Talk:Poppers/Archive 1

This article was made by combining the old Nitrite inhalants article with this one. This was done because "Alkyl nitrites" fits the Wikipedia on Drugs requirements a heck of a lot better. Alkyl nitrites are a class of drugs, and thus deserve all the basic encyclopedic attention that the other classes require. For this reason, Alkyl nitrites suits all of this much better.

By the way, if anyone has information on other Alkyl nitrites (just a name for one will work), then create an article for it, add the name for it to this article in the "See Also" section, and add it to the Alkyl nitrites template. That way the ring can be kept complete.

--Ddhix 2002 23:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

Is this article neutral ? I must say I do not know a lot about poppers, but this article looks really "poppers-friendly". Who said they improved orgasms so much ? The only source given for that is www.allaboutpoppers.com and it looks biased. Do we have other sources out there ?

---

I believe this article is neutral, though it may contain some very minor gaps. There really is no information showing that alkyl nitrites improve orgasms. I left that one line there only because it is possible that they do, but then again it is possible that they don't. I'm just waiting for someone with real data to say something about it.

I don't see how this article is 'poppers-friendly,' honestly. There is a health hazzards section in the article.

Don't get me wrong; I created the article (and the ring) with the best intentions. I used the information that was already on Wikipedia, and added some more. It really needs some editing, nonetheless.

--Ddhix 2002 20:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

take it from one who has used poppers for years. they absolutely improve orgasm -- except in cases where too much is inhaled.

I consider this a general illusion caused by long-term usage of drugs: Amphetamines, Heroin, Cocaine and other drugs are said to improve orgasm as well. What really happens is that the drug user is psychologically and physically so dependent of the drug that he is no longer able to feel joy without it. This psychological dependence is particularly strong in sexuality. --DenisDiderot 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (formerly 85.216.17.152)

It's important to remember that the alkyl nitrites are not even similar to drugs such as Amphetamines, Heroin, Cocaine -- in any way. Too, human beings do not appear to delvelop a dependence on alkyl nitrites, or feel that they are "no longer able to feel joy without them". It is not an "illusion" that inhalation of alkyl nitrites produces a essentially safe physiological effect which many people find enhances strength and duration of their orgasm, among other pleasureable sensations. To deny this, is to deny the decades of such reports from hundreds of thousands of people, and to deny the vast number of media reports and scientific reports that have pointed out the same thing. 68.251.158.126 23:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

References supporting my point:

• "The rush is short lived and frequent doses are normal. Tolerance builds with use, so the doses get larger. [...] Long term use can lead to dependence for sexual arousal, recurrent headaches and diminished sense of smell. If you are older, or have medical conditions, poppers can cause palpitations, or even heart attack. Poppers do not mix well with other drugs." [1]
• "many gay men report some aspects of psychological dependence; for example, many feel they can no longer have sex without using poppers." [2]
• "Users of either solvents or poppers risk psychological dependence." [3]
• "Regular use of nitrites leads to psychological dependence" [4]

--DenisDiderot 10:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are really a long-term regular user of this drug (and not a dealer promoting it), I strongly advise you to visit a physician and check your arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) using pulse oximetry and other critical parameters! --DenisDiderot 12:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Allabout2006, alias 68.251.158.126, alias 209.248.254.66! Due to your tireless tremendous efforts to advertise your site "allaboutpoppers" in Wikipedia for months, the following question arises: Is your name, by chance, Joseph Miller or is he your boss? -- "Joseph Miller's company Rushbrands, is the largest producer of poppers in the United States. Joseph Miller and Rushbrands are also the authors of the pro-poppers website, allaboutpoppers.com." [5] --DenisDiderot 12:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have been in the business quite for a while:

• This was 1983: "The CDC's mice study was cited in a press release sent out by Joseph F. Miller, President of Great Lakes Products, the world's largest manufacturer of poppers. Miller's press release, run by most of the gay press, claimed that "Jim" Curran of CDC's AIDS Branch had given him a guided tour of the CDC and assured him there was no relationship between poppers and AIDS. When Curran responded with a letter saying that he had been misinterpreted, and that poppers may play a role as cofactor in some of the illnesses in the syndrome, his letter was ignored by the gay papers who had run the press release from Miller. Great Lakes Products followed through with a series of ads in the "Advocate", entitled "Blueprint For Health", which gave the impression that poppers, like vitamins, fresh air, exercise and sunshine, were an ingredient in the healthy lifestyle." [6].
• "At its peak, the poppers industry was the biggest money-maker in the gay business world, grossing upwards of $50 million per year, according to Leonard T Sigell in a 1978 article. Gay publications were delighted with the revenues they received from running full-page, four-colour ads for the various brands of poppers. In a 1983 letter to The Advocate, poppers manufacturer Joseph F Miller, president of Great Lakes Products Inc, boasted he was the “largest advertiser in the gay press.”" [7], [8]
• "The Advocate did not print it. Hank Wilson, chairman of the San Francisco-based Committee to Monitor Poppers, then got hold of another letter written to the Advocate by Joseph Miller, president of Great Lakes Products, Inc. Great Lakes manufactures nitrites and markets them through gay publications as room odorizers. Because the CDC had never taken any action against nitrites, and had in fact exonerated them through its policy of equivocation, Miller could expansively pen the following: "As the largest advertiser in the Gay press, we intend to use the extensive ad space we purchase each month as the vehicle for sending a message of good health to the North American Gay communities." Wilson and Lauritsen recount that, on April 1, 1983, Joseph Miller issued a press release titled, "U.S. Government Studies Now Indicate that Nitrite-Odorants Not Related to AIDS"! It was mentioned in the release that the assistant director of the Center for Infectious Diseases (at the CDC), James Curran, had given Miller an invitation to visit the CDC in November of 1982 -and that the CDC then told him "no association exists between nitrite-based odorants and AIDS." Miller's press release then offered this cynical disclaimer: "Although his (Miller's) company does not advocate the misuse of HARDWARE or QUICKSILVER as inhalants, Miller says the company is greatly relieved to know that recent Government studies clearly show that such misuse poses no health hazard." Wilson and Laurtisen report that six months later, on September 27, 1983, James Curran of the CDC sent a letter to Miller, and a copy to the Advocate, which never printed it. Curran didn't deny he had met with Miller at the CDC, but he was upset with Miller's attempted whitewash of popper health-dangers: "Other health hazards (than AIDS) from misuse of these drugs have been documented," Curran replied. "Your press release and advertisements in the Advocate are misleading and misrepresent the CDC findings and their implications... While it is unlikely that nitrites will be implicated as the primary cause of AIDS, their role as a co-factor in some of the illnesses found in this syndrome has not been ruled out. I must insist that you discontinue the misuse and misinterpretation of CDC findings."" [9]

--DenisDiderot 15:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

WTF does this part mean: "The drugs are less common today than before 9/11". WTF has 9/11 got to do with Alkyl nitrites?

WTF does this part mean: "The drugs are less common today than before 9/11". WTF has 9/11 got to do with Alkyl nitrites?

I removed that a while back. I don't see how 9/11 would affect popper use. And if it somehow did, I'd like to see a cite.

-- Who added this? Obviously the idiot needs to be edited and corrected at every turn if he is cognitively incapabale of following the more than simple logic required to think such a benign thought through on a thorough level.

Glad it was removed, it is just absolutely ignorant to the practicality of any encyclopedia.

--Ddhix 2002 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Whew! I've read all the discussion on this page/subject. The emotions are running high. I hope people get it together so accurate information can find its way onto these pages. I've added my own knowledge with edits made to the main page. Gotta tell ya all that I, too (as a long time user), agree that they can and do improve orgasm!

"POPPERS", alkyl nitrites, etc

I was directed to this subject in Wikipedia by someone who had noticed a number of inaccuracies in what has been posted here under "alkyl nitrites", which appears to be a re-directed from the subject of "poppers".

With all due respect, I'd like to help correct the inaccuracies if I may be allowed to.

How do I go about it?

Kind regards,

Respectfully Allabout2006

You are actually welcome to make the changes yourself, as long as you stay within the style that has been used for the rest of the article. I'll drop the official welcome message off at your user talk page: that gives lots of great links for how to get started. -- Francs2000 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The misinformation was on the other part: For decades, gay magazines have been glorifying Poppers and suppressing information on its deathly long-term effects, because they depended on Poppers manufacturers to place ads in their papers. For details, please read The Poppers story.

It's big business and there is a lot of money in it, just like in other drug industries, see Ecstasy (drug), which is also commonly belittled.

With all due respect, would whomever posted the comments claiming the gay press has been "glorifying Poppers", etc, please identify themselves and their connection to this subject? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is supposed to also contain accurate and timely information for the use of others. I believe we fail to adhere to those requirements when we make biased comments, which are not supported by fact.

Respectfully, Allabout2006 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The connection of user Allabout2006 "to the subject" is all too obvious: He tries to abuse Wikipedia for advertising this dangerous drug. The long-term effects of Poppers are well described on the following pages:

• http://www.duesberg.com/articles/iypoppers.html
• http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

The same Prof. Duesberg who says HIV is not the cause of AIDS? Lets stick to the scientific consensus. Ender 09:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam,

I'm unclear on what you mean by "The connection of user Allabout2006 "to the subject" is all too obvious: He tries to abuse Wikipedia for advertising this dangerous drug. ". My intention is to set the record straight. The information that is contained in your "Alkyl nitrites" section is riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation. It is one-sided and biased toward the unfortunate campaign that has been part of the culture of denial and misinformation around HIV/AIDS. This misrepresentation of an alledged association with Poppers to HIV/AIDS is part of an ongoing battle between those few whom most researchers liken to the 'Flat Earth Society', and the rest of the AIDS research community as a whole.

The Wikipedia community calls for accuracy, fair play and neutrality. My attempt to set the record straight is not an attempt to advertise any product or any "drug" (Your use of the term "dangerous drug" would seem to imply a definate bias on your part). Wikipedia's own policy calls for a truthful presentation of the known facts. Some of the information contained in your section on "alkyl nitrites" simply fails that test. It is my responsibility, and right, to try to set the facts straight. And, although their position on HIV/AIDS has long ago been dismissed as uncredible, you clearly have the right to, and should, include the links to the Duesberg group that reference "Poppers" and nitrites. However, it is your responsibility to also include links to other sites that are credible, and which contain important information about this subject, regardless of your bias against them. Allabout2006 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

- Citation from allaboutpoppers (the page, you tried to advertise in Wikipedia for months): "Reach for power. Click here for poppers brands!", "Click here to find out about fake poppers products!", "Click here to view our wealth of classic poppers advertising." (here you have the gay magazines' Poppers glorification yourself, on your own page) - each with a direct link to the product ordering page: "PWD brands, you can feel the pleasure!".
Do you take your drug yourself, DEALER? - If yes, you can easily see one of its many destructive effects by simple pulsoxymetry: methemoglobinemia. Try it!

Merge

I suggest that the information missing from this artcile, but present in POPPERS/NITRITES be moved here, then POPPERS/NITRITES should be deleted. N.B. there is already a redir for Poppers to this article. xaosflux ^T/_C 03:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir or madam,

With all due respect, I do not agree that the information presented in POPPERS/NITRITES should be moved here, or merged with this page. Nor do I believe the page POPPERS/NITRITES should be deleted. With respect to the redirect for "Poppers" , I feel that the existing redirect should be redirected to POPPERS/NITRITES , which will ultimately contain a far more comprehensive compilation of information and data on the subject compounds, written by experts in that field.

209.248.254.66 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a 'newbie' to Wikipedia, I am at the mercy of those of you who are more experienced here, and I am open to a merge of POPPERS/NITRITES if it is being suggested in the spirit of a genuine desire to adhere to the Wikipedia policy and stated goals of presenting credible information in a neutral manner. If, however, it is being suggested in the spirit of attempting to stifle and censure, I will oppose it strongly.

Would you kindly advise as to your intentions?

Respectfully, 209.248.254.66 05:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Allabout2006

honestly, i'm not sure what would be stifled if that page just disapeared. it has five paragraphs about research conducted, but doesn't say what the research was or what the research concluded. the point of the POPPERS/NITRITES article seems to be: "The project took nearly two years to accomplish, and substantial resources were utilized. The result was a consolidation, clarification, and expansion of the pharmacological, toxicological and sociological data regarding these nitrites." thats it. I was going to merge it earlier after i saw the tag, as there obviously is already an article (articles) on poppers/nitrites. but i couldn't figure out what to keep out of that article, since it fails to describe a single conclusion reached by the study. What could even be merged from this article? if you're wishing to present scientific evidence to show that poppers are safe, you're going to need to cite it, and above all, you're going to have to provide the evidence!! as it stands, the POPPERS/NITRITES article seems worthy of an afd nomination rather than a merge.--Heah (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Heah,

You are obviously a far more experienced blogger, and apparent Wikipedia expert. I am neither.

I was only at the point of actually trying to set up the POPPERS/NITRITES page when I got your message that it should be shut down and/or merged with another. I haven't even had the opportunity or time to complete it. As a result, what you see is not the final product.

I appreciate your comments "scientific evidence to show that poppers are safe, you're going to need to cite it, and above all, you're going to have to provide the evidence!!" And am fully prepared to do exactly that.

However, I'm unclear on how you are the authority on this issue, and on what "must" be posted here. Are you the person who has set up this page on alkly nitrites? If so, where is your proof for the various statements you've made?

I am happy to play by the rules, but I need to know what they are. And, I expect to play on a level playing field.

At this point, simply based on the attitude you've exhibited during this discussion, it appears you may have a personal agenda regarding "Poppers".

Again, what is your interest in this subject?

Respectfully, 209.248.254.66 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

anonymous user: the quality of 'your article', present or future, is not at issue. I think you misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. The only relevant fact is that this article already exists, and the other is on the same topic. If you think this article is lacking, the thing to do is to add what you think is missing, not to create a competing article. Wikipedia does not maintain parallel articles on the same subject in competition with each other; rather, people work together on a single page, which is not owned or run by any of them. -- Ncsaint 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article posted for Alkyl nitrites, IMHO if this article contains information not in that article including it in the existing would make for a better encylopedia. We also already have a redirect to that article for Poppers to make people searching for subject matter on it easy to find. A merge suggestions is not a personal attack on the editor, it is just a suggestion, certainly open for comment on the Talk page listed. Also, please LOG IN if you want to make comments as a username, that is the only way to authenticate that the comments are really yours, and not just somone claiming to be you. All comments are welcome, even from anonymous editors, but speaking authoritatively for someone else is generally not warranted. -- xaosflux ^T/_C 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto the above. the point here is that we don't have two articles on the same thing; this is not me being authoritative, its just how an encyclopedia works. i, personally, am unsure what could be merged from the currently existing poppers/nitrites article. far from having some personal agenda linked to poppers, i just have no idea what yours might be- again, you failed to mention what the studies found, or even if the results were positive or negative! This page happens to be on my watchlist and i do have a vested interest in making wikipedia the best it can be. (and ok, i do know what your what your personal interest in poppers is . . . ) --Heah (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, ncsaint, for the additional information. I'm clearly a newbie to Wikipedia, but I fully understand and appreciate the underlying reason for it working this way. I share your interest in helping to make wikipedia the best it can be.

I'll be happy to agree to your merging my page about POPPERS/NITRITES to this already-existing page on "alkyl nitrites".

I would expect not to be threatened by the owner of this page again (is that you, heah?), and that my links will not be termed as spam or vandalism.

Finally, I wonder what you mean by your comment, Heah, that "...and ok, i do know what your personal interest in poppers is...). I don't know you, and you don't know me. Would you care to elaborate?

Kind regards, 209.248.254.66 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would expect not to be threatened by the owner of this page again (is that you, heah?) nope. closest thing there is to an owner here at wikipedia is a man named Jimmy Wales.

Would you care to elaborate? nope.

happy editing! --Heah (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to the POPPERS/NITRITES page and agree it may be a duplicate of sorts. But it might make sense to move forward with it since this page Alkyl nitrites is not working properly. I made some edits to it tonight and they have all disappeared almost as quickly as I saved them. I'm not sure if it's a glitch or a problem with high traffic tonight.

allaboutpoppers.com

ok, one last time, allaboutpoppers.com is clearly a commercial link, advertising both poppers and companies selling poppers. this has nothing to do with me or ownership of this page- notice its been deleted numerous times. This is an encyclopedia, and commercial links have no place here. please stop adding it. --Heah (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

as a matter of fact, it has been removed at least 10 times, and if you add it again, i will report you for vandalism. --Heah (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the link "Everything you ever wanted to know about poppers, but were afraid to ask! - A fact-filled UK site, with a huge knowlegebase and links" introduced by the user Allabout(Poppers?)2006 is just a copy of the above-mentioned allaboutpoppers.com. The spamming efforts of this drug dealer are pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.216.17.152 (talk • contribs) .

After reading the POPPERS/NITRITES article, I am of the opinion that the articles should be merged - somewhat. I say somewhat because I don't see any linked reference, and I am not willing at the moment to check the 'references' myself. The POPPERS/NITRITES article names some good names, has a few good pieces of data (I think), and thus should be merged in with the Alkyl nitrites article. It's a bad idea to keep such things outside of the ring. I created the entire ring of Alkyl nitrites because this series of chemical deserve attention along with the rest (say phenethylamines and tryptamines.

I don't have the time right now, so could someone please merge, with an editorial eye, the two articles? The history in Allabout2006's article is worth it, I think. I could be wrong, though.

Just as long as this ring stays alive - and people quit making similar articles that fall outside the ring - everything will work out fine, I'm sure.

Allabout2006, thanks for your contribution, but next time could you just add data to the article, instead of creating a new one in vein? We want people to have all the data in front of them, instead of having to jump around and get confused. Hell, even going through this talk page - trying to figure out what happened - confused me to no end.

The problem seems minor to me, nonetheless. But I could be missing something

POPPERS/NITRITES needs to be picked for it's data, and deleted.

Comments?--Ddhix 2002 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

both allaboutpoppers and the mirror contain a quote purported to be from wikipedia, saying ".... despite their wide use, serious complications from inhalation of nitrites remain extremely rare. Accordingly ... it would appear that only the most reckless disregard of available information could lead to any serious harm." this is not in this article. which further suggests the commercial nature of the site, as well as making the credibility question fairly clear. --Heah ^talk 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heah,

In the interest of moving forward, I have removed the non-commercial link you are so concerned with. I hope this solves your problem and we can move forward. Allabout2006 06:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the person being referenced here (Allabout2006) associated with the website called www.allaboutpoppers.com? I would be interested in contacting you if so. Can you leave a message here?

The website www.allaboutpoppers.com as of this week (about 6/10/06)is a dead link. A Bay Area Reporter(San Francisco gay newspaper) story on June 1 focused on this website as a popper industry promotional site.

Pity really, because I'd have loved to see the advertising archive. (Never used them, never will, never would advise anyone else to, but still interested in the history.) 81.1.118.40 09:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A new poppers promoting website, www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org is now a sponsored site on Google and comes up first in a search of "poppers" and also "video head cleaner".

Protection

I've protected the article because of the 3RR violations/edit war. Please, everybody calm down. Allabout2006, your behavior has been much less than acceptable, but I'm willing to assume good faith and let everyone talk this out. Everybody else, please assume good faith as well and talk this over. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What is it you need to know? Allabout2006 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Futher, my behaviour, in responsed to the unwarraned and relentless attacks by heah, can hardly be classified as "less than acceptable". Would you mind telling me what is not acceptable? Allabout2006 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a judge in what's right or wrong; just talk out and explain why your additions are proper -- what the merits are, for example.

However, I am inclined to, for the interim, remove (comment out) all of the external site links. Any opposition to doing that? --Nlu (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: let's say that this is a coding project at work/school. You have a proposal of how the code should be modified. Why do you want to modify it in this way? Talk it out. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to any actions you take, as long as they are fair. If you are going to remove the external site links, I assume you'll remove all of them, not just the ones I'd posted.

I am not a computer expert, or software writer. However, I think I understand your analogy to code modification, and it may be a good one. Why do I want to modify the poppers/nitrite page? Because when I first came across it a few nights ago, I realized that it was full of misinformation -- even falsehoods. I recognized that I have access to substantial information which is accurate, timely and significant, and which would make an important contribution to the body of knowledge already posted on the page. To that end, I began to edit the page. However, almost immediately, I noticed what I had been adding was being deleted, almost as fast as I could add it. I was stunned. This was my 'trial by fire'; someone began waging a relentless edit war against me.

I wonder, in Wikipedia, do you automatically assume that whatever the person who sets up a page initially posts is accurate? You have told me that I am obligated to rationalize why any information I might post on this page should be allowed. What about the person who set up the page, and included inaccurate information and/or falsehoods?

209.248.254.66 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Explain why they are falsehoods -- with links to actual, confirmable information, not advocacy sites. Advocacy sites may contain correct information, but their credibility is suspect to most people in the Wikipedia community.

You've damaged your own credibility by violating 3RR and also by using a sock puppet (and then denying it). However, credibility can be repaired, but it will take time. If you want people to assume that you had good faith, it might be time for you to assume that people are acting in good faith as well. Try to persuade, rather than to militate. --Nlu (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All I tried to do two nights ago, was to post accurate data in a page that contained misinformation, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about.

I am not a sock puppet, I barely know how to post in here, let alone try to scam you somehow with puppetry or otherwise.

I first heard about "3RR" tonight, when I was accused of violating it. I don't even know what it is. I had no malice in my heart, nor attempted to break the rules (unlike the person who has waged this war against me).

I have not tried to "militate"; rather, I've tried to defend against a relentless edit war that someone waged against me. I notice that he is not engaging in this dialog, rather he is watching others challenge me. If he ever wants to come out of hiding and engage in civil debate over this subject, I'm fully prepared to engage him.

Indeed, I did try to pursuade. It was demonstrated in the content I posted, which has now been removed.

Wikipedia seems less than the neutral vehicle of credible information that I assumed it was. That's a shame.

I don't know what you want out of me. When you unprotect the page, perhaps I'll be able to continue making a contribution. I have substantial information that would improve the page.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia's content relative to these compounds does not show up in Google or other searches, so it's of little relevance in the universe of the Internet. However, my concern was that on the outside chance that someone might stumble upon it, as it stands now, they will read inaccurate information. That's sad, but inevitable it would seem.

Allabout2006 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Posting spam, which explicitly includes personal sites as well as commercial sites, is not acceptable. The websites in question at the moment- www.allaboutpoppers.com and a quasi-mirror, stone2005.typepad.com/, are almost certainly personal sites, given the similarity between the names of the websites and the name "allabout2006" and the fact that allabout2006 has edited this article exclusively. they are also commercial sites; while it is true that they do not sell poppers, they are clearly giant ads for poppers, full of links to sites that do sell them and articles detailing how safe and fun poppers are. the quasi-mirror purports to quote the wikipedia article, but nowhere in this article does it say "despite their wide use, serious complications from inhalation of nitrites remain extremely rare. Accordingly ... it would appear that only the most reckless disregard of available information could lead to any serious harm," rendering any other content on those sites suspect.

otherwise, my recent edits that allabout2006 has been reverting are mostly minor rewrites trying to make the article npov and verifiable- for instance, the article claimed that nitrites are carcinogenic but that hasn't been shown, ditto for crossing the placental barrier, and i cited information that i did find to be true; i've also removed the link to allaboutpoppers several times and edited the intro, which, as it stands, talks about "intense euphoria" and "considered by researchers to be the closest thing to a true aphrodisiac", and is clearly sensationalist. when such edits were reverted (mostly not by me) allabout2006 created another article, POPPERS/NITRITES, about how safe they are.

i am more than happy to have allabout2006 contributing to this article, but advertisements for the product he sells and sensationalist language are completely, entirely unnacceptable. as to his continued claims that he has no vested interest in this article- many of which can be found above, on this talk page- maybe he really is just some guy that loves poppers so much that he wants everyone to take them and even builds slick websites full of articles about how great poppers are with lots of ads for different brands and links to dealers just to be a good guy. but i find that highly unlikely, and regardless, personal websites aren't to be linked to either.

Heah ^talk 07:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

References for health hazards

Alkyl nitrites were shown to be both mutagenic and carcinogenic in animals and humans:

• Hersh EM, Reuben JM, Bogerd H. Rosenblum M, Bielski M, Mansell PWA, Rios A, Newell GR, Sonnenfeld G (1983) Effect of the recreational agent isobutyl nitrite on human peripheral blood leukocyte and on in vitro interferon production. Cancer Res 43, 1365
• Jorgensen KA, Lawesson SO (1982) Amyl nitrite and Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 307, 893
• Mirvish SS, Ramm MD, Bobcock DM (1988) Indications from animal and chemical experiments of a carcinogenic role for isobutyl nitrite. In: Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants (Haverkos HW Dougherty JA, eds) NIDA Res Monogr 83, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington DC, P 39
• Newell GR, Mansell PW, Spitz MR, Reuben JM, Hersh EM. Volatile Nitrites Use and Adverse Effects Related to the Current Epidemic of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Am J Med 78:811,1985.
• Harry Haverkos et al., "Disease manifestation among homosexual men with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: A possible role of nitrites in Kaposi's sarcoma, *Sexually Transmitted Diseases*, October-December 1985. Harry Haverkos and John Dougherty, editors; *Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants*, NIDA Research Monograph 83, 1988
• I. Quinto, "The Mutagenicity of Alkylnitrites in the Salmonella Test" (translation from the Italian), Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale*, 56:816-820, 1980.
• Sidney Mirvish et al., "Mutagenicity of Iso-Butyl Nitrite Vapor in Ames Test and Some Relevant Chemical Properties, Including the Reaction of Iso-Butyl Nitrite with Phosphate", *Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993;21:247-252.

The sentence "and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor despite the lack of evidence" in the article thus isn't true. Kaposi's Sarcoma are a form of cancer and there is evidence for the carcinogenic nature of Nitrites. --85.216.17.152 09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be reworded, but unless it has actually been shown to be the cofactor, other than being a possibility, we shouldn't state that it "is" the cofactor. what of this supposed research disproving the link between ks and poppers mentioned in the article? --Heah ^talk 00:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The research that is always cited against this connection is a brief non-double-blind mice study conducted by the Center of Disease Control (CDC) in 1982-1983 wich claims to find "no evidence of immunotoxicity". These results are contradicted by several other studies, which did find that the inhalation of nitrite fumes causes immune suppression and are mutagenic and carcinogenic in mice (see above, especially the results of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)).

In the CDC mice study, the doses were extremely low, approximating levels to be encountered as background exposure (used as "room odorizer", workers in a poppers factory) rather than those encountered when using poppers as a drug (i.e., inhaling directly from the bottle).

Daniel Lewis of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health explained that, in determining the dose, they had to adjust it below the level where they were "losing" the mice- however, the supplier of the mice later disclosed that the mice were suffering from a low-grade infection. This means that the deaths of the exposed mice may well have been due to immunotoxicity-exactly what the study conclusions claimed not to find-rather than to the acute toxicity of the nitrite fumes. The end result was that the dose was far too low to be meaningful.

The study was not blinded, as the mice inhaling isobutyl nitrite vapors developed a "yellowish tinge". Although there were no significant changes in body weight, there were reduced liver and thymus weights, and an increase in spleen weights. 100% of the exposed mice developed methemoglobinemia. The white cell count went down sharply. --85.216.17.152 09:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This should all go in the article. --Heah ^talk 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Something also to consider, is that the references someone posted here – which are part of a larger list -- are very old and are based on work done in the early years of AIDS; also, that subsequent research has not supported the same results.

The primary issue when reviewing the studies most often referenced by someone trying to link nitrites to AIDS, or more specifically to Kaposi’s sarcaoma, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, within the list of referenced studies, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers.

The general consensus in the research community, and in the HIV/AIDS community, is that although the much vaunted list of references claiming to link nitrites to HIV/AIDS may look impressive to the untrained eye, they do not support a case for a claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma (KS). Allabout2006 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite some research if you have problems with all of this. you can't just say "this stuff isn't true". the research cited above sought to show the carcenogenic and mutagenic properties of poppers- ie, that they can cause cancer- and does not conclusively show that poppers cause ks, which the text should reflect. --Heah ^talk 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you. However, neither can you "just say 'this stuff is true'", by your regurgitation of a reference list about which you have no understanding, expertise, and/or knowledge. For example, the references you blindly posted in support of dangers associated with nitrites, and which you have no idea are accurate or not, are part of a larger list of similar articles referenced in the same old tired and worn out bibliography of ‘research’, which the anti-popper zealots toss around and disseminate wherever they can. (I am not going to post the entire list here, because I will not further the use of junk science.)

These referenced ‘studies’ do not support the claim that nitrite use causes risky sexual behavior and a decrease in immune function that may lead to HIV infection or Kaposi's sarcoma. One of many significant problems is that out of 90+ references, 13 are listed twice and one is listed three times. This is an obvious attempt to make the body of evidence appear larger. The list contains typographical errors, an indication of a lack of attention to detail, which is an essential component of scientific evaluation. Some of them are data presented at meetings as posters or informal talks, which are preliminary data that has not been confirmed or published. Finally, one of the references was submitted, but not accepted for publication. Articles that were rejected for publication are never cited in credible reference lists.

The primary issue concerning the articles referenced by this highly-vocal handful of anti-popper zealots, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers. A major weakness of the their references regarding the immune function research (an important part of their claims), nearly every reference is work performed by Soderberg. When one investigator is primarily the only one cited, it indicates that his work has not been replicated by others. This is extremely important to establish validity of claims. The fact that other researchers are not cited is very suspect. If experimental results have not been replicated and thus confirmed by another researcher, the results are most likely not valid.

A limitation of Soderberg's work is that minimal data is presented in each of his papers and the same work is presented in more than one publication. Occasionally researchers will do this to increase their publication volume -- and it does not reflect that a large amount of data has been generated. In many of Soderberg’s articles, actually anti-popper zealots have been acknowledged for providing the nitrites, which indicates bias. It appears that the anti-popper zealots and Soderberg are associates and, considering their zeal against nitrites, the research by Soderberg is very suspect. It’s reasonable to assume that these zealots most likely have a personal vendetta against nitrites.

Another very important discrepancy is that Soderberg does not obtain consistent results between research summarized in his own papers. The fact that he publishes conflicting data without explanations for doing so, illustrates his inability to establish a connection between nitrite use and AIDS and KS. Furthermore, Soderberg’s results are not consistent with other researchers’ results. This makes it impossible to draw any conclusions from the research that is presented. The anti-popper zealots who throw these studies around as part of a “list of references”, have not carefully read the references they are using to support their claims, or else they would not use them.

In addition to these issues, an extremely serious problem in the articles is that the mice or rats used in the experiments are given massive doses that are not relative to a typical human exposure. In fact, in some of the studies, the doses used are lethal. Adjusting a drug dose for a particular body weight is a fundamental pharmacological paradigm for treating experimental animals, and it is impossible to determine the effects of nitrites when a toxic dose is used. Therefore, the animal studies are meaningless when comparing them to humans. It is not clear how the few articles which were actually published, were even published with this blatant oversight. Furthermore, the excessive doses could explain the discrepancies in the results.

Yet another criticism of the immune function research is that the alterations in immune function were reversible. Therefore, it is likely that there are no long-term effects of nitrites, particularly considering the exceedingly high doses used. Lower doses may not have any effect on immune function – which has been the general consensus of the research community for over twenty five years.

Finally, the references cited by the anti-popper zealots have a scarcity of studies utilizing human subjects. More human studies would dramatically enhance their argument, and they could easily be performed. Perhaps these types of studies have been done, and showed that nitrites have little potential for harm (a position by the way, that most credible researchers have arrived at about nitrites), and thus have not been published.

The most serious problem with the behavioral studies is that they simply cannot establish a causal relationship between nitrite use and HIV infection. Only associations between the two can be shown, and because two behaviors occur together, this does not mean that one causes the other. The most logical explanation for the association between nitrite use and unsafe sex, is that it results from an underlying personality characteristic that predisposes some men to risky behaviors, and that sexual risk-taking and substance use are just two such behaviors observed in men with risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, nitrites are readily available in places of higher risk behavior, such as pornographic theaters and bookstores.

It is also likely that the immune status of those who use drugs may already be compromised as a result of an unhealthy lifestyle or other psychological factors. To further complicate the issue most of the men who abuse nitrites also use other substances. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the effect of each substance separately. It is of particular consequence if injected drugs are used in conjunction with nitrites. The sharing of needles is a well-established route of HIV infection.

Finally, the behavioral studies are derived from self-reports, which is subject to recall bias. The validity of the research relies on the accuracy of the reporter and if they are using drugs or alcohol, they may not remember specific drug use or have an altered perception of their actions.

Although the anti-popper zealots propose that nitrite use can facilitate HIV infection and Kaposis sarcoma, one of their references listed three articles for -- and three against -- association of nitrite use with HIV seropositivity and KS. When conflicting data is presented, one cannot conclude that nitrite use is involved in these illnesses.

As I pointed out earlier, even though the anti-popper zealots' reference list might look impressive, this small handful of what many have termed members of the "Flat-Earth Society", simply do not have a case for their claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma.

There is much more to the subject, but before I waste any time trying to edit the page, I want you to agree to get past your personal attacks, and to agree to either contribute something of value relative to the research, or allow me to do so, without your deleting my edited information and/or trying to get me blocked, as you did earlier this week.

Can we move forward on the merits of the subject matter now?

Respecfully, Allabout2006 00:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the link I put on the page. It was not to a commercial site, very clearly. Too, my other edits were removed. I'm unclear on whether I should do any furhter editing in this same 24 hour period, for fear of being accused of RS32 or whatever it was, or some other violation. (Just realized I didn't sign in before I began typing this. Sorry. I'm not puppeting. It's me, Allabout2006) 209.248.254.66 05:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation from the site removed: "Stock up on 'em while you can! In the US, nitrites have been banned since 1988." - Is this to be considered non-commercial, neutral information on the drug? --85.216.17.152 10:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be neutral per se, but it can't be commercial, and I still think it is. --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You should consider signing up for the Censorship Board in China or Vietnam; here in the USA, the Bush Administration's FCC board would be proud of you.

You conveniently avoided answering my other question; namely, what about the removal of the edits I'd inserted in the body? What was your problem with those?

Allabout2006 15:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I didn't revert those (other than the occasion when you violated 3RR, and therefore could most definitely be blocked, but I chose not to block you), why do I have to answer them? And your comment is unacceptable. Do it again and you'll be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about this: why have you allowed the following statements on the page: " As Kaposi's sarcoma occur in homosexual AIDS-patients 20 times more often than in non-homosexual AIDS-patients, some cofactor must be involved beyond the virus HIV itself, and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor especially in view of the fact that they are carcinogenic (Kaposi's sarcoma being a form of cancer)."

Where is the proof these statements are true?

And, please, don't ask the rest of us to have to prove a negative. It's incompent upon you to defend and explain why you would allow such a statement on Wikiepedia.

Allabout2006 15:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to block me. Your dictatorship serves no one and significantly diminishes the integrity of Wikipedia, but may make you feel good -- or perhaps giddy for a day.

Have a happy holiday.

Allabout2006 15:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. You have been blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. Continue this behavior after the block expires, and you will be referred to the Arbitration Committee. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience on Wikipedia for only a few days, I would agree with the individual who is quoted in the following Associated Press article, that Wikipedia can indeed be considered "some sort of 'gag' encyclopedia." I've read other edits/posts on other subjects in Wikipedia, many of which are well done. But when it comes to the edits/posts on this page, the treatment given folks who want to contribute to the body of knowlege, is not only inappropriate, but despictable. As the public begins to realize how suspect anything that's posted on Wikipedia is/can be, it's reputation will continue to decay. Wikipedia seems, in theory, to be a great idea. But in reality, parts of it, at least, appear to be run by dictators who seem intent on using their considerable computer skills and knowledge of how to "use" Wikipedia, to stifle others -- especially those with whom they do not agree. I suspect my post will be either edited out, or deleted altogether.

Wikipedia falsehoods submitted as a 'joke' Tennessee man admits altering biography of journalist in popular online reference site.

By Susan Page USA Today

The mystery of who posted false and scandalous entries about a prominent journalist in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia -- including suggestions that he was involved in assassinations -- has been solved. "I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Brian Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean. Chase, 38, operations manager at a small delivery service in Nashville, presented a letter of apology Friday explaining his role to the journalist, John Seigenthaler, a former editor of Nashville's Tennessean and a founder of the First Amendment Center there. He is a former editorial page editor of USA Today. Chase said the additions he made to Seigenthaler's biography were intended to be "a joke" on a co-worker on what he thought was "some sort of 'gag' encyclopedia." They had been discussing the Seigenthalers, a prominent local family. "I didn't think twice about just leaving it there because I didn't think anyone would ever take it seriously," he wrote. But the case has reverberated beyond the offices of Chase's employer, Rush Delivery. It has raised questions about the credibility of Wikipedia -- a reference site used by 16.3 million people in October -- and fueled a debate about freedom and accountability on the Internet. One more effect: It prompted Chase to resign. "I'm glad this aspect of it is over," Seigenthaler, 78, said. But he expressed concern that "every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff -- think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result." Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss, James White, not to accept his resignation. Seigenthaler also said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase. The ersatz biographical information said Seigenthaler, a top adviser and close friend to Robert Kennedy, "was thought to have been directly involved in" the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy. Wikipedia, which brags it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," changed its rules last week so only registered users can post or revise an article.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I just noted your threat to turn me over to "the Arbitration Committee". I have no idea who they are, or how serious they would look into the matter, but it would be interesting to see if they are actually impartial, and give disputing parties a fair 'trial'. If they would actually read all the posts and edits, and analyze the posting times/dates, as well as evaluate the threats and false alligations made against me, I'd welcome such a move. Allbout2006

Wow! I just saw tonight's news article on Wikipedia that played on FOX News. (Earlier, I'd posted here the AP article on Wikipedia from Dec 12, 2005.)

In what has become a huge coincidence, the very day the media begins reporting on the dangers of Wikipedia, happens to be the day immediately after the very week I discovered misinformation and falsehoods being posted on this page about nitrites, and then tried to edit them by attempting to add more accurate information, but then was attacked and harassed by another person who disagrees with my edits -- and was ultimately blocked and threatened by a purported Wikipedia administrator.

As was reported in the news today, people can go to to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, and where the dangers exist.

The folks at wikipediawatch report that, what's happening in Wikipedia, is that any collection of citations that may APPEAR balanced is all that anybody expects. If the title or snippet in a link itself contributes to this impression, then the full text is not researched by anyone.

This is exactly what has been going on in this nitrite page. As a result, it truly is, as wikipediawatch reminds us, "garbage in, garbage out, garbage back in..." -- and after a few cycles of this, it all turns into " a big, stinking heap".

Truly, as the news media warned today: "Don't believe eveyrthing you read on the Web, especially on Wikipedia!"

The following two posts, found in a wikipediareview blog, sum up my experiences this past week, after having been harassed, threatened and finally blocked, after I attempted to add to the body of knowledge about nitrites/poppers. They demonstrate how dangerous Wikipedia -- based on its current model -- really is:

"Wikipedia's procedural faults, complete anarchy as regards contributions, and sometimes-bizzare social rules do not teach people to become good researchers or writers... it teaches them how to be good Wikipedians, or to get the hell out." - Jason Scott ". . . when it comes to history and politics, Wikipedia can claim whatever it wants by shutting out those who actually know something about a certain topic. In that way, Wikipedia can rewrite history as it sees fit - which may have nothing to do with reality or the actual facts." - SummerFR

Finally, this post on a board, discussing wikipedia, really sets it out well:

"Any moron can pretty well say anything they want on any topic, which is fine for a News Group or a Forum but not an Encyclopedia.

In my opinion a reference source should be authoritative enough to end arguments not start them.

I believe that Wikipedia could better serve the internet community if they checked their facts first before publishing the article.

Instead, we have a situation where the cart is placed before the horse and we end up with what is left by the horse."

Nuf said. Allabout2006

After all your bluster, threats and harrassment over the past several days, you now choose to hide in your shells rather than respond to me. Your behavior would seem to be consistent with what I've been reading about Wikipedia. At this point, after being exposed, and after the negative publicity Wikipedia is now getting all around the world, it seems useless to try to add anything meaningful to the body of data here. Allabout2006 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a 'bitch fight' going on here, and it's too bad. There is a lot of bad information on the Web about nitrites and poppers, and this should be a forum for setting the record straight, instead of everyone getting their panties in a bunch over procedural issues.

Unprotection

Hopefully things have cooled down. Unless there are objections, I'm going to unprotect in roughly 50 minutes (if I don't fall asleep). Please be aware that, now that everyone's been properly warned, 3RR will be in strict enforcement mode. A violation of 3RR will yield at least a 24 hour block. Any sock puppets will be considered the same as the "main" user and will be blocked accordingly as well -- and who/what is a sock puppet will be based on the judgment of mine or any other administrator. In this case, I've made a judgment call about one IP being a sock puppet, and I stand by that due to the overwhelming amount of evidence. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I fell asleep. I've just unprotected the article. Play nice, folks. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice rest. I feel like the little boy who was punished for something he didn't realize he'd done. I didn't have any idea of what a sock puppet was, and barely do now, even after reading about it (I'm not very technically inclined. I even use a Macintosh because I'm such a computer-dufus. :=) ).

At any rate, I promise not to sock puppet again (I think. I'm not sure how you do it, but if it was because I forgot to sign in each time I edited, I promise not to make that mistake again. Or at least I hope I don't -- or, it's off with my sock puppet head!).

I understand how you more experinced Wikipedia folks can find fault with, and have little patience with someone like me. But, I beg your indulgence as I try to learn how to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia.

Kind regards, Allabout2006 01:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a vandal sabatoging this page!

I have taken considerable time and made a serious effort to add edits to this page today, as I also did yesterday. But, in both instances, within minutes of my edits being saved, someone began maliciously removing my edits.

I was then challeged by someone who said I was close to violating a reverting rule, which appears to most likely be a harrassmetn tactic used by the very person who does not want to see my edits saved to this page; I strongly suspect this vandalism and harrasemt is the work of the person who has been removing my edits as fast as I add them.

68.251.158.126 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just figured out what's going on -- what these guys are doing to those of us who want to edit the poppers page by adding more accurate and meaningful information, but which they do not agree with. If you can find the time, I urge you to go into the "history" of this section or page (click on the "history" tab at the top of the page), and then go to the bottom of that page. There you can click on the largest number, and essentially see ALL the history of this page -- from the day it was created!

I just spent time looking at it, and a clear pattern emerges. To be kind, there are some pranksters among us. More realistically, and at worse, they are vandals. Some of them appear to be working in concert with each other to make arbritary changes to the edits of people they don't agree with. They literally -- and very quickly -- 'revert' the versions back and forth among their own versions, all the while essentially vandalizing the credible information that more knowledgeable people have posted. Then, when the unsuspecting editors realize something's going on, that their edits are being deleted almost within minutes of their having posted them, and when they try to figure out how best to react and deal with the problem, as they begin the inevitable complaining and asking of questions, they are harrassed and threaten with having their accounts 'blocked'; or they're falsely accused of violating various rules of Wikipedia, upon which they are often then threatened with even more sanctions against them.

It is precisely this kind of unethical, irresponsible and despicable behavior that was exposed in the world wide media earlier this week. Had I not seen the news reports which described exactly this kind of activity being rampant on Wikipedia, I would most likely have never figured out what was going on.

209.248.254.66 05:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now it becomes clear how the vandals are keeping accurate information about Poppers/Nitrites off this section!

I just figured out what's going on -- what these guys are doing to those of us who want to edit the poppers page by adding more accurate and meaningful information, but which they do not agree with. If you can find the time, I urge you to go into the "history" of this section or page (click on the "history" tab at the top of the page), and then go to the bottom of that page. There you can click on the largest number, and essentially see ALL the history of this page -- from the day it was created! I just spent time looking at it, and a clear pattern emerges. To be kind, there are some pranksters among us. More realistically, and at worse, they are vandals. Some of them appear to be working in concert with each other to make arbritary changes to the edits of people they don't agree with. They literally -- and very quickly -- 'revert' the versions back and forth among their own versions, all the while essentially vandalizing the credible information that more knowledgeable people have posted. Then, when the unsuspecting editors realize something's going on, that their edits are being deleted almost within minutes of their having posted them, and when they try to figure out how best to react and deal with the problem, as they begin the inevitable complaining and asking of questions, they are harrassed and threaten with having their accounts 'blocked'; or they're falsely accused of violating various rules of Wikipedia, upon which they are often then threatened with even more sanctions against them. It is precisely this kind of unethical, irresponsible and despicable behavior that was exposed in the world wide media earlier this week. Had I not seen the news reports which described exactly this kind of activity being rampant on Wikipedia, I would most likely have never figured out what was going on. 209.248.254.66 05:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

street names/studies

I do beleive that "RUSH" should remain as a common street name, as it is one- perhaps even the most common one- despite it also being a particular brand manufactured by Mr. Allabout's corporation. I reworded the sentence preceding the studies; if allabout wishes to claim that other studies contradict these, he should cite these in proper wiki format, as i highly doubt any one here is willing to wikify his edits. --Heah ^talk 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem when confronted on your somewhat radical views around nitrites and poppers. You are mistaken in many respects, including who "Mr. Allabout is. :-) Suggest you stop your childish behavior, and instead confine your posts to trying to dissemenate more accurate information, or at the very least, allow others who have the knowledge you lack, to do so. You would better serve the general public by not trying to harrass and deny access to people who actually have accurate knowledge on the subject of nitrites and poppers and, instead, let them have a fair opportunity to set the record straight. Vandalizing their posts, or using wiki-expertise and tricks to deny them access, have them blocked, banned, etc, is simply unfair, and innapropriate behavior. 209.248.254.66 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

have you read my post above? have you looked at my edits on this talk page or on the article? Whenever i come to the talk page to try and open up a dialogue, you attack me, no matter what i say or what my edits have been. I have tried again and again to take your view into account in my edits; you have been so quick to revert anything i write that you have even reverted back to edits completely dismissing your pov after i attempted to make it a bit more neutral. as to your identity, you are clearly associated with allaboutpoppers.com, which is owned and operated by Rushbrands; i think the evidence for your association with that site is fairly self evident, starting with your username. --Heah ^talk 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points. And, you may be guilty of sock puppetry as well. 209.248.254.66 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

a lucid and informative summation and defense of your edits, as always. thanks. --Heah ^talk 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Allabout, just tell me: If all this is wrong and misleading, why did you use this disclaimer

"No one should take what is printed here as in any way an endorsement by anyone of the abuse of nitrites/poppers through direct, concentrated inhalation."

in your edits?[10] Was it out of the habit of declaring Poppers as a "room odorizer" or "leather cleaner" when you sell it in rushbrands? Why don't you stand up to your product? It's because, in reality, you know quite well about the dangerous health hazards. --DenisDiderot 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks at this article, which can be found here. --Heah ^talk 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm unblocked, I can post my reply to you.

You are again using the same tactics you used a few weeks ago, in an apparent effort to censor me, and to prevent me from trying to improve this page by adding more credible information.

Immediately after challenging me this last time, you had me blocked so that I could not respond. One wonders what you are afraid of. You appear to fit the profile of those who use sneaky maneuvers to block people or to otherwise prevent edits containing information you disagree with, from ever seeing the light of day on Wikipedia. As reported on CNN and ABC last month, these tactics are why Wikipedia has been attacked so much lately, and why it's being taken less and less seriously as time goes on. Such behavior is slowly turning Wikipeidia into a bit of a joke, and has helped diminish it's once significant potential for good.

Your attempts at censorship reminds one of the scene in a movie years ago where a person who was about to be exposed on the front pages of their local newspaper, got up early the morning it was to be delivered, and ran through their neighborhood picking up all their neighbors' papers, in the misplaced belief that their neighbors would never learn the truth that was on the front page of that morning's paper.

Interestingly, rather than trying to support your allegations of danger and harmfulness with solid facts and evidence, you and others who share a common point of view that poppers are bad, continue to attack those who actually possess a high level of knowledge about these compounds. If you don't like what people with whom you do not agree try to post, rather than debating from a position of solid facts and underlying supporting documentation, you try to 'shoot the messenger'.

For example, in addition to your maneuvers to block me and prevent me from replying to your attacks or to post edits with accurate and clarifying information on nitrites/poppers, you attack me by implying that my screen name, 'Allabout' means I sell poppers.

You are wrong.

You also imply that I am "associated with http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/".

Again, you are wrong.

However, I happen to agree with those who say that the 'All About Poppers' site contains a great deal of credible information, supported with solid evidence. I've spent a great deal of time reading the site, and digging into the information presented there. I know of other similarly credible popper sites, as well. Would you say I am "associated" with them, too?

As the record clearly shows, over the past few weeks, you and others (Some of whom may be one in the same, perhaps using proxy servers to mask true identities to try to avoid being charged with sock puppetry), have engaged in an ongoing effort to prevent myself and others, with whom you do no agree on the subject of nitrites and poppers, from contributing to this page with some of our knowledge. That is wrong, and you know it. (I note that, today, you have somehow successfully removed/erased the history that was showing up on the site's 'history' page. This history showed the "summary" comments for various edits. It now appears you've allowed it back in.)

You say, "just tell me: If this is all wrong and misleading.......".

I have not said "this is all wrong and misleading". There is information on this page which is accurate, and there's information on this page which is not accurate. But, when someone who is knowledgeable makes an effort to correct the inaccuracies on the page, they have been attacked with ongoing and relentless efforts to try to prevent their edits from remaining on the page. The record is very clear in that regard. (Again, as anyone can see, you have removed or erased the history for this page up until two reverts you did late on Jan 4, 2006)

You ask me "why did you use this disclaimer".

I wondered if those of you who have put up such a resistance to having more accurate information posted on this nitrites/poppers page, might have some personal hang ups or prejudices about some of the people whom they perceive as primarily using poppers recreationally. Are you homophobic? Opposed to consenting adults making informed decisions about whether or not to have fun and take pleasure from something you may not agree with? Anti-drug crusaders? Feel obliged to fight "sin" and "pleasure" wherever you find it, perhaps based on some deeply held religious beliefs? Or simply just believe that if you give people information, no matter how accurate it may be, that might indicate poppers may not be as harmful as some would like us to believe, that people will flock to them, and that somehow the end of the world will appear? Much as in "Reefer Madness"?

The disclaimer was meant to try to appease those fears. Unlike those who post here and try to impose their own prejudices on the reader through their campaign of misinformation (clearly a violation of the NPV), I was trying to let the reader know that even-though the accurate information I was posting might rightly lead one to consider that poppers might actually be far less harmful than the anti-popper zealots would have us believe, that my posts were not meant to promote the misuse of nitrites.

You go on to imply that I'm associated with "rushbrands".

Again, you are wrong.

You imply that I have used the common product names/descriptions in my posts ("room odorizer" or "leather cleaner").

If I did, it was in the context of describing the products. These are common street names which are even sometimes used in a product's brand name, or on a product's label. You evidently do not know much about this subject, or you'd know that. (Without such knowledge, one wonders why you would even be posting on this subject.)

You ask "Why don't you stand up to your product?".

Poppers are not "my product" anymore than they are your product. I'm standing up to the campaign of misinformation and deceit that's being waged by those who do not want both sides of the nitrites/poppers issue to be fairly presented in Wikipedia.

You state "you know quite well about the dangerous health hazards."

Sadly, and in what is a telling revelation about you and your motivations, you apparently blindly believe the misinformation you've read about alleged dangers claimed for nitrites/poppers. You have failed to further educate yourself by at least reviewing the considerable wealth of data available to you. In any normal forum, that would disqualify you from participation in posting to this body of knowledge about nitrites/poppers.

In reality, contrary to what you apparently believe, the so-called "dangerous health hazards" you try to associate with poppers, simply do not exist. As the researcher who gave AIDS it name, Bruce Voeller Ph.D. said, "In short, the much vaunted body of research supposedly demonstrating a link between poppers and aids does not withstand close scrutiny. If a link exists it sill remains to be proven." That would apply, as well, to the weak 'evidence' the anti-popper zealots put forth about any other claims of significant danger or supposed hazard associated with these compounds.

If you can prove otherwise, the world is waiting for you to release your knowledge. However, if you cannot prove otherwise, you should more properly stand aside and allow people who genuinely posses knowledge about this subject to post their knowledge on this page.

209.248.254.66 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I blocked you for violating 3RR -- which you had been warned about before. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg

It is imperitive that duesberg's theories be labled as minority views. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Should they be included at all? An encyclopedia article should not be a platform for ideas that are well out of the mainstream. Unless there is some major controversy, minority views do not need to be represented. Edgar181 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that duesberg's views should be clearly labeled as minority; i also think it should be included, as it IS a major controversy. --Heah ^talk 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for clearly labelling Duesberg as minority, even fringe opinion, if he's included at all Ender 09:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The only "major controversy" is that on this Wikipedia page, the denialists, such as Duesberg and his followers, those whose ramblings are linked out to from this page, and who have had their long-disputed and dismissed theories and misinformation floating around on he web for many years, were being used as the sole source of 'credible' information on the larger controversy around AIDS and poppers -- until I happened upon it. From the first edit I made, I was almost immeditely reversed, and edited. Within hours of that first contribution, I was being threatened and censored. Ultimately, I was blocked, charged with violating unknown-to-me 'rules' of Wikipedia, and otherwise censored, and rendered unable to contribute. And, that, gentlemen, is what I've been complaining about for the past month here on Wikipedia.

It would be much better if the Wikipedians, with their vast experience of computer knowledge, particularly as it relates to being able to master Wikipedia, would stand aside and let those of us who actually have knowledge about the subject of nitrites and poppers make meaningful contributions to this page.

However, I suspect that will not be allowed to happen. I say this based on my personal experience over the past month here, and based on the news accounts last month on CNN, ABC Nightly News, and elsewhere, which revealed that Wikipedia was being ruined by those who practice the same kind of censorhip and harrassment that I've been subjected to.

209.248.254.66 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Legality -- US vs. International Poppers

Hi. I'd like to suggest that we could use better information on the different legal status of poppers in the US versus abroad, and how they apply to different types of poppers.

PWD (Rush) sells a "Made for USA" version, and its original version abroad. Americans can buy the original version online from UK websites; the customs declaration marks it as the usual "cleaner" or "odoriser." How are these products different? Some people say that the American version is more likely to cause headaches, or that the international version is stronger.

As cleaner?

What I want to know is, can I really use this stuff to clean my leather and/or video heads?

Any closer to consensus?

As a latecomer to this debate, as seems to be my habit, I edited the article before I looked at the talk page. I think it's quite one-sided and ignores the evidence to the contrary. I assume my edits will get reverted and I don't really have the energy to fight it out, but including this sort of hysteria devalues the credibility of wikipedia. Ender 09:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the scientific results mentioned in the references hysteric is rather POV, isn't it? What are your criteria of judgement? -- The majority view of drug consumers or scientific results? --DenisDiderot 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An employee of the manufacturors of rush showed up here at some point, and everything got a little out of hand. It isn't so much hysteria as a reaction to rushbrands attempting to make the article into a giant advertisement. At this point only denisdiderot has supplied any real references, so that's the version we've got- but if you've got evidence to the contrary, please, by all means, supply it. Obviously the health effects of nitrites use doesn't have clear concensus within the scientific community, and both sides should be represented. it all needs to be clearly cited to reputable sources and/or research, though, which again, only denis has done. and i have to say a statement like "alkyl nitrites are among the safest recreational drugs" really shouldn't be in here . . .  ;) --Heah ^talk 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A look at the post and discussion history shows that anyone who tries to post anything about nitrites or poppers which is not negative toward these compounds is quickly censured.

Some have even been blocked.

It's true enough that the sort of hysteria being imposed upon this article serves only to devalue not just the article itself, but also Wikipedia.

DenisDiderot asks an interesting question: "What are your criteria of judgement? -- The majority view of drug consumers or scientific results?" -- an apparent implication that a bunch of drugged-out popper users, living in a stupor of incoherent morass, are dismissing significant scientific results. In reality, the so-called 'scientific results' alluded to are those contained in a flawed list of references, which Diderot has most likely not even taken the time to research. Because if he had, he surely would not have made that statement.

Given that millions of humans have been smoking and otherwise ingesting Marijuana throughout history, with little negative impact on them, similarly millions of bottles of poppers have apparently been sold over the past fifty years, with seemingly little if any negative impact on the user. Sound like "Reefer Madness"?

It's been pointed out that the list of 'references' claiming dangers associated with poppers, and blindly presented as fact by Diderot, is seriously flawed. Anyone who disputes the flawed list is attacked.

When people try to include a mention that credible sources and researchers have pointed out that poppers are relatively harmless, these same anti-popper individuals fight to prevent it from seeing the light of day.

In an example of yet another tactic by the anti-popper guys, Heah goes as far as to make an accusation about a poster claiming he or she is an employee of the makers of Rush. Yet there is no proof of that. He further makes a claim that the makers of Rush have attempted to "make the article into a giant advertisement"; yet there appears to be no basis in fact for such a statement.

Heah goes on to suggest to a fellow poster (who rightly suggests that Heah and his friends' anti-popper stance and censorship behavior contribute to a devaluation of the credibility of Wikipedia), by saying that "...if you've got evidence to the contrary, please, by all means, supply it".

But, a look at the history of this article shows that he will quickly remove any edit if it attempts to dispute the flawed 'references' that his friend Diderot has pulled from the web and blindly posted as evidence of fact. The record also shows that he will censure a poster even if the poster simply tries to clean up or clarify inaccurate information, no matter how minute.

Heah goes on to say that "...the health effects of nitrites use doesn't have clear concensus within the scientific community, and both sides should be represented. it all needs to be clearly cited to reputable sources and/or research, though, which again, only denis has done."

However, if anyone tries to do just that, he edits them, blocks them, and shouts "vandalism", "Sock Puppetry", or more.

Heah goes on: ".... i have to say a statement like "alkyl nitrites are among the safest recreational drugs" really shouldn't be in here . . .  ;)"

He cleverly misstates the poster who actually said: "According to the experts and authors of the book ISOBUTYL NITRITE AND RELATED COMPOUNDS <Pharmex, Ltd. 1980>, "It is hard to envision any consumer product with a better record of public safety"."

What is the reason for his blatant attempt to smear and discredit the poster by twisting his words?

Why would a reference to ISOBUTYL NITRITE AND RELATED COMPOUNDS be less credible then those found on the web by his friend Diderot and blindly copied onto this article as truth and fact?

Why do those like Diderot and Heah, who have no real knowledge of these compounds, believe they have the right to censure those who do by blocking them from contributing?

They have a right to perpetuate the misinformation found on the web about poppers, but as Wikipedians they have an obligation and responsibility to allow editing by people who have meaningful information to post.

As far as turning the article into an advertisement for any company, there is no evidence of that having happened. However, it's interesting to note that in their zeal to block posters with whom they disagree, they were either directly responsible for, or mistakenly allowed a post that links directly to someone selling the offending products. So much for the watchdogs. History is full of similar examples of zealotry and censorship gone astray.

As was pointed out by someone earlier in this discussion, their behaviour devalues the credibility of wikipedia.

Any closer to consensus? I'm not sure. Often the truth hurts. We'll just have to see how badly. It could be years before these guys give up and let others post more credible information on to this article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs) .

Although this is entirely pointless-

• A. Only you have been blocked, no one else.
• B. you are a sockpuppet and are associated with rushbrands (eg in the way of evidence, your first posts were to add a link to www.allaboutpoppers.com, a site owned and operated by rush; you quickly adopted the handle of allabout2006 and have failed to edit a single other page. your sock puppetry doesn't really need any proof at this point, it's completely self-evident. some of your early edits highlighted the pleasures and great sex afforded by poppers. anyone is free to peruse the edit history if they'd like).
• C. We have not allowed any links to pages selling poppers. This is simply rediculous.
• D. I have never been accused of vandalism or sock puppetry by anyone but you, and have certainly never engaged in either. (please see my talk page and the block log for my account).
• E. Brief research on the internet suggests that at the very least, pharmex ltd., who funded the "pharmex report", is connected with the manufacturors of rush-

Rumors that the fire was fueled through amyl nitrate (poppers) stored in a warehouse behind the Barracks were denied and most likely false. W. Jay Freezer of Pharmex Ltd., maker of Rush said that none of the flammable substance was stored on Hallam Street, and firefighters found no evidence of it.

found at http://justinringold.com/baths/hallam.html, not a very good source, but if someone wants to dispute this i'll be more than happy to do more research.

Notice this isn't actually cited by those researching such issues, eg the NIDA- "Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants"

• F. I made no attempt to discredit or smear ender. I assume he was unaware of the connection btwn rush and pharmex, as was i until it came up. As i said, i'd be more than happy to have him supply citations contrary to what we have here.
• G. yet it remains, the citations we have are the only citations we have. This has not been remedied.
• H. You are the only one who has claimed that our behavior devalues wikipedia- yes, YOU were that "someone above". however, the (few) people who commented at the rfc filed against you did feel that your behavior devalues wikipedia.
• I. I'm not an admin and therefore have never blocked anybody, being incapable of doing so. You are the only person editing this page that i have refered to as a vandal or a sock puppet; your disregard for 3rr and your unrelenting addition of linkspam, both in clear violation of wikipedia policy which you have been informed of, in addition to other things (not the least of which is your evasion of a block through various sock puppets)- these do make you a vandal. You have been blocked several times by Nlu, most recently as 209.248.254.66, a month long block that you are currently evading with a sock.

Any other questions or comments?

--Heah ^talk 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Heah:

Your misrepresentation of and/or lies about those who with whom you disagree, who attempt to post credible information in this article, do nothing to change the fact that behavior like you're exhibiting is among the reasons that the credibility of Wikipedia is diminished in the eyes of the public and the media. Much of what you've said about me is wrong, and no matter how many times you perpetuate your lief, you can't change that.

With regard to your use of Wikipedia-specific terms like "sockpuppet", "violation of 3rr", and others, they mean little to the average user, and almost nothing to newbies. You are clever in your use of the Wikipedia system to hamper editing by those with whom you do not agree. But you do so at the peril of integrity of Wikipedia and this article.

Your pronouncements that you are not a vandal fall on deaf ears. The Wikipedia definition of a vandal includes, but is not limited to: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

In a review of the history of this article, one cannot find any reasonable justification for your unrelenting efforts over the past few months to prevent quality contributions to the alkyl nitrite/poppers article -- unless you agree with the content. You are simply and clearly a vandal, under the Wikipedia definition. One wonders from where your prejudice sprouts, and/or if you are involved with the anti-popper crowd in some manner.

Your bold denial, Heah, that you have not allowed a popper sales site to be promoted in this article is clearly false (some might say a bold-faced lie.): "We have not allowed any links to pages selling poppers. This is simply rediculous." However, Heah, one only needs to look closely to find it.

Please point it out, then. After looking closely, i can't find it, and it obviously should be removed. --Heah ^talk 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on the fact that you continue to leave in place a link to a website that sells poppers to the public, one could make an assumtion that you are somehow profiting from the sales on that site.

It's also telling that you use the term "we" in your bold statement. As you know, your relationship with others who have been working in an apparent collaboration with you to stifle and censure edits to this article has already been called into question.

Heah, any independent third party looking at the history of this article over the past few months would agree with the gentleman who recently told you that he thinks your content in this article is quite one-sided and ignores the evidence to the contrary. As the writer said, he assumed his edits would get reverted and he simply didn't have the energy to fight it out with you. He was right that by including this sort of hysteria you devalue the credibility of wikipedia.

Again, are we any closer to consenus? Based on your ongoing efforts, one would think not.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs) .

Stop your personal attacks and answer to the arguments given, item by item, instead of just repeating that your drug advertisements were "more credible"! And please specify definitely whether you are associated with Rushbrands, the Poppers manufacturer, or not! --DenisDiderot 09:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. DenisDiderot:

It's interesting to note that when someone tries to contribute to this nitrites/poppers article with any information with which you and Heah do not agree, you attack them and edit their posts -- most often completely erasing their contributions (A look at the history of this article will support my statement). If they dare question your actions (which, under Wikipedia's definition, are sometimes clearly vandalism), or criticize you, you act indignant and accuse them of 'personal attacks', and even of vandalism.

Odd that their criticism of you is a 'personal attack' but that your attacks on them are somehow okay. I would argue that what you call 'personal attacks' on you are more properly defined as personal criticism. But, as they say, sometimes 'the truth hurts'.

Your ongoing efforts at trying to label those of us who have tried to set the record straight in this article, as 'vandals, or to somehow demean us by questioning our motives, or by trying to link us to poppers manufacturers, are all more properly defined as 'personal attacks'.

Worse, of course, is your ongoing behavior at censorship which, as has already been pointed out, serves only to diminish and devalue the credibility of wikipedia. I, for one, wish you would stop. As someone else has already said here, it takes too much energy to fight it out with you.

You've been asked more than once to please remove the link to the poppers sales site that either you or your co-horts may have inserted-- and which you continue to deny is even in the article. (None of us dares edit this page for fear of your wrath and revert)

One could make the point that by censoring those of us who want to insert credible information into the article, while allowing the link to a site selling these products, you might actually be profiting somehow. Not sure if it's an affiliate program or not, but even if so, the link should not be allowed. Your censorship seems pretty one-sided; but,then again, isn't that after all, what censorship is anyway?

Closer to consensus? It sure doesn't look like it.

Ok, i see it now. you think that me and denisdiderot, the people you accuse of being hysterically anti-poppers, are making money off of a reference to a warning about the hazards of poppers use? you could use a class in introductory logic . . . --Heah ^talk 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus.... perhaps?

Heah,

For the record, I do not think that you and denisdiderot are either hysterically anti-poppers, or are making money off of a reference to a warning about the hazards of poppers use. I didn't actually accuse you of it, but I admit I shouldn't even have inferred that it was possible.

Thanks for the suggestion and link to "logic". I actually visited the page, and if you're studying this, or have, my hat's off to you. I read some of it, and saw myself and my approach or lack of approach. One sentence particularly struck me: "Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the radical suggestion that logic ought to tolerate inconsistency ".

As a new Wikipedian, I hadn't thought to visit your personal pages until tonight. It would appear that you've tried to be good Wikipedia citizens, with its best interests at heart. I may have clumsily entered Wikipedia, and violated some of its rules (without knowing it, or understanding them), but I share your concerns about Wikipedia.

I haven't taken the time to get into "3rr", "sock puppetry" and the other Wikipeida no-no's, so I don't really understand them. However, I'll try not to be a law-breaker when I edit.

Turning now to the issue of the link to the poppers seller, my guess is that you may only be watching this page for edits that are not negative about poppers -- thinking that they must be inherently wrong and, since the link appears to be to a page that claims dangers, you thought it okay. I think you'd agree that this article should not link out to a site that sells the products -- no matter if they're dangerous or not. I'd like to delete that link tonight. I agree that it makes sense to have a reference to what manufacturers may be saying in the way of warnings, but it should be from manufacturer's, not from some guy who set up a web site to sell these and other products, who may have edited and put whatever he wanted in his disclaimer.

The question then becomes, what company should be referenced. Rather than linking out to a company myself, I'll ask if you have a preference or a particular popper manufacturer that you'd like to link to.

If this edit makes it and is allowed to stand, then maybe we can work together to try to make this article on nitrites/poppers the best it can be; namely, a neutral POV article, full of valuable information from both sides of the arguments around this subject.

All of us agree that it does not serve Wkipedia well for a protracted dispute to develop, over this subject or any other. I hope we can begin to move closer to some degree of consensus, which in turn moves us toward a better Wikipedia.

Thanks 208.54.15.129 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

look, if you're going to edit here, you have to take the time to read about 3rr and whatnot. just like with anything else, you have to read all the rules and guidelines. i'd expect you wouldn't get in a car without knowing about speed limits and which side of the street to drive on, and out of respect for the community working on this encyclopedia, i'd expect the same here. Knowing how to hit the gas pedal isn't enough.

You were always told what you were doing wrong before any action was taken against you. Those big shiny stop signs and hands and whatnot were put on your page for a reason; if you DO want to be legitimate, valued contributer, you can read them and alter your actions accordingly. But instead you ignored them, made unfounded accusations against editors, and talked about what a terrible and fatally flawed project this entire encyclopedia is.

If you want to play nice, i can play nice. I don't mind; I'd much rather not have this page occupying so much of my time. Poppers are not an area i have a lot of interest in and i would rather devote my time to other things. I promise that no citations etc. you provide will be deleted- provided, of course, that it isn't a non-wikified non-parsable etc. list, because at this point no one is going to take the time to correct your mistakes. But you have to play by the rules, and you don't- for instance, you're still evading a block. it's not like the block came out of nowhere- again, all those comments and shiny red stop signs were put there for a reason.

The information on here isn't going anywhere. Again, i really do think it would be great if you provided evidence to the contrary- but this must be evidence, cited etc. Both sides should be represented here- that's how wikipedia is supposed to work in such instances. i'm fine with accepting contradictions; i've said this over and over again. But it has to be verifiable and cited, which so far none of it has been, and a contradiction isn't a contradiction if you remove the other side's argument.

--Heah ^talk 03:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

208.54.15.129 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is censorship occurring on the Nitrite page?

I have made meaningful, thoughtful and supported edits to the Alkyl Nitrite page tonight. Within minutes, my edits were reversed, and I was threatened with being banned from ever editing in Wikipedia.

What is going on?

209.248.254.66 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's page on blocking, I'd like to respectfully ask the person who has blocked me yet again, accusing me of vandalism, to please provide additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy he feel applies, and why.

Thank you. 209.248.254.66 03:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu: I've made edits to the alkyl nitrites/poppers page that you have called 'vandalism'. However, each of those edits is based on sound evidence. It appears that this is a 'content dispute' mistaken for 'vandalism'. I am interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you consider the subject edits to be 'vandalism', so that I may understand where you're coming from. If we're not able to come to consensus, I would recommend that we consider any number of the Wikipedia options for dispute resolution, including but not limited to, "Informal Mediation", "Discussions with Third Parties", "Requesting an Advocate", and finally, if none of this helps, using Wikipedia's last resort, "Arbitration".

Thank you. 209.248.254.66 03:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have continued your sockpuppetry, and unless you disavow it, you will have no credibility. I have no desire to play semantic games with you. If you believe that my behavior is inappropriate, go ahead and file a RfC or RfA as you see appropriate. If I were you, I'd try to reestablish my credibility by making contributions elsewhere before returning to an article where your past behavior had discredited yourself. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the distortions and falsehoods being posted by anti-popper elements on this page

It's a shame that the anti-popper persons here are now growing even more bold in their posting of false information on this page.

The continued posting of false information in the "Disclaimers of manufacturers" section is a case in point.

No where in the popper dealer's web site does he have the words "You Could Die: The abuse of these products can kill you." Yet, no matter how many times someone reverts this section to the actual content of the site, each time it is quickly reverted back to the false statements.

Such inappropriate behavior by posters here is more than simply a disservice to wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.248.254.66 (talk • contribs) .

Nice try! The disclaimer was evidently changed by the vendor. Here's the proof: [11]. There are also other vendor sites using the same (old!) text (easily findable with common search engines) --DenisDiderot 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

denisdiderot: there's little doubt that the vendor changed the wording, but that's the point. You should include the most current version of the vendor's disclaimer. I've added it today. 209.248.254.66 15:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, isn't it supect that you instantly knew about the removal of the sentence "You could die" on that vendor site? Is this by accident or did you check the wording of that site day after day? I think a third possiblity is rather more likely. --DenisDiderot 07:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter? The fact is the wording you were trying to push on this page was not accurate. You've done a bit of searching yourself, and found another vendor with the same wording. As long as what you print here is accurate, then it's okay.

Possible hijacking by anti-Popper Zealots who appear to have now shut down posting on alkyl nitrites page

As of April 22, 2006, it now appears that anti-popper zealots have takent the extraordinary measure of locking the alkyl nitrites page, so that no one can post anything that is not negative about alkyl nitrites ("poppers").

Complaints should be filed with WIKIPEDIA.

209.248.254.66 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has hijacked this page. The page is semi-protected, which means that users need to be logged in edit it, that's all. Deli nk 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki expert says POV is not an issue with regard to external links

Interestingly, this post from a Wiki expert, would seem to contradict the anti-popper folks here who keep deleting any links to popper articles or sites that are not negative:

"Note to people: the content of links is not required to be NPOV, only content in articles, esp. if said links have disclaimer that said content may be POV. This is elementary stuff, people. Come on. Revolver 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) If the AIDS Wiki link is allowed to be deleted for "NPOV" reasons, then just about every external link to a POV webpage on a controversial subject (Israel/Palestine, abortion, etc., etc.) would be able to be deleted. Nonsense. Revolver 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"

Based on this, it would see that the anti-popper folks should cease their efforts to delete links to poppers and AIDS information sites such as: Poppers Myth

=====================================================================April 25, 2006:

I wonder if the anti-popper censors here would allow a post to this article of a quotation from someone who actually knows, and has had dinner with one of the most vocal anti-poppers zealots in the USA. Here it is, Mr. Censor, would you be kind enough to let us know if you'd censor it out or not:

"But even his dinner companions disagree with his theories about poppers: "However, he totally loses “credibility” when he drags out his old/ancient/never-documented assertion that “poppers=death”. If “poppers really did equal death” I'd be long dead by now. Once, after having a pleasant dinner with John Lauritsen, I actually indulged myself by “toasting him” with a hit of Rush as he looked on in wide-eyed wonder and/or horror." Randy Wicker New York City

This is bodily assault, and Randy Wicker should be convicted for this. By the way, this links to badpuppy.com, a famous Poppers vendor, see [12]. Do you consider postings like these suitable for an encyclopedia?

Stop advertising your drug! And stop using sock puppets, "Allabout2006". --DenisDiderot 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Diderot: It appears you may have finally revealed yourself. In fact, are you John Lauritsen himself?

You are mistaken.--DenisDiderot 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Threatening those who do not agree with you is inappropriate behavior, nor is calling people names.

No matter who you are, though, it would be better if you'd stop censoring people who try to add to the body of data on these various subjects. You appear not to have any level of expertise on these subjects. Based on your actions over the past few months, you are not able to look at the entire body of data (not just the narrow, biased data that might better appeal to you), and make a rational decision. As Winston Churchill said, "A zealot is someone who can't change his mind, and who won't change the subject". Anti-popper zealots disturbingly fit Sir Winston's definition.

No matter who you are, or which side of the debate you find yourself on the subject of alkyl nitrites and poppers, you should not use your considerable computer and Wiki-manipulation skills to apply your brand of censorship to the subject. You should let the body of information be added to Wiki. People deserve to have the curtin of darkness pulled back to reveal the sunshine of facts.

I hope you'll consider it.

"The sunshine of facts" -- from a Poppers vendor like badpuppy.com? And by methods like bodily assault to people who don't want to take drugs? Concerning my expertise, stop your accusations immediately and provide scientific evidence by actual peer-reviewed articles like I did on Poppers#References. --DenisDiderot 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

DenisDiderot: THe articles that you've posted all speak for themselves, and no one here, including me, has attempted to delete any of them. However, you've been deleting and censoring anything you don't agree with for many months. What are you afraid of? Like I've done, you should actually read some of the information that people are posting -- or have been trying to post. You'd find that it's not 'vandalism', that it's indeed 'peer-reviewed', and that's it's not only appropriate for this page, but it's important for it to be posted. This information includes analysis and comment from world experts on HIV/AIDS, alkyl nitrites, and more -- including expert analysis and comment from the scientist who gave AIDS its name.

You didn't answer to the points I mentioned. Whether the site is huge or not doesn't matter. It is still full of Poppers advertisements and links to Poppers vendors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stop your accusations immediately"; what 'accusations' are you referring to?

Sorry, I still don't understand what you mean by "bodily assault to people who don't want to take drugs." What on earth does that mean? Where are you going with that? Are you John Lauritsen? Did you feel 'assaulted' because your dinner mate did a 'hit' of Rush after your dinner?

I'm not John Lauritsen. If Randy Wicker forced John Lauritsen to take a hit of that inhalation drug as you quoted from that vendor site, then this has to be considered bodily assault. --DenisDiderot 04:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regulation of popper manufacture, sales, distribution and possession

Can the article "Alkyl Nitrite" content include a section on the legal regulation of poppers? And also a section on "Education Messages" about poppers?

The United States FDA and Consumer Products Safety Commission all have regulations which govern the sales and distribution of poppers. In addition, poppers are regulated in a variety of ways by the U.S. states and some cities. Internationally, there is a variety of response to sales and possession of poppers.

There is currently widespread sales of poppers on the internet with Consumer Products Safety Commission apparently failing to enforce the federal ban on sales and distribution. The FDA also fails to enforce the ban on non prescription sales of amyl nitrite.

HIV prevention agencies have issued a variety of messages about poppers. These messages have changed overtime and continue to evolve in response to research findings. This makes a history of education about poppers which is constantly evolving. The parallel popper industries propaganda/messages also responds to the research findings and should be included in any comprehensive focus on poppers. There should be some way to include the "controversial issues" that are currently disputed. Perhaps a "Debated issues" section. These will change overtime, but will inform a history of poppers. (SmoothStone 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Smoothstone).

Would you treat the statements of producers and vendors of Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Crystal Meth and other drugs on an equal footing with scientific results about the health issues as well and consider that also necessary for a "comprehensive focus? If yes, prove it -- here on Wikipedia! --DenisDiderot 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• A new website has surfaced to combat the promotion and sales of poppers: www.iabuse.org (Hankwilson 05:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson).

Debated issues section on the poppers page

I've been making my way through the discussion page on this subject and notice a common thread that has emerged. It seems that there is a reluctance to allow anyone to post anything about poppers that's not negative.

When you read through the 'History' section, you find that whenever a poster has tried to add any information that varies from the opinion of posters like DenisDiderot and some others, they are almost always blocked or censured. And that's a shame, because it only allows for an unnecessarily one-sided opinion of these agents and products.

For example, I've been trying to wade through the information presented on the http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/ site (which was added to the poppers page, but then censored out).

I've found the site to be both informative and enlightening. I have not found it to be an 'advertisement' for poppers, contrary to DenisDiderot's claim, which he has used to censor it off the poppers page.

I like Smoothstone's idea about including the history of HIV prevention messages as they relate to poppers, and a 'Debated Issues' section.

DenisDedirot's concerns about this, along with his comparison of Smoothstone's idea to the "producers and vendors of Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Crystal Meth" are hard to understand, but I think that we deserve to read all there is to know about poppers, just like you can do if you visit the links to Heroin, Cocaine, etc that he lists.

Today I followed his link to the Wiki page on Cocaine, and found an interesting parallel between cocaine and poppers. By censoring the poppers page, as he has been doing, DenisDiderot seems to be either purposely or inadvertently trying to create a " moral panic"; a "moral panic" is based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group of people is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society." Based on what Denisdiderot has censored out, and what he's allowed to be included on the Wiki poppers page, he thinks poppers are used by a minority, and that they pose a menace to society; both of which would seem false or exaggerated perceptions.

The 'Debated Issues" section would be a good idea if only because it might at least allow both sides to present their positions and try to make their case -- a real discussion. Poppers advocates should be allowed to include their information here, too. Otherwise, what good is this page if it's a one-sided debate? (I'm amazed, for example, at the censorship of the 'External Links' section. As 'Revolver' said in January, Wikipedia's rules state that the content of links is not required to be NPOV, only content in articles, especially if the links have a disclaimer that the content may be POV. As Revolver said: "This is elementary stuff, people." Yet, whenever anyone tries to post an external link to any site that does not paint poppers in a negative light, the link is removed and censored out.)

216.54.197.236 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You aren't fooling anyone, and are currently evading a 3 month block through sockpuppetry, and you know very well that this isn't allowed. virusmythpoppersmyth.org is registered through godaddy.com, as are allaboutpoppers.com and pwdbrands.com; unlike those two, it is registered to domainsbyproxy.com, which is quite suspicious as they specialize in providing services to people who wish to keep their identities concealed. i don't think it's coincidental that you show up to place links to pages on this site just after your 209.x.x.x ip was blocked; with under 400 page views to that site (according to the counter) it isn't exactly well known. keep it up and this ip will be blocked as well. --heah 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A "Debated Issues" section would be helpful to persons trying to understand the hazards of using poppers.The poppers industry currently has propaganda websites which give viewers the illusion of objectivity and debate. Wikipedia has the potential to allow debate and capture the debate without promoting purchase of poppers... We need a critique of critiques of research.Wikipedia can foster informed choice.

For example, www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org features a main section "Poppers:Both sides of the story" including 22 referenced articles..21 are pro poppers and 1 is anti poppers and the con article is just the title of the article without ability to obtain the total article.Hardly objective. That this site is a sponsored site on a Google search for "poppers" and "video head cleaner" is a danger to unsuspecting, yet inquiring, potential consumers trying to navigate through the HIV epidemic. The www.allaboutpoppers.com promo site fails to cite research showing that poppers are immunosuppressive or that mice exposed to popper vapors developed tumors . Neither sites refer to the 2005 UCSF research showing poppers use may be a significant risk factor in anal cancer development in gay men.

However limited and imperfect, The accumulated research on poppers is the achilles heal of the poppers industry. The emergence of the virusmythpoppersmyth.org site illustrates they understand this.Consumers will benefit from a "critique of the critique" and wikipedia has the potential to distinguish itself in supporting people in to make informed choices about a controversial product. Allow misinformation, distortion to surface so that it can be shot down.Poppers are not going away. They are easy to make, cheap to make, and profitable to sell. Whether its a big business popper industry selling and distributing them, or home brewed varieties like in the early days, poppers will be around as long as demand exists.

There is no pretense that the research on poppers to date is definitive. More research is needed to understand how the immunosuppressive effects of poppers use translates into higher risks for hiv and ks infections.(Hankwilson 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson)

Why all the fuss over poppers?

What's all the fuss about over poppers on Wikipedia?

I've read through the discussion section as well as the entire article page, and it's clear that those who feel poppers can be bad for you have taken over this article and are preventing anyone else from editing the page.

I've also read almost all of the articles at http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/

It really would be better for the debate if the anti-popper people would actually read the information being presented about poppers by the other side of the argument. It is not what you want to hear, but it appears to be accurate; and, it most definitely does not paint the negative picture about poppers that you are trying to paint.

For example, have you read the statement of fact quotes How do you come away believing poppers are so bad after you read what these experts had to say about them?

What about the man who gave AIDS its name, Dr. Bruce Voeller? He doesn't seem to feel poppers are harmful. [13]

Or, what about Paul Varnell, a famous Gay and AIDS activist? He lays out a rather convincing article about poppers, too.[ http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/paul_varnell/]

How about the science researcher Christine Webber, who wrote an impressive overview of the early-on poppers and AIDS and poppers and KS concerns. [14] and [15]

No less than two respected members of the United States Congress also commissioned studies about poppers, and they clearly do not paint a picture of significant harm:and http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/us_senate_alkyl_nitrite_s/

Why are the anti-poppers people so fanatical about all this?

Edward Partin

Did you know that Bruce Voeller was sponsored by Rushbrands, the leading Poppers manufacturer? His efforts to publicize poppers as a "blueprint for health" in his "Mariposa" institution were quite unscientific, to say the least. Feelings and impressions of so-called experts don't count in a scientific discussion. Take a look at the evidence against this street drug in Poppers#References and draw your conclusions rationally.

Drugs like Poppers, Amphetamines, Crystal Meth destroyed the gay movement and culture and turned it into what's nowadays called the "gay scene". More than half the gays in industrialized countries take at least one of those drugs. That's the result of the efforts of street drug producers like Rushbrands, vendors, pushers and the whole street drug milieu which infiltrated the gay movement. The process is quite analogous to what happened to the Black ghettoes when Crack was introduced and to the Hippies and the civil rights movement of the 60s when Heroin was made ubiquitious. --DenisDiderot 16:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section on "historical aspects" that seems to have been taken from this statement. It is POV and it is not relevant to the article. You're discussing drug use (in general) among a subset of gay men, not the history of alkyl nitrites. I don't think it belongs here. ndevries 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of and the advertisements for this drug were very important in establishing the "gay scene". So it clearly belongs to the history of the use of alkyl nitrites. See Ian Young's work I cited. --DenisDiderot 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean about Dr. Bruce Voeller being 'sponsored' by Rushbrands? What is Rushbrands? What does 'sponsor' mean? What is your support for such a statement?

What is a 'blueprint for health'?

I have looked at the 'evidence' you keep posting on the poppers page. It's one sided and terribly biased. But, it does not prove that poppers are harmful to humans. All it proves is that when you give animals huge doses you can tilt your findings to harmful. It's a shame you do that to innocent animals, just in order to get a finding you can use to bolster your bias against poppers.

As a gay man, I can tell you that your statement that poppers 'destroyed' the gay movement makes no sense at all. Are you gay? Do you even understand the gay community?

• I also agree that those against poppers are being all too aggressive on this article. I am gay and I refrain from all drug use but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to agree with all the anti-poppers things being said here. Since when is wikipedia a forum for moralizing? People use drugs, some health effects are mentioned in the article, but enough with the heavy-handedness.. Dan Carkner 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Health hazards

The space given to the possible connection between poppers and Kaposi's sarcoma is unduly large compared to the very real hazards of methemoglobinemia and episodes of low blood pressure. Tagged with {{POV-section}} Dr Zak 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical aspects

I'm a bit suspicious about the "Historical Aspects" section here. The article makes it sound like a universally accepted fact that "street drugs … destroyed the gay movement … and turned [it] into what's nowadays called the 'gay scene'" when this merely is an observation put forward by Ian Young, who seems to be promoting the Duesberg hypothesis that by now is thoroughly discredited.

The references in that section do not support the assertion made (that street drugs destroyed the gay movement); they at most support the idea that gay men take drugs on a party weekend. (We don't even get to know if gay men take more drugs than straight men on a night out, and the papers cited mention hash and E more than they do poppers.)

Also, the statement that this "is quite analogous to what happened to the Black liberation movement in the Black ghettoes when Crack was introduced" is not only outright wrong (the Black movement was active in the late 60s to early 70s and the crack cocaine epidemic was in the late 80s), it is exactly that kind of synthesis that is banned by WP:NOR. Dr Zak 12:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If Ian's stance on poppers is widely shared by gay activists (I wouldn't know about that) by all means put it in and say that it is a widely shared sentiment, but please don't try to pass off someone's viewpoint as fact. Dr Zak 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak, thanks for stating a little more eloquently some of the issues with this section. I should have given a more thorough explanation the first time I removed it. In addition to the issues you've already brought up, I'd like to add another.

The use of the ill-defined term "gay scene" is problematic. I suspect the author may be talking about the circuit, but if that is the case, we should make that clear. Using vague terms makes the section confusing and difficult to verify. I would much rather edit the section than delete it, but I don't know what it is supposed to be talking about. Also, if this is about the circuit, would that article be a more appropriate spot for this?

I don't oppose the inclusion of this if it is done properly, I just think the section would need a rewrite that addresses the issues raised here before it is put back. Adding weasel words such as "It is widely believed" does not fix these problems. I have seen no evidence that this is a widely held view. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article, but if it is, I think it should be labeled as a controversial minority view. If this is Ian Young's theory, it should be attributed to him and not passed of as an accepted fact. ndevries 05:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian Young, John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson have become notorious for their efforts over the past twenty years to pass off their viewpoints about poppers as fact. A Google search about poppers turns up countless redundant sites which they've put up over the years to try to support their position. These men are aligned with the long-discredited Peter Duesberg theories that AIDS is caused by poppers, and not HIV. As gay men, they do their community a disservice with their campaign of misinformtion and fabrication.

07:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)~To clump Wilson with the denialists is fabrication. For the record, Hank Wilson founded the Committee to Monitor Poppers in 1981 to caution and educate the gay community about the hazards of using poppers. Wilson is a longtime gay rights and AIDS activist and long term survivor of AIDS. Wilson has served multiple terms on the San Francisco HIV Prevention Planning Council and the Community Advisory Board of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies of University of California, San Francisco. He currently works at Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center and educates people about the falacies of the Duesberg denialist views. He was a successful plaintiff against HIV denialists who disrupted a PWA educational forum about treatment interruptions. His work with Lauritsen was limited to the co written book Death RUSH, 1986.

Wilson continues to publicize published research about poppers and challenges promotion and or non cautionary sales of poppers on the internet. He was recently honored as a Community Grand Marshall at the annual SF Pride Parade and Celebration. He is currently organizing the upcoming AIDS Candlelight Memorial Vigil to be held in San Francisco June 4. He was an organizer of the first AIDS Candlelight March held in 1983.(User:Hankwilson 07:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 07:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Ian's stance on poppers is shared by few outside of his small group of fellow denialists, and is certainly not shared by the gay community in general. Take a look at this rebuttal of his infamously fabricated story about the history of poppers: -- Rebuttal of Ian Young's Poppers Story 201.224.70.230 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. However, blogs. prvate websites and the like aren't exactly reliable sources, so I removed these external links plus one to a pro-Duesberg website. Dr Zak

You make a good point. There is a reprint of an article that appeared in a gay newspaper in London, shortly after a trial about poppers, and is written by a doctor who was called as an expert witness at the trial. In his article, the doctor points out that allegations like those made by Ian Young in his story on poppers, are untrue, and that the gay community or gay activists in general never shared his position on poppers. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, do you think this is appropriate to include in 'external links', or to otherwise make available to the reader? 201.224.70.230 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy on sources recommends against using websites. Anyone can set up a website, and there is no straightforward way to check if the selection of material on a website is careful and unbiased or if someone is pushing an agenda. [16] doesn't even sport the name of the person who set it up. I would remove it, especially so since poppers are surrounded by much controversy and only keep websites linked to reliable organizations or to notable individuals whose credentials are well established. Dr Zak 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about linking to personal websites of those who are not known to be a reliable source or a notable individual whose credentials are well established.

The sites I've added so far are about notable individuals whose credentials appear to be well established. I've found sites on Bruce Voeller, Ph.D., the scientist who gave AIDS its name, Paul Varnell, an AIDS activist, researcher and writer, along with a Wall Street Journal article from almost thirty years ago. There are others, but I'm growing tired of working on this. It's been a long day of research and editing.

I was surprised to discover that one of the most popular sites claiming that poppers are dangerous, and a site that has had a consistent link on the poppers article, is run by a non-professional, who claims to have a "technical and medical" education. This site has been replicated over and over under different names and different domain levels (.com, .net, .org, etc), so that searches on the web for almost anything related to HIV and AIDS, and especially AIDS and poppers, nearly always turn up at least one link on the first page of Google, and usually many more.

The site is part of what appears to be a web of AIDS denialists and dissidents, and which also hosts personal web sites or personal pages for most of the anti-popper authors that have appeared on the poppers article.

The sites creator and web-master is Robert Laarhoven, who claims that he was 'kicked out" of the World AIDS Conference in 1993, in Berlin, and "ordered to leave Germany". He says that "next to being a health activist", he "works as an internet consultant and web-master". This may explain the high SE rankings of his sites, and perhaps even the ongoing squabbles on Wikipedia about poppers, during which someone with considerable computer/internet/Wikipedia skills and knowledge has attempted to censor information about poppers in this article.

Reading through the Talk page reveals a sometimes threatening nature in the posts made by the anti-popper proponents. This subject of poppers is very much surrounded by a high degree of controversy and heated debate.

The more civil tone and reasoned input that has been demonstrated over the past few days has helped the credibility of this article a lot.

How do you get your comments to be indented? When I try to indent, it really screws up the formating for some reason. I've been making a portion of my first sentence or paragraph 'bold' to try to show where my comment begins. 201.224.70.230 01:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Check WP:EDIT for Wikipedia markup syntax. Did you consider registering under a username? It generally increases one's credibility here - the reasoning about random websites applies to Wikipedia users, too. Dr Zak 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a simple chemist who somehow happened on this article when the bullshit detector triggered. It's a mess altogether, it was full of Duesberg stuff, the pharmalogical and legal aspects of the drugs are missing altogether, and it could do with a credible, referenced section on the social context.

Hell, I know very little about the stuff. I don't even know how it smells. When I did use it in the lab for reactions I made sure not to smell it - I was afraid of fainting with low blood pressure or ending up in the hospital with methemoglobinemia. Dr Zak 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the formatting page! I'll look at signing up for a username. Wonder if it's safe, given the sabre-rattling of some of these folks. 201.224.70.230 14:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Zak. I'm a full-fledged Wikipedian now. Lt Dan 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (formerly User:201.224.70.230)

About the deletion of the "Historical Aspects" section, see the beginning of this talk section above. Lt. Dan 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture War, NPOV

It sometimes happens with Wikipedia that opposing viewpoints on a subject develop into huge debates, with a lot of rhetoric and heated discussion (or worse) coming from both sides of an argument. Just like arguments around a kitchen table over subjects like Palestine/Israel, AIDS and its origin/cause/treatment, the Da Vinci Code, and others can turn ugly, a review of the Discussion page on poppers confirms that poppers is an issue caught in the culture wars as well.

I landed here after a search on poppers for a paper I'm writing for school. I've reverted this page because the version I ran across today is heavily lopsided toward one side of the debate while the Talk and History pages indicate prior versions that actually included information from an opposing viewpoint, which had been removed.

Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view (NPOV), and the ability to hear both sides of a debate. More than once people mentioned that the poppers page is Disputed. I agree. I reverted to a prior version that contained a more reasoned debate.

Sergio Sevario, Houston, Texas USA 63.172.63.153 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are two sides to every story, and the one-sided presentation about poppers in this article isn't helpful to those wanting to engage in civil debate on the matter, or do serious research. I've just posted a link to a site that gives another perspective to this debate The Story Behind A Prominent AIDS Researcher's Disgust With the Anti-Poppers Campaign 201.224.70.230 06:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I spent time today helping to clean up the 'Health Hazards' section. It was full of typos, grammer errors, and was somewhat confusing. Does it make sense to try to move the external links or references in that section the links sections below? This migh help to clean it up even more, which could make it much easier to read. 201.224.70.230 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added links to three brand names which are listed in the 'Street Names' section. One link already exists elsewhere in the article, and the other two were easily found with a Google search. 201.224.70.230 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to better balance the 'Health Hazards' section, after the mention of those who claim poppers are hazardous, I added a mention of experts who took the oppossing view of poppers and their potential hazards, inculding supporting links. 201.224.70.230 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Alkyl Nitrites → Nitrite inhalants

This article deals with alkyl nitrites as a recreational drug, that is it deals with poppers. The proposal is to reserve Nitrite inhalants for use of alkyl nitrites as a drug and have Alkyl nitrites as an article on the chemistry.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Dr Zak 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lt. Dan 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: My preference would be to try to work with the current article ndevries 06:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support(````Hankwilson````) The cross reference from "poppers" is essential no matter what the heading is.
• Change to Oppose limit to ONE all encompassing article with (poppers) in parentheses and/or continue cross reference from searches "GO" to "poppers"(Hankwilson 06:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)HankwilsonHankwilson 06:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

Add any additional comments

What do you think about including the word "poppers" in the name for the drug use page? Maybe "Alkyl Nitrite Poppers", or "Nitrite Poppers"?

Also, do you envision the 'alkyl nitrite' article containing only information about the compound itself? With no discussion or information about its misuse as an inhalant? That the history and other information about nitrites used as inhalants/poppers would be confined to the 'poppers' article?

If so, how does Wikipedia prevent someone from disregarding any rules for the subject and what should be posted in a particular article? Or can it/ does it? Is that up to those who post information to hopefully follow the 'rules'? Lt. Dan 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nitrite inhalants are either formally called "nitrite inhalants" or informally "poppers". No one would call them "nitrite poppers", this is a page title that doesn't make sense, nobody would look for it under that name. The "alkyl nitrite" article (the one on the chemistry) should carry a hatnote, saying "This article is about the chemistry of alkyl nitrites; for the use as inhalant and recreational drug, see "nitrite inhalants". Dr Zak 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. I assume the forward for the 'poppers' page will contine to the 'nitrite inhalants' page. Lt. Dan 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the benefits of this move. Wikipedia doesn't have seperate pages for other compounds that are used recreationally like LSD or Nitrous oxide. Why does this article need to make that distiction? ndevries 06:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if one can write a large article on the legal, cultural and pharmacological aspects of "nitrite inhalants", in which the laboratory use of "alkyl nitrites" (as a mild nitrating agent) will be be completely swamped.

On the other hand, someone looking for "LSD" might conceivably be interested in its synthesis. If someone wants to move the non-chemical bits of nitrous oxide to "laughing gas", that would probably make sense, but the chemistry section of that article is larger than an entry on alkyl nitrites in the lab could ever hope to be. Dr Zak 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ndevries raises an interesting point about "LSD" and "laughing gas". The most significant difference between those two and the poppers/alkyl nitrite article, as I see it, is that the discussion is much more civil and less emotional in the former two articles. The "LSD" article has even won awards and been recognized as accurate enough to warrant being used as a reference by the news media.

If you compare the Talk and History pages for both the "LSD" and "laughing gas" articles against the alkyl nitrite/poppers article you'll find that there are few if any emotional outbursts or screaming in the first two, but there are many, many such outbursts and screaming to be found in the poppers Talk page.

Such a comparison also reveals a huge number of reverts, often with no good reason, in the poppers History page, but much fewer in the "LSD" and/or "laughing gas" History pages. When reverts are done in the latter two, they've been generally done with courteous and civil exchanges between editors, unlike the poppers History page, where reverts often seem to be arbitrary, uncivil and even malicious.

Also, unlike the "LSD" and "laughing gas" articles, the poppers article has what might be termed 'bullies'[17], who, based on the History and Dicussion pages, seem to be so emotional about the subject, that they are caught up in a vicious circle of constantly watching to see if anyone has added any information they do not agree with, and then quickly reverting it with little or no discussion (and rarely civil discussion).

I agree with Dr. Zak that one could write a large article on the legal, cultural and pharmacological aspects of "nitrite inhalants", in which the laboratory use of "alkyl nitrites" (as a mild nitrating agent) would truly be completely swamped. It does seem to me to make sense to break them up.

The alky nitrite/poppers article should become as well done as the "LSD" article. --Lt. Dan 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Zak, thanks for explaining. I agree that the chemistry section could get a bit bogged down, I just don’t know if splitting the page up is the best solution. It seems counterintuitive to me to have two articles on the same substance. It will require extra work to watch the two pages for duplicate information. It could also be awkward for sections that don’t clearly fit into one page or another. Take for example the “Health Hazards” or “Medical Uses” sections - I think these could justifiably be included on either page. If the article does get split, I think it will be important to make it clear where these sections are. Someone coming from an anti-poppers POV would probably see the lack of any information on health hazards as a serious omission, and we should try to avoid that controversy if we can. I think that making the chemistry more prominent is a great idea, but my preference would be to try to work with the current article. ndevries 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Ndevries, it could become overly burdensome to try to keep track of the various sections which would be common to the two different articles if split. Now I'm torn on splitting the article. (No pun intended. :=) )

Maybe it's time to clean up the article, including the 'references' section, so that it is less confusing and more streamlined (The Wikipedia 'style guide' for citing sources WP:REF is said to be useful when contemplating how to go about cleaning up an article.) The sections could be rearranged, with 'External Links' or "Further Reading" placed at the end of the article, after the" References" section, offering books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Apparently, editors are increasingly calling "external links" "further reading," because the 'references' section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online.

If it's likely that none of the current editors of this article have the time or inclination to do so much work, the article could be submitted to be cleaned up by the Cleanup Taskforce (which is always looking for members) Wikipedia:Cleanup process. --Lt. Dan 05:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fact-checking and reference-running on poppers article

After a few hours of Googling and other research, it was apparent that there was a serious need for fact-checking and reference-running in the Alky nitrites/poppers article. Kudos to the original contributor who established this article, and the entire ring, including its related Stubs. With the attention it has received this past weekend, it has already been improved a great deal. Lt. Dan 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of "External Links" section

Some links were removed, and some links were added in this section today (including a formerly broken link which I had repaired earlier today).

What is the support for the added links? Why were other links removed?

Tagged with POV-section Lt. Dan 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There having been no discussion or concern expressed about reverting this section back to a more balanced POV over the past several days, I've reverted to the earlier content, which had also fixed one broken link, and have removed the POV tag. Lt. Dan 03:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of "Kaposi's Sarcoma controversy" section

Please discuss why you've removed some of the information in this section tonight.

Tagged with

POV-section

Lt. Dan

There having been no discussion or response, I've removed the Kaposi's sarcoma section. Fact checking shows that a there appears to be no significant dispute that nitrites and KS are not related causally. Lt. Dan 03:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of "Medical Uses" section

Please discuss the reason for the changes made to this section tonight.

It has been tagged POV-section

Lt. Dan 03:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There having been no discussion or concern expressed about reverting this section back to a more balanced POV over the past several days, I've reverted to the earlier content, added pertinent information and removed the POV tag. Lt. Dan 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of "Health Hazards" section

The changes made to this section tonight have essentially rendered it one-sided. Please discuss why a rv back to the earlier version is not warranted.

Tagged

POV-section

Lt. Dan 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There having been no discussion or concern expressed about reverting this section back to a more balanced POV over the past several days, I've reverted to the earlier content, and have removed the POV tag. Lt. Dan 02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Today the "Health Hazards" section was tagged: not verified

A review of the citations contained in the "Health Hazards" section reveals a lack of reliable references and verifiability Wikipedia:Verifiability associated with a number of statements that have been made. The section also contains the use of weasel words WP:WEASEL, which given the significant controversy surrounding the article, and the heated arguments involved, are especially inappropriate.

Examples include the mentions about nitrites and KS:

• PMID 835696 : "However, an earlier 1993 MACS publication PMID 835696 found nitrite inhalant use a significant risk factor for KS." -- The citation given does not mention KS, or nitrite inhalants as a risk factor for KS.The listing of PMID 835696 was an error. The correct citation is PMID 8356966 which does mention both KS and poppers/nitrites.

• PMID 11920325: "In 2002, Casper PMID 11920325, found that poppers use was an independent risk factor for HHV-8 seroconversion." -- The study authors state that "Amyl nitrite use as a risk factor for prevalent KSHV infection has been reported elsewhere, although not as a risk factor for incident KSHV infection.We explored potential confounding by amyl nitrites, which may serve as a risk marker for exposure to KSHV as the users are likely to meet partners at high-risk venues (e.g., bathhouses), have unprotected sex, and use other drugs." Nitrites appeared to be a marker along with high-risk sex, deep kissing, and other indicators.
• PMID 11070101: "In 2000, Pauk et al. PMID 11070101 found amyl nitrite use an independent risk factor for HHV-8 infection." -- The citation is for a study on Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men who have sex with men, not about nitrites. Nitrites were, however, mentioned as no more a risk factor than a history of sex with a partner who had Kaposi's sarcoma or deep kissing with an HIV-positive partner. The authors state in their consclusions section that: "Oral exposure to infectious saliva is a potential risk factor for the acquisition of HHV-8 among men who have sex with men."

Other examples of a lack of reliable references and verifiability include the following statements that have been made:

• "It’s been said that inhalation of alkyl nitrites may cause a short-term methemoglobinemia leading to a lack of oxygen in the brain for about a minute, which is the base of the Poppers rush." -- there is no citation for this statement. The use of weasel words WP:WEASEL in Wikipedia is prohibited, and it should be removed until verifiable support can be cited.

• "Or that high doses of Nitrites may cause long-term methemoglobinemia, particularly in individuals predisposed towards such a condition.[1]." -- the term "long-term methemoglobinemia" is not addressed in the citation mention. Also, the citation "1" points out that "Excessively high doses of amyl nitrite administered chronically may cause methemoglobinaemia.". The sentence should probably be rewritten to indicate that it would take 'excessively high does, administered chronically, to possible cause methemogtlobinaemia.

• "According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, use of these drugs is associated with unsafe sexual practices that increase the risk of contracting and spreading infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.[2]" -- to be fair, it should be pointed out that nitrites are not alone in being associated with unsafe sexual practices. Included along with nitrite use would be alcohol use, marijuana use, among other drug use. It should be pointed out that use of nitrites may only be a marker for high-risk behavior in general.

• "A short-term immunosuppressive effect has been observed in mice as well as in humans; regular use of the drug over years may lead to an irreversible suppression of the immune system.[3]" -- The citation does not mention 'irreversible suppression of the immune system", nor does it indicate such a condition is possible. This sentence should be removed from the article.

• "It is also believed by some that poppers users may run the risk of developing a psychological dependence to the drug, and tolerance may increase with use [4], [5], [6]." -- This sentence also contains weasel words WP:WEASEL and should be removed. It's citations seem unrelated and/or irrelevant. For example, citation "4" is an advertisement for a gay products shopping site called "essential gay shopping", which has nothing to do with support for the statement being made ; citation "5" is an unsupported statement from the "Students' Union at Ulster University"; citation "6" returns " File Not Found". This sentence has no support and should be removed.

The 'Health Hazards" section should be cleaned up to avoid confusion, and rewritten for POV, accuracy (citations and verifiability Wikipedia:Verifiability).

If you can provide useful information to the article, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. --Lt. Dan 21:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of "References" section

Please discuss why your changes to this section should not be reverted to the previous version.

As it presently stands, this section now appears very one-sided, and information that was added earlier today, which helped present both sides of the argument, was removed in your rv.

Section has been tagged pov-section

Lt. Dan 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:201.224.70.230 wrote the following in the reference section yesterday:

"(but only when administered in doses greatly exceeding those of typical use). These results cannot be reasonable extrapolated to the human being."

This and the other edits are identical to what Allabout2006 kept posting on this page for months. It is wrong. The doses used in these investigations weren't higher than in normal inhalation and the testing was performed in the same way as for medical drugs. So the ban and the warnings should be stated in the same way as for medical drugs. You cannot just add such a sentence and suggest that all the scientific results are invalid just because you say so. This has been discussed over and over again and with each new sockpuppet of Allabout2006, the discussion restarts. This is annoying. --DenisDiderot 12:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of my comments from over the weekend may not have been original, but they are all valid. They were based on a careful reading of the discussion page for this article, and the results of numerous internet searches.

Saying that someone is a sockpupput WP:SOCK does not make them one.

The bulk-reverted article remains too one-sided, making the concern about WP:NPOV a valid one. Please explain why this article should not be reverted to a more balanced version from this past weekend, while the WP:NPOV issue is discussed and resolved. --Lt. Dan 15:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Formerly User:201.224.70.230

There having been no further discussion over the past several days about reverting this section back to a more balanced POV, I've reverted to the earlier content, and have removed the POV tag. Lt. Dan 03:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"State of former consensus" and "See also the history of user Allabout2006"

According to the Wikipedia page on Consensus, Wikipedia:Consensus, "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion." By reverting several days worth of work and edits without discussion, or without any apparent valid basis for doing so, consensus is not being achieved -- nor, it could be argued, even sought out.

Besides reinserting at least one broken link which had eariler been fixed, today's bulk reversion could also be viewed as demonstrating an apparent total disregarded for another user's discussion comment on the insertion of disputed or suspect information about the gay community, in 'Historical Aspects', which the user had pointed out "is exactly the kind of synthesis that is banned by WP:NOR".

Such action gives the appearance that there's an effort to stifle debate on the article's subject. It also makes the article very one-sided, in violation of WP:NPOV. With so much controversy on this article's subject, it's worth giving the article some sober second thought, so that a wider range of viewpoints can be discussed.

In the meantime, the article should be reverted to an earlier version from this past weekend, which presented a better balanced argument.

Please explain what the history of "user Allabout2006" has to do with consensus? Or with the discussion that's going on today to improve the quality of the article?

Lt. Dan 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article suffers from a lack of significant other viewpoints

Because only one side is being pushed in this article, it suffers from a lack of significant viewpoints other than those that are constantly being presented. Other viewpoints are needed and sought.

Therefore the article has been tagged

toofewopinions

Lt. Dan 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

TO DO LIST?

A To Do list might aid in editing this article.

Removal of "Manufacturers' Disclaimers"

I removed the "Manufacturers' Disclaimers" section, and incorporated it into the "Basics" section. The link to the web site that is selling poppers to the general public was deleted. --Lt. Dan 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New "Further Reading" section

A new section, called "Further Reading", has been placed at the end of the article, after the" References" section. Apparently, editors are increasingly adding "further reading" sections to articles in order to provide references to books or articles that may not be available on line, along with links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. --Lt. Dan 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing Templates

Template additions to this talk page add it to Category: POV Disputes. Since the article is disputed, I am removing these notices during NPOV cleanup. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

www.iabuse.org is a new website confronting the poppers industry

It is alarming that poppers has become the drug of choice amongst school children in the UK.The "safe to inhale" message on popper selling sites endangers unsuspecting consumers of all ages and sexual orientations. The wide availability because of internet access makes this an international challenge. Hankwilson 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Hankwilson

What utter bullshit. The site doesn’t cite references to support a single claim! It merely states that all the information ia “on file” and will be published later. All of the scariest “findings” come from the mouse studies, which, as many sources for this article note, are highly suspect.( They injected mice with amounts of nitrites which were highly disproportionate - the equivalent of injecting an adult male human with 2 or 3 bottles of Rush. Exposure was also constant over periods of 24-72 hours. Seeing as poppers are usually sniffed, not injected, and in short bursts over a maximum period of 8 hours in a sex marathon, the relevance is difficult to establish.) -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hank Wilson's comments amount to utter bullshit. If you read through these discussion pages, you'll find that he's quite the anti-poppers freak. The ferocity of his babblings, along with those of his buddies, sound more like a child throwing a tantrum then any real concern about the issues at hand. It looks like he and his group may have had their lunch eaten by the othe side, and he's not able to handle it. Their website is a joke, and you're right, the information they claim to have but that they won't reveal, becuase it's "on file" is absurd. There was a dangerous zealot in the USA back in the 1950's who did the same thing. He tried to ruin careers and people's lives by using this very same tactic. His name was Joe McCarthy. He was dangeous. Hank Wilson and his buddies are using the same tactics. It would be better for Wikipedia and the public who come here to read about these compounds if Wilson and his people would lighten up a bit, and let the real facts be presented, without the emotional baggage of personal vendettas creeping in to muddy things up. 216.54.197.236 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Popper use by adults and teenagers or children

A review of information through fact checking shows that popper use is negligible in the teenage population, and that it's almost non-existent in childhood. It's shown that teens and even children are indeed abusing inhalants of all types, particularly gasoline, white-out, spray glue, and other common household products. Sometimes these are confused with poppers. Lt. Dan 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

revert recent mass deletions

Mass deletions and edits without discussion are not a good idea. Before such massive editing, it would be appreciated if there was some discussion on this Talk page first.

I've reverted back to the consensus version prior to the mass deletions and edits that took place a few days ago.

Thanks. 216.54.197.236 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Another reversion of mass deletions and structure changes

Hi Childzy:

Your input on the "Poppers" article is appreciated. However, I've reverted your edits back to an earlier version and would ask that you read through the discussion page for this article before making further edits -- especially such a massive edit as you made, particularly with regard to all the deletions you did.

The subject of "Poppers" can cause contentious debate among the extremes of either side, and a great deal of work and effort has gone into getting the article to the point where it has been over the past few months.

It's been moving toward NPOV, with efforts to clean up content having gone well. There is great interest in trying to make this article as good as it can possibly be. (See discussion for background)

The links you removed were not considered to be spam.

The links to the "Popper" brand sites were to sites for brand names which have been synonymous with the word "Poppers" for over thirty years, around the world.

The insertion of an additional "External Links" was unnecessary.

And, the inclusion of the "Further Reading" had been agreed upon to be an acceptable and efficient effort to include links to sites that may not belong in "External Links" or "References" , but which link to sites that may be of interest to researchers on the subject of "Poppers".

Thanks much for your input, and consideration.

Lt. Dan 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Clean up spam" notice

I've removed the "Clean up spam" notice {{cleanup-spam}}

Per Wikipedia's 'external link spamming' page WP:SPAM WP:ADS, the external links section of the poppers page contains no spamming links, or links to sites that primarily exist to sell or advertise these products. None require payment to view the relevant content. Lt. Dan 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

However, they do violate WP:EL, and they do appear to be promoting Websites even if not services or products. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some links could be considered spam, especially the heavy tilt toward the Duesberg and associated (anti-poppers) sites.

An example is the "References" section, which is full of 'studies' that appear to have long been disputed, some discredited, others suspect and unscientific, and yet others which aren't even studies, but 'papers' or 'posters', and some even duplicates of others in what appears to be an effort to inflate the body of already weak work. The untrained eye, looking at such a list, would probably think poppers were the worst thing that humankind has ever seen. :=0)

On the other hand, the other side (pro-poppers) has a number of links, too -- but much farther down the page.

Reading through the discussion/talk page one wonders if the idea was to try to compromise by allowing links to the anti-poppers sites (Duesberg/Lauritsen/Wilson), more prominent positioning up higher on the page, and the opposing (or pro-poppers) sites, relegated to the "Further Reading" section. Not a bad compromise I think. There's little doubt that the opposing parties have worked hard to make this article about poppers as good as possible.

Coincidentally, it's pretty telling that even an article page on what links should be considered possible 'spam' or not can get into as raucous a debate itself. The WP:EL page actually says: "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."

I think it's a good idea to put the 'potential spam notice' back on the main page, though. 12.33.164.200 06:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article's POV is slanted toward the people who don't like poppers. Many links are to blatantly anti-popper sites that are suspect sites run by people who it looks like have a definate axe to grind with poppers. Some of very old and out of date. In my humble opinion the article needs more work to get closer to NPOV. 67.110.41.2 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert deletion

At the top of the Discussion page there is a notice that reads: "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."

Check the Discussion page and you'll see that this article has undergone a lot of work, the consensous of editors being that the link you deleted should be included in the article.

If you wish to delete the link, please discuss it here first.

From what I can tell, the link you deleted is an important one. From the looks of it, there may only be one such site anywhere on the web. I've googled several terms and names but can only find one manufacturer that has the disclaimer described in the article. Which is probably why it was included in the first place.

12.33.164.200 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove unneeded 'legality' section

The new section titled "Legality" has been removed because there is no need for it. The existing article already makes it clear that these products are illegal if sold as inhalants, and goes into detail about the long history of how the industry has done the dance with various agencies around the world, to avoid being tagged as 'drugs'. It's also made clear that there are various different formulas that are used in various jurisdictions to avoid violating specific laws in those jurisdictions.

I observed that the poster who inserted the new 'legality' section, DejaLew, also tried a sneaky end-run by changing the link for the 'street names' section that links out from "RUSH" from the manufacturer's site, to what may be his own site for selling various brands of these products. His site appears to be located in Europe. This poster essentially tried to spamm the page by linking to a site selling the products to the consumer/end user, something that has been frowned upon throughout this article ever since it was created.

This article hasn't been vandalized for quite some time. Let's hope we don't see a renewed effort to begin spamming or vandalizing the site. Lt. Dan 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The new 'Legality" section makes sense, but needed to be cleaned up. I agree we must remaiin vigilant to avoid another round of vandalism.HoneyBot29 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lt Dan

Hello Lt Dan.

Good morning to you.

Legality Section : There is a need for it - many people including the sex shop owner I quoted from the Australian press are not aware that these products are illegal. Do you not think it is a good idea to warn them before they appear before the courts? All sorts of people use the internet and I seek a balanced article & to offer factual information.

You write:

"how the industry has done the dance with various agencies around the world, to avoid being tagged as 'drugs'. It's also made clear that there are various different formulas that are used in various jurisdictions to avoid violating specific laws in those jurisdictions"

So you claim that the industry has tried to outwit enforcement agencies? The term "dance" is an unusual one & indicates a degree of levity which is not appropriate. This is a serious accusation, is it not? I find your view rather alarming and wonder how you could possibly know of the existence of such a "dance"? This sounds like an insider view to me - my apologies if this is not the case.

You wrongly accuse me of a "sneaky end tun" in changing the Rush link to a site that I own. This is actually an error on your part & I would appreciate an apology for this false accusation. I merely noticed that the Pac West websites which are linked to 3 times were commercial

Thanks for visiting rush liquid incense Your interest in our company and its products is greatly appreciated. If you are a distributor or retailer and would like information on how to get our products for resale, kindly complete our brief questionnaire

This is clearly a commercial site complete with a cartoon figure called Captain Rush, free shirts, and other promotional gimmicks.

The article links to rushliquidincense.com both in the main body of the article under "manufacturer" and again under Street Names - this is just not balanced, Lt Dan. Furthermore, there is a link to lockerroomaroma.com - yet another NEW Pac West owned website just like rushliquidincense.com promoting another of their brands.

The website I linked to was found via a search engine whilst researching the legality section - it is fan site with a discussion board and gives some down to earth street information about the product. The section is entitled "Street Names" & was therefore appropriate in my opinion. It is only about "Rush" which is a street name for this product.

Is that OK with you, Lt Dan?

The manufacturer must be very pleased to have such earnest, impartial and unconnected online writers? Of course if they were manufacturing a product and simaltaneously promoting it's use online that would be a different matter, wouldn't it? That would make a nonsense of the legal disclaimer:

"we do not encourage the misuse of our products as poppers"

I would also like to include an article by the Bay Area Reporter that cites the activity of a vociferous online campaigner / campaign to promote the use of poppers. May I do that Lt Dan - or will you consider that "unneeded" as well?

Clearly this page is your very own fifedom and I would not want to trespass on your property.

http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=873

I have deleted the links to commercial sites, as they provide no value whatsoever save to promote Pac West Distributing Inc. of Indiana, USA in a way which they claim they do not approve of. I will contact Pac West Distributing Inc and ask them to make a statement if you would prefer?

Thanks for your time reading my opinions - I hope that you will give them due consideration. I would be very disappointed and a little angry if you merely delete my additions again.

I hope that more information on the subject of nitrite inhalants appears in time & we all get a better understanding of this industry & this very unusual product.

Best Wishes,

DejaLew

This aricle is a collaboration of contributions, and as a newbie you are welcome and encouraged to make contributions, too. Links to commercial sites are discouraged. It is suggested that you read the entire discussion section for background. Lt. Dan 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)