Talk:Montana Meth Project

Neutrality

A page about an anti-drug campaign that claims great success with no mention of opposition or discussion? Did somebody say "propganda?" This article is definitely NOT NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.25.77 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 July 2008

Thank you for your comment. I was wondering the same thing. How come nobody sees anything bad in those videos. aren't those pretty frightening, not telling the children anything about those drugs but that you will abandon your beloved and do anything for money or such?

i am not too deep into the stuff so i cant really write some critic statements but the campaign cant be all good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.207.10 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to agree with this but Meth is completely different and probably the closest experience of hell on earth. There is no NPOV to this drug. Sneakernets (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph does not mention the opposition to the move to use public funds for the meth project. When anything is added to reflect that - it gets deleted. The second sentence comes directly from Montana Meth Project's fact sheet posted on their web site. It is misleading: the CDC is not connected with the project and the results of the CDC's survey are independent of the project. --Nonombre (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about neutrality. User First Virtual appears to have a conflict of interest, as the First Virtual Group is owned by Tom Siebel, who founded the Meth Project. User First Virtual has for months been deleting from the entry any information critical of the Meth Project. Several users have commented about this.(talk) 12:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

64.175.135.254 and First Virtual edits

I apologize if I added information too abruptly...however, since there hadn't been any additions or activity on this article I was under the impression that it was fairly open.

I do not understand why you decided to undo the edits of Sep 20 to Sep 22. Nometh's edits cleaned up the footnotes and improved the flow. I added information from the article's existing citation as well as additional survey results to the second paragraph. All of my additions were supported with citations from realiable sources.

The paragraph currently shows the information available on the Meth Project's websites and in their press releases. Doesn't that contradict the impartiality rule of wikipedia? Please explain your reasons for removing the edits. I have additional information and research I was planning to add to this article so I am interested in understanding what other editors are thinking before I proceed.

Thanks--Nonombre (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history. Over this article's life, most additions that do not praise or speak highly of the Meth Project are removed or slowly converted to praise. This appears to be the work of 2 to 3 editors. I think the comments above have some merit. There doesn't appear to be a neutral point of view to the extent that it makes me wonder if there is a conflict of interest among the editors. I would like to see some balance in the article. --Nonombre (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting note to my comment above. On opensecrets.org I found that as of Aug 2007, Tom Siebel reported his occupation as the Chairman of First Virtual Group. This makes the editor named 'First Virtual' appear to be connected to the meth project and therefore potentially biased. I am posting the Conflict of Interest warning here and a Neutrality Dispute on the article. The voices of people who are not going to just repeat information published by the Montana Meth Project will make this article balanced and neutral.--Nonombre (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Nonombre (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness

I added information concerning the projects results (with references) and links--Nonombre (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I commented on your Talk page about citation methods. I also moved the comment from the project report (about the numbers remaining "essentially stable") to the lede. Nometh (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am new to editing and will work on my citation methods. I added information about the move to get public funding and secondary survey information. I will fix my citations once I figure out how to do that but I think they are closer to what you did than before.--Nonombre (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I must throw into question the effectiveness of these ads. There is no statistical data to prove one way or another these ads are in fact as effective as the producers claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.128.231 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

new wave of ads?

Hey, I found a supposed montana meth advert on youtube where someone is plucking their eyebrow, then the camera pans out to show the other eyebrow almost all ripped out and blooded. Has there been another wave of adverts that needs mentioning here or was it an unauthorised ad? The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8_lFF7tPLE&feature=related or search for montana meth eyebrows Coolug (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This page was recently semi-protected to address blanking at this page. If you wish to make major changes to this article, please communicate with your fellow editors by raising the topic for discussion here. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Data and accuracy

The site needs to fairly represent both sides. There is too much credence paid to some obscure psych student researcher's (Ercg Hurn) critical review. Page needs to be updated to show 2009 data that just came out this week, Montana media covered the data by CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (currently page only shows 2007 data). How can edits be made to reflect latest data. This is outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milangam (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions:

1. What do you mean by "both sides"?
2. What changes do you wish to see?
3. What reliable sources support those changes?
4. The YRBS data from 1999 onward shows that there was a downward trend in the use of meth for at least six years prior to the launch of the Meth Project: see Statement of David Erceg-Hurn to Governor Schweitzer and Montana Legislature regarding funding of Montana Meth Project in 2009 budget.

YRBS Data - Percentage of Montana Teens who have EVER used meth:

1999	2001	2003	2005	2007
13.5%	12.6%	9.3%	8.3%	4.6%

It doesn't look like the Montana media is noting this; it looks like they're all clapping each other on the back and congratulating each other. It doesn't make sense to attribute the decline in meth use to the Meth Project when meth use had already been dropping. Initial meth use dropped by 3.3% between 2001 and 2003 (before the Meth Project was introduced in 2005), which is nearly as large as the drop between 2005 and 2007 (3.7%). Is there anything in the 2009 data that disputes these statements? Do you have any proof that the Meth Project ads are responsible for a reduction in meth use?

5. Are you the person who previously had been removing large sections of content from the article?

-- Whatever404 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While Mr. Erceg-Hurn has every right to provide feedback on the Montana Meth Projects performance and impact, other sources most be taken into account as well in judging the projects performance. The Montana State Attorney Generals office and Office of Public Instruction both underscore the impact of the Meth Projects impact on methamphetamine in the state. Both state offices have credited the Meth Project with raising awareness of methamphetamine in a state that traditionally sweeps its flaws under the rug or hides them in the closet. This page needs to better show the updated 2009 YBRS data from Montana OPI released last week. Montana OPI should be a reliable source as it is co-produced with the CDC. The basic facts are: methamphetamine use in teens did drop 63 percent from 2005 - 2009 according to Montana OPI's 2009 YBRS. other drops, include: 42 percent decline in Meth-related treatment admissions of patients 20 years old and younger, and a 24 percent decline of patients of all ages from 2005 to 2007 as reported by the Montana Attorney General based upon Alcohol and Drug Information System Client Admission data. please take this data into account when reviewing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine1786 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address the important point I made about the fact that meth use had already been dropping prior to the inception of MMP's activities. I'm very interested to hear you address questions #4 and #5. Whatever404 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of comparing data from the two-year period prior to the launch of the project (2003 to 2005), this week's newspaper article in some major newspapers in Montana selectively compares 2001-2003 YRBS data to 2005-2007, completely omitting the two-year period right after the program launch. If an article is going to be nit-picky, at least let's compare apples to apples. Since the program is nearly 4 years old now, it would seem logical to compare the four-year period prior to the launch of the Montana Meth Project to the results in the four years since the launch, wouldn't it? Taken those two time periods, the change is significantly different, according to the YRBS data: a 34% decrease from 2001-2005 compared to a 63% decrease from 2005 to 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowancreative (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make the error of engaging in WP:SYN. Correlation does not imply causation. Is there any research which demonstrates any positive or negative effect(s) (if any) that MMP has had upon meth use? Whatever404 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The data you are referring to does not take into account the two years leading up to 2005, while it is true methamphetamine use was declining in Montana (11% from 2003-2005), the rate of declined was larger the two years after 2005 (45% from 2005 to 2007). To address your question regarding research demonstrating positive or negative effects the Montana Meth Project has had on meth use, it is difficult to prove or disprove your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine1786 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any particular edits you have in mind? Previously you made an edit that removed all criticism of MMP from the article. I'd like for that not to happen in the future. Whatever404 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The data should include the 2009 YRBS data from the CDC for Montana. In the Effectiveness of the Ads section, the table from 1999-2007 should be updated to show the 2009 number of 3.1% reference here. The following should be added in order to illustrate the relative percentage drop -

AFTER –

Similar absolute drops in meth use occurred in some years prior to the introduction of the ad campaign. For example, meth use fell by 3.3% between 2001 and 2003.[3]

ADD

“The data from 4 years prior to the launch compared to the 4 years since the launch shows:

• 34% decrease from 2001 to 2005, the four-year period prior to the launch of the Montana Meth Project.

• 63% decrease from 2005 to 2009, the four-year period after the launch of the Project.”

In the section below where the table shows Meth Project’s, the following should be added. Since currently only selective parts from the meth project press materials are quoted--

“The Montana Meth Project has repeatedly said the 2005 and 2006 Montana Meth Use & Attitudes Survey is a sampling of the population and should not be used as projectable for all of the population. MMP relies on the OPI-CDC YBRS data, which does represent all of the teens in the state.”

Also the following sentence should be updated to show 2009 figures.

Change from:

According to a 2007 Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report,[4] since the inception of the program in 2005, there has also been a 72% relative decrease in adult methamphetamine use, and a 62% relative decline in methamphetamine-related crimes.[5].

To:

According to the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey published by the Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report, since the inception of the program in 2005, teen meth use has decreased 63%. The 2007 Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report,[4] states that there has been a 72% relative decrease in adult methamphetamine use, and a 62% relative decline in methamphetamine-related crimes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine1786 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. Where is the published source providing the meta-analysis you would like to add to the article? Whatever404 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m sure you are not disputing the CDC data. The percentage change was from the following CDC data shown in the table:

2001 – 12.6

2005 – 8.3

Difference between 2001 and 2005 is 4.3.

To get % change you divide 4.3 by 12.6 to get 34 % – relative change from 2001 to 2005.

2005 – 8.3

2009 – 3.1

Difference between 2005 and 2009 data 5.2

To get % change you divide 5.2 by 8.3 to get 63 % – relative change from 2005 to 2009.

Antoine1786 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to selectively cite sources in ways that are heavy with implication. Wikipedia must never be used as a place to publish one's own analysis of existing data. Have any researchers published these specific pre- and post- figures? Without such a publication, this type of analysis is OR. Whatever404 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, the paragraph cited below needs to be removed as well due the implications within it, the citation is a statement from a certain individual (David Ercug-Hurn, a graduate student) to Governor Schweitzer and not original research either:

The YRBS data indicates that teenage meth use in Montana has declined since the Meth Project’s ad campaign was launched in 2005. However the YRBS data also shows that meth use was dropping for at least 6 years prior to the launch of the ad campaign. The absolute drop in meth use since the ad campaign was introduced in 2005 is 3.7%. Similar absolute drops in meth use occurred in some years prior to the introduction of the ad campaign. For example, meth use fell by 3.3% between 2001 and 2003.

One source you might consider is the Montana Attorney General’s report “Methamphetamine in Montana: A Follow-up Report on Trends and Progress” in April 2008, done by the Montana Department of Justice. This report shows relative percentage changes.

“The 2007 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey1 reports that lifetime meth use by teenagers in Montana has dropped 44.6 percent since 2005. This decline is greater than any other observed across all risk categories measured by the survey.“

-- Antoine1786 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"Montana’s methamphetamine precursor law went into effect July 1st 2005. The Montana law is stricter than the CMEA in several important respects."[6] Montana’s workplace drug testing results showed a 69.4% decrease in positive tests for amphetamine. Montana's Attorney General [7][8] and the MMP[5] attribute Montana's decrease in adult meth usage to the MMP. However, the ONDC reported: "The primary reason for this positive trend is the enactment of various State laws...which implemented restrictions on transactions involving products containing certain chemicals (primarily, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine) that can be used to make methamphetamine."[6]

In other words, the ONDC attributes the downward trend starting in 2005 to the new limitations on the availability of ingredients used to make meth, not the MMP.

I'm not clear on why you want the Erceg-Hurn paragraph to be deleted. Would you briefly explain what changes you want to see, where you want them to be, provide reliable sources to support them, and explain why you want these changes to be made? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When government resources cite updated information (such as the recent YRBS data posted by the state office of Public Instruction), how long does it take before it is updated in Wikapedia? Ckjthem9002 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you briefly explain what changes you want to see, where you want them to be, provide reliable sources, and explain why you want these changes to be made? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The ONDCP’s statement does not take into account the addition influx of methamphetamine from Mexico by way of the Interstate system. The Montana Department of Justice states that “methamphetamine produced in domestic labs has declined dramatically in recent years, [and] it has been replaced by high-quality, high-potency crystal methamphetamine brought into Montana by interstate and international drug trafficking organizations.” The U.S. Department of Justice also reports that “successful law enforcement operations and precursor control legislation have significantly decreased powder methamphetamine production in the region; however, Mexican DTOs have compensated for this decline by supplying significant quantities of high-purity ice methamphetamine from Mexico. In addition, the percentage of Montana teens that report they have been offered Meth from 2005 to 2008 remained essentially unchanged (between 11% and 13% of respondents.)

Your source simply does not take into account all the factors.

ONDCP, Profile of Drug Indicators, State of Montana, 2008

United States Department of Justice, “Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Market Analysis 2008, June 2008.”Antoine1786 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Consult the additional sources below for addition information:

[1] Montana Attorney General, Mike McGrath. Methamphetamine in Montana: A Follow-Up Report on Trends and Progress. April 2008.

[2] United States Department of Justice, “Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Market Analysis 2008, June 2008.”

[3] Montana Meth Use & Attitudes Survey. 2008.

Antoine1786 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Antoine1786 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide links. Please be more specific about exactly what changes you want to see in the article. Whatever404 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Montana Meth Project has repeatedly said the 2005 and 2006 Montana Meth Use & Attitudes Survey is a sampling of the population and should not be used as projectable for all of the population. The Montana Meth Project relies on the Montana Office of Public Instruction-CDC YBRS data, which does represent all of the teens in the state.‰

Also the following sentence should be updated to show 2009 figures.

Change from:

According to a 2007 Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report,[4] since the inception of the program in 2005, there has also been a 72% relative decrease in adult methamphetamine use, and a 62% relative decline in methamphetamine-related crimes.[5].

To:

According to the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey published by the Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report, since the inception of the program in 2005, teen meth use has decreased 63%. The 2007 Montana State Office of Public Instruction Report,[4] states that there has been a 72% relative decrease in adult methamphetamine use, and a 62% relative decline in methamphetamine-related crimes.

Antoine1786 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation three on the main article page is not valid, you cite David Erceg-Hurn when that data actually comes from the Montana Office of Public Instruction, please change this Antoine1786 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Can you fix this yourself? Whatever404 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain in detail your objections to the following:

Comparing data from the two-year period prior to the launch of the Montana Meth Project to the post-launch period, shows a dramatic acceleration in the decline in teen Meth use:

11% decrease in teen Meth use from 2003 to 2005, the two-year period prior to the launch of the Montana Meth Project

45% decrease in teen Meth use from 2005 to 2007, the two-year period after the launch of the Project.

The above data is from the Montana Office of Public Instruction and as such is conducted independently. Montana OPI uses relative percentages within the context of its annual reports.

As for the following statement:

Montana Meth Project asserted that the data collected in the 2005 and 2006 Montana Meth Use & Attitudes Surveys used a sampling method that does not allow the results to be projected to the full population. The YRBS, however, surveyed a projectable samples in 2005, 2007 and 2009 so the data are representative of all teens in the state (“projectable” to all Montana teens). Starting in 2007, at the recommendation of the scientific advisory board of the National

Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the sampling method used in the Montana Meth Use & Attitudes Survey was revised to provide a projectable sample, and all subsequent studies (including all benchmark studies conducted in other states) use the new methodology.

This statement was released by the Montana Meth Project in response to the Billings Gazette article on July 5th.Antoine1786 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want people to review your statements, it would be best to provide us with links to your sources. Giving only the names of sources, and using the <ref> tag on Talk pages (where there is no References section to visit) are less than helpful. Whatever404 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on stats: There is a difference between a 3.7 percentage point reduction and a 3.7 percent reduction. If you take the '05 rate of 8.3% use and subtract the '07 rate of 4.6% you get a 3.7 POINT reduction. That is however, a 45 PERCENT reduction. This is a common mistake made by non-stats folks when trying to interpret statistical data. It's easiest to think about this in terms of money. If you had a shirt that was $8.30 that went on sale and the price dropped to $4.60. That would be a reduction of $3.70. However, that shirt would have gone down by 45%. I'm absolutely NOT arguing that I think the 45% reduction in meth use is attributable to the Montana Meth campaign. On the contrary, I'm certain it did not and was actually due to the environmental laws, policies and practices that were made independant of the scare tactics employed in the campaign. But it's important that the statistics be used appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.56.91.135 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Page protection

I would like to formally ask for the Montana Meth Project Wikipedia page to be unprotected. Antoine1786 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Antoine1786, you can make a formal request at WP:RPP, but it'd be better to wait for uninvolved parties to make edit the article after consensus has been reached or reliable, non-synth, non-primary sources (such as press releases) are found. tedder (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It only makes sense the Montana Meth Project Wikipedia page should be unprotected. How can an article on such a subject be considered reliable if only a select few can edit or provide input? As a free encyclopedia created in the interest to provide unfiltered knowledge to the masses, why can't those interested do so? RHGjr (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for extensive changes

I moved the data sections and the subtopics about efficacy below the ad spots. It is my opinion that the Montana Meth Project is significant for producing the video blurbs, and whatever efficacy those have in the short run in a given geographical area is moot. The videos will outlast the MMP and will probably be used and adapted by other organizations, so they should be the article focus. Also I find the discussion about the organization's budget and related bureaucratic issues of the day to be uninteresting.

I see that there is already talk here on these topics, but I wanted to say that I would be in favor of removing the statistical tables due to their being primary data and replacing them with short third-party interpretations of what conclusions the experts who interpreted those charts have drawn. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bold edit to the structure of the article, because I do not find it to be an improvement. Your statements on the fate of the videos, the MMP, and their relative longevity are speculation, thus I do not find those reasons for rearrangement relevant. In contrast to your personal view, as an aside, I find the discussion of the MMP's budget and bureaucratic strategy to be quite interesting.

The lede provides an overview of the theme of the ads. I think the average reader would learn more about the MMP as a whole by reading first about their efficacy and funding than by first reading a play-by-play of fifteen individual ads. Considering that the ads are meant to be viewed, and that they are viewable online from links at the bottom of the page, I think the budget and efficacy information should come before the ad descriptions.

Why would we cite third-party interpretations of the researchers' interpretations, when we have primary sources available? Which third parties did you have in mind? Whatever404 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am speculating on the fate of the videos and the longevity of the organization, but my guesses are based the format used in many other wikipedia articles covering the precedent of a lot of other ad campaigns. Check out some of these Wikipedia articles about particular ad campaigns, and then tell me how you think this article is different and why you think this article should have a different format:Get a Mac, GEICO ad campaigns, Got Milk? and Category:Advertising_campaigns

I would like that you would see as I do, that write-ups about ad campaigns focus on the content of the campaign, and less on the effects of them. I am aware that this page is about an organization and not just about the ad campaign, but MMP came to prominence by virtue of its massive ad campaign, and the organization itself does not have the wide recognition that its ads do. I think the focus should be on the ads, because people do not talk about the organization; they talk about the ads.

I could show you the Wikipedia pages for some other non-profit organizations, and the bulk of their articles is not a recap of the budget and efficacy over some short period of time like the past ten years, as is the case in this article. Here is a list for now, unless you have more questions.

We should cite third-party interpretations because Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and as such it should not contain primary data that has requires interpretation to draw a conclusion. A reputable third party should review the data in a published document, then whatever conclusion drawn in that document can be cited in Wikipedia. I am not proposing citing any other third party, because I think that it is enough to say that the efficacy is measured differently by different parties and that is already cited. The particulars of the debates can be found through citations that I would not remove.

I am asserting that your revert keeps the article in a format that is atypical as compared to other comparable articles. I propose making the descriptions of the content of the ad campaigns the first subtopic and the focus of the article, and removing all primary data, and trimming most of the budget data, and removing most of the day-today bureaucratic challeges that the organization has encountered and is experiencing. Any comments? What do you disagree with of what I have said? What can I do to get your support in my working on this? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your motivations for these proposals are not clear to me.

You stated, "people do not talk about the organization; they talk about the ads". Clearly, as evidenced by the sheer bulk of material in the References section, many people have quite a bit to say about MMP, particularly about whether their ads are effective, and whether they deserve more government funding. When people "talk about the ads", often they are not talking about the ads' content, but about whether the ads are making their intended effect. People certainly do talk about the organization, more than they "talk about the ads" themselves.

The MMP's ad campaign is apparently intended to improve public health and reduce crime, which is quite different from campaigns intended to boost product sales. Why do you think MMP should be formatted similarly to articles about product ads?

You stated that articles about non-profit agencies are typically "not a recap of the budget and efficacy over some short period of time like the past ten years". I think it is odd, to say the least, to describe a decade as a "short period of time" in this context, but, that aside, I think a better comparison to make is that articles about agencies that are the subject of intense debate and criticism typically do not fail to mention such controversy.

The MMP's activities are debated locally, nationally and internationally, over a period of several years, continuing to this day. The debate is verified with ~20 reliable sources. Why do you think we should delete this material?

-- Whatever404 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My motivation is parallel structure with similar wiki pages. There is already extensive debate on this talk page under the heading "Data and accuracy"; I have read these comments and I feel they are completely unrelated to the changes that I want to make. I do not care about one side or the other in the debate; my concern is only for making this article like other articles in format, whatever content it contains. I explicitly do not want to delete material that documents any debate, but I do want to remove any material stating the primary data about which the debates occur. I have shown some pages that have a different format; if you disagree with my proposals, I would ask that you show some examples of pages that have a format that matches what you want. I am fairly sure that you will not find any non-profit or ad campaign good wiki article that details back-end bureaucracy before the most notable work of the organization.

Primary data is not supposed to be on Wikipedia and I already gave a link about this. Look at this section with me:

YRBS Data - Percentage of Montana Teens who have EVER used meth:

1999	2001	2003	2005	2007
13.5%	12.6%	9.3%	8.3%	4.6%

The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project.[4] The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below. The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project. The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below.

2005	2006	2007	2008
2%	6%	4%	3%

Those numbers need non-trivial interpretation because any conclusions which could be drawn from that data alone are not obvious. I removed these tables. Any prominent published secondary source (legitimate or not) interpreting the numbers and citing the surveys could have a place in the article, and in fact, I did not remove those interpretations.

The section title "Office of National Drug Control Policy report" has very little to do with the MMP, and more to do with meth in Montana, which is a completely different issue and is not congruent with the focus this article. If it does belong in the article, then it belongs at the bottom. The March Against Meth section sounds like a one-time event organized through schools, and I am not sure that it describes the nature of the MMP or has a place in this article. If it does belong in the article, then it belongs at the bottom.

Finally, the directors who made the ad spots are world class. They are more prominent that any Montana politician or organization director, and they need higher billing in this article. I am not suggesting that whatever happens between bureaucrats in Montana is not significant; I am just saying that the ad campaign has international appeal and whatever hard-working people in Montana made this happen are not prominent for their own sake, but for the sake of the ads.

This data is about meth use in general, and not about the MMP:

In November 2006, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) published a report, Pushing Back Against Meth: A Progress Report on the Fight, highlighting the impact of recently enacted State and Federal laws, such as the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act (CMEA) of 2005, that restricted transactions for the over the counter drugs that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Based on the results of Quest Diagnostics' preliminary review of workplace drug tests conducted during the first five months of 2006, the nationwide adult usage of meth declined by 12% when compared to the same period in 2005. Quest provided state-level results: on the state level, results varied according to the strictness and duration of the states' laws. "Montana’s methamphetamine precursor law went into effect July 1st 2005. The Montana law is stricter than the CMEA in several important respects." Montana’s workplace drug testing results showed a 69.4% decrease in positive tests for amphetamine.

I removed it.

I also did a lot of changes throughout the article, and I hope that all are in line with what I have already said. I am not pushing for the article to stay as I have kept it, but I need to show a version of what I am proposing. It is my intent to be thoughtful and make changes that are helpful to everyone; please bring any concerns you have to this discussion board.

In direct response -

You stated, "people do not talk about the organization; they talk about the ads". Clearly, as evidenced by the sheer bulk of material in the References section, many people have quite a bit to say about MMP, particularly about whether their ads are effective, and whether they deserve more government funding.

I do not want to change any of that.

When people "talk about the ads", often they are not talking about the ads' content, but about whether the ads are making their intended effect. People certainly do talk about the organization, more than they "talk about the ads" themselves.

I disagree. Worldwide a lot of people have seen the ads and a large number of those have no interest in Montana politics.

The MMP's ad campaign is apparently intended to improve public health and reduce crime, which is quite different from campaigns intended to boost product sales. Why do you think MMP should be formatted similarly to articles about product ads?

I think it should be formatted similarly to some other class of wiki article, and there is the precendent of calling the MMP's ads "ads." What wiki article do you think this should be like?

You stated that articles about non-profit agencies are typically "not a recap of the budget and efficacy over some short period of time like the past ten years". I think it is odd, to say the least, to describe a decade as a "short period of time" in this context, but, that aside, I think a better comparison to make is that articles about agencies that are the subject of intense debate and criticism typically do not fail to mention such controversy.

I want to keep the controversy and lose the primary data.

The MMP's activities are debated locally, nationally and internationally, over a period of several years, continuing to this day. The debate is verified with ~20 reliable sources. Why do you think we should delete this material?

We should not, and I hope that I did not.

Bluerasberry (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent attempt to remove sourced material about MMP from this article. Please do not reinstate these changes without reaching consensus with your fellow editors.

Also, when editing, if you plan to rearrange sections, please do that separately from the edits to the content in the sections. When you make changes to content and location all at once, other editors cannot easily compare the old version of each section with the new version of each section. In this edit, I created a version of the page where each section header is in its original location, but the text contains the edits that you introduced. In the future, please make the changes to the content first, save that as an edit, and then move the sections, saving that as a separate edit.

Wikipedia's talk page guidelines advise editors to be concise when making talk page guidelines, recognizing that long messages are difficult to understand, and frequently misunderstood. WP:TALK suggests that editors consider shortening posts that are over 100 words long. Your post, above, is over ~1000 words in length. This is ~ten times the maximum suggested size.

Please provide a much shorter, clearer summary of the changes you would like to see, and your reasoning for each proposal. This would be a good gesture to demonstrate interest in building consensus, as it would show that you are willing to communicate clearly. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I reformatted the discussion. I understand the revert, and it is really cool that you made this for me. It is sometimes easier to show a proposed change rather than copy the article into the discussion board, and as you said, I already have too much text. Sorry about not demonstrating the breakdown of changes. I broke my previous post into short sections so it should be easier for everyone to follow. Now, comments about these things? Blue Rasberry 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

** Primary data in this article **

My motivation is parallel structure with similar wiki pages. There is already extensive debate on this talk page under the heading "Data and accuracy"; I have read these comments and I feel they are completely unrelated to the changes that I want to make. I do not care about one side or the other in the debate; my concern is only for making this article like other articles in format, whatever content it contains. I explicitly do not want to delete material that documents any debate, but I do want to remove any material stating the primary data about which the debates occur. I am proposing these changes.

** Tables should be removed **

Primary data is not supposed to be on Wikipedia and I already gave a link about this. Look at this section with me:

YRBS Data - Percentage of Montana Teens who have EVER used meth:

1999	2001	2003	2005	2007
13.5%	12.6%	9.3%	8.3%	4.6%

The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project.[4] The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below. The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project. The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below.

2005	2006	2007	2008
2%	6%	4%	3%

Those numbers need non-trivial interpretation because any conclusions which could be drawn from that data alone are not obvious. I removed these tables. Any prominent published secondary source (legitimate or not) interpreting the numbers and citing the surveys could have a place in the article, and in fact, I did not remove those interpretations.

** Off-topic information **

In various places around this article I think there should be cuts of information that is not either done by or in response to the work of the MMP. I propose various changes.

** Remove Unrelated data about Office of National Drug Control Policy **

The section title "Office of National Drug Control Policy report" has very little to do with the MMP, and more to do with meth in Montana, which is a completely different issue and is not congruent with the focus this article. If it does belong in the article, then it belongs at the bottom. The March Against Meth section sounds like a one-time event organized through schools, and I am not sure that it describes the nature of the MMP or has a place in this article. If it does belong in the article, then it belongs at the bottom.

This data is about meth use in general, and not about the MMP:

In November 2006, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) published a report, Pushing Back Against Meth: A Progress Report on the Fight, highlighting the impact of recently enacted State and Federal laws, such as the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act (CMEA) of 2005, that restricted transactions for the over the counter drugs that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Based on the results of Quest Diagnostics' preliminary review of workplace drug tests conducted during the first five months of 2006, the nationwide adult usage of meth declined by 12% when compared to the same period in 2005. Quest provided state-level results: on the state level, results varied according to the strictness and duration of the states' laws. "Montana’s methamphetamine precursor law went into effect July 1st 2005. The Montana law is stricter than the CMEA in several important respects." Montana’s workplace drug testing results showed a 69.4% decrease in positive tests for amphetamine.

It should be removed.

** Give prominence to the ad campaign **

The directors who made the ad spots are world class. They are more prominent that any Montana politician or organization director, and they need higher billing in this article. I am not suggesting that whatever happens between bureaucrats in Montana is not significant; I am just saying that the ad campaign has international appeal and whatever hard-working people in Montana made this happen are not prominent for their own sake, but for the sake of the ads.

I have shown some pages that have a different format; if you disagree with my proposals, I would ask that you show some examples of pages that have a format that matches what you want. I am fairly sure that you will not find any non-profit or ad campaign good wiki article that details back-end bureaucracy before the most notable work of the organization.

-- Blue Rasberry 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When I asked you to respect the Talk page guidelines by providing a shorter summary, you said "no problem", but then posted a similarly lengthy version of your comment, divided by individual headers and signatures. If we take this second version of your comment, remove the added headers and signatures, and move a few paragraphs into their original positions, it becomes obvious that you did not summarize at all. Why did you say "no problem", as though you had done what I had asked, when clearly you had not?

It is not reasonable to create a situation where other editors must spend a very long time reading, interpreting and responding to a lengthy proposal, whether divided into sections or not. It is not fair to use verbosity to create unreasonable requirements for participation. Again, I am asking that you will abide by the Talk page guidelines and provide a much shorter summary of your proposed changes and your reasoning. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following two comments were added by Bluerasberry as part of this edit, which hid much of the above discussion from view. BR described the part of the edit involving hiding text with this phrase: "archived old talk", yet clearly the contents of the comments were changed, not just hidden from view.

BR used the following phrase in the archive header: "archive of discussion between Bluerasberry and Whatever404, mutually decided to be too long". While BR may have come to agree with my concerns about their comments' length, BR and I did not come to any kind of "mutual" agreement to hide this material. In fact, BR never mentioned the idea of hiding the material, to me. At no point did I mention, discuss or agree to hiding my own comments from view; if BR had asked, I would have disagreed. For that reason, I have restored the previous comments above to their prior state, and added the comments from Bluerasberry and SarekOfVulcan below.

—Whatever404 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with this article, I proposed a lot of unrelated changes at once, and Whatever404 called me out. Below is the post in the way I originally presented it, and since it contains a lot of ideas, I contained in in an archive. I will present those ideas more slowly, and with better documentation.

I do not expect Whatever404 or any other single person to read or respond to everything I have said, and there is no time scale on this. The article is not going anywhere. Blue Rasberry 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary data is not supposed to be on Wikipedia. Look at this section with me:

YRBS Data - Percentage of Montana Teens who have EVER used meth:

1999	2001	2003	2005	2007
13.5%	12.6%	9.3%	8.3%	4.6%

The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project.[4] The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below. The other survey of teen meth use has been conducted by the Meth Project. The data from the Meth Project's survey are listed below.

2005	2006	2007	2008
2%	6%	4%	3%

Those numbers need non-trivial interpretation because any conclusions which could be drawn from that data alone are not obvious. I want to remove these tables. Any prominent published secondary source (legitimate or not) interpreting the numbers and citing the surveys could have a place in the article, and in fact, I would not remove those interpretations. Comments? Blue Rasberry 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree, especially considering the dueling analyses that have shown up on this page. Before we remove them, though, do we have a reliable source for analysis of the data? I'd rather have primary than nothing at all... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am mostly bothered by the tables. There is already some primary data in the description about the tables, and certainly there is already discussion of the data in place. Here is my initial proposal. I also would would prefer primary data to nothing at all, and this is good enough for now. Further comments? Blue Rasberry 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Delete this section as its supporting reference no longer exists: "A new study was published in the Journal of Marketing Research validating the effectiveness of the Meth Project’s advertising in deterring substance abuse. The study was authored by researchers at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.

The researchers tested the effectiveness of several advertisements—including the Meth Project’s—and found that ads that relied on fear alone to convey their message did not lead to immediate changes in attitudes or behavior. However, according to the study, the Meth Project ads that incorporated an element of “disgust,” such as rotting teeth, skin sores or infections, did compel viewers to “undertake distancing behaviors,” such as deciding not to use illegal drugs.

The study concludes that, "notably, the disgust and fear appeal condition in this study used an actual advertisement from the Montana Meth Project, a nationally recognized, award-winning program that uses high-impact advertising to reduce methamphetamine use . . . It was only the disgust-inducing fear appeal [the Meth Project ad] that significantly reduced future drug use, making it more effective in terms of persuasion and compliance.”" 161.7.159.27 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Instead of deleting the section, I have added tags identifying the reference in question as a dead link. This is not a BLP issue so I don't see a rush to delete this content yet. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Montana Meth Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103204607/http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmr.07.0364 to http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmr.07.0364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119190020/http://opi.mt.gov/YRBS/ to http://www.opi.mt.gov/YRBS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507045548/http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php to http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507045548/http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php to http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507045548/http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php to http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507045548/http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php to http://www.montanameth.org/News_Events/publications.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724160419/http://montanameth.org/documents/YRBS_Report.pdf to https://www.montanameth.org/documents/YRBS_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727081812/http://www.methproject.org/documents/Meth%20Project%20Fact%20Sheet%206-16-2008.pdf to http://www.methproject.org/documents/Meth%20Project%20Fact%20Sheet%206-16-2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908161427/http://www.doj.mt.gov/news/releases2007/20070124preliminarymethreport.pdf to http://www.doj.mt.gov/news/releases2007/20070124preliminarymethreport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921191410/http://www.doj.mt.gov/news/releases2008/20080331report.pdf to http://www.doj.mt.gov/news/releases2008/20080331report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023222325/http://montanameth.org/documents/Montana%20Meth%20Project%20ONDCP%20Release%20FINAL.PDF to http://www.montanameth.org/documents/Montana%20Meth%20Project%20ONDCP%20Release%20FINAL.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415053147/http://www.methproject.org/documents/Montana%20Meth%20Project%20MAM%20Release.pdf to http://www.methproject.org/documents/Montana%20Meth%20Project%20MAM%20Release.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125021323/http://methproject.org/documents/Helena%20IR%2021609.pdf to http://www.methproject.org/documents/Helena%20IR%2021609.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819074441/http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=2230 to http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=2230
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710081350/http://www.paintthestatemontana.org/ to http://www.paintthestatemontana.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817004516/http://intelligentdiscontent.com/category/montana-meth-project/ to http://intelligentdiscontent.com/category/montana-meth-project/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)