Talk:Ivory Wave

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles

Chemicals

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this redirect or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles

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 articles

Untitled

I put in the [[Category:]] links!--86.16.10.210 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wermhat not just Australia?

The article says Wermhat (mostly AUS), but I have heard of "Ivory Wave" being described as "Wermhat" in Billericay, Essex and Camden, London. I have not heard the term 'Fatcars' used here, but a friend informs me this is in use in Bristol. Cheers SarkozyFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.106.43 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active ingredients

The only laboratory analysis of the Ivory Wave that I am aware of showed it to contain MDPV and pentylone in an approximately 3:5 ratio. Rumours about it containing WIN 35,428 appear to be entirely false and may indeed have been promulgated by the manufacturer in order to increase sales. This kind of misinformation should not be reinforced by repeating it on wikipedia, so I have removed it from the article. Meodipt (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible to me. Do you have the a link to the analysis or is it not a RS? Currently we're citing the metro, which isn't exactly renowned for accurate scientific reporting. Smartse (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private communication from one of the chemists who did the analysis I'm afraid, otherwise I would have added the reference to the page. Not sure if they plan to publish it in a journal eventually, but it took the best part of 3 years for Dr Caldicott et al to publish their analysis of the original Neodoves pills in an actual journal, despite having reported the results informally as soon as they came out... Meodipt (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text linking this substance to the Miami cannibal attack

I added some text that was however removed by another editor with the edit summary "rm miami info - very little evidence about what the person had taken or what it contained. Per WP:MEDRS we should wait until more is known. happy to discuss further." I had basically added the same text (with minor changes) as I had previously added to the articles Miami cannibal attack and Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012. Since both of thise articles currently link to the present article I find it appropriate that some information is presented here to reciprocate those links. It needn't be the text which I added, but even though the information is based on conjecture on the part of the police, I don't see that this should make all mention inapplicable. __meco (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed it is because as far as I can tell from the source, there is no actual evidence that the person had taken Ivory Wave or Cloud 9 (or whatever it's called now). As such, I'm not happy with our article insinuating that this is somehow going to turn people into cannibals/zombies. Unfortunately, the media have a very poor record on reporting designer drugs in a neutral and accurate manner and thus we should exercise caution before using them as sources. The AFP should know better, but unfortunately they don't. I've read articles by them before suggesting that people were snorting actual bath salts to get high! It may well be included in other articles, but as I'm sure you know, that's no reason to include it here. In my experience, it is sensible to wait until there are scientific reports available, before including any sensationalist information. This is what we did at mephedrone and we managed to maintain a neutral article while the press were reporting (later shown to be false) that people had torn their scrotum off while high on it, or died as a direct result. SmartSE (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently following the realm of articles related to psychoactive drugs on Wikipedia. I disagree with your premise though that we should only include what is verified. I think we should be giving people good information that they come here to get. When people read about this substance in the news, and they come here and find nothing, basically because some editors have decided to use the same inclusion criteria here as they would do with articles in scientific journals, I think we're doing readers a disservice. I see no reason not to include mentions in the media for what they're worth, including the appropriate caveats. As for the information that you have removed, I don't see why we cannot present it here pointing out what it actually says and its basis. In that way nobody should be misinformed by reading this article. __meco (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response - had a very busy weekend. Not that I think it gives me any authority over you, but I have been following articles about designer drugs for a while now. I'm afraid that I completely disagree with your points. I think it is better to err on the side of caution if we think that a source may not be correct, rather than include media hype. We are editors after all, and there is no rush to include something that could be later shown to be incorrect. To me, this is doing our readers a service by filtering sources so that we say something slightly different to the media. If you still think it should be included, we should try and get some more input from elsewhere. FWIW, at some point I will try and merge this and other articles into a bath salts (drug) or something similar as bath salts is now a very widely used term which we should try and explain beyond what we currently have in designer drug. That article probably should include some mention of the way it was linked to the Miami attack, but make it clear that no one knows either way yet. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Oppose – specific drugs (Ivory Wave) should be kept separate from articles about drug classes (bath salts (drug)). Boghog (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Wave is not a specific drug, but a name given to a drug of undetermined ingredients. There may be several different chemicals or combinations of chemicals that have been given the same "Ivory Wave" name. On the other hand several different names may have been given to the same chemical. The only sensible thing to do is to have one article for a generic common name (i.e. Bath salts (drug)) and separate articles for any identified chemical ingredients. If one day reliable sources show that for example that Ivory Wave is consistently used to refer to 100% MDPV, then we could redirect this title to that chemical. However currently there is nothing to distinguish Ivory Wave from Bath salts (drug) other than the name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really say more than Pontificalibus... Ivory Wave is not a specific drug, and neither are bath salts a specific class of drugs. SmartSE (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Wave, while having undetermined ingredients, is still a specific drug. As long as it is notable (widely used should be sufficient to establish notability) and there are sufficient reliable sources to support it, I think it should be kept as a separate article. Boghog (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What specific drug is it? To me, it seems to be one of a number of names for one or more drug mixtures. Most drugs have slang and trade names supported by reliable sources, but we tend to redirect them all to one article because there isn't much unique information to provide apart from "this name for this drug was used by these sources". --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I originally felt that Ivory Wave should be redirected to Bath salts (drug); however, as this particular brand of bath salts has many third-party articles written about it, I do not have an issue with it being left as a separate article. The only other thing we could do is to begin a new subsection in the bath salts article for the more popular bath salt brands, that have adequate citations. JunoBeach (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it's not a "brand". That would imply some sort of consistency in either ingredients, manufacturer or supplier. What we have is simply a name, used possibly by many different people to refer to different products. We wouldn't have a separate article on every name used for an ecstasy pill, even though there were multiple references using each name.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge - there is nothing in the IW article that isnt already covered here. and it appears that many of the sources for the claims about IW in both articles do not actually support the claims made and will need to be removed anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These "brand" names are temporary, and are only notable as examples of the "bath salts" meme.User talk:Unfriend12 05:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As this "brand" is nothing more than a title placed on different varieties made by different people, and there is so little on how it actually differs from other bath salts - if it even does - its mention should be in the main article. Frequent mentions in the media don't constitute sufficient differentiation from bath salts in general to warrant its own article. --Frugen (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]