No edit summary |
→Specific Changes Requested: reply to sarah at PMI, corrected own heading level |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:::I do agree that there is no consensus in the media on whether IQOS produces smoke or not. However, smoke is the contested term, not aerosol. There is no debate that [[smoke]] is an [[aerosol]], and this is why aerosol is the term that should be used. It's accurate either way. There may be other words that could also work as neutral substitutions for "smoke" in non-quoted text. The existing content about this debate could be moved to the lede or to the etymology section, but the rest of the article should use a neutral term rather than smoke. Best, [[User:Sarah at PMI|Sarah at PMI]] ([[User talk:Sarah at PMI|talk]]) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::I do agree that there is no consensus in the media on whether IQOS produces smoke or not. However, smoke is the contested term, not aerosol. There is no debate that [[smoke]] is an [[aerosol]], and this is why aerosol is the term that should be used. It's accurate either way. There may be other words that could also work as neutral substitutions for "smoke" in non-quoted text. The existing content about this debate could be moved to the lede or to the etymology section, but the rest of the article should use a neutral term rather than smoke. Best, [[User:Sarah at PMI|Sarah at PMI]] ([[User talk:Sarah at PMI|talk]]) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::Hello, [[User:Sarah at PMI|Sarah at PMI]]. Thanks for catching my formatting error, I've fixed it. I think the existing wording is not misleading; the word "advisory" is sufficient, and an ongoing review does not prevent a review having been completed, as it has been. I'm afraid Wikipedia's requirements for balance and neutrality do not require the removal of terms because they are contested. If neutrality meant avoiding contested statements, we would be in trouble! Saying "anthropogenic climate change" and "the planet's circumference" would be impossible, for instance. I have described the position that the devices do not emit smoke, and if you can give me a source I will attribute it to Phillip Morris. But I do not think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt that position without extensive discussion and consensus, and if the community were to form a consensus about how to discuss it, I suspect we would settle on calling the emissions "smoke". [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 00:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
==Marketing as "smoke-free"== |
|||
[[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]], you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product&type=revision&diff=846909014&oldid=845396067 removed this content], citing "obvious policy violations" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product/Archive_2#Failed_verification this archived talk page discussion]. May I ask what policies were violated? |
[[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]], you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product&type=revision&diff=846909014&oldid=845396067 removed this content], citing "obvious policy violations" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product/Archive_2#Failed_verification this archived talk page discussion]. May I ask what policies were violated? |
||
Revision as of 00:35, 17 August 2018
A few minor changes
Hi All,
As I mentioned the other day, I'd like to suggest some corrections to this article:
In the 2nd to last paragraph (“The application was rejected in January 2018”): to clarify the chronology, PMI submitted an application, the FDA is reviewing it, a Panel (TPSAC) made nonbinding recommendations, FDA is still reviewing (no ruling yet). The whole process is here and the page clearly indicates that the IQOS application is still ongoing. I think it makes sense to edit that part of the paragraph to something like the following:
A committee appointed by the FDA reviewed PMI’s application in January 2018. (existing ref 51) It recommended against accepting two of the three claims sought by PMI and “expressed concerns about the lack of data” on risk relative to cigarettes.(existing ref 50) The committee voted in favor of the claim that IQOS reduced users’ exposure to harmful chemicals. (existing ref 51) The FDA’s review of the application is still ongoing. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized the product, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children."(existing ref 51) However, most of the speakers advocated for the committee to submit a positive recommendation.(existing ref 51)
The other point that I think could be updated is to use a word other than “smoke” when talking about the aerosol of HNB products. I get that this is a way that some news articles are speaking about this category, but as I understand it, this language is based on one research publication (see reference 51, where the authors discuss), but that paper was heavily criticized by the FDA back in January (reference here, see pages 13 and 14: “There are significant analytical issues”). In fact, this is the same publication that serves as the reference for IQOS meaning “I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking” (first paragraph), when in fact it’s just a brand name and not an acronym at all: PMI specifically mentions that point in its FAQ here. You may want to remove that part from the first sentence and correct instances of iQOS with IQOS (upper case i).
Rather than smoke, I suggest using the more accurate term “aerosol” throughout for heated tobacco products, and reserving “smoke” for cigarettes. See for example here
Also, I saw references 8 and 45 are to the same publication, just one is a PDF and the other is the HTML version. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the copyright violation I think the edit history needs to be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- What exactly was the copyright violation that you are talking about? And why do you think it is so bad that not only did you revert another users text, but also ask for it to be redacted from history??? --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- He is upset because some of the content in Diff of Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product was copied from User:QuackGuru/Nicotine 1 without his permission or the legally-required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies for the misunderstanding, thank you for deleting my change if it is in fact in violation. The context for this issue is here: I had made the request that is currently visible for changes to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, and QuackGuru invited me to comment/discuss regarding his draft page. When the specific changes we were working on together were settled, he asked me not to point to his draft nor our discussion of it, and I agreed. He also told me that he was not willing to make the changes we had just discussed to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, but I could try to have someone else make the changes. Based on how our discussion ended, I believed that I was ok to post the pieces we had worked on together and request they be added to the Heat-not-burn Tobacco Products article. I am continuing to learn and I appreciate your patience and feedback. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- He is upset because some of the content in Diff of Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product was copied from User:QuackGuru/Nicotine 1 without his permission or the legally-required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- What exactly was the copyright violation that you are talking about? And why do you think it is so bad that not only did you revert another users text, but also ask for it to be redacted from history??? --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Specific Changes Requested
Hi all,
I am following up on my previous change request to include more specific changes that should work as direct copy and paste if no changes to my proposed text are needed. Diannaa or KimDabelsteinPetersen, would either of you be interested in reviewing and possibly implementing these changes? They are similar (but not copied) from what QuackGuru and I had originally agreed on:
- Throughout this article, the term "smoke" should be changed to "aerosol" or "emissions" when referring to the material produced by heat-not-burn tobacco products and inhaled by the user. The products do not burn tobacco, and thus do not produce smoke but instead produce an aerosol. Also, the following change will introduce a more authoritative source for what is produced by these products:
Current text: The resulting smoke contains nicotine and other chemicals.[1]
Proposed text: The resulting aerosol contains nicotine and other chemicals that are inhaled through the mouth by the user.[2]
- In the beginning of the section on iQOS, I recommend removing the (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking) acronym from the first sentence, because it is not an official acronym according to the FAQ on PMI.com: https://www.pmi.com/faq-section/faq/does-iqos-have-a-specific-meaning.
Current text: The introduction of iQOS (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking[3]) was announced on 26 June 2014.[4]
Proposed text: The introduction of iQOS was announced on 26 June 2014.[4] The Express Tribune reported some have stated iQOS stands for "I quit ordinary smoking."[5]
- In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "One independent study…" Should add a sentence to the end of this paragraph:
Proposed text: In a January 2018 document, the US FDA stated that "There are significant analytical issues in the Auer et al. study, such as lack of testing reference samples, low number of replicates, lack of selectivity on some analytical methods."[6]
- In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "The application was rejected…" is incorrect. First, the FDA has not rejected the application and is still reviewing it. Second, the quote from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is not a direct quote from the Campaign's speaker, it's a direct quote of NPR's paraphrasing. I recommend revising this paragraph the following way:
Current text: The application was rejected in January 2018; the FDA ruled that Phillip Morris had not shown that their product cut risks;[7] the panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes.[8] The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized it, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children".[9]
Proposed text: The Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee, an advisory panel appointed by the US FDA, reviewed Philip Morris International’s application in January 2018.[10] NPR quoted Matthew Myers, representing the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who told the US FDA advisory panel that iQOS "is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people."[10] NPR also reported that most of the speakers at the meeting recommended that the committee vote in favor of approving the application.[10] The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the claim that iQOS significantly reduces the body's exposure to harmful chemicals.[10] On the question of whether Philip Morris International demonstrated that the product reduces the risks of diseases associated with tobacco use, the panel voted 8 against and one abstention.[11] The panel also voted against Philip Morris International's claim that switching to iQOS is less harmful than continuing to smoke cigarettes, with a vote of 4-5.[10] The panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes.[1] The US FDA is reviewing Phillip Morris International's data, the US FDA's own laboratory testing data, other scientific information, and comments submitted by the public.[6] Philip Morris International's application is still under review to be considered a modified risk tobacco product.[12]
- Reference names "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" and "renamed_smoke" are the same research publication (Auer et al, 2017), and should be merged into one reference. I recommend to use "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" as I included in this request because the DOI links to the open-access publication at the website, where the PDF can also be freely downloaded.
Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Chicago Tribune citation written by Sam Chambers has been a deadlink for quite some time. I think it is odd to propose content using a source that is a deadlink. I written content using that source before it was a deadlink. It has been a deadlink long before you made this proposal. I'll have to pass on this proposal. Others can review it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Sarah at PMI. The claim that these products produce aerosol, but not smoke, is contested. Can you suggest a source which says that Phillip Morris does not consider the aerosol produced by HnB products to be smoke?
- I used the WHO source, added that the acronym is unofficial with your source, and I've added information about the disagreement, but a better source for that would be good. I used the WHO source elsewhere, made the lack of direct quote clear, and added that the iQOS acronym is unofficial with your source. I clarified that only the advisory panel rejected the claims. I've also amalgamated the refs. Good spot; I made that error, I think. I haven't used your proposed texts; apart from an unwillingness to investigate the proper accreditation, I am uneasy with the conflict of interest involved. The interests of your employer and Wikipedia do not align. While you are welcome to point out factual errors in Wikipedia, including in areas where you have a COI, I would suggest that you limit your writing of actual text to other areas. HLHJ (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi HLHJ, thank you for making some edits in response to my request, and I can understand that you prefer not to include text I've drafted. I have 3 minor corrections for the edits you made. First, in the section on iQOS, 3rd paragraph: a bit of extra code is visible: }}</ref>. Second, same section, 4th paragraph: "The FDA
reviewedis reviewing Phillip Morris's data" because the review is still in progress as the table on this FDA page shows. Third, same section 5th paragraph "the FDA advisory panelruledrecommended that…" because "The FDA doesn't have to follow the advisory panel's advice but usually does."[10] The term ruled makes it seem like the panel has the final say. Other options may be: advised, stated, voted.
- Hi HLHJ, thank you for making some edits in response to my request, and I can understand that you prefer not to include text I've drafted. I have 3 minor corrections for the edits you made. First, in the section on iQOS, 3rd paragraph: a bit of extra code is visible: }}</ref>. Second, same section, 4th paragraph: "The FDA
- I do agree that there is no consensus in the media on whether IQOS produces smoke or not. However, smoke is the contested term, not aerosol. There is no debate that smoke is an aerosol, and this is why aerosol is the term that should be used. It's accurate either way. There may be other words that could also work as neutral substitutions for "smoke" in non-quoted text. The existing content about this debate could be moved to the lede or to the etymology section, but the rest of the article should use a neutral term rather than smoke. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Sarah at PMI. Thanks for catching my formatting error, I've fixed it. I think the existing wording is not misleading; the word "advisory" is sufficient, and an ongoing review does not prevent a review having been completed, as it has been. I'm afraid Wikipedia's requirements for balance and neutrality do not require the removal of terms because they are contested. If neutrality meant avoiding contested statements, we would be in trouble! Saying "anthropogenic climate change" and "the planet's circumference" would be impossible, for instance. I have described the position that the devices do not emit smoke, and if you can give me a source I will attribute it to Phillip Morris. But I do not think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt that position without extensive discussion and consensus, and if the community were to form a consensus about how to discuss it, I suspect we would settle on calling the emissions "smoke". HLHJ (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Bentley, Guy (15 March 2017). "Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco: The Next Wave Of A Harm-Reduction Revolution". Forbes. Cite error: The named reference "Bentley2017" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ "Heated tobacco products (HTPs) information sheet". World Health Organization. 2018.
- ^ Auer, Reto; Concha-Lozano, Nicolas; Jacot-Sadowski, Isabelle; Cornuz, Jacques; Berthet, Aurélie (2017). "Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes". JAMA Internal Medicine. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1419. ISSN 2168-6106. PMID 28531246.
- ^ a b Felberbaum, Michael (26 June 2014). "Philip Morris Int'l to Sell Marlboro HeatSticks". Salon (website). Associated Press.
- ^ News Desk (24 October 2016). "World's second largest tobacco company tells people to quit smoking". The Express Tribune.
- ^ a b January 24–25, 2018 Meeting of the Tobacco Product s Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application s (MRTPAs) MR0000059 -MR00000 61 Philip Morris Products S.A. (PDF), retrieved 2018-06-01
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Chambers, Sam. "Big Tobacco spending billions to develop products that could move industry beyond cigarettes — but regulators are skeptical". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2018-05-28.
- ^ "FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), meeting minutes, January 24-25, 2018" (PDF). https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/ucm583080.htm. Retrieved 2018-06-01.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|work=
- ^ "FDA Panel Gives Qualified Support To Claims For 'Safer' Smoking Device". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
- ^ a b c d e f "FDA Panel Gives Qualified Support To Claims For". National Public Radio. 25 January 2018.
- ^ Chambers, Sam (26 January 2018). "Big Tobacco spending billions to develop products that could move industry beyond cigarettes — but regulators are skeptical". Chicago Tribune.
- ^ US FDA. "Modified Risk Tobacco products". Retrieved 14 August 2018.
Marketing as "smoke-free"
QuackGuru, you removed this content, citing "obvious policy violations" and this archived talk page discussion. May I ask what policies were violated?
Professor Hoek is quoted in the source as saying "These tobacco stick products are marketed as 'smoke-free' replacements for conventional cigarettes". This, I think, adequately supported the statement you challenged: Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free" (in the article context, she is being interviewed about iQOS).
You challenged the word "include"; I trust that you are not arguing that PM isn't marketing iQOS in any other way. If so, the other source (an academic paper on methods used in a store and province in Canada) lists other marketing methods, so the statement is still supported.
You suggest that I should specify where the marketing is. I have a source for a general statement on the marketing, and I think the precise details of a store in Canada would not contribute to the article; it is the generality that is of interest. You also suggest that I should specify who is contesting the claims. I am willing to attribute it to independent researchers, if you like. If the reader wants a more precise attribution, the can follow the citation link (it is safe to assume that the reader wouldn't recognize the names or research group of the researchers anyway).
You ask what verifies the statement that the "smokeless" claim has been contested. The source contains the quote ""We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless." I think that verifies it :).
Finally, you suggest that it is "a WP:SYN violation to use different sources at the end the sentence". Using different sources to support different clauses of a sentence in entirely normal and acceptable practice on Wikipedia. I'm a bit puzzled. HLHJ (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Even if sourced the wording is poorly written. I challenged the word "include"; but does the source or sources used verify include? The other source about a store in Canada is for marketing methods for a store in Canada. It not relevant to the wording being proposed. A new sentence can be created about marketing in a store in Canada. The wording that was in the article did not explain who contested the claim. It would be better to create two different sentences rather than one sentence where different claims do not appear to be directly connected. It appears you did not state which source verifies the content you quoted. There was more than one source after each claim. If more than one source is used both must verify the claim. It is also a copyright violation to quote a source without providing a link to the source. Sources were quoted in this section without providing a link to each source after each quote. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Etymology
See "The designations "heat-not-burn"[5] and "smoke-free"[6] are used. However, some independent researchers "disagree with the claim that it's smokeless"[1].[7][8] Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.[9]"
The part "The designations "heat-not-burn"[5] and "smoke-free"[6] are used." does not explain the debate. "However, some independent researchers..." uses the unsupported weasel word "some". This is poor wording and unclear language. Also, there were two sources used in the article to verify the quote but I was only able to find one source that verified the quote. The new section is not about the "Etymology". It is about a disagreement with PMI. For example, see "We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless."[2] That is about iQOS and I provided a citation on the talk page to avoid a copyright violation. Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.[9] is misleading. The content needs to be better written and should only be in the iQOS. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Primary source
I removed the primary source. I recommend against using a primary source when there are other sources available. QuackGuru (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation
Making a minor change to the text is still a copyright violation when the quotation marks are removed. I fixed the copyright violation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Unknown
The article states "The effects of second-hand exposure are unknown.[9]"[3] Where does the source state it is unknown?[4] QuackGuru (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)