Misplaced Pages

Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:14, 20 March 2019 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:33, 25 October 2024 edit undoMason7512 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,902 editsNo edit summary 
(21 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{Talk header}}
{{afd-merged-from|Electronic cigarettes in Australia|Electronic cigarettes in Australia|25 March 2019}}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Regulation of electronic cigarettes}} {{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Regulation of electronic cigarettes}}
{{Copied|from=Regulation of electronic cigarettes|to=Electronic cigarette}} {{Copied|from=Regulation of electronic cigarettes|to=Electronic cigarette}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|
⚫ {{talk header}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}}
{{Ecig sanctions}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |importance=Low}}
{{WPBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=List |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Pharmacology |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |class=List |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Pharmacology |class=List |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 12: Line 14:
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 1 |counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30|units=days}}


== Division into sections == == Multiple ban claims incorrect ==
This article makes multiple factually incorrect claims.


- It states that E-Cigarettes are banned in Bahrain, citing a Telegraph article about a Fatwa. But Fatwas are not legally binding (as is correctly stated in the Regulation section of Malaysia), and indeed there seem to be Vape Shops in Bahrain: https://www.vapeinbahrain.com
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? ] (]) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:Be ] and just do it. ] (]) 13:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
-It states that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes have been banned in Japan since 2010, which is simply untrue. The corresponding source also does not state anything of the sort, quite the contrary.
::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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
-It states that vaping is legal in the Philippines, when Duterte has already announced a complete ban.
::::A level 2 heading uses "<nowiki>==</nowiki>" and a level 3 heading uses "<nowiki>===</nowiki>". 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. ] (]) 19:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::Europe
- On the European map it lists Finland, Norway and Sweden as having a complete ban on the sale of nicotine-carrying liquids. This is also incorrect.
:::::United States

:::::Other countries
These are just a couple mistakes I have found as I scanned this article for my own research. There might be a lot more.
:::::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. ] (]) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
<small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</small>
::::::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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree that the facts are wrong ] (]) 10:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

== Policy evaluation studies section ==

{{ping|QuackGuru}}, regarding of the "Policy evaluation studies" section, I'm afraid I'm not following your reasoning. Could you explain what makes this content off-topic? -- ] (]) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:The . The content is about how taxes effect the use of electronic cigarettes and how restrictions effect prenatal smoking. That's about usage rather than specific facts about regulation.
:See "Studies that examine the impact...". See "Along the same line, another study found that e-cigarette...". See "Regarding indoor vaping regulations, one study found that it increased prenatal smoking by...". The text even states they are studies. Studies or primary sources are unreliable. ] (]) 14:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::Studies that measure the impact of taxes on usage are incredibly relevant to the regulation of electronic cigarettes, because they are measuring what the effects of different policy choices are. While secondary sources would be preferred, primary sources for economic questions as long as they are characterized accurately, which it seems they are. I have restored this section. -- ] (]) 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:33, 25 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regulation of electronic cigarettes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Electronic cigarettes in Australia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 March 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Regulation of electronic cigarettes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Regulation of electronic cigarettes. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Regulation of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPharmacology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Multiple ban claims incorrect

This article makes multiple factually incorrect claims.

- It states that E-Cigarettes are banned in Bahrain, citing a Telegraph article about a Fatwa. But Fatwas are not legally binding (as is correctly stated in the Regulation section of Malaysia), and indeed there seem to be Vape Shops in Bahrain: https://www.vapeinbahrain.com

-It states that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes have been banned in Japan since 2010, which is simply untrue. The corresponding source also does not state anything of the sort, quite the contrary.

-It states that vaping is legal in the Philippines, when Duterte has already announced a complete ban.

- On the European map it lists Finland, Norway and Sweden as having a complete ban on the sale of nicotine-carrying liquids. This is also incorrect.

These are just a couple mistakes I have found as I scanned this article for my own research. There might be a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.108.10 (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that the facts are wrong IffyMohammed (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Policy evaluation studies section

@QuackGuru:, regarding this removal of the "Policy evaluation studies" section, I'm afraid I'm not following your reasoning. Could you explain what makes this content off-topic? -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources are unreliable and mostly primary studies. The content is about how taxes effect the use of electronic cigarettes and how restrictions effect prenatal smoking. That's about usage rather than specific facts about regulation.
See "Studies that examine the impact...". See "Along the same line, another study found that e-cigarette...". See "Regarding indoor vaping regulations, one study found that it increased prenatal smoking by...". The text even states they are studies. Studies or primary sources are unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Studies that measure the impact of taxes on usage are incredibly relevant to the regulation of electronic cigarettes, because they are measuring what the effects of different policy choices are. While secondary sources would be preferred, primary sources for economic questions as long as they are characterized accurately, which it seems they are. I have restored this section. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories: