Talk:Alcohol education

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EllieSyvertsen, Lea.el-achkar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

DARE
This looks like a copy and paste from the DARE website. Paul 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

If the DARE or MADD Message...
Please do not add commercial links &mdash; or links to your own private websites &mdash; 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)

Tifflaw, I am aware that Wikipedia is not here for advertising etc.. Please note this is NOT one of my websites, I'm involved in the Not-For-Profit Sector. I felt this link was important to include as there are details in regards to what Driving Under The Influence is as well as what alcoholism is. What is not included that I find extreamly nessesary, is a link to something that might help someone deal with this problem.

Wikipedia guidelines state: Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic(see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. Scoyle7832 13:55 12 January 2006 (PST)

Hi Scoyle- The link in question is clearly inappropriate and placing it on sites after being so informed would consitute intentional spamming. Wikipedians assume good faith on the part of others and you can confirm your good faith by not spamming. Thanks.

Verifiability, general references & refspam
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 refspam 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)

Oh and in response to the edit summary restoring this article from redirect: "...give it some more time please" -- this wholly unsourced article has been in existence for nearly four years. How much longer of a special dispensation from WP:V does it merit? Is WP:V core policy, or just an observe-it-if-you-feel-like-it-and-if-it's-not-too-much-trouble guideline? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Alcohol education
[Moved from User talk:Hrafn HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) ]

So you're saying Responsibility and Alcohol, Ruth C. Engs, Indiana University is "general ref-spam" and doesn't meet WP:V ??? Forgive the assumption but I think you're just a bit sore that you got reverted. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have misread WP:V. It states "challenged or likely to be challenged". A fact-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)
 * 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)

I've taken my own advice, and created the bare-bones of an article from that source. On WP:PRESERVE, my experience is that unless the material can easily/quickly be cited, it will generally simply languish unless/until removed and/or rewritten from scratch to a new source. The probability of unsourced material being sourced falls to negligible after days (a few weeks at most). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

I revised the sentence claiming that alcoholedu is "the most effective and widely used" course to just "a course commonly used" (or something like that). The claim, "most effective and widely used", could be an endorsement, and is definitely a very positive value statement. Seeing that the source for this claim is alcoholedu's own website, I do not think that this should be included, unless an independent source can be cited that confirms effectiveness and popularity. (I am aware that even "commonly used" falls victim to this problem, as I just left in alcoholedu's website as a source, but I am too lazy to go and find an independent source supporting this"). -- Tarik00 08/2012

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

Request the writer or anyone who can help on the following
I'm now working on the translation into traditional Chinese. I need assistance. "whether the individual is at risk as a result of prenatal and peer pressure" What does the prenatal mean here? why both prenatal and peer pressure? Thanks for your kind attention.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I did some research and found in the US DHHS publication “whether he or she is at risk as a result of prenatal alcohol exposure”, the above expression might be written as “whether the individual is at risk as a result of prenatal exposure, or under peer pressure”. Please correct me if I'm wrong.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, ThomasYehYeh, you are right!!
 * But may I suggest to include the word "alcohol" which then would read like:
 * "... as a result of prenatal exposure to alcohol, or under peer pressure."?
 * Steue (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your response, and thanks anyway. I guess Talk is not a good function for people to exchange ideas, especially when contributors stop by only occasionally. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)