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.

QuackGuru, you removed this content, citing "obvious policy violations" and this archived talk page discussion. May I ask what policies were violated?

Professor Hoek is quoted in the source as saying "These tobacco stick products are marketed as 'smoke-free' replacements for conventional cigarettes". This, I think, adequately supported the statement you challenged: Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free" (in the article context, she is being interviewed about iQOS).

You challenged the word "include"; I trust that you are not arguing that PM isn't marketing iQOS in any other way. If so, the other source (an academic paper on methods used in a store and province in Canada) lists other marketing methods, so the statement is still supported.

You suggest that I should specify where the marketing is. I have a source for a general statement on the marketing, and I think the precise details of a store in Canada would not contribute to the article; it is the generality that is of interest. You also suggest that I should specify who is contesting the claims. I am willing to attribute it to independent researchers, if you like. If the reader wants a more precise attribution, the can follow the citation link (it is safe to assume that the reader wouldn't recognize the names or research group of the researchers anyway).

You ask what verifies the statement that the "smokeless" claim has been contested. The source contains the quote ""We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless." I think that verifies it :).

Finally, you suggest that it is "a WP:SYN violation to use different sources at the end the sentence". Using different sources to support different clauses of a sentence in entirely normal and acceptable practice on Wikipedia. I'm a bit puzzled. HLHJ (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sourced the wording is poorly written. I challenged the word "include"; but does the source or sources used verify include? The other source about a store in Canada is for marketing methods for a store in Canada. It not relevant to the wording being proposed. A new sentence can be created about marketing in a store in Canada. The wording that was in the article did not explain who contested the claim. It would be better to create two different sentences rather than one sentence where different claims do not appear to be directly connected. It appears you did not state which source verifies the content you quoted. There was more than one source after each claim. If more than one source is used both must verify the claim. It is also a copyright violation to quote a source without providing a link to the source. Sources were quoted in this section without providing a link to each source after each quote. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, I am totally confused by your message. The only policy violation you list is copyvio, but the only quote in the content you removed is the word "smoke-free", and Professor Hoek said exactly that word in the source cited immediately afterwards. I don't need to say that she said it, because she, and the article, are discussing the term. Copyright cannot subsist in a single non-original word. I see no copyvio. I addressed all of the other critiques above. Partly reiterating for clarity, the word "include" does not need to be stated in the source. The sources show multiple marketing methods; I wrote that marketing methods included one of these methods. The combination of the two sources verifies the claim. Could you please clarify, taking into account all I have written in this section? HLHJ (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The combination of the two sources verifies the claim." That's what I explained above is the issue. That is called a SYN violation needing to combine different sources to verify the content. I think it would be best to write a claim using one source rather than combine sources to come to a different conclusion. Also, when quoting an article it is best to provide a link to the source. If I quoted an article without a link to the source then I would be violating copyright. Copyright also applies to the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, the word "puzzled" would also describe my reaction to your new post. WP:SYN states:

• This first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

I would add:

• This paragraph is also fine, because non-meaning-altering punctuation changes (. → ;) do not create synthesis:

I wrote "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free", a claim that has been contested." I cited the two clauses separately. This is not improper synthesis, any more than "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free". This claim that has been contested."

Finally, a single word in quotation marks is not WP:copyvio. The first sentence of this post, and the next sentence, also use quotes to indicate that I am talking about a word, not using it. The first sentence is not a quotation of anyone, although many people have said "puzzled". I now understand that you were not saying that my article text was copyvio. sorry for the misunderstanding As for my longer quote in this discussion, the source is readily findable by following the links, and attribution by hyperlink, or by plain text ("Professor Hoek is quoted"), or both, is, to the best of my understanding, legally acceptable. I think the issues you have raised are settled, and I would like to restore the content. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, could you please respond? If you have no further objections, I will restore the content. HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You stated previously "You challenged the word "include"; I trust that you are not arguing that PM isn't marketing iQOS in any other way. If so, the other source (an academic paper on methods used in a store and province in Canada) lists other marketing methods, so the statement is still supported." The other source does not verify the same claim. The other source is specifically about marketing in Canada. That would verify a different claim for marketing in Canada. It is not about arguing that PMI is not marketing IQOS in any other way. It is about what the source supports.

See "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free",...[54][55]" Two sources were used instead of one. If one source supports the claim then that source should be used. It appears each source makes different claims. They don't verify the same claim. The second source is from IQOS promotion in Ontario, Canada, but the content did not mention it was from promotion in Ontario, Canada. Do you need to combine different sources to verify the one claim? If so, it can be split into two different claims since each source makes entirely different claims.

You previous stated "Using different sources to support different clauses of a sentence in entirely normal and acceptable practice on Wikipedia." But policy states "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."[1] Combining different sources together to reach another conclusion is a SYN violation. The part "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free" was unsupported by any single source. You acknowledged "The combination of the two sources verifies the claim." Two different sources were used in an attempt to verify the claim.

If it is one claim the content cannot combine two sources together to reach another claim. Are you using two sources to reach a conclusion for one claim? They are marketed as "smoke-free" products is supported by the first source.

See "... a claim that has been contested.[46][56]" It did not explain who contested the claim. The second clause is contesting a claim but the first clause appears to be a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, I am even more confused. You wrote "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products is supported by the first source", which seems to contradict your earlier tagging of the statement as fv, and at least part of your reason for removing the sentence. The sentence in question is:

"Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free",^[1][2] a claim that has been contested.^[3][4]"

The first two sources give accounts of marketing it as "smoke-free", and the last two of independent researchers contesting the claim. Citing multiple accounts of the same thing is not WP:SYN, and as you say one source would be enough to support it, although two are preferred for controversial content, which this would appear to be.

For an answer to your last paragraph, please see the first paragraph in this section, where I say "I am willing to attribute it to independent researchers, if you like". We can add "...by independent researchers" to the end of the last sentence. Would this satisfy you? HLHJ (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "QuackGuru, I am even more confused. You wrote "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products is supported by the first source", which seems to contradict your earlier tagging of the statement as fv, and at least part of your reason for removing the sentence."[2]

§

It does not contradict the tagging. The content "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free"," is different than "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products." Do you agree you won't add failed verification content to nicotine related articles? I have responded to your comments on the talk page for months. You are continuing to propose content that appears to failed verification or is previously disputed. You also wrote "and as you say one source would be enough to support it,"[3] I did not say that. They are different accounts of different things. For example, the second source is about the promotion of IQOS in Ontario, Canada.[4] QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
— Copied from User talk:HLHJ#Failed verification content by HLHJ

"Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free"," and "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products" seem to me to be largely equivalent statements. If you prefer the latter we can use it. I thought that "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products is supported by the first source" meant that you though that the first source was enough to support that statement. Apologies for the miscommunication. Could you please suggest a text you would approve? HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Any ideas? Shall I add something using "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products"-like phrasing? This seems related to the next section, feel free to reply to both here. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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"[5].[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."[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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".[7] 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."[8] 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)[reply]

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

The designations "heat-not-burn"^[5] and "smoke-free"^[6] are used. However, some independent researchers "disagree with the claim that it's smokeless".^[3][4] Both "heat-not-burn" tobacco sticks and conventional cigarettes incompletely combust (burn, or pyrolize) tobacco.^[7]

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:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[9]

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

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

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

Reference 2 (Bentley2017) does not verify "smoke"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, the production (not use) of charcoal is called "charcoal burning" and it produces smoke. The smoke is rich in water and other more-volatile components, as is the smoke of these devices, according to PMI documents. The autoignition temperature of wood is very roughly 300 Celsius;[10] it will burn at lower temperatures, and char at still lower temperatures.[11][12] Charcoal is made from wood. It is also made from corncobs and leaves and many other forms of organic material, although probably not with tobacco for economic and safety reasons. A properly-made charcoal clamp will also burn out by itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that a consensus to use a consistent term overrides the term used in a specific source, as it has at the e-cigarettes article. Independent and non-independent, or technical and non-technical sources, may well use different terms, while the Wikipedia article uses a single consistent one. As long as it is clear that we are talking about the same thing, and are thus still accurately representing the source, I don't see this as a verification problem. HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IQOS is not an acronym, secondary source

Auer et al study given undue weight

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

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

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

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

Concerning text about the Auer study:

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

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

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

Myers quote fails verification

Minor reference corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a related point, there seems to be less than due care with regard to wp:MEDRS vetting of sources both here and at some of the ecig related articles. There have been reviews published in reputable journals which should be usable. We should certainly not be relying on primary sources such as PMC 4245615, where the authors, who are employed by the manufacturer (and claim they have no COI) variously assert the product to have little, less, or no harm. Quite simply, only a fool would assume them not to be conflicted. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, HLHJ - I think the general tone of the article was very biased. Lots of weasel words and implications. While other content was obviously misleading. "Surveys have found that about half of users have never smoked conventional cigarettes" Is blatantly misleading. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]