`: In relation to the first paragraph, I have just rewritten it to be consistant with the Danish Medicines Agency website and to improve the readability of the paragraph. It's a strong reference and I don't thinki more references are needed. In relation to the second paragraph, it's the same material in the second section, so I removed it.  In relation to the third paragraph, you are inserting your own personal opinion on the article. You say the Danish smoking ban only bans tobacco products. That's an unsupported statements. Most smoking bans include the banning of non-tobaacco smoking products, such as herbal cigarettes, but not unsmoked tobacco products, such as chewing tobaccos. Now, maybe Denmark is different, but we need more than your say-so. Further your reference really doesn't support that authorities have supported allowing electronic cigarettes to be used in non-smoking zones. The article mentions a ``special consultant`` (whatever that is), but that doesn't explain why he is an authority figure.   :It seems that your arguement has been that Google Translate is mis-translating the article and I don't understand the meaning of the reference. If that's the case then let's not use this reference. If the article is so difficult to translate that we can't use an online translating tool, then we shouldn't use the article as a reference. This is an english article and its assumed that all the readers are english speaking. There are other versions of Wikipedia in different languages and all references in those versions should be available in those languages.     `