Talk:Demand reduction

message: Ive written the following article, and im hoping that more ppl contribute, i believe this article can play a huge factor in wikipedias drug articles, im a big fan of the arguments for and against drug prohibition. ~~Portillo~~
:You're a fan of both sides of the argument? ;)  --Thoric 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: previous message

message: This article needs a major revision. It's totally on the side of lifting drug prohibition. For instance "It could be described as ludicrous to think that the illicit drug market and consumption will miraculously disapear". Any takers?
Wikipedia brown 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Edits in the name of NPOV seem to have switched the balance of this article completely.  While the article was non-neutral previously against demand reduction tactics, the article now appears to be non-neutral in favor of demand reduction tactics.  NPOV means a neutral point of view whereby both sides are presented.  This means not removing points of view, but instead making sure that both sides are represented.
True, some demand reduction tactics have been successful, but many have been unsuccessful -- partcularly those which distort the truth and are obviously false information.  D.A.R.E. has been proven to be ineffective to the point where it sometimes results in more adolescent drug use.
Please make sure that truthful relevant information is not removed from this (and other) articles.  --Thoric 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of relevant information 

message: What part of the article is in "favor" of them?  What part argues that they are good or right?  The title of the article is in fact Demand reduction, so I would expect to the article to focus on that and not something else.  Being that I support the legalization of drugs and that I think that the war on drugs is a joke, I find it ironic that one could accuse me of writing a non-neutral article that favors a position opposite to that of which I hold.  It's not that I don't agree with the statements I deleted - it's just that they're a bunch of unsalveagable opinion.
Previously, this article contained nothing but unverified statements of the author's perception.  Truthful or not, they are not verifiable, and are uncited, and WP:OR and WP:VER say they don't belong.  Additionally, they were irrelevant to Demand reduction.  Have a look.  The old article told us how harmless marijuana is compared to alcohol, tobacco - which belongs under marijuana and has nothing to do with demand reduction.  The old article tells us what "many" are under the impression of, and what they assume (without references, of course).
Instead of saying I haven't focused on what I haven't focused on - let's say I haven't.  Add to it!  I don't know diddly squat about D.A.R.E, which may be a testament to my shelteredness, or may be an indicator that it was such a poor program to begin with.  At least I have stayed on topic! Reswobslc 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you removed the section on D.A.R.E. and the "Just Say No" campaigns.  Two prime examples of demand reduction campaigns which seriously failed in their goals.  I'm saying that if you're going to show the successes of demand reduction (which are few), you're also going to have to show the failures (which are many).  As for DARE... take a read of the wikipedia article on DARE ;)  Also of note is how demand reduction in one area almost always directly results in an increase somewhere else.  (Reduction in smoking tobacco results in an increase in use of other drugs (primarily coffee, and other stimulants, some legal, some not).  --Thoric 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them likewise because of WP:OR and WP:VER.  They are statements of opinion with absolutely no reference or citation.  In fact I wouldn't even call them statements, because they qualify themselves with ridiculous phrases like "it can be argued" and "largely regarded" as though the author wants to leave them vague enough to not be false if the "arguable" or "largely regarded" ideas are completely bogus.  Demand reduction in one area resulting in an increase of other drugs elsewhere is notable... but not includable in the article if you can't substantiate it per WP:VER.  Further, I don't have to "show anything" other than to cite sources for what I've got to say.  I already stated I know nothing about D.A.R.E. (I grew up in Canada and we don't have that there) so perhaps you are in a position to fill in what I've left out. Reswobslc 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point isn't whether or not the removed material was faulty, it was that it should not have been removed, but instead corrected, and any piece of information that requires a citation should be tagged as such well before it is removed, and only removed if a citation cannot be found.  --Thoric 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source it, go ahead and re-add it, otherwise the burden of proof is on the author to source their materials, and not Wikipedia or anyone else, per WP:VER Reswobslc 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standward wikipedia procedure is to tag questionable items with a cite tag before removing them.  --Thoric 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you have spewed your opinion, attempted to spin it as official, and failed to cite your source.  Well, your statement is wrong, and here's where you can find out why. WP:VER#Burden_of_evidence.  A read-over of WP:CITE may help. Reswobslc 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Thoric is correct, as your sources indicate.  Both insertion of non-sourced claims and deletion of said claims without first tagging are violations of Wikipedia:wikiquette.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the Wikiquette page doesn't talk about any of that, and just to make sure I didn't overlook it, I used the browser's page search function.  The words "claims", "source", "citation", "cite", "tag", "tagging", etc. don't appear even once in Wikiquette.  But at this point, doesn't it seem like this is now a debate just for the sake of debating?  I mean, more text has been written regarding whether the text "shoulda" or "coulda" been deleted, and whether it's against the rules and against the status quo, than has actually been deleted in the first place.  Yet, no effort has been made to actually re-include the text along with even a hint of a source to make it stand.  No one has argued that the text doesn't belong.  It won't be me who writes about D.A.R.E., as I don't know the difference between it and a dog's thumb, so if it isn't anyone else in this thread either, then I guess it won't be included for quite a while then. Reswobslc 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise, Wikipedia directly addresses use of phrases such as "it can be argued" and "it is largely regarded".  See WP:AWW. Reswobslc 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Arthur Rubin was pointing out the WP:CITE#How_to_ask_for_citations section.  Which seems to imply that citations should be first sought out, and then if not found, requested, and then if not fulfilled the offending material removed.  For the record I didn't supply any of the removed information in this article, I was just saying that it likely should have been corrected rather than removed.  If I find some time I may replace it in corrected, cited form, but I don't know when that might be.  --Thoric 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:AWW is not official wikipedia policy, and not all wikipedians agree with it -- including me.  Please see  WP_talk:AWW --Thoric 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF you can source your material you won't have to use weasel words in the first place. Reswobslc 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant to what? 

message: The result of this AfD nomination was keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand reduction]] 

message: There is no evidence of effectiveness of any of these programs.  If you want to claim otherwise, cite a source.  A negative, such as the one I just inserted, doesn't need a source.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness