Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 7 February 2020

Check sources

www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/

http://www.tobacco.org/

List of brands on Nicotine pouch

You reverted my edit on Nicotine pouch in which I deleted the content about the various brands of this product, with the edit summary Including brands are part of the article. See Heat-not-burn product#Products. (If it is an invitation for spam then request semi-protection. I would argue that the inclusion of the individual products in that article is no more appropriate than the inclusion in Nicotine pouch. Since Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including an exhaustive brand listing within the body of the article seems inappropriate. At very best, one might consider creating List of nicotine pouch brands, but since the product category is relatively new, it's unlikely any of the brands has yet reached sufficient notability to have its own article, and since most lists should consist only of category entries that already have a Misplaced Pages article (see WP:WTAF), you'd be hard-pressed to create a valid list article. In any case, since you've reverted my edit, I'll open a discussion about the matter at Talk:Nicotine pouch. Please feel free to comment there. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Violation of RfC

Re: this edit where your edit summary was simply Violation of RfC. Care to explain? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I started numerous RfCs last year. Read archive 10 under brands. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the RfC was inconclusive at best. You posted a rather long screed on the topic, and one editor basically said "yeah, what he said." While a discussion of the various technologies available (with, perhaps, a mention of which brands employ those technologies) would be useful, a brand-by-brand exposition smacks of promotion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Content about different brands and how they work is neutral content. Deleting critical content smacks of promotion. See for example, "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke, including volatile organic compounds at comparable levels to cigarette smoke, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at vast various ranges, and carbon monoxide. Each of these substances, on the basis of rigorous research of cigarette smoke, are known to result in significant harms to health." QuackGuru (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ownership

You are exhibiting an alarming amount of ownership over the Nicotine pouch article. References to "other articles" (which are largely your own creation also) are not valid arguments. The discussion of individual brands of a product properly lives under the marketing heading to avoid giving undue weight to the topic. Apologies: I had thought you reverted my edit outright, rather than keeping a "Brands" heading. I still believe the "Brands" topic belongs as a subhead of "Marketing", but that is a fine point that I am willing to concede. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm the alarming amount of ownership. All the examples are too numerous to list, but here's one.

His phrasing (placed under Research)
Organizations in Kenya are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. They stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes.

My rephrasing (moved to Opposition), CN and FV tags are his
The Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. They also stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes.

After my rephrasing he added CN and FV tags all over the place, despite the reference being very clear. It's like he sabotages content that he didn't write himself by adding ridiculous tagging requirements after every single sentence. Related sentences can be combined together, as long as the reference listed next applies to them all. He seems to use CN and FV tags in order to discourage participation on "his articles".KristofferR (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Kabale, Nasibo (8 June 2019). "Lobby has raised an alarm, saying the introduction of pouches could result in increased risk for cancer". Daily Nation. Cite error: The named reference "Kabale2019" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

It is "Organizations in Kenya" not "They" The word "also" failed verification. Why was the citation removed from the sentence? How come the spam and failed verification content has not been removed from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. He takes issue with the word "also" being used to string related sentences together, and requires a reference for it. "Organizations" were removed because the reference mentions a single organization.

Many of the other "failed verification" are also completely invalid, he puts it on pages from the government of Norway...KristofferR (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Lobbies have raised an alarm, saying the pouches could result in increased risk for cancer, heart disease and reproductive or developmental effects."

"Organizations" were removed but the sentence does not mention any single organization. The source does not verify the current claim. Sourced content was replaced failed verification content throughout the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, the sentences are connected and should be read together.

The article should perhaps be considered unreliable, considering how it consistently misspells the name of the organization Ketca as Ketco. "Lobbies" is too vague and unspecified to rely on, it could very well be another language error. KristofferR (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "Lobbies" does not mean "Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance". That's the reason it fails verification. "Organizations in Kenya" passed verifiability. Sourced content was obviously replaced with failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is clearly speaking about Ketca and not other organizations. "Organizations" (plural) is completely unsourced in the article. "Lobby" (singular) is used in the article title and ingress ("Lobby has raised an alarm, saying the introduction of pouches could result in increased risk for cancer"), it is clear that it is referring to the only lobby mentioned in the article. "Lobbies" is unusable as evidence of plurality.KristofferR (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Lobbies have raised an alarm,...". That is plural not singular. The source is making a more general claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been continued here: Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Alarming_amount_of_Ownership_and_unreliable_source_about_Kenya, as it became more relevant for an article talk page than a user talk page. KristofferR (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you add the company website to the article? QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

I do not often use this feature in WIkipedia, though thought this is warranted. --- FULBERT (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery