Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psilocybin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:09, 18 January 2012 [1].

Psilocybin

[edit]

Psilocybin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybin, the psychedelic compound associated with "magic mushrooms", was introduced to popular Western culture after the work of characters like Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann, and counterculture icon Timothy Leary. The drug has an interesting history, but is still relatively poorly characterized owing to decades-long legal restrictions placed on its usage. I've been working on this article off and on for almost 4 years; in that time several other editors have helped the improvement process by offering reviews, critical commentary, and image-improving skills. Consequently, I think the article is now ready to be reviewed by the larger community, and I look forward to the further article improvements the FAC process will bring. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've delinked two countries that had been missed
  • "altered" twice in para 1 lead
  • OCD link seems odd, excluding "disorder" from the link and then getting to it via a redirect.
  • I think it would be clearer to divide "History" more precisely as "To 1800" and "Modern". Seems odd there is nothing from 1800 to 1957
  • There is additional history that could be mentioned, but the real history of psilocybin (as a drug, rather than as a mystical component in the mushroom) begins in the 1950s after it was first isolated, identified, & synthesized. I'd like to avoid adding too much length to this section, as the amount of literature available on the subjects probably warrants an eventual daughter article History of psychedelic mushrooms. Personally, I like the fuzzy timeline demarcated by the subheaders "Early" and "Modern", but let's see if other reviewers have thoughts about how this section is structured. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mycoflora" and "mycelial" should be linked at first occurrence
  • The Marsh Chapel image and the tentative link to psychedelia via the alleged mandala seem inappropriate to me
  • Hmm ... maybe. I'd like to hear what other reviewers say before I remove the image though. I don't see it as too out of place in a section about "Mystical experiences" that discusses the Marsh Chapel Experiment—the same Mandala was observed by the participants in this study. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also a bit unsure about it - WP:IUP#Content says that images should "be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter" and "In general ... depict the concepts described in the text of the article." Although it is a pretty picture, I don't think it improves the readers' understanding and neither is it described in the article. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next image (John Hopkins) breaks a heading, can it be moved?
  • The legal aspects section is all about the US with only token mention of the legislation elsewhere. It doesn't appear to reflect the main article it is linked to
  • For the time being, I've changed the {{main}} template to a {{details}} to address your second concern. Need a bit of time to think about the first concern: most of the early legal history regarding psilocybin mushrooms and later purified psilocybin was US-based, so some emphasis is justified. I'll see if I can tweak the presentation for better balance. Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by J Milburn

I've been looking forward to seeing this here.

  • The opening sentence isn't quite right; I think there will be a simpler way to say what you're trying to
  • "thousands of years in prehistorical murals and rock paintings" Rephrase?
  • "used by man in religious" I hate to say it, but that's probably not PC
  • It's a term used in the sources, but could you clarify the un-PC aspect of this—I really don't get it. I could change to "spiritual" (another term used in the sources), is that word PC? Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Indians of Mesoamerica" Again (sorry)
  • It's from the source (published in 2010) ... is it really not PC if I use the term "Indian" to refer to a historical group of people that lived from 50–500 years ago (a name by which they are commonly referred to in the literature)? Sasata (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Seeking the Magic Mushroom)" An article title would be in speech marks?
  • I wonder about the fact that the legality in the US is discussed in the history section, but then, further down, you talk about EU countries tightening regulations. Perhaps (if the US was the first) you should add something about how other nations followed suit, perhaps with a few specific examples?
  • "a problem with this method is that psilocybin dephosphorylates to psilocin prior to analysis," it does what?
  • "Various chromatographic methods have been developed to detect psilocin in body fluids: the rapid emergency drug identification system (REMEDi HS), a drug screening method based on HPLC;[74] HPLC with electrochemical detection;[72][75] GC–MS;[74][76] and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry.[77]" This line is pretty devoid of links, meaning that someone who doesn't know the subject is going to struggle.
  • "within 0.5 min of analysis." 30 seconds?
  • In the caption, is there not a better way to do "Source:[88] via[89]"? Could it not be condensed to one footnote, and placed at the end of the caption as usual?

More to come another time. This really is an impressive article. J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing where I left off, and I promise no mention of political correctness.

  • "Based on studies using animals," It seems odd to have just "animals" wikilinked- how about linking "studies using animals"?
  • "Open-eye visual hallucinations are more common" Than what? Than closed-eye? That seems counter-intuitive
  • "A 2005 magazine survey of club goers in the UK found that nausea or vomiting was experienced by over a quarter of those who had used hallucinogenic mushrooms in the last year, although this effect is caused by the mushroom rather than psilocybin itself." Tense switch.
  • There is a tense switch, but I think it's ok here—the first clause reports on results of the past, the second states that these results can be attributed to something that is ever-present. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with other drugs or with alcohol" Alcohol is another drug
  • The "mystical experience" section is entirely based on these experiments; while they most certainly have a place in it, I'd want to see some discussion about its actual use in religious/spiritual endeavour- I assume there are examples of this in the modern age? This strikes me as something of an omission. (Further down, you mention "In modern Mexico, traditional ceremonial use survives among several indigenous groups, including the Nahuatls, the Matlazinca, the Totonacs, the Mazatecs, Mixes, Zapotecs, and the Chatino." I'd love to see more of this type of information included. I'm imagining the most enlightening materials will come from anthropologists of religion- I know a tutor in my department is actually published in this area, though I don't think the hallucinogens he's written on are psilocybin based.)
  • I could add a paragraph at the beginning of the section summarizing current "spiritual" or "divinatory" uses by indigenous cultures. Again, there's more that could be said about this, but I have to resist the urge to add too much extra material that would be better placed in the Psilocybin mushroom article. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a great addition. I appreciate the distinction you're making between the two articles, but it seems very odd to discuss mystical experience, and then only talk about some experiments conducted in some US universities. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a short introductory paragraph to mention ancient and current indigenous usage with psilocybin mushrooms, which I think serves well as a segue into the more detailed exposition of "experimentally derived" mystical experiences with purified psilocybin. Let me know if you think it needs more (keeping in mind that I promise to cover this topic more fully in other articles). Sasata (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another area that the article doesn't seem to cover- what precisely is the role of the chemical in the mushrooms? Why do they have it?
  • Nobody really knows for sure. I've seen a few "fringe" theories (e.g., psilocybin is a visionary drug put in the mushrooms by aliens who wanted us to be able to communicate with the spirit world-paraphrasing from Terrence McKenna) but Smartse's source below was the best WP:RS I've seen that offered a reasonable scientific explanation for its existence. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a brilliant article- very impressive. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from J Milburn, providing the source checks etc. are all good. I've had some more thoughts on the religious usage issue; I would have advocated a far longer discussion of it, but I've realised that your way is more suitable. Equally, discussions about smoking culture probably wouldn't belong in an article on nicotine, and the discussions on the links between cannabis and Rastafarianism wouldn't belong in an article cannabinoids. This article is very well written and researched, answers all the key questions on the topic (bearing in mind that there are obviously a lot of related articles, and that the topic is specifically the chemical) and seems comprehensive. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Looie496 I did the GA review for this article a month or two ago, and tried to do a thorough job of checking that it was comprehensive, clearly written, and verifiable using the cited sources. My main concerns remaining after the review were a few passages with imperfect neutrality, and some usage of non-MEDRS sources in the medical section. Both of those concerns have been resolved by changes that have taken place since the review, and I am happy to support the article for FA in its current state. Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reviewed the images yet? Ucucha (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Everything other than File:Psilocybe.mexicana.jpg is completely fine from a copyright perspective, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sandy, I included this source because it is covered in the van Amsterdam et al. (2011) review (one of the major sources for this article). Plus, I think the usage complies with MEDRS guidelines: I'm clearly stating what kind of study it is (so the reader can make an informed choice about study validity), and giving the n, so reader knows how large the study was. I could remove that particular citation and cite it instead to the review, but it seems to me that the reader would benefit more by being able to click the pmid/doi link and see the primary source themselves ... I will remove though if it is absolutely untolerable to have this study listed in the refs :) Sasata (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had a new look, and I'm sorry to be a bug, but MEDRS is my backyard :) I see some things that may need clarification-- they could be similar to the above, where they are actually covered by reviews but you cited the primary source instead-- we need the reviews. Here's an example, cited to laypress:
  • In 2011, Griffiths and colleagues published the results of further studies designed to learn more about the optimum psilocybin doses needed for positive life-changing experiences, while minimizing the chance of negative reactions. In a 14 month followup, the researchers found that 94% of the volunteers rated their experiences with the drug as one of the top 5 most spiritually significant of their lives (44% said it was the single most significant). None of the 90 sessions that took place throughout the study were rated as decreasing well-being or life satisfaction. Moreover, 89% reported positive changes in their behaviors as a result of the experiences.[14]
Is that a primary study? Is it covered by a review? We don't cite to laypress on medical statements. I'm seeing glowing appraisals of the psychedlic that are based on unscientific or unreviewed primary studies, when there are 72 reviews for psilocybin listed at PubMed-- I'm glad you're heavily citing a 2011 review (Amsterdam, et al), but concerned that there are other uses of primary and lay sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy don't apologize, I expected nothing less! I've spent quite some time deliberating of the use of these sources (see the GA review and the talk page). Of the 72 Pubmed reviews, most either cover the drug peripherally, or are somewhat dated and don't cover recent developments (remember that research with psilocybin has only really picked up in the past 5–10 years or so). The 2011 study is quite recent, so not enough time has passed for it to be covered in a review. However, it was performed by the Griffiths et al. group at Johns Hopkins who are known for their rigorous scientific methodology pertaining to testing psychedelic drugs (see note #5 and commentary in the "Mystical experiences" section). Again, if it's not appropriate to have this recent study included in the article, I can comment it out and reinstate it later when a review comes out. I included the citation to the Johns Hopkins press release because it's freely accessible, includes interesting quotes from the researchers, and does not distort the results of the study (imho obviously), but again, I can remove this citation if you think if negatively affects neutrality. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, I could drastically trim this final paragraph to a summary sentence or two and tack it on to the end of the preceding paragraph; this way it would still be mentioned, but with less WP:UNDUE? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a cable repairman here, and am on dialup while he works to set up my whole house, so I may not get to this before the blackout <grrrr .... >, but your explanation above looks good ... could you cite the actual study, and then link to the laysource (on the press release), using the laysource parameter of cite journal? You can find samples on Autism or Asperger syndrome. My main concern is that unscientifc sources give glowing reviews to the psychedelic (web-based surverys, ugh)-- do scientific peer-reviewed sources have nothing else to say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done as you requested with the Griffiths 2011 citation (didn't know about the lay parameters, learned something new). I understand your reservations with the questionnaire study, but think of the practical difficulties the researchers would have otherwise had in extracting information about illegal drug use from 500+ people! The 2011 review focuses on the harm potential of psilocybin and thus does not delve into potential medicinal and therapeutic benefits of the drug, and unfortunately there aren't any other reviews that are new enough to discuss the recent studies on mystical experiences. Sasata (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working my way through it, worried about (things such as) the statement sourced to:
  • ^ Strassman R, Wojtowicz S, Luna LE, Frecska E. (2008). Inner Paths to Outer Space: Journeys to Alien Worlds through Psychedelics and Other Spiritual Technologies. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press. p. 147. ISBN 9781594772245.
Is there not a more ... neutral ... peer-reviewed source for that statement? Since I don't have journal access, I'd feel more comfortable here if Casliber or some WT:MED folks reviewed for MEDRS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the title (and cover art) are ... provocative. However, the primary author of the book, Rick Strassman, is a reputable psychedelic researcher. Also, I think the statement cited is uncontroversial—it just lists the therapeutic indexes of three drugs to compare them. That said, I could find a different source. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you access the three follow-up letters at PMID 17382831 ?
  • Yes, the study was somewhat controversial. Other researchers complained about: the ranking of alcohol (x2); the ranking of tobacco; and the subjective nature of the methodology. None of these letters mentioned the low harm score assigned to psilocybin. Should I mention in the text (or a footnote) that at least one other researcher questioned the methodology? Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On PMID 14578010 (a 2002 review), I only have access to the abstract, but it uses words like "growing problem" and "growing capacity for abuse", but I find nothing from that source to this effect in the article?
When this review was written, psilocybin mushrooms were still legal (or quasi-legal) in many European countries, and could be purchased over the internet and at smart shops; psychedelic mushroom abuse was a growing problem at the time. Recent revisions to drug laws have curbed this. This info is in the article (briefly in the History section and later in Social/Legal section). Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMID 21036393 is not a review, and based on the number of follow-up letters listed, was it controverial?
  • Any publication that attempts to assign criteria for drug harm (to inform drug law policy makers) is bound to be controversial, or at least result in prolonged discussion and debate; this 2010 paper has already been cited 44 times. I've read these responses, and while there is general argument over the criteria used to rank illegal drugs, there is no specific mention that the low harm ranking of psilocybin is controversial. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a more thorough check here for MEDRS issues, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's quite ok, I'm enjoying this! I'm committed to making this article as good as it can be—within the obvious restraints imposed by the Wikipedia format :) Familial duties call now, so I won't be back until after our involuntary protest. Sasata (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Psilocybin/archive1&oldid=1078805077"