This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nicotine pouch redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had removed the list of brands as it seems inappropriate (just an invitation for different brands to come and spam about their own products), and since none of these brands is demonstrably notable, their inclusion here falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, QuackGuru disagrees with my assessment, and has restored the content. I bring the matter to the community for resolution. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There's definitely a balance between clearing out spam and providing information of use to readers. I just consolidated all the subsections into a single section and cleared out some blantant spam from retailers, so it's a much more respectable section now.
It would be good to focus the section on encyclopedia information. For example, it's in the public interest to know who the major manufacturers are, and about ownership relationships and market dominance. So getting data like there is at Market share of personal computer vendors would help. To some degree, Wikipedia should know what types of things common brand names are, so if you see a commercial or find a thing under your kid's bed you can identify it. Wikipedia should be helping readers become informed consumers, which mostly involves knowing how this type of product works, what the health risks are, etc., but getting some sort of objective notion of who the major players are before you start shopping can protect you against fly-by-night and counterfeit operations to some degree, and if you can click through to manufacturer articles and find out if they've gotten into any trouble or how much money they're making or whether they are publicly traded that seems encyclopedic. Scoping the list so it's not trying to be a Yellow Pages with every single startup in the world also helps keep it encyclopedic. It might help to establish the criterion that only manufacturers with Wikipedia articles should be included. That's currently true for all but one or two of the existing entries (and those may be due to oversight). It's not Wikipedia's job to rate the different brands or help market them, so most of the details of their product offerings should be omitted, especially prices and places to buy, unless these become matters of public policy or are otherwise notable (for example due to vertical integration). It's probably worth noting the countries each manufacturer is operating in; product sizes probably not unless there's a matter of public concern that makes this more than marketing content. The list could be made into a table, which would force it to have a small amount of information for each brand; if it stays prose most details should just be deferred to the manufacturer's article or omitted entirely if too detailed for that article.
If we're comparing to other retail products, List of mobile phone brands by country is reasonably well maintained. List of car brands might be considered a bit overgrown given the number of red links. It's trying to be comprehensive, though, so if you believe that's an encyclopedic goal, it's fine; at least all the marketing spam has been kept off that list. I agree Heat-not-burn product definitely contains too much non-encyclopedic information and is drifting into WP:NOTCATALOGUE territory; it could use some brand-agnostic summing up. List of heat-not-burn products has grown beyond a list and also needs cleanup. -- Beland ( talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC) List of heat-not-burn product
The tags were removed without fixing the problems and now unsourced promotional content is being added to another article. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Cluttering the reference section for sources that are not dead is not an improvement. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This was copied and continued from User talk:QuackGuru#Ownership as it veered towards a general content discussion more suitable for the Article talk page than a User Talk page
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. [1] Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. [1] They stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
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. citation needed They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. failed verification They also failed verification stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
References
I don't think "lobbies" is an error; I would read the article at face value and translate "lobbies" into American English as "advocacy groups" or "lobbying organizations" which include KTCA. It would be unwise to attribute claims made by "lobbies" to KTCA if the article doesn't do that, since there might be other unnamed groups the author was thinking of, and KTCA just happened to be the only one that supplied quotes that were used. The distinction is not really important to Wikipedia readers; the important thing is the arguments made by the anti-pouch advocacy groups. I rewrote the section to more carefully follow the article's attribution, but the article appeared to support all the substantial claims once that was fixed. -- Beland ( talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Should the article be reverted back to this version? QuackGuru ( talk) 13:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It would be helpful to include information about which countries of the world this type of product is legal in, and what restrictions there are, if any. Ideally with a map! 8) -- Beland ( talk) 02:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Is "white" a description of the color pouch, or of the contents? Apparently one of the meanings of "white" is "made from immature leaves and shoots" but is usually applied to tea. -- Beland ( talk) 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time, but these recent studies of the constituents of nicotine pouches should be added.
The sentence "There is no independent testing of their constituents, exposure or biomarkers of effects. Research analyzing their nicotine delivery is unavailable." on the page is currently quite inaccurate.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01480545.2021.1925691?needAccess=true
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691520306037
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntab030/6285126
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nicotine pouch redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had removed the list of brands as it seems inappropriate (just an invitation for different brands to come and spam about their own products), and since none of these brands is demonstrably notable, their inclusion here falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, QuackGuru disagrees with my assessment, and has restored the content. I bring the matter to the community for resolution. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There's definitely a balance between clearing out spam and providing information of use to readers. I just consolidated all the subsections into a single section and cleared out some blantant spam from retailers, so it's a much more respectable section now.
It would be good to focus the section on encyclopedia information. For example, it's in the public interest to know who the major manufacturers are, and about ownership relationships and market dominance. So getting data like there is at Market share of personal computer vendors would help. To some degree, Wikipedia should know what types of things common brand names are, so if you see a commercial or find a thing under your kid's bed you can identify it. Wikipedia should be helping readers become informed consumers, which mostly involves knowing how this type of product works, what the health risks are, etc., but getting some sort of objective notion of who the major players are before you start shopping can protect you against fly-by-night and counterfeit operations to some degree, and if you can click through to manufacturer articles and find out if they've gotten into any trouble or how much money they're making or whether they are publicly traded that seems encyclopedic. Scoping the list so it's not trying to be a Yellow Pages with every single startup in the world also helps keep it encyclopedic. It might help to establish the criterion that only manufacturers with Wikipedia articles should be included. That's currently true for all but one or two of the existing entries (and those may be due to oversight). It's not Wikipedia's job to rate the different brands or help market them, so most of the details of their product offerings should be omitted, especially prices and places to buy, unless these become matters of public policy or are otherwise notable (for example due to vertical integration). It's probably worth noting the countries each manufacturer is operating in; product sizes probably not unless there's a matter of public concern that makes this more than marketing content. The list could be made into a table, which would force it to have a small amount of information for each brand; if it stays prose most details should just be deferred to the manufacturer's article or omitted entirely if too detailed for that article.
If we're comparing to other retail products, List of mobile phone brands by country is reasonably well maintained. List of car brands might be considered a bit overgrown given the number of red links. It's trying to be comprehensive, though, so if you believe that's an encyclopedic goal, it's fine; at least all the marketing spam has been kept off that list. I agree Heat-not-burn product definitely contains too much non-encyclopedic information and is drifting into WP:NOTCATALOGUE territory; it could use some brand-agnostic summing up. List of heat-not-burn products has grown beyond a list and also needs cleanup. -- Beland ( talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC) List of heat-not-burn product
The tags were removed without fixing the problems and now unsourced promotional content is being added to another article. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Cluttering the reference section for sources that are not dead is not an improvement. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This was copied and continued from User talk:QuackGuru#Ownership as it veered towards a general content discussion more suitable for the Article talk page than a User Talk page
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. [1] Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. [1] They stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
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. citation needed They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. failed verification They also failed verification stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
References
I don't think "lobbies" is an error; I would read the article at face value and translate "lobbies" into American English as "advocacy groups" or "lobbying organizations" which include KTCA. It would be unwise to attribute claims made by "lobbies" to KTCA if the article doesn't do that, since there might be other unnamed groups the author was thinking of, and KTCA just happened to be the only one that supplied quotes that were used. The distinction is not really important to Wikipedia readers; the important thing is the arguments made by the anti-pouch advocacy groups. I rewrote the section to more carefully follow the article's attribution, but the article appeared to support all the substantial claims once that was fixed. -- Beland ( talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Should the article be reverted back to this version? QuackGuru ( talk) 13:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It would be helpful to include information about which countries of the world this type of product is legal in, and what restrictions there are, if any. Ideally with a map! 8) -- Beland ( talk) 02:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Is "white" a description of the color pouch, or of the contents? Apparently one of the meanings of "white" is "made from immature leaves and shoots" but is usually applied to tea. -- Beland ( talk) 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time, but these recent studies of the constituents of nicotine pouches should be added.
The sentence "There is no independent testing of their constituents, exposure or biomarkers of effects. Research analyzing their nicotine delivery is unavailable." on the page is currently quite inaccurate.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01480545.2021.1925691?needAccess=true
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691520306037
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntab030/6285126