Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Tobacco control

Has an impact factor of 5.9. Peer reviewed and a review of the current state of things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim that this journal is "below dailymail when it comes to MEDRS" Is bizarre. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim that a simple article like this written by a math & economics student meets the standard for medical claims and you know that. Don't we use reviews anymore? But as long as "they are with us" it's ok with you, right?--TMCk (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a review published in a well respected journal. It is the best avaliable source on this topic.

What makes you say they are a "student". And even so why would that matter? It is more important that it is published by a journal known for reliability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a review and this is the guy who wrote the article.--TMCk (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay the person who wrote the article is still in University? So... Lots of research is published by university students (some of it without even their names on it).

Additionally this is not really a health claim but simple a comment on the lack of evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming?

Hello, there is a serious issue with the renaming that occured over the week-end: IQOS is the current name of the device (just like Marlboro, Longbeach, whatever other brand there is out there). Heatstick was the old name of the the tobacco sticks when IQOS was first test-marketed around 2014 (now they are called Heets, although some markets could still have Marlboro Heatsticks, I'm not 100% sure). Unless someone plans to rename iPhone to "wireless telephone device", of which there are also "many", I do not think this renaming is appropriate (or makes sense). Also this article duplicates Heat Not Burn which is the correct product category. I can't change it back for some reason, so can someone please do it? Thank you, SimonDes (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about the family of devices. We do this for health products. We do not have separate articles for each brand-name of a medication.

Thanks for pointing out Heat not burn. Will merge the two eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge done. Thanks for pointing this out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Image description

IQOS - one of several brands of heat-not-burn-tobacco-products - consisting of charger, holder, and tobacco stick.

QuackGuru, my issue with the current description is it makes it seem like several manufacturers make iQOS when we really mean several make different HNBTPs. They only will obtain the latter meaning if they also read the infobox title, which they won't do if they start reading from the image. Frankly, I'm not certain about the utility of the infobox at all here. There isn't much information that couldn't be more compactly stated in a simple image with caption as we do at electronic cigarette. Sizeofint (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The description should match the caption. Under "Manufacturer" I expanded it to read: "Several companies selling various electronic tobacco products." We don't need to repeat the word "several" in the infobox. The bold highlights look better using the infobox. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

We're kind of abusing {{Information appliance}}. It is meant for specific IT products. a HNTBP is neither a specific product (being rather a class of products) nor an IT product. I don't really see that bolded lines impart much information. "Product family" is supposed to link to the class of products for a specific product. In this case the page is the class so that line is self-referential. "Several", once again, can easily be incorporated into an image caption as I have done here. Sizeofint (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I changed it to "iQOS, consisting of charger, holder, and tobacco stick. One of several brands of heat-not-burn tobacco products." QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a drawing of the components of an electronic tobacco product would be better for the lede like the one used for the construction of e-cigs page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrections needed

Hello everyone, as indicated the merging the IQOS and heat not burn articles has brought a number of inaccuracies to the new article. Here's a first crack:

1. Infobox

   the caption should read IQOS (or iqos, iQOS, whatever - the writing has evolved and is now uppercase, but everyone seems to have a different way of typing it). It is not one of a number of brands - this would mean that different brands use the same device- but in the case at hand this is the only one that is marketed globally. The HnB product category by itself wildly varies in design, from cigarette-shape with a carbon tip (Premier, Eclipse) to electronic apparatus (iqos, glo) to a kind of e-cig look involving granulated tobacco capsules (ploom tech, ifuse).

   "Manufacturer" property. There is at best and to this day two, maybe three notable manufacturers that ever marketed their product nationwide at the retail level (and only one so far has gone nationwide in more than one market), so the use of "many" is also a bit much. Maybe use "several", or simply name BAT, JTI, PMI, and RJR?

The Philip Morris editor wants to write smaller HnB manufacturers like Ploom out of the history of the category, yet include products like Ploomtech which are probably not HnB at all. Bias much?

1. use of the word "device"

   A device usually implies some form of mechanical or electrical action (quoting wiktionary here). While this is true for iqos, glo and maybe ploomtech, eclipse and premier were tobacco sticks with a carbon source at the tip, lit by fire and sold as cigarettes. Also the sentence uses a mix of plural and singular ("handheld devices that heats). I would suggest a simpler definition "Heat-not-burn (or heated) tobacco products employ heating, rather than burning, of tobacco. As it starts to heat the tobacco, an aerosol containing tobacco flavours and nicotine is delivered to the user.[1]"

2. "Manufacturers claim they are safer"

   (+the whole Tobacco Control reference, generally speaking; someone has already mentioned that the paper was authored by a grad student, with "internal review": I am only pointing this out again because the paper has a number of inaccuracies or apocryphal statements that should have been easy to verify)

   This is inaccurate: while Premier and Eclipse came with a set of health claims (for which RJR was later sued by the FDA), it wasn't the case for Accord/Heatbar (which was test-marketed in the US as Accord, Australia (Melbourne) and Switzerland (Zurich) as Heatbar): in the latter two countries health claims are strictly regulated; the only claim ever made for Heatbar was that of reduced side-stream smoke and ashes[2] - although I'm sure some enthusiastic journalist was quick to add to that claim). There is also a full quote further below in the "brands" section that iqos would be marketed in the US "without any claim". JT does not make any claim either, other than reduced ash or smoke for its Ploom Tech[3]. BAT does refer to "potentially less risky alternative" for its glo/ifuse products - potential/potentially is the term commonly used as per the US Institute of Medicine (see below). While still not 100% correct, it probably would be more appropriate to indicate that "The industry has claimed that the quantity of toxicants generated by these devices is significantly lower compared to standard cigarettes, convincing evidence has yet to be provided for the claims of risk reduction and health benefits" (as stated in WHO partial guidelines, note #5).

3. "Based on the popularity of electronic cigarettes"

   The last paragraph of the leade indicates that "Based on the popularity of electronic cigarettes a number of companies are attempting to market version again as of 2016" - the TC paper rather indicates that e-cigarettes are facing "decelerating growth" and that they fail in taste and nicotine delivery. Besides, iQos and Ploom were out earlier than 2016 (2014 and 2010, respectively). This needs to be rephrased (e.g. "Heat not burn products usually present themselves as an alternative to combustible cigarettes yet with a taste impact and nicotine delivery improved over electronic cigarettes"(same TC ref))

   Further to this assertion, I should note that electronic cigarettes first came out in 2004, yet the idea of assessing tobacco-based reduced risk products was formally described in Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science base for Tobacco Harm Reduction, a 2001 book from the US Institute of medicine [4]. I think the book is also the first one to use the word PREP (potentially reduced exposure products) and describe them as likely to be heat-based. So this part about copying the success of e-cigarettes should be taken with a grain of salt.

HnB was a totally dead category; and would not have the attention, R&D investment or success it has had without demonstration by "vapor" that smokers would migrate from combustibles. It is a big part of the story.

1. Health effects

   The first sentence indicates that "The devices are sold with a warning that the best option is to avoid tobacco use altogether". While this is the exact wording used for PMI products, it is not known (and not indicated in the source) that this is the case for other products and manufacturers.

   There is a missing statement over the (supposed, claimed) reduced level of toxicants[5].

2. History

   The quote from Reynolds' CEO saying that Premier tasted like isht is taken from a comedy and probably apocryphal, as indicated by Richard Kluger in Ashes to Ashes. Kluger helpfully suggests (p.603) more family-friendly comments from consumers, ranging from "as if you'd lighted from the wrong end" to "like burning tennis sneakers".

3. Brands

   This should probably be renamed "approaches" or "technologies" or "platforms"

   Premier-Eclipse: the carbon rod is not "internal" but at the tip (see image below). I don't think Revo needs to be mentioned as there is little evidence that this was more than rebranding of the same Eclipse platform. If you do mention it, then Steam Hot One (Japan) need also be mentioned, for the sake of being exhaustive. A similar yet different platform (carbon tip) from PMI named Teeps is about to be test-marketed [6][7].

   Heatbar-Iqos: it does not heat a cigarette but a reconstituted tobacco stick ("cigarette" usually has a very precise definition in most jurisdictions). Based on Premier and Eclipse (or any major cigarette brand), iqos should probably have its own separate article as it did before. As for the platform (electronic heating device), then one should probably add BAT's glo.

   3T (also comes from the banned editor) is an e-cigarette[8]. Why they wanted to or should be listed here is beyond me. Also they don't seem particularly notable, generally speaking.

   Ploom: there is a clear misunderstanding on the status of Ploom. There was a Ploom brand around 2010 that used propane to heat tobacco and... "botanical products".

[The Philip Morris editor is confused. He is using a reference to PAX -- the leaf vaporizer. The original Ploom (and Ploom 2) were for tobacco and sold with nespresso style tobacco pods. They were not for marijuana as he slyly implies]

It has been discontinued, and came back as "Pax" (even more openly for "botanical consumption", apparently). Since it never went really far or isn't exactly a tobacco product, I am not sure it fits notability criteria. But either way, the brand name now belongs to Japan Tobacco, who released a  Ploom Tech device in 2016[9]. It consists of a pen-like device at the end of which goes a capsule containing granulated tobacco. Vapour is generated that goes through the capsule. I do not think it is exactly heated tobacco, but industry analysts usually loop it in as it comes from a major tobacco company and, unlike, e-cigarettes, has tobacco in it. A similar technology has been test-marketed since 2015 in Romania by BAT as iFuse[10].

1. Here is a proposed wording for this section

   In 2010 start-up Pax Labs launched Ploom, a butane-fired device used for the heating of "botanical products". After its initial partnership with Japan Tobacco was dissolved, the device became known as Pax. Later models an electric system replaced butane heating.
   The Ploom brand, however, remained with JT and the device itself has been replaced with a very different product called Ploom Tech, in which vapour passes through a capsule of granulated tobacco leaves. Initial test-marketing was positive and sales are being expanded throughout Japan. British American Tobacco (BAT) test-marketed a similar product called iFuse in Romania at the end of 2015.
   In 2014 Philip Morris International started test marketing iQOS in Japan and Italy. While it rests upon the same technological assumption than Heatbar of heating a stick made of reconstituted tobacco, iQOS benefits from a better design, appearing like a pen-like device into which the tobacco stick is also inserted. In 2016 BAT launched its own version of the technology called glo, also in Japan.

2. The whole paragraph after the product description "Philip Morris intends etc. etc."

   It is at best speculative (but at least there are references), at worst inaccurate or out of place. PMI has announced its intention to launch iqos in many other markets than the US, and already done so, so the weight given this particular country feels a bit undue (also: it will be licensed to Altria whereas all other markets are PMI's direct action). MRTP (link is missing) status request has already been filed with the FDA back in December 2016[11], so it does not "intend" to do it anymore (a premarketing notification has also been made at the end of March[12], but as indicated that's also the case for a dozen countries so nothing special here). The segment from ASH should go in the health effects, although I am not sure how one can "maintain" something that is readily admitted by the other party.

3. IQOS / Heatstick sections

   The IQOS/iQOS section would gain from being rearranged.

   Heatsticks, on the other hand, never existed as a distinct Heat not Burn product: this was the initial name for the tobacco sticks that are used with iqos (they are now called Heets, after a short period of being "Marlboro Heasticks" - no ref, that's just the way it is now in stores).

   Ref 33, which indicates that there are two plants in Italy, returns no results (and is incorrect, there is only one plant so far AFAIK, though capacity increases). The sentence should probably be removed (no article ever indicates how many plants are available for a given product).

   Heatbar is not related to Heatsticks either (the box of tobacco sticks for this device that sits on my desk says "Oasis") and has nothing to do there.

4. Regulations

   The only part that is correct is the one that says that heated tobacco product are regulated as tobacco products. The first reference (#38) given is embargoed until December 2017 - am I missing something there? The last two sentences discussing taxation make assertions that are not supported by the sources (#41, #43). The only reference (#42) that indicates that Ploom is taxed as pipe tobacco refers to the discontinued Ploom (launched Dec. 2013) and not Ploom tech (released in March 2016). It does not describe it as "advantageous" taxation, which is not surprising considering it is a JTI press release.

[Taxation is a very important issue with this topic and should be addresses. Generally, these products are getting favorable tax treatment as compared with combustibles. It should not be obfuscated.]

{perhaps the PM editor could educate us on the favorable tax treatment of HEETS in Italy relative to combustibles]

1. Images

   (This should come earlier but then I am not proficient enough with wiki code to not break the numbering).

   As indicated 3T does not belong here. I've been able to finds souvenirs from various colleagues and made a couple of pictures which I had posted in an earlier draft:

• Various heat not burn tobacco products
• 
  Steam Hot One, a japanese variant of the Eclipse cigarette manufactured by Japan Tobacco.
• 
  Philip Morris Heatbar. A tobacco stick was to be inserted at the end of the device (not shown) and heated by the battery-powered device.
• 
  Philip Morris iQOS device, charger and tobacco stick.

I could not put my hands on a Ploomtech but will ask again soon. In any case, thank you user:Quackguru for putting the gallery together.

I prefer listing things here before making any corrections myself, and I actually do not know how to take the discussion from there, but thanks to anyone willing to help! SimonDes (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:SimonDes thanks for adding this to talk space. You should not directly edit article space about content pertaining to PMI due to your COI. Will look further as I have time or QG will do through your suggestions. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Corrections needed

Lead and Caption

Thank you for the changes.

I found this page[13] on the PMI website that refers to IQOS (rather than iQOS or iQos) throughout. Same spelling in the latest publications, e.g. Annual report 2016.

The last sentence feels a bit awkward because of the repeat of "heat-not-burn tobacco products" twice in a row. How about

The devices first came to market in 1988, however were not a commercial success. The ubiquitousness of electronic cigarettes and growing dissatisfaction with not providing a throat-hit may present an opportunity for heat-not-burn tobacco products which are currently being introduced by large tobacco companies.

Health effects

"No evidence exists other than claims based on industry-funded research"? (but I'm not native English speaker, so maybe the current sentence is correct)

History

References #14 and 15 do not indicate that Heatbar performed better than Accord (it did not). And I'm not even sure that Heatbar was a refinement. I would simply rephrase as

Philip Morris launched a cigarette in 1998 that was placed into an electronic heating device. Sold as Accord in the US and Heatbar elsewhere, it was a commercial failure.

I would probably remove the sentence in parenthesis about ploomtech "(which is probably not thought of as a heat not burn product, as non-tobacco-derived vapor is merely passed through tobacco powder)" - it is nice to see my own thinking being quoted on Wikipedia, but industry analysts clearly put ploomtech on the side of HnB products (if only because it comes from JT).

The last two sentences are similar to what is in the leade. Same question about style, but that is a minor concern.

Products

This should probably be renamed "approaches" or "technologies" or "platforms", in which case it would make sense to label subsections according to generic type (it will also make it simpler to update as technologies and market evolve):

• Carbon tip: first marketed by RJR as Premier and Eclipse, this product is shaped like a conventional cigarette, but uses an carbon rod at the tip to heat the product. The heated “tobacco” is a reconstituted tobacco sheet with large glycerin content. When heated, the product creates an aerosol of nicotine, flavor and glycerin.

• Direct heating: Ploom (discontinued) initially employed a butane heating system, to aerosolize a pod containing glycerin, small pieces of tobacco and flavor. In a subsequent version, the butane heating system was replaced with an electric system.

• Electronic heating system : this approach (used in products such as Philip Morris International's Heatbar and then IQOS) employs an electronic device to heat a small stick that contains reconstituted tobacco sheets. The tobacco sheet contains: tobacco, glycerin, water, guar gum, cellulose, propylene glycol and flavorings.

• Tobacco pods: these product, such as Japan Tobacco's PloomTech, heat up a liquid-filled cartridge to generate vapor, which passes through a capsule containing granulated tobacco.

• The whole paragraph after the product description "Philip Morris intends to convert all of its customers etc. etc." needs to be at least rephrased: the initial title from reference #21 is actually "Big Tobacco wants to turn Japan's smokers etc. etc." and discusses both PMI and JT's product launches. PMI has made it its official position that it wants to shift smokers (not just its customers) away from conventional cigarettes[14], but do you think it is worth discussing here? If anything, I would simply keep the below:

  Philip Morris International filed an application for Modified Risk Tobacco Product for its IQOS with the FDA in December 2016. Bonnie Herzog, a senior analyst at Wells Fargo Securities has suggested that the proposed acquisition of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company by British American Tobacco is in part driven by the need to compete in innovation of modified risk products including heat not burn.

  There again, the Wells Fargo bit feels a bit speculative; there are probably much larger reasons for BAT to buy RJR, starting with the fact that it owned a significant portion of it already. But, again, that is my own personal thinking, so not very meaningful/significant.
• The segment from ASH should go in the health effects sections, although I am not sure how one can "maintain" something that is readily admitted by the other party.

iQOS

The IQOS/iQOS section would gain from being rearranged. Here is a proposed rewrite:

The device is marketed by Philip Morris International as an alternative to cigarettes, with total investments to date in its development and assessment in excess of USD 3 bn. Initially launched in 2014 in Nagoya, Japan and Milan, Italy, iQOS is being gradually rolled out to other countries.

The device is made up of a charger about the size of a mobile phone and a holder that resembles a pen. A tobacco stick is inserted into the holder which then heats it to temperatures up to 350 °C. The tobacco aerosol released contains nicotine and tobacco flavours. Users have also reported less smell and odour on clothing.

In December 2016, Philip Morris International submitted an application to the US Food and Drugs Administration for iQOS to be authorized as a modified risk tobacco product.

Note: there was a claim from Nikkei Asia that "the amount of nicotine is fixed" but that seems odd as smoking patterns (and nicotine intake) depend on smokers' drag (which was the whole problem with "light" cigarettes: people would compensate by drawing harder): but the device simply heats and does not regulate drag volumes. This also implies that the tobacco sticks are laced with extra nicotine: they're not (it's most certainly illegal), they're just tobacco (with an average quantity of nicotine, like the agricultural product they come from), flavours and humectants.

Heatsticks

The full section should probably go away

• HeatSticks never existed as a distinct Heat not Burn product: this was the initial name for the tobacco sticks that are used with iqos (they are now called Heets in most markets, after a short period of being "Marlboro Heasticks" - no ref, that's just the way it is now in stores).
• Ref 36, which indicates that there are two plants in Italy, returns no results (and is incorrect, there is only one plant so far AFAIK, though capacity increases), and generally speaking I am a bit surprised that the annoucement was made in Richmond (PMI HQ is in NYC and most if not all announcements are made from Switzerland).
• Heatbar is not related to Heatsticks either (the box of tobacco sticks for this device that sits on my desk says "Oasis"). You may see it as a precursor to iqos.

Regulations

I have seen the article you added on iqos sticks being illegal in NZ. I heard that it is also banned in Singapore (although this generic statement indicates it is a general move against novel tobacco products and electronic cigarettes [15]). I let you decide on what's a more appropriate wording (maybe something along "novel tobacco products, including HnB, are banned in a number of jurisdictions, including NZ.")

Images

I tried to edit the iqos image so that it would have a whiter background like the other two, but it does not show on my screen (and I've refreshed). Is it the same on your side?

References

Comments on Corrections needed

User:SimonDes, please post your concerns in each section on the Corrections needed sections above. QuackGuru (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help (and your time), QuackGuru. Much appreciated. SimonDes (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As I make changes I would like you to delete and/or update your comments in each section above. If it is fixed then just delete the suggestions.

"The ubiquitousness of electronic cigarettes and growing dissatisfaction with not providing a throat-hit may present an opportunity for heat-not-burn tobacco products which are currently being introduced by large tobacco companies.[1][2]" Both citations do not verify the entire sentence. See WP:CITEFOOT and WP:INTEGRITY.

"Electronic heating system : this approach (used in products such as Philip Morris International's Heatbar and then IQOS) employs an electronic device to heat a small stick that contains reconstituted tobacco sheets. The tobacco sheet contains: tobacco, glycerin, water, guar gum, cellulose, propylene glycol and flavorings.[8]" Also fails verification using a primary source.

"Sold as Accord in the US and Heatbar elsewhere, it was a commercial failure.[3][4][5]" It failed verification. The part "banned in a number of jurisdictions" failed verification.

The product itself in the images has the writing iQOS with an "i". Are they planning to change it to IQOS instead of iQOS? If they do change it then I would like new images. After the images are uploaded then I will update the wording in the article.

This image does not have a white background. There is a place on Wikipedia it can be fixed if you can't fix it. I would keep the original the same color and update a separate image for a white background. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be traveling over the next few days but will get to it asap when I get back. Best, SimonDes (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am done editing for now. Within a week this talk page and draft will be deleted.

This version in another language will not work, especially with all the unsourced content.

I am using the grey background image in another draft. So don't delete it.

L’entreprise de l’extérieur qui vous a enseigné les rudiments du montage devrait être congédié. Cette version contient un contenu masse unsourced. La violation du droit d’auteur ne sont pas passés inaperçue. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Under the heading "Moved from draft page" was moved from a draft page. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Does not fail verification as a primary source: wiki sets forth a reasoned approach to using primary sources. Where, as here, a manufacturer discloses ingredients pursuant to regulatory requirements, this is an appropriate use of a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3760:2190:755B:133A:72C2:E5C1 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The source did not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How so? The footnoted link listed those ingredients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.123.160 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See "The tobacco sheet contains: tobacco, glycerin, water, guar gum, cellulose, propylene glycol and flavorings.[8]" See Talk:Heat-not-burn_tobacco_product#cite_ref-17. I cannot verify the claim using the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

Hello. I guess that the expression "heat-not-burn tobacco product" was developed by the marketing specialists of the tobacco industry. What about using (as a title) the more objective and neutral "heated tobacco products" terminology used by the World Health Organization (see information sheet)?
Augustina von Meyszner (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

The current title is most common. See WP:Common Name. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Overlinking

The edit is WP:OVERLINKING.[16] QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple more references to add

Hello all, I see a couple of references are missing to the iQOS part, so here they are:

• There is a {{clarification needed}} in the second paragraph after the statement "The disposable tobacco stick, a short cigarette, contains processed tobacco and propylene glycol": the list of ingredients added to tobacco is public and listed here. It is very detailed and may vary somewhat from country to country, but on average there's about 19% added glycerin and 4% propylene glycol (just to say: a lot more of the former than the latter, so maybe update that part).
• In the next paragraph there is a {{failed verification}} tag after the December 2016 submission to the FDA. There were a few reports in the press [17] but the PMI announcement is here and the FDA annoucement there (the latter indicates May 2017: in Dec. 2016 was the pre-application, then came the administrative review, then in May the opening of a formal docket). These two articles [18] [19] conveniently make the distinction between MRTP application (Dec. '16/May '17) and the separate premarket tobacco application (PMTA; March '17). Since the FDA decision about sales in the US is also indicated at the end of the same paragraph, it could be useful to mark the difference (or clarify that the result of the PMTA is independent from the MRTP review).
• Not directly related to iQOS but to the HnB subject in general, there was a toxicity review performed and published by the UK Committee on Toxicity (CoT) in mid-December (the two products mentioned are PMI's iQOS and BAT's Fuse). The conclusions indicate that compared to conventional cigarettes they will not reduce the possibility of addiction to nicotine (see §31, technical summary) but that "there is a likely reduction in risk for smokers switching" (§37). The press summarized it as "less risky but not safe"[20][21].
• The CoT review also confirms the lower levels of toxicants in mainstream emissions. So does a recent (independent) publication by Bekki et al.([22]), who uses the same procedure as the JAMA paper by Auer that's already quoted in this article, with the significant difference that they used proper 1R5F/3R4F reference cigarettes along with a Canada intensive smoking regime.

Thanks, Pplc (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I read the sources and added more content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Swiss researchers

The article says "In July 2017, Swiss researchers published..." Now we got Swiss editors too.[23][24] I'd rather use the review of the research in November 2017 that began with "In 2017, according to two editors..." than use the July article for the content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

More edits from Switzerland and a new account. There appears to be a feud between Philip Morris International and the Swiss researchers that is spilling over to this article. The edits by the IP are causing problems. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

IQOS and smoke?

This part of article I can confirm that it's giving incorrect definition about vapor coming out of IQOS. Though it contain chemicals similar to regular cigarette, it's not "smoke" by scientific definition of smoke and so we cannot call it smoke here. So I would suggest changing word smoke to aerosols which is appropriate for this device vapor. For other HNB I cannot confirm, but for this I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.232.43 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See "Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes: Smoke by Any Other Name".
Augustina von Meyszner (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

That source refers to iQOS not heat-not-burn tobacco products in general. The content would fail verification to make a general statement for heat-not-burn tobacco products using a source that refers to iQOS and smoke. A specific statement about iQOS and smoke can be made using the source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing smoke to aerosol is correct for a general statement per WP:V policy using this source. They may or may not create smoke per V policy. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC about rolling back before socks edited the page

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

---

Maybe it would be best to roll back to this version before all the suspicious accounts started editing the article and fully protect the article for 6 months or longer. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Rolling all the way back to this version before the socks touched the page and protect the page for 6 months is best. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime. Also see fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ediacara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Roll back

• Support reverting back to this version and fully protecting the page for 6 months. Updates can still be made via protection request. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the article has been to much changed since the edits of the aforementioned user. IMHO alla the accounts connected to this user should be indefinitely banned. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support JonRichfield (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and protect the article. (I wish the bot didn't take so long to deliver my RfDs. Eleven days this time.) Maproom (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Note: The full protection requested sounded rather excessive. However then I found the 4+ year record for this sockmaster. Massive long term abuse. I suggest no more than 3 months protection. This sockmaster is likely to continue to harassing Wikipedia, but it looks like they will quickly move on to a different batch of articles. Alsee (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support rollback. Slamming the gates for half a year seems a little brutal. I'd actually suggest 30/500 plus enhanced sock vigilance, but since I'm not one of the sock hunters, I probably shouldn't weigh in on that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Roll back discussion

130.223.2.2 (talk · contribs) is a static IP from the University of Lausanne that was previously blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments 3. At least two of the Swiss researchers are affiliated with the University of Lausanne. QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The block evading sock created a new page on the fr.wiki and added content that appears to fail verification. See "Comme avec les cigarettes conventionnelles, la fumée produite contient de la nicotine et de nombreux produits chimiques cancérigènes1,2."[25] Also see "Les autorités de santé publique sont préoccupées par la menace pour la santé ainsi que par le risque de « renormalisation » du tabac, notamment en tentant de contourner la règlementation contre le tabagisme et le tabagisme passif (interdiction de fumer dans les espaces publics, etc.)2"[26] I could not verify the claims. An admin recently deleted the Tabac chauffé article on the fr.wiki. QuackGuru (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC about full protection and reverting back before socks edited the page

This RfC was already closed in good-faith and within admin discretion. Selection of protection levels is not a matter to be determined by local consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Me thinks it would be best to revert back to this version and fully protect the article for a full 6 months. This in no way means extended confirmed protection. That is not the proposal. Reverting all the way back to this version before the socks touched the page is not good enough. I also request full protect for 6 months. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime. Also see fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ediacara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive. QuackGuru (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Full protection and reverting back

• Support reverting back to this version and fully protecting the page for 6 months. Updates can still be made via protection request. QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• strong oppose none of socks that I see are extended confirmed. Unless you have a very strong reason to fully protect, it absolutely should not be done. As the closer said above, if disruption with EC socks that isn't solvable through quick blocks occur, then it can be fully protected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protected for 6 months

• Strong oppose extended-confirmed protected for 6 months. This was not the proposal. Against consensus the article was extended-confirmed protected for 6 months[27] rather than fully protected for six months. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE, also I still don't see why it needs to be fully protected Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Full 6 month discussion

I believe there is consensus via the RfC above for 6 months full protection but the closer disagrees with the unanimous support votes. I have no problem seeking consensus again via a another RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment as closer of previous RFC - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines around page protection arrived at by a much broader community consensus than the one found above. Full protection is a last resort; extended confirmed protection would have stopped all the sock edits in question. I find what QuackGuru has done - re-starting an RFC where he already got the result he wanted - rather confusing and self-defeating. Fish+Karate 14:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. This RfC makes it clear it is for both 6 month full protection and reverting back. QuackGuru (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• So... do you just want to every participant in the RfC above to repeat their statement, and end up with the same result? (which is the most likely outcome) This feels a little quixotic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Suggest speedy close as it was discussed just before..if you think there was something wrong with the close above you do know the way to User talk:Fish and karate and WP:AN. And there's absolutely no way the page is going to be fully protected before EC is even tried and checked to see if it'll prevent the disruption (which it absolutely seems like it would) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Failed verification content restored

Content that fails verification was restored among other problems. I was going to fix it once the RfC close was implemented via a RfC to remove all the failed verification content. I can wait 6 months or longer until the extended-confirmed protected for 6 months expired. I will not start a RfC until the extended-confirmed protected is lifted. QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• That restoration was what you wanted in the RfC to remove sock stuff..there's nothing in the fact that it is extended confirmed to prevent you from starting the RfC. Also, you don't need an RfC to remove content that's failed verification, you can just remove it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• @QuackGuru: nothing is preventing you presently from doing any of this. You are an extended-confirmed user already, and this talk page is not protected besides. The article was reverted to the version that you yourself requested. If I'm mistaken and there is some technical issue preventing you from editing either page, please report this at WP:VPT. But if, as I suspect, you've identified inaccurate information in the article and your intent is to leave it there to make some absurd point, then you should get over yourself and stop acting like a child. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • My intent is not to engage in edit warring when there are at least three different people socking these nicotine-related articles. I have been blocked to only find out later I was reverting a sock. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That's good, nobody likes an edit warrior. Have you requested an investigation at WP:SPI? I see there's one related to this article which has already been resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The socking related to this and other articles have not been resolved. That could be construed as forum shopping to start an investigation at WP:SPI. I already contacted an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This diff is to your request at RFPP. Did you mean to post a different one? I can't tell from the link which admin you contacted to investigate sockpuppetry, but I'm offering to do so now as an SPI clerk if you can provide some useful links. I'd prefer if you did that at SPI, rather than cluttering this page with content I'll have to move over there anyway, and feel free to ping me when you do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I already contacted an admin regarding the socking without getting the result I requested. I think it is best to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't contact an admin about sockpuppetry. You made a request to protect a page, and you referred there to an instance of sockpuppetry in which the detected accounts were already blocked. If you think there are others, but you won't say who they are, what do you expect to happen? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I did previously contact an admin about sockpuppetry via e-mail who declined my request. For a SPI an editor needs strong evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that. Do consider filing a new SPI report if you have a reasonable suspicion and evidence to back it up. It's what we're there for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

QuackGuru, I am confused. You complained that my statements failed verification, and so I cited the quotes that supported the statements in the citation templates. Then you removed those quotes on the grounds that they were POV.

I wrote "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". You removed the second half of the sentence with "(Misrepresenting source. See "Members expressed concerns about the lack of data to support theories about prospective switching behavior in the U.S." That is not about the lack of data about the safety.)"

Now the second half of that sentence was pretty superfluous; I was trying to make verification easy. But there's other quotes; "Members expressed concerns about drawing conclusions about youth initiating tobacco use with IQOS, in light of the absence of data", and "Members were concerned that the statement in question 1.a. was too broad considering the available data." The whole seven-page document is mostly about concerns about the lack of data around cutting risks. I did not say that the lack of data was about safety or risk, but about cutting risk. The sentence could be re-written to clarify that, but I'm not sure that the distinction is useful.

You also complained that the word "after" failed verification. The context was, paraphrased, "after the paper was published, Phillip Morris sent letters complaining about its methodology". I was not sure why you tagged that word, as it is hard to imagine PM doing complaining before it was published. So I cited the word "after", with quote from the Washington Post. Then you tagged it as not being a medrs, which I thought was odd, as chronologies of document release are not really biomedical information. Then you removed the tag and the comment with the comment "(Too many citations. See WP:CITATIONBLOAT.)". I think the last edit was a good call. The rest confuse me.

I am really trying to fix things that concern you, even when it means doing rather odd and quite time-consuming things. But if you aren't consistent in what you want, that makes it impossible. One could change things back and forth forever. I'm starting to worry that this is sliding into disruptive editing. HLHJ (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The citations do not need to have quotes, especially if the content is no longer being challenged.

The part "expressed concerns about the lack of data" was confusing because it was ambiguous what it meant. Based on what you wrote above I think you understand that. More accurate content improves the article.

I originally tagged the word because the study itself did not state what happened after the study.

I removed the tag because a different source was used rather than the original study.

There was a quote in the article and I could only confirm one source verified the quote. Two citations were therefore unneeded. It was a SYN violation because the other source did not verify the broad claim when it was only a store in Canada on a sign with the message 'Building a Smoke-Free Future'. QuackGuru (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, QuackGuru. The citations need not have quotes, but since I had already I put in the effort to chase them down, I think they might have kept them without harm. If they ever get challenged again that work will have to be redone. Sources may have POV; they are not required to be neutral, per WP:RS. Please don't undo work I've done at your request.

Since anything that is about cutting risk is also about risk, I don't think the ambiguity harmed the article.

The sentence had the form "After X [link to X], Y [y]" The "After" was sourced in the Y. Since X cannot logically contain information about what happened after it was published, this would be apparent after fairly minimal scrutiny from the reader. If you tag something as having failed verification, I have to put in a fair amount of effort to surface quotes and then, usually, argue about what they mean. When it seems to me as if you did not put a commensurate amount of effort into the original verification, it makes me feel upset.

I've added back that content with a new source. Quotes: Some of the chemicals found are components of smoke, the researchers say. "We found lower concentrations of these compounds; however, we found them. And because we found them, we think this is smoke,"... "We disagree with the claim that it's smokeless. People should be aware there are still toxic substances in the iQOS." Plus a source that quotes an offical PM statement calling it "smokeless". There are two cites in a row in two places; I think this is acceptable, for reasons I have detailed. HLHJ (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)