No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
=== Tags === |
=== Tags === |
||
{{atop|result=Closing page move to focus on other RfCs.}} |
|||
{{rfc|sci|econ|rfcid=8AB0049}} |
|||
Should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&type=revision&diff=878049274&oldid=878048766 these tags] be removed? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
Should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&type=revision&diff=878049274&oldid=878048766 these tags] be removed? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
Line 137: | Line 135: | ||
* '''Support''' removing the Paid Contributor tag. '''Oppose''' removing the UNDUE tag for IQOS - it is undue here and should probably be spun out to its own article. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' removing the Paid Contributor tag. '''Oppose''' removing the UNDUE tag for IQOS - it is undue here and should probably be spun out to its own article. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
**{{u|Power~enwiki}}, {{u|Doc James}} merged all the content from other articles into one article. The IQOS section can be condensed if it is too long. Power~enwiki, do you have a specific suggestion in order to keep the content here and also remove the undue tag? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
**{{u|Power~enwiki}}, {{u|Doc James}} merged all the content from other articles into one article. The IQOS section can be condensed if it is too long. Power~enwiki, do you have a specific suggestion in order to keep the content here and also remove the undue tag? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{abot}} |
|||
== Table == |
== Table == |
Revision as of 22:26, 24 January 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposal for title change
The following discussion 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.
Proposal for title change 1
{{requested move/dated|Heat-not-burn tobacco product}}
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) --Relisting. feminist (talk) 18:00, 17 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 the Notes section for a list of verifiable synonyms. See "The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C).[11]"[1] The name "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is most accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 9 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. The expanded version 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).[2] 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 the expanded version 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 expanded version is sourced without any hint of any policy violation. The current shorter version contains multiples problems.
- No source explicitly states "Charred tobacco product". Therefore, it would not be more accurate. We don't use made up terms. See the Notes section 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.[3] 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)
- Quoting WP:COMMONNAME:
Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
- The article scope includes devices that use cigarettes and those that use looseleaf. "Electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" does not reflect the scope, and the original discussion covered why "electric" is more accurate than "electronic". Presenting these things as terribly high tech is part of the marketing. HLHJ (talk) 03:25, 20 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)
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)
- I'm not sure waiting until after another move will actually make it easier to re-link the older archives. Redrose64, may I ask your advice and assistance? I made a bit of a mess of the page move, so it's probably my fault that they are de-linked. Advice on how to merge move requests might also be useful (see QG's comment below). HLHJ (talk) 22:34, 13 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)
- I tried to fix it. Can you fix it? I'm not sure how to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I probably shouldn't fix it, as I am an involved editor. I think it would be best to restore other people's comments to the way they were, then copy them over in a Template:Talk quote block, without removing the original comments, and signing it with a comment that makes it clear where you have copied it from. I'm assuming, subject to correction, that you want to close one of the move requests. You could add a comment to that request asking an admin (RedRose64 or Ivanvector, for instance) to close it for you, wp:pinging said admin so they will see. HLHJ (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a bit off-topic, but if you want to convert the RfCs below into ordinary discussions, it's a lot simpler. HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've moved the archives to their proper places, as follows:
- Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 1 → Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 4
- Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 3 → Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 3
- Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 2 → Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 2
- Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 1 → Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 1
- I've left Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Proposed draft alone, since it was created after the moves of 30 October 2018. For future ref, when you move a page that has subpages, there is a checkbox "Move subpages (up to 100)" which should be set. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've moved the archives to their proper places, as follows:
- I tried to fix it. Can you fix it? I'm not sure how to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I follow all of the discussions on this, but if all of these alternative names are equivalent "common names" for these products, then either (1) the most succinct title, (2) the most technically accurate title, or (3) the term for these products that's used by the world's most notable health organization are the only reasonable alternatives to consider. I have not read the relevant literature, so I don't know if these are all equivalent terms; however, it'd probably be simplest and most reasonable to default to the WHO's "heated tobacco products" term for this article's title given that they don't feel it necessary to qualify the "not-burn" part in their use of the term:
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)As previously discussed, products that heat rather than burn are claimed to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, although these claims of risk reduction are based on industry-funded studies. Independent studies should be conducted to investigate these claims. Convincing evidence has yet to be provided for the claims of risk reduction and health benefits of products that heat rather than burn tobacco. Some scientists consider these heated tobacco products to be just as harmful as conventional cigarettes
— [4]
- @Seppi333: the term "heated tobacco product" is not known to the consumer and the products being sold to consumers by retailers are never or rarely called "heated tobacco product". The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is the only common name consumers recognize.
- The section for marketing can explain in detail about the heat-not-burn claims. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Marketing.
- The draft also states "A 2016 World Health Organization reported noted that some scientists believe that heat-not-burn tobacco products to be as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.[16]" QuackGuru (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Propose revert of change to top of page and dates
The following discussion 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.
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)
- I don't actually follow your logic on this. The distinguish template - i.e., "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette." - is a statement that these products and electronic cigarettes should not be confused as referring to the same thing. The only reason for including that template would be if people do in fact confuse the two sets of products as being identical; hence, the template is used to "wikt:distinguish" the two in the exact same manner as the lead sentence "
They are not electronic cigarettes.
The following clause - "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.
" - isn't really a reason not to use that template since distinct product types can have common characteristics and still carry a topical distinction (NB: if there is no clear distinguishing factor between these two sets of products, then there really shouldn't be two separate articles IMO). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)- The draft states "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]" Stating at the top of the page "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette" is a repetitive statement. Stating the same thing twice in the lede in different words is duplication. I would keep "They are not electronic cigarettes.[3]"and while deleting "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette" from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the hatnote is useful to distinguish between two related-but-different topics with similar names. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the dmy dates and British English
Should we remove the dmy dates and British English notes at the top of the page (the hatnote for e-cigs will remain)? QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support, as proposer. I propose to keep the hat for the e-cigs but remove the dmy dates and British English.The article does not use British English. The dmy dates is not the way the content is formatted throughout this article. For example, June 26, 2014 is the standard for this article rather than 26 June 2014 for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 24 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. I originally worked on fixing the COI edits in a draft and in the article. That was well over a year ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 98#iQOS tobacco heating device and User:SimonDes/HnB QuackGuru (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Tags
The following discussion 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.
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 edited by several editors at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support removing the Paid Contributor tag. Oppose removing the UNDUE tag for IQOS - it is undue here and should probably be spun out to its own article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki, Doc James merged all the content from other articles into one article. The IQOS section can be condensed if it is too long. Power~enwiki, do you have a specific suggestion in order to keep the content here and also remove the undue tag? QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 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 Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Proposed draft#Comparison to traditional cigarettes and see Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Comparison to traditional cigarettes, QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support including it in the IQOS section since it seems relevant there. Also, please take note that I modified the table formatting; I assume that my changes were an improvement, but if not, feel free to revert them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments on table
Comparison to traditional cigarettes
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. If it is reverted to an older version a lot of content may be lost. Others may disagree if it is reverted to an older and shorter version.
- 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.
- 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) 22:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's by all means keep it simple. We disagreed about article content; editors, including we two, had discussed it. You simultaneously wrote an alternate version of the article, which you did not mention in discussion. The discussion lapsed without consensus for your changes before the solstice. Recently, you replaced the content under discussion without regard to the discussion. Then you started RfCs about issues, one of which was being discussed, one of which I had mentioned, and two of which no-one had discussed. Now you have started an RfC offering the October 2018 and January 12 versions as options, but not the January 9th version. I think this is the wrong order. I think we should discuss, then, if we cannot agree, use dispute resolution mechanisms (agreeing to questions first, if possible), then edit the article according to the consensus. Your edits were bold, and I am asking you to self-revert them so that we can continue with the discussion. I would not object to your starting a single RfC on whether to replace the January 9th article with your proposed draft, as such an RfC might be the most efficient way to discuss it. HLHJ (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The RfC now states Should we support the expanded version or revert back to the January 9, 2019 or the December 26, 2018 version?
- January 9th version was not a finished version when I began editing. I did not start an RfC offering the October 2018. I offered the December 2018 before I began editing. For now I reverted the bold changes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's by all means keep it simple. We disagreed about article content; editors, including we two, had discussed it. You simultaneously wrote an alternate version of the article, which you did not mention in discussion. The discussion lapsed without consensus for your changes before the solstice. Recently, you replaced the content under discussion without regard to the discussion. Then you started RfCs about issues, one of which was being discussed, one of which I had mentioned, and two of which no-one had discussed. Now you have started an RfC offering the October 2018 and January 12 versions as options, but not the January 9th version. I think this is the wrong order. I think we should discuss, then, if we cannot agree, use dispute resolution mechanisms (agreeing to questions first, if possible), then edit the article according to the consensus. Your edits were bold, and I am asking you to self-revert them so that we can continue with the discussion. I would not object to your starting a single RfC on whether to replace the January 9th article with your proposed draft, as such an RfC might be the most efficient way to discuss it. HLHJ (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for misrepresenting your RfC, QuackGuru, it does indeed say December rather than October. I'm not sure how I came to make that mistake. On my talk page, you wrote:
Please revert back to a version such as a version before the disputed content was added, including the charred pizza image if you think that improves the article. Others may disagree if it is reverted to an older and shorter version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Please go ahead and revert to the version you think is best. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Rather than discuss which version to revert back to I think you can revert it. I'm not sure why you have not reverted the content. If you dispute it you can revert it. It's that simple. You don't need to cont8une to discuss reverting to an older version. I insist you revert to the version you think is best. I don't understand why you have not reverted. I am not disputing you to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, modified) Thank you for your conciliatory response, QuackGuru. I hadn't reverted it because I wanted to discuss the situation, and I prefer to ask for a self-revert rather than make major reverts of other peoples' edits. I do think that your edits contain useful content whose inclusion I would favour; I'll discuss this in the RfC below, but it will take me a while to assess all the new content. HLHJ (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi All. my guess is it's a quirk of the news cycle, and from reporters looking for "new years resolution" type stories who all published around the same time. I saw that several reporters picked up on PMI's chatter that we want to stop selling cigarettes, and for some reason most reported it as if it's new news when it's not. Many of those were published January 9, though there were some before and some after that date, likely drawing readers to the page for more info. Even Snopes put out an article on January 11, correcting the timing of our messaging and referencing several examples of these news sources that ran the story. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Older versions or January 12, 2019 version
Should we support the expanded version (proposed draft) or go back to the January 9, 2019 or the December 26, 2018 version? QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support for the January 12, 2019 version that contains much more content and is much more neutral. It does not contain bias or negative content using poor sources. Many WP:MEDRS compliant sources were used to expand the article. The older version on January 9, 2019 or on December 26, 2018 version are both much shorter and both were blatantly bias. For example, please look at the charred pizza image. The pizza image is completely unrelated to the topic. No source mentions overcooked pizza as being related to the topic. For now I reverted the bold changes. The Health effects section and Regulations section was significantly expanded. New sections include Prevalence and Marketing. The lede was also improved and expanded using many high quality sources as well as adding neutral content. See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Proposed draft for an updated proposal of the expanded version. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am still working on the draft. Another new section is called Emissions. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I favour a slightly earlier Jan 9th version, as last edited by Carl Fredrik (differs by an image-alignment sock edit and the removal of this image, which QuackGuru later replaced with a more promotional image supplied by Phillip Morris). A diff of the QuackGuru version and the above version is here.
- I think that while some of the content of QuackGuru's version should be integrated, QuackGuru's version has suffered by being written by a single contributor working alone in draftspace. QuackGuru's version minimizes and omits some information critical of the article subject (for instance, the reasons that independent researchers consider "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" to be inaccurate). QG's idiosyncratic insistence that each statement be one sentence with one citation also leads to a very choppy, repetitive, long-winded, and sometimes contradictory writing style. For instance, the section on health effects is much longer and less legible; the first sentence defines the subject as having battery-powered heating systems, citing the WHO, a good source; but the rest of the article mentions charcoal-, butane- and mains-powered devices. More detailed criticism in comments section below. HLHJ (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The content about "independent researchers consider "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" to be inaccurate" is misleading content and uses popular press media rather than MEDRS compliant sources. I restored a high quality image that was removed without consensus. This image is low quality. The expanded version does not minimize or omit any information critical of the article subject that was well sourced. It omits negative information cited to sources that are MEDRS violations. Stating "They may or may not generate smoke.[10]" is neutral. Stating they produce "smoke" throughout the article is clearly not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is this your position?
- if Phillip Morris and competitors say "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free", those are not medical claims, and do not require MEDRS (and may be said in Wikipedia's voice)
- if independent researchers say that these terms are misleading, quoting them is a medical claim, and requires MEDRS
- I replied to an earlier version of the previous post in the comments section, below; this is a reply to QG's update of Jan 15th. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is this your position?
- The content about "independent researchers consider "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" to be inaccurate" is misleading content and uses popular press media rather than MEDRS compliant sources. I restored a high quality image that was removed without consensus. This image is low quality. The expanded version does not minimize or omit any information critical of the article subject that was well sourced. It omits negative information cited to sources that are MEDRS violations. Stating "They may or may not generate smoke.[10]" is neutral. Stating they produce "smoke" throughout the article is clearly not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- It depends on the specific claim whether they are or are not MEDRS violations.
- See "However, independent researchers who tested a common "heat-not-burn" device explicitly disagreed with the claim that they are smokeless,[1][2] arguing that the emitted aerosol is smoke, as it contains pyrolysis products.[3] Independent researchers studying the aerosols produced by heat-not-burn products commonly call those aerosols "smoke".[4]
References
- ^ Wan, William (2017-08-11). "Big Tobacco's new cigarette is sleek, smokeless — but is it any better for you?". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-05-27.
- ^ "FDA Panel Gives Qualified Support To Claims For 'Safer' Smoking Device". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
- ^ Auer, Reto; Cornuz, Jacques; Berthet, Aurélie (2017). "Perplexing Conclusions Concerning Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes—Reply". JAMA Internal Medicine. 177 (11): 1699–1700. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5861. PMID 29114801.
- ^ Mallock, Nadja; Böss, Lisa; Burk, Robert; Danziger, Martin; Welsch, Tanja; Hahn, Harald; Trieu, Hai-Linh; Hahn, Jürgen; Pieper, Elke; Henkler-Stephani, Frank; Hutzler, Christoph; Luch, Andreas (2018). "Levels of selected analytes in the emissions of "heat not burn" tobacco products that are relevant to assess human health risks". Archives of Toxicology. 92 (6): 2145–2149. doi:10.1007/s00204-018-2215-y. ISSN 0340-5761. PMC 6002459. PMID 29730817., and sources therein
- The content about smoke-free was rewritten to be more accurate without any MEDRS claims. See "The IQOS is marketed as a "smoke-free" alternative to traditional cigarettes, and promoted as a way to lower risk from smoking.[84]Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product/Proposed_draft#cite_ref-NZH2017_85-0 It was specifically about IQOS. Making general or vague claims is misleading or inaccurate. Again, the source about "smoke-free" was about PMI's IQOS. In the draft it is in the IQOS section.
- The content about "independent researchers consider "heat-not-burn" to be inaccurate" contains marketing as well as MEDRS claims. If any part of the sentence is a MEDRS claim then it requires better sourcing than a news article or primary MEDRS source for critical content.
- The part "...claim that they are smokeless" requires a MEDRS compliant source for critical content. The content is cited to Washington Post and NPR.org.
- The part "arguing that the emitted aerosol is smoke, as it contains pyrolysis products." requires a MEDRS compliant source for critical content. It is cited to a reply article that is not MEDRS compliant titled Perplexing Conclusions Concerning Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes-Reply.
- The content "Independent researchers studying the aerosols produced by heat-not-burn products commonly call those aerosols "smoke"." requires a MEDRS compliant source for critical content. It is cited to an article called iQOS: evidence of pyrolysis and release of a toxicant from plastic. It is an article about IQOS rather than heat-not-burn products in general and is a MEDRS violation.
- There are other MEDRS violations. See "HnB products vary, but can heat to these charring temperatures.[23][2][1]" The first two citations ([23][2]) used are about IQOS and are MEDRS violations. The third citation ([1]) does not even mention charring.
- The "Nature and function" is badly written and disorganized. I reorganized it and rewritten the content and moved some content to a section under Marketing. The section under marketing contains much more critical content and is neutrally written.
- Multiple editors have stated they have concerns regarding the MEDRS violations among other issues for quite some time. I was the first editor who attempted to cleanup the mess. Instead of reverting back to an older version before the MEDRS violations were introduced I thought it would be a better idea to tackle the problems others brought up and expand the article.
- The post on "08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)" below also discusses specific content that are MEDRS violations. So far you have not acknowledged the content that I believe are MEDRS violations in this discussion or the discussion below. Checking the edit history of the article I have not seen you remove sources that you added that I or others stated are MEDRS violations. If you have removed a MEDRS violation you added please provide a WP:DIFF.
- The expanded version states among other things: The IQOS is marketed as a "smoke-free" alternative to traditional cigarettes, and promoted as a way to lower risk from smoking.[84]Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product/Proposed_draft#cite_ref-NZH2017_85-0 See Marketing: The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C).[11] Terms used in marketing of cigarette-like products that "heat rather than burn" are referring to the product as "reduced risk" and "innovative."[63] Marketing slogans like "heat-not-burn" cannot be a substitute for science.[88] Heat-not-burn tobacco products are not typically marketed as a harmless substitute to smoking.[26] QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- You said "It depends on the specific claim whether they are or are not MEDRS violations". I asked about two specific claims. Was your answer "Yes, that's my position: describing claims made by tobacco companies does not need MEDRS, but describing claims made by independent scientist does"? I'm not sure you've read my previous answers to my other points. HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I cited specific content in the article above that are MEDRS violations IMO. You have not acknowledged there is an issue with the sourcing in this thread. I assume you think there is not a serious problem with the sourcing in the current article. Correct me if I am wrong. Your questions are overgeneralizing the dispute. It is not a simple yes or no answer. This is done on a case-per-case basis. I would have to review each claim and source. That is what I did above. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- You said "It depends on the specific claim whether they are or are not MEDRS violations". I asked about two specific claims. Was your answer "Yes, that's my position: describing claims made by tobacco companies does not need MEDRS, but describing claims made by independent scientist does"? I'm not sure you've read my previous answers to my other points. HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: can you implement the changes between your version and the current version in this article, undo the edit, and link to the diff of your changes? It's very hard to follow what the proposal is asking without linking a diff with proposed changes with respect to the current revision.
Also, I think the discussion of whether or not these products generate some smoke or whether or not "heat-not-burn" is an accurate label is a red herring. If some of these products happen to generate some smoke as a result of overheating its content, just explicitly state this in the article and cite it to a MEDRS-quality source. The title of the article shouldn't be changed merely to reflect the fact that some or all of these products happen to burn content or generate smoke when that is not their WP:COMMONNAME though. Any statement about how these products function should be cited to a reliable medical source given that their function impacts the health of the user (e.g., if you say "the device can explode" or "the device generates toxic particulate matter", then the statement you've written carries a clear implication that operating the device carries a risk of burning the user or causing exposure to toxicants; both sets of statements unequivocally require MEDRS). This should not be a terribly difficult constraint to adhere to given the amount of medical sources that exist about these devices.
Lastly, as for marketing claims about a health-related effect, the general consensus from the discussions at the FACs for β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is that marketing claims should not be stated in an article without citing a reliable medical source which supports its use as such. A statement like "X is marketed as Y" – where "X is Y" would be construed as a medical claim – needs to be removed from the article unless one of the cited sources is a reliable medical source that covers evidence supporting the statement "X is Y". Otherwise, this would violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: the proposal is replacing the current version with the proposed draft and changing the article title to "Heat-not-burn tobacco product". See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Proposal_for_title_change_1 and see proposed draft. Anything that was worth integrating from the older version is already part of the draft. See diff for the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments on older versions or January 12, 2019 version
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 called Nature and function is heavily based on primary sources and popular press articles against WP: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)."[5] I did my best to merge any content that was sourced and neutral rather than revert back to an older version. Adding multiples sources after each claim in order to try to verify the claim is a SYN violation or original research.
The expanded version 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]" A lot of the older content was not supported by the sources and was blatantly bias. The expanded version does explain it may emit smoke in a neutral way. Articles on Wikipedia should be neutral and supported by the citation given. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I said above, a major problem I have with QGs's version is that it is hard to read and not very succinct. While it contains some additional sources, it does not convey information as well as the multi-editor versions.
- My comments from the charred pizza discussion stand:
The pizza is charred. The image itself is a sufficient source for that statement, as it is not in the least extraordinary and readily verifiable by anyone looking at the image. I have RS saying that the function of the article topic also involves charring. I therefore use the pizza as an illustration of charring, linking the somewhat abtruse functioning of a piece of new tech to an experience most people will have had.
- The accompanying section covered debate on whether charred tobacco is to be considered "heated" or "burned", and whether it emits "smoke" during the process, describing statements made by marketers and public health researchers. Nicotine company marketing has included a lot of complicated sciencey-sounding statements around this question, so I think it's important that Wikipedia provide a clear illustration of the technical concepts.
- On popular media sources, I quote myself from the earlier discussion:
The popular media sources are only used for statements about what marketing messages are used and who argued about them; I think these are suitable statements to support with journalistic sources, as they are not biomedical.
- As I recall, I improved the research article sources in response to criticism by KimDabelsteinPetersen (which you quoted). In the previous discussion, I went over where I thought MEDRS were needed and where I thought they were not in some detail. I also went over the image's policy compliance point-by point. I am happy to address any new counterarguments more detailed than "disagree".
- I do not agree that the QuackGuru version is more neutral. For instance, QG replaced "smoke" with "aerosol" throughout. Carl Frederik stated in an earlier discussion that there was a consensus to use "smoke". When independent researchers in the field explicitly discuss the question of whether there is smoke (as opposed to using tobacco-industry terms in passing, because there are no other common terms), they say it's smoke. In the aforementioned earlier discussion, Sarah at PMI (Phillip Morris International) argued that "aerosol" is more neutral because smoke is definitely an aerosol, so no-one disputes that the emissions are an aerosol. It is not, however, the case that neutral, accurate content is content that no-one disputes. I favour the term which is
- supported by independent, expert sources
- disputed by the tobacco industry (their independence and reputation for accuracy in such debates is nil)
- more specific
- a common, non-technical English word (how often is the non-technical term more specific? here we can have both!)
- Some of the text also seems a bit weasel-wordy. For instance, "There is a lack of evidence on the possible effects of second-hand exposure. There is anticipated to be a reduced risk to bystanders where smokers were using heat-not-burn tobacco products instead of smoking" replaces "The effects of second-hand exposure are unknown".
- While I support having a "marketing" section, QG's proposed section is seems to be a longer re-write of the "Nature and function" section, with the criticism of the accuracy of tobacco marketing messages and the information on how the products actually function removed. This information is essential to a neutral coverage of a topic on which many have strong incentives to provide misinformation. A marketing section could include new information, relying on sources such as this Reuters investigation (which QG found, and it's excellent). HLHJ (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Criticism of the accuracy of tobacco marketing messages and the information on how the products actually function was removed because the sources did not verify the claims. A lot of content does fail verification and are using non-compliant sources against MEDRS. Editors can tag the content. I chose to remove the content that misrepresents the sources. I think it is a good idea to omit content that misrepresents sources. For example, the WHO source states "Heated tobacco products are tobacco products that produce aerosols containing nicotine and other chemicals, which are inhaled by users, through the mouth."[6] It does not verify smoke. Another example of misleading content is the following: "HnB products vary, but can heat to these charring temperatures.[23][2][1]"[7] The WHO source does not verify the claim. So far no source has been presented that connected an overcooked pizza image with this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Quoting myself from the charred pizza discussion again:
- Criticism of the accuracy of tobacco marketing messages and the information on how the products actually function was removed because the sources did not verify the claims. A lot of content does fail verification and are using non-compliant sources against MEDRS. Editors can tag the content. I chose to remove the content that misrepresents the sources. I think it is a good idea to omit content that misrepresents sources. For example, the WHO source states "Heated tobacco products are tobacco products that produce aerosols containing nicotine and other chemicals, which are inhaled by users, through the mouth."[6] It does not verify smoke. Another example of misleading content is the following: "HnB products vary, but can heat to these charring temperatures.[23][2][1]"[7] The WHO source does not verify the claim. So far no source has been presented that connected an overcooked pizza image with this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I therefore use the pizza as an illustration of charring, linking the somewhat abtruse functioning of a piece of new tech to an experience most people will have had. I think this is a good illustration, as it will promote understanding of the article's topic. I do not think I need a source that says that each image is related to the article's topic. Many illustrations on Wikipedia have no such source. If you are arguing that all illustrations need such a source, please provide a link to the policy that says so.
- Another self-quote from previous discussion, this one on verification of the word "smoke":
My understanding is that a consensus to use a consistent term overrides the term used in a specific source, as it has at the e-cigarettes article. Independent and non-independent, or technical and non-technical sources, may well use different terms, while the Wikipedia article uses a single consistent one. As long as it is clear that we are talking about the same thing, and are thus still accurately representing the source, I don't see this as a verification problem.
- The WHO source gives a temperature in degrees which is within the range of charring temperatures given in the source cited right next to it. The source giving the range also says that a specific product falls within that range; the WHO source says that other products run at similar temperatures. Figuring out if a number is within a range of other numbers is a trivial calculation, not original research. HLHJ (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:KimDabelsteinPetersen explained "another problem: Based entirely on primary MEDRS sources, and non-MEDRS sources."[8] KimDabelsteinPetersen also stated "Disagree entirely. The image provides a POV (personal view) not expressed by the majority of sources on this topic, and as far as i can tell entirely unsupported by reliable sources."[9] The issues brought up by KimDabelsteinPetersen about the poor quality sources have not been fixed by removing the poor quality sources from the Nature and function section from the shorter version. The section called Nature and function is disputed and never gained consensus. I initially made an effort to address the concerns brought up by KimDabelsteinPetersen by rewriting and improving the section. After you made bold edits others have disputed the content. For example, User:Sennen goroshi reverted back the changes including changing the word from smoke to aerosol in the body of the article. Sennen goroshi stated "Hi, HLHJ - I think the general tone of the article was very biased. Lots of weasel words and implications. While other content was obviously misleading. "Surveys have found that about half of users have never smoked conventional cigarettes" Is blatantly misleading."[10] Adding negative content using poor sources is not a neutral coverage of the topic. Content such as "There is anticipated to be a reduced risk to bystanders where smokers were using heat-not-burn tobacco products instead of smoking."[11] is sourced to the Committee on Toxicity. It is MEDRS compliant and accurate according to the source. This kind of content brings balance to the article. Adding highly negative content using popular press articles for MEDRS claims and primary sources that are MEDRS violations is not going to make a better article. For example, the content "However, independent researchers who tested a common "heat-not-burn" device explicitly disagreed with the claim that they are smokeless,[30][31] arguing that the emitted aerosol is smoke, as it contains pyrolysis products.[32]" is using sources that are not MEDRS compliant. This is negative content. This is the kind of problem KimDabelsteinPetersen brought up about the poor sources. These are not new arguments I am making. The poor sources were brought up in previous discussions. For example, User:LeadSongDog stated "On a related point, there seems to be less than due care with regard to wp:MEDRS vetting of sources both here and at some of the ecig related articles."[12] User:Ozzie10aaaa agreed.[13] A concern with the shorter version is that it contains little information from recent MEDRS compliant sources. I attempted to address the issues with the poor sources and the lack of MEDRS sources by removing poor sources and citing many MEDRS compliant sources. For example, the content "Independent researchers studying the aerosols produced by heat-not-burn products commonly call those aerosols "smoke".[33] Independent research has also disputed the claim that the products are "heat-not-burn" devices.[2][34]" fails to comply with MEDRS. New content such as "A 2018 Public Health England (PHE) report found "Compared with cigarettes, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds (HPHC). The extent of the reduction found varies between studies."[25]" adheres to MEDRS.
- I do see it as a problem when the WHO does not verify "smoke". The WHO source verifies aerosol. That's the reason the content fails verification.
- The WHO source does not verify "charring temperatures". The WHO source does not state it is within the range of charring temperatures. The other sources do not verify the broad claim "HnB products vary, but can heat to these charring temperatures.[23]".[14][15] The other sources discuss a specific brand not HnB products in general for the claim. IQOS does not translate into HnB products. Therefore, all three citations fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- As you say, these are not new arguments you are making; some are over four months old, older than any of the versions of the article we are discussing here. Both the sourcing and the content have changed since. I think I have replied to all of the criticisms you quoted above. Some of the criticisms were specific and well-justified; I acknowledged and fixed some content and citing. The changes I made also addressed the more general criticisms, though where I did not get responses I cannot tell if I have entirely resolved those concerns. I made efforts to get feedback; for instance, I posted to Sennen goroshi's talk page. Some editors posted support of the content, which you have not quoted. I do not intend to quote the entirety of these past discussions; you can read through them at post-rename Archive 4, Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3. I am not in the least opposed to making further efforts in response to further criticisms, nor am I stating that your new version contains no new useful content or sources.
- I mentioned the need for consistent terminology in articles referencing diverse sources using inconsistent terminology. Can you tell me what you did not understand about my comment?
- On the content on charring temperatures, let's use an analogy. Suppose we have two sources; one says "The Crazy District is located between 3rd and 7th Avenue downtown; Hotel Alpha is in the Crazy District, on 5th Avenue" and the other says "Many hotels are located downtown on 4th and 5th Avenues". A sentence citing both could say "The Crazy District, between 3rd and 7th Avenues downtown, contains many hotels". The synthesis is limited to a trivial assessment that the range 3 to 7 encompasses 4 and 5. See Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations.
- I would point out that no product in this category comes anywhere near matching the sales of IQOS, so almost all the sources are on IQOS. Combining detailed information from sources about the functioning of IQOS with general information from sources saying that its competitors function in the same way on specific, quantifiable parameters like operating temperature seems a good way to deal with this situation. HLHJ (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog stated in part on 14:09, 17 August 2018: "You will need MEDRS sources for such content. I say that generally, but if you are not aware, please do be aware that there are DS on e-cigs as our pages on ecigs are contentious, and health claims sourced to non-MEDRS sources get shot down quickly on those pages."[16]
- You stated in part on 03:05, 18 August 2018: "There are plenty of good medical sources on nicotine use; detailed sources on nicotine promotion are actually harder to find. I would definitely never use this as a MEDRS, but thanks for the warning."[17]
- It seems you understood back in August 2018 for biomedical information (health-related content) WP:MEDRS sources are usually required. However, editors have been complaining about the popular media and primary MEDRS sources in this article and in the Nature and function section.
- As a compromise, I did include "The IQOS HeatSticks do not generate a flame, they are charred following use.[38]" in the proposed draft. The source is not a very high quality source but I did want to include something about charring because I know you want that included in the article. I'd rather the content be accurate rather than make vague or broader claims than the source is making. That's why the content states "The IQOS HeatSticks..". rather than HnB products in general. I did mention the MEDRS violations above. You have not directly stated whether you think the content I quoted above are MEDRS violations in this thread. They are still in the Nature and function section. The proposed draft makes an effort to fix the concerns. Citation clutter decreases readability. Adding one citation per claim for the proposed draft increases ease of reading for our readers. See WP:CITATIONBLOAT, WP:Citation overkill, and WP:BOMBARD. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The WHO source gives a temperature in degrees which is within the range of charring temperatures given in the source cited right next to it. The source giving the range also says that a specific product falls within that range; the WHO source says that other products run at similar temperatures. Figuring out if a number is within a range of other numbers is a trivial calculation, not original research. HLHJ (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Jytdog was not talking about content in this article, but about content in a source I'd brought to the reliable sources noticeboard, for use in a completely different article; the source is not cited here. I must have told you half a dozen times that I disagree with your idea that one citation per sentence always makes text clearer. Looking over the article content, statements about the health effects of the products are cited to systematic reviews, WHO guidelines, and similar high-quality sources; statements about who said what are cited to popular media sources; and a few studies are referenced individually ("according to a small survey done in Italy"... "In one manufacturer-led study", both citing secondary sources, though not systematic reviews), as WP:MEDRS recommends:
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:[example omitted]... Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability:[example omitted]... If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed.
- So the citing seems appropriate to me. I'm concerned that some of your content is misleading and inaccurate; for instance "There is no information available on potential impact of maternal inhalation of heat-not-burn tobacco emissions during pregnancy on fetal outcomes", when we have extensive MEDRS saying that these products contain nicotine and maternal nicotine use seriously harms the child, seems to fall short.
- Of late, QG, I've spent more time arguing with you here than writing content, and I don't think we are getting anywhere, or will reach a consensus. Let's spend our time on more productive things. HLHJ (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- The proposed draft removes many popular press articles and primary MEDRS sources that were making MEDRS claims IMO.
- The article states "There is no information on the effects of smoking HnB devices during pregnancy, as of 2018.[18]"
- The draft states "There is no information available on potential impact of maternal inhalation of heat-not-burn tobacco emissions during pregnancy on fetal outcomes, as of 2018.[11]"
- The sentence in the proposed draft is more accurate than what the article currently states.
- See "Neither is there information on the potential impact of maternal inhalation of heat-not-burn tobacco smoke during pregnancy on fetal outcomes, all of which require urgent attention."[18] The content is accurate, according to the source. There is very limited research on this topic. Research on maternal inhalation of heat-not-burn tobacco is currently unavailable. Sources that do not mention heat-not-burn tobacco products are off-topic and undue weight. I expanded the pregnancy section using two sources that were already in the draft.
- The draft now contains more critical information on pregnancy than the current article states.
- See Electric smoking system#Pregnancy.
- See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Proposed draft#Pregnancy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't read this entire thread, but my gut reaction to seeing this image in an article on a topic other than one on charring or pizza would be to remove it; in this context, it's being used to liken tobacco burning to a burnt pizza as an analogy, which is really not encyclopedic. It would be appropriate to show an image of burnt tobacco and discuss charred residue and its pyrolysis products in the image caption; if desired, adding an appropriate image and captioning it in this manner can be used as a replacement. As for the moment, I'm going to remove the pizza image because I think it detracts from the article for the aforementioned reason. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Summoned by bot, three times, unable to discern the question(s)
My prior experience with this topic disinclined me to participate but I came by to see what all the RfCs were about. If you all need fresh eyes and I think it's likely, you need to make it much more clear what is actually going on. Wandering off to make better use of my time. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not an electric smoking system.
THIS is an electric smoking system! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)