Talk:Heated tobacco product

Revisiting earlier changes requested

Hi all. I suspect my earlier formatting made it easy to lose the thread of discussion on some of the points, and discussion on those and others have died out unresolved. I'm posting this new section where each point has its own subsection, signing each request individually, in case this helps keep things clear. I very much appreciate the candid discussion we've been having so far. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Separating points is a good idea, but mostly I've not had time. HLHJ (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference 2 (Bentley2017) does not verify "smoke"

I understand that a blanket change of all instances of smoke to aerosol should not be done at this time because there is no consensus on this point. However, I do find that the first instance of smoke in this article is followed by a reference that does not verify the term "smoke" but instead verifies "vapor" (Forbes article by Bentley). The research this article cites says: "The heating process creates a vapor containing nicotine and a variety of tobacco products, which can be inhaled, with no combustion, smoke or ash produced." reference. My proposal is to change the following sentences so they are accurate with respect to the existing reference Bentley2017:

(top paragraph of article) The resulting smoke contains nicotine and other chemicals --> The resulting vapor contains nicotine and other chemicals. Alternately: Heat not burn tobacco products produce nicotine and other chemicals.

(2nd paragraph in IQOS section) The smoke released contains nicotine and other chemicals --> The vapor released contains nicotine and other chemicals. Alternately: IQOS produces nicotine and other chemicals.

Further, per HLHJ's request (on August 16) for a quote from PMI on aerosol vs smoke, I provide text from New Zealand Herald where PMI is quoted in a news article: " 'IQOS does not produce smoke (first or second-hand) because it does not burn or combust tobacco,' a spokesman told news.com.au." reference Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Using the Vaping Post to identify the smoke as "vapour" seems dubious to me. I'm not sure we should be citing the Vaping Post at all, honestly. They seem here to be contradicting common and definitions. Particulate matter is not vapour. The idea that decomposing organics by heating them with oxygen is not "combustion", and the leftover material is not "ash" also seem to me to be wistful thinking, and not something Wikipedia's voice should say. I would like to include content on this logomachy, though, and am thus discussing it with QuackGuru, who opposes inclusion. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your hesitance to use Vaping Post to define essentially what a heated tobacco product is/creates, and I also agree "vapor" isn't scientifically accurate. I recommend the World Health Organization's heated tobacco product infosheet (existing reference WHO2018), see first sentence. If you want to avoid using "aerosol" as used in the infosheet, the sentence could also be rephrased to avoid saying it produces smoke/aerosol altogether, and just say that these products produce nicotine and other chemicals which the user inhales.

Speaking of the term aerosol, I just noticed it is incorrectly used in the next sentence of the lede: These products may match some of the behavioral aspects of aerosol [2]. "aerosol" should be restored to the original "smoking". Sarah at PMI (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that QuackGuru has fixed this, and also replaced the word "smoke" with "aerosol". QuackGuru, when editing on behalf of a paid editor, you must note the fact in the edit summary. It's policy.

I think that the word "smoke" is important. Independent research regularly calls the emissions "smoke" (here, and sources therein, for instance). "Smoke" also seems to me to be justified, using either scientific or common use of the term.

From descriptions, it seems to me that these things char the tobacco. That is, they partially combust it at low temperature, driving off the water and volatiles, but not the more recalcitrant stuff, like carbon. A process like this is used to make artist's vine charcoal. The temperatures that this tobacco mixture is burned at, according to industry documents, are about right for charcoal burning, and the used sticks look like charcoal in the middle. The charring cigarettes used in these devices seem to be low-permeability, and enclosed in the device, so that air cannot circulate freely into the tobacco. I'm guessing that formulation may include alternate oxidants/reactants packed in with the tobacco; perhaps you can tell me if this is the case? HLHJ (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the available evidence there is no combustion; there is no self-sustaining process, and the heater is necessary under correct operation. Further, different materials burn at different temperatures - I would not say that wood heated to a temperature of 350 C is "burned" simply because charcoal burns at that temperature. Wood burns around 600 C (fast google search, I'm not an expert on burning wood). Beyond this, I fully recognize that this discussion warrants more nuance than I have information to support. So, I hope you don't mind if I take some time to check with our R&D so I can provide more specific answer. Cheers Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? The question is not whether it burns, because neither do cigarettes. The question is whether they produce smoke, to which your response is a non-sequitur.
In addition, smoke IS an aerosol, so those two statements are not at odds. And you fundamentally misinterpret consensus, because there is clear consensus to use "smoke". Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

PMI has linked the claims that their product does not burn tobacco to claims that it does not produce smoke; the dubious proverb "No smoke without fire" has been brought into play. We may as well deal with both at once. Both "burn" and "smoke" are terms that any English speaker is familiar with. Smoke is, of course, an aerosol, but I can see no non-marketing reason for using the more obscure term in the article. No tobacco product I know of completely combusts tobacco, or has open flames; it's more of a smouldering burn. Most people would, I think, say that cigarettes burn and produce smoke. I think PMI's use of the marketing terms "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" imply that conventional cigarettes burn and produce smoke. I am arguing that the charring-cigarette products covered in this article also burn and produce smoke.

To clarify, the production (not use) of charcoal is called "charcoal burning" and it produces smoke. The smoke is rich in water and other more-volatile components, as is the smoke of these devices, according to PMI documents. The autoignition temperature of wood is very roughly 300 Celsius;[1] it will burn at lower temperatures, and char at still lower temperatures.[2][3] Charcoal is made from wood. It is also made from corncobs and leaves and many other forms of organic material, although probably not with tobacco for economic and safety reasons. A properly-made charcoal clamp will also burn out by itself.

The idea that all combustion is self-sustaining is obviously silly to anyone who has ever struggled to light a fire. It's not hard to set something on fire, and release heat. But if enough of the heat released gets blown away by the wind, or goes into evaporating the water soaking your firewood, the temperature declines and the fire goes out. These charring cigarettes are apparently fairly moist, like damp firewood, and I don't know what other ingredients they contain. The fact that a continual supply of heat is needed to keep them burning does not imply that they are not burning, or not smoking. A soggy log that won't keep burning without a fire next to it can produce a lot of smoke.

Actually, I believe that a traditional cigarette, rolled from plain paper and plain dried tobacco leaves, is also self-extinguishing. If you stop puffing on it, it goes out. I've heard that this functionality was deliberately removed from commercial cigarettes, by adding potassium nitrate; now other changes are being legislated to produce fire-safe cigarettes that will hopefully start fewer house fires.

Thanks for offering to talk to your R&D, but it may be unnecessary. I have read some material PMI has published online which purports to establish scientifically that these devices are "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free", using among other arguments the ones you have made (so I'm not calling you silly, Sarah, for clarity, and I rather pity whoever had to come up with these arguments). I spent some hours going through it point-by-point. It is my considered opinion that the reasons are spurious. They superficially look sort of sciencey, but seem designed to convince the reader to override their existing understanding of the words "burn" and "smoke". Perhaps, for the humour, one could call them a figurative smokescreen? HLHJ (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I understood that there was not a consensus on the smoke/aerosol terminology for this article, based on comments made by HLHJ here and here, and by QuackGuru here (section IQOS and smoke?) and his edit here. I assume he made that change because he agrees with the terminology, even though I agree the change note should have included reference to my change request.

Smoke is an aerosol, certainly, but not all aerosols are smoke, which is what prompted my initiation of this discussion. I have engaged here in good faith, and I appreciate the mostly positive discussion/feedback despite any gaffes I may have made as I learn my way around the talk page. If the response to my change request is "no", then I do of course accept it. If there is any other information you feel could be helpful for me to provide on this point or others, let me know. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's difficult to keep faith when serving two masters with divergent interests. I appreciate your effort not to edit in bad faith, but I can't reasonably expect you to choose loyalty to the ideals of a free encyclopedia over loyalty to your employer's economic interests. I think it's "no". Carl Fredrik might be referring to the consensus assessed from suitable sources. I hadn't looked at the article history, though. Now I do, I think I was wrong, and he's right that there is also an editor consensus. I see your colleague User:SimonDes used the term "vapour" when he created the article.

If you can provide any information on potassium nitrate or other oxidants in the cigarettes, I'd appreciate it. For the principle, see rocket candy. HLHJ (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Sarah at PMI pointed out a policy violation. The content failed verification. This is like correcting a typo. See WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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. HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, I hope you don't mind the wait while I checked in on your request. The ingredients used in our PMI products are disclosed in our website Product Ingredient Finder. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that will take some solid looking at. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still haven't gotten around to this. Apparently I should have known they were published, too, as it is now a legal requirement in some places. HLHJ (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

IQOS is not an acronym, secondary source

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

---

I provide the following secondary source clarifying that the acronym of I quit ordinary smoking is unofficial; IQOS does not mean anything in particular. "On the internet, various users have theorized that IQOS is an acronym for 'I Quit Ordinary Smoking.' Calantzopoulos says this 'was obviously not the intention.' Through a spokeswoman, the company later clarified that the name, which started with a lowercase 'i,' then morphed into a combination of 'IQ' with 'OS,' 'has no meaning in particular—it’s meant to represent quality, technology, electronics, intelligent systems—because this is not a tobacco category.' ” reference (underlined emphasis mine) Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

May I move this into the section above, to avoid discussion forking?

Certainly. Sarah at PMI (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Auer et al study given undue weight

Consider that this study is no longer the only study on IQOS and other heat not burn products (see p 12 for list of references we were aware of as of ~ May 15 this year, more published since then). And yet, the Auer paper is the second most cited reference in this article, assuming I understand correctly the letters next to references at the bottom of the page. As a start to balance that undue weight, I propose to add a sentence noting the FDA's position on the Auer et al paper, possibly at the end of the fourth paragraph in the IQOS section detailing that the Auer study was considered by the FDA.

The FDA said in their briefing document: "There are significant analytical issues in the Auer et al. study, such as lack of testing reference samples, low number of replicates, lack of selectivity on some analytical methods." reference, page 14 Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lack of independent research addressing claims around these devices. You could help here by persuading your company to issue a statement that its actions relating to the Auer study were in no way intended to intimidate researchers or stifle independent research. I realize that you probably can't do this. We could cite Auer less often, as there are other sources for some of the statements. The FDA's criticisms do not seem to me to create any doubt about the fairly simple statements that we have cited Auer for (mostly, that the device emits combustion products; let me know if you think any of the statements are false). We have not included the FDA's criticism of the PMI research either; I don't think including debate about methodology is helpful unless it is relevant to the article content. It looks as if PMI took down it's academic rebuttal to the Auer study. I don't know why. Could you possibly point me at a copy? HLHJ (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the comments PMI had posted to PubMed, the comment is not there because PubMed Commons has unfortunately been discontinued. This PDF is the same as that comment, which you can also find through the above article (that's harder to read though - it's a csv file). Per your first point, I agree, more independent research would be great. Even so, government bodies have already been reviewing and making decisions on the available evidence. There's the US FDA as cited in the article already, Public Health England, RIVM in the Netherlands, and BfR in Germany to name a few. It would be good to see reviews like these incorporated in the article to show the current international scientific consensus on heated tobacco products rather than relying on the results of one research study, but I recognize that's a bigger project.

Concerning text about the Auer study:

• In "Health effects" section, the sentence that says Marketing slogans like "heat-not-burn" cannot be a substitute for science. [8] is based on their language "...advertising slogans such as 'heat-not'burn' are no substitute for science."(ref 8) This doesn't seem like neutral language, nor about the health effects of the product.
• The language in the article about how the heatstick is manufactured could come from a different source - most news articles I find using the keywords heatsticks and propylene glycol provide similar information as the article text The disposable tobacco stick, which looks somewhat like a short cigarette, has been dipped in propylene glycol,
• The section saying , including the May 2017 Swiss paper about toxic compounds in iQOS smoke mentioned above doesn't cite the paper, but it just reads strangely to me not to explain why only this paper is highlighted among the ones the FDA talked about.
• Concerning how many countries currently permit the sale of IQOS (2nd sentence under "Regulations"), this link is more recent and says IQOS is available in 38 markets.

Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I've added some other independent studies. HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Myers quote fails verification

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

---

As the article currently is written, it puts words in Myers's mouth that are not his, but are instead paraphrase done by NPR. I noted this inaccurate quotation in an earlier change request, and the quote was discussed further in the section "Copyright violation". My opinion is to remove it altogether, but if it is going to remain formatted as a direct quote, then Mr. Myers should be quoted accurately.

What Myers actually said was "It is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people."reference Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please merge this to the original discussion, too? HLHJ (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you seem to have made this edit in response to Sarah at PMI's request. If you make an edit on the request of a paid editor, you should include that fact in your edit summary. I suppose technically I should have done that when fixing the dead link, but it was a minor edit. HLHJ (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to make the move. I'll watch how you move the other discussion on the IQOS acronym and then make this move myself. Thanks. Sarah at PMI (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Minor reference corrections

The reference FDA_rules (reference 51) is not formatted correctly, saying External link in work= .

Also, QuackGuru has pointed out that the reference by Sam Cambers (reference 50) using the link http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-big-tobacco-cigarette-alternatives-iqos-20180126-story.html is a dead link. That's reference chicago_trib, in the paragraph beginning with the text "In January 2018, the FDA advisory panel…" I can't verify the deadlink because I can't access the website from Europe, but this is worth looking into if it is in fact a deadlink in the article. Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that. I have fixed it. QuackGuru, could you have a look at what I did so that you can do it yourself next time? HLHJ (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tags

I've just removed two more tags from this article. The purpose of tags such as {{FV}} and {{undue inline}} is to attract other editors to contribute to the article to help resolve issues, not to score debating points. The text in question:

• The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said that "It is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people."

is supported by the reference "FDA Panel Gives Qualified Support To Claims For 'Safer' Smoking Device". NPR.org., as those are the words that Matthew Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, used. The reason given for the {{FV}} was

• "FV|reason=mike myers is the president of CfTFK - but he isn't the organization"

That sort of quibble is an insult to the intelligence of other editors and whoever added it ought to be ashamed of themselves. Matthew Myers is an expert advocate and was giving the views of the CfTFK to an FDA enquiry. Of course those are the views of the organisation, and of course they are are relevant to the issue. That makes

• undue inline|reason=Where is the relevance as what a president of an advocacy/activist organization thinks?

almost comically inept. Anybody taking a look at Myer's credentials can see how his statement to the FDA is relevant to the issues of design and marketing of these products. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but an organisation and a person are not the same thing. You cannot for instance exchange "said Jimbo Wales" with "said Wikipedia". That is not sophistry, nor is it insulting to the editors. As for the undue-inline: You are using the organisation (CfTFK) to verifify the importance of the organisation itself??? The undue weight comes from using an advocacy/activist organisations statements, on what effectively is a scientific/medical issue, and you can't. As far as i can see Matt Myers has no scientific or medical credentials at all. What he has is an impressive record of successfull advocacy. --Kim D. Petersen 06:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make silly suggestions such as the head of the organization not representing the organization or what they say being irrelevant to the organization. We had a politician recently in Sweden who suggested that comments he made during a party-leader interview on public radio where he said he opposed public service radio were made in his role as a consumer and not a politician. It just undermines all credibility and it isn't a discussion worth having. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

COI tag

Hi guys, I think this fits into the removal of tags conversation. I'd like to check on the COI tag that is currently on the page. It was already removed by QuackGuru in July around when I first introduced myself, though I see it's there again now. When I read the template info, it says the tag should be accompanied by a discussion of what non-neutral language prompted the COI tag, but I don't see that discussion any where. So, I'd like to ask what changes are required for the removal of this tag? Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Now removed by QuackGuru. As there is no discussion here, I fully agree with that. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pinged to discuss, but have only just got around to it. The tag just removed was added by Carl Frederick, and the same tag was previously added by JamesBWatson, so I think it would be reasonable to ask them their views. I am inclined to think that any article with substantial paid contributions should be tagged to reflect that, but this is perhaps a broader discussion of the role of the template. HLHJ (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles where some contributors have a conflict-of-interest or a conflict-of-loyalty should certainly be marked as such to inform fellow editors. The talk page is therefore the proper place for such notices and this page bears both the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} and {{Connected contributor}} templates. The purpose of the {{COI}} tag is as a temporary measure to attract a wider range of editors to the article to assist in resolving identified COI issues. That is why consensus is that a discussion has to be started, or any editor may remove the tag. That's documented prominently at Template:COI/doc. Any changes to that consensus would affect a whole range of neutrality-related templates and a central discussion venue, like WP:VPP, would seem most appropriate to me. --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the guidelines it's clear that that's the purpose of the template. Thank you for the links. I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea to have a way to inform readers that, in this case, PMI employees have contributed to the article. But as you say, this would be a major change, and I'd want to think it over throughly before even proposing it. HLHJ (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well the issues persist, and the template can remain until they've been adressed. There is undue weight given to specific products, and the article still includes material authored by paid lobbyists. Until this has been stripped out there is no rationale for removing the template. Carl Fredrik ^talk 02:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Large-scale revert of health information

Hello, Sennen goroshi, QuackGuru. This major revert, with the comment "revert to prior stable version, before blatantly biased anti-ecig crusading edits were made." removed a fair amount of content (some of which, for disclosure, I wrote). Judging by the comment on the previous edit ("COI is not the problem. The mass failed verification is.") and a comment on a subsequent minor edit ("Stable version has been restored prior to the mass failed verifiaction content. Please do not restore failed verifiaction content or unsourced content against verifiable policy"), both by QuackGuru, I believe that it is QuackGuru's contention that the content removed failed verification. Sennen goroshi seems to object to the content on grounds that it is biassed. I would appreciate a more detailed discussion of what you both found objectionable. Sennen goroshi, could you please also say which version you reverted to? HLHJ (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Sennen goroshi, QuackGuru. I know you haven't been around at all/much, respectively, since I posted here and to your talk pages, which is perfectly fair. As this is a high-traffic page and it's been a week, I hope you won't object to my seeking views from other editors on this content change. HLHJ (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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. There have been reviews published in reputable journals which should be usable. We should certainly not be relying on primary sources such as PMC 4245615, where the authors, who are employed by the manufacturer (and claim they have no COI) variously assert the product to have little, less, or no harm. Quite simply, only a fool would assume them not to be conflicted. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ LeadSongDog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't find a time when this article contained PMC 4245615, so I'm assuming that's elsewhere. I agree on avoiding sources with serious COIs, please bring it to my attention if I've failed. McKelvey et al. and St. Helen et al. seem to be independent reassessments of industry claims.

"Surveys have found that about half of users have never smoked conventional cigarettes" was supported by the sources: "Of total baseline [survey] subjects, 50% were male, 59% were never-smokers and 6% were ever-users of HNB tobacco/e-cigarette in 2015." "These trends may be of concern, since we have previously shown that nearly half of Italian IQOS users (45%) and over half of the people interested in IQOS (51%) are never smokers. Therefore, such a product may represent, at least in Italy, a gateway for nicotine addiction among never smokers rather than a harm reduction substitution for current smokers" I didn't find any sources that contradicted this information. What are your grounds for thinking that this statement is misleading, Sennen Goroshi? Do you think that the section on regulation was biassed, and if so, where?

I am working on making my edits unbiassed and welcome criticism on that front, but I'm afraid your criticism is so general I'm having trouble finding specific items for improvement in it. If you had tagged the content with {{weasel inline}} and {{FV}}, even if you had then reverted it, then I would know exactly what bits you are talking about. I'd support restoring the content and then tagging it for specific problems, but then I would. What do others think would be the best course? HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging in here, and i may have misunderstood something: the statement "Of total baseline [survey] subjects..." is talking about the participants of the longtitudinal survey not about percentages of HnB (or e-cig) use. In fact table 1 states that amongst the total baseline only 6.3% had ever-used HnB products (any) or ecigs - and table 2 [smoking status] quite clearly states that after 2 years (2015-2017) "only" 1.5% of "never-smokers" had "any use" of HnB or ecigs. --Kim D. Petersen 01:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You are entirely right, Kim D. Petersen, I misread the paper and failed to notice the fact even when I directly quoted the error. Thank you for pointing it out. I will read through the paper more carefully and respond at greater length. HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have looked through the Japanese paper and it seems that it does not even address this question. I have modified the statement accordingly. I'd like more sources on this, but have not yet found any. Apologies for my mistake, and thanks again to Kim D. Petersen for catching it. HLHJ (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is something very wrong with the Italian figures as well. I agree that the source referenced states: "These trends may be of concern, since we have previously shown that nearly half of Italian IQOS users (45%) and over half of the people interested in IQOS (51%) are never smokers". But when i look at the reference given, it doesn't give any figures of usage, but only examine "interest", and even those figures are not corresponding to the source, which states: "One in five (19.5%) respondents were aware of IQOS, 1.4% have tried it and 2.3% intended to try it (table 1). Overall, 1.0% of never smokers, 0.8% of ex-smokers and 3.1% of current cigarette smokers have tried IQOS. Correspondingly, 1.2% of never e-cigarette users, 2.9% of ex-e-cigarette users and 7.7% of current e-cigarette users have tried IQOS" --Kim D. Petersen 04:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

What is the definition of "never smoker"? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A person who has not previously smoked. A never smoker is someone who has not smoked a traditional tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If i recall correctly the generally accepted defintion of "never smoker" is someone who has smoked less than 100 cigarettes over a lifetime. Seems contradictory, but it removes people that have tried to taste cigarettes but never became smokers. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going with Kim on this one, QG, you're not being reasonable, or for that matter factual... Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

What Kim stated fails verification using any of the sources presented. A definition in general can't be used when it is not verifiable using the source presented. "Someone who has not previously smoked." is a verifiable definition using any of the sources presented. QuackGuru (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No individual source verifies "Surveys have found that about half of users have never smoked conventional cigarettes." Combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion is a SYN violation. I explained this before in another thread about what is a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Generalizing stats of 59% and 45% (~and 51%) as "about half" seems less than original to me, especially as a source says "nearly half". QuackGuru, I have re-read the archived threads in which you mentioned "SYN". Your conception of what is WP:SYN continues to confuse me. I really don't want to go through another round of your successive edit requests, as I found them incomprehensible and occasionally contradictory. Could you both please lay out all of the problems you have with my edits from the start, especially any parts you consider misleading or inadequately-sourced, so that we can sort them out in a systematic way? If you answer direct questions, or explain why you don't, I think it will help us to sort this out faster.

While some MEDRS use QG's definition, other MEDRS use definitions of "never smoker" which are something like "less than 100 cigarettes smoked over a lifetime", as a dependence criterion or to avoid lumping "I had one puff once and threw up, never tried them again" with "five-pack-a-day habit for forty years". A never-smoker in this context did not get addicted to nicotine by smoking conventional cigarettes, hence the "gateway" comment.

I think, Sennen Goroshi, that you reverted to this, Apart from bots and very helpful but content-neutral reference-formatting edits, the only edits reverted were by me and Carl Fredrik. He reverted one of my edits, tagged a source as poor, and copyedited; more notably, he swapped in "smoke" for "aerosol" after talk page discussion. Do you object to his edits, or only to mine? Would you have any objection to my replacing the edits that were not mine?

Other questions:

• Do you think that the section on regulation was biassed or problematic, and if so, where?
• Are there any other bits you find misleading?
• What phrasing is weaselly?

Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I find the previous version is better. Sure it had some problems that need correction, but the large-scale revert was detrimental. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "Surveys have found that about half of users have never smoked conventional cigarettes." was combining two sources together and the content was too general or unclear. Both sources made different claims. It is far better to be more accurate and make different claims for each source rather than combine sources and make a general or vague statement. The part "Surveys" is more than one survey. Each source verifies one "Survey" not "Surveys". In order to state "Surveys" two sources were used to come to a new conclusion not found in any individual source.

The "Other questions" above is asking what are the issues. I would ask a different question. What sentence added was not a problem? QuackGuru (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work to fix the sentence you refer to, but I do not agree that a single sentence cannot be a generalization of content in more than one source. Describing multiple instances with a plural is not original research. Nor is more detail always better; this is an encyclopedia article, not a PhD thesis :).

QuackGuru, you have repeatedly told me that my edits have problems too numerous for you to mention and should just be removed. This isn't really helpful; it improves neither my editing nor the article. I am not a vandal; if you object to my edits, you need to say why. I have spent a lot of time both writing edits you have reverted and attempting to satisfy your complaints; please spend the time to detail the issues in a clear, specific way which will allow me to fix them, now and in the future. HLHJ (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say "...should just be removed." I said "I would ask a different question. What sentence added was not a problem?" It is time consuming to explain policy such as SYN policy. For example, using multiple sources to come to a different conclusion is improper synthesis. So far you have not shown which sentence was not a problem to satisfy others. More than one editor has objected to the sentence about the surveys. "You stated above "...but I do not agree that a single sentence cannot be a generalization of content in more than one source. Describing multiple instances with a plural is not original research." Both sources do not describe it was "surveys". It looks like you used two sources to come to a conclusion it was "Surveys" rather than write a different claim for each source. See "These trends may be of concern, since we have previously shown that nearly half of Italian IQOS users (45%) and over half of the people interested in IQOS (51%) are never smokers.4"[4] A better way to write this sentence would be to explain about the Italian IQOS users in one sentence without citing two sources because only one would verify the claim that it is about the Italian IQOS users. Over-generalization of the content is an issue for me. For example, the content was not specific about the Italian IQOS users. If the content was more specific and cited only the source that verifies the claim the content would be greatly improved. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In your edit comment, you said "Please do not restore", although I was actually thinking of your previous reference to WP:TNT. I am am glad if this is not your view. I have adressed the sentence above.

You ask "What sentence added was not a problem?"; let's start with a series of statements about the effects of advertising (lumped by source for simplicity):

• Some "HnB" marketing claims have been shown to give the false impression that the products are harmless.
• Smokers to postponed their intentions to quit after using HnB products or being exposed to HnB marketing messages, according to an independent reanalysis of an industry trial of a HnB product.
• There is evidence that some users of similar "modified-risk" products falsely considered such use equivalent to quitting. There is also evidence that messages about modified risk are misinterpreted by adults and youth as claims that a "modified-risk" product is harmless. They are more likely to start using it, and less likely to quit, as a result.
• Smokers using Hnb products are not likely to stop using regular cigarettes; they mostly use both, even when HnB products are supplied to them for free.

What is problematic about these statements? I could add some more citations to them, but let's keep it simple for now. HLHJ (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References