Talk:Smoking ban

Citation errors

There are three citation errors on this page and I don't quite know how to fix them. Hopefully someone will see this who does know how. Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They'll be cases where a <ref> tag containing the actual citation has been removed, leaving behind just refs that look like <ref name=foo/>. To fix them, you need to dig though the history and find where the citation broke, or just go back far enough that the ref existed. Its quite laborious. It'd be nice if there was a bot that could be asked the question. Bazzargh (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The bad edit - [1]. I'll see if it can be salvaged. Bazzargh (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Bazzargh (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the "History" section, this article states that Minnesota was the first state to issue a public smoking ban in 1975. In the "Smoking bans by country" section, it states that is was Arizona in 1973. Can someone clarify and/or correct this please? 71.59.102.86 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference that says backs up the Arizona/1973 claim. Samatva (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The handling of smoking issues calls for review of the structuring of articles or for mediation

I am writing not as a person who has made a Wiki contribution here and there, but as a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernscribe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What the articles on smoking, passive smoking, and bans seem to lack is a specific, well-documented, well structured section or article on the opposition to anti-smoking laws. The opposition consists of actions, legal and illegal, that are being taken worldwide--although an article could focus just on the United States; other countries could be handled in separate articles.

The basis for the opposition is philosophical, legalistic, economic, and scientific, and all these matters deserve full treatment.

By listing smoking bans, without fully covering the ongoing opposition to these bans, you are building an epistemological world in which people begin to believe that there is no alternative to following enacted laws, when in fact there most certainly is, at least in democratic societies. In short, I completely agree that the Wiki presentation of the smoking issue smacks not just of bias, but of an organized takeover by people with a certain agenda. If this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for one side, then the encyclopedic approach to the topic should be taken, and there must be a discussion of what the proper encyclopedic approach should be.

Simply posting information in the format of a document that purports to be an encyclopedia does not grant that information any special authority, but it does seem to, in the minds of many readers.

Now note: I am a smoker, with a particular set of interests and biases of my own. But if I want to tell the world my position, I can find better ways in which to do that; I can take my opinions as well as my facts plenty of more appropriate places. Others might want to step back, take a hard look at what they're doing, both in the articles and in the discussion pages, and ask whether or nor they are the best people for this job. There may be more level-headed Wikipedians, smokers or non-smokers, who might do a better job. Or perhaps mediation is needed. Westernscribe (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a Criticism of bans section that covers opposition to bans, but as you can see it suffers from a lack of references. If you can improve upon this I'm sure it would be most welcomed. As for the bias of the article as a whole, since the subject is on the banning of smoking (to differing degrees), it's rather inevitable that it should concentrate on documenting the bans, as these are easily identifiable and factual events. Opposition to them tends to lean towards opinion, which makes coverage of it harder (but not impossible) to do in an encyclopaedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on collating verifiable information from reliable sources. What this means for an issue like opposition to smoking bans is that rather than having editors debate the topic, we need to find reliable sources characterizing various parts of the debate. By naming specific participants in the debate and accurately characterizing their positions, we avoid re-fighting the debate ourselves and get a bit closer to the elusive neutral point of view. It's also worth keeping the issue of undue weight in mind; what this means in concrete terms is that a view expressed by the Surgeon General of the United States and the National Cancer Institute may be given more prominence than a view from a self-published website. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles on smoking do not measure up to much of what I read on Wikipedia and having looked over the discussion pages, I do not think that the articles fail because insufficient attention is being paid to them. I think they are failing because people writing them need to examine whether their talents and expertise wouldn't be better utilized in other areas of communications media, rather than in an encyclopedia.

One last, hard question. I assume the posters above are contributors. If you're qualified to write an encyclopedia entry, why are you leaving it up to others to cover what you consider the other side? Doesn't that suggest that persons contributing are actually advocates? There may be nothing wrong with advocacy, in general, or here, but what is the purpose of these writings? To present full information and let people make up their own minds, or to control what can be known and discussed? As to "undue weight," I see no reason to grant more credence statements by the Surgeon General of the United States or the National Cancer Institute; they are no more disinterested than the White House. I don't think more credence should be granted to the statements of U.S. government-paid officials, and God help anyone who does, in these times.

Westernscribe (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think that's a "hard question" at all - it's actually something MastCell has already addressed. The question is not one of advocacy, but availability and quality of information. Support for smoking bans comes in part from national health research institutions, (necessarily from) governments, and is documented in law, and that makes it easier to verify and so to include here. By contrast, again as already noted, much of the opposition comes from self-published websites and very little of it has attracted attention in national medias, making it inappropriate for inclusion here.

The key issue here is that it is inappropriate, as you're doing here, for us to have quasi-intellectual / philosophical discussions about this on the talk page. Wikipedia is pretty clear about what does and doesn't merit inclusion in an article, and interesting though your views on the credibility of the surgeon general / head of the NCI are, they're not relevant to the article. Nmg20 (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the opposition to smoking bans consists, in part, of actions. These actions have been recorded in the news media, and on the websites of state legislative bodies. Arguments against smoking bans have been made in the record of state legislatures, as well--those states that passed bans, and those states that have not. Statements about the difficulties of enforcement have been made by law-enforcement officials, and reported in the news.

I see nothing at all inappropriate about my contribution to this discussion; I feel that my contribution may appear "quasi-intellectual" because I'm trying to keep it at what I consider to be a high level, to stick to the topic of what does and does not merit inclusion in the articles, rather than take potshots at what I consider to be your stance. My view is that, as a person looking for online encyclopedia articles on smoking, bans, and passive smoking, this group, as currently written, falls short of neutrality, and I am not the first reader to notice that and say so on the discussion pages.

I understand that I am invited to contribute to the section on opposition. I appreciate that. But I have pointed out that I have biases; I question my own ability to write dispassionately on the subject, and for that reason, I am going to abstain, at the present time, but express the hope that someone else will work on this. Due to my own biases, and because I've made my point, I will also leave this discussion at this time. As to the headline on this topic, which I wrote, it may be over the top; I would not take the liberty of changing it, but feel free to do so, if you choose and if that's permitted. Cheers. Westernscribe (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd suggest, in terms of the most constructive way to improve the portions of the article about which you're concerned, is to compile high-quality independent, reliable secondary sources describing opposition to smoking bans, whether philosophical or active. These sources could then be incorporated into the article to improve its coverage of opposition to smoking bans. That's generally the best blueprint for avoiding distracting arguments and making the article better. I too hope someone will work on it; I may do so if I have the time and inclination, but part of the encyclopedia anyone can edit is that you can do more than complain - you can try to fix it. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Westernscribe, don't waste your breath. Life's too short and that's why I'm restricting myself to requesting that MastCell changes changes back the sly edit he made at 16.34 on 15 Oct 2008. In the 2nd para of the Rationale section, he changed "affect health care costs" to "lower health care costs." Firstly he did it without proposing it on the discussion page. Secondly, it is incorrect. If you read the conclusions of the cited paper, "affect" is far more accurate than "lowered". That smoking is a net cost to health care is in danger of becoming a "wikifact". I like to think I've invented a new word, but it's probably been used before. Guess what it means.Otis66 (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be more familiar with my edit history (and, apparently, my motivations) than I myself am. Feel free to make the change you suggest; it's fine with me. I generally don't pre-discuss every change, though if a change proves controversial or is challenged I'm happy to do so (see WP:BRD).

You're correct in that it may be cheaper in the longterm to have people die early deaths from smoking-related causes rather than live to an old age, though this argument seems to ignore several important dimensions. As the authors conclude: Since we as a society are clearly willing to spend money on added years of life and on healthier years, the method of choice in evaluating medical interventions is cost-effectiveness analysis. The point being that the relevant statistic is cost-effectiveness, not cost in isolation. After all, if you look solely at cost, it's a huge money-loser to vaccinate kids against preventable diseases, or to work to lower infant mortality - much cheaper to have a substantial number die of diphtheria, tetanus, smallpox, neonatal sepsis, and so forth. But that's crazy, right? Anyhow, feel free to change "lower" to "affect". MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

There are several dead links in the article, I've tagged them as such as per WP:DEADREF (I inadvertantly sited WP:DEADLINK in the summary). The way I read WP:DEADREF, sources and material should only be removed if it is contentious or violates WP:BLP. Otherwise, the material should stay with the reference (tagged as inactive links) and alternative sources should be sought out. Since it appears this material stood for a while, I don't think there's any reason to doubt what the sources originally said. Redrocket (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Either Finland is not a country or one of these is false information

In this article's history part: "On March 29, 2004, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace, the first country to do so."

In List of smoking bans: "Finland -- Smoking has been banned in indoor public areas and workplaces from 1st March, 1995, except in specially designated smoking rooms; restaurants were included in 2007" --86.60.145.245 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale?

The primary rationale is based on the WHO FCTC. But the WHO does not enact laws. Which laws are phrasing smoking bans and which rationales are there written? --Plenz (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I've reverted this series of edits once again, as my concerns remain unaddressed. The material relies on fairly poor sourcing (press releases, etc) to make sweeping (and somewhat odd) generalizations about proponents and opponents of smoking bans. If we're going to generalize, let's start with better sources, as detailed in the reliable-sources guideline. There's actually still a lot of work to be done on this article - excellent sources are out there, but the article relies inordinately on poorer-quality sources, particularly websites from partisan pressure groups. The edits in question seem like a step in the wrong direction, but I'm open to hearing differing opinions. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockdowner has repeatedly attempted to add to the article qualifications such as "selected by ban proponents" for a couple of months now. These qualifications suggest that the studies cited were selective with their sources and were therefore biased. This would be notable if;

1. It was true.
2. It was noted by other reputable sources.

As it is Rockdowner has failed to demonstrate either of the above, so they appear to be at best his/her original research, and at worse his/her personal opinion unsupported by any facts. Indeed, some of what I've read of the cites indicate Rockdowner's claims are groundless. But I am willing to be proven wrong. Until then, these additions appear to be intentionally misleading and should not be in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I just reviewed WP:EL and this link meets all criteria. Here is the place to discuss if needed. Chido6d (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Which "all" criteria specifically? All I see is an opinion piece with little indication of why this person's opinion is deserving of an external link. Is there, perhaps, resources in this article that cannot be added to the article? If it is notable, then why not cite it in the article?

On the other hand; if this is not a notable opinion, and does not contain resources that cannot be added to the article, then why is it there? I'm sure we can find many other opinions online, both pro and con, what's special about this one?

It would seem to me that there is a good chance there is worthwhile info to be had from it as a cite. But as it is, it's just random EL with no indication why the reader should follow it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At this time, the EL is the only one related exclusively to smoking bans (though the interactive map is helpful and informative). When I say the link meets all criteria, I mean just that; if you want or need specifics, you may wish to follow the link above for more detailed information on the Wiki guideline. The article is about smoking bans, and the link makes perfect sense here, which is more than can be said of some others (including the link to the Hong Kong Tobacco Control Office -- which you strangely aren't questioning). The article may be cited in the future, but I see several other EL's on the page that also are not cited.Chido6d (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it fails the very first criterion in WP:ELNO. It does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Certainly if this article were to approach FA quality, it could somehow manage to summarize the libertarian position on smoking bans without needing an external link to a Cato opinion piece. MastCell ^Talk 06:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If true (and I'm not saying it isn't), then I can think of several EL's that need to be removed elsewhere. Seems the standard would apply when a source is elaborated on most extensively and/or cited numerous times; there is no reason to include the same source as an EL. Correct?Chido6d (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the source is an lengthy document of substantial current or historical import, then it may be worth linking it even if it is already mentioned in the text. But in general, these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis by editorial discussion, not by conducting breaching experiments, so I'm not sure where you're going. If you'd like to discuss other external links, then please name them and specify your objections. I'll take your lack of response to the objections raised here as agreement, or at least acquiescence, to the link's removal. MastCell ^Talk 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the link leads to an article that is about smoking bans does not mean that it should be on this article. Wikipedia is not a directory of web links. The other ELs provide links to organisations that document the laws involve or are organisations that represent parties with a recognised stake in the article's subject (most of which are mentioned on the article) or provide content that is useful and copyrighted. This link is merely one person's research and opinion on bans. Again; why is it notable? If it is notable, then use it as a cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed a fragment from ==Rationale==

To further my comments upon making the change, this was a sentence fragment, not a proper sentence. Trying to form the correct conjuction to tie it together, I saw that it doesn't properly relate to that paragraph at all. I suspect it was just stuck on by an anti-anti-smoker to talk back to "some legislators have found". But that does not belong here. Put it under the proper section. It already had a fact-needed mark, so I just deleted it. No edit war intended. Długosz (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent publication

See Apollonio, E.; Bero, A. (Jun 2009). "Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation" (Free full text). BMC Public Health. 9: 189. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-189. PMC 2706247. PMID 19534777.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) for an interesting new source.LeadSongDog come howl 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives to bans -- section unnecessary?

Frankly, I do not believe the section "Alternatives to bans" belongs in this article. After all, this article is describing "Smoking Bans".

The Nuclear Power article here on Wikipedia does not have a section on "Alternative Energy", so why should this article have a section on "Alternatives to Bans"? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Sure, coming up with alternatives makes sense if you want to make a political point, but in an encyclopedia this has absolutely no place.

Some of the information in this section IS relevant, but the name of the section implies that it should all be removed immediately. That being said, any useful information within should be merged into other parts of this article.

99.51.75.51 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DUI fatalities

There are three things fundamentally wrong with this section:

• What on earth has a smoking ban to do with an increase in drink-driving? The current section makes no attempt whatsoever to explain. As such, it sounds like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and a ridiculous one at that. For all I know, it's probably due to cultural changes in alcohol use, car use and possibly other factors over time.
• It talks of a 13% increase in fatal drink-driving accidents. A 13% increase over what time period?
• It gives no indication of what's happened to the figure over the same time period in places without statutory smoking bans.

It might be meant to mean, for example

• in jurisdictions that have introduced smoking bans, the DUI death rate was on average 13% higher in the year (or whatever length of time) after the ban was introduced than in the year before
• as of May 2008, the DUI death rate is 13% higher on average in jurisdictions with smoking bans than in those without

but this still needs clarifying, and it makes no difference to my first point.

-- Smjg (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationale Citation

In the second paragraph, the article says smoking bans may ultimately increase health care costs, citing a 1997 article, "The Health Care Costs of Smoking." The premise of that article is that, if all smokers in a community quit, there would be a short-term decrease in health care costs. But, over the long term, the cost would be higher than for a mixed smoker/non-smoker population. In my opinion, the connection between this analysis and smoking bans is weak. The study cited is about cessation, not smoking bans. Restricting smoking in public places does not force smokers to quit. So why cite a study (especially an outdated one) based on the theoretical cost of cessation? 75.66.29.16 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Smoking ban by country - bias and necessity

This section is heavily biased against smoking bans, literally dozens of references are given as to the negative impact of smoking bans in the key countries listed. Without going into the detail in what is a controversial issue, this section is unbalanced and biased.

Further, the selection of countries appears arbitrary, and the section duplicates the main article on 'List of Smoking Bans'. I submit that the individual country listings be removed, and that any pertinant information be moved to the main article.

The section itself should remain, and it should perhaps be a short paragraph or two - an overview highlighting the state of global smoking bans. It already has a clear link to the list of smoking bans article for users who wish to read specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarantus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the section is highly problematic, since it focuses almost exclusively on the effects of smoking bans on the profitability of bars and restaurants. It would be better to have a section on this topic, drawing on evidence from different countries, which appears inconclusive in total. JQ (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the "by country" section into "effects on business", trimming it a bit along the way. The information in the "by country" section broadly confirms what is stated in the intro to the "effects on business" section - official and academic studies find no adverse effects, indusry-funded studies find big effects. JQ (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Smoking ban in India

This article states that Chandigardh was the first city to go smoke-free in India in 2007. However, smoking was banned in the whole state of Kerala in 1999 itself [e.g:- see http://archive.thepeninsulaqatar.com/component/content/article/348-indiaarchiverest/88299.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.99.217 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims Glantz is a "smoke free advocate", etc.

(Due to extensive content discussion, I have moved this discussion from my talk page.)

Summer you say I "vandalised" the smoking ban page. HOW SO! What stanton glantz is not a smoke free advocate? Yes he is! You have proof that he did not select the studies! How is this vandalism?? You just don't like it for political reasons, do you. You are the one that should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.176.107 (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to source your claims. You have refused to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is already sourced. The source is number 62. I don't think a person should re-source a source that already exists in the same sentnce. As for Mr. Glantz being in favor smoking bans, simply clicking on his name that I added took you to the pre-existing wiki-page for him where it is very clear what his position on tobacco smoking is. Why would someone who is anti-smoking not be proud of that fact that someone who is well known and respected in "tobacco free circles" not want his name mentioned? For example of if study on astronomy was done Carl Sagan, would it be vandalism to mention that this well known person in astronomy circles did the paper? I think it gives clearity to the reader that a well known and highly pulished tobacco free advocate helped assemble the studies as opposed to an ignorant individual with no experience in the area or even the tobacco industry. Thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.176.107 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was vandalism because it is part of your long term pattern of making virtually the same edits to the same articles despite repeated reversals of those edits with requests for sources. As for your new claim, what you added is not supported. Source #62 <small.(Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S (2003). "Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry". Tob Control 12 (1): 13–20.) does not say that studies finding no economic impact were "produced by smoke-free advocates". On the contrary, it says that those finding negative economic impact were 1) more likely to use "a subjective outcome measure" 2) far less likely to be peer reviewed and 3) all were supported by the tobacco industry. As for your claim that the studies were "selected by smoke free advocate Stanton Glantz", there are two problems: 1) Glantz is one of four authors and 2) your claim that Glantz is a "smoke free advocate" is not sourced, nor does any reliable source discuss this in relation to the selection of studies presented here. If you are looking for a NPOV description of Glantz, I would suggest that he is "Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control, and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine". Your description, however, is more akin to describing Sagan as a "nuclear arms control activist". As this discussion is entirely about the content of the article, I have moved it to the article talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between vandalism (cause for immediate banning) and edit warring (requires a warning to stop), which is what 72.234.176.107 is doing here. That said, SummerPhD is absolutely right on the merits. Glantz certainly supports mainstream science on the dangers of tobacco smoke, as you would expect - he's a Professor of Medicine, after all. And presumably his research on tobacco control looks at ways of reducing tobacco use. That doesn't justify using a vague epithet like "smoke-free advocate".JQ (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits are merely the most recent edits by the same editor, stretching back over a year. After final warnings on one IP, the editor switches to a new IP (see User_talk:138.163.128.42, User_talk:138.163.128.41, User_talk:72.234.176.107, User_talk:72.234.183.210, etc.). We've semi-protected the article in the past due to hir edits. Evasive editing is vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Back again. 72.234.172.201 reverted as vandalism. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Smoking may be moved elsewhere

I believe this section should be removed. The title seems to be someones opinion and the facts in the section hardly support it.Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it lacks objectivity / neutrality. (viol. WP:NPOV??) -andy 77.190.33.135 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Germany and railway stations: just FYI

I've just appended a tiny bit which indicates that smoking IS allowed in railway stations in some locations, just not everywhere. I lived in South Germany for quite awhile, and e. g. in the Stuttgart main railway station the "smokers' corners" were even provided on the platforms! This does not necessarily have to be the case in all stations, but if you come to Germany, you can see yourself that you're not "100% banned" as a smoking railway passenger walking around on the station area (as the article previously suggested), just not free to decide where you want to light your cigarette. -andy 77.190.33.135 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Martyrdom of smokers

(A) Martyrdom of smokers

(B) Smoking is forbidden on some streets in Japan. Smokers utilize smoking lounges, such as this one in Tokyo.

(C) A sign stating "No smoking while walking" in Taitō, Tokyo

(D)

File:Bangor bilingual station no smoking sign.jpg

(E)

I've removed right image. Quite apart for the blatant editorialising that was attached to the photo, the photo itself wasn't adding anything to the article. Due to pixelisation, you cannot actually determine what anyone is doing. No actual smoking is visible. There's no way of verifying that it shows what it's claiming to show, this could just as easily be people waiting on a train platform talking on their phones. Reduced down in size onto the article it's not clear what it's supposed to illustrate. The article doesn't benefit from it and won't miss it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Escape Orbit - I had already done the same but the poster reverted; it does not appear to be from someone who is highly fluent in English, so the language used may have been a genuine error but it certainly didn't meet neutrality standards. Hypocaustic (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, dear friends, by crikey there is little article about Japan. So I am going to add account and the appropriate image soon. Till then I remove the images about Japan.　In the article ja:禁煙, there are many notes smoking ban about Japan, so I have bilingualism two language and translate it into English.--Watson system (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the Image, because readers could not understand the discussion.Watson system (talk)

There's nothing wrong with the idea of the image, just in the quality of it and the way it is being described.

• It's not clear what, if anything, is happening due to the pixelisation of people's heads.
• It's not clear that what is being shown is a separate area for smokers. Could be just a normal train platform waiting area.
• I can't see any "curious stares". If there are any, it would just be an opinion that they are "curious stares". How do they differ from people just looking around?
• The description is not neutral, and advances an opinion. Who says it is "like a monkey cage"?
• The name of the file, although not visible in the article, is indicative of someone pushing an opinion. Who says these smokers are like martyrs?

A better image that shows more clearly what is being talked about, without the added opinions, would be fine. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In Japan people has image right, hence should not be infringe on other's right of portrait. Do you understand?--Watson system (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. So there is a problem with the image. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the article there are no citation about Japan, if place the Image of Japan, you should add the article of Japan. --Watson system (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to do.

Why do you keep taking out of the article two other pictures? There is no problem with these two pictures. They have been in the article for some time.

Please stop adding back into the image (even hidden) this image. We are agreed that this image is not suitable. Discussion will not change the problems with it. Having it it hidden in the article is pointless. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no there is problem with these two pictures, the reason is added above, You should do is write the article about Japan and do adequate work for the pictures. You said the photo itself wasn't adding anything to the article aren't you? That's not what you said before. --Watson system (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the new photo, the one that was recently added. You have not provided any reason why you keep removing the other two. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In that regard I gave an explanation above. Take responsibility for one's remark. You should accomplish what is required. --Watson system (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about. What are you trying to do to this article and these photographs?? If you will not explain yourself, and aren't doing anything about improving the article, then I will revert it to the version prior to your edits. If your mastery of English is making it too difficult for you to explain, or to follow what is being asked of you, are you sure you should be attempting to edit the English language Wikipedia? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Escape Orbit here. Japan was adequately covered in this article before Watson System's attempts to augment it; the removal of the two existing Japanese images was unnecessary, the new image was not clear enough to add anything useful and the references to 'martyrdom' breached Wikipedia's requirements as regards neutral point of view. With the greatest of respect to Watson System's doubtless well-intentioned attempts to contribute here, his/her fluency in English is indeed not sufficient and further such interventions could reasonably be viewed as vandalism - please stop. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2011-11-05T06:19:03 Escape Orbit deleted the Image from the article [2] and said the photo itself wasn't adding anything to the article and present some reason for delete. I felt they are illogicality and arbitrary, but entertained them. For B and C I felt unnaturalness, because there are little articles about Japan, but it indicate matters in Japan. For example B indicates the part of building, but there are no smokers and are green glasses painted nonsensical icon only. If you want putting it you should write the appropriate topic of setting in Japan.--Watson system (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your work is doubtlessly well motivated but if you want to know why the other editors doubt your ability to edit the English wikipedia ask your English teacher to critically review the last reply you gave. If you don't have an English teacher, well, sorry, but you should probably find one. Britmax (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Get your nose out of my business.--Dr. Watson System 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson system (talk • contribs)

OK. I think I understand better what you are saying. No-one would claim the photos, or the article, are perfect, or can not be improved upon, but there is nothing wrong with them. The photos illustrate adequately topics discussed on the article. But what you've done is removed long-standing photos, that are perfectly ok, on the promise that sometime in the future you may add something about Japan to the article. Please do, your help would be appreciated and details of smoking bans in Japan would be a very welcome addition. But until then, there is no reason to remove the photos that are there. And there is certainly no reason to have the new, unsuitable, photo inserted as hidden text. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel B gives ambiguous message the readers. Hence I recommend readers D substitute B. And about C, some Chinese characters and Hirakana, Jap's original charcter, are written but most of western readers could not decipher it. However something alphabets are written but it wear thin. And so I offer recommendations you E, it is better than C. --Dr. Watson System 11:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Get your nose out of my business.", eh? It's not your business, it's Wikipedia's business. Referring to your recommendations of photos for inclusion in the article, B is not a perfect illustration of a smoking area but D is no substitute as the people standing around some anonymous lobby could be waiting for anything.

Are you aware that you have stopped using four tildes and are now signing yourself "Dr Watson System", and losing the link to your pages?

Finally, you really need to work on your English or I'm afraid you will struggle here. Britmax (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, but I think your capacity for reading is elementary-level too, ...sorry.
I had given an explanation why B is inappropriate above, read it again.--Dr. Watson System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson system (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) -Dr. Watson System (talk)

• Image B illustrates a building just for smokers who aren't allowed to smoke even in the street. It says "smokers" on the window. A ban on smoking in the street is unusual and of interest.
• Image C is of interest because it demonstrates a different kind of ban; that while walking. It's not a great image, but is notably different from the others and unusual.
• Image D illustrates a group of people standing somewhere. Like image A, it's not clear why they are there, or what they are doing. No smoking is obvious. Even if we are to accept they are smoking, it is not a particularly unusual or remarkable sight.
• Image E is ok. It could be used to illustrate the UK section.

I think these photos demonstrate that Japan has different attitudes and approach to smoking bans than Western countries, and that a section devoted to Japan would be a very valuable addition. Nothing suggest, in any way, that we should be removing or replacing any photos. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, let's clear away the matters point by point. You said Image E is ok. Then at the first set out I am going to insert only Image E, May I? --Dr. Watson System (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, under the UK section. I also say that B & C are ok. Please revert your removal of them, there is no consensus for their removal. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As Dr. Watson System hasn't, I have restored these photos to the article. Please do not remove them again until there is consensus to do so. I've also added "Image E" to the UK section, as discussed here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What a high-handed approach you had done…Aw, man!...it is not reach consensus. I say clear away the matters point by point. The Image C and F are the same in type, then C is nonnecessity, the reason is stated above. The Wikipedia is not a gallery of images, to be kept to the minimum. --Dr. Watson system (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the order we do things. You wish to remove the photos, so you must seek to reach consensus for the removal. You do not remove the photos, and then demand everyone else reaches consensus before you will allow them back in. Do not remove them again until there is consensus to do so. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop violently reaction.

There is an argument for Image A, but about C is little discussed, please confirm it. Mr Escape O. please stop violently reaction. Your behavior is dangerous.--Dr. Watson system (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My behaviour is exasperated, because you seem to think that photos can be removed and discussed until you are happy with them. Only then may you allow them to be returned to where they have been for years previously. That's not how things work. I asked you a number of times to put back what you removed, but you ignored my requests.

You have explained what you don't like about Photo C. I think I follow what you have said about it, but I disagree that your reasons are enough for it to be removed. Therefore there is no consensus for it being removed. Therefore you do not remove it.

If you have further thoughts and suggestions to improve the article then I am always happy to discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Watson System, please now heed the input which you have received from several other contributors above and refrain from making any further edits to this article. In attempting to post in a language which you do not fully understand the nuances of, and in taking constructive criticism personally, it is unfortunately your own behaviour which is inappropriate. If you can limit your input to material which you understand expertly, and a language in which you are completely fluent, you will be doing much more to help Wikipedia. Thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You bet. You may well be right but...
I can speak some languages, but could not be fluent in them all. I try to work unflinchingly on the difficult tasks, and I have a right to make a contribution for Wikipedia, I think probably Jimmy Wales needs such a guy having a frontier spirit. Spineless and having no encourages risk native English speaker like you should support me. --Dr. Watson system (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss individually about Images

I think you mixed up some issues. Let’s clear away the matters point by point and discuss this like adults, …OK?

Image C

The reason why I think (C) is inadequacy is that …

1. In it some Chinese characters and Hirakana, Japanese's original character, are written on the wall but most of western readers could not decipher it.
2. Something alphabets are written but it wear thin. Hence probably all western readers may not make sense it.
3. There are little articles about Japan, but (B) and (C) is particular to Japanese society. It is unnatural and wrong.
4. The Image C and F are the same in type, I feel duplicative insertion to be superfluous.
   

--Dr. Watson system (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. To respond;

1. Yes, the text cannot be read by most English language readers. But the picture and explanation below the photo explains everything.
2. Yes. But I don't think this is a big problem. It also helps illustrate that this is actually painted on the pavement, and it is walked on.
3. The article is about smoking bans globally. The fact that there is not a section about Japan is a reason for improving the article to include one. It is not a reason for removing what little there is. What would be appreciated is if you could start a Japan section, even if it is only a couple of sentences. What is the law on public smoking in Japan? When was it introduced? If there is none, is there any campaigning to have one introduced? What is public opinion on smoking bans?
4. What is image F? It's not shown here.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you it is an interesting view, and I ask for other's opinion about it.--Dr. Watson system (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Image C

File:Poi-sute boushi jyorei seitei-ku.jpg

(F)

I changed from (C) a smudgy image to (F)a new and clear image in 18 November 2011 . --Dr. Watson system (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very good. Thank you for doing this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New title?

This page was been moved from its previous title, 'smoking ban', for two standard Wikipedian reasons. The first is that of common name, as although the term 'smoking ban' continues to be used often enough in English speaking news media, it is not the term favoured by organisations involved in forming or applying such regulations - and a colloquialism can be dealt with quite simply through a redirect and a brief mention in the introductory text. The second, perhaps stronger reason, is to remove ambiguity; 'smoking ban' suggests prohibiting smoking per se, which with the possible exception of Bhutan is almost never attempted in reality, most smoke-free laws regulating simply where one may smoke rather than whether. This improvement appears uncontroversial to me so I have 'been bold' and made the move - however, if it raises concerns, or if fellow Wikipedians feel the article will benefit from further discussion, this is the place to do it.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Without any discussion whatsoever, Hypocaustic has systematically attempted to change every mention of the term "smoking ban" on the English Wikipedia to "smoke-free law." I would propose that, under basic WP:UCN and WP:MOVE principles, the title "smoking ban" is more appropriate because it is far more common and the unilateral move was absolutely improper. Hypocaustic's reasoning that "smoking ban," while obviously more commonly used, is "not the term used by organizations involved in forming or applying such regulations," inherently violates WP:NPOV. If Hypocaustic wants this moved, he/she should propose it in the proper channels.Wikophile (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• It sounds like a few key points may have slipped through the cracks here, so thanks for raising the challenge to allow for further discussion on the subject Wikophile. The use of the term 'smoke-free law' in preference to 'smoking ban' certainly isn't unilateral or undiscussed - it has evolved over time, internationally, and is now the recognised description in the field. It sounds as if some further discussion / exploration of that evolution may be useful in providing reassurance that this isn't just one contributor's personal preference or whim, however - so it would be useful to know if there's anything specific about the term which concerns you or appears unclear. NPOV concerns are indeed important but are more likely to argue for the very change I have contributed - pejorative uses of 'ban', 'banning' and conflations of smoke-free regulations with outright prohibition of smoking are frequent amongst commentators intending to argue a specific position against such smoke-free laws. This is an encyclopaedia rather than a media-speak dictionary, after all, so redirecting readers from widely-used colloquialism to commonly-used descriptive term is arguably perfectly appropriate. As for the proper channels, as I understand it these are they - let's go ahead and discuss it. I'll undo your reverts as far as possible for now as the facts suggest that the move is indeed fully in line with Wikipedian principles, but if you can show a properly argued case against it (avoiding any abusive phraseology in your comment headings please), please do!Hypocaustic (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't the proper channel. You should propose a requested move, per WP:MOVE.Wikophile (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• That may be a matter of opinion, Wikophile. As I understand it, straightforward moves are accepted and, indeed, encouraged, where the issue is uncontroversial. On the substance of the issue, it does indeed appear uncontroversial; you have certainly made it clear that you dislike the move, but have not yet actually addressed the point that 'smoking ban' and 'smoke-free law' have different nuances and, therefore, different meanings. Rather than simply overturning an edit which you dislike, let's hear your reasoning, if you have a legitimate concern. Mud-slinging only leads to edit wars, and that helps no-one.Hypocaustic (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is not "uncontroversial." Two different editors now have reverted your unilateral attempts to change every mention of the term "smoking ban" on the English Wikipedia to "smoke-free law" or some derivation thereof. Per basic WP:UCN, the most common term used in the English language for a type of law or regulation restricting or prohibiting smoking in some places - "smoking ban" - should be the phrase titling these articles. That has been the name of these articles for many years, and you are the only one to propose changing it. Such a sweeping change should go through the normal channels - i.e. a requested move, allowing posting on the noticeboard and a full community discussion. Moreover, your reason for desiring this change seems to be a connection to the topic (I notice that the majority of your edits have to do with smoking and its regulation), posing WP:ACTIVIST, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COI issues. In any case, don't unilaterally move these again. Use the WP:RM process.Wikophile (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks 'Wikophile', I can see where you're coming from more clearly now. It does appear that this development was indeed uncontroversial in its substance, until controversy was retrospectively ignited by you and, as you rightly point out, one other username. We may, as a result, have to go through a more convoluted process to deal with your (as yet unsupported) objections as a result, it is true. It would perhaps be in Wikipedia's interests for you to examine the subject a little more dispassionately in preparation for any such formalised discussion; language evolves, and encyclopaedias do too, which is why this website is not just a reprint of a multi-volume publication from 1912. As for your comments on my perspective, naturally I'm flattered that you've looked up my contribution record but you may be confusing expertise with advocacy - I do indeed know what I'm talking about, but I don't work in this field and my contributions here are intended to improve the quality and salience of Wikipedia, not to push a personal point of view. Can you honestly say the same?Hypocaustic (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned about this move, as long as there are adequate redirects, however it certainly does appears to be disputed. As such it should be fully discussed, with adequate time given given for all to comment. I do not see how you can claim it was uncontroversial, until someone made it so. Everything is "uncontroversial" as long as it remains unknown and undiscussed, as this move was. Being bold, and moving the page the first time, was not a great idea, but within your rights. Repeating the move after it was first reverted, without allowing for full discussion, was a bad idea, and obviously so.

Beyond that, while I'm not too bothered, I do feel that general usage, 'incorrect' or not, is "smoking ban". Legislators and involved parties may prefer the term "smoke-free law", and it may even be technically more precise, but that's not what it is commonly known by. An article that insists on using a different term may confuse. So personally I'd leave it exactly where it is, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that helpful input, Escape Orbit. Evidently, we'll have to agree to differ as to whether this really is the common name, but it's helpful that you have engaged with the actual issue. Perhaps this is, in any case, a false or at least unnecessary dichotomy - maybe Wikipedia should even be glossing both terms to some extent. But I suggest we close this one for now.Hypocaustic (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

Observing the helpful feedback from the above discussion following a previous (abortive) move, I have looked into this further and noted that a false dichotomy appeared to have arisen between 'smoking ban' and 'smoke-free law'; it's evident that, although often used as synonyms, they do describe subtly but importantly concepts - usually the former defines whether one can smoke, the latter where. I have attempted to add a short couple of introductory sections which gloss this suitably without falling into the trap set by some activists opposed to tobacco control measures, who appear to be keen to use the term 'ban' as widely as possible because 'banning' anything can be readily presented as unwelcome politically. But it's a complex subject, in which achieving full objectivity can be tough - so if fellow contributors have ideas on improving this, they would be welcome.Hypocaustic (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you "noted" has "arisen" is inherently WP:OR, and has no place in this article. You remain the only editor ever to have objected to using the common term "smoking ban" to describe polices and laws that prohibit smoking. If you want the terminology used on Wikipedia to be something different than "smoking ban," propose a WP:RM and see what the consensus is. That's how we operate here. For now, reverting your continuing unilateral actions remains the best policy, as before. Wikophile (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I damn know this is not a forum. I'm requesting a factcheck on the intro/definition of a smoking ban

Please change the intro to imply that when substances other than tobacco may otherwise be smoked legally, a location-specific smoking ban typically applies equally to those substances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.211.206 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

How to support this article? Can anyone please tell?BOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304195527/http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM:TRAVEL to http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM:TRAVEL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 07:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_10027079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 02:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

History

It says that "The first modern attempt at restricting smoking was imposed by the [...] German government" in 1941. I don't see why this is considered as the first "modern" attempt. According to Jerome Jackman, Assistant City Attorney, South Dakota had a total cigarette ban already in 1916. He wrote (in 1916): "In South Dakota the sale and manufacture of cigarets and cigaret papers is unlawful and the sale of tobacco [all kinds] to persons under 16 is prohibited. Source: http://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/lccn/sn83016772/1916-01-15/ed-1/seq-12 (in the lower right part of the page) Is a state law in 1916 not to regard as modern? I think it is. --Andreas1974 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

ClubsNSW

User:Escape Orbit, the ClubsNSW report is an unreliable source. (It is also an inaccessible source, as the link doesn't work.) That the report may have been repeated by a newspaper is immaterial. Our article on evolution does not cite reports from young earth creationist organisations, even though newspapers may. I would appreciate it if we could try to come to an agreement on the talk page before you revert my edit again. We should err on the side of not giving potentially unreliable information in an article until there's a reasonable amount of time for the issue to be discussed. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please revert your third edit on this, per WP:BRD. Repeatedly removing material prior to discussion is not conducive to good discussion, not how it works, and approaching edit warring

To repeat my points;

• ClubsNSW is not the source. The Australian newspaper is.
• The cite you left also quotes ClubsNSW's viewpoint. So both sources consider their view notable and relevant.
• Whether ClubsNSW's view is unreliable or biased is not the point. They have a notable point of view on the issue, and it is clearly attributed
• The reader is capable of deciding for themselves whether ClubsNSW's point of view is compromised or worthless.
• The article should reflect a balanced view point from all sides. Otherwise someone else would be justified in removing all opinions voiced by all parties, claiming them "biased" to some degree.
• If the reference used is a dead-link, it can be repaired.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert the edit. My experience with other editors has been that, without reverting, they will refuse to engage in discussion despite repeated requests. I'm glad to hear that you're happy to discuss this.

* Notable opinions should not be included in factual articles if they are not correct.

* Again, we don't give balance to denialist views on our climate change article, and denialists' views are much more notable than ClubsNSW's.

* Wikipedia does not attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.

"Notable opinions should not be included in factual articles if they are not correct." - This is incorrect. What is often the case is that opinions that are fringe opinions are not notable, and therefore not included. If we are to accept that an opinion is notable, it is not fringe. Wikipedia editors do not decide what is the truth, we determine what is notable. It is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to report someone's opinion without making any judgement on whether it is accurate/justified/truthful, as long as their opinion is notable and it is properly attributed to someone as an opinion.

ClubsNSW is trade organisation representing pubs/clubs/establishments in New South Wales. Both sources discussing smoking bans in NSW appear to accept that they have a notable opinion on a smoking ban within NSW pubs/clubs/establishments. I think we can both understand why that should be. Whether their opinion is biased/correct/utter fiction, is irrelevant. We present the full and balanced to the picture to the reader and let them decide that. So what may improve the article is to better explain who ClubsNSW are.

There is nothing to show that ClubsNSW's estimations of the smoking ban's impact is incorrect. So I don't know how you can declare it incorrect. I find it much more credible that what they claim is an opinion, the accuracy of which is almost impossible to determine, and, yes, they may well have a bias that makes their opinion questionable. But, again, the reader can decide that for themselves.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ClubsNSW has a conflict of interest. Sources have to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject in question. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to where I have already explained, more than once, ClubsNSW is not the source. If you cannot understand the definition of "source" as used in Wikipedia, then you should not be using it to support your edits or quoting it in relation to guidelines. In this case, two newspapers are the third party sources, reporting the relevant and notable opinion of ClubsNSW. If article were to only include the opinions of parties who have absolutely no involvement, interest, or possible bias, on the article subject, we would find it impossible to have any opinions.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I know that content disputes can sometimes get heated, but let's try to remain WP:CIVIL. You haven't responded to the point which I have made several times - newspapers frequently report on climate denialist studies. Why don't we put all of the reported views down and let the reader decide whether or not climate change is real? Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't heated, I was emphasising something that you did not appear to understand and kept returning to. I don't think that comparisons with global warming are useful. The effects of global warming have been extensively studied and 99% of studies are broadly in agreement. Can we say the same about the effects of smoking bans on the clubs of NSW? It's quite a niche subject, so there are not going to be that many authorities or studies to reference. And our sources agree that ClubsNSW is an interested party with a notable opinion.

Anyway, there is plenty of coverage in Wikipedia about the views of global warming denialist. Not because these opinions are "correct", but because they are notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of smoke-free laws

I think you could add a morality dilemma between smokers and the State.

Remember that many people older than 40 had during their youth all kind of incentives to start smoking, including TV adverting on tobacco with full support from the State.

Only the people from those generation that wasn't really predisposed to tobacco addiction (genetically for sure) escaped addiction.

Yes, the State was wrong, perhaps as much as people who started smoking was wrong. However, now the same State prosecutes those addicted people who started with its support pretending to be doing that morally.

What's the State morality here?

I think Russia's ban on smoking in the future for people born after 2014 is a moral decision by the State, which in some form forgives those who started smoking at a time the State allowed it and will hardly be followed by those cynic immoral States that are dependent on tobacco revenue to survive. These latter States will keep prosecuting smoking people with popular measures like banning smoking in public, that grant State's income anyway, as they don't lost one single smoker and after all the State doesn't really care where they burn their cigarrettes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.158.23.95 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Smoking ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM%3ATRAVEL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120015349/http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air to http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224215115/http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html to http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828200837/http://www.cctc.ca/ to http://www.cctc.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

EHM graphic map very outdated

The image from EHM is dated 2007, so it's very very outdated and it should be deleted or moved to a historical point of view. This article is much more accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.16.4 (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Poi-sute boushi jyorei seitei-ku.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 August 2023 and 8 September 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valerie.ov (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Valerie.ov (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

English A

Write an article for the newspaper supporting the view that smoking should be completely banned 190.108.215.168 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)