Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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)

I have had another look at this. While I'd want some knowledge of related organic chemistry before I went making definitive statements about that ingredient list, I suspect that I was wrong in my guess about adding oxidants, and about air being particularly excluded (you do also get low-oxygen conditions in conventional cigs,^[1] and I'm not stating that air isn't at least partly excluded). I've found some more sources, now in the article, and I suspect that carbon oxidation is avoided just by keeping the temperature at a low smoulder (possibly aided by keeping the water content of the low-temperature cigarettes high, but that might just be for the dramatic clouds of wet steam, which conceal the smoke).

However, I still think calling pyrolysis "heat-not-burn" is dubious. Like "smoke-free", I think this is marketing terminology should be removed from the article as inaccurate. English does not limit "burn" to oxidative combustion of hydrocarbons; dictionaries also give definitions compatible with pyrolysis. 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?". HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The heat-not-burn or smoke-free terminology could certainly be replaced with something else more generic like heated tobacco. The way I see it, people who come to this page are wondering two main things: What is a heated tobacco product, and how is it the same/different from cigarettes? The aerosol from these products is significantly different from cigarette smoke, containing lower levels of many of the harmful chemicals found in smoke because of the lower temperatures to which they heat the tobacco. So I do think it makes sense to use different terminology to make these differences clear, or perhaps to use the same terminology while making abundantly clear that (and how) the two are different. Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think "heated tobacco" is a bit too generic. It would include conventional pipes and cigarettes. Since the tobacco in "HnB" products is in at least some cases a processed tobacco extract, the term could also apply equally well to ENDS/e-cigs (which also ~all use a processed tobacco extract, but don't dry it out again). All these products heat tobacco or tobacco extracts.

Cochrane uses "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system"[4]. I'd pedantically say that the heating is electric, and the control of the heating electronic, so "electrically-heated cigarette smoking system" would be more accurate. Since the article scope includes electrically-heated pipe tobacco/cannabis smoking systems, the whole article might be titled "electrically-heated smoking system", or, to be a bit more pedantic, "electrically-heated smoking system for solids".

The aerosol from these products is smoke. The smoke differs from the smoke of reference cigarettes, but so does the smoke from my burnt sauce. While the low-T tobacco smoke contains lower levels of many harmful chemicals, there is no evidence that it doesn't also contain higher levels of many other harmful chemicals. It does contain higher levels of many chemicals which may be harmful, and your company, Phillip Morris International, has not made this information abundantly clear.[5] Does PMI have any information about the harms of these more-abundant chemicals?

It is interesting to ask older people in Europe about the life expectancies and health problems of professional charcoal burners. The charcoal-burner's stereotypically poor health was conventionally attributed to their breathing the smoke from the low-temperature charring charcoal clamps they built to produce charcoal. Many cities prohibited the burning of wood, requiring a certain grade of clean-burning charcoal or coal/coke, so that a large proportion of the nasty smoke would be emitted during the charcoal burning or coking process, well outside the city limits. This was an effective measure to improve air quality and public health in large cities.

These products were first introduced thirty years ago. We could have medium-long-term safety data on them. As far as I know, there is none; does PMI know of any? I have not seen any evidence that these electrically-heated smoking systems are safer. I therefore don't think that the Wikipedia article should give the impression that they are safer, directly or indirectly, which is what your proposed selective presentation of information would do. HLHJ (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote: This statement "the term could also apply equally well to ENDS/e-cigs (which also ~all use a processed tobacco extract, but don't dry it out again). All these products heat tobacco or tobacco extracts." is 100% wrong. ENDS do not contain "processed tobacco extract", outside of the nicotine (which is optional, and not neccessarily from tobacco) most e-liquids contain no derivatives from tobacco at all. --Kim D. Petersen 15:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree that the aerosol is different from smoke, which makes no difference for the terminology used in the article, as you guys are in the drivers seat on that. Aside from that terminology preference, any one of the titles you suggest could work, in my opinion. I'm not advocating that heated tobacco is safe - it's not 100% safe. It's not the same as quitting tobacco altogether. I approve of adding in the cautions about HNB and nicotine use during pregnancy and some of the other recent edits. But I haven't seen any evidence that heated tobacco products are somehow worse than cigarettes, and readers shouldn't come away from this article with that mistaken understanding. There are differences between these products and cigarettes. How that's explained and to what extent is up to you guys.

To your other point, PMI has publicly disclosed that there are higher levels of certain chemicals in our presentation at the publicly open TPSAC meeting January 24-25 this year. If we disclosed this information prior to that, I am not sure, but this TPSAC meeting was more than 2 weeks before the article you cite was first received by the publisher, and about 7 months before it was published. Slide CC-31 of PMI's presentation to the committee shows a diagram and some key results on that. Of the 53 compounds identified, all but four of the chemicals are of no toxicological concern, and the four that are toxicologically concerning are at quantities below the level of concern. Further, a chemist from the FDA's presentations also answered that it seemed to her that PMI researchers had taken a comprehensive approach to the broad chemical screening, based on what she'd seen so far at the time. (transcript, see page 178) Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We agree to disagree about smoke. I find myself falling into the norms of social interaction and attempting to persuade you against your talking points, which is silly of me. 100% of what? I will work on the cautions about nicotine use. I don't know if these products are safer or less safe than conventional cigarettes, and I won't for decades, unless you know of any long-term safety data I haven't seen. By then we may be discussing another modified-risk product which may or may not be safer. I'm glad to see transparency. Do feel free to post any information about the risks and harms of these products which you think users, potential users, or regulators should know. Doc James, my reasons for the scare quotes are given above and now also in the article. Do you have opinions on the Cochrane terminology? HLHJ (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I typically recommend paraphrasing over quotes. Which quotes are we referring too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Doc James, that was a bit ambiguous. These quotes. Cochrane uses "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system"; I'm favouring "electrically-heated smoking system" (changed for technological pedantry and pipe-like product inclusion). HLHJ (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You want to also add "electrically-heated smoking system" to the first sentence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm suggesting a rename under WP:UCRN; "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". It seems to me that "Heat not burn" is a marketing term whose accuracy is not supported by independent sources. Some, especially news media, use it, but many sources use scare quotes (e.g., in a title, "Levels of selected analytes in the emissions of "heat not burn" tobacco products that are relevant to assess human health risks") or paraphrases (like Cochrane), and some directly criticize it ("despite claims that there is not burning... ", "investigate the validity of manufacturer’s claims that this device does not burn tobacco... iQOS is not strictly a ‘heat not burn’ tobacco product"). I also reviewed a long paper by PMI defending their no-burn hypothesis, and the most valid argument was the idea that only oxidative combustion can be called "burning". While this is a form of burning, pyrolysis/charring is also commonly called "burning", in dictionary definitions and in everyday English. See the charred pizza at the bottom of the page. Hopefully I've managed not to be vague this time, Doc James :). HLHJ (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense so "Electrically-heated smoking system, also known as heat-not burn-tobacco products," Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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. QuackGuru (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

To editor QuackGuru:, To editor Doc James: I've been thinking this over. We speak of electric kettles, not electrically-heated boiling devices. Electric blankets, not electrically-heated blanket devices. And so on. So following general English usage, we'd have electric cigarettes and electric pipes. To include both, electric smoking device. That removes the word "heating", which is the only one which I think QuackGuru could have been calling inaccurate (I've sure QG isn't disagreeing that these things have an electric heating element). "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" does not cover the current scope of the article, which includes devices for smoking cannabis. As Sarah says, the average reader probably doesn't know much about these products when coming to the article, so unknown terms aren't as big a concern as inaccurate ones. I'm going to be bold here, but include the HnB terms in the lede and redirects to address QG's concerns of confusion. HLHJ (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I was perhaps too hasty. On seeing this title next to the "electronic cigarette" hatnote, I realize that the description "electric smoking system" (accidentally wrote "device" in the edit above) could fit them too. The difference is whether the modified tobacco suspension is dried into a solid film and then sliced into shreds, or used as a liquid. I am going to stop trying to fit in a few quick edits and return to this later when I have more time. Improvement may still be needed. Comments welcome. HLHJ (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "tobacco vaporizer". The only difference is that the tobacco companies sell artificially flavored (engineered) tobacco preparations, not "pure herb". Also, vaporizing is a kind of dry distillation, and there's no need to clumsily paraphrase content that is better explained there.

The article is an example of design by committee, and it mirrors the highly regulated (repressive) tobacco market brought about by pressure from the public health industry. Brags from the industry (like the "Action on Smoking and Health") are given too much weight, without contributing much of interest. The charred pizza looks like some sort of improvised tobacco warning message, and it probably stands for a charred smoker's lung. However, the vapor given off by the pizza is definitely tastier (and healthier) than the charred residue, and the same holds true for tobacco, which may be considered an infamous kind of pizza.

Much of the smoking controversy is based on the assumption that "less tar means less cancer" (or other adverse health effects). The tobacco industry has jumped on this bandwagon by introducing "castrated tobacco" which emits less tar when burned, or products that emit no or negligible amounts of tar, like vaporizers. On the other hand, the public health industry strives to emphasize that there's "tar everywhere", even in vaporizers, and that "anything tobacco means cancer". It suffices to say that opposition to tobacco is centuries old, and its health aspects are only one of many ideological battlegrounds.

Interestingly, herbs like marijuana are being decriminalized while tobacco is becoming the "new marijuana" or even worse, there's even a special kind of Single Convention for tobacco, the WHO FCTC. However, like with marijuana, one day they might discover medical benefits of tobacco if they looked for it.

Another widely believed assumption is that nicotine is the primary reason for smoking, which is an oversimplification, as the psychoactive ingredients are generated dynamically by the pyrolysis process (like a chemical lottery). The resulting combustion products may resemble amphetamines and other kinds of neurotransmitter-like substances, with only micrograms present in tar. This difference to traditional smoking may be the greatest obstacle for the acceptance of tobacco vaporizers among seasoned smokers. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Vaporizer (inhalation device) is actually relevant to scope here. HLHJ (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Content about vaporizer (inhalation device) is off-topic. The part about "During pregnancy and breastfeeding, mothers are advised not to use any products containing nicotine,[19] as nicotine harms the fetus.[20]" is also off-topic. The title of the article appears to be original research or a relatively unknown name for heat-not-burn tobacco products. I never heard of an "electric smoking system" being a synonym for heat-not-burn tobacco products. The term heat-not-burn tobacco products simply means heating to a lower temperature than regular tobacco products. It is a fact that they heat to a lower temperature than tobacco products. See "Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat tobacco leaves at a lower temperature than burning cigarettes but still produce smoke containing nicotine and other chemicals [10]."[6] QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The title is modified ("electronic"->"electric") for accuracy from a Cochrane systematic review, not original; the term is relatively unknown, but "heat-not-burn" is inaccurate per RS, see policy discussion above. It's the "not-burn" bit that's more of a problem. Below, you said:

It is disputed heat-not-burn tobacco products produce smoke. Asserting that they do produce smoke is a violation of WP:ASSERT and not neutral language. It would be better to state they produce aerosol and mention the dispute about the smoke rather than assert a disputed claim, especially when sources disagree. As for the claim that heat-not-burn tobacco products produce aerosol is an undisputed claim. That can be asserted as fact because there is no dispute for stating they produce aerosol.

The reliable, independent sources which discuss the claim agree on "smoke" (others put "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" in scare quotes). The sources asserting that these terms are correct are not independent, and thus not reliable (also, their arguments are bad). We have a consensus to use "smoke", see Carl Fredrick above. The fact that tobacco companies selling these products as "smoke-free" dispute the term "smoke" is irrelevant; they were disputing the claim that nicotine was addictive on oath in the 1990s. I've included the information that they dispute it in the article. HLHJ (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

IQOS is not an acronym, secondary source

Moved by Sarah at PMI to Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Primary source to avoid WP:discussion fork

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

Moved by Sarah at PMI to Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Copyright violation to avoid WP:discussion fork

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)

LeadSongDog, do you have any objection to using non-medrs but non-COI sources for the content and effects of HnB marketing? I'm thinking these statements:

Developing "modified risk" products that are implied to be less hazardous is a strategy that has been used in nicotine marketing for decades.
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.
People are more likely to start using a product, and less likely to quit, if they think it is harmless. (is this one dodgy? admittedly a pretty weak claim)
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.

Many of the sources I'd like to use are independent reanalyses of data provided to regulators by industry, coming to rather different conclusions. Pubmed does not catagorize them as reviews, but they are the best sources I've found on some topics, so I hope to use them for non-biomedical claims. Thanks for your time. HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 28 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."^[2] "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"^[3] 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)

References

^ Pieper, Elke; Mallock, Nadja; Henkler-Stephani, Frank; Luch, Andreas (2018). "Tabakerhitzer als neues Produkt der Tabakindustrie: Gesundheitliche Risiken". Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. doi:10.1007/s00103-018-2823-y. PMID 30284624.
^ Tabuchi, Takahiro; Gallus, Silvano; Shinozaki, Tomohiro; Nakaya, Tomoki; Kunugita, Naoki; Colwell, Brian (2018). "Heat-not-burn tobacco product use in Japan: Its prevalence, predictors and perceived symptoms from exposure to secondhand heat-not-burn tobacco aerosol". Tobacco Control. 27 (e1): e25–e33. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053947. PMC 6073918. PMID 29248896.
^ Liu, Xiaoqiu; Lugo, Alessandra; Spizzichino, Lorenzo; Tabuchi, Takahiro; Gorini, Giuseppe; Gallus, Silvano (2018). "Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Products Are Getting Hot in Italy". Journal of Epidemiology. 28 (5): 274–275. doi:10.2188/jea.JE20180040. PMC 5911679. PMID 29657258.

Regarding the Italian figures: The total number of IQoS "users" (which are really people who have just tried it, according to the paper referenced) in the survey was ~53-54 people (29 non-smokers, 21 smokers and 3 ex-smokers) out of a total of 3086 in the survey... while that may raise cause for concern, and further follow up by scientists. I doubt that it can be used for anything meaningfully statistically. This is why we shouldn't rely on or use papers like this. --Kim D. Petersen 04:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The other way round? Hardly matters, about half. I'm afraid I can't access the original source just now. I'd be glad of a better source, too. I should look through the two independent reviews of PMI data to see if I can find anything. The 3031-3032 non-users are irrelevant to this statement, so essentially we have a sample of 50-odd. While giving the stat as "45%" would be ludicrous with that sample size, a statement that it's up around halfish seems less overprecise. Did they give any error estimates? HLHJ (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The reference gives no confidence intervals, but states: "Limitations include the relatively small sample size that does not allow us to obtain stable prevalence estimates in subgroups."

My thoughts: I echo Kim's concern over the apparent equivocation between "IQOS users" and "people who have tried IQOS." I would not consider someone who had tried IQOS once to be an "IQOS user", but this reference lumps those two groups together. The article currently states "Nearly half of people using these products had never used conventional cigarettes, according to a small survey done in Italy." Unless/until the reference can be replaced, I believe the first clause should be changed to the following, for accuracy's sake: "Nearly half of people who've tried IQOS had never used conventional cigarettes" Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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?

Fact check and minor corrections

Hi all, couple of minor corrections for the article:

In the 1st paragraph of the regulation section, it says "iQOS's refill sticks are not legal for sale in New Zealand by the Ministry of Health.[85]" However a New Zealand court decided in March that HEETs are legal to sell in the country. reference
The reference for this sentence in the 1st paragraph of Nature and Function doesn't seem to support it: "It is possible to heat to a temperature hot enough to cause pyrolysis, but not hot enough to release most of the carbon.[3]" reference 3. I don't see the words "pyrolysis" or "carbon" used in this context at all in that article.
In the first paragraph of the regulation section, the following sentence is confusing as written because one clause causes a double negative in the other. I recommend clarification: "Advertisement for the IQOS~~, but not IQOS' tobacco stick,~~ is not regulated under the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, but the directive does regulate advertising of IQOS' tobacco stick.[31]" Reference 31 says: "By advertising the iQOS itself but not the tobacco HeatStick, advertising should not fall outside the legal frame."

Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I included content remedying both your first and second issues in the edits whose reversion is being discussed above in the "Large-scale revert of health information" section. I'll discuss those edits there to avoid forking. On your second point, the source says:

...pyrolysis occurs at about 300°C–700°C, entails the decomposition of biopolymers, proteins, and other organic materials and generates the majority of substances emitted in smoke; and combustion occurs above 750°C and results in the generation of carbon dioxide, CO and water.38 HeatSticks are heated to a maximum of 350°C,19 a temperature sufficient to enable pyrolytic decomposition of some organic materials. Formation of toxic volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein, via dehydration and oxidation of the humectants, propylene glycol and glycerin, have been reported in e-cigarette aerosols at similar temperatures as IQOS.39–42 In addition, flavouring chemicals in e-cigarettes undergo thermal degradation and contribute significantly to levels of toxic aldehydes emitted in e-cigarette aerosol.43 Since the constituents of HeatSticks may be different from that of combustible cigarettes, including flavourants and additives, it is plausible that the IQOS aerosol may contain substances not present in tobacco smoke.

Since the article text, in the previous sentence, discussed the generation of carbon mon- and di- oxide, terming both release of carbon, I think this is pretty clearly saying something the source supports. I have added the quote for easier verification. HLHJ (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote - that's the same section I was looking at, so I know I'm not just missing it. There's carbon in all the organic constituents too, which is why I was confused by the non-specific phrasing. The source more accurately verifies something like "these gases" rather than carbon, but that's a detail of a detail. I see also that a similar, redundant statement is made in the brief paragraph that follows this, using the same reference (3) without the quote. Thanks, Sarah at PMI (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said "most of" the carbon. Since cold tobacco smells, some volatiles, presumably mostly carbon-containing, must be released even at room temperature. The phrasing, including the duplication, isn't very good. I'll work on it. For clarity, do you think the statement inaccurate? HLHJ (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly state it is "carbon" or verify it is "most of the carbon". The article is making a claim not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What I should have said is that I don't know enough about the released constituents besides the CO and CO2 to be able to gauge whether it's inaccurate to say "most of the carbon", which is why I suggested "these gases" since that phrasing is more clearly verified by the source. Because I'm not sure, I won't recommend for or against changing it. Thanks Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I modified the statement in light of these comments. HLHJ (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Other minor suggestions based on latest edits:

It seems noreharman should be spelled as either norharmane or norharman and can be linked to wikipedia here: Beta-Carboline
The blue-ish images of the HEET cut open and the 3-piece IQOS system at the top of the Products section might look nicer if they have their white balance corrected.
I don't think the image of a pizza contributes constructively to the article.

Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with linking to beta-carboline because the content appears to be off-topic. The following content is off-topic. See "While the nicotine is the main addictive component in tobacco, some pyrolysis products of tobacco are thought to reinforce addiction (such as acetaldehyde, noreharman, and harman).[22]" The source does not mention heat-not-burn tobacco products and therefore it is most likely off-topic.
The blue-ish images can be changed to a white background. There was a long discussion about off-topic content on another talk page in this topic area. Off-topic content should generally be avoided in this topic area. If anyone disagrees they can ask the closing administrator. It would be a waste of time to start another RfC about the same thing on another article about off-topic content. Cherry-picking sources that are irrelevant to this article does not belong in this article. Off-topic images such as the pizza can also be removed. We may have to blow up the current version if the issues are not fixed soon. QuackGuru (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my spello on norharman. Fixed. I did tag one image for white balance correction, as the cigarette paper looks blue, but the other one shows a white cigarette. I'm happy with a blue background; all the industry-taken lightboxy images with glowing white backgrounds seem a bit promotional (it's a standard marketing technique to photograph products against a background of diffuse white light; I don't know why this makes things look more attractive, but apparently it reliably does). I think addictive pyrolysis products of tobacco are relevant to an article about devices that produce pyrolysis products from tobacco, but I added a source connecting to a HnB product. I did not understand Deryck Chan to say that no sources not explicitly mentioning the topic of an article could be used in an article. QuackGuru, you have usefully pointed out deficiencies in my edits. I welcome your views, but if you could express them with more explanation and less confrontation, I'd find them more useful, actionable, and pleasant. HLHJ (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Image of charred pizza

There seems to be some opposition to the inclusion of this image.

Sarah at PMI said: "I don't think the image of a pizza contributes constructively to the article."
QuackGuru said: "Off-topic images such as the pizza can also be removed. We may have to blow up the current version if the issues are not fixed soon." and "The image of the pizza is also off-topic and violated WP:CAPTION."

I think this image clearly illustrates the concepts of charring and pyrolysis, which are relevant and necessary to an understanding of the article's subject. It connects the concepts needed to describe the subject to experiences which most readers worldwide will have had, which seems an effective way to convey the information. I can understand that Sarah at PMI does not like it, as PMI markets their IQOS product with "heated-not-burned" and "smoke-free" claims, supported by statements about pyrolysis and oxidative combustion which readers might question more readily in relation to charred food. PMI marketing materials explain these concepts in ways I find less clear.

I have looked through WP:CAPTION, and I think the image meets its criteria:

clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;

is succinct;

establishes the picture's relevance to the article;

provides context for the picture;

draws the reader into the article.

"This pizza was baked for four hours" seems like a clear identification of the subject. The caption longer now I've added the words "and it has released pyrolysis products and particulate matter," in an attempt to satisfy complaints that it was off-topic, but the image communicates technical concepts, and is shorter than a text-only explanation of equivalent clarity. I think it is therefore still succinct (that is, not needlessly verbose per WP:MOS/Captions#Succinctness). I welcome suggestions on covering the information clearly in fewer words. The caption clearly explains how the image is relevant to an understanding of the article's subject, and gives context including what happened to the pizza and how it relates to the article topic. I also think the image is likely to draw the reader into the article, in a way that a block of text full of technical terminology would not. HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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. Namely that the process of HnB is a charring or pyrolysis process. There are sources that discuss exactly what kind of process happens here, and whether or not the process involves combustion, and on what nomenclature can be put on the aerosol derived (smoke, vapor). But the sources are most certainly not clear on this being a charring process! Some editors here have put rather a lot of faith into the thrown away statement that "pyrolysis occurs at about 300°C–700°C," (St.Helen et al(2018)) , and since the HnB process is at 350°C they come to the conclusion that it must be pyrolysis. This is a personal point of view, and not factual, nor supported by the source. What the source says is that pyrolysis happens somewhere in that range, not that it starts at 300°C, the source merely states that it is "plausible" that pyrolysis happens - not that it happens. --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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). --Kim D. Petersen 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The source in question, which you tagged, is supporting a statement about tobacco in general. I do have some other sources on tobacco pyrolysis temperatures, and St. Helen et al. was at the high end, as I recall. It goes on to say "HeatSticks are heated to a maximum of 350°C, a temperature sufficient to enable pyrolytic decomposition of some organic materials". I'll have a think about how to clarify further, and I can add some more sources (or, of course, you could).

The source "iQOS: evidence of pyrolysis and release of a toxicant from plastic" clearly state that the process involves charring. There are also multiple sources for the statements that pyrolysis products are found in the smoke. I'm not sure that these statements are Wikipedia:Biomedical information; they are "how a recreational product works", and while there are a fair number of health claims about this product, they do not directly bear on them. The statements about addictive properties of pyrolysis products are supported by medical reviews. 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.

The basic problem here is that statements about product function are being used in marketing which tend to imply health statements which cannot be supported on the evidence. I can cite statements about the product function and the truth of the marketing messages. This content might be taken to mean that the implied health statements are also untrue, which is awkward. But we've already directly addressed the truth of the health statements in the earlier section, with MEDRS, so I don't think this is a sufficient reason to not discuss the debatable marketing messages. HLHJ (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote does not verify the claim about heat-not burn tobacco products in general. The quote is only about IQOS. The failed verification tag was removed without fixing the problem. The other source also failed verification. Both sources made different claims. The image of the pizza is also unrelated to the topic. No source indicates an overcooked pizza is related to heat-not-burn tobacco products. Therefore, the image is off-topic. There are other issues with the section. See "HnB products vary, but can heat to these charring temperatures.[22][2]" Both sources fail to verify the claim. Both sources indicate they are referring to IQOS or HeadSticks rather than heat-not-burn tobacco products in general. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll just deal with your comments about the pizza image here, QuackGuru, since that's what this sections for. I'll try and deal with the rest elsewhere, but they are a bit hard to understand. So:

The image of the pizza is also unrelated to the topic. No source indicates an overcooked pizza is related to heat-not-burn tobacco products. Therefore, the image is off-topic.

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. 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. HLHJ (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pipe

The first sentence mentioned pipe. Can anyone verify the claim? QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the source just describes filling it with loose leaves. I'll look for one. HLHJ (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That was not per QuackGuru. The tag [better source needed] is different than the tag [not in citation given]. The content failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence still fails verification after about three weeks since it was tagged. The part about "uses an electric heating element to char tobacco,[2]" also failed verification because it only refers to IQOS rather than heat-not-burn tobacco products in general. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have modified it, QG. HLHJ (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You modified it but it still fails verification. If you disagree please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to remove charred pizza among other problems

I propose we go back to this version due to the serious problems with the article. Please read the previous comments and archives for the continued problems. A charred pizza image is not related to the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose revert of change to top of page and dates

Changed proposal. Hatnote for e-cigs will stay. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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

I propose this edit be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Support reverting this edit. The lede says "They are not electronic cigarettes.[3] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid.[14]" Therefore, stating "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette." at the top of the page is misleading because they do overlap with electronic cigarettes. The article does not use British English. The dmy dates is also misleading. For example, June 26, 2014 is the standard for this article rather than 26 June 2014 for the text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that this RfC is probably not needed; QuackGuru, could you perhaps first attempt to discuss this with Dl2000, who made the edits you dislike? I agree that e-cigs and vapourizers could reasonably be considered in-scope; the only real difference I can see between an IQOS and an e-cig is that the IQOS takes the e-fluid, dried it into a film, cuts it into stips, rolls it into a proprietary paper cylinder, and only then chars it on a heating element. I really don't care about date format or English variety. HLHJ (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't actually follow your logic on this. The distinguish template - i.e., "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette." - is a statement that these products and electronic cigarettes should not be confused as referring to the same thing. The only reason for including that template would be if people do in fact confuse the two sets of products as being identical; hence, the template is used to "wikt:distinguish" the two in the exact same manner as the lead sentence "They are not electronic cigarettes. The following clause - "They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid." - isn't really a reason not to use that template since distinct product types can have common characteristics and still carry a topical distinction (NB: if there is no clear distinguishing factor between these two sets of products, then there really shouldn't be two separate articles IMO). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The draft states "They are not electronic cigarettes.[3] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid.[14]" Stating at the top of the page "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette" is a repetitive statement. Stating the same thing twice in the lede in different words is duplication. I would keep "They are not electronic cigarettes.[3]"and while deleting "Not to be confused with Electronic cigarette" from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose the hatnote is useful to distinguish between two related-but-different topics with similar names. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

Removal of COI template again

CFCF, you replaced this template before; do you feel it can now be removed? HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote that section and expanded it. Hence, the tag was removed. I also expanded the article. It is neutral and well sourced. It is longer than the previous version. If it is too long it can be moved to a new page or condensed. Without a specific proposal there is no reason for the tags to stay in the article. I originally worked on fixing the COI edits in a draft and in the article. That was well over a year ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 98#iQOS tobacco heating device and User:SimonDes/HnB QuackGuru (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting earlier changes requested

Reference 2 (Bentley2017) does not verify "smoke"

IQOS is not an acronym, secondary source

Auer et al study given undue weight

Myers quote fails verification

Minor reference corrections

Removal of tags

COI tag

Large-scale revert of health information

Fact check and minor corrections

Image of charred pizza

Pipe

Proposal to remove charred pizza among other problems

Propose revert of change to top of page and dates

Removal of COI template again

Tags