is that we're !voting on. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The RfC was started to allow the use of sources that don't mention the marketing claims to include content about their efficacy for quitting smoking, among other things. That was not made clear to the uninvolved editors. If that was made clear there would be a different outcome. Since I am involved in the dispute I know what is being proposed. I disagree with creating potential SYN and OR violations such as stating "The evidence for these claims is weak to negative." The sources did not claim the evidence for "these claims..." is weak or any else regarding the marketing claims. The RfC is asking for permission to use any source to address marketing claims when those sources do not directly address any marketing claims. Using sources that don't directly comment on the marketing claims is giving a disproportionate amount of WP:WEIGHT to those sources, especially when there are plenty of organizations and reviews that directly address the marketing claims. Sources such as the 2014 World Health Organization report and the 2014 Scientific Review do directly address the accuracy of marketing claims. I disagree with allowing the use of sources that don't mention marketing claims to essentially argue against sources that do directly comment on the marketing claims. If an editor disagrees with a review that does directly address the marketing claims they should find other MEDRS compliant sources that address the marketing claims rather than use sources that don't mention any marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about using sources that do not specifically state the content is related to the marketing claims

The RfC above is poorly framed and is asking for permission to use any source on the subject even when those sources do not mention e-cigarette marketing, promotion, or advertising. If the RfC was framed differently would editors give a different response? Can we use a source to address the marketing claims when that source does not specifically state it was in relation to the marketing claims? For example, can we use a source about the safety of e-cigarettes when the source did not indicate the safety information about e-cigarettes being discussed is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes? Using a source to address the marketing claims is done on a case-by-case basis. Should we try to minimize or avoid using sources that do not indicate the content is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes? QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, yes. Rather then cherry pick sources to address the marketing claims it is far better to use sources that address the marketing claims. We should generally use sources that clearly indicate the content is related to the marketing claims. There is no need to use sources that do not directly address the marketing claims, especially since there are numerous WP:MEDRS compliant sources that do directly address the marketing claims. It would create a WP:WEIGHT violation to use additional sources to address the marketing claims when there are MEDRS compliant sources that do directly address the marketing claims.

  Medical writers *are* the best sources for directly evaluating marketing claims. Numerous reviews commonly address the marketing claims. It is highly inappropriate to summarise an advertising watchdog or newspaper on the advertising claims and then turnaround and use a different source such as a systematic medical review to address the marketing claims when that source did not indicate they are evaluating the marketing claims. There is no point to using additional sources that do not directly comment on a specific marketing claim when there are numerous reviews that directly address the marketing claims. It would be giving a disproportionate amount of weight to use a review that did not directly comment about a marketing claim to argue against other reviews that do directly comment about a specific marketing claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Using a source that does not discuss marketing to "debunk" a claim is WP:SYN. We should only use sources that discuss and critique the marketing claims. However, it might be appropriate to use a MEDRS source to support another source's critique. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Two comments.
  1. I have been summoned by a bot to take part in this RfC, but it is not at all clear what the RfC is about.
  2. Paid editing is an increasingly important issue on Wikipedia. Most paid editors aren't really a problem because they don't know enough to follow WP's rules, and get overruled; and most of those who are competent enough to comply with WP policy do little real harm. But there are some very competent undeclared paid editors who do real harm (to Wikipedia and to its readers' health) by following their employers' agenda. I assume that their pay is commensurate with their competence. Not many industries can afford to employ such editors; one that can is tobacco-based smoking. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

See the first RfC, above, for what this is about. I do not take your comments to have intended a personal application, Maproom, but for clarity I am unpaid and I do not think that I have any conflict of interest on this topic. I should mention that the traditional old tobacco-based smoking industry is now heavily involved in selling e-cigarettes; the small independents are losing market share. As the article formerly stated, there is also evidence that e-cigarette use could be a way of acquiring ("Trends in characteristics and multi-product use among adolescents who use electronic cigarettes, United States 2011-2015". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); stealth e-cigs [10], [11]) and sustaining a nicotine addiction in a world where it is increasingly difficult to smoke. Since dual use is common, e-cig sales might actually increase cigarette sales. HLHJ (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Generally, yes. As Dlthewave says, this has a lot of synth potential (see my and other comments in the original RfC above). However, if a marketing claim coincides with a medical one, and a medical source debunks (or overwhelmingly supports) it, we should not hide that fact. But we should not be relying on medical sources which do no marketing-claim assessment in trying to assess marketing claims that are not medical in nature. I agree with criticisms of the original weird RfC above that the way the article has been heading is essentially a WP:POVFORK, trying to re-document the entire case, medically, in a way that diverges from the main article on the subject. This is not permissible. As QuackGuru indicates, "medical source" and "source about the marketing claims" is a false dichotomy; the best sources about the veracity of the marketing claims are medical sources that explicitly that address the marketing claims. While I led with a caveat that a marketing claims [dis]proved but a pure-science medical source and we could use that source, this scenario is not actually likely due to the amount of MEDRS material that really is directly addressing marketing claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• No, because it would lower the quality of the sources and the article. An article on the subject of e-cigarette marketing should use the best "source[s] on the subject even when those sources do not mention e-cigarette marketing, promotion, or advertising."

"can we use a source about the safety of e-cigarettes when the source did not indicate the safety information about e-cigarettes being discussed is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes?" Yes, of course, and we should. The best WP:MEDRS sources about the safety of e-cigarettes may not mention marketing. Medical review papers often don't mention marketing.

I have explained in the original RfC above that information highly relevant to e-cigarette marketing may be best sourced from sources that do not explicitly mention marketing. For instance, this article formerly included these excerpts:

In a survey of American students in grades 6-12, only 33.8% said that they did not know whether e-cigarettes are more or less addictive than cigarettes; 31.2% believed that e-cigarettes were less addictive, and 5.4% believed that they were more addictive. Between 2012 and 2016, belief in the addictiveness (and harmfulness) of e-cigarettes fell among students, and the student's certainty in their beliefs grew. The survey authors attribute this partly to marketing, including youth-targeted advertisements and flavours.[17]

Some of the common marketing messages detailed above have an influence on non-smokers, but not smokers: 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.[16][17]

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]

(refs)

The last para draws on sources that discuss other forms of nicotine addiction; these might not mention marketing OR e-cigarettes or any other nicotine delivery method at all, but still be the best source for the emotional effects of nicotine addiction.

I am not aware of any instance of "relying on medical sources which do no marketing-claim assessment in trying to assess marketing claims that are not medical in nature". If the medical sources do not assess marketing claims, and the marketing claims are not medical, how could the sources be used to assess the claims? HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You quoted content that was in the article above: "The survey authors attribute this partly to marketing, including youth-targeted advertisements and flavours.[17]" The word "marketing" failed verification and the source cited is a study. It is not a secondary source or MEDRS compliant review. Seems like a collection of sentences using a WP:primary source.

You quoted content that was in the article above: "This claim is true only for those addicted to nicotine, who need nicotine in order to feel normal." This sentence is unsourced. "Nicotine products such as e-cigarettes temporarily relieve nicotine withdrawal symptoms (which include irritability, anxiety, stress, and depression)." This sentence is unsourced and off-topic. "However, when people become addicted, they report worsening mood, and people who have broken a nicotine addiction report lasting improvements in mood.[36] This sentence is off-topic and the part "However" seems like a SYN violation.

It would greatly lower the quality of the article to allow off-topic content to be added to this page. Sources that do not mention e-cigarette marketing, promotion, or advertising are typically off-topic. In certain circumstances they can be used to add context but to add mass off-topic content will degrade the article.

Adding general information about the safety of e-cigarettes when the source did not indicate the safety information about e-cigarettes being discussed is related to the marketing of e-cigarettes will degrade the article. I believe it would create a higher quality article to rely on higher quality sources such as medical sources that assess the accuracy of the marketing claims rather than WP:CHERRY pick random sources about the safety of e-cigarettes in general.

You stated "I am not aware of any instance of 'relying on medical sources which do no marketing-claim assessment in trying to assess marketing claims that are not medical in nature'." Medical sources do assess the marketing claims. No editor is saying we can't cite medical sources to assess the marketing claims.

You stated "If the medical sources do not assess marketing claims, and the marketing claims are not medical, how could the sources be used to assess the claims?" You can assess the marketing claims by citing medical reviews and other quality sources. There are numerous medicals sources available that assess the marketing claims.

You stated "The best WP:MEDRS sources about the safety of e-cigarettes may not mention marketing. Medical review papers often don't mention marketing." They often do discuss the safety of e-cigarette marketing.

MEDRS compliant reviews frequently mention marketing and can be used to assess the marketing claims. Adding off-topic content is kind of like creating a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We should probably have this discussion into the next section. Please feel free to move this comment and your comment just above this line there.

I can "assess the marketing claims by citing medical reviews" if the marketing claims are medical. Some marketing claims are not.

The first source says "The ease of access to and increasing ubiquity of such products has probably been influential,[10] as have youth-oriented flavors,[29] targeted advertisements,[15] and implicit, if not explicit, attempts to destigmatize tobacco use.[16]". These are aspects of marketing. Targeted ads are marketing, for instance. As "ads are marketing" is the closest the article text gets to an attempt to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material", I think this is in line with WP:PRIMARY. The source is not cited for biomedical information, so MEDRS does not apply.

The second source says "Regular smokers need nicotine to remain feeling normal, and suffer from adverse moods without it", and "For instance, smokers display significantly worse sleep than non-smokers (Wetter and Young 1994), but their sleep improves significantly six months after quitting (Wolter et al. 1996)... Falling plasma nicotine levels over the night means that smokers suffer from increasing nicotine withdrawal, which probably disrupts sleep architecture" and "Smokers feel tired and stressed when their plasma nicotine falls", and so on. Contrasting short-term improvements with long-term detriments does not seem to me to be a WP:SYN used of the word "however" (also, the abstract of the source uses the word twice to draw the same contrast). As the marketing claim is about these improvements, I do not think that it is off-topic to discuss whether the claim is true in the short and long term, and for whom it is true, and why term and addiction status makes a difference to the truth of the claim. I did not WP:Cherrypick the source for a viewpoint; I looked for a relevant MEDRS source, recent and quoted in other sources, such as care guidelines. This is the best source I found. The text of the source does not mention marketing, but it addresses the truth of the marketing claim.

MEDRS sources discussing the effect of nicotine on stress, mood, and insomnia are relevant to marketing claims that a nicotine dispenser affects stress, mood, and insomnia, even if they don't mention marketing, IMO. HLHJ (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The content in the article was "The survey authors attribute this partly to marketing, including youth-targeted advertisements and flavours.[17]"

QuackGuru previously stated "The word "marketing" failed verification and the source cited is a study."

You think the content is sourced, but what you quoted from the source did not verify the word "marketing". The content verifies "advertisements" but you added both "marketing" and "advertisements".[12] in the sentence. The part "The survey authors attribute this partly...".[13] appears to be a WP:SYN violation. What you quoted above does not verify this part of the content. The previous sentence in the article began with "Between 2012 and 2016,...".[14] That content appears to fail verification. It was not between 2012 and 2016.

You stated "The text of the source does not mention marketing, but it addresses the truth of the marketing claim." The second source does not mention e-cigarettes. How is it even related to this topic? You think it is not WP:Cherrypicking to use a source that does not mention e-cigarettes or indicate it is in relation to a marketing claim?

The source did not indicate it is in relation to the marketing claims. Therefore, it probably does not address the marketing claims. How could it addresses the truth of the marketing claim when the source did not indicate it is addressing to the marketing claims? Picking a source that does not indicate it is in relation to the marketing is usually off-topic, especially when it did not add content in relation to other content in the article related to marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You are entirely right about the "Between 2012 and 2016,..." sentence. It should have read "Between 2012 and 2014,...". It is the source which was published in 2016, and obviously I made a mistake. Thank you for catching it.

QuackGuru, may I ask how you would define "marketing"? HLHJ (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not about how the word "marketing" is defined. It is about the source used the word "advertisements" and the sentence in the article contained both "marketing" as well as "advertisements".[15] That is making a claim that is broader than the source is making. The other first part of the sentence stated "The survey authors attribute this partly...".[16] also failed verification.

You stated "can we use a source about the safety of e-cigarettes when the source did not indicate the safety information about e-cigarettes being discussed is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes?" Yes, of course, and we should.[17]

High quality WP:MEDRS sources and other quality sources about the safety of e-cigarettes do discuss marketing. Therefore, to create a high quality article we should generally avoid using sources that are unrelated to the marketing claims. See WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK.

Adding content from sources that did not indicate that the safety information is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes would create an article with off-topic content. We should typically use sources that indicate that they are in relation to marketing rather than WP:Cherrypick sources about safety information in general.

Content was copied from "Cigarette smoking for weight loss"[18] into this article. Do you think content about "Cigarette smoking for weight loss".[19] is on-topic or do you think content about "Cigarette smoking for weight loss"[20] violates WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK? QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I quoted "The ease of access to and increasing ubiquity of such products has probably been influential,[10] as have youth-oriented flavors,[29] targeted advertisements,[15] and implicit, if not explicit, attempts to destigmatize tobacco use.[16]", and said that this quote lists aspects of marketing. If I understand, you say that it does not, which makes our disagreement look like a logomachy to me. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me your definition of "marketing"; I think it might help us resolve our disagreements more efficiently. HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I stated "It is not about how the word "marketing" is defined. It is about the source used the word "advertisements" and the sentence in the article contained both "marketing" as well as "advertisements".[21] That is making a claim that is broader than the source is making. The other first part of the sentence stated "The survey authors attribute this partly...".[22] also failed verification."

It is better to use "advertisements" when the source used that word and not to use the word "marketing" when the source did not use the word. It is better not to conduct our own analysis of the source and come to the conclusion that these are aspects of marketing when the source did not make that conclusion. I don't think the content should come to a conclusion when the source made no such conclusion.

The next sentence stated "Some users have been unaware that e-cigarettes contain nicotine and are addictive.[19]"

The content failed verification and is off-topic. That is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as a violation of WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. The sentence is making a medical claim using a news article. That is a violation of WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is not about how the word "marketing" is defined, could you please tell me what you mean by "marketing" so that I can understand our discussions better?

In the context of the adjacent sentence, which says that e-fluid is falsely marketed as nicotine-free when it contains nicotine, the information that some people got addicted to what they thought was a non-addictive product seems relevant. The source says "A former e-cigarette user, Nicolay... said she did not know they could be addictive." I could probably find a better source, but this does not seem to me to be a biomedical claim. I had a MEDRS source for e-cigarettes containing nicotine, and for nicotine being addictive, at the start of that same section.

I really think we should move this discussion elsewhere, if you are OK with that, or at least collapse it. Let's stick closer to the topic and discuss what "marketing" encompasses. Does it, in your view, encompass advertisements? What else? HLHJ (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC about using sources that do not specifically state the content is related to the marketing claims

We should try to cut down or abstain from using sources that are unrelated to the marketing, promotion, or advertising claims. The source will indicate if the content is related to marketing. If the content in the source did not discuss it in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes then it usually better to leave it out. If we don't leave it out then any editor can add any safety information about e-cigarettes. Allowing editors to WP:CHERRY pick what is or is not relevant would create a never ending content dispute. There is a page for the safety info. Each article has a separate topic. Allowing editors to use any source about safety would turn this article in a WP:POVFORK.

The question in the other RfC is as follows: "Should articles that describe marketing claims also describe their accuracy, using WP:Reliable sources or WP:Reliable sources (medicine) as appropriate?" That is a misleading question and does not address the dispute. Can we make a general statement about safety of e-cigarettes when the source did not indicate the content is related to marketing? Generally speaking, no.

There are WP:MEDRS compliant sources that write about and critique the marketing claims. For example, a 2015 review stated: "Also concerning are claims that electronic cigarettes and nicotine are safe and even beneficial, which now appear frequently in the media and on company websites."[23] When we are going to present marketing claims we should not mention if they are true or not using sources that do not make it evident that the content being presented is related to marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is potential for "no" here. Using another source to state "The evidence for these claims..." would potentially be a WP:SYN violation because the other source used may not directly address those very specific marketing claims. We are not obligated to critique the input of every marketing claim. We can present what a source said regarding a marketing claim, in accordance with WP:IMPARTIAL. However, if the source did not directly address that specific marketing claim then we should not try to address that specific marketing claim with using other sources that do not directly address that specific claim. Doing so would give the appearance of WP:SOAPBOXing. Under the obligation for WP:WEIGHT (as well as neutrality), we are obliged to present neutral claims without using other sources that do not directly address each specific claim. We clearly present each claim and if that source used does not directly address that specific claim then we don't use other sources to try to address the marketing claims when they don't indicate they are addressing the "marketing claims". We can report what companies said about the claims using independent sources irrespective of whether they were widely reported in independent sources. The inclusion criteria is not widely known claims. We don't have to double or triple verify each marketing claim. Our goal is not to solve marketing arguments by using other sources to try to address each marketing claim. For example, if the source does not address the accuracy of the marketing claim then it would be better to try to avoid using other sources to try to address the marketing claim. If editors are allowed to cherry pick safety information then any editor could go to the safety of electronic cigarette article and start adding safety information to this article when they don't explicitly address the accuracy of the marketing claim. Even MEDRS reviews disagree about the safety of vaping. Therefore, it is better to use WP:MEDRS compliant sources that directly address each marketing claim rather than cherry pick sources that do not indicate they are addressing a marketing claim. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Maproom, can we use sources that do not specifically address the marketing of e-cigarettes to discuss the accuracy of the marketing claims? Conversely, should we make an effort to minimize or avoid using sources that do not directly address the accuracy of marketing of e-cigarettes?

For example, can we state:

There is limited supporting evidence in helping people quit smoking. The available evidence for their effectiveness in abstaining from smoking is inconclusive.

References

The two examples (see Smoking cessation#Substitutes for cigarettes) do not indicate it is in relation to the marketing of e-cigarettes. Can we use those sources to address the accuracy of the marketing claims when those sources do not explicately address the accuracy of the marketing claims? QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (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.