Wikipedia:Peer review/Poppers/archive1

Poppers

I personally think that the references section of this needs a good clean, but any ideas on the article as a whole would be extremely helpful! HawkerTyphoon 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker, what is a "good clean"? Is the section too large? If so, can it be moved or archived? The only concern I can see if it's moved or archived, is that it may be difficult for new Wikipedia users to understand how to access the information.

The only idea I have on the article as a whole, is that it needs to be as factual as possible. I was drawn to the article earlier this year, and have watched it grow into a much better article since then. It goes through stages where the opposing sides try to slant it one way or the other, but there are several people who seem to be watching out for that (myself included).

There's been an effort to encourage people to provide accuarate support for anthing they say in the article, and that's been useful and has resulted in a far more authoritative article. An example of what should be avoided is the insertion of statements making claims that are not supported, such as the one made today by Hank Wilson that mixing poppers and Viagra® has caused a number of deaths. That kind of statement is pretty strong, and should be supported before it's allowed to be posted.

There's also a never-ending effort to be on the look out for spammers and vandals, such as the one who inserted a range of what appeared to be popper brand names today.

There is one sometimes disputed link that comes and goes in this article. It's the one for http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/. Some people hate it, and others think it should be included. I've reveiwed the site, and although it seems to be pretty stongly pro-poppers (Note that it also contains anti-poppers information), the information it shows seems very credible.

Thanks for helping out on this article.Lt. Dan 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply: I've been involved with the article for a while - not as long as you though - and I'm just concerned that about 60% of all the references are all coming from a single site. I don't feel it's WP's place to Analyse studies; rather, that should be left to the people who read them. I think we need to

1. 1. Slim down the references without sacrificing content
  2. Re-order the sections, to perhaps make it more 'scientific' and the like
  3. Include a more worldwide view, including use in other countries, especially China and the far east.

Thanks for helping with the article too, no doubt you've done much more than I have!HawkerTyphoon 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker: I agree. When I got involved, it seemed almost everything listed in the References section came from a bibliography which contained what appeared to be a number of studies on nitrites. I think it actually may have been more than your 60% figure. Reading this list, one got the unmistakable impression that the compound is very dangerous. But, if you Googled, or did other searches on "poppers", or the alkyl nitrites, there wasn't much to be found that pointed to any significant danger with this compound, other than items which almost always are associated with a small group of anti-popper (and, coincidentally, "anti-HIV virus") proponents -- almost all of which are tied to the list of references in the References section. It's like a loop of the same people saying the same thing over and over. I've also seen a lot of anecdotal data that leads you to believe this compound is relatively safe. The article was much too one-sided then. Now, with the study analyses, and additional links to sites that aren't so anti-popper slanted, there's a better balance. The goal is to get to NPOV.

Regarding your suggestion about sliming down the References section "without sacrificing content", how would you suggest doing it? I respectuflly don't agree with your comment that it's not WP's place to analyze these studies and that, rather, it "should be left to the people who read them". I have two concerns about that (aside from the fact that WP itself does not analyze anything): First, it's unlikely that many will read the studies. And, second, if you're not trained to understand science, pharmacology, etc, you won't be able to understand the studies. The analyses that have been done are a welcome addition to the article because, among other reasons, they help with POV, as well as give us, as lay people, insight into each study and what it means.

With regard to your suggestion that the sections be re-ordered, to make it 'more scientific', how would you propose that be done? In what order? FYI, I'd once suggested creating a "Further Reading" section, which could be a repository for links to sites and articles that are both pro and anti poppers. I think I actually may have created such a section earlier this year, but can't remember. If I did, someone long ago deleted it. But I still think it's a good idea, as it lets the reader see the scope of viewpoints on this chemical and its various uses, especially when used as 'poppers'. (Which I believe is the only reason this article even exists in Wikipedia.)

I agree with you that including a 'more worldwide view, including use in other countries, especially China and the Far East" is a good idea. It appears these products are sold and used in many countries around the world, and, in my research I recall having run across Chinese and Japanese language sites for poppers, but I don't have any clue as to what those sites said. Do you have any information that's in English?

An ultimate goal for the poppers article, is to see that it one day becomes as professional and credible as the [1]LSD article.200.91.90.34 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: I forgot to log in; this is Lt. Dan.)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good ideas for improving the poppers article to be found in the automated peer review suggestions.

The automated peer review's most notable suggestion, is about the Lead. Per Wikipedia, they state that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

Anyone care to dig in and give it a try? Lt. Dan 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sinking feeling that no one wants to step up and help with rewriting the Lead on this article.

I would be happy to give it a go, but time is an issue. However, if this article is to be one of the best on Wikipedia, it needs to be done.

I was checking nominated FA sites, and one that's getting huge positive reviews is on the London Fire[2] The Lead on this article is getting lots of attention as being among the best on Wikipedia.

The poppers article needs a well written Lead. So, I'll take a stab at it. But I can use all the help anyone can give me! Lt. Dan 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a first pass at what I think is an enhanced new Lead for the poppers article. Per the Wikipedia help pages, this new version encapsulates the information in the existing article, including the ‘basics’, ‘usage’ and ‘legal’ sections -- but not the 'health hazards' section. In the interest of POV, the input on the 'health hazards' section needs to come from more than one person. Wikipedia recommends 2-4 paragraphs, well sourced, in a good Lead (see FAC). If the attached new Lead remains essentially what I've created, there will be room for another paragraph or two to cover the 'health hazards' section. I'd prefer not to write a discription of the current status of the 'health hazards' section by myself. I think both sides of the debate need to participate in that process.

Here is the proposed new Lead:

"Poppers" is the street term used for nearly 50 years to describe the use of inhaled alkyl nitrites in a recreational context, primarily to enhance the sexual experience, and are particularly popular in the gay and avant guard heterosexual communities. These compounds imitate Amyl Nitrite, a drug that has been safely prescribed by doctors for a century and a half.

Amyl nitrite has long been marketed both as an over-the-counter drug and as a prescription drug, in thin-walled glass ampoules covered by cotton mesh and used primarily for the treatment of angina. Crushing the ampoule to inhale the fumes of the volatile liquid makes a popping sound, thus the term ”poppers”, a nickname that’s still used today, even for the non-ampoule varieties, which are typically small half-ounce bottles containing various different alkyl nitrites, and which have been sold around the world over the past 40 years as liquid aroma or liquid incense room odorizers in thousands of bars, bookstores, boutiques and on the Internet, the most common of which is called RUSH®, Liquid Incense. They are regulated by a variety of federal and local regulations and legal restrictions, though the status of the common cyclohexyl nitrite — technically not a member of the class of alkyl nitrites encompassed by the law — remains in question in the United States, as a result of the Federal Analog Act. When inhaled, alkyl nitrites almost instantly relax the body’s smooth muscles, inducing a euphoric ‘head rush’. A major lure of these products is their reputed value as aphrodisiacs. They are said to heighten and prolong sensation, especially orgasm. Nitrite users tend to be adults rather than adolescents.Lt. Dan 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker, after discussion, and per your suggestion, I inserted the new Lead I'd written. However, within only a few minutes, you began editing it, removing important information, as well as inserting unsubstantiated statements, without first allowing for any discussion here or on the poppers Talk page. Would you be willing to kindly not make deletions or substantially edit the work until discussion has ocurred first? Too, please provide citation for any statements you insert. Your comment that poppers are commonly used by minors appears to have no basis in fact. I am attempting to stablalize the poppers article and work with others to hopefully arrive at consensous on content and design, for possible nomination as a FAC. Thank you. Lt. Dan 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker,

Would you be kind enough to discuss , either here in the Automatic Peer Review page, or over on the poppers article Talk page, any significant changes you're contemplating before making them? This gives other interested parties an opportunity to comment before any significant changes are made.

In the edit summary for your deletion of the mention of RUSH being the most common brand, you gave as the reason for your deletion the following: "removed reference to Rush - is it the most popular? we can't prove it, as people are hardly going to keep records of buying the stuff!"

The reason I noted that RUSH appears to be the most common of the bottled alkyl nitrites was because when you Google poppers, or rush poppers, etc, it becomes readily apparent that it's the brand that seems to be the one most talked about. There are numerous mentions on web sites where poppers are sold that RUSH is the most popular brand. Also, the Wall Street Journal printed the claim in it's front page story on poppers (In the piece, they claimed that both RUSH and Locker Room were the most common brands). And, it's common knowledge that "Rush" is one of only a few street names for poppers; it's actually synonymous with the word poppers. When a brand name becomes synonymous with the category of product, then it's one of the more common brands, if not the most popular. This would hold true for any category of product.

IMHO the Lead should give, as a point of reference to what these products are, at least one brand name so the reader is better informed. RUSH is the most obvious brand name to list.

That's why I think the sentence should be reinserted in the Lead. Lt. Dan 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what could serve as the final paragraph in the lead section.

All the information I've added has been thoroughly fact-checked, cited and is fully supported.MDwife 07:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! This is more concise and helpful now.Toejam34 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is good. Consider adding some reference about recent upsurge in youth using poppers in a dance/rave context.The concern in the UK where poppers use among youth has resulted in the website www.iabuse.org . The use by youth appears to be popular because of the immediate light headedness effect and increasing in sensitivity to sensations of sound and ...like in dance music. While use tends to be adults, it is relevant that youth use does occur and in non sexual context. I look forward to the lead being restored. And then on to the current controversy about risks, research, and relevance, especially to gays, bisexuals, navigating in the context of the AIDS epidemic.

209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson209.244.188.83 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]