Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Appropriate splitting can now be done boldly by discussion participants. BD2412 T 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Heat-not-burn product → Heated tobacco product – "Heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US CDC (e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/heated-tobacco-products/index.html), US FDA, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana ( talk) 19:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Hello, here are past rename discussions which I manually pulled from this article's talk archives. I am just sharing them and I have no interpretation of them.
    Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support considering that the past discussions took place at a time when this article didn't seem to know what it was about, but editors seem to have narrowed the scope sufficiently to be specifically about devices used to vapourize tobacco products. And also per DrNicotiana's links that this is the preferred name used by health authorities, rather than relying on industry sources. However, I do still think there should be some kind of broad review of all these disparate articles, as we still have this article, electronic cigarette, and vaporizer (inhalation device), and they all seem to overlap somewhat, not to mention the various offshoots of this article like Composition of heat-not-burn product emissions. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support move to the name used by health authorities. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support HTP is increasingly the term used in scientific and health sources Cloudjpk ( talk) 01:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, definitely preferable to the current title (and per several of my comments from Archive 6). Dekimasu よ! 13:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I guess one concern is that not all of these are tobacco. I guess we could split of those that are not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If I can respond to Doc James point about the word tobacco, I think this is a useful benefit of the name change. It will allow splitting the clearly tobacco products (Accord, Eclipse/Revo/Neocore, Heatbar, Premier, Steam Hot One, glo, IQOS, IUOC, lil, Mok, Ploom, Pulze, Teeps) from the loose-leaf products (Firefly, OneHitter, Pax) that are really more used for cannabis in the same way a bong could be used for tobacco, but is predominantly used for cannabis. There's probably some technology overlap, but I think the categories are both different and substantial enough to separate them. And, at least in the US, they're regulated quite differently (FDA regulates the tobacco products, but not the predominantly-for-cannabis vaporizers). DrNicotiana ( talk) 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I suggest that the overlap is sufficient that the split would seldom be productive. In the real world HTP are being used to deliver other substances; the article should reflect that reality. Cloudjpk ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed there is some overlap that we can discuss after name is nailed down. DrNicotiana ( talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyeditor passing by

Hi. You probably got here from one of the many tags I added to the article. There are some things to unpack here.

  • Jargon. This article feels like it was written by someone who is in science, possibly medicine. Some of the information taken from research papers should be wikilinked or defined in-text, as unfamiliar readers are left to figure out what they mean. On the flip side, more specialised terms about smoking should also be defined, such as "throat hit".
  • Tone. Parts of the article are reaching for conclusions and use normative statements, such as Marketing slogans like "heat-not-burn" cannot be a substitute for science and This advertisement claim is not a replacement for science, and hard opinions like Philip Morris International intends to convert its customers in Japan to using heated tobacco products, which all skew the article's neutrality. It is not Wikipedia's job to tell readers how they should feel; readers should be able to do that themselves with the information given. These sentences should either be removed, or if pertinent enough, have the people who espouse these opinions attributed in-text.
  • Article structure. When I was first alerted to this article it was because of {{ repetition}}. After doing my first pass, I removed so many extraneous citations as virtually every sentence was cited, many of which to only one source for a paragraph. The article reads like a lightly-structured stream-of-consciousness piece, which goes far beyond copy editing: while information like the science and products are grouped together, there is no internal cohesion within them, leading to out-of-place sentences like Outside of an IQOS retail shop in Canada, marketing included a display sign with the message, "Building a Smoke-Free Future" peppered in the article. Interested editors should use this talk page to plan an outline to determine what each individual paragraph should focus on. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 18:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. What is this article even about? Is it about devices that heat tobacco (products)? Or rather about tobacco products that are heated? The first sentences alternate between those two: A heated tobacco product (HTP) is a tobacco product that heats the tobacco [...]. These products contain nicotine [...]. The heat generates an aerosol or smoke to be inhaled from the tobacco [...]. HTPs may also contain additives not found in tobacco [...].[32] HTPs generally heat tobacco [...]. 2A02:908:5A4:B000:81ED:F0AE:5001:E87 ( talk) 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Ploom

Is this the type product in the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Heated_tobacco_product&oldid=1207603114"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Appropriate splitting can now be done boldly by discussion participants. BD2412 T 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Heat-not-burn product → Heated tobacco product – "Heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US CDC (e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/heated-tobacco-products/index.html), US FDA, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana ( talk) 19:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Hello, here are past rename discussions which I manually pulled from this article's talk archives. I am just sharing them and I have no interpretation of them.
    Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support considering that the past discussions took place at a time when this article didn't seem to know what it was about, but editors seem to have narrowed the scope sufficiently to be specifically about devices used to vapourize tobacco products. And also per DrNicotiana's links that this is the preferred name used by health authorities, rather than relying on industry sources. However, I do still think there should be some kind of broad review of all these disparate articles, as we still have this article, electronic cigarette, and vaporizer (inhalation device), and they all seem to overlap somewhat, not to mention the various offshoots of this article like Composition of heat-not-burn product emissions. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support move to the name used by health authorities. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support HTP is increasingly the term used in scientific and health sources Cloudjpk ( talk) 01:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, definitely preferable to the current title (and per several of my comments from Archive 6). Dekimasu よ! 13:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I guess one concern is that not all of these are tobacco. I guess we could split of those that are not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If I can respond to Doc James point about the word tobacco, I think this is a useful benefit of the name change. It will allow splitting the clearly tobacco products (Accord, Eclipse/Revo/Neocore, Heatbar, Premier, Steam Hot One, glo, IQOS, IUOC, lil, Mok, Ploom, Pulze, Teeps) from the loose-leaf products (Firefly, OneHitter, Pax) that are really more used for cannabis in the same way a bong could be used for tobacco, but is predominantly used for cannabis. There's probably some technology overlap, but I think the categories are both different and substantial enough to separate them. And, at least in the US, they're regulated quite differently (FDA regulates the tobacco products, but not the predominantly-for-cannabis vaporizers). DrNicotiana ( talk) 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I suggest that the overlap is sufficient that the split would seldom be productive. In the real world HTP are being used to deliver other substances; the article should reflect that reality. Cloudjpk ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed there is some overlap that we can discuss after name is nailed down. DrNicotiana ( talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyeditor passing by

Hi. You probably got here from one of the many tags I added to the article. There are some things to unpack here.

  • Jargon. This article feels like it was written by someone who is in science, possibly medicine. Some of the information taken from research papers should be wikilinked or defined in-text, as unfamiliar readers are left to figure out what they mean. On the flip side, more specialised terms about smoking should also be defined, such as "throat hit".
  • Tone. Parts of the article are reaching for conclusions and use normative statements, such as Marketing slogans like "heat-not-burn" cannot be a substitute for science and This advertisement claim is not a replacement for science, and hard opinions like Philip Morris International intends to convert its customers in Japan to using heated tobacco products, which all skew the article's neutrality. It is not Wikipedia's job to tell readers how they should feel; readers should be able to do that themselves with the information given. These sentences should either be removed, or if pertinent enough, have the people who espouse these opinions attributed in-text.
  • Article structure. When I was first alerted to this article it was because of {{ repetition}}. After doing my first pass, I removed so many extraneous citations as virtually every sentence was cited, many of which to only one source for a paragraph. The article reads like a lightly-structured stream-of-consciousness piece, which goes far beyond copy editing: while information like the science and products are grouped together, there is no internal cohesion within them, leading to out-of-place sentences like Outside of an IQOS retail shop in Canada, marketing included a display sign with the message, "Building a Smoke-Free Future" peppered in the article. Interested editors should use this talk page to plan an outline to determine what each individual paragraph should focus on. — Tenryuu 🐲 (  💬 •  📝 ) 18:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. What is this article even about? Is it about devices that heat tobacco (products)? Or rather about tobacco products that are heated? The first sentences alternate between those two: A heated tobacco product (HTP) is a tobacco product that heats the tobacco [...]. These products contain nicotine [...]. The heat generates an aerosol or smoke to be inhaled from the tobacco [...]. HTPs may also contain additives not found in tobacco [...].[32] HTPs generally heat tobacco [...]. 2A02:908:5A4:B000:81ED:F0AE:5001:E87 ( talk) 16:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Ploom

Is this the type product in the article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Heated_tobacco_product&oldid=1207603114"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE