Template:Ecig sanctions

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Health and fitness Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs Start‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sunrise, may I request a view on how this form of article replacement may be used in the future? I put most of my editing effort for a year into the replaced version this article and its talk page discussions, so I am unhappy with the idea of a reoccurrance. I'd really like to contribute efficiently to this article. HLHJ (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at user talk. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The US FDA announced yesterday that it will permit the sale of IQOS in the US.^[1] This is a decision with respect to the PMTA only, and the MRTPA is still under review.

Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested to shorten IQOS section

Hi again. I suggest to shorten the IQOS section to ~ 25% of its current length and to include the news from the FDA. The four bullets below are general suggestions from me. If you are interested in my specific edit recommendations, check out my sandbox edits here. The change log accurately reflects the logic behind each change.

Basically, the changes include:

• Cut out a lot of unnecessary information and specific/small details
• Cut out both sides of every topic that reads as "he said/she said"
• Cut the 2-paragraph section on FDA review, leaving only the submission dates of the two sets of applications and the most recent developments on each.
• Cut two sentences about TEEPS, which is not the same as IQOS. Could optionally use them to start a new section about that product.

Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving the TEEPS cigarette-charring device to its own section. However, I do not favour many of these edits, which I see QuackGuru has made on your behalf. Information such as the FDA's criticism of PMI's proposed health claims is of long standing in the article and should be included; I have re-instated it. Where one side is Phillip Morris and one side is a public health authority, presenting both sides, or just the public health side, is appropriate. Here is some of the other content that was removed:

In 2016 Philip Morris International acknowledged that the IQOS product is probably as addictive as tobacco smoking.^[1] IQOS is sold with a warning that states the best option is to avoid tobacco use altogether.^[2]

The product can collect personal data in regard to the smoking habits of the user.^[3] Philip Morris International stated it only retrieves the data when the product is not working properly.^[3]

Philip Morris International states that IQOS generates no smoke because the tobacco does not combust and the stick is heated rather than burned.^[4] Even without fire, smoke can be produced.^[4]

IQOS has over 1.4 million frequent users, according to the company, as of 2017^[update].^[5]

I think all of this should be restored. HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Philip Morris International states that IQOS generates no smoke because the tobacco does not combust and the stick is heated rather than burned.[4] Even without fire, smoke can be produced.[4]" It is a primary source. The article already uses too many primary sources as a previous compromise.

The content "In 2016 Philip Morris International acknowledged that the IQOS product is probably as addictive as tobacco smoking.[35] IQOS is sold with a warning that states the best option is to avoid tobacco use altogether.[46]" is still in the article. It was moved to another section.

See "PMI asserts that iQOS generates no smoke due to the tobacco does not combust and the stick is heated rather than burned. Even without fire, smoke can be produced." It was originally removed on October 27, 2017. I forgot to remove it in from the draft because it was a primary source.

I removed the content because the section was too long. Please gain consensus before restoring content. There was an undue weight tag on the section because it was too long. You can start a RfC to restore content or give a reason for restoring the content. I think we should limit it to 4 paragraphs. Is there anything essential you think should be restored. I requested input on shortening the section. I was going to do it anyways. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IQOS is far and away the most popular product of this type and most sources discuss it. I therefore consider a longer section is WP:DUE. I also strongly think that the tracking information should be restored, and have restored it. A statement on smoke could be supported by the Dautzenberg review, as I think I had previously done in removed content. I see you re-removed the content on the FDA's review rejecting some of PMI's medical claims, but the section contains content making one of those rejected medical claims in Wikipedia's voice. I think that requesting input from a Phillip Morris employee on what should be cut from a description of their product, and discussing those changes on the employee's talk page, is a bad idea. HLHJ (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The product is allowed to be for sale in the US now. We don't need to keep the old content. There is content about smoke. See "The IQOS HeatSticks do not generate a flame, they are charred following use.[51] Heat-not-burn tobacco products also generate smoke.[11] Up until 2016, Phillip Morris International researchers stated their IQOS product produces smoke.[11]" The content you restored I originally added. Please start a RfC for the following content. If you are not interested in starting a RfC then I think it is best to delete the content until there is consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the modified-risk tobacco product application, not the legal-for-sale application. We should discuss it before starting an RfC. What are your reasons for not including the notable information that the IQOS collects data on user's smoking habits? HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than monthly updates I prefer to wait for a conclusion in regard to the modified-risk tobacco product application.

The section is still a bit long. We don't need to include every tidbit. Smoking habits is not essential content. The longer the section the less people will read it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny note: In my drafted edits, consider any removal of information I suggested as to be meant to cut length only, not to remove specific information or POV. I wouldn't be offended if all my recommendations were not implemented, though I hope that some of the edits were at least helpful in the end. I won't further weigh in on the matter of section length.

I would, however, recommend a factual update to the 2017 number of people who switched to IQOS: PMI now estimates 7.3 million "frequent users" as of end of April 2019, quoting our CEO. [1] Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See "IQOS has over 1.4 million frequent users, according to the company, as of 2017.[80]" It seems it was deleted from the article. We really don't need to update it when it is no longer in the article. I think a RfC can be started. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a compromise. See this diff The IQOS section is too long. I added it to another section. Another RfC can be started if there is still disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC does not ask where the content should be placed. Therefore, it is irrelevant to restart it. The content was added to another section. The question for a new RfC would have to be a different question. The original question is no longer relevant. A new RfC would ask where the content should be placed. QuackGuru (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include "The IQOS can collect personal data in regard to the smoking habits of the user. Philip Morris International stated it only retrieves the data when the product is not working properly."[2] QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The section is already longer than other sections on the devices. 4 paragraphs is long enough. It should not be continuously expanded. We don't need to include every tidbit. Smoking habits or when the product is not working properly is not essential content. The longer the section the less people will read it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I think this information on IQOS is likely to be of interest to readers and should be included. The IQOS is the dominant product in this product category and almost all sources are about it or mention it prominently. I think the balance of reliable sources makes a longer section appropriate. I'm also worried that the section is becoming too promotional, as a fair bit of negative content has been moved out or removed. I think this information should be in the IQOS section, although discussion of its consequences may be better elsewhere.

This information on data collection was removed as part of edits made on behalf of Sarah at PMI (Phillip Morris international). I discussed this edit set above, and began to revert parts of it by re-adding the information manually, as there had been intervening edits. I also spoke to Sarah on her talk page, and sought views on the broader issue, detailing the PMI talking points in Sarah's text. My incomplete restoration of the content was reverted, and there are now RfCs against restoring parts of it. I'm not sure how to proceed, but I think the changes made at PMI's suggestion should probably be reverted. HLHJ (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. This information is relevant! Sure, include the Company's claim but also more specifics. See https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tobacco-iqos-device/ "Philip Morris said the software in the device that controls temperature and duration of use “is not used for marketing purposes whatsoever." BUT ALSO: "What they’re going to have is a mega database of how Americans smoke,” he said. “Then they’ll be able to reprogram the current puffing delivery pattern of the iQOS to one that may be more reinforcing and with a higher addiction potential" according to Gregory Connolly, a professor at Northeastern University in Boston who has studied iQOS technology and patents. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on IQOS content

I originally added this content. The section was way too long and I trimmed the non-essential content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter K Burian has a point, although it is really long already. I'm currently neutral though. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion on IQOS content RfC closure

Closure summary of previous closure:

I made a compromise. See this diff The IQOS section is too long. I added it to another section. Another RfC can be started if there is still disagreement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting a compromise, QuackGuru. I agree with you that it's appropriate to put the extended addiction-related content you added in the section on addiction and quitting, as you placed it. However, I think that, in addition, the IQOS section should mention that the IQOS collects data on the user's smoking habits. Just those last nine words would be enough. While this capability to track users has addiction-related implications, it's also an important piece of information about the product. HLHJ (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be misleading without a response from PMI. That content is in the addiction and quitting section with the response from PMI. It is also important to avoid duplication in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, add both those sentences to the IQOS section. Or whatever. Just mention the tracking-capable nature of the product in the section about the product somehow. It's a basic property of the device and belongs there; we should not bury it elsewhere at the request of Phillip Morris, per WP:COIRESPONSE. I'm happy to add its implications in other applicable sections as well, but this fact is fundamentally about the IQOS and should go in the IQOS section. Alternately, we can seek a broader consensus. If this is your preference, please re-open this RfC, and add the "Result:" text with which you closed this RfC, followed by these comments, to the discussion. HLHJ (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See "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."

You claim "we should not bury it elsewhere at the request of Phillip Morris, per WP:COIRESPONSE." I did not bury it elsewhere at the request of anyone.

The IQOS section is too long. There is no room for another paragraph. There is no result. It was just a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: you removed this content from the article under the circumstances described above. If we, as Wikipedia editors, were to agree to put replace the content, but only in the middle of a large section elsewhere, then the content would have been removed from a section to which I consider it highly relevant and placed in what I consider a more obscure place, in consequence of a suggestion by Phillip Morris. I think that would be bad. For instance, you'd be very unlikely to hear this information if you are using a digital voice assistant like Amazon's Alexa ("Alexa, what is IQOS?"). Separately, I use the word "compromise" in a slightly different, non-unilateral sense. HLHJ (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another RfC started the content would be deleted and we can ask if the content is relevant and where it should be placed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From parallel discussion in withdrawn FDA RfC below:

Could you please reopen the first (tracking) RfC, QuackGuru? I'm OK with leaving this one be until we've settled some of the other issues, but I think that top one is more important and should be dealt with now. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) If you want me to re-open the IQOS content RfC then I expect you to delete the content first or agree the content should be deleted before it is re-opened. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

QG, I'm not going to remove content that you added as a precondition. If you think it was good content, let it stand. I've re-opened the RfC myself. HLHJ (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new RfC rather than re-open one that was withdrawn. Also do not move my comment again. QuackGuru (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have moved your comment had it not been for the fact that you had closed and summarized the result of a RfC you opened, which is incorrect, as you are an involved editor, and could only withdraw it. It was necessary to remove it from the closure template; I put it in a quote box, describing where it came from.

I wish to re-open this RfC, as both I and Peter K Burian were discussing the placement of the text, which is still under dispute. RfCs are not limited to discuss only their original question, and sometimes reach conclusions unforeseen in the initial question. WP:RfC says "To restart an RfC after the {{rfc}} template was removed, reinsert the rfc template." Just as anyone can start an RfC, I think anyone can re-start one. If you disagree, you may report my behaviour to whatever forum you consider appropriate. HLHJ (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC did not give different options for the placement of the content. There are two competing sections. Rather than asking if it is relevant to one section it is better to ask which section is most appropriate for the content. Therefore, it is irrelevant to restart it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is close enough to the topic that it could be discussed in the same RfC. See an RfC below where you asked a second question; I don't think this works very well in this case, as it is unclear which question some votes are answering, but an underlined comment tagged onto the end of your vote and bolded would do well. HLHJ (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Re-RfC on IQOS content for a more specific question. The original RfC does not give an option to place the content in different sections. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment on the new question to the original RfC, and encouraged others to do the same. HLHJ (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The old RfC does not ask if all this content[3] should be in the addiction and quitting section or the IQOS section. The old RfC is asking a different question for adding just two sentences to the IQOS section. It would be too confusing to ask too many questions in the old RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-RfC on IQOS content

Should this content be restored to the Electric_smoking_system#Addiction_and_quitting section or be added to the Electric_smoking_system#IQOS section or remain deleted from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose adding it to the IQOS section. 5 paragraphs would be too long. Other brands have a very short section. I recommend the content should remain deleted until a consensus is formed. If editors think it is relevant then it can be restored to the Addiction and quitting section. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boycott. My contribution to the discussion may be found in an earlier RfC above, at Talk:Electric smoking system#IQOS content, and I will continue to reply there. Withdrawing one RfC and starting a very similar one is not respectful of editors' time, and this question can be discussed in the old RfC. HLHJ (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Re-RfC on IQOS content

See The IQOS can collect personal data in regard to the smoking habits of the user.^[1] Philip Morris International stated it only retrieves the data when the product is not working properly.^[1] "What they're going to have is a mega database of how Americans smoke," said Gregory Connolly, a professor at Northeastern University who has studied the IQOS products, "Then they’ll be able to reprogram the current puffing delivery pattern of the iQOS to one that may be more reinforcing and with a higher addiction potential".^[1]

This content is still under dispute, and therefore no consensus has been reached yet. For now I have deleted the content until a consensus is reached. Adding the content to the IQOS section would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. There is 4 paragraphs in the IQOS section. 5 paragraphs would be too long. If editors think it is relevant it can be restored to the the Addiction and quitting section. QuackGuru (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

You've had your say. Please don't WP:Bludgeon. I took the liberty of moving your comment to the discussion section since it was not a real vote. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This section in User talk:HLHJ is entirely about a single article. All further replies will therefore be to Talk:Electric smoking system. HLHJ (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The section you commented in is for voting. Stating boycott is not a vote. You can move your comment to the discussion section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:!VOTE. HLHJ (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ended RfC due to lack of participation and to focus on other RfCs. Withdrawn. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with the additional content. Some of the content failed verification. Therefore, this RfC should not be re-opened. QuackGuru (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include additional content about the modified-risk tobacco product application before the US FDA has come to a conclusion?[4] QuackGuru (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Rather than include monthly updates it would be best to wait for a conclusion in regard to the modified-risk tobacco product application for the IQOS product. QuackGuru (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on modified-risk tobacco product application

See current content: "On December 5, 2016,[95] Philip Morris International submitted a multi-million page application[96] to the US FDA for IQOS to be authorized as a modified risk tobacco product.[95] The advisory panel appointed by the US FDA reviewed Philip Morris International's application in January 2018.[97] The advisory panel made recommendations about the application to the FDA in January 2018,[97] though the review for these applications is still ongoing.[98] In March 2017, Philip Morris International submitted to the US FDA for a premarket tobacco product application regarding its iQOS product.[99] In December 2017, Reuters published documents and testimonies of former employees detailing irregularities in the clinical trials conducted by Philip Morris International for the approval of the IQOS product by the US FDA.[100] The FDA announced permission for the sale of IQOS in the US on April 30, 2019.[101] This permission also requires the company to follow strict marketing restrictions.[101]"

Compared to the additional content containing the modified-risk tobacco product application: On December 5, 2016,[95] Philip Morris International submitted a multi-million page application[96] to the US FDA for IQOS to be authorized as a modified risk tobacco product.[95] The advisory panel appointed by the US FDA reviewed Philip Morris International's application in January 2018.[97] The scientific advisory panel made recommendations about the application to the FDA in January 2018,[97] stating that the evidence did support a claim of reduced exposure to harmful chemicals, but did not support claims of reduced risks of diseases associated with tobacco use,[98] or that "switching completely to iQOS presents less risk of harm than continuing to smoke cigarettes"[97] The panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to traditional cigarettes.[99] The review for these applications is still ongoing,[100] but the FDA usually follows the recommendations of its scientific advisory panels.[97]

Separately, in March 2017, Philip Morris International submitted to the US FDA for a premarket tobacco product application regarding its iQOS product.[101] In December 2017, Reuters published documents and testimonies of former employees detailing irregularities in the IQOS clinical trials conducted by Philip Morris International for submission to the US FDA.[102] The FDA announced permission for the sale of IQOS in the US on April 30, 2019.[103] This permission also requires the company to follow strict marketing restrictions.[103]

This diff shows the changes. There is content about safety that is similar to the content about the modified-risk tobacco product content. See "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke, including volatile organic compounds at comparable levels to cigarette smoke, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at vast various ranges, and carbon monoxide.[1] All of these substances, on the basis of rigorous research of cigarette smoke, are known to cause significant harms to health.[1] A 2017 review found "little research on what substances are released after the device heats the tobacco-based paste. The physical effects on users are also not yet known."[93] The IQOS product is likely less toxic than traditional cigarettes.[94] When the section is too long readers will lose interest. QuackGuru (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See comments above in initial discussion and the previous RfC. HLHJ (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, point of order; my understanding is that as an involved editor, you may not close the RfC and write a summary statement. As the creator of the RfC, you may withdraw it, though others may re-open it. Withdrawal is generally done if a consensus has been reached outside the RfC, which I do not think is the case here.

The FDA's scientific advisory panel conducted an extensive systematic review, and even if it had no regulatory role whatsoever, the article should mention its conclusions, as they are high-quality MEDRS. They apply to the health claims made about the IQOS and should go in the IQOS section (though it would be appropriate to also briefly mention it elsewhere). This is the core of this dispute for me.

I think we should also say "scientific advisory panel", not "advisory panel". This is a term used by the FDA and there are other sorts of FDA panels.

We distinguish between the application to market IQOS at all, which was approved, and the application to market the IQOS as reducing risk, which was rejected by the scientific advisory panel. While Philipp Morris likes to describe the application as "ongoing", there will be a significant scandal if the FDA permits marketing claims that its own scientific advisors say are not evidence-based. The phrasing could be improved to make this clearer; I previously included and cited a statement that the FDA almost always follows the advice of its scientific advisory panels.

Can we reach consensus on any of this without resorting to an RfC? HLHJ (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not say "scientific advisory panel". The application is still "ongoing". When there is a conclusion we can include it. I disagree with adding another paragraph to the long section and also disagree with misrepresenting sources. Most of the content you added to this article was deleted or completely rewritten. You spend more time arguing on the talk page rather than writing well written content. Eventually there will be more content about the modified-risk tobacco product application. Even if we included content now it would have to be deleted because of newer information on it. The US FDA is still reviewing the application. It they were not then there would be a source saying the FDA is longer reviewing the application.

See "Though I didn't explicitly state it, I do prefer the lead sentence to at least address the AT - though I acknowledge that MOS:FIRST allows a fair bit of wiggle room on this. According to WP:RFCEND, as the opener, you are welcome to withdraw the question. (We can always come back to it later.) Little pob (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)"

I did withdraw the RfC and it does not require consensus for me to withdraw it. I can close any RfC I want. Only for page moves I can't closed the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing an RfC is different from closing it and writing a summary statement. A withdrawn RfC can be re-opened later if needed. You've used the wrong proceedure; this is not serious, but please fix. HLHJ (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are urging over the word "closed" versus "withdrawn"? I can't keep it open knowing the proposal contains content that failed verification. You can start a new RfC but please don't propose including failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, should have been more clear. See the procedures for withdrawing an RfC at WP:RFCEND; you have used procedure 4, not procedure 1. They use different template changes and have different consequences. HLHJ (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Ended RfC due to lack of participation and to focus on other RfCs. Withdrawn." QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to go on about this, but that's still not procedure 1 in WP:RFCEND. I will fix it so you can see what I mean. HLHJ (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There. The {{rfc}} is gone, but there is no closure summary. Like that. HLHJ (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new RfC ID[5] QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the bug in the bot. Could you please reopen the first (tracking) RfC, QuackGuru? I'm OK with leaving this one be until we've settled some of the other issues, but I think that top one is more important and should be dealt with now. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to re-open the IQOS content RfC then I expect you to delete the content first or agree the content should be deleted before it is re-opened. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: This is a known problem, mentioned several times in Legobot's archives; and ironically, also mentioned at the aforementioned WP:RFCEND: don't use <nowiki>...</nowiki>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm sorry, Redrose64. I hope I haven't made too much of a mess. PEBCAK. HLHJ (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include an image of a pizza?[6] QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It is completed unrelated to the topic area. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Image_of_charred_pizza and see here.

QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It's largely unrelated to the topic and even if it could be argued that it is, home-made experiments are hardly material for an encyclopedic article. That being said, I almost wish I received more RfC alerts with the question "Should we include an image of a pizza?" for other articles, especially the more controversial ones, such as Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Donald Trump. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. See discussion. From what the uploader wrote on Commons, it seems the experiment wasn't exactly intentional . HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No, don't really see how it helps. A charred object is a charred object, people already know what it looks like irregardless of the object. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on pizza image

I originally added this image. I had written a section explaining how these products work, now removed from the article. I wanted an image to illustrate the key process, pyrolysis/charring. I therefore went looking through Commons for a picture that would vividly bring the process to mind. In the first discussion, I said:

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

There was also a long subsequent discussion (which is in the page history, but which I cannot now find in the archives: User:lowercase sigmabot III?). I think we actually had some consensus building on using an image of the charred interior of a specialized mini-cigarette's tobacco plug instead. I was certainly willing to use a more specific image (though I still like the vivid clarity of the pizza, and thus vote for both). I though this might be a compromise, so I put a lot of effort into trying to get an informally-licensed "can use with credit" image of the charred tobacco (linked from caption, left) formally CC-SA licensed, but did not hear back from repeated contact form submissions and e-mails over a few weeks. I requested help contacting the rightsholder on social media, in the hopes that they might respond there, and I had also asked if someone could find a butt and take and upload a similar cross-sectional photograph (see the image-request templates at the top of this page). I'd still appreciate a photo, if you are willing to help, kind reader. I was sort of surprised to see QG start an RfC on this, since I'd sort of moved on, but if my views are asked for, I'll argue my case. I think we should have some image that illustrates charring. HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization)." This wording added to the pizza image is original research and seems pointy.

It is not in the archives because it has not been archived yet. See above.

Please show rather than assert how an image of a charred pizza is related to these products. So far you have not shown how the image of a pizza is related to these products.

You claim "I think we actually had some consensus building on using an image of the charred interior of a specialized mini-cigarette's tobacco plug instead." There was no consensus to use that other image or any other image of a charred interior of a specialized mini-cigarette's tobacco plug instead. The draft gained consensus along with the better image that is currently in the article. A source must make the claim the specific image used illustrates charring. An editor cannot make the claim it is charring without a source saying that image is about charring. The wording added to the image should not violate WP:CAPTION or make a WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2019

Electric smoking system → Heat-not-burn product – Heat-not-burn product is the only name I can think of that covers all the various heat-not-burn products and therefore is the best option for the title of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tile remain the same or should it be changed? QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What common name or title do editors prefer? QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be changed. The title Electric smoking system is tantamount to original research and is confusing. This looks like an electric smoking system. See Electric_smoking_system#cite_note-20 for a list of names. The top common names are heat-not-burn tobacco product and heated tobacco product. I prefer the common name Heat-not-burn tobacco product.

See diffs here and here for when it was moved. There was no clear consensus for the page move. The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" uniquely describes the products being sold. Terms such as heated tobacco product are ambiguous or inaccurate. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." See WP:COMMONNAME. Most consumers do not know what a "heated tobacco product" means.

See https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-01-31&end=2019-05-26&pages=Heated_tobacco_product Over the last year the average page views is 0. The readers have told us that they are not searching for the term heated tobacco product. That confirms it is not a well known common name. On the other hand, the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product is being searched by our readers. This shows it is a well known common name. See https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product You can see from the page views readers are researching for the page titled Heat-not-burn tobacco product with daily page views of 40. The name Heat-not-burn tobacco product is most likely the most recognized common name according to the sources in the article. Numerous sources used in the article call it a heat-not-burn tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (summonned by RFC bot). Support heat-not-burn tobacco product . "heat-not-burn" is unique and recognizable term. IMO it is also important that WHO uses it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Heated tobacco product (Also summoned!) however I also less strongly support "heat-not-burn tobbaco product". Just has too many words/hyphons in my opinion however is still a suitable name change. (revised !vote below) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Heated tobacco product, abbreviated HTP if you like. Simple, accurate, avoids promotion, recognizable. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "heat-not-burn" as a contested tobacco marketing term. Oppose "heated tobacco product" as it conflates two very different products. The products this article is about char the tobacco black and give off smoke. But "heated tobacco product" is also used to refer to e-cigs that heat tobacco to ~body temperature by sucking the aerosol through it. It's like the difference between putting tea leaves on a burner set to "high" so that they char to a blackened mass, then inhaling the smoke, and spilling tea on a burner set to low, then inhaling the tea-y steam through a teaball full of tea leaves. Only with tobacco leaves. These are totally different products and should have different articles.

I'd favour splitting this article into charring cigarettes and electric loose-leaf charring devices. This is analogous to the cigarette/pipe distinction. The loose-leaf products should probably be merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device), as you can fill them with any leaf or crystalline powder. The specialized cigarettes are device-specific and come in tobacco only. I also favour starting a new article on tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. "Heated tobacco product" can then be a disambiguation page. Happy to consider better names; I just want to distinguish the products. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I now support Heat-not-burn product. This name would cover all products under one article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Heated tobacco product based on WHO and the concerns around using a marketing term (though the tobacco industry seems to use both interchangeably). See discussion comment. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with QuackGuru's reasoning that Heat-not-burn product is all encompassing and therefore is a more viable name change. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on title of article

There has been a previous requested move process on this topic. The last section discussed what the new name should be; it's fairly short, and recommended reading. HLHJ (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::The WHO also calls them "cigarettes" HLHJ (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)struck as irrelevant to this discussion and not even a joke out-of-context.[reply]

I moved your comment to the discussion section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2019, HLHJ stated "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 'tobacco' were to be out of the question, what would be better for a name? Is there a WP:COMMONNAME That is all encompassing, Would Heated Cigarette work? (I'm definitely cramming way too many questions.) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "heated cigarette" is too similar to a regular cigarette. The term "heat-not-burn product" could be used without the word tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the arguments in the RfC on whether to call them "cigarettes". QG prefers "tobacco stick". HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Heat-Not-Burn Product is good, or even HnB Product, atleast if we choose to omit "Tobacco" from the title. all similar names could serve as a redirect to the article --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Heat-not-burn product" would definitely cover all products under one article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this though the more I start to think that perhaps we are trying to generalize a topic too much. Perhaps we should negotiate on a way to split the article like HLHJ suggested above. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is a fake name. The proposed spilt would be more fake names that would also violate WP:CONSPLIT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not saying I agree with the currently proposed new names i'm just saying that maybe we could consider a similar course of action if we can't get this to work. However your reasoning seems perfectly sound and does agree with WP:CONSPLIT so maybe a last resort. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little pob, see "The tobacco industry has called them "heat-not-burn" products, although it has backtracked from this claim, as of 2018.[12]" There are devices that use cannabis. See Electric_smoking_system#Pax vaporizers. It may be a better idea to choose a name that does not have the word "tobacco" in the title. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See first sentence: "There are various types of heat-not-burn products.[notes 1][21]" The title of the article should reflect that are different kinds of heat-not-burn products. The word "tobacco" should be avoided in the title because there are heat-not-burn products that don't use tobacco (or nicotine). QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Noted, and the similar argument elsewhere on talk page with regards to also allowing use for consuming cannabis and other dry products. !Vote struck, however, I've not re-voted due to disliking the alternatives. Little pob (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here that I'll be away from technology including wikipedia for a week. (gone camping) However all currently stated !votes are up to date with my opinion. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctive box below is posted to two RfCs with overlapping scopes, so you need only read it once.

I strongly suggest that this RfC be put on hold until we have decided on the scope of the article in the other RfC. HLHJ (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article is limited to heat-not-burn products. It's that simple. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article state The World Health Organization calls them "cigarettes".[8] QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. That would be misrepresenting the source. It is claimed "WHO called them cigarettes"[9] WHO does not call them "cigarettes". The content failed verification and is a POV statement. Who says "...some make use of specifically designed cigarettes to contain the tobacco for heating."[10] That is not calling them "cigarettes". The article now says "Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[8]" Again, WHO is not calling them simply "cigarettes". QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. (summoned by bot!) because like QuackGuru pointed out they are not solely categorized as a cigarette even according to WHO. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Perplexed, re-scope? I'm really not sure why QuackGuru started this RfC. I'm not actually advocating the view that the WHO called all of these products "cigarettes". Some of these products take loose-leaf fills, like pipes; these are obviously not cigarettes, any more than a conventional pipe is a cigarette. However, some of these products are cigarettes, and their manufacturers are claiming that they are not cigarettes,^[2] but "tobacco sticks", "HeatsSticks", "HEETs", "Neostiks", and so on. Another MEDRS explicitly identifies these products as "mini-cigarettes"^[3]; Cochrane identifies one product as an "electronically‐heated cigarette smoking system".^[4]. The article currently supports the "not-a-cigarette" marketing claim in Wikipedia's voice.^[5] I had previously argued to QuackGuru that this was undesirable. Looking at the edit of mine which QG linked (quoted side-by-side below), I think my edit was poorly-phrased and misplaced, and I would have completely re-written it, but it is currently not in the article.

May I ask future commentators whether we should use the term "(mini-)cigarettes" or "tobacco sticks" and brandnames in Wikipedia's voice? I have no objection to giving the names of the brands or stating that the manufacturers claim that they are not cigarettes.

I find tobacco sticks to be a more suitable term where applicable. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. that is the correct terminology. For example, see "For this purpose, tobacco sticks are placed in a corresponding heater and heated to about 250–350 °C (around 500 °F.[22]).[7]" QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on WHO claim

There is a discussion on a user's talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cite the WHO source: "Heated tobacco products (HTPs) information sheet". World Health Organization. 2018.. Now, here is the edit complained about. I would like to note that this text was removed from the article space long before this RfC was started:

As mentioned in my vote above, I think this edit of mine needed a complete re-write, and I am not defending it. I just want the things that MEDRS calls cigarettes called cigarettes. HLHJ (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the manufacturers have also supplied us with publicity photos that do not show the cartons of stubby cigarettes (just one), and make these products look as much like an e-cigs as possible. These are understandably very similar to the photos used in their ads. I'd suggest that adding some non-lightboxy photos of the cigarettes and cartons would improve the article. Photographing things against a glow of diffuse white light is a standard marketing photography technique, known to make products look better, but it also makes details other than flaws less obvious. HLHJ (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just wrote above: "I'd suggest that adding some non-lightboxy photos of the cigarettes and cartons would improve the article." You called them cigarettes again. They are not cigarettes. The image you uploaded calls them tobacco sticks. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you say "I think this edit of mine needed a complete re-write, and I am not defending it.", but a very short time ago you stated "We disagree in our interpretation of the souce. I think my actions with respect to only one specific article and its talk page can best be discussed there. I will discuss this on the article talk page if third parties are also interested in discussing it."[11] You were defending it on your talk page.

Two days ago you stated on this talk page: The WHO also calls them "cigarettes"[12] QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ stated on 11 June 2019 "I think that "cigarettes" is a hypernym of "specially designed cigarette",[13] QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See previous content "The tobacco industry calls its tobacco refills "Heets" and "Neosticks",[1] while the World Health Organization calls them "cigarettes".[2] One brand's tobacco powder comes packed in aluminum capsules.[3]"

The tobacco industry does not call them tobacco refills "Heets" and "Neosticks". WHO does not call them "cigarettes". One brand's tobacco powder comes packed in aluminum capsules.[3]" is vague and was misplaced. The part about aluminum capsules is about a specific brand and belongs in a specific section. The same goes for "Heets" and "Neosticks".

See new content "The disposable tobacco stick[92] called HeatSticks or HEETS in some places they are sold,[93] looks similar to a short cigarette.[8]" "glo uses tobacco sticks called Neostiks in France.[12]" "The capsules are aluminum and the tobacco heats up to 180 °C.[12]" The current content is accurate and neutral. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we replace the word aerosol and/or emissions with the word smoke? QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The article says "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[8] They also generate smoke.[11]" We should not replace the word aerosol and/or emissions with the word smoke throughout the article. That would be a WP:CPUSH. They produce both an aerosol and smoke. We should not imply these devices are the same as "cigarettes". The term "smoke" is not a more specific term than "aerosol" for the emissions of these products. All smoke is not an aerosol. It is original research to claim that the emitted aerosol and smoke are the same thing. See previous discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. All smoke is aerosol, but all aerosol is not smoke. Steam, clouds and smoke are all aerosols. This aerosol is smoke, according to MEDRS.^[1] I cannot find a source stating that they emit both a non-smoke aerosol and smoke aerosol, as two separate components. I think this is a misunderstanding of the sources. See discussion for details. HLHJ (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• no agree w/ QuackGuru's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• no because the sources support the current wording of the article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on aerosol and smoke

"Aerosol" is a suspension of solid or liquid particles in air. Steam, clouds and smoke are all aerosols. Smoke is an aerosol containing pyrolysis products. Pyrolysis products include char and tar. Smoke generally also contains water droplets, water vapour, CO2, and assorted other gases and chemicals.

The only MEDRS article which explicitly addresses the question of whether the aerosol emitted by these products is "smoke" says that it is smoke, because it contains pyrolysis products.^[2] The article calls the emissions "aerosol" once, but mostly calls it "smoke".^[3] Many non-MEDRS sources use "aerosol" and "emissions", which is vaguer and not WP:Commonname, but not incorrect.

RJ Reynolds' 1988 product was pulled from the shelves after 4 months of being marketed as both "clean smoke" and "smoke free".^[4] Phillip Morris International currently manufactures the dominant brand of this product. Until 2016,^[5] Phillip Morris International called the aerosols emitted by these products "smoke".^[1] Afterwards, they advertised their product as emitting "no smoke", and said that using them was "vaping".^[6][7] They sought to be taxed and regulated as e-cigarettes.^[6] PMI also refers to the tar in the smoke as "Nicotine-free Dry Particulate Matter" in their publications.^[8](irrelevant) PMI reacted vehemently to an academic paper by independent researchers that said theat the product emitted "smoke".^[9][10] Sarah at PMI, could you explain PMI's preferred terminology and its rationale, please? HLHJ (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "The only MEDRS article which explicitly addresses the question of whether the aerosol emitted by these products is "smoke" says that it is smoke, because it contains pyrolysis products.[2]" That is not true. They don't question whether the aerosol emitted by these products is "smoke". I explained to you before it only mentions the word "aérosol" once and that is not about questioning whether the aerosol is "smoke". See "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés."[14] That is not about questioning anything related to smoke.

You claim "This aerosol is smoke, according to MEDRS.[1]" Nope. The source does not verify the claim. The source does not claim an aerosol is smoke. The source verifies "They also generate smoke.[11]". The source used for the claim mentions the word "aérosol"^[1] once. It is about l’aérosol in the THS2.2 device. QuackGuru (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says: "the emissions of heated tobacco... fit this definition of smoke perfectly". QuackGuru, do you grant that smoke is an aerosol? HLHJ (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "emissions" does not automatically mean "smoke" or "aerosol". A car engine also produces "emissions". QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, do you grant that smoke is an aerosol? HLHJ (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews do not address that question. That is not within the scope of this discussion and is irrelevant at this point. The question is: "Should we replace the word aerosol and/or emissions with the word smoke?" I prefer to stay on-topic. The other RfC you started was malformed. See Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are good sources addressing the question of whether smoke is an aerosol. Understanding MEDRS sources requires understanding technical terminology; a MEDRS need not define all of its terminology. If you don't understand these terms, smoke and aerosol provide the necessary information. Do you grant that smoke is an aerosol? HLHJ (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the smoke or aerosol page. If you had good sources then you would provide them and propose content to answer the question of whether smoke is an aerosol. Do you grant that MEDRS sources do not directly address this question for this article? QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC}

Verifiable facts to not change depending on which page they are on. Smoke is literally a textbook example of an aerosol. The idea that smoke is not an aerosol is incompatible with every definition of "aerosol" I've ever encountered. The articles I linked should have sources on the nature of smoke; do you refuse those sources on the grounds that they do not mention heat-not-burn products? I am not aware of any reliable source that states that smoke is not an aerosol; can you present one?

The MEDRS source under discussion is sufficiently direct. It says "the emissions of heated tobacco... fit this definition of smoke perfectly".^[1] This is directly logically incompatible with the idea that some of the emissions are smoke and some are not (I assume that you grant that everything emitted is emissions). The MEDRS sources do not explicitly define "smoke", "aerosol", "nicotine", "addiction", "risk", "health", "the", or any number of other words. If we fail to understand every term in a MEDRS source unless it is defined in the same source, WP:MED will have some serious sourcing problems. HLHJ (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See "The emissions of the three main smoked tobacco contain solid particles, droplets and gases that meet the definition of smoke, as announced by PMI researchers until 2016."^[1] I did write content about that. See "They also generate smoke.[12] Gases, liquid and solid particles, and tar are found in the emissions.[12]" Also see "Up until 2016, Phillip Morris International researchers stated their IQOS product produces smoke.[12]" HLHJ (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS sources do not directly address the question for this article about aerosol versus smoke.

Also see "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[9]" They produce both. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All, Sorry I missed the ping among the other notifications for my talk page. In short, PMI agrees that smoke is an aerosol (but not all aerosols are smoke). The aerosol emitted by IQOS is significantly different from that of a cigarette, which is part of the reason why the term smoke isn't appropriate for IQOS. The scientific evidence showing that IQOS emits aerosol but not smoke has been published in a report on our website here [15], where you can read a brief overview, or dig into the details, as you prefer. NFDPM is the proper term for a measurement of the residue of IQOS aerosol or cigarette smoke, a measurement which some people call "tar". NFDPM is the better term because it makes clear how the measurement is done (weight of the residue, excluding water and nicotine) and won't be confused with the concept of road tar or other materials not related to cigarettes. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Sarah at PMI. I agree with you that all smoke is an aerosol, but not all aerosols are smoke. I read PMI's public assessment of the evidence for its marketing claims some months ago, and took extensive notes. Like pre-2016 PMI researchers, I think the IQOS emits smoke. I'm not convinced that IQOS smoke differs from conventional cigarette smoke more than, say, the smoke from smouldering wet wood or asphalt differs from conventional cigarette smoke.

I don't think you use NFDPM for conventional cigarettes' tar. Traditional construction tar was produced from wood by pyrolysis with minimal oxidative combustion, under conditions similar to those in charcoal manufacture and the IQOS. HLHJ (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that are unrelated to this article. Off-topic sources do not belong in this article. We've been through that before. I did not read any new content that is useful for improving this page. No MEDRS source related to this article explicitly states "smoke is an aerosol". Therefore, there is no point to continuing this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I included three MEDRS sources in the collapsed block that say that cigarette smoke is aerosol, and one of them even has a small section on the topic of this article, though I'll grant it's a fairly crummy MEDRS. I'm not suggesting that we put the sources in the article; I just want to convince you that smoke is an aerosol. Here: not one but two MEDRS that say "Tobacco smoke is an aerosol"[18][19]. I trust that you will agree that any smoke generated by heating tobacco would be tobacco smoke, and thus also according to these sources an aerosol. I believe you also think that heating tobacco is relevant to this article. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add off-topic sources that are not relevant to this article. If it is not relevant to this article then it is not relevant to this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tar vs NFDPM, I found a reference from ISO defining them as the same, stating: "The quantitative measurement of nicotine, of particulate matter and of nicotine-free dry particulate matter (NFDPM, sometimes referred to as “tar”) is therefore dependent on the arbitrary definition of the means used to generate and collect the smoke." Speaking specifically about a standard for calculating the NFDPM of side stream cigarette smoke. [20] Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sarah at PMI, I should not have started discussing tar; it is rather off-topic. Struck.

QuackGuru, your vote says "They produce both an aerosol and smoke... The term "smoke" is not a more specific term than "aerosol" for the emissions of these products. All smoke is not an aerosol. It is original research to claim that the emitted aerosol and smoke are the same thing". If these statements were irrelevant, you would not have included them in your vote. Do you grant that smoke is an aerosol? You are allowed to say "No". HLHJ (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this enough. See "Should we replace the word aerosol and/or emissions with the word smoke?" Please focus on the question and try to convince others. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion under the assumption that smoke is an aerosol

Contentions that smoke is not an aerosol belong in the section above.

Smoke is an aerosol, and thus saying that these products emit both smoke and aerosol is like saying that a diplomat visited both Namibia and Africa. Sources could say both "On her trip to Africa..." and "When she was in Namibia..."; in the same way, sources call the same emissions both "aerosol" and "smoke". Smoke is an aerosol containing pyrolysis products,^[7] an aerosol created by pyrolysis.^[2] All the emissions of tobacco-pyrolysing devices are thus smoke. As MEDRS says: "the emissions of heated tobacco... fit this definition of smoke perfectly".^[2]

Currently the article says that the products emit an aerosol, and also emit smoke. This is a misunderstanding arising from a belief that smoke is not an aerosol. No source supports it unless thus misunderstood. HLHJ (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this discussion is irrelevant for improving this article. See "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[9] They also generate smoke.[12]" That is neutral content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Should we include the word "smoke", "nicotine" or "tar" in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The MOS:LEADSENTENCE should describe what the device is rather than also explain what comes out of the device. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see "There are various types of heat-not-burn products.[notes 1][21] A heat-not-burn tobacco product (heated tobacco product) heats up tobacco using a battery-powered heating-system.[9]"

• The first sentence is now the second sentence.

• The new question is: Should we include the word "smoke", "nicotine" or "tar" in the second sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The most important thing about a smoking product is what comes out of it. The nicotine is particularly important. No-one would buy these products if nothing came out of them; it is their central purpose. These products are primarily characterized by their emissions in MEDRS,^[1] ads,^[2] and news media.^[3] It would be difficult to find a source that extensively discusses these products without mentioning the emissions . HLHJ (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed opinion. Ideally nicotine should, these are nicotine delivery devices after all. However, I'd like to think most people would expect a tobacco-based product to contain nicotine. Given the article title, smoke should probably appear too. With regards to tar though; it's a by-product, and is only mentioned 6 times in the entire (>117kb) article, so agree with leaving it out of the opening sentence. Little pob (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No It does seem it would be difficult to fit these words in without breaking WP:NPOV but I do agree that blah blah blah outdated opinions blah blah. Definitely not tar, and hopefully not smoke. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on first sentence

• See previous first sentence: "An electrically-heated smoking system, also known as a heated tobacco product (HTP) or heat-not-burn tobacco product (HnB), uses an electric heating element to produce a smoke that contains nicotine, tar,[1] other chemicals, and particulates.[2]"[21]

• See current wording in the lede: A heat-not-burn tobacco product or heated tobacco product[notes 1] heats up tobacco using a battery-powered heating-system.[8] As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[8] They also generate smoke.[11] Gases, liquid and solid particles, and tar are found in the emissions.[11][22]

The current wording in the lede is far more informative as well as being neutrally written. Including the word "smoke" in the first sentence is not neutral and is a violation of MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The first sentence should tell the reader what the device is. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify the claim that they emit both a non-smoke aerosol and smoke aerosol, as two separate components. I think you are misunderstanding the sources. HLHJ (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "The most important thing about a smoking product is what comes out of it. The nicotine is particularly important. No-one would buy these products if nothing came out of them; it is their central purpose." You stated they are "a smoking product". That is not a neutral comment. They also produce aerosol, according to WHO and other MEDRS sources. You have not given a reason to violate MOS:LEADSENTENCE.

You stated "These products are primarily characterized by their emissions in MEDRS,[1] ads,[2] and news media.[3]" That is your opinion that is not backed up by the sources you cited. The sources do not verify they are "primarily characterized by their emissions."

It is not about non-smoke aerosol and smoke aerosol, as two separate components.

See WHO "Heated tobacco products are tobacco products that produce aerosols containing nicotine and other chemicals, which are inhaled by users, through the mouth."[23]

Also see "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés." That translates to "At high concentrations (50 μg/L of nicotine in the HRT 2.2 aerosol), however, the effects are measurable on all parameters studied."[24] That verifies it produces aerosol. The same source verifies they produce smoke. Therefore, these products produce both an aerosol and smoke, according to the MEDRS source. I am not misunderstanding the sources. I'm not the editor who called them "cigarettes".[25][26] QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little pob, the article title is a fake name and the page was moved without gaining consensus. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Title_of_article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: forgot to tag with {{not watching}}, so appreciate the ping. I did wonder why the AT wasn't mentioned in the opening sentence. Would be happy to strike support of mentioning smoking in lead sentence, if the AT changes away from current. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Little pob: striking the support of mentioning smoking in lead sentence will help. The current wording is well written. For example, "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[8]" The placement for nicotine, tar, and smoke is easier to read with the current version. It would disrupt the flow of the reading if the content were changed. I spent a lot of time to ensure it is well written and sourced using high-quality sources. I started a draft and then a RfC and gained consensus for the expanded version. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ, Little pob and NikkeKatski [Elite]. Not all devices use nicotine. See "There are devices that use cannabis.[25]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, and it's an important point. I've made a suggestion for addressing it in the Title of article RfC, which was copied to the spinoff RfC on splitting the article in the next section. I think the problem is that our scope is currently so heterogeneous that it's hard to write a good first sentence. HLHJ (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title to Heat-not-burn product would address the concerns and cover all products. There is really no need to split the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking just mentioning that they "commonly" contain nicotine but I don't really care too much about including it. My support for it is very weak, I don't oppose it though. Also its quite clear that the first thing we should take care of is the whole "title of the article" matter (including whether or not to split). It would most likely make the rest of the RFCs a little more bearable. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title to Heat-not-burn product would clearly avoid any need to split up the article. Most use tobacco. Therefore the first sentence mentions tobacco. I wrote every sentence in the current lede and most of the article. I tried to make the lede as clear as possible. See "There are different types of heat-not-burn tobacco products.[24] One type uses an embedded heat source; another type uses an external heat source; another one uses a heated sealed chamber; to deliver nicotine using tobacco leaf.[24] Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[9] There are devices that use cannabis.[25] They are not electronic cigarettes.[9] 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.[24]" QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little pob, you were incorrectly influenced by the fake title of the article. As long as the title is not fixed then there is no point to this discussion. I think this thread and RfC should be closed because of the title of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though I didn't explicitly state it, I do prefer the lead sentence to at least address the AT - though I acknowledge that MOS:FIRST allows a fair bit of wiggle room on this. According to WP:RFCEND, as the opener, you are welcome to withdraw the question. (We can always come back to it later.) Little pob (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NikkeKatski [Elite], you said "Also its quite clear that the first thing we should take care of is the whole "title of the article" matter (including whether or not to split)." Based on your comment I think this thread and RfC should be closed. QuackGuru (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See "As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[9]" This is the second sentence in the lede. If the first sentence mentioned nicotine then there would be duplication in the lede. So far no editor has explained how to rewrite the first and second sentence to avoid duplication. Should we avoid duplication in the lede? Yes. Should we remove the word nicotine from the second sentence? No. That would change the meaning of the second sentence. The part "it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals" does not need to be changed. The main point of the second sentence is that it does contain nicotine and other chemicals. QuackGuru (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit QuackGuru, wikipedia doesn't deserve your IQ. Changing my level of support based on your rock solid facts. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first sentence to "There are various types of heat-not-burn products.[notes 1][21]" The issues regarding the first sentence have been resolved. The title is the real problem. QuackGuru (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctive box below is posted to three RfCs with overlapping scopes, so you need only read it once.

I strongly suggest that this RfC be put on hold until we have decided on the scope of the article in the other RfC. HLHJ (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split the article? QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The products that are called heat-not-burn tobacco products and heated tobacco products should stay on this page. There is currently 12 brands. Each one has its own section. None of them should be forked to a new page. It is best for the readers when all the brands are on one page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the current scope overlaps with Vaporizer (inhalation device) and e-cigarette. Re-scope by functionality as below per WP:CONSPLIT. HLHJ (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No, as the article currently rightfully covers all content. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. WP:CFORK seems to apply here - there may be archived discussions that addresses why it doesn't; but WP:CCC. I like the suggestion of using this article (what ever it ends up being called) solely for the pre-packaged tobacco products, and the other content being split into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) and e-cigarette articles as appropriate. Whatever the outcome, a WP:BROADCONCEPT article probably would not go amiss. Little pob (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on splitting article

See "I'd favour splitting this article into charring cigarettes and electric loose-leaf charring devices. This is analogous to the cigarette/pipe distinction. The loose-leaf products should probably be merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device), as you can fill them with any leaf or crystalline powder. The specialized cigarettes are device-specific and come in tobacco only. I also favour starting a new article on tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. "Heated tobacco product" can then be a disambiguation page. "[27] QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To give that quote a bit more context, I said (italics added to portion quoted above):

"heated tobacco product"[...] conflates two very different products. The products this article is about char the tobacco black and give off smoke. But "heated tobacco product" is also used to refer to e-cigs that heat tobacco to ~body temperature by sucking the aerosol through it. It's like the difference between putting tea leaves on a stove burner set to "high" so that they char to a blackened mass, then inhaling the smoke, and spilling tea on a burner set to low, then inhaling the tea-y steam through a teaball full of tea leaves. Only with tobacco leaves. These are totally different products and should have different articles.

I'd favour splitting this article into charring cigarettes and electric loose-leaf charring devices. This is analogous to the cigarette/pipe distinction. The loose-leaf products should probably be merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device), as you can fill them with any leaf or crystalline powder. The specialized cigarettes are device-specific and come in tobacco only. I also favour starting a new article on tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. "Heated tobacco product" can then be a disambiguation page. Happy to consider better names; I just want to distinguish the products. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as charring cigarettes, electric loose-leaf charring devices, or tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. These names are fake names. Per WP:CONSPLIT we should keep the content on this page because these devices are similar to one another. They heat tobacco while other hybrids heat tobacco and other things. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tobacco curing barn also heats tobacco, traditionally with a wood fire. Chewing tobacco is warmed (to temperatures slightly above~one degree below those of the solid tobacco in those heated-tobacco e-cigs) by being chewed in warm saliva. Including everything that can heat tobacco here would be an odd scope, and we would have to merge in Vaporizer (inhalation device).

Wikipedia:Article titles states that descriptive article titles, made up by editors, may be appropriate if the alternatives are inaccurate, unclear, or otherwise unacceptable.^[2] I don't think that my suggestion is against policy. The names for the article scopes I proposed are descriptive terms; it was not my intent to pretend that they are anything else, and I welcome suggestions of alternatives. HLHJ (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The names are fake names because they are unsourced. You changed the title. Not a single editor agrees with the name change to Electric smoking system. The sourced names can be found at Electric_smoking_system#Notes. The article can use a broader name for the title to address the issues rather than split up the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive names are not required to be sourced.

The distinctive box below is posted to two RfCs with overlapping scopes, so you need only read it once.

Changing the title to the name heat-not-burn product will address all the issues. We're done here. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Title_of_article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little pob, there is no content that would be split into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) and e-cigarette articles. This article has a limited scope for various types of heat-not-burn products. None of the content in this article would fit in the other articles. I can't think of a single sentence that would belong in another article. The Vaporizer (inhalation device) article is a different topic. What would you split into the e-cigarette article? QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]