Talk:TiHKAL

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

How was it received less enthusiastically? --Thoric 13:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I fleshed out the article a little bit more, imitating the existing article on PiHKAL so the two have a similar amount of information (while trying to minimize redundancy). I also added the ISBN.

And I agree with Thoric - while I can see why it might be received less enthusiastically (its shorter, plus the first part doesn't have a cohesive story and is mostly essays), I'd like to see proof for this view. Silvem 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i agree, just got rid of it. I've never seen any evidence for that. if someone wants to cite it they can put it back. --Heah ^talk 05:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, is it OK to use the TiHKAL cover picture from Erowid (shown here)? And second, should we de-stubify this article? This article isn't much shorter than PiHKAL's, and any expansion we do on TiHKAL will probably just end up being redundant. Unless someone else can add something meaningful, of course... Silvem 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

I'm confused. How did Shulgin write TiHKAL and publish it in '97 when his license was taken in '94? --Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote about his previous experiences -- 69.250.184.176 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]