Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Turkey

Electronic cigarettes are on sale at http://www.elektroniksigaramarkalari.com/ As there is no citation in the article for laws restricting their sale I am changing the text to say they are legal. If you revert to illegal please cite the law. How do I change the color on the map please? Jzlcdh (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the picture with the information from Turkey, the map was self made which I have put on Wikicommons. 159753 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fork United States section

The section on the United States covers 50 states in detail. This is enough content to be its own article and could be forked then summarized here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. On the one hand: Yes, if the US section should be handled like it currently is, then it should be forked. On the other hand, i find it rather excessive/undue that under each state we mention towns/villages/hamlets/suburban local rules. (we mention local rules in such where the population <10,000). --Kim D. Petersen 13:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if we are listing those towns with laws on e-ciagerettes, we should also list all the towns that dont have them. AlbinoFerret 13:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ban/Medical device POV in the lede.

Considering that most countries do not ban e-cigarettes, or consider them medical devices, the lede is expressing significant WP:UNDUE focus on the view that they should be banned or considered as such. --Kim D. Petersen 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, its like adding that the world is flat to geography articles. While some people may believe that, and it can be sourced, it shouldnt be in the article. Adding that they are medical devices to this one in a prominent place is against WP:WEIGHT AlbinoFerret 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree it was not a good summary of the body. But is can be added to the body instead. The source says "some" countries. That is not a minority view. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced material

This text was deleted by Cloudjpk with no explanation, besides a link to a talk page discussion in another article.

Public health experts point out that electronic cigarettes use has been growing rapidly and that no proof of serious health risks has emerged, warning that misguided regulatory action could interfere with a safe substitute for smoking.

References

I would appreciate an explanation on the deletion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure! The extensive discussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this establishes there is no consensus for the cited McNeill item as a reliable source. Bates is even simpler; he has no scientific or public health credentials. Either reliable sources must be found to source, or these views must be cited as views, not as public health expertise. I have no problem with the latter; it seems useful to summarize the views of those opposed to regulation. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Please re-add and change the wording and attribute the views to those that held them rather than claiming that they are "health experts". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Cloudjpk (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! Let me know if I missed anything. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bates may well have no academic credentials in public health, but, as the former director of ASH, he could very well be considered an expert in public health, in particular when it comes to tobacco topics. See here his CV. On the other hand, the McNeill et al. authors are well-known experts in the field. Thus the current wording in the article is misleading and should be reverted to the factual, verifiable, and complete characterization of "Public health experts". Mihaister (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, do not agree. The extensive dicussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this deals with use of the cited McNeill item and does not require repeating here. Bates is an advocate, not a scientist. Public health expertise has recognized credentials; he does not have them. All the same, I am happy to represent their views and have done so and indeed find the inclusion of such views useful in documenting opponents' reasons. To characterize the items cited as expert violates NPOV. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:BLP when referring to living persons. With regards to Clive Bates here is his CV - make of it what you want. --Kim D. Petersen 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

An alternative is to fully attribute the POV and add a few words on their credentials, as in, "SoandSo, a former ASH director and SoandSo, an xyz expert, assert that.... ". - Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(Full disclosure, I am a vaper and stopped smoking a year ago thanks to e-cigarettes after several decades of tobacco smoking, now vaping on a sophisticated vaporizer.) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(congratulations!) Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with full attribution as suggested above by User:Cwobeel. What I don't agree with is the current characterization in the text as "opponents". That's a textbook example of WP:WEASEL and is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Mihaister (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of including the views is to give the reasons of those who oppose regulation. It would be hard to find a more neutral or more accurate term than "Opponents of regulation". What term do you suggest? Cloudjpk (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that by attributing and avoiding characterizations we can let the readers draw their own conclusions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That works for me! Cloudjpk (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SECONDARY?

No evidence has been presented that these sources are reviews. There is WP:CON that the McNeil source is unreliable. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical section. There was no consensus in that discussion on McNiel, thats why it couldnt be used to address the errors in Grana on the E-cigarette article. Its not being used for that purpose, but addressing regulation. For that purpose its a reliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown that any of these sources are reliable and there was no consensus to use the the McNeil source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable for the way they are used. This is not a medical page or section. They dont need to be MEDRS reviews, but McNiel is a MEDRS source. It is also attributed to them. At this point you need consensus to remove it since its been there at least two months. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You think they don't need to be reviews. In turn, I can infer that you think they are primary sources. That is a no-no. You can't ignore that the previous discussion showed that McNeil is unreliable. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have explained it to you but you dont hear it WP:IDHT. This is a non medical page, in a non medical section. It doesnt need to be a WP:MEDRS source because its not a medical page and its a non medical usage. It can be a a medical primary source or it could be a newspaper article. Its giving attribution to the people who made the conclusions. The sources are good enough for the way they are used. AlbinoFerret 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have acknowledged that both sources are primary sources. This is a clear violation of WP:SECONDARY. You can't use disputed primary sources for controversial claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They are published in reliable sources, the medical journals they are published in makes them reliable sources. You are still using terminology from WP:MEDRS when WP:RS is the controlling guideline. AlbinoFerret 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to policy shop WP:POLSHOP until you somehow hit the nail on the head. WP:SECONDARY does not apply because these are from journals, not a self published source the articles are secondary as they comment on the legal matters and none of the references are from lawyers or people involved in making laws. They are usable, and the references are good. You might want to read this "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia.". The references hit that nail on the head. AlbinoFerret 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to re-insert McNeill as a MEDRS compatible source (to discuss safety issues) and to contradict the WHO, which has not received consensus despite multiple discussions. I have therefore removed it. Yobol (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The material has been there a long time, months. The result of non consensus on long standing material is that it stays. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That it was placed against consensus and went unnoticed doesn't mean it has consensus now. Discussion on the main e-cig talk page and DRN discussion above clearly shows there is no consensus to use the source in this way. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Different page, different talk page. It isnt used to contradict Grana or the WHO. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't become magically MEDRS compliant because it is on a different Wikipedia page. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be MEDRS compliant on the legal page. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to all medical claims on all Wikipedia pages, i.e. "that no proof of serious health risks has emerged". Yobol (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats obvious because everything is "unknown" and its making that claim as it directly applies to laws not that there is a health benefit, or any health matter. Secondly, there was no finding in the DRN that McNiel was not MEDRS, but that there was no consensus for adding it. So it stayed out. This is the reveres, you are trying to remove long added claims, you need consensus to remove it. You dont have consensus to do that. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I regret I did not know that MEDRS applies to all medical claims; I had earlier allowed McNeil on this page not knowing that. I apologize. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if you did not know, there is no consensus for removing the claim, I think McNiel is MEDRS. In cases of non consensus of long standing material, the material remains per WP:NOCONSENSUS restore the edit, its been there almost two months. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown McNiel is MEDRS. But you previously stated it is a primary source. The part "no proof of serious health risks has emerged" is contradicting recent MEDRS reviews and is making a medical claim. The source is also not a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical article, the sources must adhere to WP:RS. And that is that. "No proof of serious health risk" is even correct per every other sources that exists - so i'm curious as to what you are harping on about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) And btw. a peer-reviewed paper is WP:SECONDARY in all areas of wikipedia except apparently for the medical arena.

Classic QG, twisting what was said. I didnt say it was one, but that a source could be a primary source, because this isnt a medical page. What review has found serious health claims? None. its all "Unknown" AlbinoFerret 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No evidence is needed to show that these are reviews, since reviews are not required. What is required is that the sources adhere to WP:RS, which they do. This is not a medical article, but one about policy. --Kim D. Petersen 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The question of consensus on McNeil has been asked and answered Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_13#McNeill_DRN_discussion_resolved.2C_no_consensus_to_include Cloudjpk (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Different context and different article. Here it is about policy, and not medicine. --Kim D. Petersen 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yobol: the recent edit [here] asserts MEDRS doesn't apply on this page; please clarify. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of the DRN was that McNiel would not be added to Electronic cigarette because of no consensus, this page was not part of E-cig at the time. It wasnt on the page already, so it wasnt added. This is a different page with a different situation. The claim has been here for about two months, if there is no consensus for its removal, per WP:NOCONSENSUS it remains, that WP policy. AlbinoFerret 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about a different article and another context is irrelevant here per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters. This is an article about policy and the politics of e-cigarettes and the sources are compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. In addition, the issue had been discussed previously and consensus reached. Edits to this particular statement cannot be made without an attempt to reach a different consensus per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mihaister (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the use of McNeill here

Per previous discussions there's not a consensus to use McNeill as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for health claims, so I've removed the health claims attributed to McNeill from the article. However McNeill's CV does show her as an authority on tobacco policy so I've left her in there for that purpose, and recharacterized her and Bates from health to policy experts. This avoids using the contentious source for medical claims and uses the individuals for their areas of strength in a way directly relevant to topic of this article, the legal status. I hope this resolves the dispute. Zad68 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not a bad rephrasing Zad. AlbinoFerret 01:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, Zad68. Mihaister (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have better sources we can delete the primary sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Removed_statement.2C_does_it_have_any_weight.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a replacement by the same people. Secondly, this is a page on regulation, not on the health effects. AlbinoFerret 10:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's right it is not a replacement by the same people. But we should use reviews or secondary sources instead of primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical page, the MEDRS requirements do not apply here to non medical claims, McNiel is used purely as a regulation claim. You are misusing the tag, remove the tags. AlbinoFerret 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained, we should use secondary sources or MEDRS secondary sources. Now that we got better sources we can remove the primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Those links are to journals, not self published sites. You need to drop the MEDRS requirements on this page. AlbinoFerret 11:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The threshold is WP:SECONDARY. QuackGuru (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not, and the sources are not primary sources according to the section you gave. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is secondary per WP:SECONDARY. Peer-reviewed articles are generally secondary by WP:RS, except within the very limited area of (clinical) research articles, which this isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Expanded a bit

I included a bit more from other medical bodies. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a legal opinion? Or is there any source to indicate that this has been influencing the legal status anywhere? Or is this simply another case of WP:SYN? --Kim D. Petersen 03:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The he International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease is part of the Forum of International Respiratory Societies,link the second line is a duplicate. They are also on the Positions of medical organizations page. Since this page and the Positions one are breakouts of E-cigarette, including them here is a duplication since they were there first. AlbinoFerret 19:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

These are two different statements. This is also at the Positions article: "In July 2014, The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report recommending governments ban the use of electronic cigarettes indoors, manufacturers be restricted from claiming e-cigarettes aid smoking cessation until they have robust evidence to validate the claim, prohibit sales to people under 18, and ban the use of vending machines.[5]" Nobody is saying to delete the WHO position statement too. QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The WHO statement is to a different source, the ones you added are to the same source as used in Positions. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another problem you have is that these are not being used for a medical usage, they are no longer under MEDRS. They look like they are a primary source under WP:RS. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

&NA; (August 2014). "E-Cigarettes". Oncology Times. 36 (15): 49–50. doi:10.1097/01.COT.0000453432.31465.77.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Bam, T. S.; Bellew, W.; Berezhnova, I.; Jackson-Morris, A.; Jones, A.; Latif, E.; Molinari, M. A.; Quan, G.; Singh, R. J.; Wisotzky, M. (1 January 2014). "Position statement on electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems [Official statement]". The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 18 (1): 5–7. doi:10.5588/ijtld.13.0815.

These are two different sources. Since you don't want to delete the WHO position statement you have not provided an argument to delete other statements. They are reliable, same as WHO, for the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You didnt seem to grasp what I said. The claims you added here today mirror the statements made on Positions. Both pages are breakouts of E-cig. They are duplicates that use the same sources here as on the Positions page. The reason the WHO statement is different is the WHO statement on the Positions page uses a different source than the one found here. AlbinoFerret 20:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the statements made on Positions is the same here. What is relevant is that the text is relevant to this page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, both Positions and Legal status are break out pages of E-cigarette. Thats why the WHO statement needed a different citation. I suggest finding others for those statements if you want them to stay. AlbinoFerret 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened at other articles is not relevant to this article. There is no point to using a different source for the same claim. The claim is relevant and the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If both pages are child pages of the main, it matters, its like you are placing the same information in two places on the same page because they are in essence still part of the main page. As I said, I suggest looking for different citations, because right now they are duplicates. After about a day or so if you havent found any they will be gone. AlbinoFerret 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Other pages do not decide what goes in this page. This page is not a subarticle of the other page. You acknowledge the text is fine but you claim I should use a different source for the same text? QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a sub article, this page was part of E-cigarette, there is still a summery on it on the page with a link here. AlbinoFerret 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it is a sub article. It is not a sub article of the other Positions article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They are both sub articles of E-cigarette. AlbinoFerret 01:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That does not change anything. You appear to understand the text is relevant to this page but claim a different source has to be used for the same text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The sub pages being sub pages of the same page means its a duplication. I should delete it now, and not give you a chance to find a replacement. Your wasting time. AlbinoFerret 02:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

According to your previous argument the text can stay if another source is provided. So you agreed it is relevant to this article. But it does not matter if the same source is used. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Im not playing word games with you. This is a simple concept. They are duplicates. AlbinoFerret 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There are lot of sources available on this. You agreed to use other sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Refrences 10, 12, and 13 have problems. 10 is from the Advice section, not the news section, its opinion, look at how its grouped at the bottom of the page. 12 is a press release, its not a reliable source. 13 is a quote of a statement of someone belonging to the organization, not a policy statement from them. AlbinoFerret 05:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I used another source. For the other reference I slightly adjusted the wording. I removed the other sources that were not needed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The new 9 was sourced to a worldpress blog site.AlbinoFerret 10:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Im going to have to look into it, but "Of course, more research is needed to establish the degree of danger, but until this research is done," is probably a medical claim. Secondly, how is this person a recognised expert on regulation? AlbinoFerret 10:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is about the regulation with some context. I used two other sources to verify the claim. She is a representative of the organization. QuackGuru (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They dont just need to be members of an organization but recognised experts in tobacco regulation. Just like McNiel and Bates are recognised experts, where is ist said this person is. AlbinoFerret 11:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A representative from the organization is representing the organization. Tara Singh Bam was also one of the authors of the position statement on electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

For that type of claim he would need to be a recognized expert in tobacco regulation. Membership in an orginazation doesnt do it, neither does writing an article, others have to recognise him as an espert. Where can such recognition be found?AlbinoFerret 11:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable for the claim. Tara is also a recognized representative from International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. QuackGuru (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question, What site names him an expert. For McNiel I could pull this citation. Please provide a reliable source that calls him an expert. AlbinoFerret 11:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tara Singh Bam from International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) has played a leadership role in mobilizing governments of South and South-East Asian nations to advance on tobacco control".[1] "The 'Meet the Expert' sessions bring in experts in various fields, to meet with small groups of participants to discuss, face to face, the challenges and opportunities presented by working to promote lung health."[2][3] Yes, Tara is an expert. QuackGuru (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no outside sources that call him an expert. The first one is to a blog, at the bottom of the page you will find "Powered by Blogger" AlbinoFerret 09:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

He is en expert and the inclusion criteria is RS. The second source does say Tara is expert. "The 'Meet the Expert' sessions bring in experts in various fields, to meet with small groups of participants to discuss, face to face, the challenges and opportunities presented by working to promote lung health."[4][5] QuackGuru (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not an outside source, the only one you have is a blog. AlbinoFerret 09:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tara Singh Bam is a technical adviser on tobacco control at the International Union against Tuberculosis and Disease

"Tobacco use is present in every segment of the population worldwide, children and the elderly included, says Tara Singh Bam from the International Union Against Tuberculosis And Lung Disease (The Union). “The use of tobacco is like a disease and if we wait until the end of a disease before doing something, it’s too late,” says Tara, who was one of the speakers at the 2014 IASLC Asia Pacific Lung Cancer Conference."[6]

"It’s also one of the few countries in the region that has not added pictorial warnings on cigarette packs, said Tara Singh Bam, a technical adviser on tobacco control at the International Union against Tuberculosis and Disease after wrapping up his second visit to the country since it opened up."[7]

"It's also the only country in the region that still does not require pictorial warnings on cigarette packs," said Tara Singh Bam, a technical adviser on tobacco control at the International Union against Tuberculosis and Disease after wrapping up his second visit to the country since it opened up."[8]

Tara is a technical adviser on tobacco control at the International Union against Tuberculosis and Disease.[9][10][11]

"Tara Singh Bam from International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) has played a leadership role in mobilizing governments of South and South-East Asian nations to advance on tobacco control."[12][13][14][15]

The above shows that Tara an expert on the topic. Of course, the inclusion criteria for sources is WP:SECONDARY. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

The whole regulatory background section is mostly synthesis. Some editors seem to have chosen what they belive must have been the regulatory background, and just add to it without any secondary sources making the connection. Classic OR. --Kim D. Petersen 03:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The section is called "Regulatory background and debate". You haven't shown what is SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The section is now called that, because you just changed it[16]. And just adding ".. and debate" doesn't change the synthesis - which source told you that these opinions were part of the debate that led to any policy change? --Kim D. Petersen 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is a synthesis problem still. AlbinoFerret 13:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What sentence is a SYN problem? QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What third-party reliable source connects the legislation with the medical sources that is presented? If no such source exists - then we (wikipedia) are making the connection - and thus we've done a synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively you need a legislative reference to state that these particular sources influenced the decision-making - which would then connect a particular legislation with that/those sources. --Kim D. Petersen 02:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked "What sentence is a SYN problem?" There is no SYN violation when none has been shown to be. Your arguments are irrelevant to what is included in this section. The section is about the debate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you ignorant of our WP:OR policy? --Kim D. Petersen 04:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding the source of concern of those suggesting that there is a WP:OR problem here. Are you guys suggesting that all these restrictive regulations were passed because legislators didn't like the boxes that electronic cigarettes were delivered in, because they owned shares in pharmaceutical companies that sell lung cancer drugs, or because they have a problem with electronics? It seems pretty obvious that the restrictions were passed due to health concerns. I don't think this section should be used to WP:COATRACK in a whole bunch of articles about potential harm, but the article needs to provide some context for why these laws are being passed. And it seems to me impossible for anyone with even a casual knowledge of the history of this subject to conclude that these laws have been passed for any reason other than health worries, whether one believes those concerns are legitimate or not. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Let us see: A=some medical opinions, B=some legislation. The linkage between these might be there, we certainly can speculate that A might be the reason that B was made, we might even think that this is the case, or at least very likely, but without some source C linking A to B then we have a WP:SYNTHESIS - A very very classic and textbook one even. If you look up to my two comments at around 02:44-47 on the 27 of december, you will find a suggestion on how to resolve such a synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen 11:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim, you've commented 14 times on this page, and going through all of them I honestly cannot figure out which one you are referring to. Can you simply repeat the quotation here?

It might also help facilitate discussion if you stated exactly what your proposed alternative is. Do you think this article should simply dive right into a listing of all the laws restricting electronic cigarettes around the world with no intro? It seems to me that this would be unusual. No offense, but my initial impression here is that this is moving in the direction of wikilawyering. I don't think any of us on this project are in the least bit uncertain as to the nature of the concerns behind these laws being passed. Stating these concerns does not necessarily require that we say in Wikipedia's voice that these concerns are well founded.

It seems to me that there is a solution here that lies between coatracking on one extreme and leaving the reader in the dark as to why all these laws are being passed on the other.

Would you accept this article as providing an RS for the link between health concerns and legislation? Formerly 98 (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not Kim, But I think I see the problem as well. The page is about regulation, regulators, and how that regulation was enacted. There is no link to say that any of the "calls" were used by the people creating the laws in forming those laws. As such there is an assumed connection between the calls and the laws. Thats synthesis. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand your concern. Do you want a reference for each individual law? The article I provided links health worries to legislation generally. Formerly 98

I dont think that the concern is each law, but that some reference that the lawmakers were influenced by the worries of the health professionals. Its possible it could have been those statements. It could also have been lobbying by pharma, anti smoking groups, big tobacco, following the party line, or any number of things. There needs to be a link between the statements and the lawmakers that they based their actions on the statements. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AB, I seriously started to gather references in which academics discuss legislative initiatives as responses to health concerns about e-cigs, quotes from congressmen, and the like. But then I realized you would probably just come back with "of course they are going to say that, it gives them cover for their real motivations...". I don't believe there is any imaginable level of evidence that would suffice to cause you to agree with what I feel is completely obvious to even the most casual observer. Shall we go directly to RFC? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all "simply diving into a listing ..." is not unusual, that is in fact what WP:LIST articles do. The introduction/lede normally just contains a short text about what the thing being listed is. The explanation of how it came about and what the results etc were, is something that is left to the parent article(s) --Kim D. Petersen 23:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other. I think it would be bizarre to present a massively detailed (and currently, mostly unsourced) list of laws regulating electronic cigarettes with no mention of why anyone would regulate them (Wikipedia does not need to take a position on the correctness of the concerns behind the laws). On the other hand, while I disagree with the characterization of the Regulatory Background section as OR, it does have a strong element of WP:COATRACK in my opinion. I have no objection to deleting the Regulatory Background section provided the language in the lede remains intact. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bizzare? Possibly - but just because we find it bizarre doesn't mean that we can synthesize our own explanation. We need reliable sources that make the explanation and connection, not our own speculation/thinking. As for the coatrack issues, yes i agree with that concern as well, and have commented upon it earlier by indicating that there are WP:POVFORK problems by mixing the daughter articles (on their own articles, instead of in the parent article). There are several other problems on this list as well, such as no discern between major legislation and insignificant legislation... i find it curious to see local policy for small hamlets with under <10,000 inhabitants on this list mixed in with country, state and regional policies. --Kim D. Petersen 00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the article that you present, that would be a good article for describing policy challenges, and for the EU TPD and FDA debacles - but it doesn't really address how current legislation has arived, and what the actual influences of the legislation was/is. It is certainly a much better reference to a policy debate than most of the current section contains... since it in fact does describe a connection between health views/policy advices and legislation. I would use this as a backgrounder, but not a connector though.

Much better would be sociological, political or historical references than medical ones - since the connection between policy advice and policy action lies within those domains of study. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be specific about the SYN problems (in the current version[17]): The whole first paragraph is listing/describing sources/views/policy advice that are not connected to legislation by any source - synthesis by inference. The first part of the second paragraph seems to be better, it describes current policy and the background medical data, the last part devolves into synthesis again. The final paragraph is again speculation/policy advice, and not describing a connection. --Kim D. Petersen 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the addition of the flag Kim, its two vs. two. I've offered what I thought was a decent compromise, but if you don't want to do that the flag just comes down. You need consensus for additions. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see consensus for the claims that cause the syntheses either. I think a few words and citations proving legislators relied on the statements may be a better way to go than removing them, but I have been unable to find any. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess you can take out whatever has not been there long enough to be considered status quo. But I think this is classical WP:ADVOCACY thinking and wikilawyering. It takes quite a stretch from my POV to take the hundreds and hundreds of articles written the mainstream press and academic literature about the health concerns of electronic cigarettes and argue with a straight face that there is not prima facie evidence that the legislative activity is due to health concerns. One can similarly argue that a woman who leaves her husband after getting a beating that put her in the hospital might have left him because she had a crush on some other guy, but few people other than the husband's best friend from childhood are going to try to argue that position. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it classical advocacy thinking and wikilawyering to point out that there is a synthesis going on, and that it should be fixed by using reliable sources that actually make the point that the text is indicating? We can't just invent stuff, or pick whatever sources that we think might have influenced the politicians to make a particular legislation - not even if we are rather certain that it is the case.

Wikipedia is not a presentation of what editors think reality is, but a presentation of what reliable secondary sources describe reality as. --Kim D. Petersen 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Nb: with regards to your wife leaving story (ignoring BLP for the moment) - if we should tell such a narrative on wikipedia, then even if we had a source telling that she was beaten, and another source telling us that she left her husband at a later point in time - then we couldn't make the connection in text without a source stating that this was the case. Since otherwise it would (just like in this case) be classic OR/SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 08:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 I think your trying to-read in between the lines and coming out with something no one is saying. I havent read anything denying that it may be the case, but that we dont have a source that says it. The problem here is that there are lots of possibilities of what could have influenced the legislation. We are not allowed to guess or imply that reason, we need a source that says what the reason is. WP:NOR is a core policy, just read the lede of that page. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Albino, we have quotes from legislators talking about their concerns about health effects in connection with legislation. I think by the definition of "orginal research" that you and Kim want to apply here, we could not say that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa. After all, its possible that invisible aliens are altering our conciousness in an undetectable way to simply create the appearance that this is the case. And we don't have a WP:RS that explicitly considers and rejects this alternative explanation.

Take a look at WP:SYNNOT:

• "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison."

In this particular case, I think this is obvious to an objective observer. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of policy that you make here - but that is rather irrelevant, since you've removed the largest part of synthesis with your removal here[18], and my removals here[19] it is completely gone. Addition of sources that directly describe legislation and the connection between these and health claims are of course possible - such as the one source that you mentioned earlier in this conversation. --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack just tried to add medial a medical journal article without any proof it was used as a basis for the laws. The section was removed, so he tried to tack it on to the lede. diff It is not covered in the body so adding it to the lede, without the proof of consideration by legislators in the article is wrong and WP:OR. I have removed it. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede is the place to add the sourced text

The text shows the reason for the regulation. Therefore it is relevant.[20] QuackGuru (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, I think it is fine to state that there are health concerns that motivate the regulation of electronic cigarettes, without taking sides on the question of the validity of those concerns. Remember that Wikipedia describes controversies but does not take part in them. Getting into a full rehash of the debate over health effects in this relatively narrowly focused article on regulation would, in my opinion, be WP:COATRACK. That debate belongs in the main e cig article. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The information added pure coatracking/original research, as i've stated above please introduce sources that links the medical advice with actual policy making - otherwise it is simply a synthesis. You are linking two seperate issues, without having a source/reference that actually does the connecting. --Kim D. Petersen 00:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no OR or coatrack. The inclusion criteria is not to find a source linking medical advice with actual policy making. It is acceptable to explain the health concerns is what motivates the regulation of e-cigarettes. The source makes the claim per V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Without the link where lawmakers say they relied on the claims there is no proof that it is the motivation for the regulation. AlbinoFerret 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for a link to lawmakers. Please read the review to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is on a page devoted to laws. There must be a link. AlbinoFerret 00:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not about linking. It is about sourcing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I will spell it out for you. A source must provide a link that says the lawmakers relied on the health claims, otherwise it is WP:OR by synthesis. Refer to the Synthesis tag section above. AlbinoFerret 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The text is not about verifying lawmakers relied on anything specifically. I refer to V. The sourced text can't be OR when the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Formerly 98, this is an article about the legal status, not the health impact of e-cigs. It is also not a place to promote the idea that there is a general consensus that additional regulations are needed. The recent addition had some real POV problems. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Formerly 98. Formerly 98 wrote "For the purposes of this article, I think it is fine to state that there are health concerns that motivate the regulation of electronic cigarettes, without taking sides on the question of the validity of those concerns." Formerly 98 thinks it is fine to keep it in the lede. The additions are according to reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The current language of the article already says there are health concerns, which is fine, as Formerly 98 said. The language you just tried to add goes way beyond that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The current article does not say "that there are health concerns that motivate the regulation of electronic cigarettes". This article does not say much at all. QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be precise, it says "The legal status of electronic cigarettes is currently pending in many countries, because of ... public health concerns related to the use of electronic cigarettes. ... The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes has raised concerns in the health community, ..." So in fact, it says twice that there are health concerns and it says that the reason for the legal issues is "because of" them. How many more times do you think that needs to be said? —BarrelProof (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Different sources say different things. I think one or both sentences might work. QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of that diff? That sentence/quote is not about current policy/legal status, it is there entirely to influence policymakers.... And we (as in wikipedia) aren't here to influence policymakers or take a stance on what policymakers should or shouldn't do - in fact that would be WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

While I generally deplore the efforts of the pro-e-cig group to strip out (or spin in a one sided way) the very real controversy about the public health aspects of e-cigs from the main e-cig article, I have to agree with them that this is a more narrowly focused article and the edits that QG is attempting to add amount to WP:COATRACK. QG, I understand what you are trying to do here, but I think the main article is a better venue for your efforts. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Massive Unsourced claims

Formerly 98 removed a lot of unsourced claims about local laws in the states section. It appears the States section is suffering from a lack of citations as a quick look finds nearly all of the claims about the laws are unsourced. Shall we place a tag on the section or just start deleting? AlbinoFerret 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to have a consensus on that issue AF, its policy and can't be overruled by local consensus. According to WP:UNSOURCED, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." It further states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Formerly 98 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There were two options, either would work in the short term. As a member of the citation cleanup wikiproject I see tags requesting citations all the time. I didnt care which way was used as long as the end product is the claims are sourced. AlbinoFerret 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but while each editor has option of simply tagging rather than deleting, re-adding material that is has been deleted for lack of sourcing without providing a source is explicitly prohibited by WP:VERIFY: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". This has the effect of giving each and every editor veto power over the inclusion of unsourced statements.

In this particular case I chose to delete because

• All of the information was time sensitive "There is no law requiring xxx in the state of YYY" (as of what date?) and there was no way to check whether the source was up to date in a rapidly changing legal landscape.
• Some of the statements were clearly incorrect. One state was described as having no laws restricting electronic cigarette use but references further up in the article clearly stated that there were laws restricting use on the grounds of public schools.
• I'm a bit of a sourcing Nazi, as it is my experience that sourced statements in Wikipedia misquote or misinterpret the source at least 20% of the time, and that the accuracy of unsourced statements is very low
• There was so much unsourced information that I did not think it at all likely that anyone would respond to the 100 or so "unsourced" tags that I would have needed to add within any reasonable period of time, and I'd just end up coming back and deleting the statements anyway.

I'd like to emphasize that no information (correct or otherwise) has been lost, and anyone who cares to do so can cut one or more deleted paragraphs out of the archive, add the needed references, and restore the material to the article.

Formerly 98 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Very well thought out post. My last post wasnt questioning removing the claims, just that I had no opinion as to which way to go to solve the issue. Thats why I started this section. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the removals. And i'd like to see even more, based upon an implementation of some list criterias, so that we leave out strictly local rules. But we need to define the criteria for what constitutes a legislation big enough to be mentioned. At the moment it seems that small town ordinances are included which seems excessive and which infer that legislation is more common than it really is. (this is primarily in the US section). --Kim D. Petersen 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think stopping state level would be fine. who really cares about legislation passed in Nembly, Nebraska. National is probably too high a level as most of the US regulation is at the state level. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Since most e-cigarette legislation is being enacted by communities, that would leave out the majority of relevant legislation. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All challenged claims must be sourced, Formerly 98 challenged them when he removed them. To replace them, they must be sourced. It might save time if they are sourced when included in the future. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree! Cloudjpk (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If the majority of legislation is on the town/community level, then it really isn't something that we should cover except in summary (see: WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT in general). It provides a scewed picture of how prevalent such legislation is.... so what if 50 towns/hamlets in Virginia (not a real example) have public space vaping bans, when it only represents a tiny fraction of the towns/hamlets in the whole state. (WP:WEIGHT). This is the reason that i propose that we regulate this with list criterias, so that both the reader and editors know what kind of information is contained. --Kim D. Petersen 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point. A summary or list presentation might be good. Are there templates for this? Cloudjpk (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Austria

The refrence does not seem to match the statement. A translation of the page suggests that it only covers one product, and not another. It also mentions containing nicotine. Are we sure that e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine are medical devices in Austria? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a vaper and austrian. The information about my homecountry is definately wrong! In Austria, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes is legal, as well as the sale of cartridges and liquids with nicotine. Though the situation will change on 1. October 2015: From this point on selling liquids with nicotine and cartridges containing nicotine will be allowed just in tobacco-shops, e-cigarette shops will not be allowed to offer nicotine-liquids, nicotine bases and nicotine cartridges anymore. (None of this had, has or will have a medical status.) Website of the austrian parliament with the oncoming new law: http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/AKT/SCHLTHEM/SCHLAG/456E-Zigaretten.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.88.4.233 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Drug delivery device

What country, let alone countries, categorize e-cigarettes as "drug delivery devices"? Yes, we have a reference that claims that it is so, but the reference doesn't state what country this might be... If no such country is found/specified, then i suggest that the reference has this "fact" wrong, and that we remove it, as verifiable but false. --Kim D. Petersen 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It says it is in several countries. Wikipedia is about V not personal opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V is not a death contract. I'm raising a WP:REDFLAG here, since this verifiable tidbit seems to be contradicted by reality. Please provide a country so that we at the very least can be on safe grounds. There is a possibility, you know, that even verifiable information could be wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is verifiable, not truth. You have not shown that it "could be wrong." QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The person wishing to keep information is responsible for proof. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof of what? I don't have to verify the same claim twice. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually our article is rather indicative of the falseness of the statement. We try to find the legal status of e-cigarettes in all countries, and none of the countries that is on the page, consider e-cigarettes as "drug delivery devices". That is what raises the WP:REDFLAG. Again: Verifiabilty is not a suicide-contract... it is a threshold, not a guarantee for inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The source found it was several countries for a drug delivery device. You can search for what specific countries and expand the page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the source says that... but neither our article nor the source documents any such country. Therefore we have good reasons to doubt that this particular tidbit from that source is faulty. Thus there is a WP:REDFLAG raised on that information. Once more: WP:V is not a suicide-pact. I'm asking that we get a second source to confirm this one, or otherwise remove it as suspect information. --Kim D. Petersen 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the source does not state each individual country is not a good reason to delete it. There is no particular need to verify the same claim twice. QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Quack, that's true but the fact it appears to disagree with other sources is. Not other source, that we;ve seen, corroborates the claim. Have you red WP:Redflag? SPACKlick (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at AN/I. BMK (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bars and casinos vaping ban

See http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/new-orleans-smoking-ban-is-almost-here/Content?oid=2619736 QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana bans e-cigarettes sales to minors

Not sure why it was deleted. The bill passed over a year ago.[21] QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You came all the way from claiming L.A.'s ban is Louisiana's to this source which you just changed, like it was there in the first place, and it still doesn't say it became law. It probably did so and if you'd stop making excuses and just look for and find a source that confirms it that would be great and finally an improvement not only re. the article.--TMCk (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/d/story/update-louisiana-senate-approves-e-cigarette-bill/23785/NGgKrsytyEu5kI6awKrmAQ QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a time machine. You have no clue what you're doing, do you?--TMCk (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/louisiana_e-cigarettes_ban.html QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, you did it! But since it took you too much time (2 days) and too many attemps (4 I think, counting of course your talk page) to get the source (and edit at some point?) straight you showed once again your limitation when it comes to simple English language, time and who knows what else and thus I shall mark all your edits with your beloved V-tag and that includes old, current and future edits I can't verify myself. I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will take us apart). Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Canada

The interesting situation there is very inadequately covered. Afaics it is: classification (at least of anything containing nicotine) as medical, with no licenses issued, so in theory illegal to sell, but very widely and openly sold and used, with a pretty tiny number of actions by the authorities. Doc James, anyone? Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/e-cigarettes-in-regulatory-grey-zone-are-they-banned-or-aren-t-they-1.1786365 The regulation in Canada seems to be a bit confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii ban

http://www.kitv.com/news/ecigarettes-banned-from-hawaii-state-buildings/29109028

http://phoenixnewsinfo.com/new-hawaii-law-bans-use-of-e-cigarettes-where-smoking-is-prohibited/ QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mass unsourced text

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the mass unsourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Update reference

Hi. I couldn't figure out how to edit a reference. In the sentence "In Norway the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal,[17] but nicotine cartridges can only be imported from other EEA member states (e.g. the UK) for private use.[27]", the second link (27) doesn't work anymore. The new link can be found at the bottom of this side: http://www.legemiddelverket.no/Import_og_salg/Import-og-grossistvirksomhet/Elektroniske_sigaretter/Sider/default.aspx The new document link is: http://www.legemiddelverket.no/Import_og_salg/Import-og-grossistvirksomhet/Elektroniske_sigaretter/Documents/regulering-av-elektroniske-sigaretter-i-norge-notat-6-12-11.pdf Please update the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.128.195 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I updated the ref. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

The archiving of this page has been far too sudden. Blanking the page is not normal on WP. Please ask on the talk page before doing this again, QG. Clearing out the page just encourages people to raise the same issues again and again. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Canada references

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rowan-warr-hunter-e-cigarettes-freedom-to-vape

The interpretation of the Canadian legal status of nicotine containing liquids reflected in this article is disputed. There have been no prosecutions, though the sale of nicotine containing liquids is widespread and open in retail and online locations. I'm digging for more substantial sources, but essentially, there is an exemption for nicotine for human inhalation use in amounts less than 4 mg per dose. Paleking (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What used to be Schedule F of the regulations is now:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/pdf/prodpharma/pdl-ord/pdl_list_fin_ord-eng.pdf

see page 23 for nicotine. Paleking (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It only mentions the standard types of Nicotine replacement therapy like chewing-gum & inhalers. If it covered e-cigs I'm sure it would spell that out, & this would have been covered in other tertiary sources. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. No other references to nicotine in the act or its regulations. The list provided designates nicotine as a prescription drug "except: ... (d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 milligrams or less of nicotine per dosage unit;". Perhaps identify the dispute: "Though Health Canada asserts that nicotine-containing e-fluid is illegal to sell, some vendors assert that the product is exempted by the regulations." Paleking (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Those refs date to early 2014; they don't seem to have got far in the legal action. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod in response to the pdf. It says "inhalation device", it does not describe what kind of device. A e-cigarette is an inhalation device, it produces vapor for inhalation. One of the definitions of inhalation is "a preparation to be inhaled in the form of a vapor or spray".AlbinoFerret 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought (and think) they meant the licensed "inhalator" NRT devices. But I suppose that's the issue. I can't really see that tank models have a "dosage unit". Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand laws

the piece on New Zealand laws are utterly false, and the citation (citation 86) leads to a BBC article the refers only to UK laws with no reference to new zealand at all. new zealand bans the sale of nicotine containing E-juice and nothing else, the vapes are legal in any and all form, and may be sold anywhere. references to this are http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/67186317/E-cigarette-nicotine-ban-criticised http://www.nzvapingalliance.co.nz/resources/ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11324232

i personally have no idea on how to edit an article, so hopefully someone can correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.250.228.64 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Table

The table that was recently added is too long to read which makes it more difficult to read the section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Denmark

Text for Denmark is severely outdated, and should be rewritten (on the line of):

Denmark follows the EU tobacco products directive: Max 10ml refill bottles, max 20mg/ml e-liquid, max 2ml tanks/cartridges. Legal age for purchase is 18. Smokefree laws do not apply. Vaping is prohibited in public transport, kindergartens and schools for youth below 18. No restrictions for non-nicotine e-liquids. E-liquids and vaporizer equipment are required to be notified with the Danish Safety Technology Authority via the EU-CEG system, before being allowed on the market, this goes for crossborder sales into Denmark as well.

--Kim D. Petersen 10:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The link provided reaches the main page. I do not know where to click to locate the content above. QuackGuru (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Well everything is there - the only thing that website is there for, is to inform about the new law, and it is the govt. official site for this information. Unless you want to go through the law itself, which is also linked there (in a danish version), no single link is going to be adequate. I can, if needed, link every sentence to specific subpages, but that will mean that we'll have 5-10 different links to this site. --Kim D. Petersen 15:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively i could cite the law and the paragraphs in the law that requires this. For instance §2.1.1 states the 10ml limit, and §2.2 the 2ml tank/cartridge limit[22] - but this would mean that we cite the danish lawtext. --Kim D. Petersen 15:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would limit it to three links if possble. Whichever source or sources work better. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

New map needed for Europe

The map given for Europe really needs to be fixed or replaced with a new map. Scotland on the map is totally messed up and Britain is positioned further east than it should be. Britain on the map is shown to have a physical land border with the Netherlands, which of course is totally inaccurate. If anyone could please either fix or replace this map it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't have editors on this page making maps. See WP:GL/MAP for map workshop. QuackGuru (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Division into sections

This article currently has sections on a continent, a country and the rest of the world, three different types of entity (or non-entity in the last case). Wouldn't it be better to standardize the approach by having level 2 headings for continents and then level 3 headings for countries? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and just do it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that someone else might do it, but I'll try to get round to it if and when I have time. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the difference is between a level 2 or level 3 heading is? I don't see what the issue is with the layout or how it could be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A level 2 heading uses "==" and a level 3 heading uses "===". Do you really not see the problem with having a continent, a country and the rest of the world as equal level headings? I thought that was was pretty obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Europe

United States

Other countries

It is split like this into three main sections. It is very simple currently. I don't know what it would look like if it were changed. I don't want it to get too complex to read. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know what else I can say here, but I'll try. Europe is a continent, the United States are a country, and "other countries" are an afterthought largely inhabited by people who don't really count, even though they make up the vast majority of the Earth's population. Can't you see that this is a silly way to split up the world? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I will have to see how you split it up. Each section is in alphabetical order and it is easy to find each entry. My concern is spitting it up into too many sections. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Illegality of ecig advertising in the UK

The article correctly states that EU law now bans advertisng of ecigs, but the contradicts itself by stating that advertising is legal in the UK. Adverts no longer appear on TV or in the print media. It may still be legal on billboards, but that's the limit. 130.88.123.137 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually the section on the United Kingdom is all over the place. Very poor and seriously misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.137 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)