Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archives/2020

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

add Lithuania to the Countries where it is controlled in some manner include. 78.56.96.208 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

GAR request

I am working my way through the GA requests and this is one that needs some work. @SallyScot, Dusenostachys123, First Light, Apothecia, Reswobslc, and Jolb: to see if editors are interested, before I start I more formal process. AIRcorn (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Salvia divinorum/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I did some editing here in response to a GAR request, with the aim of improving the article but feel it needs more work to keep its Good Article status. The major concern is the sourcing for medical information. A lot is from first hand experiences or non Med compliant sources. There is the information out there (NCBI search) so it can be improved. For the discussion that lead to this GAR request see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 88#Recreational drug experiences. @Alexbrn, Ozzie10aaaa, Sizeofint, and Seppi333: from that discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delist. Forgotten about this. From a quick look, the article is still terrible. The health content needs gutting as a first step. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• delist agree the article is going to have to be overhauled to put it mildly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delist and speedily. As a long time editor of this article, entirely in the botanical and historical areas, it's still terrible. There is so much that needs updating — everything after the Chemistry section — that the article needs to be redone. That would be about 75% of the article. There has always been too much recentism bias there. Deletion of some of that would be an improvement, though I'm not volunteering. First Light (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why speedily? This GAR has been requested for well over a year. Anyway I will keep this open for at least a week to make sure everyone and project notified gets a chance to look at it. All delisting will do is remove the green dot so there is no rush. There is nothing stopping editors making changes while this is open however. In fact that is half the point of doing this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Just showing my impatience at seeing a really shabby article called "good" for the last few years. Obviously there is no need to rush. First Light (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delisting Pretty clear that it does not meet our standards. I am also going to be bold and stub down the health stuff as part of this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mazatect? Really?

205.189.94.17 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 Novemeber 2018

Under 3.5 Cultivation Can you include that it can be propagated though leaves as well. The Spanish Wikipedia page indicates as much and sources a picture of a leaf that's taken root. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salvia_Divinorum_rooted_leaf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4101:49D0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

The "Media coverage" section appear to be very plain original research/synthesis: an editor's own interpretations and dialogue with primary sources. It should be removed. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Section is well-sourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To take one example: A claim is made that two reporters "exchanged glances" and a conclusion is drawn from this about the reporters' feelings on the subject. The "source" does not contain this observation of the exchanged glances, nor is it even a video showing the exchanged glances. It is apparently the report that played before they exchanged glances. That is not good sourcing. It is original research as set out in WP:SYNTH. I checked all of the text and corresponding sources, and they all suffer from the same problem. I wouldn't object to a properly sourced section about media coverage, but this isn't it at all. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Your claims have some merit, but they are exaggerated. Here's one sentence from the "Media coverage" section: "Many salvia media stories headline with comparisons to LSD." That is a verifiably true statement based on sources cited in the article. Saying that the whole section is original research and should be removed is hyperbole and would result in verifiable, sourced information being removed from the article. Please propose specific changes that you would like made, or rewrite the prose in that section in the space below as you would like to see it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

“The first 5 notes seem to have no relation to the article. They may have been tampered with.” 47.156.8.14 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I see what you're referring to, the notes seem to relate to this article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)