Jump to content

Talk:Zyn

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

Requested move 14 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


– Clear primary topic (70 000 page views in the past month compared to 300-1000 on other pages). There is no other article with just the title "Zyn" either. C F A 💬 03:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting updates

[edit]

Hello, I would like to suggest a few updates to this entry (mostly adding references, updating numbers or clarifying inconsistencies). I have separated each section and added the corresponding wikitext so that it is easier to review, but let me know if you know of a better way.

Lead section

Clarified all caps naming (in line with what is in other articles, see e.g. Time (magazine));
Updated market share to 2023 (60->70%);
Clarified that nicotine pouches are compared but not related to snus (which is more in line with what the reference used indicates);
Moved the Swedish Match/PMI ownership to the second paragraph as this is important but not exactly central to the product;
Slight tweak to cover the fact that it is increasingly available outside of the US/Europe.

History

A bit more coherent story of the launch (first test marketing in Colorado, then Sweden, then the whole US);
A bit of context vis-à-vis the rest of the company portfolio (the text diff shows a big change but it only adds the mention of Shiro, an earlier nicotine pouch acquisition);
Sales numbers are moving to a new section, as per other articles I have seen here and there (see below)

Design

Minor fixes / internationalization (smokeless and dipping tobacco are very US)

Sales (new section)

Lots of numbers, with references. The product has seen quite a significant growth since launch and it has been noted across media outlets, hence the dedicated section based off what was before in the history part. Again, this structure is copied from other articles elsewhere on this wiki.

Criticism

Moved the generic nicotine pouch, health-related issues to the top, then progressing into zyn-specific discussions. Criticism and controversies seems more appropriate as a section title, but I leave this up to reviewers to decide.

Thank you for your time and effort! Aphis Marta (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will need to explain in some detail why you are attempting to remove significant elements of the following text from the 'Criticism' section:
"Nicotine pouches are addictive and the long-term health effects remain unknown due to the lack of history for the recreational use of non-tobacco snus. However, while not carcinogenic, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor that moderately harms cardiovascular health, which can cause higher risks for cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and reproductive harm if used over long-term periods.[23][24][25] Among side effects associated with the consumption of nicotine pouches, users reported gum irritation, hiccups or nausea.[26]"
Your thoughts please... Axad12 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12 I am not sure I understand your question as this particular segment is litterally moved from the end of the section to being the very first sentence? If the question is why the sentence is shorter (with the part due to the lack of history etc., it's because this part has been added last week only and thus wasn't in the draft I'd been working from. Apologies for the oversight.
Here is the revised segment including these recent additions:
Also the wikitext here appears like a wall of code but I've added 2 breaking spaces <br/> so as to keep it as three paragraphs.
Thanks, Aphis Marta (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: The element under discussion here, removed in the original request, stated while not carcinogenic, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor that moderately harms cardiovascular health, which can cause higher risks for cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and reproductive harm if used over long-term periods. After removing that text the relevant section would state simply Among side effects associated with the consumption of nicotine pouches, users reported gum irritation, hiccups or nausea.
It is concerning that the editor continues to present arguments in favour of the removal of the text while describing the removal as having been simply an oversight based on issues caused by version control.
I don't engage in arguments with COI users who are being paid to argue. I'd suggest that future editors exercise caution when dealing with large edit requests on this article which include edits to the section involved. Axad12 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request for the first sections were legitimate: this seems to be a high-traffic article so it's best to keep it up-to-date and the material provided did the job. I've changed the Criticism section title to Controversies, my reasoning being that criticism would be directed at the product ("it tastes bad") whereas controversies would better reflect disagreement on the appropriateness of their marketing campaigns.
With this in mind, I have marked the request as only partially answered because the discussion above turned out to be full of surprises: yes, OP messed up on the worst possible segment considering their industry, but I'm a big believer of not attributing to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence (no offense meant). They gave a convincing enough (because short) explanation, apologized and simply submitted a corrected text. This seemed genuine to me and accusing them of bad faith feels a bit... extreme maybe?
But that's not what bothers me most here: I did not implement the changes requested for this particular section because I made the mistake of checking the references and all but one of these health-related citations... fail to discuss the Zyn product itself (the one that can be described as zyn-centric mostly argues that while very addictive, using it is certainly much less dangerous than smoking). My inclination at this stage is to move any material that discusses the product category to where it belongs (ie, the nicotine pouch article, if it is not already there), and only allow for zyn-specific content to be added on here.
I also took the time to go and check various articles pertaining to cigarettes brands (and drugs, and video games): generic considerations about the harms caused by their respective product categories are never really brought up because, quite rightfully in my opinion, this is not the point. Things then got even better when I realized that the Original Sin of inviting cautionary health considerations about nicotine pouches into this entry was... OP's own doing[1] It is a bit ironic, therefore, to call them out for trying to hide things. Superboilles (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are limits to the application of WP:AGF. When a paid representative of the cigarette industry attempts to remove information about the negative health impacts of nicotine (a week after that information was added) that sort of action goes way beyond the limits of assuming good faith.
In addition the explanation for the removal, that it was accidental, was entirely unconvincing. Apart from anything else, the 'suggested edit' diff (above) indicated that the text referred to had been specifically and intentionally removed, rather than having been accidentally left out of the proposed new text due to version control issues.
Re: your point about the 'OP's own doing', if you can't see the difference between the minor health issues that the OP introduced to the text and the serious health issues that they tried to remove, then evidently you are exceptionally naive.
Also, it appears that you are do not understand the meaning of the word 'ironic' (the word you were looking for was presumably something like 'incongruous', which is a different thing altogether - although calling out the OP was in fact neither ironic nor incongruous). Axad12 (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted your implementation of the other changes in the edit, as you were blatantly canvassed to appear here by the paid COI editor (on your talk page). Axad12 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated, I have this page on my watchlist, as I do for pretty much any article I move from the draft space. It is ok to notify people to ask for an opinion, and I willingly gave mine. Having worked in the corporate world for some time, I also very much believe OP when she said that the draft she's been working from is several weeks old. In fact, seeing how big PMI is I would be shocked to learn that it has not been reviewed many times over, hence their missing recent edits when time came to finally request these changes. I would also note that they clearly did not try to hide things as they litterally used a comparison template that allowed you to spot the missing text.
I am very open to comparing notes as to how we both deal with CoI editors and how we can best foster an uneasy collaboration with them. I mostly do Draft reviews, where people are judged on the content being brought to the table rather than their alleged intent in doing so (discussions are rare). Your advice is thus very much welcome, but I believe that making this an ''us vs. them'' misses the point of ''us vs. the problem" (of keeping articles up to date).
I made it clear that the Criticisms section needed rework, and did not implement any of the suggested changes there. Your replies so far also focused on this section alone. Yet you reverted the entirety of my edits on the rest of the page (denying me agency, which I find a little uncouth tbh). I want to work this out with you, and so my question at this stage is: do you know of any particular reason why this entry should not be updated with more recent numbers? Superboilles (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments.
I deal with conflict of interest editing pretty much every day (either COI edit requests or cases raised at WP:COIN). Unfortunately it’s a frequent event for COI editors to attempt to remove adverse material about their employer or client. Sometimes this is done in a direct and overt fashion, sometimes as a small part of a much larger edit request.
I don’t believe that dealing with COI editing results in a polarised ‘them and us’ situation. I’ve seen far too many productive and policy compliant edit requests from COI editors to believe that. I’m also aware that the COI edit request process exists to keep COI activity above ground.
However, the attempt to remove the element of text under discussion here will be viewed by the great majority of independent editors as an abuse of the COI editing process.
I see from the COI user’s contribution history that this isn't the first time that they have attempted to make such a removal, for example here: [2] where it was later observed that one element of a larger edit request attempted to remove longstanding material in relation to the FDA's criticism of PMI's proposed health claims. This was then explained by the user rather unconvincingly as having been meant to cut length [of the relevant section] only, not to remove specific information or POV.
Please also see this user talkpage thread [3] where the user was warned to stop repeatedly asking for removal of negative information that is well sourced. This point was made by two separate editors in consecutive years.
When a user has such a history it is not reasonable to assume that further violation was accidental. Admittedly the incidents above occurred some years ago, but they are unlikely to have been forgotten by the COI user as the issues raised are clearly central to the topic of COI edit requests, and indeed to the integrity of the encyclopaedia.
I see that you are keen to claim agency and that you were not canvassed, but when placed in a position when you might be effectively (and unwittingly) doing the bidding of a paid COI editor I would suggest it is good practice to investigate whether the issue that has been raised is part of a long established pattern rather than simply assuming good faith, taking the paid COI editor’s side of the argument and dismissing problematic conduct as an understandable mistake, as though it were an isolated incident (which in this case clearly it was not).
While this COI editor has only been occasionally active I believe that they have a problematic history and that future edit requests should be treated with considerable caution. Axad12 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the bit of six-years old archaeology, I see that everyone remained civil and they should get kudos for that. It is sad however that the warnings were very performative, knee-jerk reaction to who she represents and not what she did. Again, there was no hiding, no wrongdoing was flagged, only disagreements. That is, after all, the whole point of edit requests unless the whole plan is to punish people for doing what we ask them to (it is a rhetorical point; you are clear that is not what you intend). She asked for things, those requests were transparents, and some of them were declined: that does not make her a bad person, lest we decide that a "good" CoI editor is someone whose requests get accepted 100% of the time. The no cheating is the important part to me, and one can not argue that she cheated at any one point of her limited editing career. The only edits I can see that she did without going through a request were minor updates and reverting vandalisms, which are both welcome as per local rules. Substantial text revisions always went through Edit Requests.
This being said and as much as I enjoy reading and discuss this website's and its editors history, I also would like to move forward and go back to my own stuff (and probably so do you). When you say future edit requests should be treated with considerable caution, what do you have in mind? Seeing how neither of us found any objection to the first four section updates, should she repost the exact same request so a third editor reviews them, or should we agree to agree, implement them, and reject the last one as we both did albeit in different manners? Superboilles (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question what do [I] have in mind?
What I was suggesting was that if the COI editor makes any further requests then the non-conflicted users who review them should treat the requests with considerable caution given the COI editor's history of attempting to remove well sourced adverse material as part of larger edits.
I'm not really sure how that could have been made more clear.
As for that does not make her a bad person, I don't believe I've made any suggestion to that effect.
Some COI editors attempt to remove adverse material about their employers or clients. Those who do that sometimes stop once they've been asked to stop, sometimes they continue.
The edit requests of those who continue their attempts should be treated with caution and it is entirely reasonable to leave a note on an article talk page to that effect.
As a general observation, not specific to this thread, you seem to believe that all COI edit requests (and, presumably by extension, all AfCs) must have been made in good faith because they were conducted above ground and in plain sight. To be honest I think that suggests a lack of imagination on your part. The reality is that such editors routinely try to see how much promo etc they can get away with. Sadly that sort of "push your luck" ethic is tacitly encouraged by those reviewers who believe that everything requested in plain sight must, by definition, be legitimate. Axad12 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure your opinion come from things you've experienced. So does mine. I appreciate your input. Superboilles (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update request

[edit]

Hello, following up on the discussion above and as there did not seem to be any objection to updating numbers so I am reposting my request (minus the controversies section). Feel free to ping me if I've missed anything.

Lead section

Note: the infobox should also be updated to reflect that the first launch occured in 2016, not 2014 (the category is already correct). South Africa and Pakistan can also be added to the list of markets.

Clarified all caps naming (in line with what is in other articles, see e.g. Time (magazine)); Updated market share to 2023 (60->70%); Clarified that nicotine pouches are compared but not related to snus (which is more in line with what the reference used indicates); Moved the Swedish Match/PMI ownership to the second paragraph as this is important but not exactly central to the product; Slight tweak to cover the fact that it is increasingly available outside of the US/Europe.

History

A bit more coherent story of the launch (first test marketing in Colorado, then Sweden, then the whole US);
A bit of context vis-à-vis the rest of the company portfolio (the text diff shows a big change but it only adds the mention of Shiro, an earlier nicotine pouch acquisition);
Sales numbers are moving to a new section, as per other articles I have seen here and there (see below)

Design

Minor fixes /updated reference / internationalization (smokeless and dipping tobacco are very US).

Sales (New section to be added after Design)

Updated numbers and references. The product has seen quite a significant growth since launch and this has been noted across media outlets, hence the dedicated section based off what was before in the history part. Again, this structure is copied from other articles elsewhere on this wiki (alternatively, the word Reception is also used quite often).

Thanks, Aphis Marta (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconfigure this request in a way that the references can be readily accessed to check that they bear out the claims made in the edit request. Axad12 (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the references after each section. I've checked multiple times so hopefully there should not be any discrepancy. Aphis Marta (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - thank you for laying the request out like this, made it much easier to review! Encoded  Talk 💬 19:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible health benefits of nicotine

[edit]

In the nicotine section on Wikipedia there are some paragraphs relating to possible benefits of consuming nicotine. This article has a completely negative tone. 120.158.173.12 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]