Talk:Above the Influence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes.

{{helpme}} 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)

Contents 1 New York Hardcore Connection? 2 ?? 3 POV 4 Removed 5 Criticism 6 Symbol/Logo

[edit] 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.

[edit] ??

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)

[edit] 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#SOAPBOX, 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)

[edit] 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) 03:10, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Symbol/Logo

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