Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archives/2020

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018
add Lithuania to the Countries where it is controlled in some manner include. 78.56.96.208 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

GAR request
I am working my way through the GA requests and this is one that needs some work. to see if editors are interested, before I start I more formal process. AIRcorn (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Mazatect? Really?
205.189.94.17 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 Novemeber 2018
Under 3.5 Cultivation Can you include that it can be propagated though leaves as well. The Spanish Wikipedia page indicates as much and sources a picture of a leaf that's taken root. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salvia_Divinorum_rooted_leaf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4101:49D0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018
The "Media coverage" section appear to be very plain original research/synthesis: an editor's own interpretations and dialogue with primary sources. It should be removed. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Section is well-sourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To take one example: A claim is made that two reporters "exchanged glances" and a conclusion is drawn from this about the reporters' feelings on the subject. The "source" does not contain this observation of the exchanged glances, nor is it even a video showing the exchanged glances. It is apparently the report that played before they exchanged glances. That is not good sourcing. It is original research as set out in WP:SYNTH. I checked all of the text and corresponding sources, and they all suffer from the same problem. I wouldn't object to a properly sourced section about media coverage, but this isn't it at all. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your claims have some merit, but they are exaggerated. Here's one sentence from the "Media coverage" section: "Many salvia media stories headline with comparisons to LSD." That is a verifiably true statement based on sources cited in the article. Saying that the whole section is original research and should be removed is hyperbole and would result in verifiable, sourced information being removed from the article. Please propose specific changes that you would like made, or rewrite the prose in that section in the space below as you would like to see it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020
“The first 5 notes seem to have no relation to the article. They may have been tampered with.” 47.156.8.14 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't say I see what you're referring to, the notes seem to relate to this article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)