Talk:Nicotine pouch

List of brands

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)

Notability applies to an individual article. One article for Nicotine pouch and the different brands is best. This article follows Heat-not-burn product. It is too short for a separate article for the brands. If you want to bring it to the community attention you could make a note at the e-cig talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I would argue that the list of products on the Heat-not-burn product page is also inappropriate. In that case, there is an argument to be made for descriptions of the various technologies in use, but not for extensive descriptions of individual brands, especially since there is a List of heat-not-burn products. In the present case, the list of brands occupies ~40% of the article. That's simply too much. And allowing each brand to have its own section invites spam in the form of individual companies writing about their own brands. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Each brand has at most 3 sentences. That is very little. There has been spam across numerous nicotine-related articles and I have reverted most of it. I don't have a problem. I could make a request for some form of protection. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

But how does that content actually improve the article? (Especially since each brand is given its own Level 2 heading?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It provides information on each brand such as who is the owner. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of this material. I will wait for others to weigh in. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 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

Sourced content replaced with failed verification content

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)

In my opinion there's absolutely no promotional content in the article, the lede (which you said in the article history were the promotional content, is entirely ordinary and contains neutral information about the subject. Please be specific about which sentences you find promotional KristofferR (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The image is the lede is promotional.

Almost the entire first paragraph is promotional. Why is sourced content being replaced with failed verification content and unsourced content? QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what promotional means. No brand is mentioned at all, and there's nothing that could even be construed as slightly positive phrases in there, it's just dry information about what nicotine pouches are and how they are used. An image of the article subject on the top is standard, not promotional. I haven't removed any of your content yet despite it clearly being aimed at being misleading (placing views of an anti-tobacco lobby group under "Research"...) KristofferR (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image to the lede is not standard. Choosing one brand over another brand is promotional. You have not fixed the failed verification content or removed the challenged unsourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

To fix the problems I propose we go back to this version before policy violations were introduced. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, you seem to want to remove everything not written by you. Read WP:BLUE, you do not need double blind scientific sources to say common sense things like that the sky is blue and that products which are sold outside refrigerators do not need refrigeration. You also seem to put FV on everything, while not reading the reference.

I have now fixed most of the issues with the article. KristofferR (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The problems has gotten much worse. A lot of content fails verification and a lot of unreelable sources have been added. QuackGuru (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You are just trolling now.

You describe links to felleskatalogen.no, THE reference book used by all doctors in Norway for information about approved medicines as unreliable. Patients would die if it were unreliable. It's clear you didn't try to verify anything or check any sources.

You filled the Opposition block with FVs after I rephrased it (without removing any information), despite everything being clearly sourced in the article source you added and considered reliable before I participated:

Wiki: "The Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya [citation needed]"

Article source: "Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance (Ketca) protested the introduction of nicotine pouches,"

Wiki: Nicotine pouches usually contains food grade fillers, water, salt, flavorings and nicotine. [failed verification]

The source lists the ingredients of two of the most popular brands, which match the content above. Any other source I would add would be tagged by you as unreliable, as you didn't add it.

Wiki: As of February 2020 it is still sold in Norwegian grocery stores.

Links to two of the largest Norwegian grocery stores web stores are "unreliable"

On and on it goes, I could go on. Please stop trolling and instead try improving the article. Adding tags all over the the place isn't helpful, add sources instead. KristofferR (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The brand about the medication is off-topic. That makes the reference book off-topic.

"They" are concerned failed verification. They "also" failed verification.

Wiki: Nicotine pouches usually contains food grade fillers, water, salt, flavorings and nicotine. [failed verification]

The source lists the ingredients of two brands. That does not verify "Nicotine pouches usually contains"..." The source is making a specific claim about each brand. It did not make a claim about what nicotine pouches usually contain.

Wiki: As of February 2020 it is still sold in Norwegian grocery stores.[15][failed verification][16][unreliable source?][17][unreliable source?] First source fails verification because the source is from 2019. The other two sources are spam.

Please cleanup all the policy violations or I will revert back to the old version before the problems were introduced. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The FV tag was removed without fixing the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Any revert would be vandalism and invalid. Please make an effort to improve the article by adding sources and add information instead.

Please describe why about use of nicotine pouches as NRT is off-topic.KristofferR (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What about the failed verification content and unreliable sources? That is about a medication not nicotine pouches in general. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It clearly describes a use case, under Usage. It is clearly not off-topic. Most of the supposed failed verification content and unreliable sources are invalid, but please add more appropriate sources if you want to improve the article.KristofferR (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Zonnic is a medication. It is off-topic. Sources that are off-topic and are unreliable should be removed. A source that sells products is unreliable and spam. Adding more sources does not fix the previous problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Zonnic is a nicotine-pouch medication, clearly relevant. Feel free to add better sources. KristofferR (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a drug. It does not belong in this article, especially with the unreliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously not a drug, you don't seem to know what a drug is. Nicotine is a drug. Nicotine pouches are drug delivery systems, regardless of wether they are used recreationally or medically. To claim that THE reference book used by all doctors in Norway, the government of Norway, and the manufacturers information page (where they would be liable for hefty fines or product banning for inaccuracies) are "unreliable" is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristofferR (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, please continue below as the margins in this thread are getting too large.KristofferR (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a drug or medication according to the sources I have read. It should be deleted and better sources should be used instead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Archived live links

Cluttering the reference section for sources that are not dead is not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find more appropriate sections on WikiMedia to express your personal complaints about how the bot designed to combat WP:LINKROT functions. KristofferR (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You made the change not a bot. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The contents were from IABot. KristofferR (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You decided to add it not the bot. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There it is... Just because it's from me, WP:LINKROT doesn't apply?KristofferR (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The links are live. No reason for archive links. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

They are live until they aren't. Please read WP:LINKROT and find appropriate places to utter your personal complaints about it. KristofferR (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Alarming amount of Ownership and unreliable source about Kenya

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. 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

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."[1]

"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,...".[2] That is plural not singular. The source is making a more general claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued from the user talk page. KristofferR (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the previous comments in this thread, "lobbies" is likely inaccurate, a language error, considering the contents of the title and ingress, and the article as a whole.KristofferR (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If other lobbies were actually raising objections, they would most certainly be referenced by name.KristofferR (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The source uses the plural term "lobbies" not lobby for that sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the previous comments in this thread, "lobbies" is likely inaccurate, a language error, considering the contents of the title and ingress, and the source article as a whole.KristofferR (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Since "lobbies" is a more general term the content should be more general. "Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance" is a specific organization. Claiming it is Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance who made the claim fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Proposal

Should the article be reverted back to this version? QuackGuru (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The current article contains failed verification content, unsourced content and unreliable sources. Please check the edit history. The article can be expanded with sourced content after the problematic content and unreliable sources are removed. Sources like company websites are spam. QuackGuru (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. I've done a bunch of cleanup just now, and other editors have added useful content, so I think it would be much better to simply go forward and polish the version of the article we have now. There are three remaining areas where sources are disputed. 1.) The "citation requested" tags in the intro are mostly for obvious, non-controversial facts that can be verified by consulting the product packaging. If we really want to cite those things, I'm sure there's a consumer how-to somewhere online. But this is not a serious problem that demands immediate removal of these claims. 2.) The Nicotine replacement therapy claims, which I'll sort through as soon after I kick Google Translate a bit, but if as mentioned above this is referencing a solid government source I don't see why this is in dispute. 3.) The "still sold in Norwegian grocery stores" which seems non-controversial and I can also sort through shortly. -- Beland (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I still think there is too many problems with the current version. There are 4 citations at the end of the first sentence which makes it difficult to verify which citation verifies which claim. That's a red flag needing that many citations. There is still uncited content throughout the article. There is still unreliable sources in the article. It would be much easier to go back this version and subsequently add any recent improvements. The part "Unlike vaping products" seems promotional. Can you provide verification for the part "Unlike vaping products"? QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Why would that require verification? Isn't that is the definition of a vaping product? -- Beland (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You could read "unlike vaping products" as promotional if you think it's a good, convenient thing, or as insidious if you are worried about kids using it and hiding it from adults. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I have just finished resolving all the tags requesting citations and questioning the reliability of sources. I dropped some redundant sources, trimmed one claim, and added citations which were trivial to find for the other requests. I dropped one of the sources from the 4 supporting the claim in the intro you said was over-cited. Most of the sources flagged as unreliable were by my reading highly reliable for the claim being asserted. The fact that these products are sold in Norwegian grocery stores can be verified by anyone going to a grocery store there, which if if you are in the neighborhood arguably easier than going to the library to verify a quotation in a book, and is just as valid for research purposes. If you don't believe this is common knowledge that doesn't need to be cited and want a written resource to document this, links to web sites of Norwegian grocery stores actually offering these items for sale are probably the most reliable and up-to-date source I could think of. I don't see a good reason for dismissing them as "spam", just because they are commercial web sites, as the commercial activity is what's being verified, and it is not the sellers themselves pushing for inclusion of the content. With due respect for the legitimate concerns that were surfaced here and there, I'll just note it's important not to cry wolf with claims of sources being unreliable and claims being unverified, and to avoid the sort of disruptive editing described at WP:BLUESKY. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Need info on legal status

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)

White

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)

Looking at [3] actually it looks like this is a description of the pouch color. It occurs to me it is this color to blend in with teeth, since it's an aspect being marketed as desirable. If anyone can put their finger on a source that confirms that, it would be a helpful addition to the article. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Both. It's a white translucent bag with white powder inside.KristofferR (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple studies needs to be added

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

https://www.mdpi.com/2297-8739/8/6/77

--KristofferR (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)