Talk:Heated tobacco product

QuackGuru's concerns

Copied from User talk:CentreLeftRight

This content failed verification and this content is too close to the source. If this continues I would suggest editing another topic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
— User:QuackGuru

Hi, QuackGuru. Thanks for mentioning problems with my edits. Please, in the future, if you post about problems with any of my edits on someone else's talk page, add me a notification, I could easily not have seen it.

I've had a go at fixing the problems you mention. I've added the direct quotes that support the statements that you tagged as "failed verification". I also rephrased the words "Phillip Morris failed to show", which you flagged as copyvio. I hadn't noticed that the phrasing of those five words was identical. Do you know if there are any guidelines on originality thresholds for short sections of conventional phrasing? I should read them, if so. If you could tell me where to find them I'd be grateful. I hope my edits resolve your concerns; if not, please leave me a message with a notification here, and I should see it and respond. HLHJ (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See "nearly three times as much acenaphthene as a regular cigarette,[45] is not supported by ref 45. Adding an additional ref does not make the other ref verify the claim.

See "expressed concerns about the lack of data" is not supported by ref 49.

After[44] was put in front of a study. That looks like a SYN violation. The study itself did not state what happened next. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, QuackGuru, I'm a bit confused.

• The two refs say "295%", which to me means "nearly three times the base quantity". I could write "2.95 times" if you'd prefer greater precision. Only one ref names the chemical as acenaphthene.
• "expressed concerns about the lack of data" is a direct quote from ref 50. I can remove this statement and the ref if you prefer.
• The study does not say what happened next, but ref 44, a newspaper article, does. I quoted the relevant passage in ref 44. Since you tagger the word "after" as needing verification, I gave it its own citation, but since the citation is at the end of the sentence anyway, I think this could be removed, if you agree.

If you reply to this, please notify me so that I'll see it. HLHJ (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There are now more problems. "After[44] a study of the smoke released by the iQOS heating tobacco..." makes it seem another source was used when the study is being cited for the main text. The two refs say "295%", but one of the refs is a news article. See WP:MEDRS. The source does not state in the text "nearly three times". You added this text using the chart but did not include the other amounts for other chemicals. We should include all the numbers rather than cherry pick only a tiny part of the chart. A chart can be created including all the numbers rather than try to interpret the data. Ref 49 does not verify the claim. You added another source. Both sources do not verify the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuackGuru — please, ping me! :). I'm not wanting to write about the medical effects of the product; I intend to write about a notable controversy about research into the product. I did mention that Phillip Morris considered the study faulty; I could additionally mention that Phillip Morris gave different measurement results, to make it clear that the claim is not being made in Wikipedia's voice. Do you have any suggestions for good ways to cover a political controversy about medical information?

• I think "After X(a publication) happened, Y(the receipt of a letter) happened" is not a biomedical claim and thus not subject to WP:MEDRS. WP:Biomedical information says that "Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information". I mean, we rely on journalists to be reliable sources about sequences of common events all the time.
• I agree that my insertion of specific quotes makes it seem like there are more distinct sources than there in fact are, and that this is a problem. If you are satisfied that the word "After" is supported by sources, I can take out that citation of that source. Is there anything like Template:rp for quotes instead of page numbers, so I can cite several quotes from one source individually?
• I followed the Washington Post in cherrypicking that number; they picked out the things that they apparently think relevant to the dispute. The fact that the levels of some things as measured in the independent study were higher than Phillip Morris's in-house measurements might also be mentioned. While you could create a chart of the figures according to the Swiss study and according to Phillip Morris, I suspect it might be a bit undue for this article.
• "Nearly three times" is my own not-very-original phrasing for "295%". Since it's just a unit conversion, I think it falls under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. Do you think that it is inaccurate?
• You previously said that I copyvio'd source 49, which says "a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel said Philip Morris failed to show that its iQOS device, which heats tobacco to a lower temperature than a lit cigarette, cuts the risk of tobacco-related ailments." I had written "the FDA said that Phillip Morris failed to show that the product cut risks". To address your copyvio concerns, I paraphrased this as "the FDA... ruled that Phillip Morris had not shown that their product cut risks". Do you have an intermediate phrasing that you would consider to make a supported claim without being copyvio?
• I don't think refs 49 and 50 need to support the same claim. Taken together, they must support the statement that they are cited in support of; I think they do.

HLHJ (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You followed the Washington Post in cherrypicking that number. That is a MEDRS violation.

Ref 49 fails to verify the claim. If you think it does not need to support the claim please see WP:V. It looks like a SYN violation the sentence that starts with "After". The problems are growing. Too many to list. The quickest way to fix the recent changes would probably be to apply WP:TNT and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuackGuru — please, ping me! I'm sorry my attempt at humour fell flat. The Washington Post seems to think that that stat was one of the things that caused Phillip Morris to send the letters. I'll edit it to be a bit vaguer on the medical issues. I think the existence of a disagreement between seller and independent researchers about safety data leading to some highly unusual letters being sent is a political, not a biomedical fact. If I said, in Wikipedia's voice, "This products produces more of this chemical", that would definitely be MEDRS. I'm trying to only say that two groups of people quarreled over it.

I didn't say that ref 49 didn't need to support a claim, just that refs 49 and 50 could support two different claims, and that these two claims could be combined in one sentence, as long as there is no synthesis. I mean, I could cite one source twise, instead, but on sentence with refs in three different places might be citation overkill.

Is it the word "After" that you say looks like WP:SYN? What part of the sentence is SYN?

The diff you link to says "possible copyvio; source says "the researchers refused to talk"; article says "the researchers refused to talk" "; this is five words of a very conventional phrase, and I suspect that it's not original enough for copyright in it to exist. I mean, if you asked a dozen English speakers to express the idea "authors of a research paper declined to comment", probably several of them would independently come up with that phrase. But if it worries you, I shall change it.

Please, ping me! (: HLHJ (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I spotted more problems here and on another page. Adding additional sources to a sentence only causes more problems such as SYN violations, failed verification content, and citation overkill. Please cleanup the growing policy violations. If you or others can't fix the problems then the last resort is to delete the recent additions and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuackGuru — please, ping me! Let's discuss each article on its own talk page, to avoid forking the discussion. I have replied to your comment on the other article there.

You write: (The www.pmiscience.com is the company website; The FDA cited... is a WP:SYN violation because the 2017 paper does not state the FDA cited. Tag confusing content.)

The pmi website is a footnote to the source discussed, not a citation. Clarified.

Of course the 2017 paper does not say that it was cited by the FDA. When it was published, it hadn't been cited by anyone. Direction of causality, that sort of thing. :) The FDA report says that it cites the Swiss study, no synthesis needed. I do not see any scope for confusion here. I have changed the phrasing anyway. HLHJ (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The PMI website is unreliable, especially when there is a secondary source available. QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying the source

See Phillip Morris also posted an academic rebuttal online.[46][copyright violation?] Another source appears to have been copied. QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation misplacement

See One independent study of the iQOS criticized Phillip Morris's marketing messages as "unethical" and called for more independent research, saying "Smokers and non-smokers need accurate information about toxic compounds released in IQOS smoke. This information should come from sources independent of the tobacco industry".[44][45][excessive citations]

I do not know which source is being used to verify each different claim. QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Page number or page numbers request

See "The FDA reviewed Phillip Morris's data, some independent studies, including the May 2017 Swiss paper about toxic compounds in iQOS smoke mentioned above, a December 2017 amendment to the application by Phillip Morris on the same topic, and the FDA's own laboratory testing data.[49][clarification needed]"

No page number or page numbers indicated in the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

See edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)