Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Etymology

See "The designations "heat-not-burn"[5] and "smoke-free"[6] are used. However, some independent researchers "disagree with the claim that it's smokeless"[1].[7][8] Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.[9]"

The part "The designations "heat-not-burn"[5] and "smoke-free"[6] are used." does not explain the debate. "However, some independent researchers..." uses the unsupported weasel word "some". This is poor wording and unclear language. Also, there were two sources used in the article to verify the quote but I was only able to find one source that verified the quote. The new section is not about the "Etymology". It is about a disagreement with PMI. For example, see "We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless."[2] That is about iQOS and I provided a citation on the talk page to avoid a copyright violation. Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.[9] is misleading. The content needs to be better written and should only be in the iQOS. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see you removed the entire section with the comment "it is a disagreement with PMI. It is not specfically about "Etymology". The sentences are pooly written.".

• I think that the accuracy of the name of the article is an etymological dispute. It's a dispute about the derivation of the name from a description of the product.
• Feel free to restore the section with the word "some" removed, the reader should get the idea that not all independent researchers have even heard of the thing.
• I think that "In their study, the scientists accused Philip Morris of “dancing around the definition of smoke” and argued that “there can be smoke without fire.” " supports the statement that they disagree with the idea that the emission is not smoke, although the exact quote is from the other source. Citing for a fact rather than a quote is acceptable, and using two refs to support different parts of the same sentence is also acceptable, as far as I know. If this is against policy, please point me to the policy, and I'll read up on it.
• There was no copyright violation or uncited quote that I can see. Please be more specific; this is serious criticism.
• What is misleading? The statement about incomplete combustion was not just made about iQOS; it clearly applies and is meant to apply to all tobacco stick products.
• I would welcome suggestions for improving the writing. This would be more productive than deleting content because you think it poorly-phrased.

I am having trouble understanding your critique. I've done my best to make my response clear. If you still have objections, please let me know what they are. HLHJ (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product#Products section is where general content about smoke versus aerosol belongs. For specific information about iQOS it belongs in the iQOS section. The part "...conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco." is confusing. Cigarettes do burn tobacco yet the text states otherwise.

You stated "There was no copyright violation or uncited quote that I can see." I said "That is about iQOS and I provided a citation on the talk page to avoid a copyright violation." I avoided a copyright violation by providing a link to the source after I quoted the source on the talk page. You also said "this is serious criticism." I merely stated I quoted the source and provided a link to the source to comply with the rules.

Using two refs to support different parts of the same sentence is acceptable if each ref supports each claim. One ref verified the quote but the other ref did not verify "However, some independent researchers...". I explained this part was an issue. I stated "Also, there were two sources used in the article to verify the quote but I was only able to find one source that verified the quote." What was the purpose of the additional ref? What was additional ref supposed to verify? It is a dispute about what comes out of the iQOS product. We don't need to create a separate section for that. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Cigarettes incompletely burn tobacco. They leave ash which could be burned further at a higher temperature. Auer et al. 2017: "The harmful components of tobacco cigarette smoke are products of incomplete combustion (pyrolysis) and the degradation of tobacco cigarettes through heat (thermogenic degradation). Complete combustion occurs at a high temperature (>1300°C), higher than the heat generated by smoking a tobacco cigarette (<800°C)." Can you suggest a clearer phrasing for the article text?

I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood your statement about copyvio. I withdraw those comments. The statements about "smoke-free" and "heat-not-burn" in the "Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes: Smoke by Any Other Name" article seem to me to apply to all such products, not just iQOS. The Washington Post article calls some academics "the independent researchers"; the NPR article quotes the same academics as saying "We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless". That's what the second ref is for. HLHJ (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Please let me know if you have any further objection. HLHJ (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I already explained my objection above. The statements in the source applies to IQOS or every type of these products, depending on the specific claim. The statement about incomplete combustion was specifically about IQOS and it did not compare IQOs versus cigarettes. Wording to also summarise can be found using the first sentence of the Discussion section here. The first sentence of that section does compare IQOS versus cigarettes. The sources do not indicate it is about the etymology. For general content it can go in the Products section and for specific content about IQOS it can go in the IQOS section. The part "However, some independent researchers" is an incomplete claim. The part "disagree with the claim that it's smokeless".[3] is also an incomplete claim. The first part was "However, some independent researchers..." used a different source and the second part also used a different source. Rather than combine two sources together to reach another conclusion it would be simpler to reach a conclusion using one source. For one claim we can't combine two sources together to come to a conclusion. See "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."[4] The NPR article quote is about IQOS. That is about IQOS. We don't need a separate section for a quote about IQOS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I am having difficulty understanding your comments. Let us strive for clarity.

The designations "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" are used. However, some independent researchers "disagree with the claim that it's smokeless". Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.

These are the words under debate. I disagree with your contention that citing two accounts of the same thing is WP:SYN, see section above. The first and second halves of a sentence are obviously each incomplete claims, but I don't see why that is relevant.

The beginning of the discussion section of the Auer et al. source says "The smoke released by IQOS contains elements from pyrolysis and thermogenic degradation that are the same harmful constituents of conventional tobacco cigarette smoke." I think you are arguing that these statements are only about the IQOS, not about all the devices covered in the article. If not all of the devices listed in the article are described as "heat-not-burn", then they are out-of-scope for the article. These devices are represented as similar in function by being placed in the same article, and indeed they all seem to heat the tobacco to similar temperatures. The most common brand has gotten most of the media attention, but the comments should apply to all of them, or they should not be in the same article. I think that independent coverage is preferable to anatomizing the subject so far that we must rely on the manufacturer's own claims. I'd suggest this:

The designations "heat-not-burn" and "smoke-free" are used. However, independent researchers who have tested a common "heat-not-burn" device disagree with the claim that they are smokeless, and find that, like conventional cigarettes, they incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.

I would point out that policy states that "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". I think that this rather implies a duty to at least discuss what independent RS say about the accuracy of the article title. I think it is important to include this content. HLHJ (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Any comments? QuackGuru, I've pinged you above. HLHJ (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Copyright violation

Making a minor change to the text is still a copyright violation when the quotation marks are removed. I fixed the copyright violation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that that is substantive enough to be copyvio, especially as it is likely a paraphrase. But it's not misleading, and I'm OK with your version. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My 10¢: I'm not particular crazy about the quotation marks, because i agree that it is probably a paraphrase. With the q-marks we are stating that this is exactly what Myers said, which may be a BLP problem. --Kim D. Petersen 05:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The statement has now been changed to a different direct quote. I do not think that this is a good solution. I agree with Kim D. Petersen that the paraphrase would be better. I don't think that copyvio is a problem, as the passage is short, cited, and paraphrasing a paraphrase, meaning that info transfer requires a fairly close paraphrase, probably qualifying under fair use. HLHJ (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous content in quotes was not a direct quote from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Technically, it was a BLP violation to misquote someone when it was quoting someone. The previous wording was a copyright violation because it made a minor change to the wording while removing the quote marks. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The oldest text had him saying, in paraphrase, that the iQOS looks similar to the e-cigarettes most popular among children. QuackGuru added quotes, raising concerns about copyvio. I think you are overly sensitive about copyvio in very short strings of conventional words, QuackGuru; there is a limit to how far one can rephrase a short sentence, and there is a length and originality threshold for copyright. Both Kim D. Petersen and QuackGuru pointed out the direct quote as a potential BLP problem, and though I doubt the spokesman would have felt misrepresented, it is inaccurate. The current text has the spokesman saying "It is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people." I think the first statement about resemblance, being more concrete, is a better one to include in the article. HLHJ (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following phrasing:

Suggested article text: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized the product, saying that it looks like the e-cigarettes which children use the most.

Source text: "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told the committee."[5]

Any objections? HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)