Talk:Pioneer chemist Albert Hofmann dies at age 102

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Duplicate[edit]

Please note Inventor of LSD, Albert Hofmann dead at age 102 --Ssr - (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (this note was added before two articles were merged)[reply]

Not a neutral news article[edit]

The BBC is reporting that he worked for Sandoz who then went on to spawn the multi billion dollar pharma industry selling very dangerous drugs based on ... LSD. They also mention the LSD casualties and horror stories which, of course, there is no mention of in this article... Because it has been edited by a PRO drug lobby. They, of course, have the right to edit in what ever they want. Their viewpoint is valuable, but I ask for other editors to improve the balance of the article. I have read the BBC News article, but I have not yet located full sources. Thankyou. DJBarney24 - (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been edited by the drug lobby any more than the BBC article has been. Please don't through around empty accusations. Further, I don't think there is any need to discuss the negative consequences for those who chose to abuse LSD. This is an obituary about Hofman, not an investigative report about the effects of LSD. --SVTCobra 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes OK. Actually IMO I don't regard that as an empty accusation. What is a link doing in the article it'self to what is openly a Pro Drug Lobby organisation ? But you're right to comment as you did. My feelings ARE running high (pun NOT intended ..lol) on this .. which is why I deliberately did NOT edit the article. I just think it's a bad article in it's current edit...1. "StopTheDrugWar.com reports...".. other sources ? 2. "Despite that, ..." ... What's that doing in there. Opinion ? Essay like ? 3. "He was also said ..." Source ? 4. Overall the article is PRO LSD. As I said I have feelings on this subject that count me out for direct editing of this article, but I DO think that I can see clearly that this article is highly unbalanced, especially on this contentious subject. Just my few cents :) 86.0.104.238 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]