Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

IQOS content

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.

---

Should we include "The IQOS can collect personal data in regard to the smoking habits of the user. Philip Morris International stated it only retrieves the data when the product is not working properly."[1] QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I recommend editors read the Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC on IQOS content before commenting. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Please note. I asked if Peter K Burian would support adding it to 'Addiction_and_quitting' section instead. Peter K Burian wrote it "sounds like a suitable approach" This thread and Talk:Electric smoking system#Re-RfC on IQOS content are related and can be closed together. QuackGuru (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• might as well put here that i still strongly Support Content in "Addiction and Quitting". --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• IQOS is not the only system capable of reading the analytics of user electronic cigarette usage. Evolv, who introduced temperature control to vaping years ago is the creator of the DNA series of chips. These are used by a number of manufacturers of mods including Lost Vape. Their software, Escribe, records data such as number of puffs per day, character of puff in duration and mod settings (wattage, temperature, amps, battery size, coil material, etc). Customers download this data automatically via computer and that information is made available to Evolv, manufacturers and researchers. The data collected so far may not have the volume of users as the mass market IQOS, but it does offer significant insight into actual usage over a longer period of time. This software is in use on everything from pod devices to single and multiple battery mods ranging from 60 to 300 watts maximum, and include squonk devices. A wider range of data to help better understand this technology. To include one without mentioning the other is a disservice to the WP enduser.Mrphilip (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is about heat-not-burn products. The ones you mentioned are e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes heat-not-burn is the topic, but the overarching theme is novel devices for electronic nicotine delivery systems. To inform people that IQOS can record personal data and not include similar being done with other tobacco products might be seen as careless. Perhaps a simple sentence like "Personal usage data from e-cigarette devices has been collected for a number of years. Phillip Morris continues this tradition with the IQOS." A link can then be added to learn more about Escribe or Evolv. Mrphilip (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • That is off-topic for this article and no source was given connecting personal usage data from e-cigs to heat-not-burn. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on IQOS content

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

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

Peter K Burian, what do you think about adding it to the Electric_smoking_system#Addiction_and_quitting instead where it can be expanded with more content now and possibly in the future? The content is clearly related to addiction and quitting and there is other content about IQOS already in that section. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a suitable approach to this sub topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not be bold and go ahead and do that? WP:BOLD I will support you if another editor deletes the added content. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I did do that but another editor disagreed and still wanted content in the IQOS section as well as the Addiction and quitting section. I cannot support adding duplication. I restarted the RfC asking a very specific question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify that I entirely support adding the content that QG added and later removed, nor do I particularly object to the location in which it was added. I am also happy for this content to stay in the article while the discussion continues.

Having no mention of tracking functionality in the section describing IQOS strikes me as a bad idea, though. I think it is an important trait. As far as I know it is not only specific but unique to the product.

Separately, I think that the other content removed at the manufacturer's suggestion should be restored. We could then discuss what we want to remove, per WP:BRD. HLHJ (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion on IQOS content RfC closure

Closure summary of previous closure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From parallel discussion in withdrawn FDA RfC below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The old RfC does not ask if all this content[2] should be in the addiction and quitting section or the IQOS section. The old RfC is asking a different question for adding just two sentences to the IQOS section. It would be too confusing to ask too many questions in the old RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-RfC on IQOS content

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

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

• Boycott. My early contribution to the discussion may be found in an earlier RfC above, at Talk:Electric smoking system#IQOS content, and I will continue to reply there. Withdrawing one RfC and starting a very similar one is not respectful of editors' time, and this question can be discussed in the old RfC. HLHJ (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC) As other editors have chosen to respond here, I will make additional comments here, asking the RfC-closer to consider both.
  • I had earlier made a disambiguation/stub for IQOS and was intending to expand it later, so I support a separate specific-product article as well as a more general function-based category article. I would agree with QuackGuru that a lot of the content on pyrolyzing tobacco is IQOS-centered, so an article split will lead to some duplication, especially on health effects etc.. I think this is acceptable, as it will improve both articles.

I'd argue that the tracking content should be in the IQOS section here, and in the lede of any IQOS article, as it is an important property and somewhat remarkable in products of its type (I'm willing to have it in any general section to which it is highly relevant as well, but not instead). I agree that IQOS is a dominant product and am thus OK with a section of current length or a bit longer. The section could be cut, but I'd rather cut the details about sales data and suchlike. I also think that some other information should be included (see Talk:Electric smoking system#Suggested to shorten IQOS section) to avoid the current content aligning with PMI's talking points more than it does with the balance of reliable sources or what a reader is likely to want to know. HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Split into a separate article, IQOS and leave a summary here, per WP:Summary style. I agree with QG that this section is unduly long here. IMO the discussed part is something unusual compared to other products, so it deserves mentioning. I would prefer seeing it in "IQOS" section, because part about addiction is a guesswork without proof, therefore has no place in the general section. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose/Restore I realized that I wasn't seeing the whole picture. The IQOS section is too long and could call for a split potentially in the future but right now the content in question can stay in the 'Addiction and quitting' section. Its better to have the content on the article in a still relevant section than with IQOS for now. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is opposing returning the content to the article pro tem, subject to correction, so I'd agree it could probably stay there while we discuss. What do you think would be the best long-term arrangement, NikkeKatski? HLHJ (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well in the Long-Term I suppose a split is better but The split would have to be done right as IQOS seems to have integrated itself with many parts of the article. Maybe someone could come up with a draft (or multiple people). If its done right I would assume a split would be near unanimous. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Significant parts of this article would have to be copied to avoid making IQOS an advert. That means there would be two similar articles with significant overlap or an advert for PMI. QuackGuru (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Overlap would essentially have to happen as its like trying to not mention Quantum Mechanics or Relativity in a Physics article. Although my support for split is mostly opinion based one could argue that the split is over'Due' per WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPINOUT. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If the other brands weren't mentioned this would be a dedicated article for IQOS. IQOS is deeply integrated into several sections of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is large enough with content and can still contain a decently hefty summary with at most a handful references to IQOS sprinkled around where concerned. Regardless though I wouldn't vote for a split until I were to see perhaps a draft or the framework of an independent article, and potentially what would be omitted from this article--NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose split A split would not work because all the health effects about IQOS and related content is in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Did you read WP:Summary style ? Your argument makes no sense. "is in this article". After split in will be in that article, and this article will have summary and reference to another article for further details. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • IQOS is the dominate brand. Most readers come here to read about IQOS. Most will not click on a link to read this article if they go to a different page first about IQOS. There is a lot of content about Electric_smoking_system#Health_effects in this article. Health effects and other related content won't be in a dedicate page for IQOS. I think it is best to keep all of the content under one roof. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Most readers come here because they are redirected here. Make a separate article and they come there. You may wikilink this article in IQOS so that readers directed for comparison with other brands. IQOS article must contain info about its health effects. We are encyclopedia not Surgeon General to warn about all smoking. Either split a separate page, or allow all relevant info here. Since you say it is a dominant brand, then text size in not a valid excuse to remove info. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
        • A separate article will contain content just about IQOS.
        • See Electric_smoking_system#History.
        • See Electric_smoking_system#Construction.
        • See Electric_smoking_system#Marketing.
        • See Electric_smoking_system#Regulation
        • Most sections mention IQOS. Most readers won't read other sections that mention IQOS if they went to another page first. The page views would drop significantly. Adding it to addiction and quitting is a reasonable option. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not !voting here as I have a COI but my input was requested by NikkeKatski. These are my thoughts, in general.

I do agree that the IQOS content is quite long, which may warrant a separate article, leaving a summary behind. However, I believe you'll find that many (most?) statements in the lede and other general sections about the category of heated tobacco products are based on research or other content that is technically about IQOS (THS in scientific literature), whether the brand name is mentioned or not. It may be worth mentioning this fact in the article somewhere, I am not sure.

See also the images in "health effects", "construction", at the top of "products", the table for "comparison to mainstream smoke of traditional cigarettes", and most of the section on "regulation". These are almost entirely IQOS, just not in the IQOS section. If the split was done thoroughly, the IQOS article would end up much longer than the heated tobacco article, and this shift would likely also be very time consuming and difficult, though both articles may end up better for it. In its current state, the article represents the public understanding of heated tobacco, which is that IQOS is the category's main representative. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as your input is very insightful to me. (when is it not really.) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case though it sounds like we should either increase size of the IQOS section as it most likely is WP:DUE (although not unanimously preferable) or a 'Thorough split' in which IQOS would most likely become the dominant article and this article would become about heated tobacco overall. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is at 128,328 bytes. The e-cig article is about twice the length. The content can be added to each appropriate section. We have not reached point where this article or the IQOS section is too long. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but... is it just me or are you saying that the IQOS section ISN'T too long. I'm not disagreeing with that statement its just I thought this entire time that your issue was the length of the section..? If it isn't, restoration of content to that section (or addiction and quitting idc) would be unanimous (correct me if I'm missing anything) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be too long if it were expanded. It is very close to being too long. One more lengthy paragraph then it would be too long. I still prefer the placement in the quitting and addiction section even if the IQOS section was short. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Re-RfC on IQOS content

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

References

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

Copied from User talk:HLHJ:

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

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

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

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

It may not be a vote but "boycott" is a !vote. same way alternative action can be a !vote. However I'm going to echo Staszek Lem, QuackGuru, that IQOS is probably WP:NOTABLE enough for a sub-article at this point. It would allow us to reference IQOS in this article while still being able to add more content to wikipedia that belongs there. IQOS can still be its own article but rn we can still fit the content in the 'Addiction and Quitting' section. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the content to the different sections for editors to compare the differences. 5 paragraphs for one brand is pushing it. The IQOS content can be placed in the Addiction and quitting. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add and then remove content repeatedly for illustration purposes, QuackGuru, it makes a bit of a mess of the page history. HLHJ (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• COI paid editor prefers a dedicated page for the IQOS.[3][4] A dedicated page without the other sections such as "Health effects" would be like an advertisement for Philip Morris International. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There are sources for a section on the health effects of IQOS. We could also include this tracking information, and other critical information removed on grounds of space constraints, to avoid a promotional article. HLHJ (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2019 (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.

Pizza image

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.

---

Should we include an image of a pizza?[5] QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization).

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

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

• No. It's largely unrelated to the topic and even if it could be argued that it is, home-made experiments are hardly material for an encyclopedic article. That being said, I almost wish I received more RfC alerts with the question "Should we include an image of a pizza?" for other articles, especially the more controversial ones, such as Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Donald Trump. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. See discussion. From what the uploader wrote on Commons, it seems the experiment wasn't exactly intentional . HLHJ (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC) May I also ask views on whether there should be an image (perhaps of tobacco) that illustrates charring? HLHJ (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, don't really see how it helps. A charred object is a charred object, people already know what it looks like irregardless of the object. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• No though I agree with PraiseVivec above. This is actually somewhat humorous in nature. (Summoned by bot)  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on pizza image

The electric heating element impales the cigarette. The outside of the used tobacco plug does not therefore look charred. This image shows the same tobacco plug, split to show the interior. Only the former image is in the article.

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

I think this image clearly illustrates the concepts of charring and pyrolysis, which are relevant and necessary to an understanding of the article's subject. It connects the concepts needed to describe the subject to experiences which most readers worldwide will have had, which seems an effective way to convey the information. I can understand that Sarah at PMI does not like it, as PMI markets their IQOS product with "heated-not-burned" and "smoke-free" claims, supported by statements about pyrolysis and oxidative combustion which readers might question more readily in relation to charred food

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

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

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

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

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

While the RfC is still running an editor added the pizza image to another article with the caption "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization)." The caption added to the image appears to be original research. The part "This pizza was baked for four hours." is a violation of caption. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you've removed it. I intended to use Char in my comment below as an example of a place where a mere assertion that the pizza was charred would be sufficient to connect it to the topic of the article per WP:Caption. I didn't expect you to object to that, which I thought would clarify our differences. The uploader states that the pizza was baked for four hours. To clarify our differences further, is there a caption with which you would be willing to restore that image to the Char article? Would you be willing to add it with no caption? HLHJ (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You could start a RfC and ask uninvolved if it is a suitable image for that article or are there better images and what caption would editors prefer. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed a violation of caption on yet another page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I think that makes it clear. You object to the four-hours bit, as you think that the photo uploader is an insufficient source for this information. You left the caption "This pizza is pyrolyzed, possibly almost completely carbonized", so you accept that that statement is accurate. Is that fair? HLHJ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a RfC on that talk page would help resolve this matter. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you are suggesting an RfC on char or pyrolysis, but I see RfCs as more of a last resort. I'll put the rest of my reply at the bottom of Talk:Electric smoking system#Re-RfC on discussion on pizza image just below to avoid discussion forking. HLHJ (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

RfCs for both pages would be best at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that more RfCs just now would be a good idea. I don't really understand why you started this one. HLHJ (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-RfC on pizza image

Should there be an image on charring such as charred tobacco? QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. For now no. Without a source explaining the specific image is about charred tobacco we should not add it to the article and we should not state in the image it is charred unless there is a reliable source specifically discussing that image that says it is charred. That would violate WP:OR and also violate WP:CAPTION to state it is charred without a source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The WP:OI section of WP:OR does appear to agree with your assertions that images require sources to prove that they're illustrations of what they look like. The WP:PERTINENCE may be weak for the pizza image (charred tobacco would be more relevant), but saying "This is a slice of charred pizza" is not original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • A general image of charred tobacco would not be more relevant. An image must be directly related to this topic such as an image of a tobacco stick after use. No editor proposed "This is a slice of charred pizza".
    • See the RfC above. The caption states "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization)." That is clearly WP:SYN to connect it to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• NOT if off topic! The pizza picture and the object are uninformative and waaay off-topic. In other respects the concept of charring is too general to justify anything short of highly specific relevance to this article. There already are articles on Char, Charring, Pyrolysis etc; it is perfectly valid to link to those articles, but not to waste space and time in this article duplicating and maintaining their material, encyclopaedically or not. The photo of a charred Tobacco film following use is OK, being thoroughly in context; the pizza is not. I did a bit of surfing in Wikimedia but quit after a while because of the rarity of charring images of any relevance. In general I'd say that the first question should be: "Does this picture belong in this article, or some other?" The answer should make it much simpler to decide whether and where to include it. The OR basis for exclusion in this matter seems to me to be too tenuous to be of relevance. If I had a perfect picture that is instructive and unmistakable in context I would certainly post it, but I don't. JonRichfield (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• No It is original research to suggest that an overcooked pizza is related to an electric smoking system. We would need a secondary source saying that the effect of cooking a pizza for a few hours is similar to what occurs in an electric smoking system in a few minutes. Original images is about an editor photographing what's inside a smoking system, not about photographing a pizza. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, and the article should explain that the harm of vaping is about 0.5% that of smoking in the introduction. The RFC legobot sent me, by the way. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-RfC on discussion on pizza image

The electric heating element impales the cigarette. The outside of the used tobacco plug does not therefore look charred. This image shows the same tobacco plug, split to show the interior. Only the former image is in the article.

The question was asked in the original RfC on the pizza image. A source must make the claim that an image used illustrates charring. So far, no image has been presented in reliable sources that state an image illustrates charring that is related to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt we'd find a legitimate picture of something both charred and relevant. Unless we decided it didn't need to be relevant and used an image of a "charred building" (in which it is stated in the source that it is charred) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a source that discusses charring.[6] Eventually a source in the future will have an image. If it is a free image then it will be added. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If, as stated in the previous connected RfC, everyone knows what a charred thing looks like, and we have a photo of a used product which a source says chars in use, I don't think it is WP:OR to caption such an image as showing charring. Actually I'm pretty comfortable with saying that that pizza is charred, too. The link in the illustration caption leads to an image showing charring in one of these products, which we could use if the owner would release it under a formal CC-SA-NC license instead of an informal "you can use this as long as you credit us"-type license. I've linked to it for now. It would not be too difficult for someone to make an image similar to that one. HLHJ (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of repeats what I said in the previous RfC. To avoid duplication and discussion forking, I'd like to request that my comments in both RfCs be considered and both be closed together. HLHJ (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comfortable with saying something like "This is a slice of charred pizza". and adding it to this article if there is consensus to do that? QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, of course not. Firstly, it is an entire charred pizza, not just a slice. Secondly, "This is a charred pizza" would meet only point one of WP:Caption's five criteria. I think it needs some context to explain what relationship charring has to the article topic in the caption, and so I included this in my caption to the image. "This is a charred pizza" would probably wind up in the gallery of the bleeping obvious at WP:PLEONASM; so, in my suggested caption above, I summarized the processes by which it became charred. If there is consensus for adding this image with a good caption, I'm comfortable with that.

I'm pretty sure WAID did not mean to advocate "This is a charred slice of pizza" as a caption, just as a statement not requiring a source.

When I say I'm comfortable with saying somethiing, what I mean is that I'm sufficiently confident that it's true that I'm willing to assert it. Yes, it is logically impossible not to make mistakes when making this sort of call, but the chances of that not being a charred pizza seem derisory. The uploader clearly described it (in German) as a pizza that was forgotten in the oven for four hours and is completely charred. I see no reason to disbelieve this. HLHJ (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You comfortable with adding this image to this article with a caption such as "This is a charred pizza"? QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, as I said. The caption "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization)" would be OK with me, as would many other possible captions. HLHJ (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The part "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred," is a clear violation of WP:CAPTION. Baking for four hours is irrelevant to this article. No source connected the pizza to tobacco. I'm not sure the point about "most of the carbon has not oxidized". After months of discussion and pointing to the rules such as caption your still okay with adding "This pizza was baked for four hours. It is, like the tobacco in these products, charred, but most of the carbon has not oxidized and it has not been reduced to ash (see carbonization)" to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll say so since you ask. While I take the point that a pizza is a somewhat quirky illustration of charring, it seems likely to improve the reader's understanding of the article content. I think "This pizza was baked for four hours" fulfills criterion 1 of WP:Caption: 'clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious'. It also makes it easier to imagine the process.

I think we agree that the pizza is an example of pyrolysis. The pizza is useful as an example of pyrolysis in "Pyrolysis", and I think it serves the same purpose here. Pyrolysis is key to understanding these products. Sources connect the tobacco products to charring/pyrolysis (by both names), and the pizza is obviously charred. The caption claimed no closer connection. WP:SYN condemns "reach[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I don't think the caption does this. If you do, could you please state the unsupported conclusion?

Most of the carbon has not oxidized, and we can be certain of this, because we can see it. The black of char is carbon black. If the carbon had oxidized, large amounts of energy would have been released, and the pizza would have burst into flame and been reduced to crumbly grey-white ash. The pizza is obviously char, not ash. HLHJ (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote above "No source connected the pizza to tobacco." So far, I have no idea how an overcooked pizza is even remotely related to this article. A pizza product is not related to a tobacco product. No MEDRS source directly connects any heated tobacco product to charring. I included a poor source for one sentence about charring. That is it. It is too soon to add an image about charring when there is a lack of quality sources even mentioning this. The image about charring should be from a source that discusses these products. A random image not directly connected to tobacco is off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The MEDRS sources use "pyrolysis", though several medical research articles use "charring" as well. and some identify the two. "Charring" is a common English term used for the pyrolysis of organic matter. We regularly convert MEDRS language like "The probability of cardiac arrest not precipitating mortality events is low in the event of substantive delays in treatment access" into "People usually die if their hearts stop and they don't get help quickly". You are willing to use a caption mentioning pyrolysis and carbonization, but not charring, in the pyrolysis article; would you also be willing to use such a caption here? HLHJ (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Charring" is a specific term. Other MEDRS sources do not explicitly state "charring". I'm not willing to support failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I was asking if you would be willing to use a caption mentioning pyrolysis and carbonization, but not charring, as you were in the pyrolysis article. Are you?

Medical articles state things like "research has demonstrated that despite claims that there is not burning of tobacco, pyrolysis and charring occurs when using IQOS". The "heat-not-burn" marketing claim is used in Wikipedia's voice in the article, cited to non-MEDRS medical research papers, many of which use it in scare quotes, and none of which discuss its accuracy without criticizing it. While it is arguable that "charring" requires a MEDRS source, "heat-not-burn" certainly does (for use in Wikipedia's voice). "Pyrolyse" has MEDRS sources, and should be used instead of "heat" (technically correct, but misleading) and "heat-not burn". HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not willing to use a caption for a pizza image that is unrelated to this article. For other articles that you want to use the the pizza image you can start a RfC. Marketing claims do not require MEDRS sources. "Pyrolyse" is not interchangeable with "heat" or "heat-not burn". QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Marketing claims that imply health claims, made in Wikipedia's voice, require MEDRS. Why do you argue that "charring " needs MEDRS, but "heat-not-burn" does not? HLHJ (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

E-cigarette e-liquids marketed as "nicotine-free".... implies a health claim, but hat's not a MEDRS source.

Indeed; and I did not assert that marketing claim in Wikipedia's voice. I said it was a marketing claim and put it in scare quotes. If I used "nicotine-free" throughout the e-cigarette article, that would be inappropriate. Why do you argue that "heat-not-burn" can be used throughout, with no scare quotes? HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2019 (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.

Proposed rename of article

Should the title be changed to the term "Heat-not-burn product" to match the article content? QuackGuru (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I restarted the RfC due to a lack of recent comments. QuackGuru (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system → Heat-not-burn product – Heat-not-burn product is the only name I can think of that covers all the various types of heat-not-burn products discussed in the current article and therefore is the best option for the rename. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• (summonned by RFC bot). Support heat-not-burn tobacco product . "heat-not-burn" is unique and recognizable term. IMO it is also important that WHO uses it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support heat-not-burn product per discussion. I agree that you can smoke even cow dung in this way. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I'd favour splitting this article into charring cigarettes and electric loose-leaf charring devices. This is analogous to the cigarette/pipe distinction. The loose-leaf products should probably be merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device), as you can fill them with any leaf or crystalline powder. The specialized cigarettes are device-specific and come in tobacco only. I also favour starting a new article on tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. "Heated tobacco product" can then be a disambiguation page. Happy to consider better names; I just want to distinguish the products. HLHJ (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC) There is now an RfC on splitting the article. HLHJ (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• I agree with QuackGuru's reasoning that Heat-not-burn product is all encompassing and therefore is a more viable name change. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above mess. This seems wild OR. Perhaps a recognised general term will emerge, but it hasn't yet. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you are specifically opposing. Is it the current title which is OR? The proposed name is verifiable. See "Public Interest Figure 3 shows the relative frequency of internet searches for heat-not-burn products."[7] A more general term *is* "heat-not-burn product". See the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (invited randomly by a bot) I find this RFC to be poorly structured, starting with a biased question that suggests the current title does not match the page contents. (Consider dropping the last phrase "to match the article content." - save that for your !vote policy reference) After that, because this is a reboot of an old RFC, newcomers then find a couple more questions (bound to confuse everyone), followed by a lengthy position statement about a title option that isn't part of the RFC. And after that, where I expected to find a clean list of !votes there is an uninviting and confusing wall of text including several strikeouts and additions. With these handicaps I think it may be difficult for this RFC to develop a clear consensus. Please consider starting a new, clean, simple RFC with a really short question, a !Vote section and a comment/discussion section that starts with a reference to this RFC. If so, I promise to come back with constructive opinion about the title. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed rename of article

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

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

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

In January 2019, HLHJ stated "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the article scope were any device that heats any recreational drug to any temperature from 35 °C (95 °F) to over 500 °C (932 °F), a complete rewrite of the article would be needed. The scope of the current text barely mentions non-tobacco products; including them would make the article very long. It is also difficult to imagine sections that would integrate the information together. Nicotine is the core concept in every sub-section in the "Health effects" section, for instance; the section on "regulation" clearly also only includes tobacco devices. Parallel content about every other recreational drug that you can inhale after heating would be, well, parallel. Capable of being split into two separate articles without significant loss of useful context.

I suggest this function-based scope definition:

1. a product that electrically heats any loose-leaf/loose powder recreational drug for inhalation

remove this content and merge it with Vaporizer (inhalation device) (e.g. "Electric smoking system#Pax vaporizers")

2. a product that heats product-specific proprietary refills of solid tobacco to temperatures sufficient to drive off the nicotine by pyrolysis/charring

what this article is currently mostly about. Refills can only be obtained from the manufacturer, unlike #1 above.

3. a e-cigarette product that passes its aerosol through some solid tobacco, but the tobacco is heated to temperatures too low to drive off the nicotine

Said to give a tobacco flavour. Pyrolysis in e-cigs is generally considered a malfunction (a "dry puff"). Merge to e-cigarette article unless sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article.

The companies selling #2 products have claimed that they are e-cigarettes, and should be taxed and regulated as e-cigarettes. The idea that these products are e-cigarettes are not supported by the balance of independent, reliable sources.

The tobacco companies have also followed their marketing strategy with similar names and styling for tobacco-charring products and e-cigarettes. For instance, the IQOS Mesh is an e-cigarette, no solid tobacco involved. The IQOS-no-"Mesh" does not take e-fluid. It takes specialized paper-wrapped cylinders filled with tobacco at one end and filters at the other. The PAXglo iFuse and PAXglo are a similar product pair from British American Tobacco (the iFuse is type-3, the PAXglo type-2). Some low-quality online sources are obviously confused by this. HLHJ (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Staszek Lem, can you support "heat-not-burn product" rather than "heat-not-burn tobacco product"? There are heat-not-burn products that don't use tobacco. I think the scope of this article is about heat-not-burn products. There are different and new technologies being developed for the various types of heat-not-burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool. We finished this RfC while I was gone. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the best title is dependent on the scope; if we are covering only tobacco products, including the word "tobacco" makes sense, for instance. Calling e-cigarettes "Heat-not-burn" seems odd. The WHO calls e-cigarettes ENDS, for instance, not heat-not-burn.

"Heat-not-burn" is a marketing term invented by the tobacco industry for tobacco-charring products; however, the tobacco industry has recently stopped claiming that these are "heat-not-burn" products. Independent researchers have criticised the term "Heat-not-burn" as not really accurate for devices that pyrolize solid tobacco.

Common English usage regularly calls charred things "burnt". To re-use an example I used earlier: No-one says: "What's that smell of vapour? Oh, I heated-not-burned the sauce! Great, and now the alarm's gone off — open the window and let the aerosol out, will you?" Blackened, charred food is not what you expect when someone speaks of "heated" food. Dictionaries also give definitions of "burn" which include both oxidative combustion and pyrolysis (oxidative combustion is carbon bursting into flame until reduced to CO2 and ashes, and pyrolysis is organic matter is charring until reduced to a blackened mass of carbon; also called carbonisation). HLHJ (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:POVNAME. Even if the title is non-neutral such titles are allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Objecting to inaccuracy, not non-neutrality, per WP:Title. The most reliable sources (MEDRS and academic sources) avoid "heat-not-burn", give the term in scare quotes, and/or critique it. HLHJ (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The term heat-not-burn product is accurate. See "Public Interest Figure 3 shows the relative frequency of internet searches for heat-not-burn products."[9] QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy is not a popularity contest. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources of the current title, "Electric smoking system"

When these products were first brought out, they were termed "electrically heated cigarette smoking system"s by manufacturers. A recent Cochrane review also used "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" (technically, the heating is electric, but electronically-controlled). In deference to the fact that the article scope currently includes loose-leaf products (which are more like electrically-heated pipe-smoking systems), and the absence of terms like "electrically-heated kettle", the term was shortened to the current article title. It has been pointed out that "Electric smoking system" sounds like a device for smoke-curing food. HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks like the name of the current title. See Smoking_(cooking)#Electric_smokers. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Heat-not-burn products

The new cat is called Category:Heat-not-burn products.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The image for the user.

No. It must be not named "Heat-not-burn" because it’s confusing. Remember that Larami comment in Movies and television shows section?? That was a little confusing and posted by the user DoctorWho42. See the talk. 2001:56A:774D:8F00:2932:C308:60AC:581A (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The FDA states "There are a variety of products colloquially called heated tobacco products and heat-not-burn products that do not appear to fit easily into universally agreed upon product categories. Products currently sold in global markets may function in various ways."[11] The term "heat-not-burn product" is the universal name for all of these products. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to drop the title of this article and rename it, with two possibilities suggested, Heat-not-burn product and Heat-not-burn device, and with no particular consensus for either. So I get to choose! Lean somewhat toward the nom's suggested name. In accord with the closing instructions, there is no prejudice... "while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place." Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Electric smoking system → Heat-not-burn product – Should the title be changed to "Heat-not-burn product"? QuackGuru (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting.  QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommended actions on requested move 30 July 2019

• Support (invited by a bot) While no clear WP:COMMONNAME seems to have emerged, the WHO's use and definition of the term may help to focus the topic and avoid conflicts over the article's scope. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Administrator note @QuackGuru: stop relisting this. Let the discussion run its course and let it be closed by someone uninvolved. You've been pushing this for a year, it's time to let it happen, or not happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright. Hopefully more editors will comment and vote. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 'heat-not-burn' I am a WikiProject Medicine participant and I sometimes comment on the RfCs in this product sector. I support the "heat-not-burn" label because of the WHO use. I see a claim on this talk page that also a company uses this as a product name, but the WHO general use seems more meaningful to me. In in this market sector the names for things change quickly. I think I prefer "heat-not-burn device" over "heat-not-burn product", because to me, the product is the consumable which goes into the device. The current name is ambiguous as there are various devices called electronic smoking systems but this article is only about the heat-not-burn type. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support 'heat-not-burn' per Bluerasberry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on requested move 30 July 2019

I restarted this RfC because of the wall of text in the original RfC. See Talk:Electric smoking system#Proposed rename of article. The current title does not match the article content. The US FDA, among others, uses term "heat-not-burn products".[12] The first sentence states "There are various types of heat-not-burn products." This includes heat-not-burn tobacco products, non-tobacco products, and hybrid products. The current title does not take into account the broad scope of products. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the term "heat-not-burn" associated with a particular company's products? I personally had that impression. Perhaps it was in relation to RJR products like Premier and Eclipse. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. See "RJR introduced the first heat-not-burn product—Premier 'smokeless' cigarettes—in the USA in 1988."[13] See "Eclipse was Reynolds' first national attempt at the heat-not-burn category, in distribution from 2003 to 2007."[14] See "The heat-not-burn device uses nicotine and tobacco.[86]" See "It is a hybrid of a heat-not-burn tobacco product and an e-cigarette.[17]" See "It is described as a "heat, not burn" tobacco vaporizer.[119]" See "The lil is a heat-not-burn cigarette product.[122]" See "PAX vaporizers[128] referred to as heat-not-burn vaporizers,[129]" See "It is referred to as a heat-not-burn device.[136]" See "In 2018, it was reported that Imperial Brands was developing a heat-not-burn tobacco product named Pulze.[140]" See "It is a heat-not-burn product that looks similar to a traditional cigarette.[142]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You responded "Yes", but I get the impression from the rest of your message that you mean "No" (i.e., that it is a brand-neutral term). Is that correct? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The rest of my message was not meant to imply "no". For policy on non-neutral titles see WP:POVTITLE. It is a term that has been used by brands. See the 'Marketing' section. No source explicitly states "Electric smoking system". QuackGuru (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Jojalozzo, what definition does the WHO give? I can't seem to find it. HLHJ (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You can start reading on page 5 where it says "Some of the more recent products heat rather than burn tobacco."[15] You can also read other sources such as the US FDA.[16] Also see "Various heat-not-burn products were reintroduced to the market."[17] QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The 2016 WHO source uses the "heat rather than burn" description, verbatim, repeatedly. It was published before the "smoke free" and "not burn" language started to be challenged in the medical literature.

The FDA source (16th of May 2019) is more cautious in its terminology. It says "Non-Combusted Cigarettes, Sometimes Called Heat-Not-Burn Products", that such a product "heats the dried tobacco inside to a temperature that does not cause the product to create ash or burn down in size" (distinguishes oxidative combustion to ash from pyrolysis to char), and "There are a variety of products colloquially called heated tobacco products and heat-not-burn products that do not appear to fit easily into universally agreed upon product categories." They do not use the term "heat-not-burn" in their own voice. I think "create ash or burn down in size" distinguishes oxidative combustion (to ash) from pyrolysis (to char).

One review article (the 2018 Dautzenberg review) criticizes both the "smoke free" and "not burn" language as inaccurate (as do some non-MEDRS sources, examples:[18][19]). A 2019 review uses "Heat-not-burn" in scare quotes, thereafter using "HnB".[20] This may not constitute sufficient criticism in MEDRS to meet WP:UCRN's "Ambiguous or inaccurate" criterion. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

See "One product type, which has been on the U.S. market at various times since the 1990s, uses a carbon tip wrapped in glass fibers. The user lights the carbon tip, which heats the dried tobacco inside to a temperature that does not cause the product to create ash or burn down in size."[21] That is referring to the Eclipse brand.

There appears to be heavy discussion on "heat-not-burn" type products, according to your comment. That confirms it is a popular common name. See under 'Marketing': "The tobacco industry has described them as "not-burned" (heat-not-burn), although it has backtracked from this claim, as of 2018.[18]" That is not criticism. That is a statement of fact. You are criticizing the term, not the sources. The term "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" has been used in sources but there are devices that are not smoking systems such as the iFuse. The term "Electric smoking system" has never been explicitly used in any source, and therefore it is ambiguous or inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WHO claim

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.

---

Should the article state The World Health Organization calls them "cigarettes".[22] QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. That would be misrepresenting the source. It is claimed "WHO called them cigarettes"[23] WHO does not call them "cigarettes". The content failed verification and is a POV statement. Who says "...some make use of specifically designed cigarettes to contain the tobacco for heating."[24] That is not calling them "cigarettes". The article now says "Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[8]" Again, WHO is not calling them simply "cigarettes". QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• no per QuackGuru--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on WHO claim

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

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

Main difference produced by the disputed edit (the other one was "mini-cigarette" → "cigarette"):

Old content	New content
The tobacco industry calls its mini-cigarette tobacco refills "Heets" and "Neosticks". One brand's tobacco powder comes packed in aluminum capsules. References	The tobacco industry calls its tobacco refills "Heets" and "Neosticks", while the World Health Organization calls them "cigarettes". One brand's tobacco powder comes packed in aluminum capsules. References

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

The only shot we currently have of the cigarette packs. Less promotional than those provided by the manufacturer. It wasn't taken on a lightbox, but on some lined paper that shows scale.

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

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

Now you say "I think this edit of mine needed a complete re-write, and I am not defending it.", but a very short time ago you stated "We disagree in our interpretation of the souce. I think my actions with respect to only one specific article and its talk page can best be discussed there. I will discuss this on the article talk page if third parties are also interested in discussing it."[25] You were defending it on your talk page.

Two days ago you stated on this talk page: The WHO also calls them "cigarettes"[26] QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

HLHJ stated on 11 June 2019 "I think that "cigarettes" is a hypernym of "specially designed cigarette",[27] QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

See "*I'm not sure why it is misleading to say that the WHO called them "cigarettes". They did. I'm contrasting this to a marketing claim, so it matters who said what."[28] HLHJ, are you still unsure? QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking briefly at that talk page discussion edit, I assume I was using "them" to refer to the discrete refills, not the loose-leaf ones. I agree that this is not clear and I should have been more clear. I don't think that "looks similar to a short cigarette" is neutral when the Dautzenberg review calls it a "mini-cigarette", as it implies that it is not a cigarette. I think MEDRS should be weighed more heavily than the Vaping Post here. Actually, the VP article is also a bit ambiguous; they call the min-cigs "tobacco sticks" but also refer to part of the IQOS as a "cigarette holder". What is your objection to wiktionary:hypernym? HLHJ (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

See "The disposable tobacco stick[101] called HeatSticks or HEETS in some places they are sold,[102] is described as a mini-cigarette.[15]" The content was updated recently. Stating "looks similar to a short cigarette" is practically the same as stating it is called a mini-cigarette.

You wrote Dautzenberg review calls it a "mini-cigarette", but you recently proposed content citing the Dautzenberg review calling them a "cigarette".[29] What is your objection to content that is neutral as well as accurate? QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The only objection I have to content that is neutral and accurate is its absence. I do not agree that 'Stating "looks similar to a short cigarette" is practically the same as stating it is called a mini-cigarette'. The "looks similar" phrasing is still in another location in the article. Saying that an item is a disposable tobaco stick (the industry's generic name) in Wikipedia's voice, then adducing (as things they are called) first the brand names, then finally the MEDRS term, does not seem neutral to me. I don't think neutral is halfway between the industry view and the MEDRS view; that would be false balance. HLHJ (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You objected to the content but have not providing another source for glo. See "which looks similar to a short cigarette.[10]" It is neutral according to the source. If you find another source please let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Dautzenberg MEDRS source I mentioned says: "la PHT1.0 (Glo ) de BAT utilise des mini-cigarettes (nommées en France Neostiks®)". My translation: "BAT's [British American Tobacco's] PHT1.0 (Glo) uses mini-cigarettes (termed Neostiks® in France)". It also says they are 82mm long and 5mm thick, containing 260mg of tobacco. HLHJ (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2019 (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.

Aerosol and smoke

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.

---

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

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

• Yes. All smoke is aerosol, but all aerosol is not smoke. Steam, clouds and smoke are all aerosols. This aerosol is smoke, according to MEDRS I cannot find a source stating that they emit both a non-smoke aerosol and smoke aerosol, as two separate components. I think this is a misunderstanding of the sources. The extremely careful phrasing in the research literature is likely due to pressure on academics from the tobacco industry, which has strong marketing interests in the question. See discussion for details. HLHJ (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• no agree w/ QuackGuru's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• no because the sources support the current wording of the article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• no I cannot believe people still fall into this kind of logical blunder. Smoke is a special kind of aerosol. We cannot replace a more general term with a narrower one if the sources use a more general one. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• No! And not vice versa! Folks, the niggling about this article is getting ridiculous. As some of us have hinted, we (nearly?) all (nearly??) understand what smokes and aerosols are and what the contexts are. Where the sources use one or the other and the context suits, follow suit. Otherwise edit for clarity, obvious fact, decent readability, and common sense. There is no sense in trying to inflict military uniformity, troops for the use of, one only, where tastes and senses and contexts are not uniform. Generally any chemist, chemical engineer, physicist, English major, or physiologist can tell whether one term or the other is more appropriate, and usually in this case it barely matters, which in turn implies: "leave it alone and stop fussing!" It just wastes time and other resources, and reflects poorly on our good sense. JonRichfield (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• No (via FRS) - per QuackGuru. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2019 (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.

Discussion on aerosol and smoke

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

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

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

You claim "The only MEDRS article which explicitly addresses the question of whether the aerosol emitted by these products is "smoke" says that it is smoke, because it contains pyrolysis products.[2]" That is not true. They don't question whether the aerosol emitted by these products is "smoke". I explained to you before it only mentions the word "aérosol" once and that is not about questioning whether the aerosol is "smoke". See "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés."[30] That is not about questioning anything related to smoke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All, Sorry I missed the ping among the other notifications for my talk page. In short, PMI agrees that smoke is an aerosol (but not all aerosols are smoke). The aerosol emitted by IQOS is significantly different from that of a cigarette, which is part of the reason why the term smoke isn't appropriate for IQOS. The scientific evidence showing that IQOS emits aerosol but not smoke has been published in a report on our website here [31], where you can read a brief overview, or dig into the details, as you prefer. NFDPM is the proper term for a measurement of the residue of IQOS aerosol or cigarette smoke, a measurement which some people call "tar". NFDPM is the better term because it makes clear how the measurement is done (weight of the residue, excluding water and nicotine) and won't be confused with the concept of road tar or other materials not related to cigarettes. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Huge block of sources saying that smoke is an aerosol for QuackGuru, from HLHJ (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

See also the first sentence of Tobacco smoke. You ask for RS on aerosols: NASA's Earth Observatory, on a page about aerosols, says "fine aerosols, like smoke or pollution" and "smoke and other aerosols".[32] This clearly implies that smoke is an aerosol. For MEDRS, the first sentence of this review says "Cigarette smoke is a complex aerosol". The first two sentences of another review say that cigarette smoke is an aerosol, as is HAP, later described with "includes smoke from coal, dried dung, and wood". For a MEDRS source that explicitly states that smoke is an aerosol while also mentioning this article's topic, the first thing I found was an (outdated) assessment of different types of cigarettes smoke which uses the phrases "toxic aerosols, including cigarette smoke" and (of conventional cigarettes) "Mainstream smoke consist of an aerosol containing liquid droplets (particulate phase) suspended in the gas-vapor phase, which is generated by overlapping burning, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, distillation, sublimation, and condensation processes", and many occurrances of "tobacco smoke aerosol(s)", "Thus, the process to generate smoke aerosols is essential", and so on. It also says, of tobacco-pyrolyzing products, "As a result, tobacco emit(sic) flavor without generating ash and smoke". However, it cites only RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris, and the publication is from 2013, thus pre-dating independent research and academic critique of this non-smoke claim (it's also written by engineers, one chemical and one mechanical). Multiple more recent studies call it "smoke",[33] and some use "aerosol" for conventional cigarette smoke as well in places. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but do you grant that smoke is an aerosol?

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

I included three MEDRS sources in the collapsed block that say that cigarette smoke is aerosol, and one of them even has a small section on the topic of this article, though I'll grant it's a fairly crummy MEDRS. I'm not suggesting that we put the sources in the article; I just want to convince you that smoke is an aerosol. Here: not one but two MEDRS that say "Tobacco smoke is an aerosol"[34][35]. I trust that you will agree that any smoke generated by heating tobacco would be tobacco smoke, and thus also according to these sources an aerosol. I believe you also think that heating tobacco is relevant to this article. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Regarding tar vs NFDPM, I found a reference from ISO defining them as the same, stating: "The quantitative measurement of nicotine, of particulate matter and of nicotine-free dry particulate matter (NFDPM, sometimes referred to as “tar”) is therefore dependent on the arbitrary definition of the means used to generate and collect the smoke." Speaking specifically about a standard for calculating the NFDPM of side stream cigarette smoke. [36] Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Discussion under the assumption that smoke is an aerosol

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

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

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

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

See "However, independent researchers explicitly disagree with the claim that they are smokeless,[32][33][unreliable medical source?][34][35] arguing that[36][unreliable medical source?] the emitted aerosol is smoke,[original research?] as it contains pyrolysis products,[17] and they commonly[37][unreliable medical source?][35] call it "smoke".[35][not in citation given]"[37] We should not go back to this strange writing. The source did not verify "the emitted aerosol is smoke". That's not what this page is for, anyhow.

WHO verifies it is an aerosol. See "Heated tobacco products are tobacco products that produce aerosols containing nicotine and other chemicals, which are inhaled by users, through the mouth."[38] QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No verification problem when content fails verification?

See "My understanding is that a consensus to use a consistent term overrides the term used in a specific source, as it has at the e-cigarettes article. Independent and non-independent, or technical and non-technical sources, may well use different terms, while the Wikipedia article uses a single consistent one. As long as it is clear that we are talking about the same thing, and are thus still accurately representing the source, I don't see this as a verification problem. HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)"[39] See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Reference_2_(Bentley2017)_does_not_verify_"smoke".

The word "aerosol" is different than "smoke". The emitted aerosol is not smoke. The word "emissions" is a more general term than "smoke". There was no consensus to use a consistent term throughout the page. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. Misrepresenting sources is a verification problem. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The same kind of problems are happening at the Nicotine marketing page and at this page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, how do you understand "the emissions of heated tobacco... fit this definition of smoke perfectly"? I understand emissions of heated tobacco=smoke. HLHJ (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"emissions of heated tobacco=smoke" - your footnote does hair splitting referring to "same source". Without source actually cited the context is unclear. The term "quasi-unheated" is quasi-scientific gobbledygook. Yes, in vast majority of cases of "nobacco consumption" emissions of heated tobacco=smoke, but it the area we are talking about, with lots of advert pushing, we cannot arbitrarily replace one term with another. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I'm sorry, I should have said, it's the Dautzenberg review. I've been repeating myself too much and got lazy in repeating the details. The authors state that both the IQOS specifically, and all heated-tobacco products, emit smoke, and explicitly equate the emissions of the IQOS to smoke in their entirety. "Quasi-unheated" is a lousy term, but they do at least define it in the text (using it for a product that heats tobacco to 35 Celsius, ~one degree over body temperature, whose aerosol they exempt from their earlier generalizations). The rest of the products they discuss heat to temperatures high enough to pyrolyse.

Statements that aerosols produced by pyrolysis are smoke, and that aerosols containing pyrolysis products are smoke by definition, are found in both the independent medical sources discussing the "is it smoke?" question (Dautzenberg, as quoted above, and a non-MEDRS medical research publication on IQOS). If the scope of this article is limited to products that pyrolyse tobbacco, this helps; otherwise, I guess we could draw distinctions like those of the Dautzenberg review, but I'm not keen on that. I entirely agree that the sheer weight of promotion makes this a difficult topic, and one to tread carefully through. HLHJ (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Interaction with scope question

Staszek Lem, This discussion began before Talk:Electric smoking system#Splitting article, and I was assuming a scope of "products that can pyrolyse tobacco", hence the logical disconnect. If the scope of this article includes any device that heats any drug to any temperature to produce something one can inhale, then I'd agree that "aerosol" is as narrow as one can logically get. I'm only arguing that the pyrolizing products emit smoke (that is, an aerosol containing pyrolysis products). I'm arguing this because the independent sources that discuss the question say exactly that. There are also sources that use vaguer terms without analyzing them (more recent medical sources are more likely to use "smoke"). HLHJ (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Very few sources use the word "smoke". A more general term is "emissions". QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE requires giving more weight to more reliable sources. WP:MEDRS discards most sources, for facts with biomedical implications. HLHJ (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The article discusses both an aerosol and smoke. Is a more general term "emissions"? Does WHO verify it is an aerosol?[40] QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The article uses the term "smoke" almost exclusively to contrast with the emissions of the topic products. "Emissions" is more general than "aerosol" which is more general than "smoke" ("substance" is more general yet ). The WHO uses the term "aerosol"; it also uses "vapour", which is certainly technically incorrect. It neither discusses the merits of these terms, nor makes any statement about whether the aerosol is smoke. HLHJ (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References

References

First sentence

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.

---

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

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

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

• The first sentence is now the second sentence.

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

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

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

Discussion on first sentence

• See previous first sentence: "An electrically-heated smoking system, also known as a heated tobacco product (HTP) or heat-not-burn tobacco product (HnB), uses an electric heating element to produce a smoke that contains nicotine, tar,[1] other chemicals, and particulates.[2]"[41]

• See current wording in the lede: A heat-not-burn tobacco product or heated tobacco product[notes 1] heats up tobacco using a battery-powered heating-system.[8] As it starts to heat the tobacco, it generates an aerosol that contains nicotine and other chemicals, that is inhaled.[8] They also generate smoke.[11] Gases, liquid and solid particles, and tar are found in the emissions.[11][42]

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

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

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

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

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

See WHO "Heated tobacco products are tobacco products that produce aerosols containing nicotine and other chemicals, which are inhaled by users, through the mouth."[43]

Also see "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés." That translates to "At high concentrations (50 μg/L of nicotine in the HRT 2.2 aerosol), however, the effects are measurable on all parameters studied."[44] That verifies it produces aerosol. The same source verifies they produce smoke. Therefore, these products produce both an aerosol and smoke, according to the MEDRS source. I am not misunderstanding the sources. I'm not the editor who called them "cigarettes".[45][46] QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply to QuackGuru

I was citing those sources as examples. A source that says that sources about these products do or do not usually mention emissions seems unlikely; if you find one, could you post it? If you feel that my examples do not support my claim, could you please give counterexamples? That is, substantive sources focussing on the product (not, say, the financial performance of the company selling them) that do not mention emissions? I do not understand "It is not about non-smoke aerosol and smoke aerosol, as two separate components." Could you please answer my question about whether you grant that smoke is an aerosol, above? HLHJ (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the article scope were any device that heats any recreational drug to any temperature from 35 °C (95 °F) to over 500 °C (932 °F), a complete rewrite of the article would be needed. The scope of the current text barely mentions non-tobacco products; including them would make the article very long. It is also difficult to imagine sections that would integrate the information together. Nicotine is the core concept in every sub-section in the "Health effects" section, for instance; the section on "regulation" clearly also only includes tobacco devices. Parallel content about every other recreational drug that you can inhale after heating would be, well, parallel. Capable of being split into two separate articles without significant loss of useful context.

I suggest this function-based scope definition:

1. a product that electrically heats any loose-leaf/loose powder recreational drug for inhalation

remove this content and merge it with Vaporizer (inhalation device) (e.g. "Electric smoking system#Pax vaporizers")

2. a product that heats product-specific proprietary refills of solid tobacco to temperatures sufficient to drive off the nicotine by pyrolysis/charring

what this article is currently mostly about. Refills can only be obtained from the manufacturer, unlike #1 above.

3. a e-cigarette product that passes its aerosol through some solid tobacco, but the tobacco is heated to temperatures too low to drive off the nicotine

Said to give a tobacco flavour. Pyrolysis in e-cigs is generally considered a malfunction (a "dry puff"). Merge to e-cigarette article unless sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article.

The companies selling #2 products have claimed that they are e-cigarettes, and should be taxed and regulated as e-cigarettes. The idea that these products are e-cigarettes are not supported by the balance of independent, reliable sources.

The tobacco companies have also followed their marketing strategy with similar names and styling for tobacco-charring products and e-cigarettes. For instance, the IQOS Mesh is an e-cigarette, no solid tobacco involved. The IQOS-no-"Mesh" does not take e-fluid. It takes specialized paper-wrapped cylinders filled with tobacco at one end and filters at the other. The PAXglo iFuse and PAXglo are a similar product pair from British American Tobacco (the iFuse is type-3, the PAXglo type-2). Some low-quality online sources are obviously confused by this. HLHJ (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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 on article scope

Splitting article

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.

---

Should we split the article even when there has not been a specific proposal for a split? RFC restarted. HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC), originally opened by QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. The products that are called heat-not-burn tobacco products and heated tobacco products should stay on this page. There are also various types of heat-not-burn products that use loose-leaf material or different kinds of heating technologies. There is currently 12 brands. Each one has its own section. None of them should be forked to a new page. It is best for the readers when all the brands are on one page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, the current scope overlaps with Vaporizer (inhalation device) and e-cigarette. Re-scope by functionality as below per WP:CONSPLIT. HLHJ (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, as the article currently rightfully covers all content. All covered devices are broadly referred to as "Heat-not-Burn tobacco Products" and could be considered as a working WP:BROADCONCEPT. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:CFORK seems to apply here - there may be archived discussions that addresses why it doesn't; but WP:CCC. I like the suggestion of using this article (what ever it ends up being called) solely for the pre-packaged tobacco products, and the other content being split into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) and e-cigarette articles as appropriate. Whatever the outcome, a WP:BROADCONCEPT article probably would not go amiss. Little pob (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Little pob: I found a new source. The FDA states "There are a variety of products colloquially called heated tobacco products and heat-not-burn products that do not appear to fit easily into universally agreed upon product categories. Products currently sold in global markets may function in various ways."[47] The term "heat-not-burn product" covers all the products in the article and confirms a WP:BROADCONCEPT article fits for this article. The article Vaporizer (inhalation device) is not about heat-not-burn-products. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2019 (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.

Discussion on splitting article

See also: Talk:Electric smoking system § Proposed rename of article

See "I'd favour splitting this article into charring cigarettes and electric loose-leaf charring devices. This is analogous to the cigarette/pipe distinction. The loose-leaf products should probably be merged into Vaporizer (inhalation device), as you can fill them with any leaf or crystalline powder. The specialized cigarettes are device-specific and come in tobacco only. I also favour starting a new article on tobacco-filtered e-cigarettes. "Heated tobacco product" can then be a disambiguation page. "[48] QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descriptive names are not required to be sourced.

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

If the article scope were any device that heats any recreational drug to any temperature from 35 °C (95 °F) to over 500 °C (932 °F), a complete rewrite of the article would be needed. The scope of the current text barely mentions non-tobacco products; including them would make the article very long. It is also difficult to imagine sections that would integrate the information together. Nicotine is the core concept in every sub-section in the "Health effects" section, for instance; the section on "regulation" clearly also only includes tobacco devices. Parallel content about every other recreational drug that you can inhale after heating would be, well, parallel. Capable of being split into two separate articles without significant loss of useful context.

I suggest this function-based scope definition:

1. a product that electrically heats any loose-leaf/loose powder recreational drug for inhalation

remove this content and merge it with Vaporizer (inhalation device) (e.g. "Electric smoking system#Pax vaporizers")

2. a product that heats product-specific proprietary refills of solid tobacco to temperatures sufficient to drive off the nicotine by pyrolysis/charring

what this article is currently mostly about. Refills can only be obtained from the manufacturer, unlike #1 above.

3. a e-cigarette product that passes its aerosol through some solid tobacco, but the tobacco is heated to temperatures too low to drive off the nicotine

Said to give a tobacco flavour. Pyrolysis in e-cigs is generally considered a malfunction (a "dry puff"). Merge to e-cigarette article unless sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article.

The companies selling #2 products have claimed that they are e-cigarettes, and should be taxed and regulated as e-cigarettes. The idea that these products are e-cigarettes are not supported by the balance of independent, reliable sources.

The tobacco companies have also followed their marketing strategy with similar names and styling for tobacco-charring products and e-cigarettes. For instance, the IQOS Mesh is an e-cigarette, no solid tobacco involved. The IQOS-no-"Mesh" does not take e-fluid. It takes specialized paper-wrapped cylinders filled with tobacco at one end and filters at the other. The PAXglo iFuse and PAXglo are a similar product pair from British American Tobacco (the iFuse is type-3, the PAXglo type-2). Some low-quality online sources are obviously confused by this. HLHJ (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@QuackGuru: "there is no content that would be split" I don't think everyone will read that in the manner you intended - it's interpretable as a statement of fact, rather than opinion. You're obviously an expert in this area, but please be aware of WP:OWNERSHIP.

Now, I'm not a smoker nor a (midnight) toker, and this may well be a sample-size bias; but the electronic devices I've come across that allow consumption of loose substrates, have been referred to as vaporizers - by users, retailers, and manufacturers (for example, the G Pen Elite). WRT which content would move to the e-cigarette; I did qualify that with as appropriate, but IMO the 3T content could be stripped out to there (after copyediting) - if a rescope split happens. Little pob (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The e-cig page is not about heat-not-burn products but there is a section on Related technologies that has a link to this article. It would not be appropriate to expand that section with additional brands. The Electronic_cigarette#Related_technologies section is already very long. It is currently 6 paragraphs. Adding an entire paragraph on the WRT (along with others) would be undue weight. Content would not be merged into the into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) because that article does not have a list of vaporizers and the products in this article are also about heat-not-burn tobacco or cannabis vaporizers. That is very specific to this article. You have not given a solid reason to remove the heat-not-burn products from this article. Products they employ heat-not-burn technology obviously belong in this article. The other articles mentioned don't have a list of brands with sections devoted to each brand. Little pob, the end result would be a loss of content for different types of heat-not-burn products. The content that would be lost would be the brands that employ different types of heat-not-burn technology such as loose-leaf heat-not-burn products. A title change to heat-not-burn products would address the scope of this article. The current article title makes no sense. QuackGuru (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Question, QuackGuru. Does the 3T still liquid contain the ground tobacco at the time of consumption, or is the tobacco removed after the process? It's not clear in the article. If the tobacco is removed, how is 3T a heat-not-burn device? The 3T liquid could easily be covered at e-cigs with the other mentions of e-liquid in a couple of sentences: "Some e-liquids are derived directly from tobacco. For example, the 3T system uses a solution containing nicotine obtained from tobacco in a patented infusion method." (That could be worded much better by those more familiar with the article's prose, but the gist is there.) Little pob (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What you proposed would be a loss of content for the 3T. We can't add an entire paragraph on the 3T to the e-cig page. It uses a patented process and it contains tobacco when uses. I don't think this is a discussion on splitting up the article. It is a discussion on deleting relevant content. You can restore this content if you think it makes it more clear about the tobacco. You could change it to something like The e-liquids are derived directly from tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What I've suggested is only relevant if the yea's "win" this RfC, and the article is rescoped. (And with no edit's to the actual article, the closer will weigh my opinion lower than yours and HLHJ's.) I'm not going to restore that edit, and it does not answer the question I asked. Little pob (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You were saying the closer will weigh your opinion lower than mine and HLHJ's. Almost all of HLHJ's edits have been removed from this article via a successful RfC. Take a look at the article in February. It looked like vandals edited the article. After the RfC was closed I cleaned up the page and made this edit.

There would be a loss of content if the 3T liquid was just a couple of sentences. The 3T liquid contains the tobacco at the time of consumption. There would not be content added to Vaporizer (inhalation device). That article does not have devoted sections for different brands. This article has sections for each brand of loose-leaf heat-not-burn technology products. Different companies use different kinds of heat-not-burn technology. There is an article for different kinds of heat-not-burn technology products. This article covers the various types of heat-not-burn products. That is limited to products that employ heat-not-burn technology. We don't fork content because of the problematic title of this article and there is no need to limit the scope to just products that use tobacco sticks. Limiting it to heat-not-burn products is the scope of this article. If adding content from this page to other pages improved those articles I would of done that. See "The eTron 3T from Vapor Tobacco Manufacturing, launched in December 2014,[432] employs a patented, aqueous system whereby the tobacco is extracted into water.[433] The e-liquid contains organic tobacco, organic glycerin, and water.[432]" That is currently in the e-cig page. There is no room for additional content on the 3T. Deleting loose-leaf heat-not-burn brands off of this page is a bad idea and it does not improve the other pages. There is also no room for more paragraphs in the e-cig related technologies section. This won't be a split. It would be a deletion of content off of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

QG, you might have linked to the version from three days later, when I'd attempted to address your inline-tagging by adding verifying quotes and so on. Both versions contain well-cited material that the other does not, and the RfC closure left us free to merge them.

I find Electronic cigarette#Related technologies a bit hard to read. I think it could benefit from some conceptual structure and a more function-based perspective; right now it seems like a disconnected list of facts about brands. The Glo iFuse type-three product is currently in the article (sorry, Glo, not PAX). Maybe something like "The 3T e-cigarette makes its own e-liquid from tobacco, water, and humectant refills.", Little pob? It seems from the patent that the tobacco is ground, steeped in hot-to-boiling water, then strained out, (perhaps somewhat ineffectively in some tests, as the patent refers to a case of tobacco particles gumming up the heating element). The resulting liquid is stored until needed; apparently it can keep for years. However, I'm not really confident that this description is accurate, because the sources we have are bad. The patent source is of course not independent, and it is pretty ambiguous, as it does the usual patent every-variation-we-can-think-of. The terminology is also quite unreasonably muddled. I'm a bit worried about the reliability of the "Tobacco Reporter" source, as its content looks rather press-release like. Any info on them? The only remaining source is far more promotional than informative ("It is the ONLY fully satisfying alternative on the market"), probably because it is a reprint of a press release off PR Newswire, a press-release aggregator. Sorry, this is a bit off-topic, but better sources would be good. HLHJ (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

See "QG, you might have linked to the version from three days later, when I'd attempted to address your inline-tagging by adding verifying quotes and so on." That version still contained mass problems.

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

The tobacco industry does not call them tobacco refills "Heets" and "Neosticks". WHO never called them "cigarettes". It is vague to claim "One brand's tobacco powder comes packed in aluminum capsules.[3]" That is about a specific brand and is now in a specific section about that brand. "Heets" and "Neosticks" are also about specific brands.

See current wording "The disposable tobacco stick[92] called HeatSticks or HEETS in some places they are sold,[93] looks similar to a short cigarette.[8]" "glo uses tobacco sticks called Neostiks in France.[12]" "The capsules are aluminum and the tobacco heats up to 180 °C.[12]" The current wording is accurate without looking like vandals edited the page.

Both versions do not contain well-cited material. The only version that removed the mass problems was after there was consensus to remove the inaccurate wording. The same type of inaccurate wording can be found in the Marketing of electronic cigarettes alleged POV Fork article. Does anyone think the Marketing of electronic cigarettes page contains well-cited material? I asked if I can fix the problems. Problems include off-topic content and poorly written content such as the first sentence. These problems are continuing for over a year at that page and at the nicotine marketing article. The suggestion "3T e-cigarette makes its own e-liquid from tobacco, water, and humectant refills." is too simple and less informative than the current content in the e-cig page. It is "eTron 3T" to be accurate.

See "Pax Labs has developed vaporizers that heats the leaves of tobacco to deliver nicotine in a vapor.[429][430]" This is currently in the e-cig page under related technologies. We are not going to bloat that section with an entire paragraph on Electric smoking system#Pax vaporizers. QuackGuru (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the Electric smoking system#Pax vaporizers content should go into Electronic_cigarette#Related_technologies. I thought it should go into Vaporizer (inhalation device), which could grow a section on brands. Actually, I think Electronic_cigarette#Related_technologies could benefit from discussing the technologies more, not the brands. HLHJ (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Vaporizer (inhalation device) article does not have a list of brands and would not benefit from a list of brands. That is not a list article. This article benefits from a list of brands because there are numerous sources covering different types of heat-not-burn products. Vaporizer (inhalation device) is not about heat-not-burn products. This article is about heat-not-burn products. See "Pax Labs, formerly known as Ploom,[116] sells PAX vaporizers.[117] They are referred to as heat-not-burn vaporizers.[118]" That is about heat-not-burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Little pob: WHO says "There are a number of these tobacco products available on several markets. Examples include iQOS from Philip Morris International, Ploom TECH from Japan Tobacco International, Glo from British American Tobacco, and PAX from PAX Labs. "[49] Both Ploom and Pax are loose-leaf tobacco vaporizers. According to WHO these are some examples of HTPs. There are products that use tobacco sticks and there are others that use different technologies such as tobacco leaf. Both are relevant to this page according to WHO. QuackGuru (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC) @Little pob: There are more sources that cofirm there are related to this topic. See the Public Health England and Ministry of Health (New Zealand) reports below. The lede states "There are different types of heat-not-burn tobacco products.[26] One type uses an embedded heat source; another type uses an external heat source; another one uses a heated sealed chamber; to deliver nicotine using tobacco leaf.[26] Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[9] There are devices that use cannabis.[27]" I can't think of a good reason to delete content from this when specific types of loose-leaf vaporizers are also heat-not-burn (heated tobacco) products. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: the problem is the nomenclature between the sources is fuzzy. As I see it, there are three types of products that are described as Heat-not-Burn in one source or another.

1. Devices that take their own propriety(?) containing tobacco cartridges - the sources and the article refer to these inserts as "tobacco sticks".
2. The various vaporisers that allow the consumption of "dry" products, such as loose-leaf tobacco and recreational drugs (e.g. cannabis, crystal meth etc).
3. Last, the liquid systems - such as the eTron 3T liquid and CBD oil - which are derived from the plant material; but don't (or at least are not intended to) contain the source material when consumed by the end user.

Whilst technically accurate; it doesn't help that, when group 2 is being used to consume tobacco, the medically leaning sources tend to lump group 1 and 2 under the term "heated tobacco products".

This article does a commendable job of addressing these three product groups (CBD oil use being the exception, as that's covered at the vaporizer article). Comparing the article to smoking (a WP:BCA); I think my concerns would probably be dealt with if the products section was replaced with one that primarily covered the medium of consumption (i.e. pre-packaged, loose-leaf, and liquid) rather than the mechanism or the specific brands. The content wouldn't be lost, just rejigged. Little pob (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, and similar to what I suggested for the "related tech" section at the bottom of E-cigarettes. What would we do with the tobacco-specific content? Or with parallel specific content for cannabis and crystal meth and so on?

I agree that content on mechanism of consumption does not belong in a product list. Broad-brush: is the aerosol created by pyrolysis (charred residue), evaporating the drug itself (for low-boiling-point drugs; no residue), or ~flash boiling an aqueous solution/suspension of the drug (e-cigs; ideally leaves no residue). Explaining this for each product would be tedious, and it cross-cuts the socially and economically important distinction between proprietary and user-controlled refills, which I agree should be primary. I'd be happiest if the mechanism-based categorization was done by article scope, to avoid having to detail more than one mechanism per article. HLHJ (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: You support using a source that is about products that can also use cannabis rather than solely tobacco. This thread is also about a broader scope or a more limited scope. This suggests you support a broader scope for this article. The current article scope allows for different types of heat-not-burn products rather than solely tobacco stick products. Do you think content should be deleted from this page or should we keep the current brands on this page such as Ploom and Pax? QuackGuru (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Products for vaping cannabis are becoming more common, especially in areas where cannabis has been legalized; e.g. All of Canada, Colorado, etc. etc. But, in the other 99% of the world, those products are in a tiny niche market. So, I think they should continue to be covered briefly in this article only. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I am doing. There is a limited number loose-leaf vaporizers discussed in this article. See Electric smoking system#Products. QuackGuru (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed deleting the content, QuackGuru. I suggested moving loose-leaf vapourizers (tobacco or cannabis) to Vaporizer (inhalation device) (see cyan-edged yellow box above). Perhaps in this case, they should go under Vaporizer (inhalation device)#Marijuana vaporizers? The Esquire article provided by Peter K Burian lists both products that take e-liquid and those that take dry herb, saying which is which, but does not discuss the difference. The Hash oil article seems to distinguish between atomizing a liquid by flash-boiling the water, and pyrolyzing a dry solid by heating it to charring temperatures. However, the Vaporizer (inhalation device) article does not distinguish between vapourization and pyrolysis; which one occurs presumably depends on temperature and drug being used, but this could be clarified. HLHJ (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Arguments on using "Heat-not-burn" scope

Anchored statement:

See page 22. A 2018 Public Health England report states "Three tobacco manufacturers were promoting heated tobacco products: ‘IQOS’ was promoted by Philip Morris International, ‘glo’ by British American Tobacco, and ‘Ploom TECH' by Japan Tobacco International."[50]

See page 4. A Ministry of Health (New Zealand) report states "The third types use a heated sealed chamber to aerosolize nicotine from tobacco leaf directly (eg, Japan Tobacco International’s (JTI) Ploom)."[51]

In 2016, World Health Organization stated "There are a number of these tobacco products available on several markets. Examples include iQOS from Philip Morris International, Ploom TECH from Japan Tobacco International, Glo from British American Tobacco, and PAX from PAX Labs. "[52] Both Ploom and Pax are loose-leaf tobacco vaporizers that WHO states are examples of HTPS. This confirms they are within the scope of this article. Do you think they should be deleted from this article when WHO confirms they are one of the examples of HTPs? These examples are discussed in the article. See Electric_smoking_system#cite_ref-WHO2018_9-15. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The WHO also considers "diseases" a category, but we don't include all content on diseases in the article on diseases. It is more useful to have separate articles with narrower scopes, and a broad-concept article restricted to general statements. At the moment, this article is full of content that doesn't apply to the very broad scope you are suggesting (such as everything on nicotine and tobacco, which does not apply to cannabis products). The overbroad scope would force either removal, or clumsy parallel content on every recreational drug that can be heated, hence my advocacy of WP:CONSPLIT. HLHJ (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not just WHO. There are several sources that lump them together. For example, see "Another heat-not-burn device is the Ploom, developed by the Ploom Company and taken over by Japan Tobacco Inc. The Ploom Company, now called PAX Labs Inc, also developed the Pax and the Pax 2. These are both products that vaporize heated tobacco. Furthermore, The Firefly developed The Firefly 2, which heats loose-leaf plant material and concentrates and is often used to vaporize marihuana. During the time of our search, British American Tobacco was developing a product that combines tobacco and e-cigarette technology by heating nicotine-laced liquid into an inhalable vapor that passes through a bit of tobacco near the tip (iFUSE) [36]."[53] QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A lot of people other than the WHO also lump all diseases together. Some sources lump together e-cigarettes and Vaporizer (inhalation device), or e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes, or all nicotine products and all cannabis products. The question is which division would make for the best articles. How many generalizations apply to e-cigarettes like 3T, proprietary-refill charring cigarettes like IQOS, and more marijuana-focussed loose-leaf products like PAX? HLHJ (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been cited to support the inclusion of content such as PAX. PAX also uses loose-leaf tobacco and their vaporizers are referred to as heat-not-burn devices. See the eTron 3T section. It says "The heat-not-burn device uses nicotine and tobacco.[80]" So far, no editor has made a specific proposal for a split.[54] QuackGuru (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Heat-not-burn" is yesterday's hot marketing term, and a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon by applying it to totally dissimilar products. This is one of the things that I think makes the term a poor category and article scope.

The accuracy of "heat-not-burn" is also rather debatable. It does not describe charring products in the way most people would; charred toast is burnt toast, not heated sliced bread (for toasted toast, see Maillard reaction). HLHJ (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition

Can anyone suggest any source that clearly defines what a heat-not-burn product is, in functional terms? HLHJ (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Could this help? I'm not very good at finding sources but I'd rather try than just... not trying. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, NikkeKatski, I hadn't seen that source. They do draw a useful distinction between the two products that they examine. "A number of differences were identified between the two products notified in the UK, the most obvious being the temperature to which the tobacco is heated, which will potentially have an impact on the number and amount of compounds that thereby become volatile and can be inhaled by the user. There is also a difference in the source of the nicotine. In the product where the tobacco is heated directly, the nicotine is derived from the tobacco in the device, while for the other product the nicotine is present within the liquid that is aerosolised and passed through the tobacco". Their definition a bit vague; it could apply to a pack of cigarettes left on car seat on a sunny day (a car is a "controlled device", right?) .

They don't explicitly distinguish pyrolysis from oxidative combustion, which is sort of what I was looking for, but this makes sense as only one of the two products they looked at pyrolyzes. I have looked for good sources (though not as much as I might, in fairness; I've spent more time discussin old sources here of late), but most definitions are vague, confused, and/or inductive; X is a heat-not-burn tobacco product... Apart from Dautzenberg ("Ce produit à tabac quasi non chauffé se différencie des tabacs chauffés", this quasi-unheated tobacco product differs from heated tabacco [products]), I don't really get the impression that they are thinking in terms of criteria at all. Of course, there is no rule that says that common names in common use have to be used consistently or apply to a well-defined category, and we sadly can't have a worldwide RfC on fixing how the English language gets used. HLHJ (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That content from COT is summarised in the article. For example see "The temperature the tobacco reaches greatly varies among heat-not-burn tobacco products.[33] It depends on the process used to heat the tobacco.[33] HeatSticks are heated to a maximum of 350 °C, a temperature sufficient to enable pyrolytic decomposition of some organic materials,[15] while the glo iFuse heats tobacco to around 35 °C.[14]" QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Accord heated to 500 Celsius, and pyrolysis also happens at temperatures well below 350 Celsius; adding this info would give a fuller picture. But if we include non-tobacco products, then this scope is, in functional terms, "any product that heats any drug to any temperature between 35 and 500 Celsius". HLHJ (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources on categories (break for editing convenience)

@Staszek Lem: You support a title that would allow for a broader inclusion of products. This thread is also about a broader scope or a more limited scope. This suggests you support a broader scope for this article. The current article scope allows for different types of heat-not-burn products rather than solely tobacco stick products. Do you think content should be deleted from this page or should we keep the current brands on this page such as Ploom and Pax? QuackGuru (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It can be split if there are sources which have consensus to broadly classify these implements into categories, but wikipedians cannot invent these categories. The "descriptive title" clause applies only to recognized categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

They are not classified into different categories. According to the sources I presented above such as WHO they are classified into the same specific category. There is even content in the article that covers this. See "There are different types of heat-not-burn products in the marketplace.[12] Some examples include products that use tobacco sticks such as glo and IQOS, or products that use loose-leaf tobacco such as Pax and Ploom.[9]" QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, obviously these products are sometimes lumped together in sources; I don't think Staszek Lem is arguing that they must be distinguished in all sources. We have articles on Siamese cat and Sarabi Mastiff, despite the existence of sources lumping together dogs, cat, and even "domestic animals". I've tried to put together some information below.

Many sources distinguish these products, including both long-established Wikipedia articles and MEDRS. Type-one products are distinguished using terms like "loose-leaf", "heated chamber" "takes dry herb" and so on. The most common term is "Vaporizer", though for tobacco this is technically inaccurate. This category is notable, and we have an article on it, which was created years before e-cigarettes were invented. E-cigarettes, type three, are also usually distinguished by sources. The 3T press release cited is titled: "Vapor Tobacco Manufacturing LLC Announces Launch of Certified Organic eTron® 3T™ E-Liquid including Organic-filled Disposable E-Cigarettes; Industry First for the Vapor Industry". E-cigs take e-liquid refills and flash-boil them, which is distinct from taking solid refills and pyrolysing them.

MEDRS: Dauzenberg et al. 2018 writes about the full range of heated tobacco products (including new ones unmentioned in older sources) and categorizes them. It distinguishes type-3 products that draw e-cigarette aerosol through tobacco, heating the tobacco to around body temperature, saying "This quasi-unheated tobacco product is distinguished from heated tobaccos" (my translation:"Ce produit à tabac quasi non chauffé se différencie des tabacs chauffés.") The same source says that measurements of the quasi-unheated tobacco emissions are very similar to those from e-cigarettes ("produits de la vape"). It also calls both quasi-unheated and pyrolyzing tobacco products that use liquids "hybrid" tobacco products (obviously, hybrid with e-cigs) but distinguishes them by the maximum temperature the tobacco reaches and the effect on the emissions; they say that the higher temperatures could produce more toxic emissions.

As I mentioned, recent marketing campaigns have deliberately sought to blur the boundaries between different types of products that MEDRS draws. However, marketing campaigns are not even WP:RS, and we are talking about aspects of product function that clearly have health effects, and so must use WP:MEDRS.

How should we decide whether a product belongs here or in Vaporizer (inhalation device) or e-cigarette, if not on a functional basis? Should all content from Vaporizer (inhalation device) should be merged to this article (that is, any device that can heat loose drugs without reducing them to ash should be included in this article)? What happens if some sources call a product a vaporizer and some call it heat-not-burn? What if some call it an e-cigarette? HLHJ (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

How do we distinguish it? Edit the article. See "There is an iFuse hybrid system that uses Neopods cartridges.[13] It heats tobacco to approximately 35 °C.[13] Although it is still a tobacco product, it is different than other heated tobacco products.[13]" Under the glo section it also says "glo uses tobacco sticks called Neostiks in France.[13] " The same company makes different products. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. What is your formal definition of the scope of the article? HLHJ (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede sentence and title change will define the article scope. See "There are various types of heat-not-burn products.[notes 1][12]" The RfC is practically over for the title change. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that, as we have an RfC on article scope, it will define the article scope. I agree that the lede sentence and title must match the scope, which is why I advocate postponing those discussions. HLHJ (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

See #anchored statement. There is a consensus among sources that theses products are lumped together into the same category. This includes heat-not-burn (heated tobacco) loose-leaf tobacco vaporizers, according to WHO. No evidence to the contrary has been presented that products such as Pax and Ploom are not heat-not-burn (heated tobacco) products. QuackGuru (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Answered at the anchored statement. QuackGuru, can you please not repeat the same arguments in multiple places? RfC arguments should be concise. HLHJ (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC on article scope? IMHO the title and lede should be the best way to define an article's scope, and we can work on the article from there. It would be weird to decide on a scope and then the title and lede also need to be changed again along with the article content as well. Seems like a more fluid choice to press on with title and lede discussions. It also might make the article feel more organic. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The title change to "heat-not-burn product" would fix the issues for the scope. The lede sentence defines the scope for this broad article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No specific proposal for a split

Key points:

See Electronic_cigarette#Related_technologies: "The eTron 3T from Vapor Tobacco Manufacturing, launched in December 2014,[432] employs a patented, aqueous system whereby the tobacco is extracted into water.[433] The e-liquid contains organic tobacco, organic glycerin, and water.[432]" There is no need for addition content in the e-cig page. If an editor wants to delete content from this page they should say they want to delete content from this page rather than claiming they want to split content to the e-cig page.

See Electric_smoking_system#Construction: "Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat tobacco leaves at a lower temperature than traditional cigarettes.[23] Heat-not-burn tobacco products usually heat up tobacco, rather than use liquids.[56] Another type of heat-not-burn tobacco product is the loose-leaf tobacco vaporizer that entails putting loose-leaf tobacco into a chamber, which is electrically heated using an element.[57] Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[9] There are devices that use cannabis.[27] They are not e-cigarettes.[9] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as combining an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for using tobacco or e-liquid.[26]" This also explains the scope of the article.

See Electric_smoking_system#Products: "Some examples include products that use tobacco sticks such as glo and IQOS, or products that use loose-leaf tobacco such as Pax and Ploom.[9]" The sources define these in the same category. Therefore, there is no logical reason to split the content. There is safety content cited to WHO and other sources. Moving it to another article makes no sense, especially when Pax and Ploom are defined as heat-not-burn (heated tobacco) products. See #anchored statement.

There is no article called "Electric cigarette-smoking product". That was not a specific proposal on the talk page. The name "Electric cigarette-smoking product" can be confusing when it is similar to names found in the e-cig article. So far, there has not been a specific proposal for a split. Before deciding on a split there should be a specific proposal of exactly what is going to be split. A proposal should be specific. The lede sentence defines the article scope. See Electric_smoking_system#cite_ref-StaalvandeNobelen2018_12-1. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: What? This split discussion/RfC was started by you. Did you read WP:SPLIT before you started it?

• It lays out how a split proposal should be approached.
• It explicitly states to add the tag you've removed. (Since re-added by me.)
• It provides a guideline that articles over 100kB (100,000 chars) should "almost certainly should be divided". This article is currently over 124kB.

That said there is no clear consensus to split. And, we get it; you don't want the article split regardless. So why did you even start the proposal? Little pob (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what content does anyone want split to other articles? After a long discussion and without a specific proposal I think we have reached the end of this discussion.

I started this RfC because an editor kept talking about a split. I got tired of it. I also got tired of the pizza image discussion. You added a spilt tag for splitting content to different pages including the e-cig page. What content do you want to split to the e-cig page and Electric cigarette-smoking product page? The Electric cigarette-smoking product page is a red link. What content do you want to split into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) page? See "PAX vaporizers[121] referred to as heat-not-burn vaporizers,[122] are sold by Pax Labs (formerly known as Ploom).[123]" See "The Pax 2 uses loose plant material such as tobacco or cannabis.[124]" Also see "The Ploom Tech product heats up more and thus may generate more harmful emissions.[13] It is referred to as a heat-not-burn device.[129]" See "The capsules are aluminum and the tobacco heats up to 180 °C.[13]" Both Pax and Ploom can use tobacco. Both are on-topic, according to WHO. QuackGuru (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, QuackGuru. I started this RfC because an editor kept talking about a split. Ok, it might have been worth suggesting that they start the split discussion? I know it can seem more efficient to just do it yourself; but, by doing it for them, we're left with the way you've interpreted their concerns to then phrase the RfC. In this case, a simple yet open-ended "Split? Yes/No" (please excuse my heavy paraphrasing). Whereas if they'd started the RfC, they might have elaborated on the specific content in the proposal, and the editors who've !voted (including yourself) would have known what content said editor thought could be better served elsewhere.

You added a spilt tag for splitting content to different pages including the e-cig page. No, I manually restored it after you deleted it, despite the RfC still being open. I was not the editor who originally added it, and that is my only edit to the article.[55]

What content do you want to split into the Vaporizer (inhalation device) page? In the article's current form? Any content to do with vaporisers, if it's not already mentioned there. That's the primary topic. That's where it should be (IMO). That said though, and I'm not yet willing to strike or ammend my !vote, I have already stated that my concerns could actually be addressed in a different manner than a split.

Again, and as far as I can tell; you, as the RfC opener, can withdraw the question. That does mean someone else can start a new split RfC - though I suspect there will be no clear consensus then either. However, if they were tempted to run this RfC, I'd suggest they wait until some of the other RfCs have closed and been actioned (if relevant) - especially the RfC on the article title given the arguments made around the scope. Little pob (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

For COI disclosure, I'm the editor cited by QG when opening this RfC, and I added the split tag to the article. This RfC has been running for just over a week. Since RfCs usually run for about 30 days (the default period set by Legobot), and often 60, I'm inclined to wait and discuss a bit and see if consensus emerges. I don't favour closing this RfC and opening another, because when other editors have put a fair bit of time into an RfC, and the issue is not yet settled, withdrawing the RfC seems a bit wasteful. Since this is a recurrent issue, I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment for clarification of guidelines on withdrawal. I think in the future it would be good to discuss RfC questions before opening them, and do a few at a time in a logical sequence. HLHJ (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to split content to Electronic cigarette for eTron 3T? There is content on it in that page. See "The eTron 3T from Vapor Tobacco Manufacturing, launched in December 2014,[433] employs a patented, aqueous system whereby the tobacco is extracted into water.[434] The e-liquid contains organic tobacco, organic glycerin, and water.[433]" If you don't want to split it into Electronic cigarette then you should update your vote. If you want to split it into Electronic cigarette then what exactly do you want to split? You added a tag with a red link to "Electric cigarette-smoking product". Explanation? QuackGuru (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see such a split being reasonable, but you have mentioned previously that the article already covers everything stated here, am I correct QuackGuru? Deletion of the content doesn't seem to bad on paper considering its already covered on another article. I would be all for deletion if we were to decide that the eTron 3T in general isn't covered by the term "Heat-Not-Burn" product. (I know the FDA seems to separate HnB and E-Cigs in one case) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Content on eTron 3T is covered in the e-cig page with two sentences. Adding more content would be unreasonable. Electronic_cigarette#Related_technologies contains a brief summary of different related technologies to the e-cig. The eTron 3T is called a heat-not-burn device. It uses a patented process that is different than a regular e-cig. There are hybrid products that are somewhere in-between an e-cig and a heat-not-burn product. We discuss those in this article such as glo iFuse. It would be a mess to create two similar articles for the same broad topic.

Vaporizer (inhalation device) does not cover heat-not burn products. This article covers the different types of products. For example, see "Another type of heat-not-burn tobacco product is the loose-leaf tobacco vaporizer that entails putting loose-leaf tobacco into a chamber, which is electrically heated using an element.[23]" There is also Electric_smoking_system#Health_effects that is related to the different types of products. No other page discuses the health effects and construction of these different products. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see the differences now thanks for pointing it out. Its impossible to avoid some overlapping content in wikipedia but we should definitely keep the bulk of it where it belongs. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Originally it was tagged as off-topic to that article. I then proceeded to add a second sentence. When there is overlapping content that is too much on one page I do acknowledge it. On another related page the dispute has lasted for over a year. I even asked the article creator to support a redirect and I would spend extra time fixing the issues. Before content from this page was moved to other pages I thought a RfC was necessary. I don't want to wait a year to try to move back the content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd start the RfC then, for multiple reasons really. RfCs take a huge amount of time debating and !voting and revising for a long period of time already. If you were to put off the decision for a future date then that would only slow everything else down for a long time as it seems most of our progress is revolving around these RfCs being dealt with. I can also understand however why it would've been good to let the origin of the idea start the RfC though. In future cases you could ask them to start the RfC themselves first? If not I still support the RfC being started as long as the originator of said idea gets to share what his thoughts were in the RfC. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

They tried to start a RfC before. It was malformed and confusing. See Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 7. I started this and editors understand what I am discussing. I started several RfCs in order to save time in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a poorly-phrased RfC; I think it was my third, and I tried to jam too much content into it to save time. I've now learned better, I hope. For as long as I can look back and see that I have been foolish and incompetent, I'll know that I'm still learning; it's unfortunate that others have to suffer from the process too, tho .

A low-quality source (a site dedicated to suggesting products which can be sold in a convenience store) calls the eTron 3T "heat-not-burn", but I'm not sure that's reliable (tagged for a bettter source). While the refill fluid is produced by the device, not purchased ready-made, I'm not sure that there is anything else that differentiates the 3T from other e-cigarettes. If it were both an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn device, would that be a reason for covering it in more detail here than at e-cigarette? I'm not clear what you think about loose-leaf products, QuackGuru. Are you saying that "heat-not-burn" is a hypernym of "vapourizer"? If so, should details on specific vapourizers be in the more specific article? HLHJ (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The source is good enough for the claim for 3T. See "Another class of “heat, not burn” product is the loose-leaf tobacco vaporizer (LLTV) that involves placing loose-leaf tobacco (also used in “roll your own” cigarettes) into a chamber that is heated by an electrically-powered element."[56] QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you've removed the better-source tags, QG. I wasn't arguing that the source was not independent or secondary; it may well be. I just don't think it has any particular claim to expertise or reliability, apart from for sourcing statements like "the 3T is sold at convenience stores". Certainly if we are going to require MEDRS for all statements about the nature and function of a product, we need a better source. HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that the basic pyrolysis process can be the same in loose-leaf products as in cigarette-charring devices. However, chamber-fill products can take a variety of substances, and also differ economically and culturally from somethign like IQOS. I'm not arguing that the article scope must match the scope of the term "heat-not-burn", which seems to me to be used rather loosely and inconsistently. HLHJ (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What they contain is not explicitly a health claim, especially for such mundane claims. The article scope is generally defined by the term "heat-not-burn" *is* my argument and I presented sources to backup my claim under the anchor statement. You disagreed with WHO and other sources I presented. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You earlier saidIf that a non-MEDRS medical article was insufficient to source a statement that these products char tobacco, or describe charring, but you are using then this low-quality source would logically seem to be inadequate to classify the product as "heat-not-burn", deinspite of better sources saying that it is an e-cigarette. This seems to me to lack consistancy.

I attempted to make this proposal more specific by adding templates to some sections I thought should be split off; you removed them, commenting "There is a split tag at the top of the page". I don't think having a general template makes section-specific templates undesirable. HLHJ (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Be careful to not change your comments after an editor gave you a reply. This seems to you to be a lack consistency. I said before this was a compromise. I added just one sentence knowing in the future it will be replaced with a better source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to add multiple tags when one does the same job. There are hybrid products that are both an e-cig and a heat-not-burn product or fit somewhere in-between. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm normally careful not to do that, but I didn't notice this time. It does indeed lack consistency, and I think I'd better sign off. If in future it will be replaced by a better source, could you please leave the "better source needed" tags in place? Section-specific tags are more specific. HLHJ (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "If in future it will be replaced by a better source, could you please leave the "better source needed" tags in place?" There is no tag for the charring claim. The clams for the 3T is good enough for the simple claims. Section-specific tags are not needed when there is one towards the top of the page. Multiple tags are a distraction to the readers.

If the sentence about charring is tagged I have two options. Delete it or start a RfC. I will not leave a tag in the article when an editor thinks there is a problem. This is a mature article. Problems should not continue for a high quality article. If you want me to delete the charring claim I will delete it. In about 6 months or a year there will be better sources for charring. There is no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for being inappropriately personal in my argument earlier, and have underline-amended my comment, above, to focus on content. I don't follow the arguement that there are no tags or problems in the article because it is high-quality and mature, though I'd agree with the converse statement. I will discuss charring and the sources for it above when I have time; if you wish to tag "The IQOS HeatSticks do not generate a flame, they are charred following use.", then you are of course free to do so. HLHJ (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you think should be tagged? There is a split tag claiming there is a discussion for splitting content to Electronic cigarette. There is no specific current proposal. Either explain what you want split or update your vote would be best. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by your reply. I wish to tag sections which I think are off-topic. That's why I tagged them, to specifically identify some of what I think should be split out. I'm still not sure why you removed these tags. Others may, of course, make other proposals, but my specific proposal is to split by function, as detailed in the yellow-and-cyan box above. Does anyone else find it too vague? HLHJ (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One tag at the top for a split is sufficient. I assume you no longer want to add any in-line tags. Splitting by function does not improve the page when there are many types of products that are categorised as heat-not-burn products. The reader should have one page to read about the different products rather than split them up into different pages. This page is not a limited scope article to focus mainly on IQOS. QuackGuru (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I do not want to add inline tags when I have added them and argued against their removal? I see many things I'd like to fix, or failing that tag, in this article.

If there are many functionally-different types of products that are categorized as heat-not-burn products, a disambiguation page would be appropriate. The reader should have different pages to read about the different products. HLHJ (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What sentences you tagged before you still want the inline tags restored? A disambiguation page would be not appropriate when they are classified in the same category. The MEDRS sources categorise different types of products as heat-not-burn products. Therefore, they are within the scope of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The "better source" tag on the sentence designating the 3T as "heat-not-burn", as discussed above, for instance. HLHJ (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The citation you tagged was removed a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The new citation is a lightly-rewriten press release in a tobacco industry mag. The mag does not make the "heat-not-burn" claim, but quotes the manufacturer as having made it. I think "better source" still applies. HLHJ (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The tobacco reporter is used several times in this article and at the time you did not tag it being used for other content. I don't see an issue with using a source that goes into detail about tobacco topics. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-close comments

Note: A comment above cites the article as "over 100kB". The size of page-source is not reliably correlated with the visible size of an article. For the purposes of guideline Splitting#Size split the article is considered to be 54kb of readable prose. Alsee (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See Prose: Characters: 55,862. See "The article Vaporizer (inhalation device) is not about heat-not-burn-products and there already is content about eTron 3T in the e-cigarette article." QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies on the article size thing. I've either glossed over the xtools/wmflabs link whilst skimming the splitting page, or gone straight to the table and not read the prose around it. Unfortunately, both are representative of my neurotype. (Though I do tend to double-check, I will forget when I'm drive-by posting.)

@QuackGuru: re:[57] that FDA source only states that "Non-Combusted Cigarettes" (i.e. the pre-packaged tobacco products) are sometimes called heat-not-burn products, and it doesn't speak of the other product types within the WP article. However, I don't recall saying heat-not-burn wasn't used in the sources or applied to the products covered within Electric smoking system. I'm sorry if I left you with a different impression.

It's nice that we're in agreement on the need for a broad-concept article. I don't think it's there yet. To me it's currently somewhere between a BCA and a WP:SIA. If I get the chance, I'll draft something to show what I'm envisioning - rather than just keep saying "I don't like..." Little pob (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Brands

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.

---

Should we delete any of the brands such as Electric smoking system#glo products from the Electric smoking system#Products section? QuackGuru (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommended actions on brands

• No. The brands are relevant to this article and no good reason has been given to deleting them. I prefer the content about the various types of heat-not-burn brands be kept in the same article rather than deleting some of them or scattering them to other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• no per Quackguru--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on brands

The list of brands include eTron 3T, Firefly vaporizers, glo products, IQOS, iSmoke OneHitter, IUOC 2, lil, Mok, Pax vaporizers, Ploom vaporizers, Pulze, TEEPS, and V2 Pro products. See Electric smoking system#Products. So far, no rationale has been given to removing any of the brands. There are products that use tobacco sticks, and there are others that use liquid tobacco. These different products function differently but they are still categorized as heat-not-burn products, according to the FDA.[58]

The FDA states "There are a variety of products colloquially called heated tobacco products and heat-not-burn products that do not appear to fit easily into universally agreed upon product categories. Products currently sold in global markets may function in various ways."[59] I provided sources that speak of other products in the article. For example, see "The heating-system enclosed in a device, can be an external heat source to aerosolize nicotine from specially designed cigarettes (ex. iQOS and Glo), or a heated sealed chamber to aerosolize nicotine directly from tobacco leaf (ex. Ploom and Pax)."[60] See page 22. A 2018 Public Health England report states "Three tobacco manufacturers were promoting heated tobacco products: ‘IQOS’ was promoted by Philip Morris International, ‘glo’ by British American Tobacco, and ‘Ploom TECH' by Japan Tobacco International."[61] See page 4. A Ministry of Health (New Zealand) report states "The third types use a heated sealed chamber to aerosolize nicotine from tobacco leaf directly (eg, Japan Tobacco International’s (JTI) Ploom)."[62] Also see "The main products are: THS2.2 (Iqos®) which heats mini-cigarettes at 340°C, the THP1.0 (Glo®) which heats at 240°C sticks delivering about half as much nicotine, Ploom® which uses reconstituted tobacco microcapsules heated at 180°C."[63]

In 2016, World Health Organization stated "There are a number of these tobacco products available on several markets. Examples include iQOS from Philip Morris International, Ploom TECH from Japan Tobacco International, Glo from British American Tobacco, and PAX from PAX Labs. "[64] See "Another heat-not-burn device is the Ploom, developed by the Ploom Company and taken over by Japan Tobacco Inc. The Ploom Company, now called PAX Labs Inc, also developed the Pax and the Pax 2. These are both products that vaporize heated tobacco. Furthermore, The Firefly developed The Firefly 2, which heats loose-leaf plant material and concentrates and is often used to vaporize marihuana. During the time of our search, British American Tobacco was developing a product that combines tobacco and e-cigarette technology by heating nicotine-laced liquid into an inhalable vapor that passes through a bit of tobacco near the tip (iFUSE) [36]."[65] See "RJR introduced the first heat-not-burn product—Premier 'smokeless' cigarettes—in the USA in 1988."[66] See "Eclipse was Reynolds' first national attempt at the heat-not-burn category, in distribution from 2003 to 2007."[67] I don't think there is a good reason to delete content that is relevant to this article. The sources indicate these type of products are relevant to this article.

It was suggested to move content to the Vaporizer (inhalation device) article but that article is not about heat-not-burn products. This article is about the heat-not-burn type products. It was also suggested to move content to the electronic cigarette article, but that article does not need more content about heat-not-burn products.

See Electronic cigarette#Related technologies. Content about heat-not-burn products is in the electronic cigarette article. For example, see "The eTron 3T from Vapor Tobacco Manufacturing, launched in December 2014,[442] employs a patented, aqueous system whereby the tobacco is extracted into water.[443] The e-liquid contains organic tobacco, organic glycerin, and water.[442] In December 2013 Japan Tobacco launched Ploom in Japan.[444] In January 2016 they launched Ploom TECH[445] that produces a vapor from a heated liquid that moves through a capsule of granulated tobacco leaves.[446] In 2016 British American Tobacco (BAT) released its own version of the heat but not burn technology called glo in Japan[447] and Switzerland.[448] There is no room in the electronic cigarette article to add more content about heat-not-burn products.

This is a broad-concept article for a variety of products. This includes heat-not-burn products, heat-not-burn tobacco products, heated non-tobacco products, as well as hybrid products. For example, see the section glo products: "The glo iFuse debuted in Romania by British American Tobacco in 2015.[86] It is referred to as a heat-not-burn device.[98] It uses a cartridge with a tobacco stick and a flavored nicotine liquid.[86] It is a hybrid of a heat-not-burn tobacco product and an e-cigarette.[19]" QuackGuru (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2019 (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.

Pyrolyse

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.

---

Should we replace the word "heat" and/or "heat-not burn" with pyrolyse? QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. The word "pyrolyse" is not a more specific term for "heat" or "heat-not burn" The word "pyrolyse" is not interchangeable for "heat" and/or "heat-not burn". Each word has a different meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Where "pyrolyse" is what is meant. "Heat-not-burn" is a widespread term used to market certain tobacco products. Independent medical researchers criticize it as inaccurate. Independent researchers describe what happens in these products as "pyrolysis" (chemical term) and "charring" (common term, specific to organic matter).

Heated bread is warm, toast is browned by the Maillard reaction, and blackened toast is pyrolyzed/charred.

Wikipedia's voice should use the terms supported by the balance of reliable sources. Inaccurate and misleading terms should be avoided (and described, where notable). Where "pyrolysed" is meant, "heated" should not be used.HLHJ (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples where "pyrolysed" is meant: "The products use a heating system where the tobacco is heated and aerosolized" and "which heats loose-leaf plant material... and is often used to vaporize cannabis" (italics added). HLHJ (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)(poor examples, see discussion)

I mainly object to the term "heat-not-burn" being applied to pyrolysing products. "Pyrolyse-not-oxidatively-combust" would be accurate, or, more colloquially, "char-not-flame". I do not advocate these, or any specific paraphrase, as a substitute. I argue that the term "heat-not-burn" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice, even if it is used in some sources, like the industry magazine Tobacco Reporter and industry press releases. Verifiability does not require that we use the terminology of poor and WP:BIASED sources, even when it is condemned as inaccurate by more reliable sources. HLHJ (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, we must reflect the sources. As much as we have the WP:TECHNICAL guideline and Wikipedia:Use plain English essay; WP:V is policy. If the source states pyrolyse/pyrolysed/pyrolysis we should be using that. If the source uses heat(-not-burn) we must state that. Anything else could be construed as a WP:SYNTH violation. If the source is clearly using both terms synonymously, we could chop-and-change within the text the source is supporting. However, in such instances, I'd favour something more like "[consumable material] is heated (via pyrolysis)", then continuing with the simpler "heat" term. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Little pob: What if multiple sources discuss one device, and some sources use "pyrolyse" and some use "heat"?
    • We should always weigh the WP:Reliable sources against each other when multiple sources are being used. That can be easier said than done though. In those instances - if multiple sources being used to support content, and they use differing nomenclature; but it's clear they are talking around the same point - I'd rather spell it out in full (e.g. heated via pyrolysis), then continue to use the simpler term. To be clearer; my "no" is to a blanket change. Specific changes should follow WP:BRD. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, not unless paraphrasing a reliable source that uses the term in this context. Even then, if there is only one source, the term may be undue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a MEDRS which says that all heated tobacco products generate emissions by pyrolysing tobacco (with one exception which it deems "quasi-heated"). There are other sources that say that the process is pyrolysis, but they are often specific to invididual products. Most sources also use "heat" (no-one says "electric pyrolysing element"). If you can tell me the level of evidence you think is needed, Johnuniq, I will see if I can assemble it. HLHJ (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    • This discussion is not about what other sources state. That is off-topic to this discussion. This discussion is about replacing the word "heat" and/or "heat-not burn" with pyrolyse. Do you think we should replace sourced content with failed verification content? QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Use / keep heat-not-burn (invited by the bot) We're here to communicate the main facts, and using the common meanings of terms. The main fact is that it is heated up but does not catch on fire as it does in cigarettes. We're also communicating what term is commonly used for that. Trying to replace this with describing the nature of the chemical transformation that occurs (a different aspect/topic), and using an esoteric term to do so has those two problems. Other details (such as the nature of the transformation that occurs)can be covered as such in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on pyrolyse

For the previous RfC see Talk:Electric smoking system/Archive 7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. Marketing claims do not require MEDRS sources. "Pyrolyse" is not interchangeable with "heat" or "heat-not burn".[68] For a related RfC see Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Aerosol_and_smoke.

According to HLHJ, "My understanding is that a consensus to use a consistent term overrides the term used in a specific source, as it has at the e-cigarettes article. Independent and non-independent, or technical and non-technical sources, may well use different terms, while the Wikipedia article uses a single consistent one. As long as it is clear that we are talking about the same thing, and are thus still accurately representing the source, I don't see this as a verification problem."[69] HLHJ, do you see it as a failed verification now? QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)(section split by HLHJ)

I do not see using a consensus-recognized synonym as a verification problem. HLHJ (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No source used in this article says smoke is a consensus-recognized synonym for aerosol. There are products that use low heat that do not produce smoke such as glo iFuse. You stated 'Where "pyrolysed" is meant, "heated" should not be used.' Please provide an example. The terms used in this article are supported by each source. A balance of reliable sources overall to change the meaning of different sentences would create a verification problem. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

As I have said, smoke is a type of aerosol, and I consider the glo iFuse out of scope. I, in that earlier discussion, was discussing a statement by Carl Fredrik, who said 'there is clear consensus to use "smoke"'. I thought he meant a consensus among editors of this article to use "smoke", not "vapour" or "aerosol". You stated an RfC on this topic, so I assume that you also consider an editor's-consensus decision on terminology possible. Examples added. HLHJ (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are not examples where "pyrolysed" is meant:

See "The products use a heating system where the tobacco is heated and aerosolized.[11]" WHO does not mention pyrolyse.

See "The Firefly developed the Firefly 2, which heats loose-leaf plant material and concentrates and is often used to aerosolize cannabis.[14]" The citation verifies heat not pyrolyse. This source also does not mention "pyrolyse". I see changing them to "pyrolyse" as a verification problem. Even WP:IAR, does not allow changing sourced content to failed verification content. I changed it to a more formal word. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because the WHO is discussing both pyrolysing devices and the 35 Celsius device, which obviously does not pyrolyze. I should not have used this example, as it is dependent on the article scope RfC above. For clarity, I do not support a statement that the 35 Celsius device pyrolyses.

I cannot find a source discussing the process by which the Firefly works. However, it seems that in cannabis, releasing a psychoactive aerosol without pyrolysis is in fact possible. It seems I was wrong; struck. My apologies; I should have taken more time to reply.

Returning to IQOS, there are a lot of sources on this product, and some very specific statements. The article does not mention pyrolysis at all in the IQOS section, but states "They are heated to a lower temperature" "The stick is inserted into the holder which then heats it to temperatures up to 350 °C". I think the section should mention pyrolysis, but this is not a serious problem; I have added a short sentence ("IQOS pyrolyses tobacco and emits smoke") which I consider fixes it. My main issue is the term "heat-not-burn"; see my !vote. HLHJ (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your main issue is the term "heat-not-burn". Do you want to replace "heat-not burn" or "heat" with "pyrolyse" and/or with "charring" without providing good examples? Do you think it is irrelevant what each source states and we should use the terms supported by the balance of reliable sources?

On another article, the quote did not verify the claim. The content is making a boarder claim than the source. Same issues here. The quote also did not verify the claim. This was tried before. The quotes are making a more general claim than the content. The IQOS content about smoke is already in another section. See "Heat-not-burn tobacco products including IQOS generate smoke.[15] Up until 2016, Phillip Morris International researchers stated their IQOS product produces smoke.[15]" We discussed this before about IQOS and smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

HLHJ, you stated Where "pyrolysed" is meant, "heated" should not be used. That would be replacing sourced content with failed verification contet. Why? QuackGuru (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

Another wrong WHO claim

The second sentence of the article teaches A heat-not-burn tobacco product (heated tobacco product) heats up tobacco using a battery-powered heating system with a reference to url=http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/. This is wrong as there are heat-not-burn tobacco products that neither use a battery nor electricity.--193.222.161.35 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source for neither use a battery nor electricity. QuackGuru (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a reliable(/secondary) source but it apparently does exist? However it is pretty obvious that a non-electrical heat-not-burn product is out of the norm. Inclusion is most likely not WP:DUE as only one search result (of 'Platform 2') on the first page is related to the actual product and even then its only a primary source. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Platform 2 is also known commercially as TEEPS. I found a source for it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on IQOS section

The IQOS section asserts: 1 - "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke, including volatile organic compounds at comparable levels to cigarette smoke, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at vast various ranges, and carbon monoxide."

And it goes on:

2 - "All of these elements, on the basis of extensive research of cigarette smoke, have been shown to cause serious harms to human health".

Both of these assertions are based on the https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/1/e20172383 citation.

It should be clear that this citation is an editorial at best. It is not a primary source, a meta-analysis or an analysis at all. It can't be considered a reliable source for these claims. Moreover, the section contradicts itself in the following lines: "little research on what substances are released after the device heats the tobacco-based paste. The physical effects on users are also not yet known".

As such I would suggest removing any assertions linked to this source.

Now for a direct critique of the source:

I would argue that assertion 1 that can't be true. Smoke varies from cigarette to cigarette, from brand to brand and so on. Maybe the author meant "similar" or that the constituents are not significantly different in terms of health hazards. But they don't provide a source for it (nor I think they could).

Assertion 2 is, simply put, a fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity).

V3n0w (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The article says "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke, including volatile organic compounds at comparable levels to cigarette smoke, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at vast various ranges, and carbon monoxide.[3] Each of these substances, on the basis of rigorous research of cigarette smoke, are known to result in significant harms to health.[3]"

It is supported by the review.[70] See "Pediatrics. 2018 Jan;141(1). pii: e20172383. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2383. Epub 2017 Dec 12. Review. No abstract available"[71] It is listed as a "Review". It does not contradict that that there is still little research on the topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The "review" merely claims such things without providing any analysis or evidence. It is an argument of authority and, as such, could not be counted as a reliable source for these specific claims.

It does clearly contradicts. More specifically the phrase "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke" assumes the full knowledge of the "harmful constituents" of the IQOS emissions (as well as the ones from the cigarette smoke) while on "little research on what substances are released after the device heats the tobacco-based paste" it says that there is little research on the topic, on what substances are released. In any case, this is irrelevant since the claims are not based on anything.

Finally and frankly, I believe Wikipedia should be as scientific accurate as possible. Citing "reviews" that measures impact based on Facebook mentions and, more importantly, asserts without evidence, is of no help. V3n0w (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You stated "The "review" merely claims such things without providing any analysis or evidence." but it is based on a 2017 study. See "The authors of independent studies have identified cancer-causing chemicals in the smoke emitted by HNB tobacco products. In 1 study, the authors compared the contents of the IQOS with the contents of conventional cigarettes by using a smoking device designed to capture the mainstream aerosol and developed to meet the standards for common cigarettes.2"[72]

MEDRS does not actually require sources to prove what they state. There is limited research on this topic area. If there were a lot of research there would be a much longer article or many subarticles. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)