Talk:Mark Souder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Questioned and questionable text

71.156.95.209 - you added the following:

• Only students who are enrolled in college at the time of their conviction may have their aid suspended. Are you saying that someone convicted of a drug-related crime while in high school is NOT affected by the law? Can you provide a cite to the law that says this (that it only impacts those convicted WHILE in college)?

And you removed the following:

• Non-approved programs include Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and other recovery programs that do not mandate regular urine testing for illicit drugs. Did you remove this because it was not true? Or for some other reason? John Broughton 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like Slate information

[User:70.108.1.184|70.108.1.184]] - If you don't think that the information in the Slate article (the number of students denied financial aid, for example) is correct, it's your responsibility to find a source with OTHER data that contradicts the Slate information. Merely calling Slate "dubious" and deleting the text is vandalism, no matter how nicely you put it.

Moreover, pointing to "the law" as rebuttal of the Slate information is absurd - a link to the text of the law (which you should provide - you claim to be familiar with it) isn't going to have any information about what happened AFTER the law went into effect.

Judging by your edit summaries, you seem like a reasonably smart person. Is this amusing - to make up reasons to delete text, and to keep adding back stuff (specifically, who supports the law - totally irrelevant to the law's affects) - without justifying it? John Broughton 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Project VoteSmart

I think it's a good idea to put up a link to Souder's Project VoteSmart. It's a non-partisan, non-profit organization that exists solely to record candidates' positions on the issues for public consumption, so it would be an appropriate addition to the election section. SuperJerms 00:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not verifiable?

despite the fact that the current administration has taken an exceedingly strong stance against drugs not seen since the Reagan era. -- Not verfiable? The ONDCP and DEA has had more funding and power than ever before, and in the past few years has pushed through an unprecidented number of draconian anti-drug initiatives and operations including specifically targeting, attacking and campaigning against medical marijuana initiatives, a strong anti-legalization initiative, organized wide-sweeping raids on legitimate businesses selling what is considered to be "drug paraphernalia", numerous raids on state sanctioned medical marijuana operations, renewed and upscaled marijuana eradication operations, rescheduling of pseudoephredrine and widespread restriction in its availability to consumers, emergency ban of ephedrine containing suppliments, new anti-meth legislation and bills, the RAVE act against club drug use which holds clubs liable for any drug use of their patrons, RAVE act II, the CLEAN-UP Act, the VICTORY Act... the list goes on and on. The Bush administration has ramped the drug war up far more than most people realize. Take a look at this link -- USA Drug Policy History. --Thoric 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoric - I appreciate having another non-anonymous IP editor looking at this article. My objection to the phrase isn't its accuracy, it's meeting the wikipedia requirement for being verifiable. If you want to quote someone, fine, or even paraphrase the words of an authority and just provide a link - then I wouldn't have an objection. But telling someone (like me) to look at a summary of drug enforcement and drug law changes as verfication of a statement just doesn't cut it.

And if you're not persuaded by the above, may I suggest having a third person look at this (or comment here)? John Broughton 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we are persuaded or not; it sounds POV right now. It needs either a source or to be removed. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not an original researcher. I am going to comment out both the part about him being critical and the part about him spending more (both need sources). SuperJerms 00:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And I've removed the commented-out text completely (not necessary). Adding the text back, also long as it is accompanied by proper sourcing, is always welcomed. John Broughton | Talk 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV drug section

the drug section before was conforming to NPOV. However, a recent anon editor has put on much anti-medpot POV edit there. I'm not going to revert it as of now since i have contributed to this section before (conflict of interest). So some other editors please change the section to make it back to its NPOV version. Wooyi 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)