Talk:School district drug policies

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copyvio?

This smells like a copyvio but I can't find a reference. Can someone prove it? Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave6 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no copyright infringement here. This incident did happen (check Archives on mailtribune.com), and the basic information regarding school district Drug Policies is accurate. Why do you think it is a copyright violation? Just because it is written better than most articles on wikipedia does not mean that it should be ostracized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.31.18 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually considerably worse-written than the good articles here. For example, there is no indication of geographic location. The beginning of the article seems to promise a general coverage of the topic, not even indicating a restriction to the US, but by the end of the article it seems to be covering the petty grievance of a handful of students on the forensics team of a single Oregon school who got in trouble on a poorly supervised meet. Second, the reader unfamiliar with the issue has no idea what the other side of the controversy is-- why would a school have a drug and alcohol policy? How have they changed over the last century? Do they accomplish their goals? What have been the results of court challenges? The final dropped ball in the article is the lack of conclusion: the committee met for five months, and then...? This is a half-assed, self-absorbed rant that would have been rejected by most high school newspapers. Should we delete it? Dalembert 02:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) PS: look up "ostracized" and refrain from big words in public until you know what they mean.[reply]

Sometimes, people can be so mean! Here is the definition of "Ostracized": excluded from a group. I am pretty sure that whomever wrote the statement above was using this relatively small word correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradybd (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mean, but correct. You may be "pretty sure" ostracized was used correctly in the above paragraph, but you are wrong. The expression of suspicion of a copyright infringement does not suggest "exclusion from a group." The article is a pathetic adolescent whine, roughly equivalent to: "Teenagers have a consitutional right to use illegal drugs!! So there!!" Dalembert 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

This seems like the poster child article on how to write something with a POV. It seems to be written from the POV of someone who wants to be free of searches, and doesn't even touch on the issues in support of the testing policy. Teekno 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I began looking at this article (Dec. 2007) there was material that addressed your concern. I worked on the balance generally. --Lquilter (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:high school newspaper

My high school newspaper Hawkeye would not even publish an article on the flu epidemic in our school that forced it to close because it was "controversial" of course this article would not be put in a school newspaper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.39.63 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup; deletion; merge

Merger proposal on the front suggests merging to a particular school. While content specific to that school should be (and already has been) moved to that article, school district drug policies is a completely valid article, subject of a number of legal cases in the US, at least. The article does need significant clean up work as the tags indicate but the topic is notable and valid. --Lquilter (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fair amount of cleaning up of the majority of the article. I moved the problem tags (NPOV & mergeto) to the Ashland section which is now the main problem in those sections. References should still be added throughout the article, and I tagged a couple of places, as well as adding in a couple of starter refs. I'll look in on the page and work on it as I can but I believe it's now in a better place. --Lquilter (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also cleaned up the Ashland section but did not remove it entirely. I'd like to see people discuss on this page the merits of a "case study", how such material might benefit the article, how it fits (or could be made to fit) with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and so on. Moreover, if there is any justification to maintaining a section highlighting this particular school alone, then I believe it would need to be supported by references beyond the local, i.e., references other than just those in the Daily Tidings and the Mail Tribune. --Lquilter (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on School district drug policies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]