Talk:Crackhead

From VfD:

Very short dictionary definition. Don't see potential article here. Gwimpey 16:53, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we need something here. I've rewritten the article, since I couldn't think of any one thing to redirect to (drug addiction? crack cocaine?). Either keep and expand this version, or redirect somewhere. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:06, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. Hmm, something about what crack does to people to make them seem unusual?  Aside from being addicted and desperate, they act manic, jittery, and wild, so they stand out even among drug abusers.  Alas, I have had the experience of being around some. Geogre 17:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is still barely more than a definition, and that of a slang term. Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary :P. Possibly keep as a redirect to the article on cocaine. Darksun 18:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * But not all users of cocaine are crackheads--indeed, not even all crack users are. You see the conundrum? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:13, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Also, I think discussing a word's occurrence, spread to use, and culture takes it beyond the lexical. I think Meelar's rewrite talks more about the phenomenon the word refers to than the word's meaning.  I do, of course, see the other side, too, and will contend no more. Geogre 00:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very specific and broadly-used term to describe a very specific and (unfortunately) broad addiction. This needs also to be cross-linked to such articles as crack whore, crack cocaine, and addiction. Denni &#9775; 01:34, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

end moved discussion

A student who uses Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research may be considered a crackhead without giving undue offense. When trying to teach teenagers proper historical investigation, why not add a harmless line to an 'official' entry such as under crackhead? The entry reads that the term is often used when talking about someone doing something foolish. I would like to add, "like using Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research." I do not consider that addition to be vandalism (how can you vandalize an open site?) and it is right. What is wrong with it?

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC) trey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5306:BB2D:D829:143E:AC07:5D85 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)