09:4809:48, 15 June 2024diffhist+2,059
N
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations drug control conventions
←Created page with '{{subst:afd2 | pg=United Nations drug control conventions | cat=Duplicata | text=This article contains a lot of over-simplified statements. it overly relied on the same sources, some of which were mentioned almost 10 times. It brings confusion in the wikipedia environment and diverts from the more quality contents present in every of the respective page above. More importantly, it is a duplicata with Drug policy, Drug liberalization, Drug prohibition, Drug...'Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
09:2109:21, 15 June 2024diffhist+526
United Nations drug control conventions
→Interpretation and non-compliance: Lots of approximations and over-simplification, this is hard to read and this article is REALLY superfluous and trying to reinvent the wheel from the perspective of scratching the surface. Quite sad to have this new article bringing so much new poor quality content when the wikipedia already has so much poor quality content to fix.Tag: Visual edit
09:1709:17, 15 June 2024diffhist−22
United Nations drug control conventions
→Interpretation and non-compliance: "Interpretation of international law is "an art not a science"." …………. this is really out of place here, this is what the ILC says about interpretation generally. For ALL TREATIES, always, This is like repeating here thatthe sky is blue and paper is white… Yes, but what's the point? This is not a page about ILC or treaty interpretation so not sure we need to recall the bases…Tag: Visual edit
09:1509:15, 15 June 2024diffhist−161
United Nations drug control conventions
I have moved the status of ratification of each convention in the first paragraph so it's easier to track. I don't see the point having this detail on this page. Better on each convention's page. Also, the status is false for C61, there are parties to both amended and unamended versions and this is not reflected here. I favour deleting this part wholly.Tag: Visual edit
08:5308:53, 15 June 2024diffhist+173
United Nations drug control conventions
→Administrative structure: More wrong information corrected,. Also, I replaced the sources cited 20 times (which really raises my attention… is this a commercial articles for the 2 think tanks cited overwhelmingly?) and replaced it by the CND's own presentation page, which seem to me somehow more interesting that re-citing again (without any page number or what) the same, generalist source from a think tank…Tag: Visual edit
08:5108:51, 15 June 2024diffhist−62
United Nations drug control conventions
→Obligations: The VCLT has nothing to do to legal bindingness. First, the VCLT doesnt applies to the 1961 and 19071 Conventions BECAUSE IT ENTERED INTO FORCE AFTER THEY WERE PASSED!!! And second, the bindingness of a treaty is defined in each treaty + covered by customary international law. VCLT has nothing to do here even though it reaches the same conclusions, but legally, irrelevant.Tag: Visual edit
08:4608:46, 15 June 2024diffhist−671
United Nations drug control conventions
→Philosophy, origins, architects: False information taken from one biased source, the Senate report which itself contains a lot of mistakes, and was a vehicle for Canada legalization –not an actual academic impartial work. The statement said that the US had influenced the 1961 Single Convention. Quite terrible to read when we know history, well described by McAllister in his book (1999). The US left the negotiating rooms (anslinger physically left the room and didnt come back). US is not anTag: Visual edit
08:4408:44, 15 June 2024diffhist−132
United Nations drug control conventions
→Philosophy, origins, architects: There is a GROSS, extremely false statement here: "The three UN conventions establish prohibition and criminalization as the means to control illicit drug activity." this is entirely untrue and there is not even the mention of "prohibition" in the Single Convention. This is one particular interpretive exercise of the Conventions that is certainly not the actual letter of the treaties and in no way ought to be placed here as a general true without contextTag: Visual edit
09:4809:48, 15 June 2024diffhist+2,059
N
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations drug control conventions
←Created page with '{{subst:afd2 | pg=United Nations drug control conventions | cat=Duplicata | text=This article contains a lot of over-simplified statements. it overly relied on the same sources, some of which were mentioned almost 10 times. It brings confusion in the wikipedia environment and diverts from the more quality contents present in every of the respective page above. More importantly, it is a duplicata with Drug policy, Drug liberalization, Drug prohibition, Drug...'Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
09:2109:21, 15 June 2024diffhist+526
United Nations drug control conventions
→Interpretation and non-compliance: Lots of approximations and over-simplification, this is hard to read and this article is REALLY superfluous and trying to reinvent the wheel from the perspective of scratching the surface. Quite sad to have this new article bringing so much new poor quality content when the wikipedia already has so much poor quality content to fix.Tag: Visual edit
09:1709:17, 15 June 2024diffhist−22
United Nations drug control conventions
→Interpretation and non-compliance: "Interpretation of international law is "an art not a science"." …………. this is really out of place here, this is what the ILC says about interpretation generally. For ALL TREATIES, always, This is like repeating here thatthe sky is blue and paper is white… Yes, but what's the point? This is not a page about ILC or treaty interpretation so not sure we need to recall the bases…Tag: Visual edit
09:1509:15, 15 June 2024diffhist−161
United Nations drug control conventions
I have moved the status of ratification of each convention in the first paragraph so it's easier to track. I don't see the point having this detail on this page. Better on each convention's page. Also, the status is false for C61, there are parties to both amended and unamended versions and this is not reflected here. I favour deleting this part wholly.Tag: Visual edit
08:5308:53, 15 June 2024diffhist+173
United Nations drug control conventions
→Administrative structure: More wrong information corrected,. Also, I replaced the sources cited 20 times (which really raises my attention… is this a commercial articles for the 2 think tanks cited overwhelmingly?) and replaced it by the CND's own presentation page, which seem to me somehow more interesting that re-citing again (without any page number or what) the same, generalist source from a think tank…Tag: Visual edit
08:5108:51, 15 June 2024diffhist−62
United Nations drug control conventions
→Obligations: The VCLT has nothing to do to legal bindingness. First, the VCLT doesnt applies to the 1961 and 19071 Conventions BECAUSE IT ENTERED INTO FORCE AFTER THEY WERE PASSED!!! And second, the bindingness of a treaty is defined in each treaty + covered by customary international law. VCLT has nothing to do here even though it reaches the same conclusions, but legally, irrelevant.Tag: Visual edit
08:4608:46, 15 June 2024diffhist−671
United Nations drug control conventions
→Philosophy, origins, architects: False information taken from one biased source, the Senate report which itself contains a lot of mistakes, and was a vehicle for Canada legalization –not an actual academic impartial work. The statement said that the US had influenced the 1961 Single Convention. Quite terrible to read when we know history, well described by McAllister in his book (1999). The US left the negotiating rooms (anslinger physically left the room and didnt come back). US is not anTag: Visual edit
08:4408:44, 15 June 2024diffhist−132
United Nations drug control conventions
→Philosophy, origins, architects: There is a GROSS, extremely false statement here: "The three UN conventions establish prohibition and criminalization as the means to control illicit drug activity." this is entirely untrue and there is not even the mention of "prohibition" in the Single Convention. This is one particular interpretive exercise of the Conventions that is certainly not the actual letter of the treaties and in no way ought to be placed here as a general true without contextTag: Visual edit