Jump to content

Talk:LSD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.208.136.53 (talk) at 18:01, 27 July 2018 (→‎Entheogenic Myth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleLSD is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 22, 2006Featured article reviewKept
January 29, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 16, 2004, April 16, 2005, April 16, 2006, November 16, 2008, and November 16, 2012.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agratian (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

To conform to MOS:US, uses of U.S. should be changed to US as the article has other country abbreviations (viz. UK). Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have retained the previous style for citations which use that style. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: Why would the publisher names in citations and the external links not be changed accordingly? I should note that US is used elsewhere in the references too. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that citations should match the reference as much as possible, not necessarily the MOS. The U.S. National Library of Medicine, for example, abbreviates it that way on their website. For reasons of WP:V, my understanding is that we should defer to these practices to better facilitate tracking down references in case of WP:LINKROT or similar. Obviously this is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor, and this may be too pedantic even for Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious.

 "The Grateful Dead were inextricably linked to LSD in the United States, and Grateful Dead concerts provided the primary distribution network for LSD through the mid-1990s"

Maybe A primary network, but not the primary network. How would that even work? Professional drug dealers that tour around the country with the band selling LSD? (I'm sure they did, but I doubt that was a main source nationally speaking). What about places they rarely visited? You only got a chance to buy it once every so many years when the Dead came into the region? Midlevel suppliers had to travel to where-ever they were playing to stock up, and/or stock up when they were in town and hope the supply lasts until they return again? No other drug market works remotely like this, and I see no reason LSD would be different. Assuming each region had its own supply independent of GD concerts, I really doubt the amount sold at concerts outweighed the rest of the country's sources; depends on what you mean by primary. Largest single distribution route, perhaps, but that's different. A lot of acid was sold at Dead concerts, and likely the regional supply and use rate increased for a while when the band visited a region, but tats about it. That doesn't make it the primary distribution network for LSD any more than saying discos were the primary resource for cocaine...and that would at least make some sense, since a disco doesn't move all over the country irregularly. And how can someone prove a claim like that anyway? AnnaGoFast (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This source states categorically on page 181 (not given in the citation) that "Grateful Dead tour is the distribution network for LSD in the United States because their audience remains its number one consumer. Dead shows, with their rubbed-smooth, calypso-scented Dionysian portals, remain how many people are initiated to the psychedelic experience." Besides being written in unintelligible English, this unsupported journalistic drivel is not a suitable source for such a sweeping assertion, and has no place as a citation in an encyclopedia article. No scholarly works will be found to support such a ridiculously broad statement. As Anna says, it's unprovable, and it should be removed from the article. Carlstak (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just noticed the edit the other day on my Watchlist regarding this part of the article. I didn't put that section in originally, but I'm almost positive there is a DEA Threat Assessment source (not sure which year, possibly more than one) that I've read which states this information. I can think of numerous other sources for this information, but the DEA Threat Assessment one is the best I can think of for Wikipedia sourcing purposes. They are available online still, or definitely are through the Web Archive. I will try to remember to look it up later when I have time and will add to and edit the section if so, unless someone else wants to look it up.jlcoving (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the body picture?

The picture titled "Physical effects of LSD" seems unnecessary. Most of the effects listed in the picture are already mentioned in the text, and the ones that aren't should simply be added. I don't see a need for a picture showing the reader the location of the mouth, eyes, heart, etc. in a human body, as this is wp:Common knowledge. CodeTalker (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. In addition the template for the picture was originally designed for things like alcohol that listed the chronic effects it has specifically highlighting all the organs that can fail. It's use to describe acute effects many of which are pretty benign. Now that you've pointed it out, when I got to the stupid use of a genetic template that actually told me nothing of any importance it distracted me from the content. It's been a week without any argument in support of its use so I'll remove it. If anyone felt strongly about it they are most welcome to defend its use. User:Methylated603 (talk) 12:31 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Reference 36 is a dead link (already marked). The article being referenced is officially rehosted here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610614626 DarkReviver (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  spintendo  12:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

In "In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) beleived the drug might be useful for mind control so tested it on people, some without their knowledge, in a program called MK-Ultra", the word believed is misspelled as "beleived". Change "beleived" to "believed"! KrazIvan (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D ( • ) 14:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entheogenic Myth

The Entheogenic Myth does not belong in a lexicon, and even here right next an absurd hallucination image. You should know better.