Talk:Datura

Effects of ingestion

NOTE: This section did not go into Archive 1 (for all pre-2014 material). Though it was started in 2010, it contains some comments from late in 2014. Lou Sander (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit comments regarding a possible revert of a recent edit by User:Buntfalke, including the following line 67: "A number of usage and toxicity reports covering Datura and preperations of it can be found at Erowid." The main purpose of that site is instructional for illegal drug use, inclulding headings under Daturetea that read "Glowing Experiences", and subheadings under that such as "My Best Experience EVER!!!!!!". The real practical purpose of this sentence is to aid drug users in finding information to help them in illegal activity ("preperations"[sic]), and I believe it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Tom Hulse (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a simplistic claim about 'the main purpose of that site'. Its purpose is to inform, to fight ignorance. It and its collection of experience reports provides information not only for the public, but also for health professionals and researchers. There is no need to imply implications about Erowid simply because it doesn't distort its knowledge base by *specifically excluding positive trip reports* (!). It isn't appropriate to exclude a link to such an authoritative and informative site as Erowid. It is essentially the Wikipedia of substances — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nitrobutane: Again, please do not remove properly sourced material. If you want to put in your stuff about Erowid, go ahead and do it, but please do not do so at the expense of a peer-reviewed academic article. Please be more specific about how you "pointed out that the source is flawed, and why", as claimed in the edit summary. Lou Sander (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nitrobutane, I've reverted your recent edit to the stable version so we can discuss your disputed change here first. You have argued in the edit summaries that a website, Erowid.com, is superior to a respected hardcover book in the Pharmacology field that has been heavily cited by many other respected scientific works. That's not at all how Wikipedia does or should work. Please read WP:RS for details. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already pointed out how the source is flawed in that instance. It takes advantage of the authority of Erowid by saying '“Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports' ('Train Wrecks and Trip disasters' is a trip category on that site, and 'experience report' is also Erowid-speak). Immediately after: 'The overwhelming majority of those who describe the use of Datura (and to a lesser extent, Belladonna, Brugmansia and Brunfelsia) find their experiences extremely mentally and physically unpleasant and not infrequently physically dangerous.' This implies that Erowid supports such a conclusion - but it directly contradicts this. It's immediately obvious. The 'train wrecks' and the 'difficult experiences' sections together aren't any kind of 'overwhelming majority'. In this research field, Erowid is an important source, respected for its review articles, newsletter, its careful selection procedures for submissions, but most sought after for its broad and deep collection of trip reports. I don't see why Erowid should be dismissed as unreliable just because it's a website. The Internet allows for broad and rapid collection of evidence, and cooperation between a wide selection of contributors, all of it helping to reduce sources of bias. Being widely cited, or with a hard cover (!), doesn't mean the book's right about everything. It doesn't prevent casual POV, especially if it (the POV) agrees with received 'wisdom' of a lot of the population. Straight from the title (Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs), it implies that all use of these drugs is 'abuse' (even though the rest of the book is more sophisticated). I never used the word 'authoritative'. I said Erowid was highly detailed, more verifiable, and a better source (certainly in this instance). Its Datura page (that the book alludes to) - that is an actual evidence base that can be examined. An outrageously sweeping generalization like 'The overwhelming majority ... find their experiences extremely mentally and physically unpleasant and not infrequently physically dangerous' without a single number to back it up is an opinion I replaced instead of adding because of the strident, startling opinion that looks very much POV, and out-of-pace on Wikipedia. I suppose both the original quote and my piece could be side-by-side, even though one shows a contradiction in the other! Nitrobutane (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nitrobutane. I'm sure it must seem frustrating to feel like you are sure of the truth, but a consensus (3:1) of editors won't let you put it in the article. The trouble is that every one of us could be a nutjob or an honest nice person that is just plain wrong. So it is reasonable, fair, and right that Wikipedia has strict standards on reliable sources. I see that you're new here, by the trouble you're having formatting your talk page posts (I straightened it out for you); could you please, please read the link at WP:MEDRS that two editors have requested you to specifically look at? Please then try to evaluate your website with a truly unbiased and detached perspective as a neutral person would, based on this policy. Your answer will then be acutely clear. I know you think Erowid is "reliable" by your personal standards, but it doesn't matter how you or I would personally interpret "reliable", only what the Wikipedia policy is. The policy is there for a good reason and it works well.

On Frey's alleged referencing of Erowid, no absolutely not is it obvious he is referring to them. Are you a young person? If we grew up in the internet age we tend to think that the top Google hit is the final authority, beginning and end of a matter. All of the recreational drug terminology you mentioned has been very, very common going back many decades; long, long before Erowid was even though of. It would be myopic tunnel vision to just assume he must be referencing them. If you were a little older, it would really seem silly to assume that. Regarding your idea that "the Internet allows for broad and rapid collection of evidence", no, not evidence, just unreliable data when it is self-reported by a group that has not been scientifically controlled in any manner. There are so many dozens of ways that kind of data is unreliable, it would take me a week to type it all. This is standard, basic 101 stuff that college freshman learn early-on in any field even related to science. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nitobutane, Erowid is a primary source and the information you are trying to add constitutes original research (please see Wikipedia:No original research). The Wikipedia guidelines regarding medical content WP:MEDRS specificaly states: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Furthermore the information you are trying to add is controversial as several editors have reverted you. WP:MEDRS specificaly states as regards to controversial content: Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources...Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field as presented in secondary sources. To include the controversial content you need to source it with a reliable WP:MEDRS compliant secondary source or tertiary source. Ochiwar (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because I don't remember every bit of wikiformatting, is no call to act patronising under the guise of helpfulness, to imply I'm 'new' and so on. Or to say it's 'acutely clear' I'd agree with you if I had 'a truly unbiased and detached perspective'. I am well aware of WP:MEDRS, and may I point out WP:IGNORE: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. To show that a source is misrepresenting its own sources for a stridently, sweepingly negative statement, is an important form of maintenance. ' “Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports', with original italics emphasis, capitalization and quotes around 'train wreck', is referring to a specific thing under that name, and not some slang term. And that name is the short version of Erowid's 'Train Wrecks and Trip Disasters' subsection which is present on the pages for specific substances, including Datura. My Erowid-derived part isn't vital biomedical information - it talks about its trip effects. The book quote adds nothing biomedical of substance, as the biological effects of Datura had already been discussed in detail and the quote adds nothing to it. WikiProject Medicine is only one of three the article belongs to. To repress info from Erowid.org in a WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants article simply because the article is also in Medicine, is completely unreasonable. 'The overwhelming majority of those who describe their use of Datura find their experiences extremely unpleasant both mentally and often physically dangerous.' - To allow such a statement on the basis of a single book, without even pointing out it's an exact quote, but simply presenting it as fact - in effect would be POV, rather than 'proportionate representation of expert opinion'. Especially in a Psychedelics article. To present the nuanced piece as 'controversial' and remove it, leaving only the one-sided indictment from a book called Pharmacology and Abuse of (...), is so unlikely as to go against WP:Reasonability: The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.111.46 (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since two more editors had to again alter your formatting/add signature, perhaps you could review WP:TALK? Thanks! :)

Regarding WP:MEDRS, perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't use it to support Freye (that's a separate issue), I said you should use it to evaluate the website you are supporting, Erowid. So yes, it is absolutely true that an unbiased person could not support this use of Erowid if they were trying to follow WP:MEDRS, an established Wikipedia Guideline, not just a simple Wikiproject like Psychedelics. Per WP:MEDRS, Erowid may not be used as a source in this article for information about the effects of Datura ingestion.

Regarding the separate point of Freye's claim, if you want to invoke WP:IGNORE, then let's look first at what other reliable sources say:

"Although still abused occasionally by adventuresome young people, the anticholinergic side effects of jimsonweed are so unpleasant that it rarely becomes a long-term problem"

- Drugs and Society, G. Hanson, 2006

"...experiences often have an ominous tone and lack LSD qualities such as striking down barriers between senses (hearing colors, seeing sounds)."

- The Encyclopedia of Addictive Drugs, R. Miller, 2002

"The majority of users report their experiences as unpleasant and often terrifying. Overall, it is in very low demand as a recreational drug, due to the unpleasant high."

- Chemicals Used for Illegal Purposes, R. Turkington, 2009

"If you survive a sampling, you may report unpleasant hallucinations."

- How to die in the outdoors, B. Tilton, 1997

"...hallucinations that are usually visual and often terrifying - for example, monsters, devils,..."

- Neurological Aspects of Substance Abuse, C. Brust, 2004

"Going into other worlds is fascinating, but the worlds that datura takes people to can be frightening"

-From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs, Rosen & Weil, 1983

That is really a fair sampling of what reliable sources say. So perhaps we could compromise and tone down Freye's description to something more like Turkington's above? --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hulse: What did I say about being patronising under the guise of being helpful? This time with a little smiley just to infuriate further

The point I make about WP:MEDRES is: it's being overextended here. That's why I invoke WP:IGNORE. I am citing Erowid to desribe Datura's mental (not physical effects), so WP:MEDRES has nothing to do ith t. And since Erowid has a broad database of trip reports on substances' mental effects, you might want to think about how ridiculous it would be to exclude it in a piece on the mental effects of Datura! As for Freye's claim, it's so overladen wih superlatives that any other of your quotes would be a toning down, including Turkington's. With the caveat of course, that he's looking at Datura in an implicitly judgemental way, as a 'chemical' used for 'illegal purposes' (even though it's a herb, and not even illegal). Look at the titles. Freye sees all the substances in the book as nothing but 'abuse'. The same goes for Brust. Miller's quote implies Datura's an 'addictive drug' (it isn't). Tilton approaches it specifically as a 'way to die'. A prejudiced researcher is liable to simply discover mainly the experiences of people who ended up in hospital, simply because there's official records that it happened - and make conlcusions based only on that. Last (or first), is the bias of the one who 'fairly sampled' these specific quotes and put them together. The one who said: The main purpose of that site is instructional for illegal drug use, inclulding headings under Daturetea that read "Glowing Experiences", and subheadings under that such as "My Best Experience EVER!!!!!!"' The one who judged Erowid because it didn't purposely exclude positive trip reports. Because it didn't mutilate its own evidence base and deceive its own users - all to keep to the line that 'drugs are bad'. Because it dared to show that Datura can be a glowing, or even a Best Ever experience. Your own bias may be the last thing you'd think of, but I hope it's still on the list!

Lou Sander: The very reason I included the extra material is to counter the bias of the superlative-loaded quote, by showing what information other, unprejudiced researchers can discover.

It is great to explain it with sublety, in greater detail. A spectrum of sources is far better than just one. I included all those quotes in Effects of ingestion because specific uses link back to specific effects.

Religious uses, etc.

IMHO this material, if it is included at all, should appear in a section of its own. Please, if you want to include this material, discuss it here and get some consensus before you add it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)