Removing expired RFC template. |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 405:
{{anchor|rfc_6D86A7F}}
{{anchor|rfc_5693815}}
Should we support the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&type=revision&diff=880048751&oldid=880035554 expanded version] ([[Draft:Electric smoking system|proposed draft]]) or go back to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&diff=next&oldid=875440034 January 9, 2019] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&oldid=875440034 December 26, 2018 version] or current version? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 01:01, 19 February 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 hatnote 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 dates are consistently written throughout this article. For example, June 26, 2014 is the standard for this article rather than 26 June 2014 for the dates. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:RETAIN. Dekimasuよ! 05:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Per the discussion below, this is a moot issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- What I was originally asking was not accurate and I was not explaining it properly. @Ivanvector: this RfC can be closed. See discussion below. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." See MOS:RETAIN.
"If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." See MOS:DATERET. QuackGuru (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This issue didn't require an RFC. If, at the time it was tagged, the article used primarily British English, then it should stay that way. However, per my edit summary in this diff, I've removed that tag because the article contained primarily American English at that time. Simply adding a British English tag to the article doesn't necessitate changes to all the spelling; it's supposed to inform future editors that the current version uses that form of English and future edits should as well. If that's not the case, such as with this article in this diff, then the tag needs to be removed. Hence, I've removed the tag. As for the DMY dates, I'll check what the article currently uses more often (DMY vs MDY) and set all the dates to the majority format. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
DMY was used far more frequently than MDY, so MOS:DATERET indicates that's what should be used unless there's consensus to change it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- The citations use dates such as 24 August 2016 but the text in the body of the article where editors read the article uses dates such as June 26, 2014. I was not clear in my proposal. My mistake.
- Please check the article history. See "The introduction of iQOS (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking[8]) was announced on June 26, 2014.[34]"[3]
- Per MOS:DATERET and per WP:RETAIN we should retain the dates such as June 26, 2014. See back in May 2017 for the date in the body of the article. See "Heatsticks is marketed under the "Marlboro brand" by Philip Morris. Introduction of the product was announced June 26, 2014 in Richmond, Virginia."[4] QuackGuru (talk)
A sock puppet originally added the dmy dates and British English tags. QuackGuru (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I will set the reference dates to DMY, but the body dates to MDY. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)- Nevermind, the datenum script doesn't seem to allow me to do that despite including it as an option. I assume the references need to be included in the article like in order for the script to recognize the different between a body date and a reference date. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think it's a big deal. Amphetamine and Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid are FAs that, like this article, use both American English and DMY date formats. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "The introduction of IQOS was announced on 26 June 2014.[60]"
- Change to "The introduction of IQOS was announced on June 26, 2014.[60]" per long standing consensus.
- @Seppi333: if the date for the body of the article is changed to June 26, 2014 then this issue would be moot. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to manually change the body dates to MDY, be my guest. I support that if you feel it necessary, however, keep in mind the WP:MOSNUMscript will overwrite all of your changes whenever it's used in the article to standardize reference dates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:RFCCLOSE, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 02:47, 30 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)
- Oppose. This RfC was subsumed into a later one. This data is bulky, there is no evidence that this data is generally representative, and some evidence that it hinders understanding (a study found that people told that levels of some harmful substances are lower incorrectly take this to imply that the smoke is less harmful). HLHJ (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of your position rather than assertion there is an issue with the table.
- See the draft page. "Exposure to mutagenic and other harmful substances is lower than with traditional cigarettes.[15] However, reduced exposure to harmful substances does not mean that health risks are equally reduced.[15] Even low exposure increases the risks for cancers, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases compared to non-smokers.[15]" See Draft:Electric smoking system#Emissions. The draft does explain that lower levels of some harmful substances do not mean that the aerosol is less harmful. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your proposed text seems to me to imply that these products are lower-risk than conventional cigarettes. I don't think this is justified by the evidence. I believe that it is the case that the reduction of concentrations of some mutagenic and otherwise harmful substances does not necessarily imply any observable reduction in risk (as was the case with ventilated cigarettes, which have lower concentrations of assorted nasties, but are not safer than regular cigarettes, though the diseases killing users change a bit). There are a large number of unstudied compounds in the smoke. Some have been seen at higher levels in smoke from these cigarettes that in smoke from standard cigarettes. Others have not been looked for yet. If any of these are mutagenic or otherwise harmful when inhaled, that could plausibly also have an effect on the risk profile. Fundamentally, we won't know if these things are safer until we have long-term human observational studies, decades after their market introduction, as it seems as if no-one did any studies on the ones that came out in the eighties (Sarah at PMI, I think I asked before, but I don't think you saw it; does PMI know of any studies observing effects on human health from decades-ago or multi-year use of these devices?).
- The table is taken from a source that you are, elsewhere on this page, criticizing as inadequate to support the statement that independent researchers dispute claims that these devices are "smoke-free". It calls the emissions it is analyzing "smoke". Do you consider the source adequate for a large table of quantitative data, but inadequate for the use of the word "smoke"? Could you explain why? HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are better sources available for "smoke". The draft does make it clear about the smoke in the lede and body using a 2018 review.
- I stated above "See Draft:Electric smoking system#Emissions. The draft does explain that lower levels of some harmful substances do not mean that the aerosol is less harmful." This *is* justified by the evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, QG, are you now arguing that the term "smoke" is supported by reliable sources (sources better than the one you wish to cite)? Or that the source you wish to cite, while supporting "smoke", should be ignored in favour of better sources which evaluate the merits of calling the emissions "smoke"? HLHJ (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Responding specifically to HLHJ's note about clinical studies and research. PMI has conducted a six-month clinical study involving approximately 500 each of people who switched to IQOS or continued smoking cigarettes, showing a clear difference between the two groups. Info on that here (page 6) and here. This study is the closest thing I am aware of to what you're asking for - I don't know about a study like this for the older products, nor something conducted independently.
- To your point about these products being or not being reduced-risk compared to cigarettes, saying
"I don't think this is justified by the evidence."
I'd argue that our focus should not be on what the evidence does or doesn't support, and more generally not on what specific researchers have said/concluded from their research. We should be focusing on who the topic experts are and how they summarize the available evidence of others. This comes from my noob understanding of MEDRS, so feel free to disagree and help me understand where I might be mistaken. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)- OK, not supported by the balance of reliable sources. Six months is sadly not long enough to see the risk of really important harms, like cancer, strokes, and death; my guess is that a six-month study of cigarettes vs. nothing would only find throat irritation, reduced lung capacity, and other minor effects. Since many smokers quit without aids, and half of the people using IQOS seem never to have used cigarettes, IQOS vs. nothing would be a more clinically useful comparison than IQOS vs. cigarettes. HLHJ (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I couldn't be more helpful with additional references. Per the sources I linked above, the endpoints in this study are associated with respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (if you want to know which endpoints were measured, they're listed on page 6 in the PDF). They were chosen because they're known to improve measurably around the 6 month mark in people who've quit. IQOS cannot be better than quitting (I assume we agree on that), and so the goal of this study was to see whether switching from cigarettes to IQOS can make a measurable difference compared to continued smoking over that same 6 months. I understand that this study likely won't make it to the article text, but your comment does not accurately reflect the design or the goals of the study. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I meant to say that the design or the goals of the study do not reflect what I want to know. Parallel trials of switching to IQOS or switching to ventilated cigarettes show similar reductions in the sort of proxy endpoints generally studied in PMI's studies (biomarkers, physiological responses). However, we have long-term data on ventilated cigarettes, and we know that they aren't actually less likely to cause serious suffering and death than regular cigarettes; in other words, the proxies you cite seem to be bad proxies. We also know that very similar marketing, touting these proxy results and calling ventilated cigarettes "light", caused people to falsely believe that smoking "light" cigarettes was better for their health. We know that people chose to switch rather than quit as a result of this false belief; faced with the sheer misery of withdrawal and repeated past failures to quit, smokers were all too willing to believe there was an easier alternative. We know from internal tobacco industry documents that creating this false confidence and discouraging quitting was an intent behind the marketing. It worked (see nicotine marketing and history of nicotine marketing).
- I think this fairly clearly implies that this marketing killed people. You are now working on a parallel piece of marketing.
- I'm truly sorry that you are in this situation, and I think society must carry a large share of the blame. HLHJ (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems this discussion is getting a bit off topic. Since I've already made my !vote below, I'll just close out by saying that the research program we have going now is miles beyond what's been done in the past. Our research is peer-reviewed and open access for anyone who is interested. Cheers! Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I couldn't be more helpful with additional references. Per the sources I linked above, the endpoints in this study are associated with respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (if you want to know which endpoints were measured, they're listed on page 6 in the PDF). They were chosen because they're known to improve measurably around the 6 month mark in people who've quit. IQOS cannot be better than quitting (I assume we agree on that), and so the goal of this study was to see whether switching from cigarettes to IQOS can make a measurable difference compared to continued smoking over that same 6 months. I understand that this study likely won't make it to the article text, but your comment does not accurately reflect the design or the goals of the study. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, not supported by the balance of reliable sources. Six months is sadly not long enough to see the risk of really important harms, like cancer, strokes, and death; my guess is that a six-month study of cigarettes vs. nothing would only find throat irritation, reduced lung capacity, and other minor effects. Since many smokers quit without aids, and half of the people using IQOS seem never to have used cigarettes, IQOS vs. nothing would be a more clinically useful comparison than IQOS vs. cigarettes. HLHJ (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- The table is taken from a source that you are, elsewhere on this page, criticizing as inadequate to support the statement that independent researchers dispute claims that these devices are "smoke-free". It calls the emissions it is analyzing "smoke". Do you consider the source adequate for a large table of quantitative data, but inadequate for the use of the word "smoke"? Could you explain why? HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. based on MEDRS. Inserting this table lends significant weight to a single primary reference. Rather than this table, it would be better to have a sentence or two describing the views/conclusions of various experts/organizations who have reviewed the research of others on the aerosol from this product/category. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Opposed (invited randomly by a bot) We should be sourcing this data from review articles not a primary source. Also the lack of discipline in reserving discussion for the Comments section, rather than the !vote section, suggests POV. IMO the NOM should not be inserting comments here. I will not respond to any comments on my !vote here. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments on table
- There is a new table sourced to a 2018 review added to the draft. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Comparison_to_mainstream_smoke_of_traditional_cigarettes. The new table makes this RfC moot. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
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): 25599. Bibcode:2016NatSR...625599V. 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)
- No, I mean where you replace a picture of IQOS that shows scale and refill packs with a very lightbox white-on-white image that shows little detail and was supplied by Phillip Morris. It looks like a textbook example for how to photograph your products for high sales volume. I don't recall how long the former had been in the article.
- For disclosure, QuackGuru, I noticed you had some of the files I uploaded to commons renamed to remove the words "smoke" and "cigarette". I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner, but I disagreed with those changes. HLHJ (talk) 06:01, 30 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)
- Nope. I'm checking our media center, and our global press releases didn't go out at a time that should have prompted the Jan 9th or 12th activity. I believe you refer to our UK affiliate's announcement last year of their new year's resolution to give up cigarettes - we've done nothing like that this year that I'm aware of. Not sure what's caught reporters' attention this time around. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Older versions or expanded version
Should we support the expanded version (proposed draft) or go back to the January 9, 2019 or the December 26, 2018 version or current version? QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support for the updated 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 Draft:Electric smoking system#Health effects section and Draft:Electric smoking system#Regulation section was significantly expanded. New sections include Draft:Electric smoking system#Prevalence and Draft:Electric smoking system#Marketing. The lede was also improved and expanded using many high quality sources as well as adding neutral content. See Draft:Electric smoking system 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 added a new image to the draft. See and at the bottom of Draft:Electric smoking system#Prevalence. @PawełMM: thanks again for uploading the image. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 29 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.(outdated) I have been continuing to add content to the article, some of which QG has modified and added to QG's draft.
- 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.
Anchored statement: Any claim in the article 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. 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)
- Noting a previous RfC, which discussed how content in the form "X is marketed as Y" can be included and critiqued: "We should prefer sources which directly refer to the marketing claims, though sources that address the same health claims as a marketing claim can be used sparingly if no direct critique is available and an alternative source is needed to accord due weight."
- QG, I had already addressed your individual claims of MEDRS violations individually below, but from your post above I don't think I can have made myself understood. I do not understand your interpretation of criteria for when MEDRS are needed. Is it your position that describing claims made by tobacco companies does not need MEDRS, but describing claims made by independent scientists does, even if the one claim is a negation of the other? HLHJ (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why exactly are marketing claims even being covered in this article to begin with? Including those in an article like this seems like an indiscriminate collection of facts about product marketing given that this article encompasses a number of different brands. Considering how much discussion has taken place on this issue, including these is clearly a can of worms, so why not just delete the claims altogether and state the actual evidence?
- Writing something like "
Product is marketed as XYZ, but evidence suggests ABC
" or "Product is marketed as XYZ, which is supported by evidence
" is just verbose and unnecessary when you could just say "Evidence suggests ABC/XYZ about Product
". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is that these products produce smoke under correct use conditions; it is what they are designed to do. I think due weight will probably require, at a minimum, coverage of the marketing names of these products (as marketing claims, not as facts), and their accuracy. One of the products, IQOS, is strikingly dominant in market share and in coverage by reliable sources, and the article reflects that. There's sources like an entire four-part Reuters investigation, largely covering marketing efforts, broadly construed[5]; one of the sections is called "How Philip Morris is selling regulators on its hot new smoking device", so the balance of reliable sources may require more extensive coverage of marketing, but this is a separate issue. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Template:Support there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support change to Draft:Electric smoking system. There are maybe 100 individual points under contention here and it is not possible to debate them all. If the arguments are to be ongoing then maybe there can be resolution by routine large jumps to particular versions. In that scheme, maybe there could be debate for 6 months on individual points, then about every 6 months whoever wants to nominate an entire revision can do so and there can be discussion on selecting that revision.
- In this case the current version is about 17k and the proposed version is 50k. In general, I favor keeping more well-referenced information in Wikipedia. I try to avoid Wikipedia:Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics, and am in favor of having more content in Wikipedia. Popular articles like this one (16k/month, which I think is top 0.1% by popularity) should be solid in the 30-50k range if possible per Wikipedia:Article size. If it gets much longer then probably some aspect of this could be subdivided, but the content should have a home somewhere in Wikipedia.
- Since the advent of these devices all related articles have continually been among the most contentious in Wikipedia. Overall, I like the debates and I think WP:WikiProject Medicine does also, which I identify as the community most concerned with the content. I do worry that the debates are too nuanced for causal contribution and wish there was an obvious way to get more editors here. This is not a good place for new editors, but I do wish experienced editors who were new to this topic could better engage.
- I do not think that there has ever been a WP:Status quo here so I see no reason to avoid sweeping changes. I agree with HLHJ that Quackguru's proposal is not concise or easy to read. However, I would say that about most articles in this category. My !vote is for revolution and seeing what can come next after I have seen over the years a series of blocks in article development. Good luck with this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments on older versions or expanded 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)."[6] 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."[7] 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]"[8] 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."[7] 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]"[8] 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."[9] 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."[10] 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."[11] 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."[12] 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."[13] User:Ozzie10aaaa agreed.[14] 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]".[15][16] 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."[17]
- 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."[18]
- 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."[19] 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 Draft:Electric smoking system#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)
- An image showing one of these charring cigarettes, used, and split open to show the charring, would be a useful addition to the article, but we don't have such an image.
- This image serves a different purpose. I'm likening charring tobacco to charring pizza, as an analogy to illustrate charring. The charring process is generally common to organic matter. I think most readers will be familiar with charring food, but will not immediately think of it when they hear "char", so I think the analogy will increase comprehension. I take it from Seppi333's revert comment ("this isn't encyclopedic coverage of the topic: cover it directly, not through an analogy") that it is analogy itself that is considered unencyclopedic. I don't understand this, and I'm willing to hear arguments to that effect. HLHJ (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're missing the point: how does this article topic have anything to do with pizza?
- FWIW, I'd never immediately associate "char" with food given that I've never been dumb enough to leave something in a high-temperature oven until it's incinerated. I associated that term with this, which is probably the most common form of charring an individual encounters in daily life. But again, burnt firewood is not burnt tobacco, so that is not a suitable image for this article. Read the first two paragraphs of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and it should be clear as to why that is the case. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Seppi333, and sorry I misunderstood. I agree that the article has nothing to do with pizza; so I didn't go looking for pizza images, but images of charring. I didn't look for an image of firewood, because that generally first chars and then burns oxidatively, releasing the carbon; not the process I was trying to illustrate. I may be unrepresentatively bad. I've charred food lots of times: burnt it to the bottom of a pot, left it too long in the fire or oven, you name it. I've never baked anything until it was quite as badly charred as that pizza, but I can easily imagine the process, including, critically, the aerosols it would produce. Can other people also imagine this? Is there some other image that would bring these ideas more vividly to mind?
- There are not as many photos of charred anything on Commons as I expected, and I was glad to find this one, as flatbread (and more modernly pizza) is a fairly widespread food. I think it meets those two paragraphs; it is an "illustrative aid to understanding" charring, and while the photo does not look much like pizza (I would not illustrate the pizza article with it), it does look like a charred thing. The sample photo at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is a poor illustration of a helicopter and the Sydney Opera House, but a good illustration of an image that fails to show its putative subjects (avoiding Russell's paradox here). I'm open to suggestions of other images that would communicate the idea "charring". I would support the inclusion of any images showing these products in use or used, as I think this is a major omission in the article, but obviously I don't know, sight unseen, if such an image would illustrate charring as well. Do you have suggestions for how we should illustrate charring, given the images we currently have? HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: Have you considered just buying some loose tobacco, burning it, taking a photo, and uploading the image to commons? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: I did think about finding and taking photos of the low-T cigarettes, if they are available locally, though I haven't ever uploaded photos to Commons; not really my thing. If I used leaves, then unless I was very careful to just char it (by excluding oxygen? by adding humectants and large amounts of water, as these products do?), the photo would show oxidative combustion. Showing charring of a dark-brown substance would be difficult. Also, the dominant product here is filled with a dried film of tobacco slurry with some additives, rather than leaves. I'm not sure such a photo is the clearest way to bring a solid impression of charring to the minds of readers. I don't object to removing the image if we agree on a more vivid one to replace it, but I think it better than the lack of image we currently have. Charring is a very visual thing and I think we should show it. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: I can't image that it would be illegal in your jurisdiction to just buy an unadultered tobacco leaf via an online vendor. Using the same "additives" that these devices mix in with it should not be hard to duplicate. Also, uploading an image to commons is extremely straightforward and only takes like 30-60 seconds: you add a license (use the default one: CC-BY-SA-4.0), the date the image was produced, and a file description... and you're done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was doubting whether I could readily find people using these devices, not the legality of tobacco leaves. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to order tobacco leaves online, simplify a list of dozens of ingredients down to the ones I think essential, source them via a chemical supply, mix them, burn them, take a photo which I don't think will show the subject well, and upload it. It sounds time-consuming. I know these are personal judgments, but it would not be fun, and I don't believe it would be very useful (which makes me mildly uneasy about the ethics), and I don't want to spend time and money on it. I don't have any objection to others suggesting, or even creating and suggesting, more suitable images. HLHJ (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: This took all of 2 minutes to find on google images - that's licensed under
{{CC-BY-2.0}}
. Upload it to Commons, select that copyright license, credit "vaping360.com/iqos-phillip-morris/ (Vaping360)" as the original author, and specify https://www.flickr.com/photos/vaping360/31014691033 as the source of the image. Also, that does not look charred, so I'm wondering why you're suggesting that these devices burn tobacco anywhere close to the extent of that pizza. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)- The image was added to the draft without stating it was charring. That would not be neutral or verifiable. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Construction. QuackGuru (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Seppi333, that's a really good find. The heating element impales the tobacco and heats it from the center, so most of the charring is in the interior. This image from the same photoshoot[20], in which the tobacco is broken apart, shows it much better; the good outdoor light helps make the charring visible. Like the Flicker page you linked to, the source page says "free to use only when crediting image", but unlike the Flicker page, it does not seem to explicitly provide a license. I think a crop of this image would work for this section, if the photographer is willing to license it. How do others feel? HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- The image was added to the draft without stating it was charring. That would not be neutral or verifiable. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Construction. QuackGuru (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: This took all of 2 minutes to find on google images - that's licensed under
- I was doubting whether I could readily find people using these devices, not the legality of tobacco leaves. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to order tobacco leaves online, simplify a list of dozens of ingredients down to the ones I think essential, source them via a chemical supply, mix them, burn them, take a photo which I don't think will show the subject well, and upload it. It sounds time-consuming. I know these are personal judgments, but it would not be fun, and I don't believe it would be very useful (which makes me mildly uneasy about the ethics), and I don't want to spend time and money on it. I don't have any objection to others suggesting, or even creating and suggesting, more suitable images. HLHJ (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: I can't image that it would be illegal in your jurisdiction to just buy an unadultered tobacco leaf via an online vendor. Using the same "additives" that these devices mix in with it should not be hard to duplicate. Also, uploading an image to commons is extremely straightforward and only takes like 30-60 seconds: you add a license (use the default one: CC-BY-SA-4.0), the date the image was produced, and a file description... and you're done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: I did think about finding and taking photos of the low-T cigarettes, if they are available locally, though I haven't ever uploaded photos to Commons; not really my thing. If I used leaves, then unless I was very careful to just char it (by excluding oxygen? by adding humectants and large amounts of water, as these products do?), the photo would show oxidative combustion. Showing charring of a dark-brown substance would be difficult. Also, the dominant product here is filled with a dried film of tobacco slurry with some additives, rather than leaves. I'm not sure such a photo is the clearest way to bring a solid impression of charring to the minds of readers. I don't object to removing the image if we agree on a more vivid one to replace it, but I think it better than the lack of image we currently have. Charring is a very visual thing and I think we should show it. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: Have you considered just buying some loose tobacco, burning it, taking a photo, and uploading the image to commons? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
That looks charred. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that I think the focus should rather be on the contents of the aerosol the users inhale, I do think these two photos are much more on-topic than a four-hour overbaked pizza. Thanks both of you for finding these. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulty contacting the source page authors and asking them to include a legal CC-BY license as well as a colloquial-english permission; if someone who is on a social media platforms they use could do so, I'd be grateful, and if they do and you ping me, I'll upload it. HLHJ (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not something the {{helpme}} template is meant for. The website does have a contact form, though. If that doesn't work, then I doubt contacting them on social media would work. Huon (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulty contacting the source page authors and asking them to include a legal CC-BY license as well as a colloquial-english permission; if someone who is on a social media platforms they use could do so, I'd be grateful, and if they do and you ping me, I'll upload it. HLHJ (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:, I have respect for principles over partisanship, and I'm all in favour of avoiding ossification of articles. I'm also in favour of expansion. If there are specific bits of information you feel should be added to the article, please let me know. I'm trying to get around to it. I'd be really happy if others would contribute. Looking through the edit history of the page, I've been making most of the green content-expansion edits for the past year...
I'm not sure how long QuackGuru has been working on the draft, but it is longer than the page history of the page posted here, as I first saw it, by chance, in late December. I should really have raised the issue then. The draft looks like a lot of work, and I'm surprised and somewhat upset that QG never mentioned it in our discussions of this article. I'm also not happy that the article was replaced by an earlier version of the draft, without discussion, in early January, just before a surge of media coverage of the article topic, and a surge in page views. I like debates, but this does not feel like one. It lacks substantive interaction.
I'm not sure that having an RfC on drafts twice a year would have the effect you are looking for. I think it might tend to look less like consensus and more like Duverger's law, with increasing polarization. It would also raise the bar to entry very high; you'd have to write an entire draft, then argue for it. I don't think many part-time editors would have the time to do this well. Also, old editors, like new editors, generally want to see that their edits have some effect; putting in a huge amount of work and then having it all rejected, an inevitable outcome of a Battle of the Drafts, would be extremely discouraging, and seems likely to decrease editor engagement with the topic. Having all informal consensus overturned every six months would mean that the only way to bring about lasting changes to the article would be to put effort into RfCs on article content, rather than article content; I'm doing far too much of that for my taste already. Any suggestions on how to get around these problems? HLHJ (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have looked at every edit. Anything that was worth adding to the draft is already in the draft. The POV and other misleading content was left out of the draft. Who added mass MEDRS violations and other problems to this article? Almost all the new content added to this article is a problem. The article contains mass vague and ambiguous content. The draft contains detailed accurate content. The current article has an activist tone. The current article is also littered with mass failed verification content. Even the first sentence fails verification. Once those problems are not repeated there will be no more problems.
- There is way too many problems with the current version. For example, there is original research and failed verification content and misleading content. This article is in very poor shape. For example, every sentence in "Nature and function" is complete junk.
- You mentioned in another thread that the E-cigarette marketing is currently in poor shape. How about you redirect the page and let me fix the problems with that page? It would take me about 1 or 2 weeks to fix all the problems and create a massive article. QuackGuru (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments on MEDRS
I tagged sources that are MEDRS violations. They are not reviews and thus fails MEDRS. See "another problem: Based entirely on primary MEDRS sources, and non-MEDRS sources."[21] The issues have not been resolved. Please read my comment posted on 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC) above. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed these... below, I think. Could we please try to keep sections focussed on a single topic? This page is getting very confusing. (comment added when this was part of the discussion of the pizza image)HLHJ (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Is the content tagged with [unreliable medical source?] in the "Nature and function" section and other sections WP:MEDRS violations. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I read the sentences cited by sources that were tagged with
{{ums}}
and looked at the publication types listing of those sources on pubmed. All of the sources are indeed primary; those sentences do need to be cited by a MEDRS-compliant secondary source per my #anchored statement about medical claims and product function claims that imply a health-modifying effect. - Also, regarding:
While the nicotine is the main addictive component in tobacco, some pyrolysis products of tobacco are thought to reinforce addiction (such as acetaldehyde, norharman, and harman).
Based upon the norharman and harman articles, those compounds don't appear to have any pharmacological targets relevant to addiction (the benzodiazepine receptor IS implicated in dependence though); acetaldehyde is sort of like ethanol in the sense that it borks the function of many proteins, including those expressed in the nucleus accumbens shell, so it's plausible that acetaldehyde is addictive. Nonetheless, it's very well-established that nicotine is the principal addictive agent in tobacco (per every source I've ever read about tobacco/nicotine addiction). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- The McKelvey, Moazed, and St. Helen sources are reviews of different subsets of the multimillion-page no-idea-how-many-separate-studies IQOS application to the FDA. While PubMed does not classify them as systematic reviews, I believe that they are secondary sources within the meaning of WP:MEDRS ("A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies"), as I've said somewhere else on this page at least once, as I recall...
- Another issue is the combination of MEDRS sources and non-MEDRS sources to support different parts of statements. For instance, where the article says :
However, independent researchers explicitly disagree with the claim that they are smokeless,[30][31][unreliable medical source?][32][33] arguing that[34] the emitted aerosol is smoke, as it contains pyrolysis products.[17]
- Here, journalistic sources (the Washington Post and National Public Radio) are used to source the attribution of the dispute; who said what. I have also given MEDRS for the clause "the emitted aerosol is smoke, as it contains pyrolysis products". I think it is legitimate to include journalistic coverage of a dispute over a biomedical claim, though in this cas Wikipedia's voice does not actually state which view is supported by MEDRS, and perhaps it should. Similarly, in
Independent researchers studying the aerosols produced by heat-not-burn products commonly[35][unreliable medical source?][33] call those aerosols "smoke";[33]
- Again, the non-medrs source is just used to show that this use of the word "smoke" is common; the MEDRS at the end states firmly that it is smoke. All of the independent sources which explicitly evaluate the smoke claim say it's smoke.
- I would not in the least argue that nicotine is not the main addictive agent. I think "What do the pyrolysis products do then?" is relevant to this section, and would welcome better content and sourcing for it; Seppi333, you'd probably be better able to do this than I, if you have time.
- I agree that the Washington Post is not MEDRS, but not that there are biomedical statements not backed by MEDRS in the article; please name any you find. Why is the content unencyclopedic? We have a consensus that it's smoke. Disagree with deletion. HLHJ (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- See "However, independent researchers explicitly disagree with the claim that they are smokeless," That is a biomedical statement and it is essentially duplication of other content in the same section about smoke. We don't have a consensus that aerosol is smoke. They are completely different things. The source does not state aerosol is smoke. That is the reason it is unencyclopedic content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the Washington Post is not MEDRS, but not that there are biomedical statements not backed by MEDRS in the article; please name any you find. Why is the content unencyclopedic? We have a consensus that it's smoke. Disagree with deletion. HLHJ (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The medical sources reviewing PMI's FDA application, which you challenged, are all summarized and briefly described in this source.[1] Do you consider these FDA-application-review sources secondary, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments on tagged Dautzenberg French-language review
You comment-tagged the French systematic review as failed-verification, QuackGuru; is it just a translation issue, or do you doubt the content's accuracy? HLHJ (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide verification for "Independent researchers studying the aerosols produced by heat-not-burn products commonly[33][unreliable medical source?] call those aerosols "smoke";[18] Prior to 2016, Phillip Morris did the same.[18]".
- The content about aerosols being called "smoke" does not make any sense because smoke and aerosol are not the same. The content is unencyclopedic and poorly written.
- Please also provide verification for "However, independent researchers explicitly disagree with the claim that they are smokeless,[30][31][unreliable medical source?][18]" from the same review. The review should also verify the part "independent researchers" and the word "smokeless". This content is very similar to stating it is "smoke". There is no need to repeat the same thing twice in different words. It is essentially duplication.
- Using the review that actually says more, which paragraph in the review you want to summarise? I did not find it yet. QuackGuru (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The problems with the Nature and function section have not been fixed for quite some time. Disputed content about smoke in this article was added to another article. The same citation is repeated in multiple locations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- The same citation is repeated with different quote; sadly currently the only way to use multiple separate quotes from a source is to make separate citations, see this discussion. That content about smoke in the other article is sourced to this review, which seems a solid MEDRS; the content is equivalent to the bit of this article which goes "call those aerosols "smoke";[33] Prior to 2016, Phillip Morris did the same.[17]", which you have not tagged. If you are disputing it, could you please explain why? HLHJ (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I requested verification for content above. Verification was not provided for the disputed content.
- The following is more duplication: "call those aerosols "smoke";[33]". An aerosol is not smoke. The content is poorly written to claim an aerosol is smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- The same citation is repeated with different quote; sadly currently the only way to use multiple separate quotes from a source is to make separate citations, see this discussion. That content about smoke in the other article is sourced to this review, which seems a solid MEDRS; the content is equivalent to the bit of this article which goes "call those aerosols "smoke";[33] Prior to 2016, Phillip Morris did the same.[17]", which you have not tagged. If you are disputing it, could you please explain why? HLHJ (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Dauzenberg review explicitly evaluates the claim that the aerosol is not smoke, and states that it is smoke. I don't think it uses the word "smokeless", because it is in French. As I recall, it refers to a claim that the products are "« non-fumeur »". Smoke is a type of aerosol. The same review also calls Auer "un scientifique suisse indépendant" ("an independent Swiss scientist"), and carefully categorizes all the papers, with a summary count in Table 1; one column is "Universitaires et autres scientifiques indépendants" (university researchers and other independent scientists). The Washington Post calls all the Auer et al. authors "independent researchers". The COI statements of the papers using the word "smoke" also assert independence, if not using that exact word. I think that verifies the content about which you ask; please specify any other claims you want verified, but please check the quotes in the citations first. I've tried another format for the citations; if it works, I could use it for some of the others. HLHJ (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- See "Tableau 1. Les revues scientifiques ayant publié les 100 articles identifiés selon l’origine des auteurs"[22] and see "Universitaires et autres scientifiques indépendants"[23] That's not about smoke or aerosol. That's about the scientific journals. That does not verify the current claim in the article about smoke. See "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés." That translates to "At high concentrations (50 μg/L of nicotine in the HRT 2.2 aerosol), however, the effects are measurable on all parameters studied."[24] I was only able to find the word aérosol mentioned once in the source and that does not verify the claim that the emitted aerosol is smoke. l’aérosol is about the THS2.2 device. That verifies it produces aerosol. These products produces both aerosol and smoke. The current wording makes no sense when it claims aerosol is smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Dauzenberg review explicitly evaluates the claim that the aerosol is not smoke, and states that it is smoke. I don't think it uses the word "smokeless", because it is in French. As I recall, it refers to a claim that the products are "« non-fumeur »". Smoke is a type of aerosol. The same review also calls Auer "un scientifique suisse indépendant" ("an independent Swiss scientist"), and carefully categorizes all the papers, with a summary count in Table 1; one column is "Universitaires et autres scientifiques indépendants" (university researchers and other independent scientists). The Washington Post calls all the Auer et al. authors "independent researchers". The COI statements of the papers using the word "smoke" also assert independence, if not using that exact word. I think that verifies the content about which you ask; please specify any other claims you want verified, but please check the quotes in the citations first. I've tried another format for the citations; if it works, I could use it for some of the others. HLHJ (talk) 04:43, 5 February 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)
- Ah. "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" was a dreadful page name, and pretty much anything would have been an improvement, but I seriously expected this to be about smoking meat with wood chips heated by electricity. Before I even bother trying to come up with a better name, could someone please explain in plain language in what way this is different from an Electronic cigarette? Are there any sources that distinguish between the two? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- See this updated version and read the first paragraph. I recommend moving it to "Heated tobacco product". QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- So basically an electronic cigarette heats and vaporizes a liquid with an electric heater and a heated tobacco product heats actual tobacco with an electric heater? Can the heated tobacco product be used to heat other kinds of leaves, such as marijuana? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- This suggests you can use some forms of dried tobacco in a "dried herb" vaporizer (i.e. the ones marketed for cannabis) but it may not be a manufacturer-sanctioned function. All of the vaporizers I've seen marketed to cannabis users here are dry herb vaporizers, and some have adapters for liquid concentrates, whether they use special cartridges or just have a refillable reservoir. I always thought vapes made for tobacco used liquid concentrate cartridges exclusively, but I have no experience with them at all.
- Question related to this and the move request: is this article meant to be about the device used for vaping or the product that goes in it? Or both? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- The tobacco that is heated is the scope of the article. There could be heated tobacco products that use herbs or even use liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can use these for cannabis; as I recall the article did mention this at some point. Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse. Using this product is not vaping (though the large amount of moisture incorporated in the cigarettes mixes the smoke with large amounts of wet steam, which could give the impression that it is water vapour). The cigarettes that go into the devices seem to be proprietary and device-specific, but obviously the loose-leaf-fill devices can take anything. So the article covers both the electric charring devices and their product-specific refills. HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The current article does not mention cannabis but the draft does. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Firefly 2 for content about cannabis. A few of these products can use cannibals. There are hybrid products that also use liquid. See Draft:Electric smoking system for content about using liquid. For example, "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.[17]" It is vaping when a product uses liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can use these for cannabis; as I recall the article did mention this at some point. Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse. Using this product is not vaping (though the large amount of moisture incorporated in the cigarettes mixes the smoke with large amounts of wet steam, which could give the impression that it is water vapour). The cigarettes that go into the devices seem to be proprietary and device-specific, but obviously the loose-leaf-fill devices can take anything. So the article covers both the electric charring devices and their product-specific refills. HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The tobacco that is heated is the scope of the article. There could be heated tobacco products that use herbs or even use liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- So basically an electronic cigarette heats and vaporizes a liquid with an electric heater and a heated tobacco product heats actual tobacco with an electric heater? Can the heated tobacco product be used to heat other kinds of leaves, such as marijuana? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- See this updated version and read the first paragraph. I recommend moving it to "Heated tobacco product". QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah. "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" was a dreadful page name, and pretty much anything would have been an improvement, but I seriously expected this to be about smoking meat with wood chips heated by electricity. Before I even bother trying to come up with a better name, could someone please explain in plain language in what way this is different from an Electronic cigarette? Are there any sources that distinguish between the two? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for title change
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This has become an intractable wall of text, badly formatted RM requests, and people talking at cross purposes. As such I don't see much prospect of pulling any actionable consensus out of it. I suggest that the discussion regarding suitable terminology can continue outside of the RM process, and then a new proposal formed for a sensible alternative name, that people can support or oppose. — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
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) --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]"[25] 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).[26] 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.[27] 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
— [28]
- @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)
- Regarding your claim that "The term 'Heat-not-burn tobacco product' is the only common name consumers recognize", do you have any evidence supporting that claim? My informal searching seems to indicate that the majority of consumers (whether correctly or not) call both products "E-Cigarettes". I just don't see most people making a distinction. To them, anything that has a battery and delivers nicotine when you suck on it is an "E-Cig". I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Read this article and this article to understand the difference between e-cigs and heat-not-burn tobacco products.
- 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).[13]" See Draft:Electric smoking system#Marketing. The term "heat-not-burn" means the temperature is a bit lower than regular cigarettes. Companies advertise these products as "heat-not-burn" products. It uniquely identifies these products. Consumers recognize the term "heat-not-burn" tobacco products. Other names have been used but they are vague or ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could it be possible that you replied in haste without taking the time to understand what I wrote? Or (more likely) could it be that what I wrote was not clear? I wrote "I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them" and you responded with two references to people who research them, followed by a mention of people who sell them. You once again asserted that "Consumers recognize the term 'heat-not-burn' tobacco products". I assert that consumers recognize the term "E-Cigarettes" for the tobacco product and the fluid product. Neither on of us have been able to find a reliable source to back up our assertion. My assertion is from some informal searching of Youtube, Reddit, and various blogs (Not RS). What is your assertion based upon? Have you even looked for ordinary people (not just scientists, manufacturers or anti-tobacco groups) calling electric devices that heat tobacco "E-cigs"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "According to a recent internet survey of Japanese adolescents and adults, 48.0% of respondents were aware of HNB tobacco products and 19.8% of 15- to 19-year-olds had tried the IQOS."[29] That shows consumer recognize the term heat-not-burn tobacco products. E-cigarettes heat fluid. Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat a tobacco stick or loose tobacco. They are different products. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- From that paper: "These products are regulated differently in Japan, depending on whether the contents are liquid or tobacco leaf."
- So of course consumer in japan don't use the same name for them. And how is what they are called in the Japanese language relevant to an English name on the English Wikipedia?
- Also, why do you keep writing things like "They are different products"? Are you under the impression that common usage never calls two different things by the same name? See Koala bears, Polar bears, and Panda bears or Indians (native Americans) and Indians (people from India) or Buffalo (Southeast Asia) and Buffalo (American southwest). What people call something is often not even close to what it really is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, as far as "That shows consumer recognize the term heat-not-burn tobacco products," it shows no such thing, as I explained a few days ago. People in Japan are using words in Japanese and basically never use the English-language phrase "heat-not-burn". The term "kanestushiki tabako" is not equivalent to "heat-not-burn tobacco products" even in direct translation. (Thank you, by the way, for using edit summaries recently.) Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "According to a recent internet survey of Japanese adolescents and adults, 48.0% of respondents were aware of HNB tobacco products and 19.8% of 15- to 19-year-olds had tried the IQOS."[29] That shows consumer recognize the term heat-not-burn tobacco products. E-cigarettes heat fluid. Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat a tobacco stick or loose tobacco. They are different products. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could it be possible that you replied in haste without taking the time to understand what I wrote? Or (more likely) could it be that what I wrote was not clear? I wrote "I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them" and you responded with two references to people who research them, followed by a mention of people who sell them. You once again asserted that "Consumers recognize the term 'heat-not-burn' tobacco products". I assert that consumers recognize the term "E-Cigarettes" for the tobacco product and the fluid product. Neither on of us have been able to find a reliable source to back up our assertion. My assertion is from some informal searching of Youtube, Reddit, and various blogs (Not RS). What is your assertion based upon? Have you even looked for ordinary people (not just scientists, manufacturers or anti-tobacco groups) calling electric devices that heat tobacco "E-cigs"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding your claim that "The term 'Heat-not-burn tobacco product' is the only common name consumers recognize", do you have any evidence supporting that claim? My informal searching seems to indicate that the majority of consumers (whether correctly or not) call both products "E-Cigarettes". I just don't see most people making a distinction. To them, anything that has a battery and delivers nicotine when you suck on it is an "E-Cig". I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
See As of July 2017, approximately one in 20 US adults have heard of heat-not burn-tobacco products. That is content about the English-language and consumer awareness. A low percentage of people have heard of the term heat-not burn-tobacco products. Anyone can choose a name for this article. I think the top two are heat-not burn-tobacco products and heated tobacco products. These products are not well known as e-cigs. E-cigs don't use tobacco sticks or loose leaf tobacco. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Products to see an image of a heat-not burn-tobacco product. It uses a tobacco stick. E-cigs use liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 25 January 2019
Electric smoking system → Heated tobacco product – The name Heated tobacco product is a known common name. Should the page be changed to Heated tobacco product? QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
*Yes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- For now I am putting a hold on "Heated tobacco product". Heat-not-burn tobacco product is the most universally known common name. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- According to WP:POVTITLE we should use the most recognized title even if the title is POV. If that is the case then we may have to choose Heat-not-burn tobacco product as the title for this article in order to comply with WP:POVTITLE. The term "Heated tobacco product" is not a well known common name to the consumer but in the literature it is a known common name. The term "Heated tobacco product" is not widely used. Editors more familiar with WP:TITLE should determine what the title should be. See discussion below, especially this comment. Thanks QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a proper way to close an open move request. The editor proposing the move should not be closing the request, particularly when so much discussion has taken place. There are instructions for closing at WP:RMCI and instructions about waiting at WP:RM; someone uninvolved should have closed the discussion (which was an RM, not an RFC). Further, when you reopened a new request here, you made no reference to the fact that there had just been two weeks of discussion on the same topic, which you also archived so it isn't readily apparent. And then you !voted on your own request. I suggest that you read through WP:RM once more to see how these discussions are usually conducted. Dekimasuよ! 05:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a standard process for RFCs as well, but I see that some were closed yesterday after about 10 days when multiple comments had been added to it the same day. Why can't discussion be allowed to proceed naturally here? If you don't want things to be conducted as RFCs or RMs, you can have normal discussion that works toward consensus on the issues without (or before) adding those tags. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Advantages of an informal discussion on the talk page:
- The discussion is among those who are interested in the topic and are watching the page. This can be good or bad. In the case of, say, Cockcroft–Walton generator or Tunnel diode, the informal discussion attracts mostly electronics engineers and physicists. The opinions of non-experts aren't very helpful. In the case of Acupuncture, the editors who are interested in the topic and are watching the page include a bunch of acupuncturists who have a COI and want to make the article stop saying that acupuncture doesn't work.
- Advantages of the more formal Wikipedia:Requested moves:
- The discussion attracts a wider variety of editors who tend to be less involved in the topic and more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This can be good or bad. It is usually good, but in those cases where the outcome is obvious it wastes the time of some of our most expert editors when the question could have been easily settled less formally.
- So, which is best for this page? That depends. Are the editors watching this page in basic agreement on what the page should say? Do they work well together to resolve content disputes? Are some of the page watchers biased for or against the products described? Any whitewashing or blackwashing attempts in the history? I will leave it to the reader to look at the talk page archives for answers to these questions.
- The problem occurring here is the aggressive clerking and archiving of discussions while those discussions are still proceeding. A few days ago there were a dozen or so requests for comment on this page, all started by QuackGuru, and all over very minor content issues. Then, suddenly, QuackGuru themselves decided that many of them should be closed "to focus on other RfCs" (e.g. [33]) including the move requests reproduced above, without anything being resolved, and then archived pretty much everything ([34]). Then they opened a move request asking exactly the same question as the one they had shut down less than a day earlier, and later "un-archived" some of the old discussions inside a hat. All the while QuackGuru is building a huge parallel article at Draft:Electric smoking system in which they seem to be implementing their suggestions here well in advance of receiving any input. I'm not the first to note this all makes it extremely difficult and tedious to participate in or even follow the discussions. Now I see that QuackGuru has also been copying and pasting into this article from the draft (e.g. [35]) after I had specifically asked them not to do specifically that. As predicted, I am miffed. @QuackGuru: I suggest you should not start any new discussions until the ones already ongoing are resolved, so that some other editors have a chance to get a word in, but I can really only ask you to consider this. I will block you if you copy your draft over the article again, or if you close or manually archive any current discussions on this page. As I said before, if/when the draft is resolved and needs to replace the article, ping me and I will history-merge the two pages. You are making an enormous mess of things with your repeated cut-and-paste moves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: This may have been my fault. Elsewhere on this talk page, I asked QuackGuru to introduce the changes into the article and self-revert so that I could see a diff showing the difference between the current revision and the proposed changes in this article (re:
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?
). Due to the large number of differences between the current/proposed revisions, I felt that I needed a diff to compare the two. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: This may have been my fault. Elsewhere on this talk page, I asked QuackGuru to introduce the changes into the article and self-revert so that I could see a diff showing the difference between the current revision and the proposed changes in this article (re:
- The problem occurring here is the aggressive clerking and archiving of discussions while those discussions are still proceeding. A few days ago there were a dozen or so requests for comment on this page, all started by QuackGuru, and all over very minor content issues. Then, suddenly, QuackGuru themselves decided that many of them should be closed "to focus on other RfCs" (e.g. [33]) including the move requests reproduced above, without anything being resolved, and then archived pretty much everything ([34]). Then they opened a move request asking exactly the same question as the one they had shut down less than a day earlier, and later "un-archived" some of the old discussions inside a hat. All the while QuackGuru is building a huge parallel article at Draft:Electric smoking system in which they seem to be implementing their suggestions here well in advance of receiving any input. I'm not the first to note this all makes it extremely difficult and tedious to participate in or even follow the discussions. Now I see that QuackGuru has also been copying and pasting into this article from the draft (e.g. [35]) after I had specifically asked them not to do specifically that. As predicted, I am miffed. @QuackGuru: I suggest you should not start any new discussions until the ones already ongoing are resolved, so that some other editors have a chance to get a word in, but I can really only ask you to consider this. I will block you if you copy your draft over the article again, or if you close or manually archive any current discussions on this page. As I said before, if/when the draft is resolved and needs to replace the article, ping me and I will history-merge the two pages. You are making an enormous mess of things with your repeated cut-and-paste moves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- So on January 23, in the earlier move request, QuackGuru wrote: "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.'" (On January 9 QuackGuru had opposed a move to Heated tobacco product.) Then on January 25 QuackGuru wrote, "The name Heated tobacco product is a known common name" and wrote that the change should be supported. Why the sudden shift? Move requests and RFCs are different processes. Requested moves don't require devil's advocates. Please explain your position showing how it coincides with article titling policy: WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NDESC, etc. To simply state without evidence that the term in question is not a common name, and then to state it is a common name, is not helpful for the purposes of a move discussion, nor does a simple "yes" carry significant weight in an RM close, even setting aside the directions in WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- The term "Heated tobacco product" is definitely not a well known common name to the consumer but in the literature it is a known comment name. The term "Heated tobacco product" is not widely used. The term Heat-not-burn tobacco product is mostly used but marketing claims such as heat rather than burn may be misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's necessary to rely upon the Wikipedia definition of what a common name is, as shown at WP:COMMONNAME. If "heated tobacco product" is not known to the consumer, then it is probably not the best title for Wikipedia. From a basic search, other phrasings appear more frequently in titles on Pubmed, including Electrically heated cigarette smoking system. But what title would a reader be likely to search for this page under? Note that if it can be established that there is no common name, WP:NDESC can be used to support a neutrally-worded title (based on, for instance, the idea that not being burned is misleading); but that's not what's currently argued in the proposal, which does not explain why Heated tobacco product would be preferable to Electric smoking system. Dekimasuよ! 20:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the term Electrically heated cigarette smoking system until reading a source last year. The name is too long and not known to the consumer.
- Heated tobacco product is preferable over Electric smoking system because no source explicitly states Electric smoking system. A neutral title is preferable rather than what a reader would likely search for. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- What about products that aren't tobacco? (See my question about scope in the electric smoker section above) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- A neutral title is preferable to what a reader would search for if there is no common name, per WP:NPOVTITLE. If there is a WP:COMMONNAME, defined as "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"–note, this does not mean only technical/scientific sources–we prefer the common name. My appeal is that you base your arguments for changing the article title on the article titling policy. You may think that certain types of titles are preferable, but community consensus has determined a range of standard ways to determine what title should be used, and it is incumbent upon you to show how the proposed title is in accordance with WP:AT and any other applicable naming conventions. Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Heat-not-burn tobacco product might be the only widely recognized common name to the consumer but based on what others stated they disagree with the title Heat-not-burn tobacco product. I don't have a major issue with Heat-not-burn tobacco product but others don't seem to support it. I selected Heated tobacco product as another option. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, should we follow WP:NPOVTITLE and use the most recognized WP:COMMONNAME? Heat-not-burn tobacco product is most likely the only widely used common name. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- The most recognized WP:COMMONNAME appears to be is "E-cigarette". The mass of people who together decide what name is most commonly used don't seem to care whether their e-cig uses tobacco or a liquid. People who sell them, people who write laws about them, and people who study the health effects of them care very much about the differences. So if we are to uuise the common name, it should be "electronic cigarettes". We can create two sections in the one article, or we can make two articles with different qualifiers in parenthesis. Perhaps Electronic cigarette (vapor) and Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco)? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- A "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" usually uses a tobacco stick or sometimes loose leaf tobacco. An "E-cigarette" uses a liquid. There are "Heat-not-burn tobacco products" that use a tobacco stick and have a chamber for liquid. A "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is different than an "E-cigarette". Calling it an Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco) is misleading. The most recognized WP:COMMONNAME is "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" by far. I may have to change my vote back to my original vote after reading the comments by Dekimasu.
- See "They are not electronic cigarettes.[5] 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.[16]" See Draft:Electric smoking system. The current article explains very little about the topic. The proposed draft does explain what the product is and the differences. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please consider presenting evidence of relative prevalence of these titles rather than stating that one is more common than another. For example, a simple Google search gives 19.1K hits for "heat-not-burn tobacco product". "Heated tobacco product" gives 24.0K hits. "Electric smoking system" gives 3800. "Electronic smoking system" gives 36.1K. "Electrically heated cigarette smoking system" gives 17.2K. "Electrically heated smoking system" gives 31.2K. Together these seem to suggest that there is no single common name for this, but certainly that "heat-not-burn tobacco product" is not the WP:COMMONNAME by Wikipedia definition. The evidence should be presented and evaluated in a more systematic manner. Furthermore naming based upon the system seems to focus on the device, and naming based upon the product seems to focus on what goes into the device, so there is an issue of scope as well. It may turn out that a WP:NDESC title is best, but please try to show this through data rather than assertion. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The google search I did says About 7,840,000 results (0.48 seconds) for heated tobacco product.
- The google search I did says About 13,300,000 results (0.48 seconds) for heat-not-burn tobacco product.
- I did not put them in quotation marks when I did a search.
- See Draft:Electric smoking system#Products for an updated list of the products. I do not know if it matters what companies say what type of products they sell in order to decide what the title should be. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Searches do need to be placed in quotation marks in order to retrieve meaningful results. (Even using quotation marks, the quality of the results being received requires further evaluation.) Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The google search I did says About 259,000 results (0.33 seconds) for "Heat-not-burn" in quotation marks.
- It also depends on the country where these products are being marketed. See "Heat-not-burn searches originating in Japan have experienced tremendous growth.[137] Since the introduction of Philip Morris International's IQOS brand in select Japanese cities in November 2014, searches for heat-not-burn products have increased substantially.[137]" Also see "In practical terms, there are now between 5.9 and 7.5 million heat-not-burn related Google searches in Japan each month based on the latest search estimates for September 2017.[137]" See Draft:Electric smoking system#Prevalence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, let's be clear. Titles on the English Wikipedia are based specifically upon English-language usage, not usage in foreign languages. And I see the article that you are referring to, but luckily, I do speak Japanese, and it is important to point out that there are not large numbers of Japanese people searching for the phrase "heat-not-burn" in English. The researchers are relying upon the number of searches for a variety of brand names in Japanese and for the phrases 加熱式たばこ and 加熱式タバコ, both of which mean heated tobacco. Now, I understand that you may want to translate that as "heat-not-burn" since there is a contrast being drawn with "regular, burned tobacco." However, that is not what the Japanese phrase says, and as noted above, we do not really care how prevalent searches for kanetsushiki tabako are in a foreign language. They are talking about searches as a proxy for an increase in the market for the product, not what the WP:COMMONNAME may be. Dekimasuよ! 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The article titled "They’re heating up: Internet search query trends reveal significant public interest in heat-not-burn tobacco products" I mentioned uses the term heat-not-burn tobacco product numerous times.[36] The term heated tobacco product is not used in English even once. The term heat-not-burn tobacco product is more descriptive than the ambiguous term heated tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Internal usage in one article is clearly not evidence of prevalence in a preponderance of independent, reliable English-language sources. Where the article in question does discuss prevalence, it is to distinguish between types of things using terminology selected by the researchers, not to establish the common name of those things. The searches that served as data for the researchers were not instances of "heat-not-burn tobacco products." Dekimasuよ! 09:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Google results give you an (imperfect) idea of how a term is used. To get a better answer to the question "what term do ordinary people use", unless you luck out and find a linguist who discusses exactly that, you need to exclude reliable sources and look at what remains. You want to see what ordinary people call it, not what scientists, lawyers, or advertising agencies call it.
- Consider that metal thing that most of us drive around. Looking at reliable sources, you find things like "please step out of the vehicle", "Luxury automobile", "vehicular manslaughter", "automakers", etc. But you would be mistaken if you were to conclude that most people call them automobiles or that that most people call them vehicles. Most ordinary people (and comparatively few reliable sources) call them cars and trucks. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Google results are an imperfect indicator, yes. But under WP:COMMONNAME the question is not precisely "what term ordinary people use." At any rate I was trying to explain that the article in question cited by QuackGuru is not an indication of either something along the lines of "vehicle" or something along the lines of "car," but rather a variety of phrases in Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Internal usage in one article is clearly not evidence of prevalence in a preponderance of independent, reliable English-language sources. Where the article in question does discuss prevalence, it is to distinguish between types of things using terminology selected by the researchers, not to establish the common name of those things. The searches that served as data for the researchers were not instances of "heat-not-burn tobacco products." Dekimasuよ! 09:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The article titled "They’re heating up: Internet search query trends reveal significant public interest in heat-not-burn tobacco products" I mentioned uses the term heat-not-burn tobacco product numerous times.[36] The term heated tobacco product is not used in English even once. The term heat-not-burn tobacco product is more descriptive than the ambiguous term heated tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, let's be clear. Titles on the English Wikipedia are based specifically upon English-language usage, not usage in foreign languages. And I see the article that you are referring to, but luckily, I do speak Japanese, and it is important to point out that there are not large numbers of Japanese people searching for the phrase "heat-not-burn" in English. The researchers are relying upon the number of searches for a variety of brand names in Japanese and for the phrases 加熱式たばこ and 加熱式タバコ, both of which mean heated tobacco. Now, I understand that you may want to translate that as "heat-not-burn" since there is a contrast being drawn with "regular, burned tobacco." However, that is not what the Japanese phrase says, and as noted above, we do not really care how prevalent searches for kanetsushiki tabako are in a foreign language. They are talking about searches as a proxy for an increase in the market for the product, not what the WP:COMMONNAME may be. Dekimasuよ! 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Searches do need to be placed in quotation marks in order to retrieve meaningful results. (Even using quotation marks, the quality of the results being received requires further evaluation.) Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please consider presenting evidence of relative prevalence of these titles rather than stating that one is more common than another. For example, a simple Google search gives 19.1K hits for "heat-not-burn tobacco product". "Heated tobacco product" gives 24.0K hits. "Electric smoking system" gives 3800. "Electronic smoking system" gives 36.1K. "Electrically heated cigarette smoking system" gives 17.2K. "Electrically heated smoking system" gives 31.2K. Together these seem to suggest that there is no single common name for this, but certainly that "heat-not-burn tobacco product" is not the WP:COMMONNAME by Wikipedia definition. The evidence should be presented and evaluated in a more systematic manner. Furthermore naming based upon the system seems to focus on the device, and naming based upon the product seems to focus on what goes into the device, so there is an issue of scope as well. It may turn out that a WP:NDESC title is best, but please try to show this through data rather than assertion. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title." WP:NDESC. The term heat-not-burn tobacco product is not ambiguous as the vague term heated tobacco product. "Ambiguous[6] 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." See WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- An image in the draft states "Temporary smoking room and a sales promotion of glo at the 2016 Sendai Pageant of Starlight in Kōtōdai-kōen Park." See Draft:Electric smoking_system#Marketing. User:Dekimasu, is the wording correct for the image? QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. There is a claim that this picture was taken in Japan, and it's true that there is no Japanese wording for me to translate for you in this case (or at least I can't see what's written next to that guy's head). "Smoking" (スモーキング, as a synonym for the Japanese word 喫煙) would be understandable to many or most Japanese speakers, particularly when associated with the international symbol. Kōen means park, so this says pretty much says Kōtōdai Park Park, but that kind of error is fairly common when dealing with geography in Japan. If there's something else you'd like me to do related to a language issue, let me know. Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- An image in the draft states "Temporary smoking room and a sales promotion of glo at the 2016 Sendai Pageant of Starlight in Kōtōdai-kōen Park." See Draft:Electric smoking_system#Marketing. User:Dekimasu, is the wording correct for the image? QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- For WP:NDESC, "heat-not-burn" would probably not be advisable, would it? Charring is a form of combustion, which means the proposed title is less than accurate. Anyway, at this point it is worth noting that the move request filed above that you subsequently closed was about moving the page to Heat-not-burn tobacco product, so I remain unclear as to why the previous discussion was closed; it should really not be hatted either, since it is completely relevant to this ongoing discussion. Dekimasuよ! 09:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- In the future, can you please use edit summaries when adding to this talk page? You have made so many edits to it that it is next to impossible to find any given edit in the page history. This was also an issue when I was trying to figure out where the old move request went. Dekimasuよ! 09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- See also my prior comments in the two previous move discussions.
- The suggestion of "Electronic cigarette (vapor) and Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco)" is an interesting one. "Electric cigarette (liquid)" and "electric cigarette (solid)" seems as though it might not be unreasonable if the article's scope didn't include non-electric non-cigarettes. However, large tobacco companies have put out marketing materials aggressively seeking to define these products as e-cigarettes for vapers. I am a bit suspicious that this association is spurious. It might be expected to boost support of these products by associating them with a more popular product. It also seems to be used to imply health claims. It has definitely been used to argue that that they should not be regulated as cigarettes.
- In the initial discussion, I explained why I prefer "electric" to "electronic" on accuracy grounds (the heating element on modern products is electric, as in e-cigs). The earliest products covered by this article are also from the 1980s and seem to have been pretty analog; actually, they didn't use an electric heating element, they used a lump of burning charcoal. So maybe we have to drop "electric", too. "Low-temperature recreational smoking products" would be a good generic description. Given the strong promotional messaging advertising these products as high-tech, marketing them in Apple-computer-like packaging, naming them for connotations of "Intelligence quotient / operating system", and so on, the word "electronic" seems promotional (actually, the word "system" gets used somewhat promotionally, too). While the mere fact that a term is plugged by tobacco companies does not make it unusable, I think it is cause to scrutinize its neutrality and accuracy.
- Both "vapour" and "heated tobacco" are criticized in reliable sources as misleading. Putting a lot of humectant chemicals in your cigarettes will make them contain a lot of water and emit large clouds of wet steam as they char (which absorbs a lot of energy, so you need an outside heat source, or they will go out). This steam conceals the smoke, but doesn't magically turn it into vapour by association. The idea that these products heat the tobacco rather than burning it is also disputed in RS, and the common use of the English language (see the pizza discussion above). If we want to be precise, these products char. So "Charring cigarettes" would be accurate for the proprietary-cigarette-refill products, and "charring pipes" for the loose-leaf-refill products. I'd be OK with splitting the article along these lines, with a suitable clarification and link in the lede. HLHJ (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Both "Charring cigarettes" and "charring pipes" are unsourced named. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Notes for a for a list of verifiable synonyms. The names you slected are not listed in the notes section. You stated in another thread, "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[37] QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, either a proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, in which case we should use it, or there isn't, in which case we can use WP:NDESC titling regardless of whether a proposed name is otherwise sourced. Dekimasuよ! 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to use unsourced names when there are several sourced names. I never heard of the names "Charring cigarettes" or "charring pipes". They don't describe the article scope. I think it is far better to select from one of the more known names that do describe the article scope. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm honestly impressed by your list of thirteen sourced names, QuackGuru! You put a lot of effort into that. All of them seem to use "heat-not-burn" (or an abbreviation), "heated", "heating", "smokeless", or "vapour". Does anyone have any suggestions for names that do not incorrectly imply that the user does not inhale pyrolysis products? HLHJ (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- HLHJ, retaining the word "smoking" in the new title would seem to be the easiest solution to that issue. It might be possible to reemphasize the tobacco aspect while maintaining clarity that the scope is the way things are smoked, not the tobacco that's put in the "smoking system" (which I think is the flaw with anything ending in "tobacco product"). For WP:NDESC, I'd thus suggest something like Heated tobacco smoking system. But terms used in the wild like Electrically heated cigarette smoking system and Electrically heated smoking system, both mentioned above, also succeed as far as your suggestion is concerned. And as was pointed out somewhere above, it seems to be possible to use these to smoke substances other than tobacco. Dekimasuよ! 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- These products "heat" tobacco. Putting the word "smoke" in the title is definitely not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- In the "Nature and function" section, the article currently states that what comes out is smoke. Smoke also notes that smoke is a product of pyrolysis, not only of burning something. The action that users of this product are engaged in is often referred to as "smoking." Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Comments_on_older_versions_or_expanded_version and the archives. That section is littered with MEDRS violations and failed verification content. See "another problem: Based entirely on primary MEDRS sources, and non-MEDRS sources."[38] It comes out as a violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't really know what you mean by "violation of consensus"; consensus can change, and presumably the current article is a product of some past consensus, since the information hasn't been removed. I got here a week ago, and only because of improper closures and rapid archiving on this page. I am unconnected to this industry and I have never used one of these products, so all I know of the subject is what's come out over the course of the current open move request, and what's in the article. If the section on the page that repeatedly refers to "smoke" is incorrect, and the article Smoke is incorrect, then those things should probably be handled before proceeding to a move discussion on the same topic. Whether a picture of charred pizza is appropriate is a separate question from whether what's coming out of these things can be considered smoke.... Dekimasuよ! 00:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also see Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Image of charred pizza and the archives regarding the MEDRS violations. The "Nature and function" contains several MEDRS violations and was not the product of consensus. Almost all the content in that section was written by one editor. After I tried to fix it I started a RfC when the editor disagreed with removing the problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, we did discuss and heavily modify that section. As I recall five or so editors were involved. On MEDRS tags you have just added, St. Helen et al. reviewed parts of a multimillion-page application of PMI to the FDA, containing a fairly colossal number of studies; while technically they did not review multiple sources, and are not listed on PubMed as a review, they are certainly not a primary source. St. Helen and the WHO source are cited on the temperatures to which these devices heat. I also cited a primary source, but only for the statement that what the first source calls "pyrolysis" can also be called "charring", in context; I think I added it in response to discussion on the talk page. The included quote starts "Charring due to pyrolysis (a form of organic matter thermochemical decomposition)..." I don't think there is a serious MEDRS violation here. I ask that these tags be removed. The last reference your tagged is primary, and only supports a clause which does not add much to the article; I removed clause and citation (and the medrs tag, obviously). Dekimasu, I will respond to your constructive comment above at the bottom of this discussion and ping you. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for feedback. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Comments_on_older_versions_or_expanded_version for current discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, we did discuss and heavily modify that section. As I recall five or so editors were involved. On MEDRS tags you have just added, St. Helen et al. reviewed parts of a multimillion-page application of PMI to the FDA, containing a fairly colossal number of studies; while technically they did not review multiple sources, and are not listed on PubMed as a review, they are certainly not a primary source. St. Helen and the WHO source are cited on the temperatures to which these devices heat. I also cited a primary source, but only for the statement that what the first source calls "pyrolysis" can also be called "charring", in context; I think I added it in response to discussion on the talk page. The included quote starts "Charring due to pyrolysis (a form of organic matter thermochemical decomposition)..." I don't think there is a serious MEDRS violation here. I ask that these tags be removed. The last reference your tagged is primary, and only supports a clause which does not add much to the article; I removed clause and citation (and the medrs tag, obviously). Dekimasu, I will respond to your constructive comment above at the bottom of this discussion and ping you. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Comments_on_older_versions_or_expanded_version and the archives. That section is littered with MEDRS violations and failed verification content. See "another problem: Based entirely on primary MEDRS sources, and non-MEDRS sources."[38] It comes out as a violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- In the "Nature and function" section, the article currently states that what comes out is smoke. Smoke also notes that smoke is a product of pyrolysis, not only of burning something. The action that users of this product are engaged in is often referred to as "smoking." Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- These products "heat" tobacco. Putting the word "smoke" in the title is definitely not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- HLHJ, retaining the word "smoking" in the new title would seem to be the easiest solution to that issue. It might be possible to reemphasize the tobacco aspect while maintaining clarity that the scope is the way things are smoked, not the tobacco that's put in the "smoking system" (which I think is the flaw with anything ending in "tobacco product"). For WP:NDESC, I'd thus suggest something like Heated tobacco smoking system. But terms used in the wild like Electrically heated cigarette smoking system and Electrically heated smoking system, both mentioned above, also succeed as far as your suggestion is concerned. And as was pointed out somewhere above, it seems to be possible to use these to smoke substances other than tobacco. Dekimasuよ! 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm honestly impressed by your list of thirteen sourced names, QuackGuru! You put a lot of effort into that. All of them seem to use "heat-not-burn" (or an abbreviation), "heated", "heating", "smokeless", or "vapour". Does anyone have any suggestions for names that do not incorrectly imply that the user does not inhale pyrolysis products? HLHJ (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to use unsourced names when there are several sourced names. I never heard of the names "Charring cigarettes" or "charring pipes". They don't describe the article scope. I think it is far better to select from one of the more known names that do describe the article scope. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, either a proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, in which case we should use it, or there isn't, in which case we can use WP:NDESC titling regardless of whether a proposed name is otherwise sourced. Dekimasuよ! 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Both "Charring cigarettes" and "charring pipes" are unsourced named. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Notes for a for a list of verifiable synonyms. The names you slected are not listed in the notes section. You stated in another thread, "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[37] QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product. The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" uniquely describes the products being sold. Terms such as heated tobacco product are ambiguous. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "Ambiguous[6] 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." See WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Revision as of 22:10, 12 May 2017: See "Doc James moved page Heat-not-burn smoking device to Heat-not-burn tobacco product: per source and comments at WPMED"[39] There was a discussion for the page move back in early May 2017 at WikiProject Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Contradictions of the claim that the products "heat-not-burn" and are "smoke-free" first appeared in the medical literature from the beginning of July 2017, unless I've missed something. Doc James cannot see into the future (we'd have to revise WP:CRYSTALBALL, and some physics). He has clearly revised his position since then, as shown by this edit of his in this older move discussion, which you participated in, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "Sure that makes sense so "Electrically-heated smoking system, also known as heat-not burn-tobacco products,"[40] "Electrically-heated smoking system" is not the title of this article. No other editor specifically agreed to the article title.
- I stated That does not make sense when the term is confusing and not known to the general reader. The term electrically-heated smoking system could be ambiguous or inaccurate to the reader. You recently stated "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[41] You agree the current title is poor. This is an "electric smoking system". See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Notes for a list of verifiable names. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Contradictions of the claim that the products "heat-not-burn" and are "smoke-free" first appeared in the medical literature from the beginning of July 2017, unless I've missed something. Doc James cannot see into the future (we'd have to revise WP:CRYSTALBALL, and some physics). He has clearly revised his position since then, as shown by this edit of his in this older move discussion, which you participated in, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of if "heat not burn tobacco product" is the most common name, if it is an incorrect marketing effort than we should likely use a technical more accurate term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Goals (needs a break for editing convenience anyway)
- I'm going to have an initial attempt at defining goals; please mention any errors or problems with my summary.
- We do not have a common name used "in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". Per WP:NPOVTITLE, I am therefore suggesting "a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors" (WP:NDESC). That title should follow WP:AT. In this case, I think that means it should be:
- accurate. It should not imply that the user does not inhale pyrolysis products, because that is a misleading marketing claim.
- concise (may be at odds with the previous criterion).
- clear and natural. It should not cause Guy Macon, or anyone else, to think of food-processing equipment. It should not needlessly use jargon or unusual senses of words.
- parallel to other articles on similar products; see Category:Nicotine products with harm-reduction claims, and Nicotine marketing#"Modified risk" products. For disclosure, I created the category and both QG and I worked on that section, but I don't think the content has been significantly changed since this came up.
- I have not yet made up my mind about what the best title would be, but these are the criteria I am looking for. Obviously there are likely to be trade-offs. Suggestions for names, and criticisms of my criteria, are very welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: "Electrically-heated cigarette smoking system" and "Electrically-heated smoking system" are both decent suggestions. My only objection is that I find "heated" a bit vague. Of course something that is charred or burned has technically been heated. But in normal speech, I say "heated" until it starts charring, and then "charred" or "burned" until it falls to ash, at which point I would say that it had burned. The "char-is-black, ash-is-white" generalization makes casual distinction easy.
- Getting into technical terms, obviously an object has been burned if the carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen; the object crumbles to ash, CO2, steam, and smoke. But if an object only gets hot enough to char, the pyrolysis is less complete. A lot of the non-carbon compounds break down and are driven off, but the carbon does not break down. The object becomes carbonized, black, dry, and brittle. Charring is also commonly called "burning". For instance, the making of charcoal by charring wood is referred to as charcoal burning, and carbonized food is called burnt food, not heated food.
- So "burnt" seems less inaccurate than "heated". But "charred" is more precise than "burned"; it has a clearer, narrower meaning. That meaning ties tightly to the function of these products, which char but seem not to reduce themselves to ash like regular cigarettes. "Carbonized" has the same advantages, but seems more jargony. The word "char" may be less common now that English speakers use solid-fuel fires less, but I think it's more common than "carbonized", and it's certainly shorter.
- I agree with you on "smoking"; my one concern is that it's hard to fit a verb describing the user into a natural, concise noun phrase describing the product, but that's a weak objection. QG obviously strongly objects. I also agree with you on "cigarette", but I think that if we use this term, the loose-leaf products should be split off into another article. I think this makes sense anyway; the cigarette products require users to buy refills from the manufacturer, while pipes can use generic tobacco or cannabis products, so the economic and cultural aspects are naturally rather different, and different groups seem to use them. As cigarettes are highly-engineered products, I should not be surprised if the effects were also different. HLHJ (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Different names are used in different fields and, on this topic, it would certainly be better not to take the name designed by tobacco industry marketing. Wikipedia should use the more neutral scientific terminology used by public health authorities and international law, that is to say Heated tobacco product (examples from above: WHO, FCTC, Tobacco Control, Tobacco Tactics, Public Health England, Dutch Institute for Public Health, etc.).
145.232.230.253 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC). - Thanks for your reply. I will think more about this, but my initial reaction is that "charred" is probably not advisable due to the general recognizability criterion, even if we agree that there is no common name in this case. Readers probably do not recognize the use of these products as a process of charring. Even with some science background, until now I have never really thought seriously about the physics of embers or the difference between smouldering and charring, for example. Charring is an effect of the heating (even if charring is what releases the nicotine), so I think heating may be all right; it seems to adequately describe the difference between the two products. We need to aim for a balance between precision and avoiding WP:RGW. As I said, I'll think about this more. Dekimasuよ! 18:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Different names are used in different fields and, on this topic, it would certainly be better not to take the name designed by tobacco industry marketing. Wikipedia should use the more neutral scientific terminology used by public health authorities and international law, that is to say Heated tobacco product (examples from above: WHO, FCTC, Tobacco Control, Tobacco Tactics, Public Health England, Dutch Institute for Public Health, etc.).
- I need to think more about this too. I agree that recognizability and ease of comprehension is important. Reading your comment, I realized I also need to watch my linguistic POV; recognizibility of "charring" may vary between English dialects.
- I think that the use of "heated tobacco product" and "aerosol" is probably often an attempt to avoid legal challenges while not being technically inaccurate, a common tightrope for heavily-lobbied organizations. Saying "cigarette" or "smoke" is, going on past record, likely to bring down the ire of the manufacturer.
- On comprehension, I'm thinking of the term "global warming". While technically accurate, referring to a rise in the global mean temperature, it causes people to claim that there's no global warming because it's cold out. Explanations about the effects on the meridional temperature gradient and the dynamics of Rossby waves in the polar front don't help. "Climate change" gives the layperson a much more accurate impression. Similarly, I think "heated" could cause uninformed people to say "see, it isn't burned, because it's heated, and there's no smoke without fire, so it's not smoke, just vapour, which is safe". This is the sort of associational logic which marketing exploits. The "parallel" guideline might help here, as a parallel name would create an association with similar products... I'm not sure I have the needed expertise here. I'll come back to this. HLHJ (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- A further thought. All my media training has been in science communications, not marketing. I am used to dealing with terminology which, like "global warming", was chosen because it was clear to a specialist, without considering whether it is misleading to a layperson. I am not used to dealing with an entire subject area where all the terms are chosen by people with a strong commercial interest in creating certain impressions, people who have a conflict of interest with accuracy. Is the question we should be asking ourselves "If there were no pre-existing names, and I were studying these products, what would I call them?" Does this view fit with the guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've tried to make a table of different words discussed, with pros and cons. I realize that there will not be a unanimous consensus, but I will edit this in response to comments and try to make it NPOV.
word | pros | cons |
---|---|---|
heat-not-burn | fairly common, natural | marketing term, inaccurate |
heated, heating, etc. | fairly common, non-jargon, lawsuit-proof | natural sense is a version of claim above, vague |
smoke-free | common, natural | marketing term, inaccurate |
smoke, smoking | accurate, non-jargon | hard to fit into a natural, concise noun phrase describing the product |
charring, char | accurate, moderately non-jargon | not a common word in some English varieties, not commonly used for these products |
carbonized | accurate | a bit jargony, not commonly used for these products |
tobacco | clear, avoids confusion, lawsuit-proof | excludes cannabis etc. scope |
cigarette | clear, avoids confusion | not common (avoided in marketing), does not include loose-leaf fill scope. |
mini-cigarette | natural, clear | not common (avoided in marketing), does not include loose-leaf fill scope |
vapour | fairly common (favoured term in marketing) | marketing term, inaccurate |
aerosol | fairly common (fallback term in marketing), lawsuit-proof | vague (applies equally to wet steam and smoke); jargony |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus for page move
See diffs here and here for when it was moved. There was no clear consensus for the page move. Therefore, we can move the back to the previous consensus.
I stated That does not make sense when the term is confusing and not known to the general reader. The term electrically-heated smoking system could be ambiguous or inaccurate to the reader. HLHJ stated "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[42] This is an "electric smoking system".
Revision as of 22:10, 12 May 2017: See "Doc James moved page Heat-not-burn smoking device to Heat-not-burn tobacco product: per source and comments at WPMED"[43] There was a discussion for the page move back in early May 2017 at WikiProject Medicine.
- Support the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product. The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" uniquely describes the products being sold. Terms such as heated tobacco product are ambiguous or inaccurate. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "Ambiguous[6] 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." See WP:COMMONNAME.
I propose we move the page back to Heat-not-burn tobacco product in accordance with consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I do not believe the 2017 discussion really represents consensus either, unless it is just a silent consensus. If you wanted to revert the change from October, you could have used WP:RMTR (requests to revert undiscussed moves) before filing the initial move request here. It is verging on the tendentious to request a move from A to B, and when no consensus is found for B, to request a move to B on the basis of there being no consensus for A. The move from October was also in place for months and could also be considered to enjoy silent consensus. I am finding the tenor of the discussion on this page exhausting. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As the closer I'm going to concur with Dekimasu's comment on this one. Three months is borderline in terms of whether it establishes "stable title" status for a no-consensus close, but also since most of the participants above (other than QuackGuru) expressed reservations about the previous name "heat-not-burn tobacco product", I think it best to stick with the most recent stable title of "electronic smoking system" in this instance. Like I said though, it definitely is no consensus so if there is a proposal for a better alternative that you think will gather consensus, then please discuss and bring a new RM to that effect. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary
Title | Supported by (+ 1) | Opposed by (− 1) | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Heat-not-burn tobacco product | QuackGuru, Doc James | User with IP address, HLHJ | 0 |
Heated tobacco product | User with IP address, Seppi333, Guy Macon, QuackGuru (temporarily) | QuackGuru ('weak', temporarily) | + 3-4 |
Electric smoking system | HLHJ, Amakuru | QuackGuru, User with IP address | 0 |
Electronic cigarettes (heated tobacco) | Guy Macon | QuackGuru, User with IP address | − 1 |
Electric cigarette (solid) | HLHJ | User with IP address | 0 |
Charring cigarettes | HLHJ | QuackGuru, User with IP address | − 1 |
Heated tobacco smoking system | Dekimasu | User with IP address | 0 |
Electrically-heated cigarette smoking system | Dekimasu | User with IP address | 0 |
Electrically-heated smoking system | Dekimasu | User with IP address | 0 |
The discussion above, with all its repeats and digressions, is so long that my attempt to summarise it in a table certainly contains mistakes. The current type is bad, as it is not so used by authorities and can be confused with electronic cigarettes (which do not contain tobacco).
As mentioned above, I see no other option than to take the name used in public health, scientific research and international law. It may not be perfect, but it is the least opposed and the article introduction will define it well enough to exclude gross misunderstanding.
144.85.150.100 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
- Doc James, what do you think of the above table? Responding to comments from Dekimasu and Guy Macon, I've put together a page on the thermal breakdown of organic matter. It consists largely of illustrated examples. Comments are very welcome, it is personal notes as much as anything, and there may be errors. HLHJ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Challenged content restored months later
This edit restored disputed content. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Large-scale_revert_of_health_information.
@Sennen goroshi: reverted the bold changes. See revert to prior stable version, before blatantly biased anti-ecig crusading edits were made.
The last stable version of this article was back in October 2018 before the WP:MEDRS violations were added to this article and before the image of the overcooked pizza was added. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
At first glance there is unsourced content and there is content that does not adhere to a neutral point of view. For example, the last sentence is not neutral. I think it would be best to undo the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned in my edit summary, a large amount of material was reverted, and some of the other material discussed, modified, and incorporated, or left out. I directly asked if anything was wrong with the portion of the reverted edits which were to the "regulations" section, but no-one gave any specific criticisms. The discussion was archived on my unanswered final request (of November) that any other problems with the reverted edits be raised. I see no unsourced content, and trust you will tag it.
- The current last sentence is "After iQOS launched a marketing campaign in New Zealand, the Ministry of Health, which has the authority to regulate nicotine products, stated that the refill sticks are not legal for sale in New Zealand." The one you seem to be complaining about, and have removed, is "Later negotiation between politicians and the tobacco industry about legalization, and regulation as a consumer product rather than a medical treatment, caused controversy." (citing an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which said "The process through which the proposal to regulate HNB tobacco products emerged is alarming"). What is non-neutral about the article statement? How could the more recent information be presented neutrally? You also removed the first sentence of the section, "In some jurisdictions, these products are not subject to the same regulations as older tobacco products." What do you object to about this micro-lede? You said it was "unsourced", but the rest of the section sources it. HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Feb 8-9 removal of content
QuackGuru, amongst other changes, your edits removed
- from the lede, a two-word statement that the name "heat-not-burn" is controversial (edit comment: "simplified")
- this text (except context in italics), removed as off-topic:
["HnB"] Users experience a sudden, sharp peak in blood nicotine levels, rising just as abruptly and just as high as the peak from a regular cigarette.[a] In this, these tobacco products differ from e-cigarettes, which show an equally high but delayed [blood nicotine] peak. A more rapid rise in blood nicotine levels is associated with greater addictiveness.[3]... Low between-cigarette blood nicotine levels cause deteriorating mood, driving desire for the next cigarette, which relieves the mild withdrawal.[4]
- information on the harms of nicotine use in pregnancy and breastfeeding (comment: "off-topic; source does not mention HnB products")
- this source, but not the statement it was cited for[5]
- this source, but not the statement it was cited for.[6]
References
- ^ Glantz, Stanton A. (1 November 2018). "Heated tobacco products: the example of IQOS". Tobacco Control. 27 (Suppl 1): s1–s6. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054601. ISSN 0964-4563. Retrieved 10 February 2019.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
systematic_review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Marsot, A; Simon, N (Mar–Apr 2016). "Nicotine and Cotinine Levels With Electronic Cigarette: A Review" (PDF). International journal of toxicology. 35 (2): 179–85. doi:10.1177/1091581815618935. PMID 26681385.
The observed nicotine concentrations from an e-cigarette were similar to a tobacco cigarette with a maximal concentration between 13.9 and 16.3 ng/mL with e-cigarette vaping versus around 15 ng/mL from a tobacco cigarette smoking. The main difference between plasma nicotine from the use of e-cigarette or tobacco cigarette is the time for which the maximum concentration is reached (Tmax). After 1 tobacco cigarette (5 minutes), the maximum concentration is reached in only 5 to 8 minutes, whereas during use of an e-cigarette, the maximum concentration is reached in 70 to 75 minutes. This difference in Tmax implies that e-cigarettes are likely to be less addictive than tobacco cigarettes because they deliver nicotine more slowly. The study of Bullen et al. concluded that in the first hour, the e-cigarette showed a pharmacokinetic profile more like a nicotine inhaler than a tobacco cigarette.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (link) - ^ Parrott, Andrew C (April 2003). "Cigarette-Derived Nicotine is not a Medicine" (PDF). The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. 4 (2): 49–55. doi:10.3109/15622970309167951. ISSN 1562-2975.
Regular smokers need nicotine to remain feeling normal, and suffer from adverse moods without it... Smoking only generates mood changes in nicotine-deprived smokers, but these only represent the restoration of normal moods. When non-deprived smokers have a cigarette, their mood ratings remain unaltered... When smokers completed a brief mood self-rating for every cigarette over the day, normal moods were reported immediately after smoking, moods deteriorated in between cigarettes, and were normalized by the next cigarette... Thus smoke inhalation in an abstinent smoker restores 'pleasure' to normal levels... The continual need to forestall or reverse abstinence symptoms explains why smokers follow such regular patterns of cigarette consumption over the day. Mood normalization also explains why the behaviour of unrestrained smokers is near-normal; in this respect nicotine is very different from other addictive drugs, such as opiates, amphetamine/cocaine and alcohol. The mood and cognitive effects of nicotine are also quite subtle, with only slight feelings of irritation during early abstinence so that its normative/restorative effects can be difficult to describe. Yet the 'relief' and 'contentment' after smoke inhalation accurately describe the reversal of incipient withdrawal symptoms while 'craving' describes the more urgent need to restore normality after longer periods without nicotine.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|name-list-format=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help) - ^ "FDA panel rejects 'heat-not-burn' cigarette safety claims". The Mercury News. 25 January 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
- ^ Linder-Ganz, Ronny (2018-01-16). "In Blow to Philip Morris, Israel to Tax iQOS E-cigarettes Like Ordinary Cigarettes". Haaretz.
From your edit summaries, the last two fell to your belief that statements should not be cited to more than one source. As you know, I disagree. Could you please not enforce this idea without consensus?
For the lede, I think the discussion above shows that there is consensus that the term "heat-not-burn" is controversial.
For the long quote and the pregnancy & breastfeeding material, you removed sources giving useful background (e.g. the comparison to e-cig nicotine delivery rates) because the sources were off-topic. If the content is on-topic, the sources that support it don't have to be. I note that after removing clarifying content cited to off-topic sources, you tagged one of the remaining sentences as needing clarification; I've re-clarified it, using an existing on-topic source.
I would like to restore specifically the content I have mentioned here. HLHJ (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- The terms heated tobacco product and heat-not-burn tobacco product are the commons names. There is no need to add unneeded additional words to the lede. The current title is controversial.
- See "Users experience a sudden, sharp peak in blood nicotine levels, which rise just as abruptly, and just as high, as in the peak from a regular cigarette." That is still in the article. The source says they take short puffs.
- Sources that do not mention heat-not-burn tobacco products are off-topic and therefore undue weight. There are now plenty of reviews available now that discuss pregnancy and nicotine. For example, see Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Pregnancy. Also see Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Article scope for a RfC. Because there are newer on-topic sources that also discuss nicotine there is no need to use off-topic sources. QuackGuru (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears you read the draft and you added a source and similar content that is in the Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Pregnancy section from the draft. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I did, though I did not read the whole draft again (I see it's changed). You're right that of late I've spent too little time looking up new sources, and too much on talk pages. Please, if you find the sourcing for a statement poor, but know of better sources, add those sources rather than removing accurate information. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Harm reduction quantification
The RFC bot asked me to comment on one of the RFCs here, but before I do, I would like to ask, what is the current WP:MEDRS consensus or range for harm reduction from vaping as a tobacco substitute for nicotine users? I see 95% reported in the press constantly, but when I look through Pubmed, I see figures closer to 99.5% e.g. PMID 28778971. I'd like to see pro and con arguments on this question from both sides before I weigh in, please. EllenCT (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- A heat-not-burn tobacco product (heated tobacco product) is different than an e-cig (vaping product). For content on e-cigs see "The safety of electronic cigarettes is uncertain.[1][2][3] There is little data about their safety, and considerable variation among e-cigarettes and in their liquid ingredients[4] and thus the contents of the aerosol delivered to the user.[5] Reviews on the safety of e-cigarettes have reached significantly different conclusions.[6] A 2014 World Health Organization (WHO) report cautioned about potential risks of using e-cigarettes.[7] Regulated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) products such as nicotine inhalers may be safer than e-cigarettes,[8] but e-cigarettes are generally considered safer than tobacco.[9][10] It is estimated their safety risk is similar to that of smokeless tobacco, which has about 1% of the mortality risk of traditional cigarettes.[11] A systematic review suggests that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking and since they contain no tobacco and do not involve combustion, users may avoid several harmful constituents usually found in tobacco smoke,[12] such as ash, tar, and carbon monoxide.[13] However, e-cigarettes cannot be considered harmless.[14] Repeated exposure over a long time to e-cigarette vapor poses substantial potential risk.[15] Click here to read the Safety of electronic cigarettes article. Also see "A 2015 PHE report stated that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[88] but the studies used to support this estimate were viewed as having a weak methodology.[89]"[44]
- There is content in the draft that explains they are different than an e-cig. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Construction: See "Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat tobacco leaves at a lower temperature than traditional cigarettes.[18] Heat-not-burn tobacco products usually heat up tobacco, rather than use liquids.[50] Another type of heat-not-burn tobacco product is the loose-leaf tobacco vaporizer that entails putting loose-leaf tobacco into a chamber, which is electrically heated using an element.[51] Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[7] They are not e-cigarettes.[7] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as combining an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for using tobacco or e-liquid.[22]"
- Different sources states different things for harm reduction (reduced harm) from the use of heat-not-burn tobacco products (heated tobacco products). See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Health_effects: See "With an assorted range of electronic cigarettes devices in the UK, it is unclear whether heat-not-burn tobacco products will offer any favorable benefit as an another plausible harm reduction product.[24]" Also see "A 2018 Public Health England (PHE) report states that the evidence indicates that heat-not-burn tobacco products may be much safer than traditional cigarettes but less safe than e-cigarettes.[24]"
- See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Emissions: "A 2018 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."[32] They also noted that the evidence indicates that the levels of nicotine inhaled from heat-not-burn tobacco products is less than that of cigarette smoke.[38] Exposure to mutagenic and other harmful substances is lower than with traditional cigarettes.[20] However, reduced exposure to harmful substances does not mean that health risks are equally reduced.[20]"
- See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Marketing: "The tobacco companies use heat-not-burn tobacco products as part of their broader political and public relations activities to position them as 'partners' to address the tobacco epidemic rather than as the vectors that are causing it.[27] This is a similar strategy previously used by the tobacco industry to promote itself as a partner of public health in reducing the harms of tobacco, while obfuscating the scientific evidence pointing that harm reduction is achieved through tobacco control policies that decrease consumption.[27]"
- To summarise, the WP:MEDRS consensus varies among the sources presented for both heat-not-burn tobacco products (heated tobacco products) and e-cigs (vaping products). QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. What is the market share of heat-not-burn tobacco, compared to smoked tobacco products? Is vaping classified as heat-not-burn? A few of your sentences suggest yes, but some draw a distinction. Some of this difficult terminology doesn't seem suited for an encyclopedia audience. If there is a harm reduction approach in the 95-99.5% range available to hundreds of millions of patients for whom consumption decrease approaches are less successful than substitution, I'd like to understand the medical ethics involved with allowing public relations and marketing campaigns to have any bearing on indicated treatments. EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Prevalence: The market share is generally low. Sales are expected to increase. In Japan they are popular. E-cigarettes do not involve tobacco combustion. Vaping is not classified as a heat-not-burn product. The Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Marketing section explains a little bit about the ethics. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a quantity, perhaps expressed with multiple numbers such as a confidence interval, or in words, which you are comfortable with for the introductory paragraphs of this heat-not-burn tobacco product article? EllenCT (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- See the second paragraph of the draft for the MEDRS consensus in respect to safey. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEWHO20166_24-0.
- Also see the in introductory paragraph of Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Health_effects: "As of December 2017, it is impossible to quantify the health risk from using these products.[25] There is very limited information available on their health effects.[25]" See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#cite_ref-COT2017_26-2. No MEDRS source I read has a specific quantity regarding their safety. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a quantity, perhaps expressed with multiple numbers such as a confidence interval, or in words, which you are comfortable with for the introductory paragraphs of this heat-not-burn tobacco product article? EllenCT (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- See Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Prevalence: The market share is generally low. Sales are expected to increase. In Japan they are popular. E-cigarettes do not involve tobacco combustion. Vaping is not classified as a heat-not-burn product. The Draft:Electric_smoking_system#Marketing section explains a little bit about the ethics. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. What is the market share of heat-not-burn tobacco, compared to smoked tobacco products? Is vaping classified as heat-not-burn? A few of your sentences suggest yes, but some draw a distinction. Some of this difficult terminology doesn't seem suited for an encyclopedia audience. If there is a harm reduction approach in the 95-99.5% range available to hundreds of millions of patients for whom consumption decrease approaches are less successful than substitution, I'd like to understand the medical ethics involved with allowing public relations and marketing campaigns to have any bearing on indicated treatments. EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- EllenCT, you asked for both sides. I'll do my best to give you a balanced view, and perhaps between me and QuackGuru you'll get a fair idea of the range of views.
- I tried to cover the difference between these products and e-cigs in the "nature and function" section of the current article, and would really appreciate your feedback on where I was unclear and how to improve it. Fundamentally, e-cigs heat liquids, while these heated tobacco products heat solids. There are also "hybrid" products that heat both together. Many e-cigarette fluids use tobacco extracts, as these are cheaper than pharmaceutical-grade pure nicotine in at least some jurisdictions. The peak temperatures of the products vary.
- What exactly this means for health risks will not be clear for a few decades, because the major harms of smoking are long-term, and take decades to develop. There is a history of "modified risk" products, products marketed by the nicotine industry in a way that gave the public the impression that they were lower-risk (so far, they've all turned out to not actually be safer, when the data finally came in). The claims of reduced harm are implied rather than directly stated by the established firms, as to make them directly would expose them to legal liability (independents are less careful, and some get fined for false advertising).
- The risk claims are often founded on quantitative measurements of genuinely harmful constituents in smoke, showing that there are less of them in the new products than the old products. However, lower toxin levels don't equal lower risk. We don't really know what constituents of cigarettes are responsible for the health harms, or how they interact. Low levels of some substances may be just about as harmful as large amounts (see dose-response curve). Products can be optimized to reduce whatever is measured, on the testing rigs if not in reality (sort of like defeat devices for air pollution). And according to the Surgeon General among others, nicotine itself may be a major contributor to the health harms of cigarettes. We are quite sure that it is responsible for some things, like problems with brain development in babies whose mothers use nicotine replacement products. Nicotine alone causes an impressive list of health problems in animals (testing on non-using humans would be unlikely to pass a research ethics review committee). And of course addiction is in itself a harm.
- So you have to guess what causes all the harms we know of for the old products, and then use those guesses to make a guess for the harms of the new products. Plus you have to guess the harms from the novel things in the new products (which is hard, but, for instance, many of the flavourings are known to be unsafe to inhale, as are the metals off the heating elements). Then you compare the guess for the new product to the old products, for each harm individually (ventilated cigarettes, for instance, caused an increase in some forms of lung disease, but an increase in others, relative to unventilated cigarettes). The fact that the new products are very varied and changing all the time does not help.
- The idea that the health benefit is definitely a simple number, like "95%", is more than a bit odd. I'm not impressed with the people making it, including Public Health England. Nor am I impressed with PHE for taking money from manufacturers of nicotine products to fund their studies; I'm not sure if this group includes makers of e-cigarettes, or just nicotine replacement therapies, but it's still a conflict of interest. The European Public Health Association is also unimpressed; they say "The widely cited figure of 95% safer emerged from a discussion among individuals, most of whom had previously advocated for these products, who conceded the lack of evidence on which to base their conclusion."[45]
- E-cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults, a 2016 Surgeon General's report, is a much more through literature review, but it's long and not very headline-friendly. I recommend reading the whole thing only if you are really determined. If you really, really want to know a lot more about tobacco marketing techniques, I recommend The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use, a joint publication by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute. You'd have to be even more determined to wade through that.
- Obviously the overall cost-benefit calculation has to consider many groups:
- a person who switches fully from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes may well have a health benefit, though we won't know for sure for decades.
- a person who uses both (dual use) can't hope to benefit much,[46] because of the big-harms-from-small-amounts effects mentioned above (this applies to many of the important risks, like major diseases, but there are some benefits to reducing consumption).
- a person who would have quit, but instead switched because it was easier, has also been harmed (internal documents show that the nicotine industry has worried a lot about this).
- a person did quit, but would have quit earlier had they not used e-cigarettes, has also been harmed.
- if a person gets addicted to nicotine through e-cigarettes, and they would never have used a conventional cigarette, then they have been harmed by e-cigarettes.
- if a person gets addicted to nicotine through e-cigarettes, and would otherwise have used a conventional cigarette, then they could have an unknown benefit.
- Obviously the overall effect of e-cigarettes on population health depends on the proportions of these groups and the unknown health differences. There have been attempts to guess this, but they are just very educated guesses.[47] There are lots of unknowns (marketing, for instance, and cultural factors, and regulatory changes).
- It is also an open question whether e-cigs or these solid products help smokers quit. A Cochrane review[48] on e-cigs for quitting conventional cigarettes finds remarkably few good-quality studies on the question. There is evidence from other fields that researchers with conflicts of interest influence the research literature by asking the right questions. If it were easy to produce a really solid study showing that a new product helped smokers quit, then some of the people selling them have plenty of funding for such a study. Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration fines anyone who claims that e-cigs help you quit for false advertising. In the UK, no e-cigarette has been approved as a smoking cessation product, but they are widely promoted as quitting devices (though the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has advised doctors not to).
- Actually, horribly, there is controversy over the evidence that nicotine replacement therapy helps people quit. In controlled, randomized trials, it seemed to have an effect, but in field studies it's hard to see. Hopefully we'll have better evidence soon.
- Population surveys show a lot of dual use. There is some evidence that population-level quitting rates have risen, but also that more people are getting hooked on nicotine because of e-cigarettes, with the percentage using conventional cigarettes falling or stable while the percentage using all nicotine products is rising.[49] Traditionally, with cigarettes, youth (almost no-one starts smoking after their mid-twenties) have gotten hooked on easy-to-use flavoured cigarettes with minimal throat hit (throat hit is an initially unpleasant spasm of the throat, which smokers learn to associate with nicotine-coming-soon, and thus learn to like; it then reinforces addiction, as a bridging stimulus). Established smokers prefer a stronger throat hit and care less about flavours. After you've looked at historic tobacco industry documents on these product categories, it's not hard to look at e-cigs and see some that look aimed at established smokers and some that look aimed at new users.
- For background, regular smokers experience normal moods only at peak blood nicotine levels. The rest of the time, their moods are slightly worse. If they increase their peak nicotine level, say by puffing a bit harder, or smoking more cigarettes, they initially feel a bit better, but their body soon adjusts.[50] It's the abrupt lift in mood when dependent people smoke that makes the cigarettes addictive. Over the years, cigarettes have been modified to make them more addictive. A plain tobacco cigarette will go out if you put it down; a commercial one has been modified so the it will carry on burning, which encourages the smoker to smoke it all at once. Assorted chemicals modify the throat hit.
- E-cigarettes started out being made by independents who honestly wanted to help people quit. You can tell. You can fill an e-cig with any e-fluid. You can make your own e-fluid, if it's legal in your jurisdiction. You can adjust and modify your e-cigarette. And the blood nicotine rise in the older models was fairly slow; a slow nicotine rise generally makes nicotine products less addictive. You can take as few puffs as you like and put them in your pocket, meaning your nicotine levels are much more stable than when smoking conventional cigarettes. This also seems like it ought to make them less addictive, and easier to quit, than regular cigarettes.
- E-cigs are now increasingly being made by the big old nicotine companies which have historically worked hard and successfully on stopping people from quitting. Let's look at JUUL e-cigs (actually a new company, but now pretty big). They sell proprietary cartridge refills, and go after anyone who sells compatible refills with a vengeance and a solid legal team (why we allows patents on addictive devices I do not know). They have a bridging stimulus, which makes them more addictive; it's reportedly a benzoic-acid-triggered throat sensation, apparently less offputting to novices. They have flavours. The devices look like USB sticks and have no settings; they are easy to use. They have marketing which has been described as targeting youth, some of which they have modified under this criticism. They seem to be more addictive than the older products, although again you can't really do an experiment.
- Now let's look at IQOS. It uses proprietary refills, and an interlock to forced you to smoke the whole thing at once. The refill cigarettes use less tobacco, but delivers similar amounts of nicotine to a regular cigarette, meaning they are probably cheaper to make. Blood nicotine levels rise just as fast as after a regular cigarette, but then they fall faster, which presumably means that the urge for another cigarette sets in sooner. People switching to IQOS come to smoke more IQOS cigarettes than they did conventional cigarettes. This looks like a product designed to addict and make a profit. It does not look like a product designed to help quitting.
- I'm all in favour of harm reduction. I am not in favour of fake harm reduction; you need evidence before you can say that something reduces harm. Past false harm reduction in this field has caused a lot of needless suffering and death. As you may have gathered, I am deeply cynical about the motives of large nicotine companies, many of which have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit. I am also deeply cynical of the marketing techniques used by the industry, including techniques involving the media, search engine optimization, public health bodies, regulatory agencies, and the academic literature (it's useful to not only check the PubMEd COI statements, but look up the authors and funders on TobaccoTactics). This article we are discussing was originally largely written by Phillip Morris, who sell the most common product of this type. My cynicism may be partly because I came at this topic from a conflict-of-interest perspective. I wrote much of Conflicts of interest in academic publishing, History of nicotine marketing, Nicotine marketing, and E-cigarette marketing (currently in poor shape). My POV . I hope this was helpful. Please feel free to ask for clarification or just plain criticize. HLHJ (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).