![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Marijuana has definite medical uses.
Should not be in level 1. Michael Janich 02:16, 3 September 2003 (UTC)
While researching the article on medical prescription, I stumbled across information on what consistutes a valid DEA number (US government's Drug Enforcement Administration). That, is the number of letters and digits and the relationship of the digits and letters within the DEA number. While this information is clearly public, including it Wikipedia certainly aids criminals in prescription forgeries. Should I include it in an article? (The same discussion would apply to credit card numbers, etc.) Samw 00:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What is U4EA supposed to be? No reference to it by that name on the DEA website. The few references I get when I google for it is from a Beverly Hills 90210 episode, and some who think it's actually 2C-B. -- 80.202.27.178 09:59, October 28, 2004
"Others, such as the ACLU, criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that adults should have the right to put whatever substances they choose into their own bodies."
This may very well be accurate, but is it logical? The ACLU is overlooking the fact that the DEA goes after the distributors of drugs, not so much the users. The way I look at it; you want to use drugs, well, go ahead, fine. Do it. Ruin your own life. But if you cross that line...you start messing with other peoples' lives, you can go to...well, you all know where.
-- Dunstonator 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's relevant, correct, and meticulously sourced. However, there may be a problem with law enforcement agents vandalizing this information for political reasons. Hopefully everybody can act like adults and let the facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.52.231 ( talk) 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO we should rather link to Marine Corps Base Quantico ("Both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration's training academy and the FBI Academy are on the base"). Apokrif 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'Criticism' section currently says "Others, such as the ACLU criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that anybody should be free to put any substance they choose into their own bodies for any reason..." and this is quite properly flagged as unsubstantiated. As far as I can tell, the ACLU has never criticized the pure existence of the DEA, only specific policies and mechanisms, and has never made a blanket statement about a person's right to their body vis-a-vis drugs. From http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10831res20051128.html ("About the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project") :
The Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration. ... We will continue that tradition of success, combining litigation, education, and community empowerment to achieve a humane and sensible drug policy that respects basic human rights and the liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution.
I am changing this section to reflect this. -- JdwNYC 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, and the issue of legalizing certain drugs should be a separate issue that needs only be mentioned briefly in this article.
This article seems to mention only criticisms against the DEA and very little about their history. What about their successes against drug cartels in South and Central America? I'm not sure if I agree with "War on Drugs" either, but the drug lords who profit from the narcotics trade are hardly saints - far from it, the crimes of Escobar, Noriega, or even random groups do present a danger to the public through increased violence and crime. Now some drugs are more dangerous than others, but realistically more narcotics has always equalled more guns. For this article, in addition to the agency's history I think there definitely needs to be more said about the DEA's contribution to law enforcement and crime reduction.-- Acefox 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Added request for citation of statement: Furthermore, illegal drug trafficking profits only criminal elements and terrorist groups who would use the funds to spread further violence to other areas. I have heard the "drugs fund terrorism" line frequently and have yet to be given a source which supports the assertion. While the conclusion seems reasonable based upon common sense, common sense cannot replace the need for actual facts. Mtiffany71 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The top of the page says that the FY 2006 budget was about $2.4 million. Should that be billion? the FY 2005 budget was $1.6 billion so the '05 number is in the billions, though I don't know if it is as high as $2.4B. What is the source for this info? It makes me wonder how far off the employee info is. Maybe it would be best to just find the '07 info so it is a little more current. Docely ( talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
is missing.
87.234.41.130 ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
use? 87.234.41.130 ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the photo of two armed DEA agents has been vandalized. While it has appeared on the DEA website to illustrate training exercises, it has been improperly captioned "Two DEA agents prepare to use violence to enforce prohibition." I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesamuel ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
presuing a career in the DEA you need a bachors degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.167.172 ( talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the recent "edit war" about the appropriate abbreviation for the United States, I contend that the abbreviation should be U.S. (with periods), not US (without periods). Swamilive contends that it should be US (without periods), as that abbreviation is "more standard," and "becoming more common" as per the WP:MoS. That argument neglects the fact that the WP:MoS says that "US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English," where here "other" means countries other than the United States. The same section in the Manual of Style says that "[i]n American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States" (emphasis on "standard" added), so "becoming more common" still implies that it is not the standard in American English. In that case, I argue that the WP:MoS section on "national varieties of English" that says "[a]n article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" is appropriate for this article. The article is about a specific U.S. government agency. The DEA even uses U.S. to write its own name, as in "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration," and the U.S. Government Printing Office's Style Manual specifies U.S. as the correct abbreviation for federal government use. [8] For this reason, I believe U.S. (with periods), which is standard in American English, should be the standard abbreviation in this article. Ketone16 ( talk) 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In reference to the diff, is this one of those federal installation that, like the CIA, has no actual physical address? EVCM ( talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
if "law enforcement" means making people obey the law, what means "drug enforcement"? making people using drugs? or is it "drug-law enforcement administration"? -- Homer Landskirty ( talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this San Francisco Chronicle article, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California." Just wanted to point this out in case the information in the article can be used to improve this page. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I edited the article to say that while the DEA says price is increasing and purity is decreasing, this is shown to be the opposite by countless other studies. This edit was reverted almost immediately before I could cite my sources. I am going to change the article again. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.61.44 ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Check this section (a little below the photo of him and Nixon), and this. 192.30.202.15 ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand there's one in Vancouver; that got Canadian Marc Emery in trouble. 192.30.202.15 ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
no mention of the DEA being kicked out of bolivia by evo morales a few years ago, due to the book "big white lie" by ex-DEA agent michael levine and the book's claims that the CIA had collaborated with the Bolivian Suarez cartel to carry out the 1980 "Cocaine Coup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.248.36 ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just recently, the Juarez Cartel and their armed wing La Linea declared war to DEA. After the capture of 'El Diego,' former leader of La Linea, 'El Gato' took over, and now plans to carry out attacks against DEA and other U.S. agents. [1]
Anyhow, do you guys think this information should be included in the article? I think this threat is increasingly important for the U.S. government, thus deserving a section in this article. ComputerJA ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MX ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/spanish/13438/13438p.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This section of the article recently has been modified to include a substantial lead paragraph that appears to be entirely analysis based on original research in violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. I have tagged it as such and therefore it is subject to deletion if the statements it contains are not properly attributed per Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Since more than half the section now has no citations to reliable sources at all, I also added a tag saying the section needs more citations. The statements in this paragraph are not widely accepted facts of the impact of DEA enforcement operations on the drug trade, as the final sentence in the paragraph even admits; therefore they need to be attributed to some informed analysis that can be attributed to a reliable source. I will leave the section alone for now in order to let other editors improve it, but if it is not improved I will delete the lead paragraph per Wikipedia policy. Ketone16 ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have edited the discussion of this incident to better reflect the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Most of the cited reliable sources reflect only Chong's claims about the incident, since the DEA largely has declined comment other than to say that they did confine Chong for days, although they claim the extended confinement was accidental rather than intentional. Marginalizing this claim by putting "accidental" in quotation marks is pushing a POV (specifically, the POV that the DEA officials are lying), as are the statements about illegal detention and torture. If some investigative committee or court finds that the detention was intentional and constitutes torture, then it's fine to make those statements (with proper attribution), but not before, since that is merely a statement of opinion (contrary to Wikipedia policy on original research). I also think that removing the statements about the facts of the drug raid (a raid on a suspected MDMA operation that resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of MDMA as well as other drugs and weapons) is pushing a POV, since those are facts that were listed in almost all of the cited sources. I note that the editor of the discussion of this incident claims to want the discussion to be complete. Ketone16 ( talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Objections? BRING HERE BEFORE EDITING The section seems logical and passes validity testing; however it seems to be prone to vandalism. If there is something specific that can be shown to be objectionable; please bring it forward here. The only flaw thus far I can see is some objectionable grammar. However, this is, indeed, objective. Objective Reason ( talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, so without spreading
this shit storm into another article... the link for Nobel Prize directs to the
general article on the prizes with the qualifier "winning economist" assumed to specify which prize.. i'm going to tidy that up by linking to the specific award. saying
Nobel Prize winning economist does seem to imply what we know to be the truth about which award freidman won, but it could be seen as imprecise (e.g. an economist could win the nobel prize in literature). and even though i disagree with the name of the article for the prize, i'm leaving it as the title of the article... this is giving me a big headache.... i just don't see how there has to be a discussion, consensus and plea bargain on what to name something that already has a name all because lazy journalists call it something else, and everyone else just follows suit.. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sensorsweep (
talk •
contribs)
07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
An IP address in a residential area near the DEA headquarters made three edits, one of which removed a POV tag with no explanation. I reverted the edit, asking that they not remove tags without explanation/justification. I also pointed out that their IP address (and the fact that they weren't registered) suggested they may be biased by association. This, of course, isn't definite, but is something we should always keep an eye out for. The POV tag was removed again by a different IP address in the same area, again with no explanation. It therefore seems that the DEA may be editing this page, and in a way that serves their own interest. Please keep an eye out for any POV edits. Thanks.
Exercisephys ( talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A good pitch, but need to be able to verify the statements, need to get references in there. I am pro-legalization, but I have to admit this section is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.64.49 ( talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a new criticism sub-section regarding the DEA's propaganda efforts. Could a more experienced wikipedian help me with the citation, and perhaps with the language of the text. Thanks. Skberry889 ( talk) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Do the people who work at the DEA have a right to be very, very angry and furious at the suspects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.244 ( talk) 06:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Drug Enforcement Administration. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Drug Enforcement Administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CNN":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Marijuana has definite medical uses.
Should not be in level 1. Michael Janich 02:16, 3 September 2003 (UTC)
While researching the article on medical prescription, I stumbled across information on what consistutes a valid DEA number (US government's Drug Enforcement Administration). That, is the number of letters and digits and the relationship of the digits and letters within the DEA number. While this information is clearly public, including it Wikipedia certainly aids criminals in prescription forgeries. Should I include it in an article? (The same discussion would apply to credit card numbers, etc.) Samw 00:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What is U4EA supposed to be? No reference to it by that name on the DEA website. The few references I get when I google for it is from a Beverly Hills 90210 episode, and some who think it's actually 2C-B. -- 80.202.27.178 09:59, October 28, 2004
"Others, such as the ACLU, criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that adults should have the right to put whatever substances they choose into their own bodies."
This may very well be accurate, but is it logical? The ACLU is overlooking the fact that the DEA goes after the distributors of drugs, not so much the users. The way I look at it; you want to use drugs, well, go ahead, fine. Do it. Ruin your own life. But if you cross that line...you start messing with other peoples' lives, you can go to...well, you all know where.
-- Dunstonator 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's relevant, correct, and meticulously sourced. However, there may be a problem with law enforcement agents vandalizing this information for political reasons. Hopefully everybody can act like adults and let the facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.52.231 ( talk) 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO we should rather link to Marine Corps Base Quantico ("Both the United States Drug Enforcement Administration's training academy and the FBI Academy are on the base"). Apokrif 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'Criticism' section currently says "Others, such as the ACLU criticize the very existence of the DEA and the War on Drugs as inimical to the concept of civil liberties by arguing that anybody should be free to put any substance they choose into their own bodies for any reason..." and this is quite properly flagged as unsubstantiated. As far as I can tell, the ACLU has never criticized the pure existence of the DEA, only specific policies and mechanisms, and has never made a blanket statement about a person's right to their body vis-a-vis drugs. From http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10831res20051128.html ("About the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project") :
The Drug Law Reform Project is a division of the national ACLU. Our goal is to end punitive drug policies that cause the widespread violation of constitutional and human rights, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration. ... We will continue that tradition of success, combining litigation, education, and community empowerment to achieve a humane and sensible drug policy that respects basic human rights and the liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution.
I am changing this section to reflect this. -- JdwNYC 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, and the issue of legalizing certain drugs should be a separate issue that needs only be mentioned briefly in this article.
This article seems to mention only criticisms against the DEA and very little about their history. What about their successes against drug cartels in South and Central America? I'm not sure if I agree with "War on Drugs" either, but the drug lords who profit from the narcotics trade are hardly saints - far from it, the crimes of Escobar, Noriega, or even random groups do present a danger to the public through increased violence and crime. Now some drugs are more dangerous than others, but realistically more narcotics has always equalled more guns. For this article, in addition to the agency's history I think there definitely needs to be more said about the DEA's contribution to law enforcement and crime reduction.-- Acefox 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Added request for citation of statement: Furthermore, illegal drug trafficking profits only criminal elements and terrorist groups who would use the funds to spread further violence to other areas. I have heard the "drugs fund terrorism" line frequently and have yet to be given a source which supports the assertion. While the conclusion seems reasonable based upon common sense, common sense cannot replace the need for actual facts. Mtiffany71 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The top of the page says that the FY 2006 budget was about $2.4 million. Should that be billion? the FY 2005 budget was $1.6 billion so the '05 number is in the billions, though I don't know if it is as high as $2.4B. What is the source for this info? It makes me wonder how far off the employee info is. Maybe it would be best to just find the '07 info so it is a little more current. Docely ( talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
is missing.
87.234.41.130 ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
use? 87.234.41.130 ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the photo of two armed DEA agents has been vandalized. While it has appeared on the DEA website to illustrate training exercises, it has been improperly captioned "Two DEA agents prepare to use violence to enforce prohibition." I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesamuel ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
presuing a career in the DEA you need a bachors degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.167.172 ( talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the recent "edit war" about the appropriate abbreviation for the United States, I contend that the abbreviation should be U.S. (with periods), not US (without periods). Swamilive contends that it should be US (without periods), as that abbreviation is "more standard," and "becoming more common" as per the WP:MoS. That argument neglects the fact that the WP:MoS says that "US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English," where here "other" means countries other than the United States. The same section in the Manual of Style says that "[i]n American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States" (emphasis on "standard" added), so "becoming more common" still implies that it is not the standard in American English. In that case, I argue that the WP:MoS section on "national varieties of English" that says "[a]n article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" is appropriate for this article. The article is about a specific U.S. government agency. The DEA even uses U.S. to write its own name, as in "U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration," and the U.S. Government Printing Office's Style Manual specifies U.S. as the correct abbreviation for federal government use. [8] For this reason, I believe U.S. (with periods), which is standard in American English, should be the standard abbreviation in this article. Ketone16 ( talk) 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In reference to the diff, is this one of those federal installation that, like the CIA, has no actual physical address? EVCM ( talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
if "law enforcement" means making people obey the law, what means "drug enforcement"? making people using drugs? or is it "drug-law enforcement administration"? -- Homer Landskirty ( talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this San Francisco Chronicle article, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California." Just wanted to point this out in case the information in the article can be used to improve this page. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I edited the article to say that while the DEA says price is increasing and purity is decreasing, this is shown to be the opposite by countless other studies. This edit was reverted almost immediately before I could cite my sources. I am going to change the article again. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.61.44 ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Check this section (a little below the photo of him and Nixon), and this. 192.30.202.15 ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand there's one in Vancouver; that got Canadian Marc Emery in trouble. 192.30.202.15 ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
no mention of the DEA being kicked out of bolivia by evo morales a few years ago, due to the book "big white lie" by ex-DEA agent michael levine and the book's claims that the CIA had collaborated with the Bolivian Suarez cartel to carry out the 1980 "Cocaine Coup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.248.36 ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just recently, the Juarez Cartel and their armed wing La Linea declared war to DEA. After the capture of 'El Diego,' former leader of La Linea, 'El Gato' took over, and now plans to carry out attacks against DEA and other U.S. agents. [1]
Anyhow, do you guys think this information should be included in the article? I think this threat is increasingly important for the U.S. government, thus deserving a section in this article. ComputerJA ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MX ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/spanish/13438/13438p.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This section of the article recently has been modified to include a substantial lead paragraph that appears to be entirely analysis based on original research in violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. I have tagged it as such and therefore it is subject to deletion if the statements it contains are not properly attributed per Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Since more than half the section now has no citations to reliable sources at all, I also added a tag saying the section needs more citations. The statements in this paragraph are not widely accepted facts of the impact of DEA enforcement operations on the drug trade, as the final sentence in the paragraph even admits; therefore they need to be attributed to some informed analysis that can be attributed to a reliable source. I will leave the section alone for now in order to let other editors improve it, but if it is not improved I will delete the lead paragraph per Wikipedia policy. Ketone16 ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have edited the discussion of this incident to better reflect the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Most of the cited reliable sources reflect only Chong's claims about the incident, since the DEA largely has declined comment other than to say that they did confine Chong for days, although they claim the extended confinement was accidental rather than intentional. Marginalizing this claim by putting "accidental" in quotation marks is pushing a POV (specifically, the POV that the DEA officials are lying), as are the statements about illegal detention and torture. If some investigative committee or court finds that the detention was intentional and constitutes torture, then it's fine to make those statements (with proper attribution), but not before, since that is merely a statement of opinion (contrary to Wikipedia policy on original research). I also think that removing the statements about the facts of the drug raid (a raid on a suspected MDMA operation that resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of MDMA as well as other drugs and weapons) is pushing a POV, since those are facts that were listed in almost all of the cited sources. I note that the editor of the discussion of this incident claims to want the discussion to be complete. Ketone16 ( talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Objections? BRING HERE BEFORE EDITING The section seems logical and passes validity testing; however it seems to be prone to vandalism. If there is something specific that can be shown to be objectionable; please bring it forward here. The only flaw thus far I can see is some objectionable grammar. However, this is, indeed, objective. Objective Reason ( talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, so without spreading
this shit storm into another article... the link for Nobel Prize directs to the
general article on the prizes with the qualifier "winning economist" assumed to specify which prize.. i'm going to tidy that up by linking to the specific award. saying
Nobel Prize winning economist does seem to imply what we know to be the truth about which award freidman won, but it could be seen as imprecise (e.g. an economist could win the nobel prize in literature). and even though i disagree with the name of the article for the prize, i'm leaving it as the title of the article... this is giving me a big headache.... i just don't see how there has to be a discussion, consensus and plea bargain on what to name something that already has a name all because lazy journalists call it something else, and everyone else just follows suit.. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sensorsweep (
talk •
contribs)
07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
An IP address in a residential area near the DEA headquarters made three edits, one of which removed a POV tag with no explanation. I reverted the edit, asking that they not remove tags without explanation/justification. I also pointed out that their IP address (and the fact that they weren't registered) suggested they may be biased by association. This, of course, isn't definite, but is something we should always keep an eye out for. The POV tag was removed again by a different IP address in the same area, again with no explanation. It therefore seems that the DEA may be editing this page, and in a way that serves their own interest. Please keep an eye out for any POV edits. Thanks.
Exercisephys ( talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A good pitch, but need to be able to verify the statements, need to get references in there. I am pro-legalization, but I have to admit this section is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.64.49 ( talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a new criticism sub-section regarding the DEA's propaganda efforts. Could a more experienced wikipedian help me with the citation, and perhaps with the language of the text. Thanks. Skberry889 ( talk) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Do the people who work at the DEA have a right to be very, very angry and furious at the suspects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.244 ( talk) 06:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Drug Enforcement Administration. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Drug Enforcement Administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CNN":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Drug Enforcement Administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |