Talk:United States anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by WOLA report

looks good to me. --65.27.65.24 04:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support -- Borofkin 05:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The content is okay, but the article title is mildly POV and sensationalist. Will support once it's adjusted. Lankiveil 05:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support with updated title. Lankiveil 06:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support now. 119 06:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

er... tilt!

"The United States government has criticized it, claiming progress is shown by street prices for drugs being near an all-time low."

The United States government's primary aim in the War on Drugs is to reduce the volume of illegal narcotics imported into the United States. By reducing imports, prices of the drugs will rise and, so the government reasons, drug use will decline."

is it just me or is the US government experiencing cognitive dissonance?!

Did they really claim that the "near all time low" street price demonstrated progress? If so, that claim is so remarkable (particularly in the light of the next couple of sentences) that its worth citing a source.

i agree with you. the dissonance was introduced by an editor, and has been removed. Also, the spelling of Colombia was re-corrected. jkrusky 14:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was me. Obviously I meant high prices. Sorry. 119 14:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, it was wrong to take out the sentence itself. You then present a picture critical of the "War on Drugs" for three paragraphs before introducing any possibility of support. 119 14:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the statement that "The United States government has criticized it, claiming progress is shown by street prices for drugs being near an all-time high." is not what the government is claiming, and contradicted by the government's own statistics. And the three paragraph you refer to are not critical of anything. The first two provide background. The third provides detail. Balance and neutrality doesn't mean paragraphs have to be written in an alternating pro/con pattern. I am going to remove the sentence, as it is incorrect. jkrusky 21:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry, but I think this article should be discussed a little more. I have put it for deletion but this not means it will be deleted. I did that because I want more people get envolved discussing about this article. In my opinion this article is biased and propaganda, but I think it can be published after it get better written. Also I have put the article at deletion request because I want every change I will do get clearly visible for everyone. ---Carlosar 00:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you seem to have some very strong opinions against WOLA perhaps you should attempt to re-write the article. Perhaps write another article on how badly WOLA sucks, too. That should be NPOV fun. jkrusky 01:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't have strong opinions against WHOLA(at least for now without research) by reading the article and that is the problem. There is a technical problem which is valid for every article:

1. when someone criticizes somebody you must say who criticizes
2. you must say clearly who criticizes. You can't say an unknown and mysterious organization is responsable for the critic. More or less, the organization must be defined(unless it is well known by the public). I hope you have seen my point.--Carlosar 01:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• You see, I am not against publishing negative articles about USA(or somebody else), but this must be done professionally, otherwise we will be just releasing politic propaganda which is very bad for the project reputation.--Carlosar 01:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Since the article is not ABOUT WOLA, and there are available links to do research on WOLA, I think that condition is satisfied, without misdirecting an article about a report. Plus, the government is given a chance in the article to refute the claims, so that should be enough. jkrusky 01:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)