Talk:Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Rave, Rave music and other various aspects of rave culture. For more information, visit our project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Concern

The current article is strongly devoted to arguing why the law is unwise or unjust, and hardly even says what the law prohibits or why those who passed it were in favor of it. A major rewrite is needed, IMO DES 00:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The helping hand is at the end of your arm. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i may attempt such a re-write, but i am not particularly knowledageable about the specific law in question. In the meantime i wanted to document why i placed an NPOV tag on the article, possibly alerting others to the need here. Note that this article was already on the list of Pages needing attention. DES 00:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So in other words, you are not improving the article yourself, not because you're biased, but because it's hard to find anything written about the RAVE Act which doesn't focus on its most interesting aspect, the means by which it tries to blur the distinction between rave culture and drug culture so that law enforcement can go after any raves they see and pretend that's the same thing as fighting drugs. My objection is that you put the POV tag on it, assuming that the article is in its current state not because those before face the same problems as you, but was instead because they were biased on the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know or presume to guess why the author(s) of the article left it in its current state. I don't know if they are biased or not. I can and do judge that the current article is POV, and that it doesn't explain what the act is, before discussing why it is or isn't a good idea. This means that readers who don't already know about the act are not in a position to judge to claims made in the article, which means the article is of little value. In fact if the only choices were leaving the artice as it is now, or deleting it entirely, I would favor deletion. However those shouldn't be the only choices -- my hope is that it will be improved. I would hope that the original authors, or others who are interested and knowledgable, seeing my comments on what is lacking, would then be able to improve it. Failing that, I may be able to do the research to improve it myself. I didn't say it was hard to find info about the act, I said I don't currently have such knowledge. DES 16:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] page reworked

I've reworked this page substantially, both to correct some factual problems and to provide a more neutral point of view. The main factual issue was that the RAVE Act, as originally proposed, was never passed. The Act was passed in the next Congress, mostly unchanged but with the controversial "Findings" section removed. I've also tried to provide a better discussion of the complaints, as well as rebuttals to those complaints. I'd appreciate comments on the changes, and if you find the page to be more acceptable, please remove the POV tag. - Simishag 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wasn't around to read the original format of this article, but as it stands it's accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.18.34.33 (talk) 12:48, November 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits

I'm working on substantial changes to this article, so I apologize if it looks like I've removed a lot of content. I will be replacing it shortly with hopefully a much better article. Thanks. Peyna 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am fairly satisfied with the current state of this article, since the bulk of the discussion regarding the actual impact of this law should be at the law that was actually enacted, I'm heading there now. Peyna 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)