Talk:Chop-chop (tobacco)

Name

I feel this article would be better named Chop Chop (Tobacco) rather than Chop Chop (Australian English). While the term is a common Australian English term, Chop Chop is a type of tobacco, not a type of Australian English. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I named it Chop Chop (Australian English) because on Chop Chop (where I noticed it needed an article written) it originally said the term was Austrlian Slang[1], But I'll move it now. - Fosnez 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Can we reach a decision as to whether it's Chop Chop, Chop-Chop, chop chop, chop-chop or something else? - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the product means that the orthography is unlikely to be consistent across sources. "chop chop" seems to be the most common sense name to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Cred.

This article appears to have been written by the self-righteous and the self-appointed. An Australian govt article is quoted as a source for the alleged contamination. Refs should be from impartial and competent sources, and the Aust Govt does not fit such criteria. It has a $20bn/yr interest in legal tobacco, and is staffed by third-rate charlatans whose sole function is to pander to political egos, much like that of North Korea. I smoked chop chop many years ago and it was first class. Legal tobacco is imported from Asia, so it will have all sorts of contaminants. Regarding [blue] mould; tobacco suffers only from a small range of such diseases, which have never been found in Aus. Smoking the mould is preferable to smoking the pesticides used to kill the mould, in legal tobacco.220.244.78.196 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is wikipedia everyone is self appointed, as for self-righteous that is more the individuals view on a topic, you obviously lean more towards chop chop advocacy which is also a bias.

It might have been edited since you left this here but I'm seeing the "health" issue covering pro and con so it is impartial nat least for now. Czarnibog (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chop-chop (tobacco). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110602015407/http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-pub-tobacco-chopchop-cnt.htm to http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-pub-tobacco-chopchop-cnt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070830103631/http://www.cairnspost.com.au/article/2007/08/30/3916_news.html to http://www.cairnspost.com.au/article/2007/08/30/3916_news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)