Talk:Jenkem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Jenkem.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Method of action

I would qualify this substance as an inhalant, akin to inhaling gasoline fumes. If you read Erowid trip reports on gasoline (under inhalants) you will find similar stories. See [1] and [2]. If you also read reports from other gases (butane, propane, etc), the reports are also similar. --Thoric 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not consider an indole-related psychoactive compound as a likely agent? __meco 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have a chemical analysis of this "jenkem" substance and isolating the molecule responsible for the effects, we cannot know that it is an indole compound. Indole is a solid which can degrade into methane and carbon dioxide -- both of which, when inhaled (displacing oxygen) will produce the effects which you describe, as will numerous other gases. Did you read the Erowid trip reports on gasoline, butane and propane? --Thoric 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I vote for inhalant as well since it seems likely methane is the main thing causing their trip. --24.151.119.117 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We know that jenkem is fermented sewage, so I don't understand your hesitation at acknowledging the very real possibility that an indole component, which we know must be present (at least from the onset of fermentation), may be the psychoactive agent. There are of course lots of questions that must be answered, however, discarding a psychoactive indole alkaloid as the possible causal agent on equal terms with methane, which as you have documented also constitutes a contender, I find curious, if that is how you perceive these two asserted alternatives. __meco 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We know that sewage gas contains methane and carbon dioxide. We do not know that "jenkem" contains anything else without sufficient analysis. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the effects are due to unknown hypothesized indole-related constituents. Furthermore, out of a great number of indole-related substances, very few have psychoactive effects. Finally, both methane and carbon dioxide are known to be able to alter consciousness in line with reports and commentary from interviewing jenkem users. Before we can state with any authority that jenkem contains indole-related hallucinogens, we must have supporting evidence. --Thoric 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There has never been suggested that any such authoritative statement should be made. The point of discussion is whether it's appropriate not to mention the possibility that an indole-compound might be the (or "a") hallucinogenic agent on par with methane and carbon dioxide. __meco 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I may have misunderstood. Yes, it is acceptable to mention such as long as we can cite a reference for it. --Thoric 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoactive Methane?

I don't think the claim that Methane facilitates psychedelic experiences is valid or the citation provided relevant; methane is a non toxic asphyxiant and the amount needed to cause significant oxygen deprivation is higher than what can be achieved from huffing from a plastic bottle. --84.92.184.12 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the citation which you removed? Until we get a complete chemical analysis of jenkem, the closest match from inhalation of a potentially similar mixture of gases (methane, carbon dioxide, and possibly ethanol) is the citation I added. Until you have a better claim, and have something to back it up, this is the best explanation available. I suggest you do some more research on the inhalation of various gases, and the resulting effects. --Thoric 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have and the fact of the matter is that methane does not 'facilitate psychedelic experiences' any more than any other gas. Your citation states that a reduction in oxygen can cause an hypnotic state which 'may' cause hallucination. Any sort of psychedelic experience from asphyxia is abnormal regardless and Jenkem users appear to be getting a consistent effect.--84.92.184.12 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Psychedelic experiences from inhaling substances is very well documented. Please see the inhalant article. Please also see Erowid reports on inhaling gases -- it does not have to be a large amount. People who inhale Jenkem choose it secondary to sniffing gasoline. If you have some expertise on Jenkem use, please provide some citations of your own, but please do not remove valid citations from this article. --Thoric 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's about as meaningless as saying psychedelic experiences from taking pills is well documented, then trying to claim asprin causes hallucinations. Unlike solvents and other commonly abused inhalants, methane is not physiologically active. I have provided a citation (the MSDS) which shows this to be the case.--84.92.184.12 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

While methane and carbon dioxide are known products of the chemical processes involved when sewage is fermented, no information bar speculations exist as to the identity of the psychoactive agent or agents within the compound. However, Methane is biologically inactive and essentially non-toxic [1]. Human feces itself is known to contain several indole alkaloids, and while some well-known psychedelic drugs are in fact indoles, it is not known if any of the indoles present in human feces have psychoactive properties, nor whether these could become part of the gaseous substance that is known as jenkem.

As it stands, the above is original research because it's original synthesis of background information, rather than reporting published theories on what jenkem might be. 86.140.108.192 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A link to be monitored

Council of Conservative Citizens has opened a thread on Jenkem. __meco 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nyce! Wish it had more infos. Cheers -Doctorfluffy 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this doesn't seem to be a discussion thread. However, I have created a "Google Alert" on "Jenkem" and several forums are discussing this issue, mostly in shock and disgust, or snidely racist as for instance the white supremacist forum of Stormfront (Jenkem thread). __meco 07:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cruft" removed

The above was removed in this edit by User:Chaser with the edit commentary: "clearing out cruft". __meco 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Jenkem is now a popular drug in American Schools"

An alleged confidential alert from a County Sheriff’s Office in Naples, Florida asserts that Jenkem has now gained widespread popularity in American schools (this section's headline being a direct quote from the intercepted letter). I suppose this means imminent big media coverage if the letter is authentic. __meco 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I love jenkem and hope that's real, but I tend not to trust random forum posts. I've trolled a lot and that's exactly like something I would do. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, some media outlet is probably going to check on the veracity of this. We'll have to wait and see what comes of this, if anything. __meco 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First mainstream media reports

Although not specific, this forum post states that the Jenkem phenomenon has been the topic of US radio mention. __meco 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recycling category?

Made me laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.45 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been (and probably still is) controversial, however, unusual as it may be, I believe a valid argument will conclude that Jenkem should be perceived as a recycling phenomenon also. __meco 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That's totally absurd. A "recycling phenomenon" would require an intent to reuse for the sake thereof. If the use of jenkem is going to be considered recycling, then picking up a stray brick and smashing someone over the head with it is also recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be reusing.. not recycling. - :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.216.66 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a totally cultural bias and a POV definition. There is no intent part inherent in the denotation of recycling, although in your culture the connotation may be such. __meco 10:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then picking up a stray brick and using it to assault someone is also "recycling." Oh, btw, this is the English Wikipedia and English definitions apply, not magical evolving definitions, UN definitions, or special NGO definitions. English. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not the logical conclusion based on what I write. I assert that your definition is proprietary, biased to suit your opinion of what recycling ought to mean. Wiktionary's definition for this word is "The practice of sorting and collecting waste materials for new use." Nothing there which is inconsistent with categorizing the use of Jenkem as recycling. __meco 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually yes, it is, because it's an analogy. Also, the definition you supplied still implies deliberate action via usage of the word "practice," which denotes cognizant action, not happenstance. Using your overly permissive interpretation, when Palestinians use bits of rubble from their destroyed homes as projectiles to hurl at the Israelis, they are sorting and collecting waste materials for new use -- they are "recycling" according to you. Insert the phrase, "the practice," and it is abundantly clear that they are not in fact making a concerted effort to reuse waste materials. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
An analogy it may be. From there on to your conclusion however is fallacious reasoning: Firstly, asserting that the conclusion is true "because it's an analogy" as fallacious. Secondly, you have introduced a private condition into the definition of recycling, i.e. that there must be a "concerted effort to reuse waste materials." This condition exists only in your private defintion as far as I can ascertain. There should be no ambiguity to the fact that sewage is a waste product. Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug. This connection being a novelty as Jenkem in its uniqueness is a novelty should not disqualify it from being tested against the spirit and literal definition(s) of recycling. __meco 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If the conclusion from the analogy is fallacious and/or untrue, it's only because the conclusion from the analog is fallacious - otherwise it wouldn't be a good analogy. You're essentially arguing against yourself with this point. Secondly, intent is not a "private condition," but an essential part of the definition of recycling. As an analogy, committing suicide by throwing one's self off of a building is not base jumping without a parachute; the action is the same, but the intent is different (vastly in this example). Similarly, "murder" and "manslaughter" are different despite the denominator of someone being killed. Getting back to the specific concept, all descriptions of waste management and waste hierarchy refer to deliberate actions that are a means to manage the waste itself by either reconstituting it entirely, or creating something from it that mitigates the "loss" involved from creating the waste. With Jenkem, there is no reconstitution, nor is there any mitigating creation -- there are still feces and urine in the container once the Jenkem is produced, and the gases created are not used in a way that benefit the premise of waste management, meaning they do not lessen further waste creation or create a source of energy that is congruent with said premise. If one was to deliberately use human waste in a way that either prevented further human waste, or mitigated the creation of human waste by say, using Jenkem gas as a biofuel, then perhaps the term "recycling" could be used, but note that in the article Biogas the word "recycling" is not used once, nor is it listed under "See also." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of what it implies that two phenomena are analogous is incomplete. Analogies can be established on more than one axis. Simply because one can point to an analogous relation between two phenomena makes no basis for any conclusion on its own that the two should be treated the same in any one respect. Also you are putting up a straw man by arguing that intent is not a private condition. I wrote that concerted effort is your private condition. Either you address this or accept that you are in error. Your throwing out red herrings by presenting unrelated and far-fetched examples is not conducive to bringing home your argument either. __meco 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Analogies aren't the crux of my argument, nor need they be. 2. When one makes a concerted effort to recycle, one is aware they are recycling and has the intent to recycle. Continue to argue over semantics if you must. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I will respond to your arguments as they present themselves, part of them being based on fallacious implications of established analogy. Now that that is out of the way (?) you seem to have hitched yourself on a phrase in the introductory paragraph of the Recycling article which reads: Recycling is a key concept of modern waste management and is the third component of the waste hierarchy. Notice that this statement is not exhaustive and that what can be labeled as recycling can not be limited to that which is contained by "modern waste management" or indeed the "waste hierarchy." Your argument would be valid if that statement had read reversely, "Modern waste management and the third component of the waste hierarchy are key concepts of recycling." __meco 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Limited? The concepts of "waste management" and "waste hierarchy" are far broader than mere recycling, a subcatagory, yet the production of Jenkem still does not fall within their scope! Just as I argue that Jenkem production is not recycling, I would argue that it is not part of "waste management" either. Do you need a Venn diagram? If it's not waste management, then it's certainly not recycling. If it's recycling, then it's a part of waste management. I've already established how it isn't waste management, ergo, it couldn't possibly be recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote "modern waste management" and coupled it with the "waste hierarchy." That means we have entered a specific conceptual model. These are of course much wider than recycling, however, since they are terms of the particular frame of dealing with waste in a modern society you cannot assert that anything with which these systems do not occupy themselves, is precluded from being considered "recycling." That is usurping a general term into a limited frame of reference. My turn to apply analogies. Some narrow-minded religious teacher preaching 'God is love,' and at the same time monopolizing the term love for use by the followers of his creed. You are likewise advocating that the term recycling is "owned" by one limitedly framed paradigm. __meco 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)"God" is wholly intangible whereas "recycling" is replicable and observable...and has a set definition. False analogy. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again I am observing that your understanding of analogy is missing. "Intangible" versus "replicable and observable" is a wholly irrelevant digression that neither corroborates nor invalidates whether my example can be seen as an applicable analogy. Also, it was love, not God which was the operative term in my example. Obviously I shall refrain from using any more analogies. __meco 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"God" is still an analog of your analogy, but is not analogous to a waste management paradigm; love supposedly being analogous to "recycling." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That means we have entered a specific conceptual model. And the conceptual model "waste management" is as broad as possible and yet it still does not encompass anything that resembles what is done with Jenkem. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

your are misquoting: It's "modern waste management", not "waste management." The second is "as broad as possible," the first one isn't. We're dealing with the first one. I totally disagree with your assertion that waste management must necessarily be understood within the frame of mind which excludes Jenkem. What it appears to me that you are doing is to attempt to usurp the term recycling into the certified terminology of an industrial trade paradigm. __meco 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Whichever term is broader is the term I want to use. I'm comfortable doing that because I know Jenkem does not fall under either. If you don't like the choices, I suggest you abandon your mystical, Loki paradigm and find a verifiable paradigm. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What's a Loki paradigm? How is it mystical to adhere to the word definition? That aside, why should i find a "verifiable paradigm?" What does that have to do with what we are addressing? __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that feces coated Punji sticks are a product of recycling is quite mystical in my opinion. I use the term "feces coated Punji sticks" interchangeably with "Jenkem" because they are so closely related as far as they can be considered recycling. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you cannot assert that anything with which these systems do not occupy themselves, is precluded from being considered "recycling." If the terms have set definitions, and we are using logic, then yes, I can. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You still have to present any definitions that support your position. __meco 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to coherently explain how Jenkem is "recycling." Your argument consists of "it is." As for definitions, I've wikilinked them, and so have you. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You have wikilinked waste management, waste hierarchy and biogas. Please provide a definition for recycling that supports your reasoning. The Wiktionary definition certainly doesn't. __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to the wiktionary definition which is usable, but lacking: The practice of sorting and collecting waste materials for new use. "Practice" meaning 2. The ongoing pursuit of a craft or profession, particularly in medicine or the fine arts. 4. A customary action, habit, or behavior; a manner or routine. Unless you are going to appeal to Loki for another mystical definition, "practice" implies a cognizant act to achieve an end. When someone creates Jenkem, they aren't "practicing" the act of recycling; one must be aware of it to do it. If they have some basic understanding of what is going on, they are "practicing" fermentation techniques. This is independent of the premise that maintains that Jenkem creation is not recycling based on what recycling is supposed to achieve. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are likewise advocating that the term recycling is "owned" by one limitedly framed paradigm. The paradigm can be whatever it wants to be. It can expand; it can contract. Not only does Jenkem not fit under the broadest possible paradigm that can be verified, but it doesn't even satisfy the most singular definition. I've attacked the premise that "Jenkem is recycling" on both the definitional and paradigmatic flanks, and I need only hold one position to defeat the premise - you need both. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have presented the most oxymoronic and disjointed line of argument I have encountered in a very long time (I'm sure). I cannot see that you have attacked anything but straw men which entered this dialogue with you. __meco 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really. At face value, Jenkem production is not an act of recycling and the burden is on you to explain how it is. This has yet to be done. All descriptions of waste management, waste hierarchy, and any other verifiable paradigm you care to refer to, refer to deliberate actions that are a means to manage the waste itself by either reconstituting it entirely, or creating something from it that mitigates the "loss" involved from creating the waste. With Jenkem, there is no reconstitution, nor is there any mitigating creation -- there are still feces and urine in the container once the Jenkem is produced, and the gases created are not used in a way that benefit the premise of waste management, modern waste management, or any other verifiable paradigm, meaning they do not lessen further waste creation or create a source of energy that is congruent with said premise. If one was to deliberately use human waste in a way that either prevented further human waste, or mitigated the creation of human waste by say, using Jenkem gas as a biofuel, then perhaps the term "recycling" could be used, but note that in the article Biogas the word "recycling" is not used once, nor is it listed under "See also." --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
At face value Jenkem is a highly unusual product to consider in any context. That does not mean it isn't a) a dissociative psychoactive drug, b) an inhalant, and c) a recycled product. Your claiming that a sound argument for Jenkem being a recycled product hasn't been presented is false. This is what I wrote previously: "There should be no ambiguity to the fact that sewage is a waste product. Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug." Again you are presenting recycling within the context of modern waste management as the only permissible context for using the term recycling. You are in fact attempting to pin down an axiom that isn't there at all. You assert that since the Jenkem phenomenon does not "benefit the premise of waste management" it cannot be recycling. That is a non-sequitur, and even if it were relevant it wouldn't be true since Jenkem is used as a substitute for other psychoactive substances and thus does benefit the aim of reducing waste creation, however little. But again, that is irrelevant. You are demanding that recycling is recycling if and only if it is done in the context of a comprehensive environmental strategy. I assert that recycling is recycling if it adheres to the definition of recycling. __meco 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither should any doubt exist as to the transformation of this product into a new product, a psychoactive drug. The vast, vast, vast amount of atomic mass still remains as urine and feces; there is hardly a "transformation." Considering the length to which I've gone to illustrate how Jenkem is not recycling, your single sentence explanation is less than satisfactory. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I assert that recycling is recycling if it adheres to the definition of recycling.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary ( > Wiktionary )
1. To put or pass through a cycle again, as for further treatment. No cycle involved in Jenkum creation: FAIL
2. To start a different cycle in. No cycle involved: FAIL
3. To extract useful materials from (garbage or waste). Not useful in application: FAIL
4. To extract and reuse (useful substances found in waste). Not useful in application: FAIL
5. To use again, especially to reprocess: recycle aluminum cans; recycle old jokes. Not a reconstitution: FAIL
6. To recondition and adapt to a new use or function: recycling old warehouses as condominiums. Not a reconstitution: FAIL
7. To use again, especially to reprocess: recycle aluminum cans; recycle old jokes. Not a reconstitution: FAIL
8. To recondition and adapt to a new use or function: recycling old warehouses as condominiums. Not a reconstitution: FAIL --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because you don't find the inhaling of a dissociative gas to be useful doesn' take away that Jenkem perfectly fits with definitions 2 and 3. __meco 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
About as perfectly as Punji sticks and petrol fumes do, yes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

During the Vietnam war, viet cong were known to coat Punji sticks with human feces to induce infection in the victim. If you maintain that Jenkem production is recycling, then I expect you to maintain that Punji sticks coated with feces is recycling. The two are nearly perfectly analogous:

  • both undertakings use feces
  • the state of the feces is not altered, nor is there any intent to do so
  • the waste qualities are not mitigated, nor is there any intent to do so
  • the end product is harmful, and does not mitigate the initial waste in any way (if anything, the Punji sticks have more practical value)
  • both undertakings fail to fall within any verifiable waste management paradigm

    Have fun pushing that argument. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

People don't get high just from breathing in shit. They ferment it first. Therefore, the state of the fecies is altered. This is a key element of what makes it recycling. As for car fumes, they are not released for the explicit purpose of being reused in people's lungs. Jenkem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areashands (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The state of the feces is not altered in any significant way. As far as molecular weight, essentially none of the human waste is reconstituted. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter that the weight of the remaining fermented sewage (it's not feces anymore, and it was a mixture of feces and urine to begin with) is ever so many time heavier than the released fumes. Such an argument would make most any process where solids react to produce valuable gases inapplicable for you proprietary definition of recycling. In any case, I will not hasten to re-introduce the recycling category pending more users' opinions. __meco 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
it's not feces anymore Really? What's left in the bottle after the gas is produced, pixie dust? How has the waste been reconstituted in any significant way? It hasn't. You're digging your own logical grave. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
And BTW, WP:NOR, which makes your entire argument moot. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Find a source that says this is recycling, or keep your views to yourself. Yes, the burden is on you. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


A known contributor to air pollution is the displacement of petrol fumes when refilling an automobile's fuel tank. If one inhales these fumes to absorb the chemicals for psychoactive effects, is it recycling? According to you, it is. In fact, it is more an act of recycling because the chemical fumes are absorbed into the body, whereas Jenkum production does not dispose of any of the feces and urine used in its creation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to invoke policy here, but we are building an encyclopedia. Is there a reliable source that refers to jenkem consumption as "recycling"? If not, it is original research and it does not belong in the recycling category. Skinwalker 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen no better invocation of policy. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely don't mean to open a closed book here, but I'd like to say something: jenkem as a form of recycling is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. It makes sense to me, but, to each - ver own. 76.4.195.53 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax

Is this just one great big hoax? I'm highly sceptical. In this day and age it's quite possible for fakery to circulate widely online. And even if someone says "I tried this, it did absolutely nothing", the hoaxers just come back with "well you must have got it wrong". M0ffx 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The information in this article is verifiable by reliable sources. Do you have a better reason for adding the hoax tag than "this seems fake to me"? Doctorfluffy 03:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The information in this article was completely made up by a member of &totse named Pickwick. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphon8 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The article clearly lists all its references in the references section. It's unlikely the BBC was fooled in 1999 into reporting on hoax forum posting from 2007. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The entirety of &T was backed up this year and migrated to new forum software, that post was actually made years ago.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphon8 (talk • contribs) 03:17, November 7, 2007 (UTC)

This is a Hoax. Either you guys are in on it or your incredibly gullible http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1105072jenkem1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.7.99 (talk) 15:48, November 6, 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly lists all its references in the references section. It's unlikely the BBC was fooled in 1999 into reporting on hoax forum posting from 2007. Doctorfluffy 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a serious matter that needs to be taken seriously - the only really verifiable info is the use in Zambia. Otherwise, regarding use in the USA the article cites "rumors," "anecdotal sources" and "still unconfirmed media reports." I smell a moral panic.
We should insert something along these lines into the article:
Since only rumors have been reported, it is entirely possible that the use of Jenkem in the USA is a hoax thought up by people who read about its use in Zambia. Such a hoax, coupled with "drug alerts," could really just be an attempt at creating a sensationalized moral panic 160.39.129.60 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of the situation. I do not think, however, that we could add such a cautionary reflection upon the situation without attributing it to an external source as that would be editorial speculations that we shouldn't get ourselves into. __meco 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's more likely the BBC was fooled by a contemporary source in 1999, which then started the 2007 forum posting hoax. I think at least the possibility of a hoax should be mentioned in the article. --Tchoutoye 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the BBC news report. There's the initial IPS report from 1995 and also the 2004 Mail & Guardian report. All three of these reports were filed by correspondents on site in Lusaka. __meco 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's look all all the listed references in turn.

  • The BBC article seems reasonable.
  • The IPS article has no online link. Is there one, or do they have paper archives? A source that no longer exists is not a source.
  • The Mail&Guardian article mentions jenkem in passing only.
  • The totse thread can be disregarded.
  • The snopes page doesn't judge the truthfulness, but has a purported copy of the IPS article, and a copy of the bbc article.
  • KIMT has a very scanty article that could easily have been made from descriptions of 'users', who could be hoaxers.
  • Wink news has "The question now is, is the new way to get high described in the memo, really being used in Southwest Florida. WINK News Now investigates.", ie is not actually claiming this stuff is definitely real. And it's reporting the sheriff's memo. This was in turn emailed in from a member of the public.
  • The Washington Post also rereports the memo, and in "washingtonpost.com > Opinions > Columns & Blogs", ie not even reported as news.
  • The AP and the New York Times both mention it only in passing.

Thus, the way I see it, we have only ONE reliable and detailed source, the BBC one. Two if you count the IPS article, I've only seen it second-hand. We have NO reliable sources of its usage in the US. It's quite possibly being tried by members of totse and the like, there is NO evidence it's actually being used 'seriously' as a drug.

Maybe hoax was a bit strong, but the basis for this article is weak. M0ffx 09:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The IPS wire report is printed on the Snopes page, but there's no information where Snopes got it from. It looks very authentic. I'll include this in the footnote. __meco 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's here, but the full article is only available to paying subscribers, it appears. __meco 11:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a hoax, the kid just didn't want to ruin his reputation, so he claimed to have hoaxed the whole thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.105.172 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit guys, Jenkem is a hoax, it's been established who created it. What more is needed? And people wonder why Wikipedia isn't respected when you have articles about obvious hoaxes. I know this will probably be deleted by someone, but it needs to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.76.32 (talk) 08:09, November 18, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lulz

This is all a big joke on the media by totse, only one kid did it, it's not the new drug that's sweeping the nation.

All the photos in those news reports are from that one kid, the conservative media is just eating it up for better ratings.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2066683&page=2 The kid admits it was a hoax. Besides, if he actually did it he'd be dying of sepsis by now. (PotatoSamurai 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
In addition, the words "Leroy Jenkems" at the bottom of the sherriff's report should give a red alert that this is all an elaborate internet hoax. And yes, the folk at /b/ and other such microcosms of the internets are definitely powerful enough to pull this off. If you need any further reassurance, read the sheriff's report and then look up who "Leroy Jenkins" is... 149.152.63.180 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to wikipedia? Censorship? Truth being trumped by sensationalist media reports? Shameful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.46.190 (talk) 05:00, November 7, 2007 (UTC)

Yhea, I heard about it on the chans and on ED about a day after it happened. But it dosen't mean huffing the jenk dosen't make you high/cool/increase streetcred/e-penis/ ect. I feel kinda "unwarrantedly self important". This is the closest I've ever been to the birth any major meme. check out Jenkem.com and the www.myspace.com/jenkem for the new drug thats sweeping our nation. User:Z4ph0d —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, November 9, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Trip Report" mentioned is a hoax

The kid that supposedly did this and made a trip report on totse.com later claimed that he actually never did it and that the pictures he took of the substance was fake. He mixed together some beer, water, and nutella to make it look like fecal matter in a jar. I think mention of this "widely cited trip report" should be removed since it is now a confirmed hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GemeniUltra (talk • contribs) 15:29, November 6, 2007 (UTC)

The retraction is now duly detailed as well. However, just because someone retracts something which they have previously stated doesn't automatically make the retraction true and the former statement untrue. It just makes it harder to ascertain the truthfulness of either. It does establish one thing: That the person lies some of the time.
In the case of Pickwick, his original story was elaborately documented with a series of photographs. That would effect to corroborate the veracity of what he was claiming. In the second thread he cited tormenting social pressure as his singular incentive for wanting people not to believe that he had performed his initially reported experiment. That would effect to undermine the credibility of that retraction. But we still cannot tell which of the two diametrical versions that he's presented is true. __meco 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenkem awareness in the law enforcement community

A discussion thread on forums.officer.com (the Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums) which started on October 12 has the following information:

  • "We got an informational bulletin about this from DEA. I had never heard of, or seen anyone doing this so I asked one of our undercover sergeants. He said they have come across it a few times." (posted on Nov. 2 by user mac266 from Colorado, member since 2004 with 181 posts)
  • "Yeah, got a flyer on it. Says users complain about the taste of feces after inhaling it, apparently a taste that stays with them for a while, so it's probably not a good "date" drug.[...] The flyer showed the way of collecting the gas, which is to put a balloon over a bottle of...well, you know, and inhale the contents when the balloon gets full." (posted on Nov. 2 by user Gene L from Georgia, member since May 2007 with 943 posts)

__meco 11:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4chan screenshot

[edit] Offensive language in the 4chan screenshot

Lots of offensive content in the 4chan screenshot, should be redacted, don't you think? Sbrawner 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

extract form WP:NOTCENSORED - "...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content..." -MarkMarek 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot of 4chan

This is original research and should be removed. Faulty 21:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed everything related to 4chan. I was unable to find the page and besides, it would constitute original research and is thus inapplicable. __meco 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No longer a hoax in the west?

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/Jenkem2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stageleft (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm mainly just cleaning up the flow of the discussion you have messe up with badly placed edit. FYI - the link you have posted is the image that was created to start and help spread the hoax. MarkMarek 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for separation of news reporting timeline from the facts

I think we need to separate the developing news timeline from what acutally has taken place in 2007, i.e. the TOTSE angle, the Palmetto High parent inquiry which in turn led to the now leaked sheriff's office memo, the response of the DEA and the law enforcement community, the urban legend white papers, news commentaries, commentaries from schoolers and parents, from health and law enforcement officials, etc. With the accelerating momentum of this story this article will otherwise become very unreadable. __meco 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the article

Hi. wouldn't you agree to remove all the timeline developments from that article to a linked and new page called "Jenkem Update" ? The article would stay with the information about the subject as an encyclopedic article while updates and a timeline can be followed in the new special page. This will provide better readability to the main article while still providing where to follow up. Daoken 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your choice of a name for this page, but I do think the idea of siphoning this material into a separate article is sound. My immediate suggestion for a page name was 2007 Jenkem moral panic, however I could also see that the less edgy 2007 Jenkem media scare or 2007 Jenkem media surge or some other name would serve the purpose. I don't think it should be a mere appendix though; it should treat the whole "story" of Jenkem entering mainstream society, both as a real drug and as a meme, leaving the present article to deal with the substance exclusively with a short resumé covering the US media frenzy aspect of it. __meco 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the move needs to be discussed more fully. What are the benefits of splitting the article up like this? I can't agree with readability issues, as the article is comparatively short even before the split. The article on cocaine, for example, does not separate historical/timeline information from pharmacology and epidemiology. Skinwalker 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are significant, unique elements about the birth of the "Jenkem meme" into US culture, as an accutely evolving story, which command a different approach altogether to this story. The timeline in this article has quite a different significance from the timeline in, say, the cocaine article. __meco 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November Sweeps Hoax?

The timing is suspect as it is currently the time period in the USA where the viewership of television stations is sampled to aid in the setting of advertising rates. "Sweeps" normally causes news organizations and programs to produce and air sensational and fantastic stories to temporarily increase audience size. Correlation or causality? OldZeb 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not causality. I've been following the Jenkem story since fall of 2006 (check the edit history of the present article) and although there's a lot of inaccurate reporting and spurious elements being added to the story by various parties, the story is both real and fairly accurate, albeit a fantastic one. What may very well be the case however, is that the media may have brooded over it until the sweeps period. __meco 00:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salon article

I read the Salon article before it was subsequently moved to premium content making only a snippet available to the general non-paying audience. There were several sources listed at the end of the article which I haven't come across in my own investigation of Internet sites detailing Jenkem and the media flurry. Could someone with premium access to Salon please list those sources here? __meco 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the record – Warren Ellis

Warren Ellis apparently mentioned Jenkem on his blog on August 27, 2007, for which he'd like to be credited. The blog entry is rather scant and missing references. I'll leave this note here for now. __meco 10:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He posted it after many other blogs were doing it, I dont see why he should get a credit. He has posts in August and November 2007, (If I am correct). In august, jenkem was already popular with blogs (at least deep in the internet) and now he is just jumping on the band wagon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.211.165 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof?

I'd like to see some proof that this is a "drug epidemic" and is popular in schools. So far the only mention of it or pictures at all I've heard is a 6 month old thread about a kid trying it one time to tell others on a drug forum what the experience was like. It seems like the media is just trying to scare the population by saying that kids are huffing their own excrement even though there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of widespread use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.46.190 (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No proof exists as the article describes. However, several people, both within the law enforcement and drug intervention communities have said that with the current media exposure many young people are going to become curious enough to want to try this. __meco 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The US media is very bad about violating WP:BEANS. There was recently a flurry of newspaper stories about "cheese heroin", which is black tar heroin cut with Tylenol PM. According to the stories, it was only being used in one neighborhood in Dallas, TX, but then the national media went head and published the recipe in every newspaper, so it's probably more popular by now. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jenkem phenomenon is a Hoax!

That's right. The Jenkem phenomenon is a HOAX! I checked it out at Snopes, and apparently, it is a hoax. I hope a bunch of people here feel appropriately dopey after all the work they went to in researching, sourcing, annotating and writing this article.

Michael 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article already suggests as much. The drug itself, however, is very real.--Areashands 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
And what drug would that be? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're pretty stupid if you had to go to Snopes to figure out that it's not popular among anyone outside of Africa. This thread needs to mention &T more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.66.94 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
&T being a common short for TOTSE. How should TOTSE be mentioned more? Remember that TOTSE is not in itself a reliable source, so any mention of things originating there will have to be sourced with other, reliable, secondary sources. __meco (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Content is not a reliable source

Information from Associated Content does not qualify as reliable. It has no editorial oversight, and anyone can publish whatever they want there and call it fact. The AC article can (and probably should) be mentioned in the context of the enterprise-ledger story, but we can't cite any factual information from it in other areas. Most, if not all, of the stuff cited from the AC story can be sourced to more reputable sources, e.g. Nytimes, BBC, etc. Skinwalker 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Split - Reasoning

I split the sections based on basic Jenkem information and the latter western hoax/panic/etc. This article (Jenkem) should focus on Jenkem itself (origin, use, toxicology, etc) and mention the other. The other should focus on the development of the Internet Meme, the resulting panic, the revealing of the hoax, etc and subsequent news coverage. Both have merit being included in WP and should have their own separate pages. spryde | talk 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now that it is back...

It is time to condense this into a solidly referenced section instead of a massive timeline seeing as the rest of the community does not want the full timeline in there. My suggestion would be the lead paragraph with proper references + flyer image. Drop the "First Media Reports" and leave it be. Any objections to this? spryde | talk 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, now that the AFD on the "moral panic" fork has closed with a result of merge, I want to address the sourcing in this article and the weight it gives to recent events. As I stated above (and received no answer), material from Associated Content is not a reliable source. It is not encyclopedic to cite every time a meme gets mentioned in the mainstream media, especially when each mention seems to contain virtually the same information. As a start, I propose we excise pretty much all of the material under the November 3-current headings, and keep only the snopes and salon cites, and perhaps one or two of the local media citations. Skinwalker 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How about now? :-D I killed most of the local and kept the national, international, and snopes coverage. They cover all the information found in the paragraph. spryde | talk 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Much better. I would like to cite the salon article, and the article will need some copyediting (which I will undertake in the very near future), but I think this is a very positive start. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Woo!
As an aside, Sorry meco that this happened. I know you did tons of work on this chronology. Usually hoaxes and current events are hot topics in Wikipedia and we have to be careful in regards to balancing coverage of the subject vs the coverage of the coverage. The nice thing is we have the history in case this explodes (bad pun) and we have to recreate the article. spryde | talk 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not the way to proceed in a cooperation

Recent major overhauls/purges have taken place in a very rash manner and without the appropriate consideration for the fact that this is a cooperative effort. If some editors are of the opinion that the entire timeline documentation of the current media surge should be wiped, that is not trivial and uncontroversial, so please allow for a proper discussion to take place before simply making such drastic changes. __meco 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was bold, you reverted, now we discuss (See WP:BRD). The focus of the article is getting off track by citing every single mention of Jenkem that has been in the news lately. This is adding undue weight to the hoax/controversy which we seem to be fueling (read some of the media reports linked). The focus of the article should be Jenkem itself with a passing mention of the controversy/hoax. Right now, we spend way too much time discussing the hoax and media coverage and it is drowning out the actual subject of the article. spryde | talk 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We have for more than a year been about the only place where people could find collated information about Jenkem. The fact that Wikipedia has been cited by some of the media is in that context not surprising, nor should it be grounds for concern. We are part of the mediascape, and we should not attenuate our presentation simply because we carry a (well-sourced) authoritative article. This is a new phenomenon, and Wikipedia has been updating the Jenkem article as significant developments have warranted. The section about the media coverage of 2007 suffers from proseline because it hasn't been getting the attention it would need for it to be otherwise. I am the only editor that has been following up on the breaking news scenario, that's why. Does that mean it is spurious and non-notable for that reason? Hardly. Some may irrespective of that hold the opinion that this is un-noteworthy. I strongly disagree. This is a unique story, not only that: it is history. My opinion is that sure this section should be trimmed, but not yet! (Alternatively, the amassing of news links, i.e. gauging of the would-be acceleration and development of the news story nationwide and worldwide could be relegated here, to the talk page). Only by allowing the documentation of growth of this story to take place, will we be able to present a correct picture of how this story has emerged. Otherwise, we would miss our window of opportunity and the mass of information would be impossible to sift through. At best we would be able to cite a media studies report on it years from now.
Also, I disagree that the solution to the "drowning out the actual subject of the article" problem needs to entail a radical purge such as the one I have reverted. Structuring may solve any such problem. There is not and should not be any guiding principle that the text covering the side issue (Jenkem in the US breaking into mainstram media) must not quantitatively surpass the main issue. That is a mean non-sequitur that unnessecarily restricts our potentiality of giving optimum coverage of all related issues based on the amount of relevant information there is. Obviously the amount of relevant information as to what Jenkem is in itself is thus far highly limited. Only a brain fart could dictate that we should refrain from describing the media attention aspect extensively as a consequence.
I am not particularly happy with the way the timeline/moral panic article was closed up. This was done, in my view, in a haphazard fashion without allowing for any real discussion to take place. Part of the reason may have been that it was created in similar haste, as has been commented on above. I suspect that time will prove there is a need for a separate article about the media scare/surge/moral panic. And of course, Wikinews should cover it also, but that is a matter for Wikinews editors to address. __meco 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is, unfortunately, neither a spurious nor a non-notable topic - I don't think that's what Spryde was suggesting. There was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Jenkem moral panic that the moral panic material was poorly sourced and needed to be drastically shrunk. We should not add a reference every time there is a mention of the topic in the media. You said, "We have for more than a year been about the only place where people could find collated information about Jenkem". This is bad. News organizations should not use Wikipedia as a secondary source, and many of the moral panic references cited us. Nearly every reference in the moral panic section, with the exception of the snopes and salon articles, essentially repeated the same information: that jenkem was considered an emerging drug of abuse by the local sheriff and/or DEA, that it had been used in Africa, and that use in the US was probably a hoax. We don't need 30+ references that state that. I urge you to consider moving most, if not all of the timeline to wikinews.
As for discussion, there has been real discussion at the fork AFD and here. I have posted several times on this page requesting input about the merge, the associated content citation, and the recycling category and did not receive a response from you, but I am willing to put that aside and collaborate. Skinwalker 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The AfD discussion got rounded up in about a day's time. Did you notice that I didn't participate in it? Did you assume that was because I didn't particularly care one way or the other? Just because you and Spryde had the chance to exchange views back and forth a few times (including discussion on the two article talk pages) is not sufficient if the time period alotted hasn't been sufficient. It wasn't. The consensus you cite about allegedly poorly sourced material in the section outlining the moral panic was reached much too fast for any opposing perspectives to emerge or be probed. The claim that "many of the moral panic references cited us" should be documented. I perceive that as an exaggeration given that the {{press}} template at the top of the present page only lists one item. And again, we being considered authoritative (which is good per se) and thus being used as a reference is not a bad thing when the reason for this is that our article on a subject is properly sourced with reliable sources. There seems here to arise a lot of confusion from the fact that the Collier County sheriff's office memo is being judged as a media source, and it obviously will not stand up under that scrutiny. That does not make subsequent purveyors of it into non-reliable sources. We should, however, elaborate on its weaknesses and comment on it when media outlets present it uncritically. That is our concern and responsibility.
I have to disagree with your assertion that Wikipedia should comment on uncritical media outlets. That is not our job - if there are reliable sources that comment on other uncritical reliable sources, we can include them, but not until then. Skinwalker 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for instance, in the "November 6" section I have noted that Steiner in his Salon article is "apparently introducing his own contamination of the story by reporting the origin of Jenkem to be 'Africa and other third world countries.'" I find it important to make that note. Do you disagree? __meco 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You furthermore assert that you have raised questions not to receive an adequate response from me and hence went ahead. This was also too much in haste, I feel. There is so much happening with this subject, and as you will have noticed, I am virtually the only editor who does substantive contributions to the article. All others limit their input to expressing views on how the article should be redacted on its discussion page. My day doesn't permit me to stay abreast of all of this at the pace that you are requiring of me.
The AFD was closed early because I erroneously thought AFD was a place to discuss controversial article forks. I also note that you made several edits to the moral panic fork while the AFD was live, and I had hoped you would comment on it. I realize you mean well, but you do not own this article, even if you have been the primary contributor. Skinwalker 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sensitive to this. I hope I am able to counter any tendency towards ownership mentality though maintaining this awareness. __meco 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the separation between primary and secondary sources should be made clearer. We should only cite primary sources in the context of secondary sources relying on them. This has to be improved, I agree, and this applies to the TOTSE discussions, the sheriff's office memo and the Associated Content article alike.
The associated content article is not a reliable source, as I stated several topics above. We can mention it only in the context of the enterprise-ledger article, and not as an independent source of facts. Can you address my concerns about this? Skinwalker 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on this. That is one thing I see needs to be changed. The Associated Content bit now heads the '"October/November 2007" section, which it ought not. How do you suggest we remedy this? If we simply take it off that section we lose its significance as a chain in the timeline. If we cease linking it altogether we lose even more context. __meco 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the need for laboriously documenting the emergence of every single new media article about this subject I addressed that issue in my post above (the one to which you are responding). I provided a rationale there which you do not address. Since I am the only one who has been collecting these references there is a perspective here which I realize I haven't adequately shared with other editors. It is this: This list is exhaustive, or just about. This is very significant. That means that this list provides an accurate gauge of the media coverage of Jenkem. For that reason it is crucial that it be preserved in extenso. In a way this does blur the prohibition on original research, but again, it does so in a way that is so exceptional that its transparency and verifiability makes it the exception that confirms the rule, in my opinion. And as I have already agreed, this could be transwikied to Wikinews, but until that happens maintaining this list in its pristine condition is vital in preserving its integrity. __meco 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I really don't get why this is an exception to WP:OR. Please read WP:NOT, especially the section about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. That section specifically admonishes us not to collect current news reports as part of an article. The list, once deleted, can be preserved in the article history or even reconstituted in your userspace, so we aren't permanently deleting anything by removing it. Your work will be preserved, and it will find a home at wikinews. Skinwalker 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is true. My primary intention is obviously that this information does not get lost, not that the Jenkem article should permanently carry an exhaustive list of all media reports. __meco 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, the information will be retained in the history of this article. In the event that it is needed, we know where it is. I might stash a copy of the moral panic section in my userspace to flesh it out a bit more. spryde | talk 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Meco, we should not be the only source regarding Jenkem. We are here to be a tertiary source and to point people to primary and secondary sources. The fact that well over half the article is not about Jenkem but about the hoax and subsequent events shows this article is not focused on the subject. The subject itself is notable, verifiable, and attributable which is more than what many of the articles around here can say. In other current event topics, we source information in the article to external sources. In this article, we seem to be documenting what external sources are covering the subject of the article. This is the key difference. I don't want to discount your contributions over the last few months. You have clearly done quite a bit of research and sourced the information regarding media coverage. But we need to take a step back and see if each item found in media coverage is worth inclusion. With all due respect, it looks like at this point this it is more of a "let's find what points to this topic" and link it instead of adding actual information. I hope you see the difference between what the article should be and what it has become. spryde | talk 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So where do we go from here?

Some see it one way, some see it another way. As I have stated before, even if we have an exhaustive list, I think it should go as it is merely repetitive and does not add anything to the information content of the article. spryde | talk 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to start an article RFC on the appropriateness of including these current news reports. This should demonstrate a broader consensus for removing this material. I am also really uncomfortable with using the term "moral panic" at all in this article, as none of our sources (not even the Salon article, which was referenced for the moral panic sentence in the lead) use the term. Skinwalker 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing for that is inadequate. We do have the newscast which recommended that parents stay up to smell the breath of their youngsters. That is pretty hysterical. A lot of the commentary (most that I've read in fact) in blogs and non-news sources (e.g. radio talk show segments) come off as quite shocked. However, I would not mind removing this wording for now, if you feel this is prudent. Do you see a moral panic in the making here? I do, although "in the making" of course implies that the present trend may for unseen reasons not come into full realization. __meco 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge Report and Inside Edition

These two organizations have headlined and run the story, respectively, on Jenkem. If someone can find links to pages on these organizations' sites about Jenkem (which I haven't been able to find) that would be nice. __meco 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about headlined but here is drudge. spryde | talk 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Inside Edition is a tabloid television program, and is not a reliable source. The Drudge Report probably is not a RS either, and neither of these references give any material that is not already stated in other sources. Skinwalker 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone link the inside edition segment/reporting? That I would really like to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.211.165 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purported

For all the issues that I feel this article has, the one thing I am sure of is that this is a real thing based on the BBC source. The word "purported" makes this seem like a hoax in its entirety. If anyone else feels different, I am open to discussion. spryde | talk 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I love you. Platonic of course. That intro is perfect. spryde | talk 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of sources

Please stay close to the sources, as much as possible as to avoid stating opinions as facts, in particular when there are competing opinions. In these cases, attributing an opinion to the source is also needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting the inception of a new phenomenon

I want to make this a separate point. I think this is a pretty unique perspective which calls for special considerations, the full breadth and depth of which I cannot fully grasp, but I think I grasp some that other editors presently don't. The attitude towards the redacting of this article hinges on whether one perceives this to be a significant angle or not. Could we work towards a consensus on this point? __meco 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How superior you think you are to other editors is irrelevant. The article will develop per Wikipedia policies. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If my candor about how I perceive the situation has made me come across as haughty in you eyes, I must urge you to look beyond that. I have a point that I want to communicate, please consider it. I'd like to emphasize that several editors have come across to me as highly cooperation minded. __meco 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Noted. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed links

__meco 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy Jenkems

I admit it, it's funny but come on this can't be serious. Virus of Profanity (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People Trying Jenkem

People on the [Yahoo Jenkem Group] are claiming to have tried it. I emailed one and asked for pictures to confirm that this can even be done. No, I'm not trying it msyelf. Conservationist2012 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and you wouldn't by any chance be the same "conservationist" registered at http://www.blackmetal.co.uk since Dec. 3, 2006, now with 646 posts (a mere 20 shy of 666 which will make you a True Black Metaller) who apparently in one inspired web session on November 8, 2007 created the first of two Jenkem threads on blackmetal.co.uk at 01.50 am and then as "Texas Consultant" created the first message in the aforementioned Yahoo Jenkem Group at 03.03 am with identical content (including partially identical signature block), as well as establishing your account here at Wikipedia. And not to forget, you created a second Jenkem forum at [http:// jenkem.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=1 jenkem.freeforums.org]. You seem to be deeply emerged in this matter even dispensing Jenkem user advice liberally. Yet here you assert not even to have tried it. What's wrong with this picture? __meco (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
lol, pwned Rominik (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas City Star – hallucinogenic toad

This newspaper ran this story on Sunday, Dec. 2, 2007. It is about a guy who has been arrested and charged with possession of a toad with the intent of extracting the hallucinogen bufotenine from its secretions. The story also mentions Jenkem, however, I will simply mention it here while we contemplate how and if this should be integrated in the present article. __meco 11:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And a December 4 story from Associated Press partially based on the Kansas City Star article: "Cops: More Smoke Toad Venom to Get High" __meco (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a logical "see also", but i see no reason to integrate it any more than that. <eleland/talkedits> 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenkem in NOT a NARCOTIC

See definition thereof:

"In U.S. legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic or fully synthetic substitutes "as well as cocaine and coca leaves," which although classified as "narcotics" in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are chemically not narcotics. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic. Neither are LSD and other psychedelic drugs.[4]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.41.152 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent templating by 128.138.64.203

Template:Hoax is for articles which are themselves fraudulent; Jenkem makes clear that the veracity of much "Jenkem" information and indeed the existence of "Jenkem" itself is controversial. It's right in the lede. As for Template:Fansite I'm not sure how that was intended. The article probably needs general cleanup but it doesn't seem like a "Jenkem fansite" to me and there's no explanation on talk offered. <eleland/talkedits> 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hoax. period.

You have this in the article:

Jenkem is, according to widely reported anecdotal sources as of November 2007, in the process of attaining a foothold among US teenagers

which is untrue. There is NO SOURCE Jenkem is really used by US teenagers. NOONE has ever used it. There is no source and, therefore, no reason to be mentioned as actual drug used in US. If it is OK with the community, I will rewrite it tommorrow, so it will look more .. accurate. --89.24.252.9 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement is quite accurate. There were numerous media reports about a month ago to the effect that Jenkem was emerging as a new drug among US teenagers. The media flurry has however dried up, and this may indicate that the whole thing was either a) a hoax, or b) a minuscule event, or c) that this is a phenomenon which doesn't easily register in the media, perhaps because those who engage in it do so without bragging about it to their peers and are reluctant to even admit to using Jenkem if asked directly by a reporter. We cannot know which of these is the actual case. The changes needed in the article should reflect that the media attention has now abated, or rather dried up completely as I haven't seen a new media report past the ones that are mentioned in the article's media section. I propose the following change to the sentence quoted above:
Spanning a few weeks in November 2007 numerous reports in mainstream media would give the impression that Jenkem was a new drug about to take a hold of American teenagers. This media surge however has subsided, and since medio November no new reports have appeared to corroborate the early speculations.
__meco (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, this formulation is quite accurate. --89.24.252.9 (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've integrated something like this into the lede, although I used somewhat different language in order to "flow" with the rest of the text. <eleland/talkedits> 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Jenkem does not have any confirmed users and I think it should be stated in the first or second paragraph that it's either a hoax or something tiny that's been blown out of proportion for media purposes. Why? So that people don't keep thinking Wikipedia is a source of more and more junk. Sp4i6 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dagga

I have some issues with the use of "dagga." Though the citation is correct, dagga generally refers to a different plant. If anything, dagga is a cannabis substitute. The chart also notes dagga and marijuana as two different drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.111.227 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also Known as

It is also known as Leeroy Jenkems and Butthash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.63.244 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Those names, as far as I can ascertain, have only been used in the context of the highly speculative media reports (and the blogosphere and Internet forums discussing those) based on the TOTSE story/Collier memo, and I have severe doubts that they have a usage independent of the spin surrounding that. I would propose that we should require some rigorous sourcing for their independent existence in order to include them in the article as genuine synonymous terms for jenkem. In particular the term butthash appears to me to be made up by someone who hasn't even grasped the nature of jenkem being an inhalant, not a solid. __meco (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article should include more information about methane

Methane is a well known intoxicant, its effects are unrelated to oxygen deprevation. The ancient Oracle of Delphi was possibly using it as of producing an euphoric state. Why not explore these aspects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.183.69 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see this has been discussed in the topmost sections here on the talk page. However, pending discussions in external sources, I don't think it would be appropriate to insert speculations of our own into the article itself. At least that seems to be the conclusion with which we ended up back then. __meco (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced editorializing?

The following paragraph which I added only yesterday was taken out by another editor:

It must be emphasized that the controversy is confined to whether or not Jenkem has taken a foothold among US recreational drug users, not the existence of the drug itself or its effects. Although the sources which document its original prevalence in Zambia are limited, they are reliable by ordinary standards, and they corroborate each other.

User:Eleland states in the edit summary, "rm unsourced editorializing (but he had a point, so I'm taking out 'purportedly)". I really would like to have this bit remain, since in my experience a lot of people assert that Jenkem per se is a hoax and are unable to distinguish between the US-confined media hype and the original story which has been corroborated by sources that cannot be described as anything but sober and reliable. If the wording in the above is inappropriate, could it be reworded so that it is acceptable leaving the message to be prominently displayed in the article? __meco (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Letter From Parent"

This is unverified by the Collier County Sheriff's Department, but supposedly the original "letter" was a joke posted on 4chan on September 17th, 2007. Here is the original text.

I am writing you anonymously because I do not want my child to get in any trouble, but I need to alert you to something your students are doing that is potentially very dangerous. Yesterday afternoon I came home early to find my son and his friends getting high on something called "jenkem" which they say they heard about at school. This "jenkem" is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard of. They urinate and defecate in plastic bottles and leave them to ferment in the sun, then inhale the resulting gas. I know it sounds unreal but when I came home I found my son and his friends laying on the grass in the backyard and they were acting very strangely. There was a horrible, putrid smell in the air. I can't believe my son would do something like this. I looked it up on the internet and apparently this was something invented by african children that wound up online and now kids all over the world are doing it. My son says most of his friends at school have tried it.

This seems to be a new thing and I can't find any information about the health effects of jenkem - I think it is the methane and ammonia content that provides the desired high, but I don't really know. Both of those are very harmful chemicals. All sorts of diseases are spread through fecal matter. I imagine it could lead to some very serious health problems at your school. My wife and I are utterly shocked and talking about private school. We have spoken to our son about this and he says he won't do it anymore, but because it is on the internet kids all over the country are trying jenkem and they need to be educated about the health risks. It is only a matter of time before somebody dies from methane poisoning or this leads to a hepatitis outbreak. I don't know exactly what you could do about this as jenkem is legal but I needed to inform you of what some of your students are doing.

Unconfirmed and doesn't belong in article, but I thought I'd post it here on the talk page for the sake of completion.

In other words, this whole thing is just one big prank.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.100.15 (talk) 05:57, June 8, 2008 (UTC)