Talk:Above the Influence/Archives/2012

Criticism
The critism needs to be made less like the opinion of one person. I would like to know how to find out the tag strings for the different banners used. Sorry about my lack of spell check. James73686 04:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

is it just me or is this article incredibly pov?

It's just you. It's downright impossible for these sorts of campaigns to have sane sounding descriptions. Honestly the information is limited - I don't even think these commercials deserve a wiki. I'd much rather the campaign inevitably fail (as it will) and be forgotten. Feel free to keep this up to date though.

It says in the description that the campaign is NOT marketed towards teens but that can be disputed if you goto the website and have watched the commercials.

I agree. The notion that this campaign isn't designed for teenagers is outright laughable.

I agree with the first person. This article was obviously made by people who would like to discredit the commercials. It isn't comparing marijuana to leeches, it's talking about what lenghts people (teenagers) will go to fit in, or do "what is cool."

I think no one wants to fix the POV because they agree with the implicit criticism of this campaign.66.67.183.67 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The criticism of the campaign is legitimate, it is all correctly cited and is precisely what it is supposed to be, criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.21.185 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"they're"
"I ditched my friend and let them find they're own way home."

This is grammatically incorrect. Either correct it, or add a [sic] if the advertisement really uses such bad grammar (I won't change it because I don't know the original advertisement).

68.35.55.55 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New York Hardcore Connection?
Why does this article link to the New York Hardcore Punk page? If I don't get a reason behind this, it's gone.

??
Are we not signing our names to our comments? Hmm.

Also it's not called "Slugging" it's called "SLOMming" for "Sticking Leeches On Myself". Just sayin'. 172.194.16.31 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the names of the music that is played on the ads with the little cartoon dog putting a flag in the ground? It's driving me crazy. RoxyMoron 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The dog says "You disappoint me." LOL.--168.13.191.66 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

POV
"It's downright impossible for these sorts of campaigns to have sane sounding descriptions." You have to be kidding. This is the most POV article that I have ever read on Wikipedia. Just off the top of my head, it violates the following policies: WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL, and the obvious lack of citing sources. I don't have time to edit this myself, but I'm going to put a couple of tags on it. Also you should sign your posts on the talk page by putting 4 tildas (~) after your comments. It looks like this: Jermor 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about it. It's true that it appeals to emotion rather than statistics and reason. And its true they use a lot of fiction. You don't actually think a woman took off with an alien to get away from a man who was smoking pot do you? I'm not saying the message is wrong, but the strategies used could be improved. The Truth campaign against cigarettes has been a lot more effective, because it uses statistics. People, especially teenagers are less likely to ignore statistics as propaganda than to ignore an emotional commercial.--theRealdeal

I removed this POV paragraph.
 * Some of its methods, however, have come under question, viewed by the cannabis community as overt propaganda. One advertisement, for example, features a dog judging and alienating an individual for smoking marijuana, reinforcing social prejudice and detachment from teen marijuana users, instead of advocating support systems. In addition, the legality of using government funding to support social conceptions about drugs instead of informing people of their negative effects is highly controversial, claimed by those opposing the advert campaign to be the precise definition of propaganda.

First of all, no sources are backing up any of these opinions, also they are do not state facts. Second of all, the sentence:

the legality of using government funding to support social conceptions about drugs instead of informing people of their negative effects is highly controversial, claimed by those opposing the advert campaign to be the precise definition of propaganda.

How can government funding a anti-drug campian be controversial? They are ILLEGAL drugs, they have every right to speak out against them. Also the commerical does show the negative effects in the part of alienation and predjudice from others who are against drugs.--63.167.255.206 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just readded the criticism because it is needed its what many feel about the videos.

I would note that 63.167.255.206 is a government employee.Planetsconspire 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTING. This applies even to the resuls of a Whois. Don't post it here. --  Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk    14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes this ridiculous campaign needs a criticism section in the article. Don't remove it again.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I wrote the criticism section while I was much newer to wikipedia. Very POV. Removed. I do believe it could use a criticism section though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudoKnox (talk • contribs).

Criticism
The criticism section is terrible and you people need to stop adding it back in

Obvious problems:

- Weasel words. Not allowed in articles. If you want to say "some people" this or "most people" that, you have to cite a respected study revealing this opinion. The fact that you "get the impression" that people feel that way is NOT acceptable; that is not reason to include such statements in wikipedia

- NPOV: The way to write an article is to find facts from reputable sources, string them together, and reference them. Right now the criticism section is a bunch of random personal opinion thrown out there, sprinkled with weasel words

- Original research: Any new synthesis of existing information is strictly prohibited. No, editor consensus doesn't matter. No, the fact that other articles do it doesn't matter (those articles suck too, that's all!). You are forbidden from including your own conclusions in an article. You can only include conclusions published in a reputable source

This whole section is garbage and if you can't cite it, it needs to go; all of it.

If we can't get some mature and sober people around here who can stop adding this garbage back in, I say this article needs some protection to at least prevent IP addresses from dragging it down further TheBilly (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, Billy you sound like you are a biased clown;), how could anyone take their dumb ads seriously? (Oh, sry, I bet you do). All they do is fuel untrue negative stereotypes with utter nonsense. This senseless campaign really does need a criticism section, and there was nothing wrong with the previous one because, well, it was nothing but true, and it needs to be LEFT ALONE this time.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You lose all NPOV points for that implication right there. 216.96.148.135 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just have to say, Above The Infuence is like the gayest website ive ever been to!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.96.184 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Assuming the people who add the criticism section back are high makes you any more mature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.166.232 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article incorrectly cites a GAO report. This article says "In 2006, the Government Accountability Office released the results of 5-year-study, concluding that the campaign was completely ineffective". The GAO report however did not evaluate the Above the Influence Campaign at all. From the report - "We are not in a position to comment on ONDCP’s new campaign (“Above the Influence”), launched in November 2005, as these current efforts are beyond the scope of our report and outside the time frame of the Westat data collection. At this time, neither we nor ONDCP have empirical information with which to assess this revised campaign." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.162.134 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol/Logo
Should include or mention upward-pointing arrow in circle logo. AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Helping fix POV?
I suggest we change the "criticisms" section to be more like:

"Major criticisms of ATI's campaigns include ATI's demonstrations of manipulating statistics and studies, often almost to the point of fabrication, or using irrelevant statistics. For example, ATI often cites the amounts of chemicals in marijuana, which is arbitrary. The sheer number of chemicals in a drug does not necessarily mean it is harmful or beneficial. Critics of ATI have also pointed out that ATI often states that marijuana causes cancer, though there have yet to be any proven cases of marijuana caused cancer."

We need to have a source that ATI has ever said that marijuana is twenty times more likely to cause cancer than cigarettes. I believe ATI has stated that one joint contains four times as many carcenogens as a cigarette, but I don't know if that is a manipulation of statistics, irrelevant, or relevant. In fact, I suggest that we delete this article. It is biased to the extreme. While I understand that it may be hard to take a campaign like ATI seriously, this article does not give any history of ATI, or any information on it other than to debunk it. If we want to keep this article, which we should, since ATI does manipulate statistics and people should know that, I say we need to add more, or just get rid of it altogether. Thoughts? 68.54.90.179 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MORE POV
"Many of these ads show what drugs do to teenagers."

There has to be a better way to say this, as the statement is not followed with, well, facts, but anecdotes. "Allegedly" is a Word To Avoid, so I'm at a loss ATM. -- Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk    14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

mission of campaign cited
here is some more information about what the point of the campaign is.

The Above the Influence brand has been refreshed to include broadened messaging to focus on substances most abused by teens, and delivers both broad prevention messaging at the national level and more targeted efforts at the local community level.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/06/16/prnewswire201006161130PR_NEWS_USPR_____CG21914.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.164.202 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate POV
"which primarily consists of messages and imagery that is intended to discourage the use of psychoactive substances most used by teens, often focusing particularly on adolescent cannabis use."

This is inaccurate, and removed a description that is well cited. please provide citations for this perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.149.81.7 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much POV
The article, as it stands now, reads like a pamphlet printed exclusively for the promotion of Above the Influence. I feel that the article, as is, clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, persistantley throwing around loosely-agreed-upon terms such as "abuse" and "addiction", without demonstrating actual factual merit for applying such terms. I have attempted numerous times to revert the article but have been reverted numerous times without any kind of justification by an IP user who generally refuses to have any sort of discussion and instead continues to simply revert any and all changes to the page.-- Metalhead94 TC 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)