User talk:Holopaw

I'm not sure how much free time I'll have to put into this, but I've decided my contributions are going to be mostly focused on semantics. Being "encyclopedic" should mean that we use nonbiased, non-ambiguous language whenever possible. (I'm sure there is a WP:SUCHANDSUCHRULE somewhere to support this idea.) Unfortunately, there are plenty of politically charged, ill-defined terms in common usage, and some of them are used quite regularly around here.

The root of the problem is some people believe that by adding a source that uses term X, they can therefore use that term objectively, without qualification. But Wikipedia isn't here to prop up our biases or our popular figures of speech; it is here to inform people as clearly as possible, while maintaining a neutral point of view. If it is possible to do this without using controversial and vaguely-defined words, then those words should be abandoned EXCEPT when explicitly quoting a source or explicitly discussing a wide consensus (e.g. Instead of saying "al Qaeda is a terrorist organization", the article explains who considers them to be terrorists and why.)

This isn't about being politically correct; it's about removing ambiguity and potential bias. It's about making articles more truthful and enlightening. It's about treating subjective opinions as such, instead of pretending that they are usefully descriptive, objective labels.

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism
If I ever have enough time and energy, I'll try and throw my two cents in on this issue, but it looks like people with more stamina than I are already working on it.

My thoughts in a nutshell...the problem is, the various definitions of terrorism don't cover motivations, only methods used, and over the past 100 years virtually every major power in the world has used them:


 * Purposefully attacking to inflict "terror" (the most obvious recent example of usage by the good guys would be our Shock and Awe campaign in Iraq.)


 * Using guerilla and sneak attacks. This is an essential role of many Special Forces units around the world.


 * Targeting civilians. I do not know of any examples of the USA explicitly authorizing this post-World War II (carpet bombing in Vietnam/Cambodia maybe?), but even then... most people (myself included) would disagree if someone characterized the WWII-era United States military as "a terrorist organization."

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Drug Abuse" and "Drug Misuse" (overview)
This is the most widespread language bias I've encountered on Wikipedia. I do understand why: the USA has been waging a massive propaganda war against drugs for many decades, and for good reason. Drug addition, overdose, and chronic overuse are responsible for a LOT of suffering in the world today.

However, using the term drug abuse as a catch-all for illegal / recreational / non-medical use is not only extremely biased, but it also results in a lot of ambiguity, which in turn leads to misunderstandings. The article addresses this problem, and yet the very first line is also part of the problem: "This article is an overview of the nontherapeutic use of alcohol and drugs of abuse".

What the hell is a "drug of abuse"? More to the point, what ISN'T a drug of abuse? People will "abuse" the strangest things... if it has any kind of mental effect, I guarantee you someone somewhere has used it recreationally. Also, the first part of the sentence incorrectly implies that alcohol is not a drug (which some people still seem to believe...)

Different cultures ban different drugs. I'll use the obvious example: Alcohol is forbidden in much of the middle east. Marijuana is legal to possess and consume in several places around the world. I won't get into the scientific debate about which is more addictive or harmful, but it boils down to this: Given that they both have significant helpful AND harmful effects, and given that both of them are banned somewhere and legal somewhere else, it is illogical to categorically label all non-therapeutic marijuana use as "drug abuse" without also labelling all forms of non-therapeutic alcohol consumption as abuse as well (this includes everything from cooking sherry to the Eucharist.)

Millions of people in the USA (myself included) are at least mildly addicted to caffeine, a fairly safe drug which nevertheless has the potential for serious adverse effects and very unpleasant withdraw symptoms. And yes, there are people in this world who use the term "caffeine abuse". Most of them are mormons.

"Drug abuse" and its similarly-prejudiced synonyms (see below) should not be used except when directly referencing the content of source. Also, whenever these terms are used, the first usage should always be linked to the article so that readers may read about all of the definitions for themselves.

Even if the "abuse" is ignored, the word "drugs" alone can be a problem. There are several examples from the drug abuse article, but this is a good one: "There is a high rate of suicide in alcoholics and drug abusers.". I don't know what source (if any) this statement supposedly comes from, but the word "drug" is absurdly broad. I'm positive that no on has managed to correlate every single "abusable" (whatever that means) drug in existence with suicide rates. I'm also pretty sure that there are at least a couple drugs out there decrease the risk of suicide.

Full disclosure of my biases: I am highly critical of the USA's war on drugs, and I am strongly against criminal prosecution (except providing to minors.) However, I also have dealt with and conquered my own addictions in the past. I don't use anything stronger than caffeine these days, and fuck... my best friend's brother overdosed and died less than 18 months ago. So yeah, I know how destructive some drugs can be. I firmly believe that ALL psychoactive drugs must be treated with respect (even caffeine.) I will do my best not to let these things affect my editing decisions, and I hope you will do the same.

"Drug Abuse": alternate terms and strategies
'''NOTE (just in case someone manages to stumble across this page by accident): I'm not ready to go "prime time" with any of this yet. I'm still googling, reading discussion pages and refining my ideas. When I am satisfied and have a good chunk of free time (probably at the end of the month) I will present my ideas on a few of the bigger drug-related article discussion pages. Only if the response is positive will I start editing. I am taking my time, because this could very well affect thousands of articles.'''

First, realize that there is no single replacement term available--just like there is no easy drop-in replacement for the term "terrorist". This is a direct consequence of the nebulous and controversial definition of these terms. This means that rewrites will be tricky, but it also means that the articles should become more informative, more precise, more accurate. Remember, "drug abuse" usage when directly quoting sources can and should be left intact.

(all instances of the word "drug" can be replaced with the word "substance". The only possible distinction there is whether a "substance" has been recognized as a drug, a food, a nutritional supplement, or "not fit for human consumption." This is merely a regulatory distinction.)

Terms to avoid (unless quoting):

 "Drug misuse" : The literal meaning is almost idential to "drug abuse"--i.e., just as vague and just as biased. Proposed alternate meanings have no consensus and do not change the inherently prejudicial nature of the word "misuse".

"Illicit drug use": Same situation. This is NOT a synonym of "illegal drug use"; perhaps it was at one point in time, but the DEA appears to be using it to describe the recreational usage of legal drugs: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/kratom.htm. It will be less confusing to just say "illegal drug use."

"Harmful drug use": This term was mentioned in the drug abuse article. To remain unbiased, it should only be used to describe actual harm, not potential harm. For this reason, it can never be an umbrella term for all hypotheical usages of drug X... unless that drug is actually a demonstrable poison, predictably causing harm with no positive effects at any dose. I don't really see it being a useful term outside of quotes.

Better terms:

Drug Use (no prefix): This is the most general and straightforward term. It implies the usage of a substance for any sort of physiological/neurological effect. Nutritional supplements might be implied, too.

Illegal drug use: This should only be used if legal aspects are being discussed. Illegal drug usage can not and should not be assumed to be any safer than legal drug usage, nor is illegal drug usage synonymous with recreational usage. In addition to spiritual/ethnogen usage, illegal drugs are routinely used for pain relief, weight loss, study aids, sleep aids, sleep-resisting aids, etc. Those are functional (not recreational) usages.

Recreational drug use: This refers to taking a drug for fun, either alone or in a social setting. The drug might be legal in some countries, such as caffeine or alcohol. There is some blurry overlaping with spiritual/religious/ethnogenic drug usage... some people will argue that there is an important distinction between spiritual exploration and "trying to get fucked up." I agree, but in practice the distinction may be a little too cumbersome to constantly use. I recommend the following term instead:

Non-theraputic drug use: Taken from the drug abuse article. I like this one: it encompasses everything from drinking a beer after work, to Native Americans eating peyote as part of a religious ceremony, to heroine junkies trying to drown their sadness. This term comes close to being a non-biased drop-in replacement for "drug abuse"; however, it does not cover people who choose to take illegal drugs for medical conditions (pain relief, obesity, insomnia, etc.)

Non-medical drug use: Almost identical to the above, but the word "medical" has connotations of FDA-approved, "traditional" medicine. It's just a slightly murkier alternative; I think it's best to just stick with "non-theraputic".

Unsanctioned drug use: This can be used when the drug isn't illegal but 1. Isn't approved by the FDA 2. Is approved by the FDA but is obtained without a prescription (Which may or may not be illegal depending on how it was obtained. Mere possession of non-controlled prescription medications is not a crime.) 3. Is legal, but is banned by some nongovernmental entity (e.g. performance-enhancing drugs in sports)

Terms can be mixed and matched if a certain level of precision is required, e.g. "illegal recreational drug use".

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

An Analogy
Consider: A LOT of people, including myself, consider Jimi Hendrix to be the greatest or most influential electric guitarist of all time. And that's the word his article uses: "considered". Then, the article goes on to describe his specific skills, techniques, and songs. This is the correct way to handle a widely-used label like "the greatest electric guitarist of all time." (Cue protests from the Clapton fans...)

On the other hand, it would be biased and very unencyclopedic to flatly say that he is the greatest. More to the point: it would be less informative. By having to properly explain who thinks he was the greatest and why, the reader has a much better idea of the man's achievements.

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another Analogy
Warning: This is going to be a bit explicit.

The vast majority of the American people seem to believe that the proper term for external (visible) female genitals is vagina. It isn't. "Vagina" only refers to what's on the inside: the proper catch-all term for the outside is vulva. Alternatively, the different parts of the vulva can be named: clitoris, labia, etc. Calling a vulva a vagina is like referring to a man's genitals (penis, scrotum, and testicles combined) as a urethra.

It's stupid sounding (at least to someone who was raised to used the proper words for things), but it also fosters ignorance. I've known about a half dozen women well enough to casually discuss genitalia, and every single one of them either didn't know the name of something or had the names mixed up. One of them--an EXTREMELY intelligent girl who was not brought up in any sort of repressive or fundamentalist religious home--had no idea that she even had a clitoris.

Now obviously, there is a difference between a concept like "drug abuse" and an actual physical body part. BUT... I think there are some strong parallels. If you are dealing with a controversial, exciting, taboo issue (like sex or drugs), and you start referring to a bunch of related-but-clearly-distinct entities with a single, ambiguous, highly charged term ("drug abuse" or "vagina")... the result will always be widespread ignorance. Hell, the Victorians were so ignorant of the female anatomy they didn't connect clitorial orgasms with sex at all.

Females have a lot more between their legs than a hole named "vagina", and (fortunately) wikipedia's articles usually reflect this fact very well.

But the word "abuse" does not adequitely reflect the fact that different people take different drugs for different reasons. Different governments ban different drugs for different reasons. And here's a really disturbingly simple one that many seem unable to grasp: different drugs do different things. The most depressing thing I've ever encountered (repeatedly...) are clueless stoners talking about "pills". In their mind, there were two kinds of drugs that came in pill form, esctasy and "pills" that made you sleepy. Xanax, oxy, vicoden the distinction didn't matter because they weren't even aware of it. Well, scratch that. The MOST depressing thing I've ever seen is a strung-out mother talking about putting their youngest kid on Ritalin, while dealing with the "drug abuse" problems of their oldest. The drug in question? Adderall. Taken so he could pull all-nighters studying.

I hope, I REALLY hope (especially after spending the last 4 hours or so writing) that I've made my goals and motivations clear. I hope that we editors can ultimately agree that bias and ignorance are bad things, and that we should do everything we can to avoid using newspeak.

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deeper Issues
Occasionally, the issue goes beyond mere word choice. In some articles, the illegal / non-therapeutic drug use is cast in a clearly negative light without regard to the actual outcome and opinions of the persons involved.

Obviously, this is POV. Characterizing someone as an addict or "abuser" just because they use marijuana (or cocaine, or even heroine) is no different than calling someone an alcoholic after they are observed drinking a beer. The law has no direct bearing on this, even if the person in question is arrested. The Prohibition didn't make alcohol immoral, nor did its repeal remove its negative affects.

There's not much else I can pre-emptively say here. It will need to be handled on a case by case basis.

-Holopaw (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)