Talk:Smoking ban - Knowledge

2717:

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!

2802:

a more convoluted process to deal with your (as yet unsupported) objections as a result, it is true. It would perhaps be in Knowledge'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 Knowledge, not to push a personal point of view. Can you honestly say the same?

2673:

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.

2771:, 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 1665:

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.

1907: 869:

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.

1915: 158: 507: 2889:. 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. 486: 1926: 142: 580: 406: 385: 1875:. 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 416: 1899: 3789: 1499:

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?

243: 834:. 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 295: 274: 958:

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.

788:

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.

305: 1115:. 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. 919:

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.

2280:"Get your nose out of my business.", eh? It's not your business, it's Knowledge'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. 2752:

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.

915:

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.

2824:

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

2192:

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

2171:

Knowledge'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.

1244:. 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. 892:

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. Knowledge is pretty clear about what does and doesn't merit inclusion in an article, and interesting though your views on the credibility of

889:

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.

888:

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)

3401:

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

2859:

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 Knowledge should even be

2801:

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

2751:

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

2500:

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

2157:

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

1947:

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

1664:

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

1290:

Just because the link leads to an article that is about smoking bans does not mean that it should be on this article. Knowledge 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

1225:

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

814:

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

794:

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

787:

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

3552:

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.

3405:

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

3272:

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

2716:

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

1320:

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

957:

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."

910:

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,

780:

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

3237:

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

2590:

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

2170:

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

1498:

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

914:

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

868:

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

2837:

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

2260:

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

1745:

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.

945:

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

864:

The articles on smoking do not measure up to much of what I read on Knowledge 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

3479:

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

2880:

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

2480:

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

2255:

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

1572:

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

1421:

The Nuclear Power article here on Knowledge 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

2672:

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

918:

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

1555:

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.

972:

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

1722:

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

2697:

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

2208:

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.

1110:

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

1626:

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.

2423:

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 Knowledge is not a gallery of images, to be kept to the minimum.

1255:

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.

988:

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".

1198:

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

1226:

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.

2358:

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.

2829:

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

3398:, we determine what is notable. It is perfectly acceptable for Knowledge 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. 1518:

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.

1130:

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;

1270:

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

3553:

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.

1275:, 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. 795:

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.

3801: 1702:

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)

2277:, 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) 1027:. 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. 2439:

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.

698:

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?

1522:

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.

2484:

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

1959:

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.

1526:

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.

2349:

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

3480:

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.

3465:. 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? 979:

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:

3446:, 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 815:

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. --

2501:

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 Knowledge. Thanks.

1202:

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

1425:

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.

2766:

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 Knowledge to "smoke-free law" or some derivation thereof. Per basic

3402:

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.

643:. 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. 1723:

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. -

1689:

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,

2094:

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.

3442:. If you cannot understand the definition of "source" as used in Knowledge, 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 3545:

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.

3341:

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

2688:

Without any discussion whatsoever, Hypocaustic has systematically attempted to change every mention of the term "smoking ban" on the English Knowledge to "smoke-free law." I would propose that, under basic

135: 3894: 557: 547: 3765: 1948:

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. --

150: 1698:<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 791:

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.

3899: 3322:

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.

3264:, 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 2517:

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 Knowledge, I think probably

1206:

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. --

982:

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.

1469:

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

2591:

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?

2343:

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.

1974:

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

523: 2940:

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.

3889: 946:

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.

1718:

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

514: 491: 3615: 323: 1321:

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.

3539:

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.

2107:

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

2346:

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.

171: 327: 2916:"smoking ban" to describe polices and laws that prohibit smoking. If you want the terminology used on Knowledge to be something different than "smoking ban," propose a 1158:'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. -- 1760:

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

1593:

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

2017:

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?

739:

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events, The Background of Smoking Bans (National Academies Press (US), 2010),

3725:

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:

3667: 3663: 3649: 3181: 3177: 3163: 3057: 3053: 3039: 1451:

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

3238:

1916): "In South Dakota the sale and manufacture of cigarets and cigaret papers is unlawful and the sale of tobacco to persons under 16 is prohibited. Source:

1087:

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? --

2158:

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 Knowledge? --

3625: 1455:

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.

911:

and those states that have not. Statements about the difficulties of enforcement have been made by law-enforcement officials, and reported in the news.

3394:

are not notable, and therefore not included. If we are to accept that an opinion is notable, it is not fringe. Knowledge editors do not decide what is

79: 934:

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

3864: 367: 357: 3758: 2920:

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.

2552:

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.

184: 3869: 2023:

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?

3316:

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

1392: 2390:

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. --

3837: 2947: 1418:

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

85: 3616:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151120015349/http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air

2587:

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.

3879: 3599: 1742: 1741:

It's important to distinguish between vandalism (cause for immediate banning) and edit warring (requires a warning to stop), which is what

1672: 1634: 1600: 843: 468: 458: 2284:

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?

2521:

needs such a guy having a frontier spirit. Spineless and having no encourages risk native English speaker like you should support me. --

2320: 2243: 1880: 1848: 1069: 984:

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

770: 626:

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.

332: 44: 3859: 700: 784:

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

3884: 3735: 3645:

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

3619: 3560: 3542:

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

2584:

Yes, the text cannot be read by most English language readers. But the picture and explanation below the photo explains everything.

1500: 1429: 3809: 3005: 3500: 3496: 2273:

I feel B gives ambiguous message the readers. Hence I recommend readers D substitute B. And about C, some Chinese characters and

1828:

I believe this section should be removed. The title seems to be someones opinion and the facts in the section hardly support it.

1543: 1291:

stake in the article's subject (most of which are mentioned on the article) or provide content that is useful and copyrighted.

99: 30: 2142:

In that regard I gave an explanation above. Take responsibility for one's remark. You should accomplish what is required. --

519: 318: 279: 104: 20: 2193:

glasses painted nonsensical icon only. If you want putting it you should write the appropriate topic of setting in Japan.--

2014:

It's not clear that what is being shown is a separate area for smokers. Could be just a normal train platform waiting area.

1461:

It gives no indication of what's happened to the figure over the same time period in places without statutory smoking bans.

865:

talents and expertise wouldn't be better utilized in other areas of communications media, rather than in an encyclopedia.

3874: 1933: 935: 74: 3626:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081224215115/http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html

3773: 3710: 254: 1695: 2067:

In the article there are no citation about Japan, if place the Image of Japan, you should add the article of Japan. --

65: 2558:

There are little articles about Japan, but (B) and (C) is particular to Japanese society. It is unnatural and wrong.

1978:, there are many notes smoking ban about Japan, so I have bilingualism two language and translate it into English.-- 1906: 1472:

as of May 2008, the DUI death rate is 13% higher on average in jurisdictions with smoking bans than in those without

3488: 642:

tag containing the actual citation has been removed, leaving behind just refs that look like <ref name=foo/: -->

597: 213: 208: 2630: 2540:

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

3629: 2955: 2951: 2040:

In Japan people has image right, hence should not be infringe on other's right of portrait. Do you understand?--

1707:

were supported by the tobacco industry. As for your claim that the studies were "selected by smoke free advocate

1452: 847: 429: 390: 3666:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3180:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3056:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2028:

A better image that shows more clearly what is being talked about, without the added opinions, would be fine. --

606: 222: 3841: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1676: 1638: 126: 3319:

The reader is capable of deciding for themselves whether ClubsNSW's point of view is compromised or worthless.

1910:(B) Smoking is forbidden on some streets in Japan. Smokers utilize smoking lounges, such as this one in Tokyo. 1604: 3754:

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

1884: 1852: 1073: 191: 3769: 3701: 3591: 3269: 3125: 2997: 2645: 2616: 2571: 2526: 2470: 2429: 2380: 2334: 2316: 2239: 2198: 2147: 2130:, the one that was recently added. You have not provided any reason why you keep removing the other two. -- 2116: 2072: 2045: 1997: 1983: 924: 876: 800: 766: 433:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 109: 3739: 3564: 2555:

Something alphabets are written but it wear thin. Hence probably all western readers may not make sense it.

1504: 1433: 3356: 2462: 1914: 1751: 1578: 1561: 704: 2488:

If you have further thoughts and suggestions to improve the article then I am always happy to discuss. --

3685:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3673: 3600:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

3484: 3470: 3429: 3421: 3369: 3278: 3247: 3239: 3219: 3199:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3187: 3095: 3075:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3063: 2894: 2865: 2807: 2757: 2722: 2678: 2506: 2176: 1965: 1402: 1386: 920: 872: 796: 762: 260: 3590:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3242:(in the lower right part of the page) Is a state law in 1916 not to regard as modern? I think it is. -- 3124:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2996:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3821: 3731: 3556: 3154: 3030: 2971: 2943: 2913: 2839: 2308: 2231: 1833: 1668: 1630: 1596: 1531: 1326: 1155: 1143: 1127: 1061: 758: 2936:

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

2921: 2788: 2736: 2703: 1535: 242: 3406:

bias that makes their opinion questionable. But, again, the reader can decide that for themselves.

2925: 2792: 2740: 2707: 1807: 1785: 1728: 1654: 1620: 1539: 1458:

It talks of a 13% increase in fatal drink-driving accidents. A 13% increase over what time period?

1032: 198: 55: 2912:, and has no place in this article. You remain the only editor ever to have objected to using the 1257: 1227: 1184: 522:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3792:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

3635: 3620:

http://www.healthcarejournalno.com/the-journal/hjno-contents-index/features/2288-clearing-the-air

3603: 3296:

to discussion is not conducive to good discussion, not how it works, and approaching edit warring

2776: 2772: 2641: 2612: 2567: 2522: 2466: 2425: 2402: 2376: 2330: 2312: 2235: 2194: 2143: 2112: 2068: 2041: 1993: 1979: 1016: 679: 665: 648: 631: 612: 227: 70: 3836:

Write an article for the newspaper supporting the view that smoking should be completely banned

3670:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3184:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3060:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1925: 506: 485: 3686: 3200: 3076: 3006:

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

755:

I am writing not as a person who has made a Wiki contribution here and there, but as a user.

751:

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

3508: 3451: 3410: 3331: 3261: 2843: 2656: 2600: 2489: 2445: 2410: 2391: 2360: 2292: 2262: 2214: 2159: 2131: 2096: 2056: 2029: 1949: 1747: 1574: 1557: 1375: 1300: 1261: 1231: 1207: 1188: 1159: 1020: 1012: 816: 718: 51: 2020:

The description is not neutral, and advances an opinion. Who says it is "like a monkey cage"?

3466: 3443: 3425: 3391: 3365: 3274: 3243: 3215: 3091: 2890: 2861: 2803: 2753: 2718: 2674: 2502: 2304:

I had given an explanation why B is inappropriate above, read it again.--Dr. Watson System

2172: 1961: 1715: 1398: 1366: 1358: 1292: 1180: 963: 839: 608: 579: 224: 3693: 3207: 3083: 177: 3817: 3805: 3609: 3462: 3395: 2967: 1867:

I've just appended a tiny bit which indicates that smoking IS allowed in railway stations

1829: 1272: 1092: 898: 310: 2461:

There is an argument for Image A, but about C is little discussed, please confirm it. Mr

2011:

It's not clear what, if anything, is happening due to the pixelisation of people's heads.

1919: 1322: 3009: 2838:

using a different term may confuse. So personally I'd leave it exactly where it is, per

1776:, etc.). We've semi-protected the article in the past due to hir edits. Evasive editing 3652:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3492: 3349: 3166:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3133: 3042:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2732: 2699: 2694: 2561:

The Image C and F are the same in type, I feel duplicative insertion to be superfluous.

2287:

Finally, you really need to work on your English or I'm afraid you will struggle here.

1844: 1795: 1781: 1724: 1719: 1708: 1650: 1484: 1370: 1241: 1028: 942: 835: 3692:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3345:* Notable opinions should not be included in factual articles if they are not correct. 3313:

quotes ClubsNSW's viewpoint. So both sources consider their view notable and relevant.

3206:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3082:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2640:

I changed from (C) a smudgy image to (F)a new and clear image in 18 November 2011 . --

1068:, except in specially designated smoking rooms; restaurants were included in 2007" -- 3853: 3750:

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

3289: 2780: 2768: 2690: 1944: 1344:"Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation" 1277: 1246: 1151: 1117: 1024: 991: 974: 948: 852: 675: 661: 644: 627: 3388:

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

1898: 1146:

has failed to demonstrate either of the above, so they appear to be at best his/her

2917: 2909: 2784: 2702:. If Hypocaustic wants this moved, he/she should propose it in the proper channels. 2288: 2227:

Get your nose out of my business.--Dr. Watson System 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2210: 1712: 1176: 1147: 1112: 939: 831: 714: 405: 384: 2302:

Oh well, but I think your capacity for reading is elementary-level too, ...sorry.

1064:: "Finland -- Smoking has been banned in indoor public areas and workplaces from 3788: 3659: 3583: 3173: 3117: 3049: 2989: 2611:

Thanks you it is an interesting view, and I ask for other's opinion about it.--

2518: 1649:

I have repeatedly asked you to source your claims. You have refused to do so. -

1299:

on bans. Again; why is it notable? If it is notable, then use it as a cite. --

1154:

unsupported by any facts. Indeed, some of what I've read of the cites indicate

959: 893:

the surgeon general / head of the NCI are, they're not relevant to the article.

827: 740: 415: 165: 24: 3461:

I know that content disputes can sometimes get heated, but let's try to remain

2935: 1476:

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

1343: 1023:, sources and material should only be removed if it is contentious or violates 3658:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3630:

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ban_11408___article.html/smoking_bar.html

3172:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3048:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2256:

photos, that are perfectly ok, on the promise that sometime in the future you

1088: 894: 781:

on the United States; other countries could be handled in separate articles.

421: 411: 300: 3783:

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23

2860:

glossing both terms to some extent. But I suggest we close this one for now.

1975: 1011:

There are several dead links in the article, I've tagged them as such as per

3265: 1480: 1362: 2008:

of the image, just in the quality of it and the way it is being described.

1932: 1378: 842:

in mind; what this means in concrete terms is that a view expressed by the

3390:" - This is incorrect. What is often the case is that opinions that are 125: 3726: 3536:

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

2731:

This isn't the proper channel. You should propose a requested move, per

2087:

Why do you keep taking out of the article two other pictures? There is

1619:(Due to extensive content discussion, I have moved this discussion from 850:

may be given more prominence than a view from a self-published website.

518:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to 2185:

In 2011-11-05T06:19:03 Escape Orbit deleted the Image from the article

1992:

I added the Image, because readers could not understand the discussion.

610: 226: 2375:

Then at the first set out I am going to insert only Image E, May I? --

1746:

That doesn't justify using a vague epithet like "smoke-free advocate".

1053:, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace, 3352:

article, and denialists' views are much more notable than ClubsNSW's.

3240:

http://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/lccn/sn83016772/1916-01-15/ed-1/seq-12

1045:

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

3845: 3825: 3777: 3743: 3715: 3568: 3513: 3474: 3456: 3433: 3415: 3373: 3336: 3282: 3251: 3227: 3103: 2975: 2929: 2898: 2869: 2848: 2811: 2796: 2761: 2744: 2726: 2711: 2682: 2661: 2649: 2620: 2605: 2575: 2530: 2510: 2494: 2474: 2450: 2433: 2415: 2396: 2384: 2365: 2324: 2296: 2267: 2218: 2202: 2180: 2164: 2151: 2136: 2120: 2101: 2076: 2061: 2049: 2034: 1987: 1969: 1954: 1888: 1856: 1837: 1811: 1789: 1755: 1732: 1711:", there are two problems: 1) Glantz is one of four authors and 2) 1680: 1658: 1642: 1608: 1582: 1565: 1547: 1508: 1488: 1437: 1408: 1330: 1305: 1281: 1265: 1250: 1235: 1212: 1192: 1164: 1121: 1096: 1077: 1036: 995: 967: 952: 928: 902: 880: 856: 821: 804: 774: 722: 708: 683: 669: 652: 635: 294: 273: 3503:. Not because these opinions are "correct", but because they are 2783:

issues. In any case, don't unilaterally move these again. Use the

2409:

I've also added "Image E" to the UK section, as discussed here. --

2407:

Please do not remove them again until there is consensus to do so.

1924: 1905: 1897: 2371:

All right, let's clear away the matters point by point. You said

3438:

Please refer to where I have already explained, more than once,

330:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at 713:

I found a reference that says backs up the Arizona/1973 claim.

141: 3636:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050828200837/http://www.cctc.ca/

2353:

Image E is ok. It could be used to illustrate the UK section.

1447:

There are three things fundamentally wrong with this section:

613: 573: 434: 236: 228: 15: 3604:

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

2881:

subtly but importantly concepts - usually the former defines

2465:

please stop violently reaction. Your behavior is dangerous.--

322:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the 3139:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3015:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1183:

meets all criteria. Here is the place to discuss if needed.

2442:

Do not remove them again until there is consensus to do so.

3594:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3128:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3000:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3348:* Again, we don't give balance to denialist views on our 3325:

If the reference used is a dead-link, it can be repaired.

149: 3420:

ClubsNSW has a conflict of interest. Sources have to be

3610:

http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM%3ATRAVEL

3587: 3121: 2993: 2186: 1843:

I agree that it lacks objectivity / neutrality. (viol.

1691: 1107: 658: 3895:

Mid-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles

3639: 2405:

hasn't, I have restored these photos to the article.

2190:

the photo itself wasn't adding anything to the article

2109:

the photo itself wasn't adding anything to the article

3010:

http://www.e-sheesh.com/up_in_smoke.html?_s=PM:TRAVEL

3134:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_10027079

2966:

How to support this article? Can anyone please tell?

1794:

Back again. 72.234.172.201 reverted as vandalism. -

532:

Knowledge:WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health

3900:

WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles

3662:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3176:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3052:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2548:The reason why I think (C) is inadequacy is that … 535:

Template:WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health

2629: 2535: 1935:File:Bangor bilingual station no smoking sign.jpg 1918:(C) A sign stating "No smoking while walking" in 2655:That's very good. Thank you for doing this. -- 2111:aren't you? That's not what you said before. -- 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3890:B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles 2091:. They have been in the article for some time. 1943:I've removed right image. Quite apart for the 1240:Actually, it fails the very first criterion in 326:and that biomedical information in any article 3764:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 3648:This message was posted before February 2018. 3162:This message was posted before February 2018. 3038:This message was posted before February 2018. 2082:I do not understand what you are trying to do. 2055:Yes. So there is a problem with the image. -- 1615:Claims Glantz is a "smoke free advocate", etc. 3727:https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_smoking_bans 2581:Thank you for your explanation. To respond; 1221:At this time, the EL is the only one related 741:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219563/ 324:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles 197: 157: 8: 1422:encyclopedia this has absolutely no place. 1414:Alternatives to bans -- section unnecessary? 3288:Please revert your third edit on this, per 1514:Smoking ban by country - bias and necessity 3729: 3554: 3116:I have just modified one external link on 2988:I have just modified one external link on 2941: 515:WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health 480: 379: 268: 3582:I have just modified 5 external links on 3355:* Knowledge does not attempt to create a 3306:the source. The Australian newspaper is. 2632:File:Poi-sute boushi jyorei seitei-ku.jpg 1369: 1913: 1879:you want to light your cigarette. -andy 1137:It was noted by other reputable sources. 2536:Let's discuss individually about Images 1465:It might be meant to mean, for example 838:. It's also worth keeping the issue of 732: 538:Occupational Safety and Health articles 482: 381: 270: 240: 2594:What is image F? It's not shown here. 1863:Germany and railway stations: just FYI 1384: 3151:to let others know (documentation at 3027:to let others know (documentation at 2515:You bet. You may well be right but... 2481:removed, but you ignored my requests. 1316:Removed a fragment from ==Rationale== 641:They'll be cases where a <ref: --> 183: 7: 3759:Poi-sute boushi jyorei seitei-ku.jpg 1342:Apollonio, E.; Bero, A. (Jun 2009). 1295:is merely one person's research and 1049:In this article's history part: "On 844:Surgeon General of the United States 512:This article is within the scope of 427:This article is within the scope of 316:This article is within the scope of 2908:"noted" has "arisen" is inherently 437:and the subjects encompassed by it. 333:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 259:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3797: 3793: 2698:regulations," inherently violates 2089:no problem with these two pictures 1391:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( 660:. I'll see if it can be salvaged. 14: 3586:. Please take a moment to review 3120:. Please take a moment to review 2992:. Please take a moment to review 3865:Low-importance medicine articles 3800:. Further details are available 3787: 3549:What's the State morality here? 3292:. Repeatedly removing material 1273:conducting breaching experiments 1019:in the summary). The way I read 826:Knowledge is based on collating 578: 505: 484: 414: 404: 383: 328:use high-quality medical sources 303: 293: 272: 241: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3608:Corrected formatting/usage for 3132:Corrected formatting/usage for 2457:Please stop violently reaction. 2004:There's nothing wrong with the 552:This article has been rated as 463:This article has been rated as 362:This article has been rated as 3870:All WikiProject Medicine pages 1824:Smoking may be moved elsewhere 1397:for an interesting new source. 1113:the reliable-sources guideline 529:Occupational Safety and Health 520:occupational safety and health 492:Occupational Safety and Health 342:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 1: 3846:20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3816:— Assignment last updated by 3744:08:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC) 3721:EHM graphic map very outdated 3716:05:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) 2870:11:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 2849:22:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2812:20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2797:20:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2762:20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2745:18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2727:17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2712:16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2683:15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2662:22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 2650:22:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 2621:08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1812:06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1790:05:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 1756:04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 1733:02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 1681:01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 1659:05:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 1643:05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 1438:09:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 1165:10:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 1122:04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 996:18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 968:16:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 723:01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 526:and see a list of open tasks. 345:Template:WikiProject Medicine 42:Put new text under old text. 3778:07:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 3569:22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 3532:Criticism of smoke-free laws 3514:09:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC) 3475:01:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC) 3457:11:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC) 3434:23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 3424:of the subject in question. 3416:11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 3374:23:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 3337:14:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 3283:02:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 2976:14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 2606:15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2576:05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2531:06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2511:23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2495:23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2475:23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2451:22:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2434:21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2416:17:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2397:17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2385:14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2366:13:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2325:11:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2297:11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2268:10:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2261:inserted as hidden text. -- 2219:09:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2203:05:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2181:23:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 2165:15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 2152:12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 2137:18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2121:16:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2102:16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2077:16:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2062:16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2050:16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 2035:13:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1988:08:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1970:08:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1955:12:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1889:23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 1857:23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 1609:11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 1489:17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1097:19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 3880:Low-importance law articles 3826:04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 3268:does not cite reports from 2956:22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3916: 3679:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3579:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3440:ClubsNSW is not the source 3252:08:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 3193:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3113:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3069:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2985:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2899:11:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 2885:one can smoke, the latter 1838:14:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 1583:22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1573:studies find big effects. 1566:07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1509:20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 1055:the first country to do so 953:19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 929:14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 903:11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 881:19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 857:18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 822:18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 810:The article already has a 805:17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 775:18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 558:project's importance scale 469:project's importance scale 368:project's importance scale 3860:B-Class medicine articles 3104:07:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 2930:14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 1548:14:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC) 1453:post hoc ergo propter hoc 1409:07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 1037:04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 848:National Cancer Institute 709:17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 684:21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 670:21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 653:20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 636:20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 551: 500: 462: 443:Knowledge:WikiProject Law 399: 361: 288: 267: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3885:WikiProject Law articles 3501:global warming denialist 3228:02:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 2126:I was talking about the 1902:(A) Martyrdom of smokers 1774:User_talk:72.234.183.210 1770:User_talk:72.234.176.107 1766:User_talk:138.163.128.41 1762:User_talk:138.163.128.42 1331:20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 1306:14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 1282:02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1266:02:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1251:06:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 1236:00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 1213:17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1193:03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1078:22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 446:Template:WikiProject Law 3575:External links modified 3270:young earth creationist 3109:External links modified 2981:External links modified 2834:idea, and obviously so. 1363:10.1186/1471-2458-9-189 1150:, and at worse his/her 1015:(I inadvertantly sited 2637: 1945:blatant editorialising 1940: 1930: 1922: 1911: 1903: 828:verifiable information 249:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3804:. Student editor(s): 3299:To repeat my points; 2635: 1938: 1928: 1917: 1909: 1901: 836:neutral point of view 123:Find medical sources: 100:Neutral point of view 3875:B-Class law articles 3660:regular verification 3174:regular verification 3050:regular verification 1894:Martyrdom of smokers 1589:Smoking ban in India 1108:this series of edits 1062:List of smoking bans 319:WikiProject Medicine 105:No original research 3650:After February 2018 3640:http://www.cctc.ca/ 3444:third party sources 3383:Thank you for that. 3164:After February 2018 3143:parameter below to 3040:After February 2018 3019:parameter below to 3802:on the course page 3770:Community Tech bot 3704:InternetArchiveBot 3655:InternetArchiveBot 3309:The cite you left 3169:InternetArchiveBot 3045:InternetArchiveBot 2638: 1941: 1931: 1923: 1912: 1904: 1694:is not supported. 1494:Rationale Citation 1336:Recent publication 255:content assessment 129: 86:dispute resolution 47: 3746: 3734:comment added by 3680: 3571: 3559:comment added by 3273:to be discussed. 3262:User:Escape Orbit 3226: 3194: 3102: 3070: 2958: 2946:comment added by 2642:Dr. Watson system 2613:Dr. Watson system 2568:Dr. Watson system 2523:Dr. Watson system 2467:Dr. Watson system 2426:Dr. Watson system 2403:Dr. Watson System 2377:Dr. Watson System 2331:Dr. Watson System 2328: 2311:comment added by 2248: 2234:comment added by 1869:in some locations 1671:comment added by 1633:comment added by 1599:comment added by 1551: 1534:comment added by 1407: 1351:BMC Public Health 1148:original research 943:secondary sources 812:Criticism of bans 777: 761:comment added by 619: 618: 572: 571: 568: 567: 564: 563: 479: 478: 475: 474: 378: 377: 374: 373: 348:medicine articles 235: 234: 128:Source guidelines 127: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3907: 3828: 3810:article contribs 3799: 3798:8 September 2023 3795: 3791: 3714: 3705: 3678: 3677: 3656: 3511: 3454: 3413: 3334: 3222: 3221:Talk to my owner 3217: 3192: 3191: 3170: 3158: 3098: 3097:Talk to my owner 3093: 3068: 3067: 3046: 3034: 2846: 2659: 2633: 2603: 2492: 2448: 2413: 2394: 2363: 2327: 2305: 2265: 2247: 2228: 2162: 2134: 2099: 2059: 2032: 1952: 1936: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1683: 1645: 1611: 1550: 1528: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1390: 1382: 1373: 1348: 1347:(Free full text) 1303: 1210: 1175:I just reviewed 1162: 1152:personal opinion 832:reliable sources 819: 756: 743: 737: 614: 582: 574: 540: 539: 536: 533: 530: 509: 502: 501: 496: 488: 481: 451: 450: 447: 444: 441: 424: 419: 418: 408: 401: 400: 395: 387: 380: 350: 349: 346: 343: 340: 313: 308: 307: 306: 297: 290: 289: 284: 276: 269: 252: 246: 245: 237: 229: 202: 201: 187: 161: 153: 145: 131: 95:Article policies 16: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3850: 3849: 3838:190.108.215.168 3834: 3815: 3785: 3766:nomination page 3752: 3723: 3708: 3703: 3671: 3664:have permission 3654: 3592:this simple FaQ 3577: 3534: 3509: 3485:there is plenty 3452: 3411: 3392:fringe opinions 3357:WP:FALSEBALANCE 3332: 3259: 3235: 3225: 3220: 3185: 3178:have permission 3168: 3152: 3126:this simple FaQ 3111: 3101: 3096: 3061: 3054:have permission 3044: 3028: 2998:this simple FaQ 2983: 2964: 2948:173.209.211.206 2938: 2878: 2844: 2670: 2657: 2631: 2628: 2601: 2546: 2538: 2490: 2459: 2446: 2411: 2392: 2361: 2306: 2263: 2229: 2160: 2132: 2097: 2057: 2030: 1950: 1934: 1896: 1865: 1826: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1666: 1628: 1617: 1594: 1591: 1529: 1516: 1496: 1445: 1416: 1403: 1383: 1346: 1341: 1338: 1318: 1301: 1208: 1173: 1160: 1104: 1085: 1066:1st March, 1995 1047: 1009: 817: 753: 748: 747: 746: 738: 734: 696: 657:The bad edit - 624: 622:Citation errors 615: 609: 587: 537: 534: 531: 528: 527: 494: 448: 445: 442: 439: 438: 430:WikiProject Law 420: 413: 393: 347: 344: 341: 338: 337: 311:Medicine portal 309: 304: 302: 282: 253:on Knowledge's 250: 231: 230: 225: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3913: 3911: 3903: 3902: 3897: 3892: 3887: 3882: 3877: 3872: 3867: 3862: 3852: 3851: 3833: 3830: 3784: 3781: 3762: 3761: 3751: 3748: 3722: 3719: 3698: 3697: 3690: 3643: 3642: 3634:Added archive 3632: 3624:Added archive 3622: 3614:Added archive 3612: 3606: 3598:Added archive 3576: 3573: 3533: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3481: 3422:WP:INDEPENDENT 3407: 3403: 3399: 3384: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3353: 3350:climate change 3346: 3343: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3320: 3317: 3314: 3307: 3297: 3258: 3255: 3234: 3231: 3218: 3212: 3211: 3204: 3137: 3136: 3110: 3107: 3094: 3088: 3087: 3080: 3013: 3012: 3004:Added archive 2982: 2979: 2963: 2960: 2937: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2877: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2835: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2764: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2714: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2627: 2624: 2609: 2608: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2559: 2556: 2553: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2534: 2516: 2498: 2497: 2486: 2482: 2458: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2373:Image E is ok. 2369: 2368: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2303: 2300: 2299: 2285: 2271: 2270: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2222: 2221: 2168: 2167: 2140: 2139: 2105: 2104: 2092: 2084: 2083: 2065: 2064: 2038: 2037: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2012: 1895: 1892: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1825: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1743:72.234.176.107 1736: 1735: 1709:Stanton Glantz 1692:what you added 1687: 1673:72.234.176.107 1662: 1661: 1635:72.234.176.107 1616: 1613: 1601:138.253.99.217 1590: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1569: 1568: 1515: 1512: 1495: 1492: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1444: 1443:DUI fatalities 1441: 1415: 1412: 1337: 1334: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1216: 1215: 1204: 1200: 1172: 1171:External Links 1169: 1168: 1167: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1106:I've reverted 1103: 1102:Recent reverts 1100: 1084: 1081: 1051:March 29, 2004 1046: 1043: 1041: 1008: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 908: 907: 906: 905: 890: 862: 861: 860: 859: 752: 749: 745: 744: 731: 730: 726: 695: 694:Contradiction? 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 623: 620: 617: 616: 611: 607: 605: 602: 601: 593: 592: 589: 588: 583: 577: 570: 569: 566: 565: 562: 561: 554:Mid-importance 550: 544: 543: 541: 524:the discussion 510: 498: 497: 495:Mid‑importance 489: 477: 476: 473: 472: 465:Low-importance 461: 455: 454: 452: 426: 425: 409: 397: 396: 394:Low‑importance 388: 376: 375: 372: 371: 364:Low-importance 360: 354: 353: 351: 315: 314: 298: 286: 285: 283:Low‑importance 277: 265: 264: 258: 247: 233: 232: 223: 221: 220: 217: 216: 204: 203: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3912: 3901: 3898: 3896: 3893: 3891: 3888: 3886: 3883: 3881: 3878: 3876: 3873: 3871: 3868: 3866: 3863: 3861: 3858: 3857: 3855: 3848: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3831: 3829: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3813: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3794:6 August 2023 3790: 3782: 3780: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3760: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3749: 3747: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3728: 3720: 3718: 3717: 3712: 3707: 3706: 3695: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3675: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3651: 3646: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3611: 3607: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3574: 3572: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3531: 3515: 3512: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3358: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3335: 3329: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3300: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3256: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3232: 3230: 3229: 3223: 3216: 3209: 3205: 3202: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3189: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3165: 3160: 3156: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3114: 3108: 3106: 3105: 3099: 3092: 3085: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3065: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3041: 3036: 3032: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3011: 3007: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2986: 2980: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2961: 2959: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2850: 2847: 2841: 2840:WP:COMMONNAME 2836: 2833: 2828: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2634: 2625: 2623: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2607: 2604: 2598: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2582: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2560: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2543: 2541: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2496: 2493: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2417: 2414: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2367: 2364: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2336: 2332: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313:Watson system 2310: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2269: 2266: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236:Watson system 2233: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195:Watson system 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2166: 2163: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144:Watson system 2138: 2135: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2113:Watson system 2110: 2103: 2100: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069:Watson system 2063: 2060: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042:Watson system 2036: 2033: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2007: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1999: 1995: 1994:Watson system 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980:Watson system 1977: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1946: 1937: 1927: 1921: 1916: 1908: 1900: 1893: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881:77.190.33.135 1878: 1874: 1870: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849:77.190.33.135 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1823: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1780:vandalism. - 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1624: 1622: 1614: 1612: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1524: 1520: 1513: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1493: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1442: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1413: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1400: 1394: 1388: 1380: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1345: 1335: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1315: 1307: 1304: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1114: 1109: 1101: 1099: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1082: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070:86.60.145.245 1067: 1063: 1058: 1056: 1052: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1006: 998: 997: 994: 993: 987: 983: 976: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 956: 955: 954: 951: 950: 944: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 930: 926: 922: 921:Westernscribe 916: 912: 904: 900: 896: 891: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 873:Westernscribe 870: 866: 858: 855: 854: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 820: 813: 809: 808: 807: 806: 802: 798: 797:Westernscribe 792: 789: 785: 782: 778: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763:Westernscribe 760: 750: 742: 736: 733: 729: 725: 724: 720: 716: 711: 710: 706: 702: 693: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 667: 663: 659: 656: 655: 654: 650: 646: 640: 639: 638: 637: 633: 629: 621: 604: 603: 600: 599: 595: 594: 591: 590: 586: 581: 576: 575: 559: 555: 549: 546: 545: 542: 525: 521: 517: 516: 511: 508: 504: 503: 499: 493: 490: 487: 483: 470: 466: 460: 457: 456: 453: 436: 432: 431: 423: 417: 412: 410: 407: 403: 402: 398: 392: 389: 386: 382: 369: 365: 359: 356: 355: 352: 335: 334: 329: 325: 321: 320: 312: 301: 299: 296: 292: 291: 287: 281: 278: 275: 271: 266: 262: 256: 248: 244: 239: 238: 219: 218: 215: 212: 210: 206: 205: 200: 196: 193: 190: 186: 182: 179: 176: 173: 172:ScienceDirect 170: 167: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 137: 134: 130: 124: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3835: 3814: 3786: 3763: 3753: 3730:— Preceding 3724: 3702: 3699: 3674:source check 3653: 3647: 3644: 3581: 3578: 3555:— Preceding 3551: 3548: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3510:Escape Orbit 3504: 3453:Escape Orbit 3447: 3439: 3412:Escape Orbit 3387: 3364: 3333:Escape Orbit 3310: 3303: 3302:ClubsNSW is 3293: 3260: 3236: 3213: 3188:source check 3167: 3161: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3138: 3115: 3112: 3089: 3064:source check 3043: 3037: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3014: 2987: 2984: 2965: 2942:— Preceding 2939: 2905: 2886: 2882: 2879: 2845:Escape Orbit 2831: 2826: 2671: 2658:Escape Orbit 2639: 2610: 2602:Escape Orbit 2565: 2547: 2539: 2514: 2499: 2491:Escape Orbit 2460: 2447:Escape Orbit 2441: 2422: 2412:Escape Orbit 2406: 2393:Escape Orbit 2372: 2370: 2362:Escape Orbit 2307:— Preceding 2301: 2279: 2274: 2272: 2264:Escape Orbit 2257: 2230:— Preceding 2189: 2184: 2169: 2161:Escape Orbit 2141: 2133:Escape Orbit 2127: 2108: 2106: 2098:Escape Orbit 2088: 2066: 2058:Escape Orbit 2039: 2031:Escape Orbit 2005: 1991: 1973: 1958: 1951:Escape Orbit 1942: 1920:Taitō, Tokyo 1876: 1872: 1868: 1866: 1827: 1777: 1704: 1699: 1663: 1625: 1621:my talk page 1618: 1592: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1497: 1478: 1475: 1464: 1446: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1387:cite journal 1354: 1350: 1339: 1319: 1302:Escape Orbit 1296: 1276: 1245: 1222: 1209:Escape Orbit 1174: 1161:Escape Orbit 1134:It was true. 1116: 1105: 1086: 1065: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1048: 1040: 1010: 990: 985: 981: 978: 947: 917: 913: 909: 871: 867: 863: 851: 840:undue weight 818:Escape Orbit 811: 793: 790: 786: 783: 779: 754: 735: 727: 712: 701:71.59.102.86 697: 625: 596: 584: 553: 513: 464: 449:law articles 428: 363: 331: 317: 261:WikiProjects 207: 194: 188: 180: 174: 168: 162: 154: 146: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3736:195.77.16.4 3584:Smoking ban 3561:5.158.23.95 3467:Orthogonal1 3450:opinions.-- 3426:Orthogonal1 3366:Orthogonal1 3275:Orthogonal1 3244:Andreas1974 3155:Sourcecheck 3118:Smoking ban 3031:Sourcecheck 2990:Smoking ban 2914:common term 2891:Hypocaustic 2876:Terminology 2862:Hypocaustic 2804:Hypocaustic 2777:WP:ADVOCACY 2773:WP:ACTIVIST 2754:Hypocaustic 2719:Hypocaustic 2675:Hypocaustic 2519:Jimmy Wales 2503:Hypocaustic 2173:Hypocaustic 1962:Hypocaustic 1871:, just not 1667:—Preceding 1629:—Preceding 1595:—Preceding 1530:—Preceding 1501:75.66.29.16 1430:99.51.75.51 1399:LeadSongDog 1223:exclusively 1017:WP:DEADLINK 936:independent 757:—Preceding 435:legal field 31:not a forum 25:Smoking ban 3854:Categories 3818:Valerie.ov 3806:Valerie.ov 3711:Report bug 3330:Thanks. -- 2968:BOTFIGHTER 2827:Everything 2668:New title? 1873:everywhere 1847:??) -andy 1830:Ryan Vesey 1696:Source #62 1156:Rockdowner 1144:Rockdowner 1128:Rockdowner 1083:Rationale? 1021:WP:DEADREF 1013:WP:DEADREF 1007:Dead links 728:References 598:/Archive 1 422:Law portal 3832:English A 3694:this tool 3687:this tool 3497:the views 3493:Knowledge 3396:the truth 3266:evolution 3208:this tool 3201:this tool 3084:this tool 3077:this tool 2922:Wikophile 2904:Whatever 2789:Wikophile 2737:Wikophile 2704:Wikophile 2463:Escape O. 2188:and said 2128:new photo 1782:SummerPhD 1725:SummerPhD 1651:SummerPhD 1536:Amarantus 1404:come howl 1293:This link 1181:this link 1142:As it is 1029:Redrocket 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3732:unsigned 3700:Cheers.— 3557:unsigned 3489:coverage 3483:Anyway, 3463:WP:CIVIL 3257:ClubsNSW 3214:Cheers.— 3090:Cheers.— 2944:unsigned 2787:process. 2321:contribs 2309:unsigned 2275:Hirakana 2244:contribs 2232:unsigned 1669:unsigned 1631:unsigned 1597:unsigned 1544:contribs 1532:unsigned 1379:19534777 1278:MastCell 1256:Correct? 1247:MastCell 1199:article? 1118:MastCell 992:MastCell 949:MastCell 940:reliable 853:MastCell 846:and the 771:contribs 759:unsigned 676:Bazzargh 662:Bazzargh 645:Bazzargh 628:Tkgd2007 585:Archives 339:Medicine 280:Medicine 209:Archives 178:Springer 143:Cochrane 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3588:my edit 3505:notable 3233:History 3224::Online 3141:checked 3122:my edit 3100::Online 3017:checked 2994:my edit 2962:Support 2883:whether 2733:WP:MOVE 2700:WP:NPOV 2695:WP:MOVE 2626:Image C 2544:Image C 2289:Britmax 2211:Britmax 1845:WP:NPOV 1371:2706247 1357:: 189. 1323:Długosz 1297:opinion 1258:Chido6d 1242:WP:ELNO 1228:Chido6d 1185:Chido6d 715:Samatva 556:on the 467:on the 366:on the 251:B-class 3495:about 3290:WP:BRD 3149:failed 3025:failed 2781:WP:COI 2779:, and 2769:WP:UCN 2691:WP:UCN 2350:sight. 1025:WP:BLP 975:WP:BRD 960:Otis66 674:done. 257:scale. 166:OpenMD 136:PubMed 3342:this. 3294:prior 2918:WP:RM 2910:WP:OR 2887:where 2825:so. 2785:WP:RM 1976:ja:禁煙 1877:where 1716:claim 1177:WP:EL 1089:Plenz 895:Nmg20 830:from 192:Wiley 84:Seek 3842:talk 3822:talk 3796:and 3774:talk 3740:talk 3565:talk 3507:. -- 3471:talk 3430:talk 3370:talk 3311:also 3279:talk 3248:talk 3145:true 3021:true 2972:talk 2952:talk 2926:talk 2895:talk 2866:talk 2842:. -- 2808:talk 2793:talk 2758:talk 2741:talk 2723:talk 2708:talk 2693:and 2679:talk 2646:talk 2617:talk 2572:talk 2527:talk 2507:talk 2471:talk 2430:talk 2381:talk 2335:talk 2317:talk 2293:talk 2240:talk 2215:talk 2199:talk 2177:talk 2148:talk 2117:talk 2073:talk 2046:talk 2006:idea 1998:talk 1984:talk 1966:talk 1885:talk 1853:talk 1834:talk 1808:talk 1786:talk 1752:talk 1729:talk 1720:NPOV 1713:your 1677:talk 1655:talk 1639:talk 1605:talk 1579:talk 1562:talk 1540:talk 1505:talk 1485:talk 1481:Smjg 1434:talk 1393:link 1376:PMID 1340:See 1327:talk 1262:talk 1232:talk 1203:one? 1189:talk 1179:and 1093:talk 1074:talk 1033:talk 986:huge 964:talk 925:talk 899:talk 877:talk 801:talk 767:talk 719:talk 705:talk 680:talk 666:talk 649:talk 632:talk 185:Trip 159:Gale 151:DOAJ 73:and 3812:). 3768:. — 3668:RfC 3638:to 3628:to 3618:to 3602:to 3499:of 3491:in 3487:of 3448:any 3304:not 3182:RfC 3159:). 3147:or 3058:RfC 3035:). 3023:or 3008:to 2906:you 2832:bad 2636:(F) 2485:it. 2401:As 2258:may 1939:(E) 1929:(D) 1803:PhD 1800:mer 1797:Sum 1705:all 1700:not 1623:.) 1479:-- 1367:PMC 1359:doi 1060:In 1057:." 548:Mid 459:Low 440:Law 391:Law 358:Low 199:TWL 3856:: 3844:) 3824:) 3776:) 3742:) 3681:. 3676:}} 3672:{{ 3567:) 3473:) 3432:) 3409:-- 3372:) 3281:) 3250:) 3195:. 3190:}} 3186:{{ 3157:}} 3153:{{ 3071:. 3066:}} 3062:{{ 3033:}} 3029:{{ 2974:) 2954:) 2928:) 2897:) 2868:) 2810:) 2795:) 2775:, 2760:) 2743:) 2725:) 2710:) 2681:) 2648:) 2619:) 2599:-- 2574:) 2566:-- 2529:) 2509:) 2473:) 2444:-- 2432:) 2424:-- 2383:) 2359:-- 2337:) 2323:) 2319:• 2295:) 2246:) 2242:• 2217:) 2201:) 2179:) 2150:) 2119:) 2095:-- 2075:) 2048:) 2000:) 1986:) 1968:) 1887:) 1855:) 1836:) 1810:) 1788:) 1778:is 1772:, 1768:, 1764:, 1754:) 1748:JQ 1731:) 1679:) 1657:) 1641:) 1607:) 1581:) 1575:JQ 1564:) 1558:JQ 1546:) 1542:• 1507:) 1487:) 1436:) 1389:}} 1385:{{ 1374:. 1365:. 1353:. 1349:. 1329:) 1264:) 1234:) 1191:) 1095:) 1076:) 1035:) 977:). 966:) 938:, 927:) 901:) 879:) 803:) 773:) 769:• 721:) 707:) 682:) 668:) 651:) 634:) 54:; 3840:( 3820:( 3808:( 3772:( 3738:( 3713:) 3709:( 3696:. 3689:. 3563:( 3469:( 3428:( 3386:" 3368:( 3359:. 3277:( 3246:( 3210:. 3203:. 3086:. 3079:. 2970:( 2950:( 2924:( 2893:( 2864:( 2806:( 2791:( 2756:( 2739:( 2735:. 2721:( 2706:( 2677:( 2644:( 2615:( 2570:( 2525:( 2505:( 2469:( 2428:( 2379:( 2333:( 2329:- 2315:( 2291:( 2238:( 2213:( 2197:( 2175:( 2146:( 2115:( 2071:( 2044:( 1996:( 1982:( 1964:( 1883:( 1851:( 1832:( 1806:( 1784:( 1750:( 1727:( 1675:( 1653:( 1637:( 1603:( 1577:( 1560:( 1538:( 1503:( 1483:( 1432:( 1395:) 1381:. 1361:: 1355:9 1325:( 1260:( 1230:( 1187:( 1091:( 1072:( 1031:( 962:( 923:( 897:( 875:( 799:( 765:( 717:( 703:( 678:( 664:( 647:( 630:( 560:. 471:. 370:. 336:. 263:: 214:1 211:: 195:· 189:· 181:· 175:· 169:· 163:· 155:· 147:· 139:· 133:· 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index