Talk:Hash oil: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 72.95.207.52 (talk): Personal attack or uncivil behavior toward another user (HG) |
→Parts of Article Have a Seeming Agenda: new section |
||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
citation required tags as an interim solution to what is clearly an article in progress seems a fair compromise. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.95.207.52|72.95.207.52]] ([[User talk:72.95.207.52|talk]]) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
citation required tags as an interim solution to what is clearly an article in progress seems a fair compromise. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.95.207.52|72.95.207.52]] ([[User talk:72.95.207.52|talk]]) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Parts of Article Have a Seeming Agenda == |
|||
This article is about Hash Oil. Why does this article attempt to make links between hash oil manufacturing and medical marijuana? The attempt to make this link is not presented as controversial, nor is it presented in a category that would be proper for making such a link. It seems to me that someone has an agenda! |
|||
Personally, I don't know whether or not there is a link, nor do I care. I just know that the way it is presented is not proper and is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/206.251.23.138|206.251.23.138]] ([[User talk:206.251.23.138|talk]]) 10:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:48, 22 May 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hash oil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Cannabis C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) | ||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Better dabber photo?
Can somebody please either a) find a photo of somebody using hash oil who isn't wearing a Gandalf costume, or b) ditch the photo entirely? 206.174.34.147 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Merge with hashish
I propose to merge this article into hashish and redirect it, SqueakBox 01:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not for or against that proposal (although you went ahead with that merge anyway), however someone created what appears to be a derived work over at Honey Oil. —Tokek 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not strong against this plan but I think honey oil deserves its own article. Both articles could become more lengthy—especially the article about hashish. --mms (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is confusion here.....honey oil is not synonymous with butane honey oil. Honey oil was around long before butane extraction was introduced....like 30 years before....check your history stoners!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.54.151 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternative talk page
Talk:Butane hash oil exists, but Butane hash oil RDRs to Honey oil. So somehow they should be merged? pfctdayelise (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed by removing old merge tags. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Dangers
A section on dangers of this process would be a good idea. The basic process I just saw on youtube and a web page I just read, warn about extreme danger as the device to in-case the cannabis and insert the butane, basically becomes an incendiary device. The Butane itself is literally boiled (albeit at a lower temperature) off in an open container (usually glass) leaving the butane soaked vegetation still evaporating in the device. This needs to come with a "Don't try this at home" warning in a way.....or at least attempt to idiot proof it by not going further than this in an explanation. Wikipedia does not need to be a "how to" manual. If other editor wish to go into detail I wont stop it, just be responsible with what you write.
Was that too preachy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Article Name
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. It seems that Honey oil is a specific kind of Hash oil, and so both have their own articles. Aervanath (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Honey oil → Hash Oil — "Honey Oil" seem slangy, unprofessional, and uncredible. Would suggest renaming, adding a redirect from Honey Oil to Hash Oil, and including a section or sentence in article explaining that Hash Oil is commonly (though not very, apparently, as i have never heard of it) known as Honey Oil. Right now, this is like redirecting a search for "Marijuana" to a page titled "Weed." Receptacle (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support Personally I have never heard of "Honey Oil", and in a print encyclopedia, the slang term would be listed under the real name. A slang word should not be the title. MacMedtalkstalk 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Jargon terms should redirect to more neutral terminology. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- sounds like there is no opposition. i guess it should be moved.Receptacle (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Query. It seems that honey oil is a specific type of hash oil, extracted usually by liquid butane or similar. I have restored page Hash oil to its text form. I have redirected page Hash Oil to page Hash oil. Best get Hash oil and Honey oil and [1] (the last text version of page Butane hash oil) looked at by someone who knows more than me about cannabis and its derivatives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that fixing that redirect substantially addressed any concerns I might have. Thanks, I think it's a helpful addition/revision/undo/revert. Receptacle (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Health risks
There should be a list of health risks aside from the usual effects of cannibus that its linked to, mostly becuase of the solvents its associated with and how much stronger it is when smoked over hashish or cannibus.
-Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codisious (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Text-merge
- I have text-merged Honey oil to Hash oil, as they contained much of the same matter. I will leave the rest to someone who knows more than me about cannabis and its derivatives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Unbelievable
I only got about half way down before I could not contain myself any longer. This page is literally full of errors and misinformation. more than half of the claims are outright wrong, and the majority of the remainder are speculative. I would edit this article, but all of my edits would immediately be reverted, as I am not a registered user (nor will I register for this purpose). thus I will attempt to educate you with exceedingly basic chemistry knowledge for the purposes of educating the general public:
I will edit a few things. I am a chemist. I have a BS in chemistry and did research in an organic laboratory for 3 years, working 20-60 hours per week. I know what I am talking about in this matter. Furthermore, I know most of this information from excessive experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.141 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
maybe you should check because everyone uses colibri which is triple refined n-butane which when put into a pyrex dish and placed in a pan wth water, the water boils and helps the evaporation process. Once the bubbles have stopped, the butane will be done. leave it over night for saftey. problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.178.119 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- wrong. "everyone" more commonly use one of the following brands: King or Vector. Colibri butane is too rare and too difficult to purchase in bulk. Both vector and King are available in 12x250mL packs, vs the dinky 100 or so mL colibri bottles. King has been one of the main and most common butanes since 2004.68.6.79.96 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I just basically rewrote the whole article. Feel free to edit, but all of the information is viable and correct. There are no references. This is because extraction of a natural product from a plant material is "basic knowledge" to any chemist. it is covered in general organic chemistry laboratories that teach according to ACS education requirements. it is also an exceedingly simple concept that literally requires no references. feel free to tear it apart, but it would be a waste. it is much more correct and informative than the previous version68.6.76.141 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am a Chemist and have been published twice and work for the private sector. Ok. first of all chemistry labs use HPLC grade reagents. Secondly, what is triple refined butane? Common brands are Sigma Aldrich. The public cannot buy these reagent grade solvents. Jesus christ, if anyone here really is a chemist, then please go and cite your sources. If not I suggest this page be deleted.Alchemist314 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
If a chemist wrote this article, then the school that gave him a B.S. should be ashamed of itself. This is ridiculous. If you are offended by this then go back and cite each of your claims.Alchemist314 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The claims made on THC content (per volume, per mass?) are outrageous - someone has been severely confused about their terms and facts (considering the source quite likely due to negligence). The claimed portions of THC content could only be a total stacked cannabioid/cannabinoid tally for an impure extraction of the essential plant oils. How the hell is someone supposed to create a discriminating delta-9-THC extraction armed with OTC solvents, kitchenware and a basement tek? The maximum THC percent anyone can achieve with these methods is the original percent of THC in all original extracted essential oils (CBD, CBN and a myriad others). Furthermore, I must know this stuff, for I (almost) have a BSc in internet chemistry. Someone, anyone, please do something about the whole article, it's horrible. Except the pictures, they're quite nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.14.144 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This Page Should Be Deleted
I am a chemist, and there are too many mistakes throughout this page to go through and correct. This appears to have been written by someone with a knowledge of chemistry gained over the internet and represents no peer-reviewed sources. It appears to basically be a how-to-guide to break the law, and quite frankly should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.208.181 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
welcome to the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.194.245 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Horrible writing
I give up on this mess.--Mjpresson (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please Read, especially whoever wants to keep this page.
Wikipedia clearly states, "the point is not to train but to present facts" "facts must be verifiable". Someone's personal experience or claims made without supporting scientific evidence should not be included. Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted. I am speechless. If you are going to say something is toxic, cite a source. The article says "methanol is relatively safe" then goes on to say " methanol is toxic". Claims made about potency, methods and materials must be sourced. You can not say x contains impurities, then cite it. If you are going to list the physical properties of butane, source it. Finally, I have done extractions of plant pigments to run on HPLC, and guess what we used as the non-polar solvent, petrolium ethers!. Butane and all the other non-polar solvents will extract chlorophyll as well as lutein, xanthophyll, carotene and other pigments since they are also non-polar. This article makes no mention of even a separatory funnel. If this article is going to be about the clandestine manufacture of hash oil, then cite news reports or government reports. If you are going to talk about extractions and dangers of chemicals, please go to scifinder or get MSDS's and cite the sources. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not erowid, and it is not an avenue for people to share their experience. It is an Encyclopedia, which I'm sorry, is not interested in your experiences or claims, unless they are published and verifiable by some kind of peer reviewed journal. By the way, I have been published as a chemist and if people are concerned about my credentials feel free to contact me and will provide them.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
My edits
All edits are addressing cleanup tags. Searching for valid references, also.--Mjpresson (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed references
In order to incorporate inline citations into this article I'm considering being bold, using a few articles from Cannabis Culture Magazine, a Canadian cannabis-only website for the paper magazine. Looking at the site I think it should be ok considering the subject which is difficult to cite with the standard sources. Please provide feedback of you feel strongly on the issue. http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/ --Mjpresson (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
References
I've added some sources but please help to improve this article by adding more references.--Mjpresson (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
FEMA note
In February 2013, an American government agency FEMA issued an alert on its emergency services sector noticeboard with information concerning critical infrastructure protection. The post notes the possible mis-identification of extraction vessels employed in hash oil manufacture scene as pipe bombs, or methamphetamine lab accidents.
This section is missing a ref, and doesn't seem entirely notable. petrarchan47tc 06:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. I chose to copy edited the phrasing used by the editor who inserted this so it was not written in presumption of America being the center of universe, but did not want to just delete what he/she had contributed unnecessarily. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this a vegetable fat?
I was just trying to figure out if this is a plain old vegetable fat like coconut oil, olive oil, corn oil, etc. I searched this page but it's not listed, should it be?
Bryan (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Marijuana Oil
Perhaps this article should be renamed Marijuana Oil or Cannabis Oil (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/marijuana-oil-bill-passes-ky-senate/6353389/) as that seems to be a more accepted term over "Hash". --119.95.98.128 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Butane content of unpurged oil
ive placed a request for citation in the article of the claim there is any measurable butane remaining in 'unpurged' oil. i have never seen any verified test results that support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The entire paragraph was unsourced, with citation requests dating back to September 2013. [2] The content may be restored at any time, provided reliable sources are available to support the claims. There is no need to be promoting pseudoscience or otherwise longstanding unsourced material on Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding this removal or our editorial policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
the paragraph was far from unsourced my friend, please check the history! i am asking for a citation on the claim of butane remaining in "unpurged" oil, so i believe we are on the same side here. please stop reverting the page, as some info is valid and useful. we have to follow procedure and not just nuke what we dont like, this is why i placed the reuest for citiation rather than deleting what i didnt agree with! thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
as per the page you linked, i dont think i am out of line in giving a chance for citations to be placed, rather than reverting some poor saps work, if citations exist; "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[5]"
citation required tags as an interim solution to what is clearly an article in progress seems a fair compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.207.52 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Parts of Article Have a Seeming Agenda
This article is about Hash Oil. Why does this article attempt to make links between hash oil manufacturing and medical marijuana? The attempt to make this link is not presented as controversial, nor is it presented in a category that would be proper for making such a link. It seems to me that someone has an agenda!
Personally, I don't know whether or not there is a link, nor do I care. I just know that the way it is presented is not proper and is not consistent with Wikipedia standards.