Talk:Nitroglycerin/Synthesis discussion

The following debate was regarding whether the Nitroglycerin article should include step by step guidelines for synthesising the chemical.

Many editors wanted the content removed due to its dangerous nature. Some feared the consequenses of making the content available to criminals (terrorists, in particular), while others were concerned for innocent (mainly young) people that might be tempted to follow the instructions and as a result, seriously harming themselves.

The opposite side maintained that removing the information violated the official policy that Wikipedia is not censored.

Every now and then new users would drop by and add their voice to the censoring side, but nothing new came up that would challenge the official policy on censorship.

The Gordian knot was finally hewn asunder when User:Cacycle brought another Wikipedia official policy into the debate, which stating that Wikipedia was not an instruction manual. The user furthermore suggested that synthesis instructions could be linked to in the "External links" section.

In the end, the content was removed, retouched and made into a wikibook, whereto the the preparation section of this article now points.

Preparation

Does the home-preparation section belong on Wikipedia? I'd say it'd be more at home on Wikibooks. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) are u sure we should say how to make this stuff?it could be an easy resource for terrorists making bombs or anything like that?

Yup ! It sounded like a "anarchist's cookbook" recipe ;-). Telling what is used to make it is fine for an encyclopedia, but telling how to make his own nitroglycerin at home is not required. Maybe just adding a link to another website for the ones who are interested, and writing a "DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME" might be good. Someone does it ? ( yeah I know I'm lazy :-P )--83.153.66.184 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the "recipe". If anyone is crazy enough to actually try something like this without training, they will just as easily maime themselves some other way. I found the section informative and interesting. --Swift 10:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the preparation section should be there... some time ago I was shocked at the pathetic writing someone had replaced an otherwise informative section with. Aren't we wikipedians meant to supply all the information applicable? That's what wikipedia is for. I think that the prep info should stay in the article, and I doubt whether would-be terrorists would want to make just a beakerfull of the stuff anyway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.204.106.190 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Cacycle 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More Preperation:

Although the chemicals are not readily available, do the preperation instructions really belong on Wikipedia? It seems like it was wrote with the intent to be used. Anybody Agree?

rvictory

Please don't create new sections for subjects already being discussed in other ones. See Talk:Nitroglycerin#Preperation above. --Swift 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These chemicals are really not that difficult to get a hold of. I used all of them quite frequently in first year university . I don't think Wikipedia should be provinding such specific instructions on how to make explosives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.232.71 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 April 2006.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think the explicit synthesis is appropriate in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.58.24.129 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 April 2006.

Hmm, guys, giving these instructions to Terrorists, is of no consequence because, this stuff is so unstable that even terrorists don't use it, besides it's very easy to get these instructions. They use other explosives like TNT (stealing is easy) etc. Making this stuff at home, though, is EXTREMELY dangerous. The shock required for nitroglycerine to explode is so small that it's likely that it will happen even if you follow all the percutions there. A stray spark of static charge can set it off... this might happen if you wear rubber shoes. The damage of such an explosion is amazingly bad, the nitroglycerine is an extremely strong explosive, and the acids are extremely corosive, nitric acid will burn through your skin as easy as a knife cutting through butter and the added sulfuric acid will make sure that the nitric acid stays concentrated for a long time (being a hygroscopic material). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkronst (talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 May 2006.

Even if terroists don't use it, you don't want fools blowing themselves up. Also, if someone actually needed it for practical use, they would buy it from manufacturers. Who would actually need that recipe? I think it should be removed.Yanwen 16:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for strictly practical information (e.g. Slurm). The recipie is informative, that should be enough. --Swift 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why you have the synthesis for nitroglycerine. Other chemical articles don't have synthesis information, so I don't see why you would have it explicitly for one of the most unstable and dangerous explosives. I am not concerned about terrorists learning this material, I am concerned, however, about idiot kids using wikipedia as a bomb-making guide. The synthesis for this chemical is available elsewhere on the internet and can be found easily enough.

Would you support including detailed syntheses for methamphetamines or MDMA on wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.233.90 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 June 2006.

Fortunately, we are able to add content in sections beyond that which exists in other articles. Otherwise progress would be very slow and article structure too rigid. For standardised information, there are templates.

Thanks for your concerns, but you are neither a parent nor censor in your capacity as a Wikipedia editor.

Yes, I will wholehartedly support such synthesis information, though if it would become too detailed it would better belong in Wikibooks. Would you support excluding information on Homosexuality? --Swift 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad comparison. You can't blow yourself up with homosexuality. 129.97.233.90 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is an excellent comparison. It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to censor what they think is dangerous information. Some will disagree with you and argue that homosexuality is even worse since it damns you to eternal suffering in some afterlife prison. Thus, what is truly dangerous information becomes a point of view. The obvious solution is to keep Wikipedia NPOV.

But this comparison was only a sideline, and only a small thread in the great debate over the merits of censoring. The main point remains that it is an official Wikipedia policy that it may not be censored. If you are really passionate about excluding this information, please read up on Wikipedia's policies and discuss them in the appropirate portals.

Since this was your only comment, I take it you otherwise agree with my points? --Swift 02:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 129.97.233.90. If you have knowledge of the chemistry behind this synthesis then you will realize just how extremely dangerous this approach to making nitroglycerine is. Also, in a chemistry lab at a university (which is where the synthesis is supposed to be carried out, I'm sure) any experiment requiring a quantity of nitrogylcerine would purchase the finished product from a supplier, not synthesize it on location. Use your common sense, and move the synthesis part to somewhere else. I'm sure anyone that regularly contributes to chem articles on wikipedia will agree with me. 69.157.27.252 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't terrorists sometimes use TATP, arguably a more dangerous chemical? raptor 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"If you have knowledge ... how extremely dangerous". What is the point of this argument? No-one is refuting that it is dangerous. As has been said before: there is nothing wrong with dangerous information in Wikipedia.

"any experiment ... would purchase the finished product". No-one is refuting this either. As has been said before: Wikipedia is not a repository for strictly practical information.

"Use your common sense". You are probably very well aware that not everyone shares your good common sense. What may really surprise you is that they think theirs is just as good or better. In an effort to prevent this issue, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, one of which is that it is not censored. Perhaps you and your friend from Waterloo can read up on them together and then get back to us, explaining why removing the content isn't censorship.

"move the synthesis part". OK, I'm open to this. But why do you want to move it? What would you achieve? The Nitroglycerin article isn't too big and a special page would too short for such a narrow subject. Also, where do you suggest it be moved to?

"I'm sure anyone that regularly contributes to chem articles on wikipedia will agree with me."　:-) this made me chuckle. Welcome to Wikipedia... --Swift 18:42, July 3, 2006

Do you think it would be smart to add a "synthesis" section to Methamphetamine with a list of ingredients and instructions on its production? The answer is no, and if you did, it would be promptly removed by any other Wikipedian for obvious reasons. I suggest you get a moderator to decide whether the synthesis instructions for nitroglycerine belong in Wikipedia or maybe it would be more at home somewhere else, such as the Anarchist's Cookbook. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.233.90 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mate, you asked me the same question above. If you have any beef with my answer, comment on it there. As for moderation, you are welcome to seek it yourself. I hereby pledge to wholeheartedly committ to a procedure that will bring an end to this debate within Wikipedia policies and in the best interests for the article and Wikipedia's users. --Swift 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the detailed synthesis. Overlooking this discussion a clear majority is also in favor to remove the detailed synthesis. I propose a more general description: In a general procedure nitroglycerin is prepared by adding glycerin to a mixture of nitric acid and sulfuric acid. In order to avoid an explosion it is important to keep temperature low and avoid mechanical friction. Isolation and acidity of the end-product is also an issue. or something along those lines. V8rik 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good and has my support.

That aside, I feel obliged to object to your comments on the "majority" claim. Granted, the majority of those lending their voice on the subject have been against the synthesis information, but their arguments have all centered on the dangerous nature of the subject. As you can read above, this was countered by the Wikipedia non-censorship policy. Until Cacycle made his comment, there had been no new perspective to the discussion. Surely, mere numbers shouldn't override Wikipedia policy? --Swift 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is no question that the synthesis has to go, see Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. That is the official policy on the English Wikipedia. I opt for adding a link to the external link section. That is also the reason why Wikipedia does not have detailed syntheses for any other chemical compounds that I am aware of. Cacycle 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally a new side to the debate. Indeed the synthesis section looks too much like a manual entry and should be changed/removed. Thanks for providing the WP link.

Does anyone know of a suitable external link? --Swift 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The answers.com link; http://www.answers.com/topic/nitroglycerin, includes the outdated wikipedia article, does that count? Otherwise electrophillic aromatic substitution is pretty much the same procedure (I await an attack by the pedantic police). I'm still a little disappointed that the section was removed in the first place, all too often these days I see people self-editing information about the dangers of chemicals one uses in every day life under the pretense that this information could be used as a weapon of some kind in the hands of dangerous people but where do you sotp? Oh well. GreatMizuti 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis warning

Not sure if "do not try this at home" is strong enough, maybe mention that even professionals have been killed/injured by nitroglycerin? raptor 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the "enclosed area" and "supervised by" parts to be the weak parts; implying that if you do it in your backyard with your dad, everything would be fine. I made this change.

Honestly, I doubt professionals would make this themselves even if it weren't dangerous (in my experience they buy most of their chemicals). The overstatement, however, isn't harmful and certainly not untruthful. --Swift 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis

I believe the synthesis should be removed in case a citizen who does not abide the law uses this formula, disasterous things could happen. Wikipedian27 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)