Talk:Heroin/Archive1

Actors
That last comment about actors needing to know how to convincingly shoot up smacks of a plug for the concept of Hollywood Values. PoorEd 11:56, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Can't but agree - it's taking method acting to the extreme. Susan  purrrrr  12:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Haha, you said "smack"... human  15:09, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Thought you'd never notice. PoorEd 15:11, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

"In pop culture"
I removed the large (and growing) "in pop culture" section because it was a pointless list. It had no conceivable, mission-relevant purpose in the article. 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick RA.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's Nick?  11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * British in-joke, RA. Don't worry your pretty little head over it. 11:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EC. Brit joke. In the first UK election debate Brown was trying to cosy up to Nick Clegg and a number of times perhaps surprisingly said "I agree with Nick".  Thus making "I agree with Nick" a sort of catch phrase.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember signs around Uni once, about 8 years ago, that said "I agree with Rick". 11:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought you'd just forgotten my name.   11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we're us. It was an awesome section.  Don't go away for months and then come back and try to run the place by deleting whatever you don't like.  06:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an awesome but off-mission section. The article as it is is barely relevant to RationalWiki's purposes, but the "in pop culture" section openly crossed the line.  We're not fricking Wikipedia.   07:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think drugs articles are fine personally and I also think there is some on-mission angles in that people take drugs to "expand their minds" in thinking they have some mystical properties. I also think the prevalence of drugs in the arts/music scene is something we can handle but we don't nessacarily need it in every article. In saying that though I don't see why RA is so concerned but each to their own I guess. Acei9 07:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one think the pop culture section should be restored. It is kinda on mission and there is no particular reason that I can see to remove it.  It made me chuckle.  DamoHi 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how it is on mission. Because I don't get how it analyzes and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, how it analyzes and refutes crank ideas, or explores authoritarianism and fundamentalism.  As far as I can see, it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to be like Wikipedia, which we are not, with added support by the handful of stubborn editors (mostly Human) who really like sticking whatever their favorite bits of culture are into random articles.   12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I'm not quite sure how listing films which mention heroin is going to help us fight pseudoscience.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heroin is an extremely dangerous drug, possibly the worst available and I think that is interesting the way that its use is often trivialised within popular culture. Without editorializing too much (not that the article did) I think highlighting this fact is inherently useful in an article about the drug.  Whether or not one can actually point to one of our mission statements and show where it fits in is not the point.  The point is that the section is relevant to an article on heroin (which is on mission I believe), is amusing and there seems to be no pressing need to eliminate it.  --DamoHi 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bring it back
Whilst I am not a fan of lists of trivia (actually I am, but not on this wiki), this section was pretty relevant to the article, and I see no reason why one should get on one's high horse and start playing the 'off-mission' card on its metaphorical ass. 12:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And in what way was the list of films relevant? You could be right, but I can't see it. I'd be happy to be wrong.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I mean is that there's no explicit reason to remove it. Yes, it can be argued that it's 'off mission', but if we go down that road we may as well get DouglasA in, because a lot of our other articles could equally be called 'off mission'. 13:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have previously argued - usually unsuccessfully - for the removal of non-mission stuff before. If you want to argue against the Douglas Adams article feel free to do so.  If I remember correctly I created the DA article - but I also think I did so even before the mission statements were even articulated - I might think twice before doing so today. In fact, one of the problems of allowing one non-mission article is that it then becomes a justification for another.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bob I strongly suspect that the reference to DouglasA is to a certain CP editor who has gone around deleting masses of articles on CP,often for no particular reason. DamoHi 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the references because they can send someone to places that show the horror and degradation hard drugs can cause. Some of the pop culture ones (songs) are a bit obscure, but whatever.  There is a pseudo aspect to some drug use by famous people, hence the opening line about john & yoko.  01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is a notion that drugs can help one to be successful, the belief in which is surely part of our mission, thus highlighting its use by celebrities and in popular culture should remain. Is there a chance of a compromise here RA?  --DamoHi 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Always, Damo. Perhaps we could rework the list into a paragraph debunking the notion of of drugs bringing artistic success?   Because as it is, it's just a list.  An unnecessarily long and ugly one at that.   01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugly and unnecessary are in the eye of the beholder. 01:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the point of making a list of films is to show the damage that drugs can cause then that point should be made explicitly - a simple list does nothing. In any case, general attempts to improve public health are also a bit tangential to our objectives.
 * But I've been thinking about possible ways to bring the article on-mission.
 * Fundamentalism: The hypocrisy of the fundamentalist Taliban producing drugs.
 * Authoritarianism: The failure of the war on drugs.
 * Pseudoscience: any "recreational drugs are good for you" idea.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also funny list of songs and movies WP would frown upon and delete. 05:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Naw - To CP-centric.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said above - "I...think there is some on-mission angles in that people take drugs to "expand their minds" in thinking they (drugs) have some mystical properties. I also think the prevalence of drugs in the arts/music scene is something we can handle" - those are a couple of on-missiony ideas. Acei9 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Too CP-centric? Now I know you are just taking the piss.  07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the main justification is "We're doing this to show how silly CP is." then it should be in CP space.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the films are back as a simple list. Did I miss the bit where someone explained how that debunked pseudoscience? (Maybe I did - I'm on a small screen here.)--BobSpring is sprung! 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on while I shoot up and turn those titles into a sentence. Yeah. 'Ang on mate. 08:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)