Talk:Race and the war on drugs

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): Austenpark. Peer reviewers: Andrewcm123, Zlittle95, Zackfoos, Allyborghi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just created article -- needs improvement
I've just created this article, and it needs to be expanded a lot. I've added some sources below where we can start for more info. An especially good place to begin would be the Google book/scholar search results that I've linked to. There are thousands of reliable sources in there that we can use to source this article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Are there zero sources that defend the crack/cocaine ratio? If I recall correctly, it was Congressional Black Caucus that originally pushed Congress for tougher crack laws, which puts the lie to the idea that the intent was racist.

There are certainly sources that exist that defend against claims that the WoD is racist. Right now, this article is one-sided and of questionable factual accuracy. THF (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had not heard of that. If you can find a reliable source to back that up, please add it into the article. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thernstrom & Thernstrom; McWhorter THF (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I'll include those in the article shortly, if you don't get to it first. Appreciate the help! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also [DiLulio. [[User:THF|THF]] (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again -- adding it now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is written from a perspective that treats it as a given that there are racial disparities in the War on Drugs that arise from racist causes. That is certainly the point of view of the left-wing sources in the article, but it is not the only point of view (and far from clear to me that it is even the majority point of view). The lead does not acknowledge the existence of any other point of view; though three sources were provided that fully refute the idea of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, they are only cited for one particular fact without any of their other analysis discussed. That "13% of drug users" statistic is recited twice in the article as fact; it strikes me as dubious--controversial at best, given that I've seen far higher numbers (15 to 22%) cited by academics and policy analysts sympathetic to the racism theory. THF (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments to the effect that the article isn't neutral have been here for more than two years without corresponding edits to the article. It's reasonable to make meta-points about the article in a talk section, but articles are where the rubber meets the road. If there are sources that defend against claims that the WoD is racist, the article is the place to cite them. In addition they should be named rather than just referred tl. Referring to them without naming them does not allow them to be evaluated.

I move that the NPOV flag on the article be removed.

Lucas gonze (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The NPOVD article supports my point that the NPOV flag needs to be acted on within a reasonable time:

"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

Lucas gonze (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of date
This article is out of date. Most of the sources are from the 80s to the late 90s. The most recent source seems to be May 2000. The HRW report was retrieved in 2010 however it was written in May 2000. Lionel (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, although the HRW was written in 2000, it is based in stats from 1980-1998. Lionel (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The out-of-date tag was removed without discussion. I'm going to assume good faith, restore the tag and not put warnings on the user's tak page. Lionel (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Journals are not sources unless specific content in the body is cited with an inline citation and a footnote appears in the References section.Lionel (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Possession vs distribution POV
The article needs to clearly specify whether the sentencing refers to possession or distribution. To do otherwise is disingenuous to the reader. Lionel (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from Crack cocaine:

There has been some controversy over the disproportionate sentences mandated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine (versus powder cocaine) since 1987. Whereas it is a 5-year minimum sentence for trafficking 500g of powdered cocaine, the same sentence can be imposed for mere possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a 100:1 ratio. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for mere possession of powder cocaine - Sabet, Kevin A. Making it Happen: The Case for Compromise in the Federal Cocaine Law Debate
 * To mislead readers into thinking that the sentencing is for possession and not trafficking is POV. Lionel (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Use statistics
I've been wondering if there are any statistics concerning use of drugs between different groups. If there are then this would be very valuable information for this article. I am not saying that any particular drug is used more by one group than another, only that if this is the case then the disparity in use needs to be taken into account when examining the disparity in arrests and convictions; similarly, if there is a disparity in accusations numbers or severity, regardless of cause, then this will effect the frequency of sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with NPOV
"That is certainly the point of view of the left-wing sources in the article, but it is not the only point of view (and far from clear to me that it is even the majority point of view). The lead does not acknowledge the existence of any other point of view;"

I agree with this comment that was made on the talk page. I am new to commenting on Wikipedia, so sorry if I'm doing this wrong. While I am not personally doubting nor promoting the veracity of the Race-War on Drugs connection, it does seem that this article should present other points of view. Surely there are those who think there is no connection whatsoever between race and the war on drugs. A friend of mine is heavily pushing this Race/War On Drugs connection. I read this article to find out what the counter-arguments might be, but they are not included. Thank you for considering my feedback. Gkuzma (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Austenpark's has made numerous substantive edits to the "Race and the War on Drugs" wiki. In particular, the edits made to the previously provided information regarding language and references were well done and improved the page significantly. I also like the addition of the "controversial policies" section, which is well-referenced and provides useful information related to the topic. My main criticism is that the page feels a bit disorganized. There may be a way to reorganize the headings or fold certain headings into others that makes the page feel more cohesive. For example, it seems like there is enough crossover between the "controversial policies" and "legal standpoint" sections that they could be combined. Overall, the edits made have been well executed and substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackfoos (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
This Wiki Entry has been substantially added too causing it to be more informative to readers. The main thing I would suggest is to create some sort of organization, because right now things are a bit all over the place. Additionally, some of the current categories have the ability to be combined. For example, the Legal Standpoints section can be another subheading under the Controversial Policies although this policy would be an 'unofficial' policy.

Zlittle95 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)