Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call For Mr. Morris

That's not a child, he was a real-life bellboy born in 1910 that worked for a NYC hotel, that Phillip Morris eventually enlisted well into his adult years as part of their marketing campaign. He became well known to generations of Americans as the Phillip Morris bellboy, with his famous line "Call for Mr. Morris" being used to promote the product, first on radio and then perhaps most famously, on the hit American tv sitcom 'I Love Lucy' during the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Roventini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.1.161 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1930-1999

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

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

Anti-smoking campaigns

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco Advertising

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Peer Review (UCSF Health Policy CP 133 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Edits/Response to Peer Reviews

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

Orphaned references in Nicotine marketing

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

Reference named "Rom2014":

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

Reference named "England2015":

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

Nicotine price discounts

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

RFC on describing the accuracy of marketing claims

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

Types of messages

Advertising messages about passive vaping

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

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

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

You did not explain exactly which claim you think can be restored that is about marketing. Which text about passive vaping are you referring too? QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The text I think could be restored is the one I quoted above; I've slightly edited my own statement to put it in a red box, because it wasn't very obvious, sorry about that, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Which citation verifies each claim? QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I see your point. I cited SRITA for that, and you have concerns about their reliability. I honestly hadn't noticed, sorry. I will look for other, reliable references for it, but assuming the refs were perfect, would you object to the text as off-topic, QuackGuru?
The source SRITA also failed verification. I can't support or reject content without reading the source or sources first. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you tell me if you think the content is on-topic, ignoring the sourcing for now? If it's off-topic, there is no point in sourcing it well. HLHJ (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
It depends on what a source states. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, how to the sources affect the relevance of the content, QuackGuru? One could have untrue and unsourcable but topical content, say "E-cigarettes are marketed with gigantic globe-spanning fireworks set off on the near face of the Moon, forming the shape of a 5000km-long e-cigarette". This is on-topic, but untrue and unsourcable. But I can say to anyone "If you can find reliable sources for that crazy claim, I have no objections to putting it in the article". HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The source may say "labeled" but the content added may use a different word like "marketing" that does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
But that wouldn't affect whether the claim was on-topic, would it? HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The claim would be off-topic if the content failed verification because after correcting the wording the remaining content would not be relevant to the topic. That is what happened at the e-cig marketing article. The content said marketing but the sources did not verify it was marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru's diverse edits, mostly on e-cigarettes

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

  • Are list-defined references, which you removed, deprecated? I'd put some of them in that format to declutter the main text a bit.
  • Apparently Template:See below is deprecated. Thank you. Do you happen to know what the current best method for writing within-article references is? Anchors?
  • I was trying to describe common marketing claims and then comparing them to available evidence (for concrete claims, not vague "This product is super!" stuff that one cannot really factcheck). I therefore think that summaries of the available evidence are on-topic. For instance:
    • the image on the adverse effects of vaping contrasts with marketing claims that vaping is harmless
    • the quoted text on the effect of smoking on stress not only contrasts with the marketing claims, it also came from a ref that was cited as the only source supporting that paragraph. The paragraph is now unsourced, which I assume was unintentional.
Do you think giving information that contradicts marketing claims is off-topic in principle? Where would you draw the line?
  • I copied a lot of the evidence claims from related articles (as it says in my edit summaries), and I didn't read all the references supporting all the things I copied. I should go through and check these.
  • I used the e-cigarette ad to illustrate the statements in the text, with specific discussion of the ad. If it is just captioned "A 2011 blu e-cigarette advertisement", it fails to meet the fair use criteria; we'll need to discuss it in the article. I take your point that the caption also needs references, and I will try to fix this. I think some of the statements are not WP:Likely to be challenged (that an ad saying "WHY QUIT?... SWITCH TO BLU/ blu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change... Nobody likes a quitter, so make the switch today" is suggesting e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting, for instance).
  • I don't understand this edit. For instance, the claim "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" is made in marketing, and a Cochrane review is a solid medref to support the statement that evidence for this message is weak. I didn't support the statement that the messages were used in marketing, though, which I should have. I assume that's why you removed it as off-topic, not because you felt that e-cigarettes did not belong in a discussion of products marketed as less-harmful alternatives for the nicotine addict :). So I've restored it with a cited statement that clearly ties it to the topic, and also supports the statement that you flagged as FV and then deleted.
  • I changed one of the statements you tagged as having failed verification; the last para of the section "Marketing and Media Research" in this ref,[1] seems to me to support the claim it is now attached to ("Television and radio e-cigarette advertising in some countries may be indirectly advertising traditional cigarette smoking, as there is evidence suggesting that "viewing an e-cigarette commercial may induce thoughts about smoking and cue the urge to smoke".")
  • If you think my sentence about trends in e-cigarette use is off-topic, I'll drop it. You're right; I'm not really using it to support any other statement, and besides, it's a bit outdated.
  • You removed this example; I grant it's not adequate as a source, as that would be WP:Original research, but I have a source already; I just wanted to use it as an illustration. Would you prefer I discussed it inline?
  • The statement about e-cigarette being used to "delay and deter quitting" did seem really off-topic, as I didn't discuss the message's use as a marketing tool. Fixed.
  • Thanks for catching the duplicate "rapidly expanding" quote. I agree with you about the position it is better to have it in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

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

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

You restored it claiming you addressed the concerns? Whether it contradicts marketing claims is not the point. Content not about marketing is usually off-topic. The source must make the connection. Not the editor. The website stanford.edu is a primary source. Truth in Advertising is a watchdog group. It is not a secondary source. "There are concerns that this is a marketing strategy...". was tagged. Where does the source verify "concerns that this is a marketing strategy"? Other content failed verification and you have not been able to verify each claim. The image's caption had a WHO source that was unrelated to the image. There are too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Since some of the questions at issue here are identical to those discussed at Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes (stanford.edu source, Truth in Advertising source), I have responded there.
Remaining issues; sorry, I should have been more specific about what concerns I thought I'd addressed. I will try to be more specific in future.
Kalkhoran says "As currently being used, e-cigarettes are associated with significantly less quitting among smokers." Grana says "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." Neither of these is a very good match for "concerns that this is a marketing strategy". I have changed the claim and sources. I hope you will now agree that it is verifiable.
The WHO citation supported a claim made in the caption, namely that vaping is more harmful than not using any nicotine product. I can restore the caption with more references, including one discussing the image, but I think it's OK to have references in the caption that support the caption without directly discussing the image.
You don't have to list all the problems at once, QuackGuru. :) Let's start with the big ones, like article scope (see Talk:Marketing of e-cigarettes) and then move down to the smaller ones. HLHJ (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
You changed the claim but created a new problem. For example, it is a SYN violation to claim "As once with the similarly-marketed...". The content about "...there are concerns that they might delay and deter quitting..." is not relevant because it is not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I have sources that X marketing strategy used for Y caused concern Z, and I have sources that X marketing strategy used for W and formerly used for X causes concern Z. I then state that as X for Y, so X for W causes concern Z. The only originality is that I identified that concern Z is concern Z, and if we can't use that level of originality, we are scuttled, because we can never cite anything :). So I think that there is no novel synthesis, QuackGuru; putting statements from multiple sources in the same sentence is not necessarily WP:Synthesis. HLHJ (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The content "...there are concerns that they might delay and deter quitting..." is still off-topic. Using other sources to make it look relevant is not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that if something is marketed as a cessation aid, and there are concerns it might actually hinder cessation, and reliable sources say so, it's relevant. But this is the scope debate at RFC, so let's wait on the outcome of that. HLHJ (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The content restored did not address the concerns. The content is unclear with the bullet list format and it is about other topics such as quitting cigarettes and safety data. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I too dislike that format. Once we have resolved the currently RfC'd dispute over whether the scope includes information about the truth of cessation and safety claims, we can discuss this further. HLHJ (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

New section on tobacco advertisement in poor communities

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

I think this is a good idea, Themis.Wilson. It had been done. But it seems that targeting people in a bad mood, say those with elevated stress levels, such poor people, ill people, and soldiers on deployment, is a specific marketing tactic, so when I can I'll try and structure the section in question a bit better; it's currently a US-centric string of dissociated stats.

Here's a good source, for the "self-medication" marketing message; despite the title, some of the content refers to mental illness more generally: Prochaska, Judith J.; Hall, Sharon M.; Bero, Lisa A. (2008-05). "Tobacco Use Among Individuals With Schizophrenia: What Role Has the Tobacco Industry Played?". Schizophrenia Bulletin. 34 (3): 555–567. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbm117. ISSN 0586-7614. PMC 2632440. PMID 17984298. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link) HLHJ (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

E-cigarette section

Advertising tobacco products on TV and radio is banned in many countries, but, in some jurisdictions, the same restrictions do not apply to e-cigarette advertising.[citation needed]

E-cigarettes are marketed as a cheaper, more pleasant, and more convenient complement or alternative to smoking.[citation needed]

The content is unsourced and likely challenged. If the content is not sourced soon both sentences will be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For the first statement, I suggest this from the e-cigarette marketing article: "Since they [e-cigarettes] do not contain tobacco, television advertising in the United States is not restricted.[2]"

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Maloney, Erin K.; Cappella, Joseph N. (2015). "Does Vaping in E-Cigarette Advertisements Affect Tobacco Smoking Urge, Intentions, and Perceptions in Daily, Intermittent, and Former Smokers?". Health Communication. 31: 1–10. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.993496. ISSN 1041-0236. PMID 25758192.
You also removed the following text:
"There is no evidence that the cigarette brands are selling e-cigarettes as part of a plan to phase out traditional cigarettes.[1]"
"Many aspects of e-cigarette ads are familiar; like ads from the 1800 and 1900s, they show unrepresentatively healthy, well-dressed, high-status people.[citation needed] They may portray users as more popular and social (the ad illustrated here actually asserts that breaking a nicotine addiction will cause you to be disliked).[citation needed] They are likely to imply that users of their product are behaving in an adult manner, making free choices, rebelling against coercive authority, and expressing their identity as part of a group, their individuality and their independence.[citation needed]"
"In 2016, e-cigarette companies fought not to have the health and safety of their products evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration, arguing that all existing products should be grandfathered in.[2][relevant? – discuss]"
I am not sure why you removed the first line. I think that phasing out a product would clearly be part of a marketing plan.
The second para is uncited. I would be happy to go and find cites for it; a search for "e-cigarette ads old techniques" turns up a lot of potential sources. But there is a broader issue.
Over the last few days, I have been extremely busy answering your requests to find quotes from sources, identify page numbers in sources, find alternative sources, find more sources, cut down to fewer sources, justify things as relevant or on-topic, and justify English ontology. While such requests are legitimate, the sheer number and breadth of them is making it difficult for me to respond to them promptly. In this context, statements like "If the content is not sourced soon both sentences will be deleted" are stressful to me. I am also uncomfortable with us editing on topics with unresolved, ongoing talk-page discussions; it seems like a violation of WP:dispute resolution, and I don't want to slip into edit warring. Also, frankly, we have so many different editing discussions open at this point, I rather despair of us resolving them all. May I suggest that we both refrain from editing articles on the subject of e-cigarettes for a bit and try to settle our debates? HLHJ (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the cigarette brands are selling e-cigarettes as part of a plan to phase out traditional cigarettes. Deciding to continue to sell cigarettes is not specifically about marketing. It may be related to marketing because it is part of a strategy to make money. It depends if an editor wants a broader or more focused article to decide if the content is relevant. You can restore this one.
Since they do not contain tobacco, television advertising in the US is not restricted. It is sourced and relevant. No issue with this sentence.
In 2016, e-cigarette companies fought not to have the health and safety of their products evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration, arguing that all existing products should be grandfathered in. That is not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, QuackGuru, I'll have a look at this when I have time, likely tomorrow. HLHJ (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy violations

Both Google and Microsoft have policies that prohibit the promotion of tobacco products on their advertising networks.[99][100]

Both citations are not articles.

However, some tobacco retailers are able to circumvent these policies by creating landing pages that promote tobacco accessories such as cigar humidors and lighters.[citation needed]

The content is unsourced.

On Facebook, unpaid content, created and sponsored by tobacco companies, is widely used to advertise nicotine-containing products, with photos of the products, "buy now" buttons and a lack of age restrictions, in contravention of ineffectively enforced Facebook policies.[101][102][103][not in citation given]

The citations fail to verify the claim.[4] QuackGuru (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Images and captions

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

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

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

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

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

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

This caption misrepresents the image and includes off-topic content not about marketing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
See caption: This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[1] ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in addiction.[2]: 150  It plays on social anxieties[3]: 216–217  with the phrase "Nobody likes a quitter". The topmost line, "WHY QUIT?", also contradicts the narrative that e-cigarettes help smokers quit.[4] The ad is explicitly addressed at the "concerned smoker", someone considering quitting,[3]: 146, 166–168  and it suggests a more harmful[4] alternative to quitting. (blu, a brand of Imperial Brands, formerly Imperial Tobacco

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference reactance_smoking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference FDA_review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference media_role was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WHOPosition2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Where do the sources specifically mention the 2011 ad? For example, where does the source verify "This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[10]"? The other sources do not appear to mention the 2011 ad. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned, Wikipedia article illustrations almost never have a source that explicitly mentions the illustration image. Look at the "Dog" article; the captions have refs, which support the statements on the captions, but don't support the assertion that the image illustrates the caption. Would you, as an ordinary person, think that the statement "take back your freedom" emphasizes freedom, urges the reader to make a choice, or implies rebellion against whoever took your freedom away? HLHJ (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This edit added content to the caption that is unrelated to the image because the sources are unrelated to the specific ad. All the sources along with the content that misrepresents the image can be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure why you think that it misrepresents the image. Can you explain? We can continue using the same example. HLHJ (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The sources are not directly about the blu e-cig ads or any e-cig ads. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
How about a caption that says

Some marketing methods are common in nicotine ads. For instance, emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[1] ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in addiction;[2]: 150  playing on social anxieties[3]: 216–217  ("Nobody likes a quitter"); and, for unwilling smokers,[3]: 146, 166–168  suggesting more harmful[4] alternatives to quitting ("WHY QUIT?"), which also contradicts the message that e-cigarettes help smokers quit[4].

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference reactance_smoking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference FDA_review was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference media_role was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WHOPosition2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
This moves all the quotes into illustrative parends, leaving them out of the statements, so the reader can decide how well they illustrate the ideas. HLHJ (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
"What source is about blu e-cigs ads?" The part "This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[10] fails verification. If you disagree then where does the source verify "This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[10] If the source does not mention the ad or e-cig ads then it can't verify the claim or be relevant to the image.
The proposed text: "Some marketing methods are common in nicotine ads. For instance, emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[1] ("take back your freedom"), not the less attractive entrapment and lack of freedom inherent in addiction;[2]:150 playing on social anxieties[3]:216-217 ("Nobody likes a quitter"); and, for unwilling smokers,[3]:146, 166-168 suggesting more harmful[4] alternatives to quitting ("WHY QUIT?"), which also contradicts the message that e-cigarettes help smokers quit[4]."
The proposal does not address the underlining problems. Captions are usually a simple description about the image. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, missed your edit until after I'd posted. You wrote:

The sources are not directly about the blu e-cig ads or any e-cig ads. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that they need to be. In the Dogs article, they aren't. Since we disagree, I went looking for a Wikipedia policy about image captions. I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, and I can't find any policy that requires an image caption to have a source that says that it is about the image that it captions. But it also doesn't say that it's not required. The information might be somewhere else; can you find any relevant policy? We could post to Wikipedia:Third opinion and ask someone with more experience to help us find the relevant policy, if you like. I'm entirely willing to go along with policy on this. HLHJ (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CAPTION and you agreed "to go along with policy on this". WP:CAPTION is a guideline page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I have seen it; I linked to it in my comment above. I do agree. Would you agree to take this to 3PO? It seems to me that we have different interpretation of the policy, and that would be one way to resolve them. HLHJ (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CAPTION: "As with image captions, care should be taken to include enough relevant information in-line so the media file's relevance to the article is made explicit irrespective of the caption. As a general rule, retain broader points in the article body, including specific points in the media file's description field. For example, the statement: "'Yesterday' is one of the Beatles' best-known songs" might be more appropriate for the article body than the statement: "The string arrangement on 'Yesterday' utilises counterpoint, which complements McCartney's vocals by reinforcing the tonic", which might be more appropriate as an ogg file description, especially if the text pertains to the contents of the media file or supports its fair-use rationale." QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I am following that. The points I have made are specific to the image. They are about the content of the image. The broader related points are in the article body. I think my description of the elements of the ad is analogous to describing the relationship of the counterpoint, tonic, and vocals in a musical piece. I think just saying that it is a 2011 ad for blu e-cigarettes is analogous to saying that something is a well-known song by the Beatles. I'll have a think about it and get back to you, likely in a few hours. Feel free to put in a request at 3PO if you like, I agree to it. HLHJ (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Almost all the statements are not specific to the image. They are not specifically about e-cig ads. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
See here. I removed the SYN and OR violations and off-topic content. The content was not specific to the image. They were not about blu e-cigarette marketing. I requested verification on your talk page. Verification was not provided.
3PO is to get a third opinion. There was another opinion about the image and similar content. See "original research removed". QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner, QuackGuru. I do not think that an image has to have sources mentioning the image; I think editor judgment that it illustrates the text is sufficient, provided that WP:PRIMARY is followed: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think that "straightforward, descriptive statements" include statements that "WHY QUIT? SWITCH TO BLU" suggests and alternative to quitting, that "No-one likes a quitter" plays on social anxieties, and that "take back your freedom" draws on freedom, choice, and rebellion. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group.
I believe the "No-one likes a quitter" ad image met fair use when it contained significant discussion in its caption. You replaced the caption with the comment "Cleanup off-topic text in WP:CAPTION. Remove SYN and original research violations". You did not use the proposed text above, but inserted your own caption:

A 2011 blu e-cigarette ad stating, "WHY QUIT?" SWITCH TO BLU".

You then removed the image and your own caption with the comment "Fails WP:NFCC#8, because there is no relevant text discussing the image or its marketing message." I did take a long time to get back to you, but I think there are better resolutions. Let's leave it here pending the noticeboard discussion. HLHJ (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
QuackGuru, the noticeboard discussion came to the conclusion that that SRITA is a reliable source, and SRITA categorizes this image as related to e-cig marketing. Do you believe that I need a source to say that each point that I illustrate with this image is illustrated by this image? HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Goody two shoes image caption

@HLHJ and QuackGuru: My main concerns with having all the text in the "Goody two shoes" image caption is that the verbosity runs counter to the guidance (at both MOS:CAPTION and WP:CAPTION) that captions should be succinct, as well as the guidance in section 1.7 of WP:CAPTION "Drawing the reader into the article." Mojoworker (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mojoworker and QuackGuru: I agree that the caption is rather long, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Succinctness, I think the other considerations I've mentioned make it preferable that it be long. I feel that putting it in the body text is undue weight; using it as a marginal example is not. Could we please have the discussion on the talk page rather than in null-edit comments, QG? I would prefer that the capation be left as it was until we reach consensus here, per BRD; it had been stable quite a while. HLHJ (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: deleted an image from Nicotine marketing with the edit summary "fails NFCC#8, because the necessary discussion requires only quotation of the relevant text, no depiction of the image accompanying it; this also fails NOR/SYNTH, since the analysis is unsourced/unreferenced"[5]
@Mojoworker: moved the content to the body.[6]
@Masem: made changes to the content.[7]
The consensus is clear. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I made one more small change on the caption as the text is too small to read the "goody two shoes" line; since that's discussed in text, spelling it out in the caption is more a technical/accessibility requirement. --Masem (t) 19:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@HLHJ: First of all, thank you for discussing here and not simply reverting. As I said above My main concerns were with MOS:CAPTION and WP:CAPTION compliance. Those were not the only concerns, nor necessarily the main concerns of the other editors. At this point, it appears that User:QuackGuru, User:Masem, and I agree the current version of the caption and article text is an improvement to the article, has no undue weight in the relevant body text, and, for the caption, do not think it "preferable that it be long". We all appear to be unconvinced by your arguments, but I remain open to you presenting any policy based rationale for changes if you think there are further improvements to be made to the text in question. Perhaps you could explain your rationale in more detail. Mojoworker (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mojoworker:, apologies for the slow reply. There seems to be a conflict between policies. Because of the desire to minimize the amount of non-free content, I deliberately picked an ad that illustrated a lot of marketing strategies; my intention was that it should serve as a sort of visual example and summary of topics to be covered in the entire article. It makes use of reactance, but it also makes implicit health claims, makes implicit claims that smoking increases your social status, and is aimed at group identity in disadvantaged groups. It's hard to see in the small version, but the diamond earring also associates the product with wealth; the degree to which the ad uses sexual connotations can also be seen. And it seems aimed at discouraging smokers from quitting ("Unwilling smokers" section). This all ties into later sections of the article, but does not all belong in the "reactance" section. Scattering the old caption content away from the image seems like a bad idea (maybe just the throat-cancer content could fit in the "health" section, as I don't think it would be as undue there, but...). Would putting the text in a textbox next to the article, with the picture within the textbox, make sense? We could link to sections within the article from the caption; that might help draw the reader in. Do you have any suggestion on how to explain that the picture illustrates the whole article? I've come up with a possibility which I think addresses your concerns, and implemented it in the article, together with some additional changes to draw the reader in better (which have, however, slightly lengthened the caption, despite my cutting the brand name, which I think is less essential). I'd welcome your comments. HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The caption says "...it uses many of the ad techniques described in this article" That is bizarre and a violation of caption. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I see you changed it. I think the phrase "rebellious advertising" is problematic; rebellion/reactance is manipulated in the advertising, but if we had a cigarette ad that said "Seriously, WHY are we advertising cigarettes? Why is this even allowed? They kill! Everyone knows they kill! I wanted to win a Nobel Prize for literature, not work as a copywriter for a lethal product! Why am I doing this? I QUIT. And you can run this as copy, 'cause I'm uploading it, so please, fellow drudges, just don't notice, let it through, and we'll stick it to them all!" — then that would be rebellious advertising. Rebellious advertising is advertising that rebels, not an ad urging other to rebel. I realize that this grammatical distinction may be weaker or absent in some English dialects. If the content is to be in the body, the caption can also be shorter; I don't think we need to mention the brand in the caption, for instance. And to draw into the article, we should mention something about it being an example of marketing techniques. Any suggestions on how to rewrite it? HLHJ (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette section

Should we restore content that is not specifically about marketing? QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • No. This recent edit does not appear to be a summary of the subpage and most of the content did not mention anything about marketing. The lede of the subpage is usually a summary. But the subpage only has one sentence in the lede. I don't think the quotes improve the page. This edit back in February 2019 deleted content because it did not mention anything about marketing. I restored some content that was related to the marketing claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Both sources make entirely different claims

See "Common marketing messages on brand websites claim that e-cigarettes are safe and healthy.[70][clarification needed][71][not in citation given]"

The content requires clarification. Both sources do not support the same claim. The first source says "concerning". Therefore, the current content is inaccurate. I do not know the reason for the second citation. It does not appear verify the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Saying that a marketing claim is concerning, as England 2015 did, implies that it exists. The authors would not be concerned about non-existent marketing claims. A near-duplicate claim was previously cited to the second source. HLHJ (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
What you think it implies is not what the sources states. We go by facts. You claim this source makes a near-duplicate claim. Where does it discuss "Common marketing messages on brand websites" that is a near-duplicate claim? QuackGuru (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The content is making a broader claim than the source

Heat-not-burn tobacco products were unsuccessfully released in the 1980s,[not in citation given] then re-released with viral marketing.[65][not in citation given]

See this diff. QuackGuru (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See content in the heat-not-burn article: "The Premier product concept went on to be further developed and re-launched as Eclipse[65] in the mid-1990s,[68] and was available in limited distribution as of 2015.[69] Eclipse was promoted using viral marketing.[65]" The viral marketing was for Eclipse. It was not about Heat-not-burn tobacco products in general. The same citation is used in the heat-not-burn article. The content in this article is making a broad claim that is not found in the citation. The claim in the heat-not-burn article is making a specific claim that is sourced and is found in the article. The quote does not verify the broad claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS violation

See "The claim that they do not burn tobacco or emit smoke has been contested in a 2017 study.[68][unreliable medical source?]" A news article is not MEDRS compliant. See diff.QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I was unable to fix the archiving. The article was moved by another editor and the archives are under a different talk page name. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I can't work out what Ammarpad (talk · contribs) was trying to achieve, but there is now Talk:Tobacco advertising/Archives/2015 (history) as well as Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archives/2015 (history) when there should be only one (plus a possible redirect). If Ammarpad can't fix it, you may need to get Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) to suggest something. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone could move all the archived content back to the talk page and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I am the only editor left monitoring that article. Things have gotten very quiet. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename archives

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archives/2011 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/1

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archives/2012 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/2

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archives/2015 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/3

Support, as proposer. Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) can you change the archive names? QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/1 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive 1

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/2 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive 2

Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive/3 Change to: Talk:Nicotine marketing/Archive 3

The archives are no showing up on the talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) it is a red link to Archive 1 on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't manually archive

QUckGuru, could you please not manually archive discussions to which I have not yet had a chance to respond? The automatic archiving is almost always quite sufficient, and it is more difficult to discuss things in edit summaries. HLHJ (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Violation of consensus on Nicotine marketing

This edit was a violation of talk page consensus. There was a discussion on the text for caption. See Talk:Nicotine_marketing/Archive_3#Goody_two_shoes_image_caption. Do you agree to stop violating consensus? QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I discussed a particular change I made on the talk page, and no-one responded in the last five months. I am still open to discussing this. I did not restore the version of the caption that consensus replaced; I slightly modified the new caption based on issues no-one else wanted to discuss. If you have a content-based criticism of my edit, please make it. HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please show where you discussed this particular change on the talk page for the edit. According to your edit summary "it drew criticism, according to the sources" But there is nothing on the talk page to verify the change and you have not pointed out the sources that drew criticism. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"HnB" content

Could you please say why you reverted this edit as failing verification? What specific facts do you doubt? Are there any of the four added sentences that you feel do not fail verification? HLHJ (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

After I removed the failed verification content last month sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. There was unsourced content and failed verification content. Sources about specific brands does not verify general claims. I explained this before. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicotine_marketing/Archive_3&oldid=1002522952"