Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

QuackGuru's concerns

Copied from User talk:CentreLeftRight

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, QuackGuru, I'm a bit confused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I think I mentioned, I am not citing PMI as a source. No statement in the article uses it for verification. I agree entirely that that would be inappropriate. I am linking to it from a footnote; the "ref" markup is used for that too. HLHJ (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a footnote to the company website. It looks more like spam than anything else. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you follow the link and notice that it's an Internet Archive copy of a 404? PM must only have had it up very briefly indeed. The FDA cites it as essentially saying that they didn't measure the chemicals that the Swiss team did, or use the procedure of the Swiss team, but I'm sure there was more to it than that. Since you have long since removed it, this discussion seems moot. HLHJ (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying the source

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

I've rephrased it. The original source says "...Phillip Morris posted an academic rebuttal online", so that required slightly weird grammar. I don't think that this met the threshold for the minimal originality of expression, but I changed it anyway. HLHJ (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You moved the word "online". I think it can be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, how? HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thanks. HLHJ (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Page number or page numbers request

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

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

That's a summary of pretty much the entire document. Adding page numbers would be ~parallel to saying "The Beatles recorded music in an album called "Abbey Road"" and then citing a specific track. HLHJ (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

How about you provide me with a few page numbers. Wording such as "mentioned above" does not seem encyclopedic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

p12-15 should do you. In the future, searching the surname of the lead author is an easy way to find a paper in the text. HLHJ (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation misplacement

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

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

I have removed one citation. As the one source was only a few hundred words long, I think a reader could have read them both fairly easily. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue has some comments about appropriate numbers of citations. HLHJ (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did the other citation you removed verify the claim? "Dancing around the definition of smoke to avoid indoor-smoking bans is unethical..."[1] is different than what the current article states. I could not verify it was a marketing message. The wording can be improved to be more accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have modified the claim. I think that "smokeless" is a marketing message. HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You restored disputed content and now you are claiming that "smokeless" is a marketing message? There are two sources used to verify the claim. See "In a statement to "CBS This Morning," Philip Morris International said: "Our goal is to convert every adult smoker who would otherwise keep smoking, to smoke-free products such as IQOS. We are also clear that IQOS is not risk-free."[2] See also "Outside the store, promotion includes a prominent IQOS sign, a sandwich board sign reading ‘Building a Smoke-Free Future’ and sales representatives regularly smoking IQOS."[3] Last time there was a dispute like this there were socks or COI accounts hyper focused on PMI iQOS. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You agreed to replace the general claim with Facebook but adding more the one source does cause issues with verifiability when different sources make different claims.

Same thing here. Both sources made different claims. Philip Morris International told CBS This Morning in regard to iQOS being smokeless. Telling something to CBS This Morning is not a marketing message. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think your first comment belongs in the "Failed verification" section below; your second belongs on the talk page of another article. I'll let you move them as you see fit before answering. HLHJ (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

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

Your edit comment says that the statement "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as a smoke-free device" fails verification, with the edit comment

(nope; see " Outside the store, promotion includes a prominent IQOS sign, a sandwich board sign reading 'Building a Smoke-Free Future' and sales representatives regularly smoking IQOS.")

If the iQOS is marketed as producing a smoke-free future, they are marketing it as a smoke-free device. This seems to me to be a logical truism as per Wikipedia:Common knowledge. HLHJ (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You did not add the iQOS is marketed as producing a smoke-free future at a Canadian store. You were making a broader claim not found in the citation presented. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is from a study of iQOS promotion in Ontario, Canada. I don't understand what the claim broadening is.

As a side issue, if I have longer than half an hour to respond to tags before the content is deleted, I am much more likely to do so. HLHJ (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The marketing was on a sign from outside a store in Canada. You did not mention it was a store in Canada or it was on a sign with a specific message. What you added was a much wider claim than found in the source. The marketing message was on a sign in Canada. The claim the source stated is a much more narrower claim than what was added to the article. Making general claims is unsupported by the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Strategies for marketing iQOS include" does not say anything about the frequency of the use of the strategy, and I doubt that with a thousand-odd stores, Phillip Morris produced one sign. But I have added more sources. They quote PM as saying in an official statement to the media "...smoke-free products such as IQOS" They call it "smokeless" twice. I hope that you will not argue that an official statement to the media is not marketing. HLHJ (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Both sources do not verify exactly the same claim because both sources make very different claims. The current content is inaccurate and ambiguous. The claim cannot be contented when the content, "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free" failed verification. The first source stated PMI told CBS This Morning[4] that it is smokeless. That content in the article does not include the wording "CBS This Morning". The second source stated there was a sign outside a Canadian store[5] with a specific message. The content in the article does not mention a sign or a Canadian store. Using 4 citations to verify one short sentence is a red flag. QuackGuru (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I hoped in vain :). I found you a source in which an Otago University’s Department of Marketing Professor Janet Hoek of ASPIRE 2025 (https://www.otago.ac.nz/marketing/research/aspire2025/index.html) said "These tobacco stick products are marketed as 'smoke-free' replacements for conventional cigarettes, and promoted as a means to reduce harm from smoking. However the research on these new types of products is limited". HLHJ (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The first source you mentioned says "In a statement to "CBS This Morning," Philip Morris International said: "Our goal is to convert every adult smoker who would otherwise keep smoking, to smoke-free products such as IQOS. We are also clear that IQOS is not risk-free." " I replaced it with the Otago one in my edit directly above. The second is an academic paper; the study says that it's conducted in "Ontario, Canada"; it says "We collected data on IQOS promotion... outside an IQOS store" and it says "Outside the store, promotion includes a prominent IQOS sign, a sandwich board sign reading ‘Building a Smoke-Free Future’...". I retained it; I think two sources is not too many for a claim that has caused this much discussion. HLHJ (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See current wording: "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free",[54][55][not in citation given] a claim that has been contested.[46][56]"

Does the first two sources verify the part, Strategies for marketing iQOS "include"...? The previous source used verified they have a goal. A goal and a marketing strategy are different claims. It was replaced with another source that also failed to verify the entire claim. See "These tobacco stick products are marketed as 'smoke-free' replacements for conventional cigarettes..."[6] The content was not rewritten to match the source when a different source was used.

The other source is about Canada stores and goes into detail about a store with a sign outside the store. The text does not mention it was a sign outside a store in Canada. The current text also uses the unsupported claim "include". Where does each source verify the marketing strategies for iQOS "include" marketing it as "smoke-free"?

Does the last two sources verify the part, a claim that has been contested.? The last two sources can't verify failed verification content. The claim was contested by whom? The text does not explain this. That means the content is too vague and therefore meaningless. It also looks like a WP:SYN violation to use different sources at the end the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The obvious policy violations were removed. Even if the content were sourced the content is poorly written. For example, who contested the claim? The content did not say who contented it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi all, I want to introduce myself. I'm Sarah and I work with PMI. I'll come back at some point soon, as I'd like to make some suggestions that I think can help improve accuracy of the content. Cheers! Sarah at PMI (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A few minor changes

Hi All,

As I mentioned the other day, I'd like to suggest some corrections to this article:

In the 2nd to last paragraph (“The application was rejected in January 2018”): to clarify the chronology, PMI submitted an application, the FDA is reviewing it, a Panel (TPSAC) made nonbinding recommendations, FDA is still reviewing (no ruling yet). The whole process is here and the page clearly indicates that the IQOS application is still ongoing. I think it makes sense to edit that part of the paragraph to something like the following:

A committee appointed by the FDA reviewed PMI’s application in January 2018. (existing ref 51) It recommended against accepting two of the three claims sought by PMI and “expressed concerns about the lack of data” on risk relative to cigarettes.(existing ref 50) The committee voted in favor of the claim that IQOS reduced users’ exposure to harmful chemicals. (existing ref 51) The FDA’s review of the application is still ongoing. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized the product, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children."(existing ref 51) However, most of the speakers advocated for the committee to submit a positive recommendation.(existing ref 51)

The other point that I think could be updated is to use a word other than “smoke” when talking about the aerosol of HNB products. I get that this is a way that some news articles are speaking about this category, but as I understand it, this language is based on one research publication (see reference 51, where the authors discuss), but that paper was heavily criticized by the FDA back in January (reference here, see pages 13 and 14: “There are significant analytical issues”). In fact, this is the same publication that serves as the reference for IQOS meaning “I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking” (first paragraph), when in fact it’s just a brand name and not an acronym at all: PMI specifically mentions that point in its FAQ here. You may want to remove that part from the first sentence and correct instances of iQOS with IQOS (upper case i).

Rather than smoke, I suggest using the more accurate term “aerosol” throughout for heated tobacco products, and reserving “smoke” for cigarettes. See for example here

Also, I saw references 8 and 45 are to the same publication, just one is a PDF and the other is the HTML version. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the copyright violation I think the edit history needs to be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly was the copyright violation that you are talking about? And why do you think it is so bad that not only did you revert another users text, but also ask for it to be redacted from history??? --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He is upset because some of the content in Diff of Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product was copied from User:QuackGuru/Nicotine 1 without his permission or the legally-required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding, thank you for deleting my change if it is in fact in violation. The context for this issue is here: I had made the request that is currently visible for changes to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, and QuackGuru invited me to comment/discuss regarding his draft page. When the specific changes we were working on together were settled, he asked me not to point to his draft nor our discussion of it, and I agreed. He also told me that he was not willing to make the changes we had just discussed to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, but I could try to have someone else make the changes. Based on how our discussion ended, I believed that I was ok to post the pieces we had worked on together and request they be added to the Heat-not-burn Tobacco Products article. I am continuing to learn and I appreciate your patience and feedback. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Specific Changes Requested

Hi all,
I am following up on my previous change request to include more specific changes that should work as direct copy and paste if no changes to my proposed text are needed. Diannaa or KimDabelsteinPetersen, would either of you be interested in reviewing and possibly implementing these changes? They are similar (but not copied) from what QuackGuru and I had originally agreed on:

• Throughout this article, the term "smoke" should be changed to "aerosol" or "emissions" when referring to the material produced by heat-not-burn tobacco products and inhaled by the user. The products do not burn tobacco, and thus do not produce smoke but instead produce an aerosol. Also, the following change will introduce a more authoritative source for what is produced by these products:

Current text: The resulting smoke contains nicotine and other chemicals.
Proposed text: The resulting aerosol contains nicotine and other chemicals that are inhaled through the mouth by the user.

• In the beginning of the section on iQOS, I recommend removing the (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking) acronym from the first sentence, because it is not an official acronym according to the FAQ on PMI.com: https://www.pmi.com/faq-section/faq/does-iqos-have-a-specific-meaning.

Current text: The introduction of iQOS (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking) was announced on 26 June 2014.
Proposed text: The introduction of iQOS was announced on 26 June 2014. The Express Tribune reported some have stated iQOS stands for "I quit ordinary smoking."

• In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "One independent study…" Should add a sentence to the end of this paragraph:

Proposed text: In a January 2018 document, the US FDA stated that "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."

• In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "The application was rejected…" is incorrect. First, the FDA has not rejected the application and is still reviewing it. Second, the quote from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is not a direct quote from the Campaign's speaker, it's a direct quote of NPR's paraphrasing. I recommend revising this paragraph the following way:

Current text: The application was rejected in January 2018; the FDA ruled that Phillip Morris had not shown that their product cut risks; the panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized it, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children".
Proposed text: The Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee, an advisory panel appointed by the US FDA, reviewed Philip Morris International’s application in January 2018. NPR quoted Matthew Myers, representing the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who told the US FDA advisory panel that iQOS "is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people." NPR also reported that most of the speakers at the meeting recommended that the committee vote in favor of approving the application. The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the claim that iQOS significantly reduces the body's exposure to harmful chemicals. On the question of whether Philip Morris International demonstrated that the product reduces the risks of diseases associated with tobacco use, the panel voted 8 against and one abstention. The panel also voted against Philip Morris International's claim that switching to iQOS is less harmful than continuing to smoke cigarettes, with a vote of 4-5. The panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes. The US FDA is reviewing Phillip Morris International's data, the US FDA's own laboratory testing data, other scientific information, and comments submitted by the public. Philip Morris International's application is still under review to be considered a modified risk tobacco product.

• Reference names "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" and "renamed_smoke" are the same research publication (Auer et al, 2017), and should be merged into one reference. I recommend to use "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" as I included in this request because the DOI links to the open-access publication at the website, where the PDF can also be freely downloaded.

Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune citation written by Sam Chambers has been a deadlink for quite some time. I think it is odd to propose content using a source that is a deadlink. I written content using that source before it was a deadlink. It has been a deadlink long before you made this proposal. I'll have to pass on this proposal. Others can review it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah at PMI. The claim that these products produce aerosol, but not smoke, is contested. Can you suggest a source which says that Phillip Morris does not consider the aerosol produced by HnB products to be smoke?

I used the WHO source, added that the acronym is unofficial with your source, and I've added information about the disagreement, but a better source for that would be good. I used the WHO source elsewhere, made the lack of direct quote clear, and added that the iQOS acronym is unofficial with your source. I clarified that only the advisory panel rejected the claims. I've also amalgamated the refs. Good spot; I made that error, I think. I haven't used your proposed texts; apart from an unwillingness to investigate the proper accreditation, I am uneasy with the conflict of interest involved. The interests of your employer and Wikipedia do not align. While you are welcome to point out factual errors in Wikipedia, including in areas where you have a COI, I would suggest that you limit your writing of actual text to other areas. HLHJ (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, thank you for making some edits in response to my request, and I can understand that you prefer not to include text I've drafted. I have 3 minor corrections for the edits you made. First, in the section on iQOS, 3rd paragraph: a bit of extra code is visible: }}</ref>. Second, same section, 4th paragraph: "The FDA reviewedis reviewing Phillip Morris's data" because the review is still in progress as the table on this FDA page shows. Third, same section 5th paragraph "the FDA advisory panel ruledrecommended that…" because "The FDA doesn't have to follow the advisory panel's advice but usually does." The term ruled makes it seem like the panel has the final say. Other options may be: advised, stated, voted.

I do agree that there is no consensus in the media on whether IQOS produces smoke or not. However, smoke is the contested term, not aerosol. There is no debate that smoke is an aerosol, and this is why aerosol is the term that should be used. It's accurate either way. There may be other words that could also work as neutral substitutions for "smoke" in non-quoted text. The existing content about this debate could be moved to the lede or to the etymology section, but the rest of the article should use a neutral term rather than smoke. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah at PMI. Thanks for catching my formatting error, I've fixed it. I think the existing wording is not misleading; the word "advisory" is sufficient, and an ongoing review does not prevent a review having been completed, as it has been. I'm afraid Wikipedia's requirements for balance and neutrality do not require the removal of terms because they are contested. If neutrality meant avoiding contested statements, we would be in trouble! Saying "anthropogenic climate change" and "the planet's circumference" would be impossible, for instance. I have described the position that the devices do not emit smoke, and if you can give me a source I will attribute it to Phillip Morris. But I do not think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to adopt that position without extensive discussion and consensus, and if the community were to form a consensus about how to discuss it, I suspect we would settle on calling the emissions "smoke". HLHJ (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, Thank you for your response, and I yield on the point about the panel's "ruling." As you suggest, I have a reference for PMI's stance on the point about smoke/aerosol. Text from New Zealand Herald this year: "IQOS does not produce smoke (first or second-hand) because it does not burn or combust tobacco," a spokesman told news.com.au. reference

Finally, I want to be clear that the advisory panel is not the same entity as the FDA, and their reviews of the evidence are distinct even if they are related. The source verifies that the FDA is reviewing those materials, not that it has reviewed them. Further, the FDA's website shows that the FDA is still reviewing the application. I think these references are quite clear that the FDA has not completed a review, but if you do not find these references convincing, then I have no other information to provide. Regardless, thank you for the discussion. Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Primary source

I removed the primary source. I recommend against using a primary source when there are other sources available. QuackGuru (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK for trivial stuff like that, per WP:ABOUTSELF. But I don't really think the info you removed matters much. HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is okay to use a primary source when a secondary source commented on the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source:
On the internet, various users have theorized that IQOS is an acronym for “I Quit Ordinary Smoking.” Calantzopoulos says this “was obviously not the intention.” Through a spokeswoman, the company later clarified that the name, which started with a lowercase “i,” then morphed into a combination of “IQ” with “OS,” “has no meaning in particular—it’s meant to represent quality, technology, electronics, intelligent systems—because this is not a tobacco category.” reference Bloomberg

Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Unknown

The article states "The effects of second-hand exposure are unknown.[9]"[7] Where does the source state it is unknown?[8] QuackGuru (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The WHO info sheet says: "Are HTPs safe for second-hand exposure? Currently, there is also insufficient evidence on the potential effects of second-hand emissions produced by HTPs. Independent studies are needed to assess the risk posed to bystanders exposed to emissions released from HTPs.". I rephrased that as "unknown". HLHJ (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The source does not state "unknown". There are different ways to say "insufficient". See synonyms for "insufficient".[9] It does not list unknown as a synonym for insufficient. They have different meanings. QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"[T]here is insufficient evidence" is scientist-talk for "We don't know". HLHJ (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, could you please remove the "failed verification" tag, or explain why not? HLHJ (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. It is pure sophistry to attempt to claim that lack of evidence of effects cannot be summarised as 'the effects are not known', and QuackGuru knows that. QuackGuru you're skating on thin ice here, and my advice is to refrain from the sort of nonsense you've presented above. --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the content can still be written closer to the source than it is now. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you do think that. Nevertheless that doesn't justify misusing {{FV}} to make a point. If you think the text can be improved, either improve it, or make actual suggestions for what the text should be here. I don't need to remind you that this article is subject to DS, so best behaviour is not optional. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight when assessing suggestions, especially regarding controversy

It is important to remember that even disclosed contributions from paid editors risk violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. This holds also when acceptable sources are suggested, or when suggestions seem reasonable. The corollary is that these edits would not occur without suggestion by the editor, and when compared to the rest of Wikipedia the article is made to read as a puff piece. We lack the time to find and evaluate the sources that are intentionally excluded from suggestion by paid editors. Each second spent evaluating suggestions from paid editors hinders research into non-biased coverage. It is not enough to find your own sources if the suggested edit is from a paid source (see [10]). The relevant policy by which we can entirely ignore paid requests is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit, Carl Fredrik. For clarity, that was not irony; it isn't very relevant to this article (I suppose I might add it to Criticism of the FDA, but that article is in need of other work). Thank you also for the advice. HLHJ (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Marketing as "smoke-free"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

I would add:

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

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book; Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

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)

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

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."[11] 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)

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", a claim that has been contested."

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)

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."[12]

§

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,"[13] 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.[14] 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)

@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)