Talk:Alcohol education

message: This looks like a copy and paste from the DARE website. Paul 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if DARE should still be kept in this article. I will start translating this into traditional Chinese today.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: DARE

message: Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.  Tufflaw 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the DARE or MADD Message... 

message: WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
Adding general references to an article does not meet this requirement to "attribute[] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".
Further, as they were added after the material was written, they were not "used as sources" to write the material (see  above) -- and their relationship to the material is thus questionable and ambiguous, at best.
Please do not violate WP:BURDEN by restoring material without inline citation to a reliable, published source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that simply moving links from 'External links' to 'References' does not render material in the article verifiable, and does not even come close to meeting WP:BURDEN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not. But that doesn't mean you should give up on a potentially important article, it's easy to just redirect it but not that easy to actually clean it up. WP:V and WP:BURDEN also states material "likely to be challenged" should be removed. There's good information here that although unsourced I don't see it being challenged. That's why the tags were there, read WP:PRESERVE again. Plus it was only tagged since January 2009, so you could have given it more time. I haven't read through all the material in the references yet so I don't know if it can be matched to the text but I was hoping it could, otherwise it could be tagged for rewrite. Anyways, I get your point though. -- œ™ 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misread WP:V. It states "challenged or likely to be challenged". A -tag is a "challenge". It further states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (my emphasis) -- this places the burden squarely on your shoulders to find a source before restoring the material. While the topic may be "important", the material contained in the article was mostly self-cited and self-promotional material from somebody hawking himself and his education programmes, in a series of similar articles. You are welcome to either attempt to find reliable sources to verify this mess, or to rewrite the article from scratch to these sources (and I suspect, based on personal experience that the latter is likely to be easier than the former). I would however insist on something that gives some impression of compliance with WP:V, before an article is restored. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Further, I would point out that of the links you moved into 'References', all but the link that you mention above were from the UK, whilst the vast bulk of the material that was in the article referred to the US (rendering the remainder clear 'refspam'). You would in fact be better off replacing the existing content with a cited summary of that source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Great! You beat me to it. Though the reference is pretty old (1981), but I'm sure there's plenty of sources to draw from relating to this subject. -- œ™ 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think the age of the source is any real problem. (i) Human nature doesn't change, and I doubt if there've been many relevant new insights into it in the intervening time (particularly as the basis for these methods appears to be more ideological rather than research-based in any case). (ii) Both the source, and the article, explicitly presents the viewpoint as historical.Also its breadth of viewpoint makes it a far better core/seed for an expanding article than (potentially more recent) sources that might be more interested in promoting some particular methodology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability, general references & refspam 

message: [Moved from User talk:Hrafn HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that simply moving links from 'External links' to 'References' does not render material in the article verifiable, and does not even come close to meeting WP:BURDEN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not. But that doesn't mean you should give up on a potentially important article, it's easy to just redirect it but not that easy to actually clean it up. WP:V and WP:BURDEN also states material "likely to be challenged" should be removed. There's good information here that although unsourced I don't see it being challenged. That's why the tags were there, read WP:PRESERVE again. Plus it was only tagged since January 2009, so you could have given it more time. I haven't read through all the material in the references yet so I don't know if it can be matched to the text but I was hoping it could, otherwise it could be tagged for rewrite. Anyways, I get your point though. -- œ™ 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misread WP:V. It states "challenged or likely to be challenged". A -tag is a "challenge". It further states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (my emphasis) -- this places the burden squarely on your shoulders to find a source before restoring the material. While the topic may be "important", the material contained in the article was mostly self-cited and self-promotional material from somebody hawking himself and his education programmes, in a series of similar articles. You are welcome to either attempt to find reliable sources to verify this mess, or to rewrite the article from scratch to these sources (and I suspect, based on personal experience that the latter is likely to be easier than the former). I would however insist on something that gives some impression of compliance with WP:V, before an article is restored. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Further, I would point out that of the links you moved into 'References', all but the link that you mention above were from the UK, whilst the vast bulk of the material that was in the article referred to the US (rendering the remainder clear 'refspam'). You would in fact be better off replacing the existing content with a cited summary of that source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Great! You beat me to it. Though the reference is pretty old (1981), but I'm sure there's plenty of sources to draw from relating to this subject. -- œ™ 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think the age of the source is any real problem. (i) Human nature doesn't change, and I doubt if there've been many relevant new insights into it in the intervening time (particularly as the basis for these methods appears to be more ideological rather than research-based in any case). (ii) Both the source, and the article, explicitly presents the viewpoint as historical.Also its breadth of viewpoint makes it a far better core/seed for an expanding article than (potentially more recent) sources that might be more interested in promoting some particular methodology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: [[Alcohol education]] 

message: I've added the Globalize template because this article is currently entirely about the United States. ~ booyabazooka 08:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize