Please revert. |
please revert |
||
Line 382: | Line 382: | ||
:If you want me to revert we would go back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&oldid=863043562 this version] in October 2018 due to the serious problems with the December 2018 article. Please read the previous comments and archives for the continued problems. I clearly explained the charred pizza image is not related to the topic. No editor agreed with the pizza image. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
:If you want me to revert we would go back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&oldid=863043562 this version] in October 2018 due to the serious problems with the December 2018 article. Please read the previous comments and archives for the continued problems. I clearly explained the charred pizza image is not related to the topic. No editor agreed with the pizza image. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Let's keep it simple. What do you think is worth including that is sourced? If we can't come to an agreement soon you can revert to a version without the disputed pizza image. Please revert if you think that improves the article. The current article is at 107,356 bytes. Do you want to lose all that useful content? I thought I let you know that all the previous versions do contain failed verification content. If you really want to revert to a previous version then that is your choice. Please revert. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
:Let's keep it simple. What do you think is worth including that is sourced? If we can't come to an agreement soon you can revert to a version without the disputed pizza image. Please revert if you think that improves the article. The current article is at 107,356 bytes. Do you want to lose all that useful content? I thought I let you know that all the previous versions do contain failed verification content. If you really want to revert to a previous version then that is your choice. '''Please revert'''. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
== December 26, 2018 article or January 12, 2019 article == |
== December 26, 2018 article or January 12, 2019 article == |
Revision as of 22:23, 12 January 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposal for title change 1
Electric smoking system → Heat-not-burn tobacco product – The current title is original research. I propose the title be changed to the most recognized WP:COMMONNAME. The title Heat-not-burn tobacco product is the most commonly used name. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support to change title to Heat-not-burn tobacco product since it is the most commonly used name for this type of product. Other names are not as well known. See Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Notes for a list of synonyms. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Proposal for title change 2
Electric smoking system → Heated tobacco product –
- Weak Oppose to change title to Heated tobacco product. It is another synonym but not as accurate and not as widely used as the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product. Heat-not-burn tobacco product is by far the most widely used common name. Other names may cause confusion.QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest merging this discussion to the discussion above to avoid a WP:Discussion fork; my comments on this proposal may be found there. HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why has this been done as a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, and not by using the WP:RM process? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have removed the RFC template and replaced with a standard requested move. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: the proposed title is likely from tobacco industry marketing. Wikipedia should use the more neutral scientific terminology Heated tobacco product (examples: WHO, Tobacco Control, Tobacco Tactics, Public Health England, Dutch Institute for Public Health, etc.). 144.85.240.106 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
- I will start another proposal for your suggestion. See Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Marketing: The article says The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C). The term "heat-not-burn" is still neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The article formerly clearly explained that the term "heat-not-burn" is a marketing term used by people selling these products, and its accuracy is disputed by reliable independent sources. QuackGuru removed this content. I think that "heated tobacco product" is a milder version of the spurious heated-not-burned-therefore-no-smoke claim, but "Charred tobacco product" would be more accurate. In common English usage, charred things which are blackened and brittle but not actually reduced to ash are generally considered to have been burned, and not heated. I quote myself from the original discussion:
No-one says: "What's that smell of vapour? Oh, I heated-not-burned the sauce! Great, and now the alarm's gone off — open the window and let the aerosol out, will you?"
- The term was changed to "Electric smoking system", derived from the term used in a Cochrane review ("electronically-heated cigarette smoking system"), as discussed in the pre-move discussion. Pinging Doc James, who was involved in that discussion. HLHJ (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- See Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Marketing for content on marketing. The article was reorganized without any policy violations. Only one source is used per claim. Adding multiple sources to come to a new conclusion is original research or a SYN violation. Every sentence in the article is sourced without any hint of any policy violation.
- No source explicitly states "Charred tobacco product". Therefore, it would not be more accurate. We don't use made up terms. See Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Notes for a list of synonyms that are sourced. "Charred tobacco product" and "Electric smoking system" are not listed because no source uses those terms.
- No source explicitly states "Electric smoking system". It is a made up term. The article says Four studies of PREPs (cigarettes with reduced levels of tar, carbon and nicotine, and in one case delivered using an electronically‐heated cigarette smoking system) showed some reduction in exposure to some toxicants, but it is unclear whether this would substantially alter the risk of harm.[1] The article says "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" not "electric smoking system". So far only one article says "electronically‐heated cigarette smoking system". It is an uncommon name and not the title of this article. We go by WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments on page move proposal
See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 1. See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 2. See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 3. After the RfC is closed the archives need to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, you have removed my comment on your second RfC (that it should be merged to the first RfC, and that my comments on it may be found there). You have also moved the second RfC so that comments by myself and others which were made about the first RfC appear to have been made about the second RfC. As a result, some of the comments do not make sense, and the first RfC contains only your own support vote. While I obviously support your desire to merge the RfCs, I think it would be better to restore the comments to their original positions and close one RfC or the other. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Propose revert of change to top of page and dates
I propose this edit be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support reverting this edit. The lede says "They are not electronic cigarettes.[3] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid.[14]" Therefore, stating "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette." at the top of the page is misleading because they do overlap with electronic cigarettes. The article does not use British English. The dmy dates is also misleading. For example, June 26, 2014 is the standard for this article rather than 26 June 2014 for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that this RfC is probably not needed; QuackGuru, could you perhaps first attempt to discuss this with Dl2000, who made the edits you dislike? I agree that e-cigs and vapourizers could reasonably be considered in-scope; the only real difference I can see between an IQOS and an e-cig is that the IQOS takes the e-fluid, dried it into a film, cuts it into stips, rolls it into a proprietary paper cylinder, and only then chars it on a heating element. I really don't care about date format or English variety. HLHJ (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Removal of COI template again
CFCF, you replaced this template before; do you feel it can now be removed? HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I rewrote that section and expanded it. Hence, the tag was removed. I also expanded the article. It is neutral and well sourced. It is longer than the previous version. If it is too long it can be moved to a new page or condensed. Without a specific proposal there is no reason for the tags to stay in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Tags
Should these tags be removed? QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support removing tags. No specific proposal was made after that tags were added last year. Therefore, there is no point to keeping the tags. There is no concern about COI or paid editing for this article. The article has been updated and reorganized. The article can be nominated for a good article nomination (WP:GAN) at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Table
Should the table below be included in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support including table. See Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Comparison to traditional cigarettes and see Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Comparison to traditional cigarettes, QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments on table
Comparison to traditional cigarettes
Analyzed Substance | IQOS product; Amount, Mean (SD) | Duplicate tests for given assay | Traditional cigarettes; Amount, Mean (SD) | Duplicate tests for given assay | Percentage (%) of the substance in each IQOS compared to traditional cigarettes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Volatile organic substances, μg per cigarette: 1 | |||||
Acetaldehyde | 133 (35) | 5 | 610: 2 | 1 | 22 |
Acetone | 12.0 (12.9) | 5 | 95.5 (13.5) | 2 | 13 |
Acroleine | 0.9 (0.6) | 2 | 1.1 | 1 | 82 |
Benzaldehyde | 1.2 (1.4) | 5 | 2.4 (2.6) | 2 | 50 |
Crotonaldehyde | 0.7 (0.9) | 5 | 17.4 | 1 | 4 |
Formaldehyde | 3.2 (2.7) | 5 | 4.3 (0.4) | 2 | 74 |
Isovaleraldehyde | 3.5 (3.1) | 5 | 8.5 (10.8) | 2 | 41 |
Propionaldehyde | 7.8 (4.3) | 5 | 29.6 (36.6) | 2 | 26 |
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ng per cigarette: 3 | |||||
Naphthalene | 1.6 (0.5) | 4 | 1105 (269) | 7 | 0.1 |
Acenaphthylene | 1.9 (0.6) | 4 | 235 (39) | 7 | 0.8 |
Acenaphthene | 145 (54) | 4 | 49 (9) | 7 | 295 |
Fluorene | 1.5 (0.6) | 4 | 371 (56) | 7 | 0.4 |
Anthracene | 0.3 (0.1) | 4 | 130 (18) | 7 | 0.2 |
Phenanthrene | 2.0 (0.2) | 4 | 292 (44) | 7 | 0.7 |
Fluoranthene | 7.3 (1.1) | 4 | 123 (18) | 7 | 6 |
Pyrene | 6.4 (1.1) | 4 | 89 (15) | 7 | 7 |
Benz[a]anthracene | 1.8 (0.4) | 4 | 33 (4.2) | 7 | 6 |
Chrysene | 1.5 (0.3) | 4 | 48 (6.2) | 7 | 3 |
Benzo[b]fluoranthene | 0.5 (0.2) | 4 | 24 (2.9) | 7 | 2 |
Benzo[k]fluoranthene | 0.4 (0.2) | 4 | 4.3 (2.8) | 7 | 9 |
Benzo[a]pyrene | 0.8 (0.1) | 4 | 20 (2.9) | 7 | 4 |
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ND | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
Benzo[ghi]perylene | ND | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene | ND | 4 | NA | NA | NA |
Inorganics, ppm in the mainstream smoked: 4 | |||||
Carbon dioxide | 3057 (532) | 5 | >9000 | 3 | NA |
Carbon monoxide | 328 (76) | 5 | >2000 | 3 | NA |
Nitric oxide | 5.5 (1.5) | 5 | 89.4 (71.6) | 3 | 6 |
Other evaluations | |||||
Nicotine, μg per cigarette: 1 | 301 (213) | 4 | 361 | 1 | 84 |
Temperature, °C | 330 (10) | 2 | 684 (197) | 1 | NA |
Number of puffs | 12.6 (2.4) | 32 | 13.3 (3.1) | 6 | NA |
Abbreviations: NA, not analyzed; ND, not detected.[1] : 1 The techniques applied were presented earlier in Varlet et al([2]) to analyze volatile organic compounds and nicotine.[1] : 2 Due to there being one duplicate test, no SD can be determined.[1] : 3 The values presented were illustrated from Vu et al([3]) for the ISO smoking regimen and for an average of the 35 highest selling US traditional cigarette brands.[1] : 4 Carbon dioxide was assessed with a Testo 535 (Testo), and carbon monoxide and nitric oxide were assessed with a Pac 7000 that identified carbon monoxide (Draeger).[1] The apparatus calculated the smoke whenever generated from the syringe pump.[1]
∗A 2017 analysis comparing IQOS to popular US sold traditional cigarettes.[1]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h Cite error: The named reference
AuerConcha-Lozano2017
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Varlet, Vincent; Concha-Lozano, Nicolas; Berthet, Aurélie; Plateel, Grégory; Favrat, Bernard; De Cesare, Mariangela; Lauer, Estelle; Augsburger, Marc; Thomas, Aurélien; Giroud, Christian (2016). "Drug vaping applied to cannabis: Is "Cannavaping" a therapeutic alternative to marijuana?". Scientific Reports. 6 (1). doi:10.1038/srep25599. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 4881394. PMID 27228348.
- ^ Vu, An T.; Taylor, Kenneth M.; Holman, Matthew R.; Ding, Yan S.; Hearn, Bryan; Watson, Clifford H. (2015). "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Mainstream Smoke of Popular U.S. Cigarettes". Chemical Research in Toxicology. 28 (8): 1616–1626. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00190. ISSN 0893-228X. PMC 4540633. PMID 26158771.
QuackGuru's edits from Jan 9th
Hello, QuackGuru. The January 9th version of the article was quite different from the current one, which you've rewritten extensively over the past few days. You seem, in fact, to have previously re-written it in your own draft space, while continuing to discuss the content that was then in the article on this discussion page. You then seem to have replaced the existing content with the content you wrote alone. I am not without fault here; I saw your draft article by chance earlier, and should have mentioned it immediately. I was busy off-wiki and did not get around to it.
I think that this content replacement has overridden the ongoing discussions in which you were participating; you have also changed some content on which I thought we had reached consensus. For instance, we were discussing the image of charring which you removed; you started a new section, reiterated one of your earlier statements ("not related to the topic") and then removed it unilaterally. I also thought that we were still discussing the best name for the article (I think that there are issues with all the proposed names), and expected to continue that discussion (now archived). You have also described the emissions of these products as "aerosol", where I thought there was consensus that "smoke" was supported by the balance of reliable sources, and should be used throughout. I'm not trying, in this section, to discuss the merits of these arguments; this is a meta-discussion about discussion methods.
I think there is useful content in your edits. However, the lack of collaboration and discussion is a concern to me. Could you please withdraw the RfCs above and discuss the matters on this page? If we really can't agree, then an RfC may become necessary, but we should exhaust discussion first. I don't think there's yet even been a challenge on the last-mentioned issue, although I agree with you that there may well be. I would also ask that you revert to the version of the 9th of January, post a link to your alternative version of the article, and allow other editors to discuss your proposed edits, so that we can integrate them collaboratively into the article.
The older discussion archives seem not to have followed this page when it moved; can anyone advise me on how to re-link them? HLHJ (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I explained the content you add failed verification and you did not fix it. The term smoke was not supported by sources. I was planning to start a RfC after I was done editing it. If there is anything I missed that you think is sourced please tell me what you think is sourced using one citation per sentence rather than more than one citation for each clam. I can restore content that is well sourced and neutral. Others can decide which version they think is more neutral and well sourced. If you think the current version is not useful then please show me what is the concern with the current version. I explained over and over the problems with the previous version. I did not want to revert back to an older version. I thought it would be better to just fix the ongoing problems. It was clear to me we had not reached consensus for a lot of content, including the charred pizza image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you want me to revert we would go back to this version in October 2018 due to the serious problems with the December 2018 article. Please read the previous comments and archives for the continued problems. I clearly explained the charred pizza image is not related to the topic. No editor agreed with the pizza image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's keep it simple. What do you think is worth including that is sourced? If we can't come to an agreement soon you can revert to a version without the disputed pizza image. Please revert if you think that improves the article. The current article is at 107,356 bytes. Do you want to lose all that useful content? I thought I let you know that all the previous versions do contain failed verification content. If you really want to revert to a previous version then that is your choice. Please revert. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
December 26, 2018 article or January 12, 2019 article
Should we support the current version or revert back to the December 2018 version? QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
See previous discussion. There was no consensus for the charred pizza image. Others also disagreed with including the image. I and others disagreed with other content. Also, there was another problem. The section was heavily based on primary sources and popular press articles against MEDRS. See "Another probablematic aspect of this whole section in the article is that it is based almost entirely on either primary WP:MEDRS sources (such as the St.Helen at al(2018) one), or non-MEDRS articles in popular media. Both of which should be unacceptable for Wikipedia sections within this realm (science/medical info)."[2] I did my best to merge any content that was sourced and neutral rather than revert back to an older version. I previously explained, adding multiples sources after each claim was a SYN violation.
The current wording is much more neutral. For example, See "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[4] They may or may not generate smoke.[10]" The previous content was not supported by the sources and was blatantly bias. The current content does explain it may emit smoke. Articles on Wikipedia should be neutral and supported by the citation given. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support for January 12, 2019 version that contains much more content and is much more neutral. The older version is much shorter and was blatantly bias (look at the charred pizza image!}. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)