Talk:Smoking ban
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
