Talk:Jacqui Dean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: (edit)

	Jacqui Dean is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh)

[edit] What is not a coatrack

From Wikipedia:COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack:

An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip.

Jacqui Dean issues more press releases on the subject of drug policy than anything else. Reflecting this in the article does not make it a coatrack as it's her main claim to notability. The reader is thus not misled by a focus on drug policy.

Furthermore, with respect to Salvia divinorum, the article remains unbalanced while it censors all counterargument.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that talking about Dean's drug policy does not make it a coatrack. My problem is adding paragraphs that talk exclusively about salvia. Those belong on an article about salvia. That is the sort of thing that makes it a coatrack for arguing drug prohibtion. I would be happy to have all the anti-drug arguments removed as well. We should be trying to create an article that accurately reports information about Dean. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The added paragraph (with supporting references) that you object to is essentially this:

Opponents of prohibitive salvia restrictions argue that such reactions are largely due to an inherent prejudice and a particular cultural bias rather than any actual balance of evidence, pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes toward other more toxic and addictive drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. While not objecting to some form of regulatory legal control, in particular with regard to the sale to minors or sale of enhanced high-strength extracts, most salvia proponents otherwise argue against stricter legislation.

The article currently includes Dean's views on salvia such as "We’re dealing with a dangerous drug here". I'm happy that the anti-drug arguments be included. That is as it should be. What I'm saying is that some summary counterargument is required for the sake of balance. The appropriate resolution is not to also remove her anti-drug arguments as you suggest. Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view "...is not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy...".

--SallyScot (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)