Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 2

Basic cleanup in "history section"

I cleaned up an edit in the history section where numerous sources where quoted after one paragraph and all but one of the sources quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the paragraph at hand and were taken from previous sources in the article. I changed it so it specified "Great Britain" as the country where many AAS users also used other illegal drugs.--Wikidudeman 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources had everything to do with the statement written (alcohol use, cocaine, and cannabis, among steroid users. Some studies were from Britain, others from America. --AF1987 10:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I was saying if you look in the sources you will find there is a deal more than just British.. It sounds like you are saying it is the only place where many AS users also use illegal drugs...I don't know

No that's false. One of the studies you provided is...

^ Psychosomatics.Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse.(August, 2005).

This study makes claims about the so called "Psychiatric complications" with anablolic steroid use. This has nothing to do with the paragraph it's sourced in firstly. Secondly it isn't an experimental study but a review of the literature. Considering the massive amount of contradicting experiments, I see no reason to put this in the article. It's been refuted by the published studies out there. ^ An evaluation of anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers over a period of 1 year: seven case studies.. ^ Bhasin S et al NEJM 1996 ^ Pope et al Arch Gen Psych 2000 ^ http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/10/3754?ijkey=719afd785eeda7585ddc14780b0f47877f722b42&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8855834&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum

--Wikidudeman 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ok fair stuff --AF1987 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Steroids promote life after death?

The following made me laugh, but I'm going to modify it anyway:

Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer caused by anabolic steroids. This claim was made by Alzado himself.

LaQuilla 12:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good eyes.

--Wikidudeman 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing link to message board

Skookum. The link you posted is a message board and can't be used as a expert link of anykind. If we were to post a "message board" on steroid use as a link we would use "steroidology" or "bodybuilding.com" as a link. The link you posted is to a site i've never even heard of and it makes no sense to use such a site in the first place.

Wikidudeman 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post it, it was already there and I had a good look at it; I'm familiar with the content of the other message boards and this one, at least, was a simple rundown/listing of the drugs available and their effects. And as alluded to elsewhere, I have an aversion to considering the "expert" sources as objective, which they are NOT, despite their pretense to being so. Any body of information which excludes the experiences and knowledge of the 2-million plus user community can't be considered objective in the first place, but the texts of many of the sources cited happen to have very prejudicial statements, and even the purpose/intent of the studies cited is often decidedly subjective/political in tone. And just because somebody has some alphabet soup after their name (M.D., Ph.D., LL.B, M.Sc or whatever) doesn't mean that someone who DOESN'T have that alphabet soup after their name ISN'T. And apparently some experts (like Michael Colgan for steroid use, or Rick Collins for steroid law) aren't welcome as cites/experts because it "might scare other experts away". Stigma in and of itself is subjective, I hope that's obvious. As for the bulletin board in question, it has a more thorough accounting of what's on the market and why people use them than any of the medical studies cited have bothered to get right. IMO this page can't be complete until the knowledge/resources/experiences of the user community is taken into account on a non-prejudicial basis.Skookum1 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all...The reason I didn't want THAT forum posted was because it's so tiny and less famous compaired to other more popular and larger forums out there. However we need to find credible websites to post before we even consider posting a forum.

Second of all...People like Rick Collins ARE experts and CAN be referenced. Who said they couldn't?Wikidudeman 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS and the globalize tag should be restored until the USA-centric tone of the article is expanded/broadened; but that would mean, y'see, dispensing with the anti-user bias of the medical articles (especially JAMA's) which currently dominate the page.Skookum1 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What part of the article is "Usa centric"? I tried to fix any part that would be considered bias. Be specific and i'll fix it. I don't see anything that needs changing as of now.

And what "anti-user bias" medical articles are you refering to? All of the sources listed are extremly unbias and as credible as I can find.Wikidudeman 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "Expert needed" template.

The entire time it has been up I don't think any 'experts' have been attracted to the page and none of the edits done(other than my own) were very comprehensive. So i'm going to remove the expert needed template. Any objections?Wikidudeman 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see now...you've removed the globalize template, the POV template, and now the experts template. And while I haven't had time to get busy around this page, for a number of reasons, I think you're assuming a lot about the timeframe that other editors contribute on, and also over-valuing your own contributions. Patience, Wikidudeman. And by the way, normally it's up to the person who places the dispute templates to remove them, not an intervenor. And while I don't have time to get into, I do question the validity of many of your rebuttals on this page; including the idea that the page is not USAcentric and the disingenuous request for laws concerning other countries; give your head a shake - because if another country doesn't HAVE steroid laws, or anti-steroid laws, how can they be cited????? And, to put it mildly, just because you, as an American, haven't bothered to research steroid laws even in neighbouring jurisdictions (Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas) or in Europe, doesn't mean that it's up to someone else to do that; the USACentric tag was there for a reason; one you apparently aren't aware of or knowledgeable enough about the field to have been the guy to remove it. Simply because it didn't make sense to you, in your USA-centricity? Give your head another shake. It wasn't up to you to remove, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not the experts tag had to go. It should be put back, as should the globalize; as a reminder that the page IS NOT complete, and remains USA-biased, and without expert input other than from alteripse and strengthcoach and yankees 76; my "expertise" comes from experience "in the trenches", and apparently doesn't count; and apparently there's some bias as to certain kinds of experts (Duchaine, Collins, Colgan) being anathema to other kinds of experts (AMA, CMA); which points to a POV taint over all. So put back the three tags you've had the audacity/presumption to remove. They weren't yours to do so.Skookum1 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to start? Firstly, I am the one who put all of the tags up to begin with. I put the USA centric tag up, I put the expert needed tag up and sources needed tags up. When I put them up there this page wasn't even a shadow of what it currently is. I've added several dozen sources since then and have removed any trace(that I can find) of USAcentricity. I've asked you numerous times to point out where there is USA bias and so far all you can mention is the fact that laws in other countries aren't mentioned. This firstly isn't bias, and secondly I've asked you to provide sources for them but you haven't. Just because a particuar country has no steroid laws(I'm not aware of any that do) doesn't mean there won't be sources supporting that. On Wikipedia if you have an objection then you must provide sources and examples. You can't just be vague and demand the tags be put back up.Wikidudeman 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My back's been out of whack for the last week or so, plus my reading glasses got lost, which is why you haven't heard from me about this. "This" being your claim that you put up the "globalize" tag - YOU'RE FULL OF IT!!!! Now I know you've got a disinformation agenda here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anabolic_steroid&diff=66020784&oldid=66017606 (26 July, while your FIRST post here was 31 July) proves I put the globalize tag in place, and as I recall the POV tag had been taken off at some point, and I put it back on. You're just bloody full of it, and of yourself, for making a puerile claim like that; I scratched my head when I saw that because I've got good memory and knew I'd placed the tag; thought maybe someone had taken it out, and you'd put it back on, but NOPE I was the guy who placed it. I suggest you apologize for LYING and that you also leave this page for a while as penance; whatever your agenda is it's clear now that you're dishonest and also arrogant as to what you think is what's right and wrong with this page. You don't own the page, and the globalize tag is hereby put back on (if it's not back already) as just because no one's put in international content doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. You're an arrogant fool and I'm glad I was able to prove you are also a stinking liar.Skookum1 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, Firstly I put the tag up on this name not my wikidudeman name. I stopped using this name because I didn't like it. Maybe you should think of ASKING QUESTIONS before making baseless accusations about my honesty. I suggest YOU apologize for making baseless accusations against me without even asking questions. Secondly, You can't just add up something because you think it should be added up. You must ASK and DISCUSS the addition of any tags before you add them. That's how wikipedia works. That's how it has always worked. Unless you EXPLAIN why you want these tags up and give SPECIFIC EXAMPLES they don't need to be up here. I am REMOVING the tags until you give EXPLANATIONS and EXAMPLES of what and why you think they need to be there in the first place. Unless you're willing to give specific examples as to why they belong there, You can't continue to claim they belong there. Your claims are baseless and purely rants. If you continue to add the tags to the page without even explaining why they should be there in the first place, I will be forced to report you to an admin for Vandalism.

DustinKP 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you know it WAS indeed ME who added those tags, Perhaps you would care to explain WHY any tags should be put up. Be specific as to which parts of the article you 'dispute', Which parts of the article you think are 'bias' towards USA, Which parts of the article you think need an 'expert'. etc. Unless you provide specific examples of your problems we won't get anywhere.Wikidudeman 07:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. DUSTIN isn't a sock puppet name. I stopped using that name about a month ago when I changed names and haven't used it until now when you challenged my claim of adding the tags to the article. This is my name on wikipedia and will continue to be.Wikidudeman 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S This entire discussion is pointless. The claim is the Tags were not "mine to remove". This is an absurd thing to say. Nowhere in wikipedia policy does it distinguish between the one who placed the tags or the one who disputes them. I can remove them regardless of who put them up. That's how wikipedia works. So even though I did add the tags to begin with, It's completly irrelevant. Let's assume I didn't add them. So what? It doesn't matter. I removed them because the person who keeps adding them doesn't(and hasn't yet) given a reasonable explanation as to why they should stay there.Wikidudeman 08:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Added "Decriminalization" section

Since the Marijuana article has a 'Decriminalization' section, I added a part about the movement to decriminalize anabolic steroids in America. To remove any usacentric bias I made sure I mentioned I was refering to America when I did. Also to remove any POV bias I was sure to source everything.Wikidudeman 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I resent the way you have added the commercial links left and right to the decriminalization part based on theories and not facts. I have been called a vandal for preventing it. So I guess I will have to let this go. But please tell me if it is fair to add all those commercial links as if they are authority links in both external and reference links. Steroid Expert 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See above about Wikidudeman's dishonesty and arrogance. I haven't examined your edits, but I'm all too familiar with his.Skookum1 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The links are authorative links. Wikipedia often cites links that aren't from scientific studies or professional journals or the such. Citing sources from websites with articles on the specific subject is hardly "commercial links".Wikidudeman 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a link I added then specify WHICH link it is. Be specific.Wikidudeman 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Social and Legal Aspects of Anabolic Steroid Use

As a separate article; got the idea from the separate [[Legal aspects of cannabis and Health issues and the effects of cannabis article; the main article is now scientific/botanical for the most part and spin-off issues have separate articles with only brief summaries; the controversial material around here can therefore have a separate field of play; so likewise with [[Anabolic Steroid]]. For msyelf, my POV issue stands concerning this article, and will be intrinsic in any participation in the other article; not usually citable as medical/scientific study but enough of a body of literature to have some kind of pride of place; subjective experience has a place in the account on this page; the details of legal and socioclinical issues (e.g. the danger of toxic or contaminated supply from unregulated underground production caused by illegalization, the details of the various national policies, be they medical or legal, or whether there are any policies or not; a directory of important user sites also would seem a propos on that page. Silencing or ignoring the user community's knowledge on an open-source encyclopedia does not seem very valid, POV wise.Skookum1 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the section on Psilocybe#Social and legal aspects I was thinking of as a comparison, also (a friend is struggling with addiction and I looked it up because of the new interest in psilocybin as a rehab treatment, as with peyote, ayahuasca and ibogaine). Also re the list of issues above, the oral tradition and any studies on multiple drug use re steroids and everything from opiates to hallucinogens; a page of drug interactions may already exist, for pharmacueticals to everything else just listed and herbals and what-not; I haven't looked around Wiki enough to know.Skookum1 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, Firstly I completly disagree. There simply isn't enough information out there to make a seperate article for the criminal or social aspects concerning anabolic steroid use. Anything there is would fit in this article. Moreover subjective or personal experiences do NOT have a place in this wikipedia article or ANY wikipedia article for that matter. Don't you know wikipedia policies? No original content is allowed. [[1]] Only references to other credible content or credible sources. And if you reference personal experiences then I will challenge it. Secondly....You need to work on your grammar and sentence structure. I can hardly read your posts.Wikidudeman 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There simply isn't enough information out there to make a seperate article for the criminal or social aspects concerning anabolic steroid use.

That's quite the claim, considering the two million-plus users out there and the extensive writings on their experiences that THEY have published (but which aren't, for some bigoted reason, citable here). I think you're full of it; and don't go expecting everyone to automatically know that you've decided to use a different one of your multiple personalities. I won't apologize, because it had to do with you switching masks - implicitly, in a debating arena, dishonest and evasive. If you don't udnmerstand that then you're just being disingenuous; why else change your name? "Because you didn't like it?" Right, so everyone else is supposed to automatically ASK your new persona if you're the same as this other persona? Whether you're Wikidudeman or DustinPK it doesn't matter - the globalize template is valid, as is the POV, and the expert - and the edit record shows that I placed the globalize tag. Just because other people don't work on YOUR time schedule doesn't mean you have a right to decide how much time is how much time it takes to globalize something, or wait for an expert to come along. The world doesn't run on wikidudeman/DustinPK's time, and grownups don't have to play with little boys who like to change names in the middle of games.Skookum1 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 I'm going to try to be as patient with you as I can possibly be. You believe 'personal experiences' can be used in wikipedia articles? This is false. Wikipedia forbids original research or claims or anything like that. Posting 'personal experiences' that aren't already mentioned in other places on the web or in other sources would be considered 'original research' and thus against wikipedia policy. Espically when these 'personal claims' are contradicted by large amounts of scientific research. [[2]] ....Also you claim that the tags should remain in the article? Well i've asked numerous times to explain in detail why you believe they should be added. So far you've just put up the "neutrality' template. So I ask you WHY. HOW is the article not neutral? Talk pages are about explaining the conflicts of view. You aren't doing that. So I ask you to explain WHY the Neutrality tag belongs in the article so I can spot the problem and we can possibly fix it.Wikidudeman 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding major changes without discussion or explanation.

Constantly readding tags to the article without explaining why they should be added and giving specific examples within the article whereas it would need the addition of a specific tag is against wikipedia policy. Also and this is directed specifically to "skookum". Personal insults or attacks are also against wikipedia policy. [[3]] Making personal insults not only doesn't contribute to the discussion it also is extremly childish. Please refrain from making personal insults or personal attacks. If you want to make a major change to the article such as adding a new section,erasing a section, adding a tag at the top of a page or erasing a tag please POST on the talk page asking for any objections as to the action. Simply continuing to make edits to the page without adaquetly explaining the reasoning behind the actions is against wikipedia policy and it doesn't help improve this article at all. For instance if someone wants to add a "Global bias" tag to the page, Then explain WHY you want to add it. Give examples in the page as to what exactly is bias or "usacentric" or anyother 'centric'.Wikidudeman 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also requested an ADMIN review this page and talk page for violations of wikipedia policy and to help prevent vandalism by some members.Wikidudeman 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'neutrality' tag in the aricle.

Here is where anyone who thinks the article has neutrality problems can post their explanations. So Skookum. Explain what in the article has a neutrality and explain why the article needs a neutrality tag. Be specific, Give details and answer questions. We're going to discuss this tag and try to fix any neutrality problems in the article(if indeed they exist). So explain...Wikidudeman 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont question the neutrality but science version of your stuff. You bluntly put metamorphosis.com and other unrelated sites into external links, you put sister sites' links on a BS article about the opposing arguments for legalization of steroids, which has nothing to do with facts itself just to be able to stick in more links for SEO purposes to commercial links. Neutrality has nothing to do with it. A simple look at your external and reference links and the way you target them show your true goals. Sad really. And I get yelled at for preventing it. Steroid Expert 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What 'true goals' are you refering to? The metamorphosis site has DOZENS of articles written by credible steroid experts including Rick Collins and numerous doctors and other professionals in the field. Tons of very insightful articles. The link is very educational and detailed. It's not just 'some commercial link'. Did you even take a look at the articles featured on metamorphosis website? The site I featured has over 60 authors with nearly 100 articles on anabolic steroids. I posted the site for that reason and that reason alone. A vast source of information. Do you now understand? Try taking a look at the site itself.Wikidudeman 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see hmmm :-) Anabolicsteroids.com, anabolics.com, steroid.com (I am going down the list in google when I type anabolic steroids) all worthy links with a million articles. I will also put these "worthy" sites to be fair and "informative. Give me a break will you. MKS 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MKS...I didn't add those links for very specific reasons. steroid.com promotes the purches of anabolic steroids. This is currently illegal and thus a violation of wikipedia policy. It's basically a 'buy steroids' website. None of the websites I linked are illegal sources to buy steroids. anabolics.com doesn't exist. and steroid.com 1.Has half of the articles dealing with steroid use 2.Most of the authors don't have the credentials as the mesomorphosis website and 3. steroid.com has direct links to ways to purchess steroids illegaly which is a violation of wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman 11:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey ok so by putting a banner ad of anabolic-pharma.com at the top of that articles page mesomorphosis is not encouraging to get steroids.. Yeah, OK. I agree with Steroid Expert in terms of usage of non commercial websites. Because all commercial websites are biased towards steroids monetarily, so they are also for steroid use and so nothing I can possibly get from them can be a neutral point of view. Case closed if you ask me. MKS 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That website has random banner ads of any search that has a key word "steroid" in it. That website does NOT sell anabolic steroids. It has a store that only sells bodybuilder DVD's. That's it. Wikipedia does NOT have rules prohibiting links to websites with commercial material in them. As long as the websites provide useful information on the subject being discussed then they are allowed. Read the wikipedia policy for details. [[4]] If you don't have any other objections than the so called 'commercial' links then I think we should remove the 'neutrality' tag at the top.Wikidudeman 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That article is exactly the same way. You give the page of an "authority" lawyer, who happens to be a defense lawyer of illegal activities and advertises himself in claims of expertise in every page. You give the "authority" page of an article who encourages "barely" legal and given the sideeffects highly unethical action of selling steroids. I checked the other sites in question, they are also information sites that also give banner ads to third parties. This is pure hypocracy and nothing but a search engine popularity contest. Real shame. I believe Alteripse and other admins and mods should look into this. MKS 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post is a sign of why I think this page may never be NPOV, and point-blank your repeated use of "illegal" here points to the USAcentricity of the article, and your line of thinking - which is part of the "witchhunt" mentality of the War on Drugs, the Canseco Hearings et al. Until some kind of way of representing the perspective of the user community - which obviously Collins does, in part, as well as in court - can be included in the article, its orientation will remain biased. The cannabis and psilocybin and other articles have a much broader, more open-minded range. You're complaining that anyone from the "illegal" side of things even should have a voice; that's utterly POV, and is why I think the lockdown on steroid education caused by the War on Drugs is a dangerous thing; because, aside from its clinical impact, it allows parochial tut-tutters like you to pretend to the high moral ground. Mesomorphosis may have banner ads, but so do other sites linked on other pages (e.g. in travel pages many External Links have private pages supported by banner ads); but mesomorphosis has extensive resources - YES, geared to the user community, but that's a sight better than the "see no evil, cause much evil" idea of a blackout on steroid information. Myself I think that it's specific items in the forums which might be cited here - particular clinical and legal and rehabilitative experiences (rehabilitative from injury by self-medication, in defiance of ignorant and uncaring doctors, as in my case; or as with other older men - I'm 50 - the benefits to quality of life and restored activity and more), or particular medical articles (and LOTS of these sites regularly cite lab research on various subjects) - rather than the whole forums; unless there's a political-neutral steroid site such as there is with erowid.com for recreational drugs. I also think the why and wherefore of each drug, bodybuilding/muscle-growth-wise, should either be in this article, or in a social and legal aspects article; or asteroid culture article if that's a workable title (it's certainly a common term). What I mean by that why and wherefore is the distinctions between the drugs, what they're used for and when, and the "coming off" routines/medications (HCG/ACTH) used. Is this "giving instructions on illegal activities"? In the United States it is, but it's NOT in Thailand and a large number of other countries which haven't yet succumbed to IOC/DEA pressure to illegalize; and therein the USAcentricity part in MKS' attitude - blacklisting a steroid defense lawyer because he's a steroid defense lawyer is not only typical, it's asinine. And oh so USA-centric. yeah, I would like alteripse and other admins to think about this; rationally, and stepping outside the prejudices and biases they've been indoctrinated in by the US medical and policing establishment and the ongoing media hysteria/disinformation about steroids. What's more harmful - broadcasting ignorance as the media have been doing, or communal self-education like the bodybuilding/drug forums have been doing?Skookum1 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PS I hope at least SOME of you anti-steroid types here actually go to the gym.Skookum1 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skookum(For once) that the websites I put up with Articles on Anabolic steroids and a Lawyer who defends steroid users who happens to be an expert on the LAW aspect of the Anabolic Steroids is definitly a link that belongs on the website. Attacking the website because of some random ad's it has is nothing more than absurd. Wikidudeman 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I moved the 'neutrality tag' from the top of the page to the External links area considering that's where MKS seens a 'neutrality dispute'.Wikidudeman 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "US worldview" tag in the history part.

I don't see why this tag belongs there. Explain to me where in that section there is bias or 'usa-centricity'. I would edit it and fix it and remove the tag myself but I generally get flammed for trying to do so. So I will ask for an explanation of this so called 'bias' and any suggestions on how it can be fixed. Be specific.Wikidudeman 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy, you're hasty with those tags, aren't ya? What's with that? I'll be brief for now (my back's still bugging me and it's hard to sit up, and I DO have another life, and other wiki areas I've involved in). But from my view (Canada, as well as a user) it's not just the History section that has a USA-oriented content/flavour; it's even in the Distribution section (even after my mention of Canada, added yesterday or the day before); "steroids are imported from...." implicitly, for example, means "to the United States". But what about someone in a country where you don't need to import them OR they're not illegal to import. There are a number of them. "Distribution in the United States/Canada/Britain", "Illegal Production in Canada/Italy/Australia". So many Wikipedia articles authored and debated by Americans go on assuming that the rest of the world isn't reading this stuff, as if only the United States exists or matters, and in this case as if its drug laws are assumed to be the right thing to do (NOT). I'm gathering that Wikidudeman might even be a user, and he should then also appreciate that the views of the user community are not to be slagged out of hand (and to SteroidExpert I say: mesomorphosis is NOT like the other sites you've mocked; it and a few other sites also contain reams and reams of health/clinical experiences that can be cited in general discussions here; the experiential evidence is just as important as any lab/research papers - 'especially when the funding of those research papers is generally POV/DEA/IOC (DEA/IOC=intrinsically POV). The idea that steroid use is necessarily bad is a USA projection on reality, and it is something other countries have been pressured into toeing the line with, although up here in Canada we made it criminal becausee the national guilt-fest over Ben Johnson; before that it was like illegally importing aspirin. In Canadam, steroids are "Schedule IV" under the Controlled Substances Act, or wherever in the Criminal Code of Canada, and it's a category created explicitly for steroids because even our whacked parliamentarians couldn't see the point in putting it in Schedule III with marijuana, Schedule II with valium, perc, etc and Schedule I with coke, heroin et al.. But in the US steroids have been branded a "dangerous narcotic" and are in the A-list; and as per a news item which you'll find on www.rickcollins.com as well as mesomorphosis.com (I got it in elitefitness.com's newsletter) the penalties are being upped severely in the United States, with individual pills now being potentially a charge each or something ridiculous along those lines. Witch-hunts, stake-burnings, and necktie parties over something that, let's see, makes you stronger, generally happier, and pretty well forces you to eat right, might get you bald and maybe you'll have some endocrine problems and maybe an enlarged left ventricle. And the guys who made this stuff illegal are stoked on booze and cigarettes and prescription psychotropics.....and why is it illegal? "Because we have to protect our children"??? The thing children need protecting from most is politicians.... Back to int'l laws, Italy changed its steroid laws in advance of the Turin Olympics from simple possession being only the equivalent of a misdemeanour to a criminal charge for even failing a drug test, i.e. for having any steroids in your body. In general, in advance of any Olympic games, IOC pressure on the local officialdom helps perpetrate a witch-hunt; the old easy availability of veterinary steroids in Australia ended in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics, for example; although years after Seoul you can still buy depoviron and oxymetholone easily in Korea; if you can find it, that is. In Greece the internal steroid market was already sewn up between a few key distributors and certain sports clubs, so there was no need for a crackdown on the pharmacies who still freely sell whatever they have in stock; same with neighbouring Turkey; the legal specifics in each European country I DON'T know, nor in Thailand and India, where steroids are freely available. One interesting thing, by the way, in that countries with copious supplies of hormonal drugs you don't see a lot of beefcake strutting around (well, except maybe in Russia and former Soviet countries); one reason may simply be the food intake these guys can't get (say, in Thailand) or the other being that because the stuff is legal it doesn't become fashionable in the way that contraband substances so automatically do. One thing I do know - when England legalized ecstasy and made it over-the-counter its use dropped off dramatically as kids turned to something else more illicit (DMT at the time). So the point is with the Distribution section and the History section, there's a much broader palette to be written up, and researched, and Wikidudeman's trigger-happiness over the globalize/USA and POV tags is a frustrating waste of mental energy. Scratch your head a bit, Wikiman, and start doing some webresearch on other countries - Japan, China, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, and so on. Do they have steroid laws, or don't they. And those that don't should be mentioned; it should be not assumed, as North Americans do from having been so thoroughly brainwashed, that steroids should be illegal. That in and of itself is POV. Now, you'll have to excuse me, I'm prepping my morning shot of cyp...Skookum1 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And before any of you earnest tsk-tskers scold me for my right to act on my own choices and experience, read my posts on Talk:Bodybuilding as to why I use steroids, and believe that their illegalization is discriminatory and unfair.Skookum1 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 I didn't even read most of that rant. Most of it is completly off topic from the USA centricity. From now on keep your comments brief and to the point. Don't go off on rants about the history of steroids and their criminilization. I agree with you that steroids should not be criminilized. However that's beyond the point. The point here is the tags. You aren't being SPECIFIC as to why the tags belong in the article. If you think the article should mention the laws of other countries then I agree. Provided SOURCES for those laws of those countries and then we can mention them. And i'm asking one last time....BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT IS BIAS IN THE ARTICLE SO THAT IT CAN BE CHANGED. IF YOU WON'T BE SPECIFIC THEN THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. I'll give you 1 week to explain your case for the tags to be up there and then i'll remove them because you aren't being cooperative as wikipedia policy permits.Wikidudeman 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been acting unilaterally and impatiently; those tags were barely up before you went, "gee, I'm gonna take them down now because I don't understand? Any objections?" You're one of those people who pretends to be rational but isn't - a passive-aggressive - and hiding behind Wiki rules when you yourself have assumed "ownership" of this page is hypocritical. And pretending what I wrote is a rant so you don't have to read it and find the bits that ARE relevant (while at the same time claiming there aren't any) is just more name-calling and evasion; typically passive-aggressive once again. I made a start on the globalize/USAcentricity issues in that paragraph; if you're too stuck-up to read it and find them then BUG OFF with removing the globalize/USAcentricity tag. I'M NOT THE ONE WHO'S NOT BEING COOPERATIVE (just to return you some of your yelling-capitals). Skookum1 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just finished reading the whole thing and I don't see any details about why the Tags should stay up. Please provide details.Wikidudeman 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Recient Vandalism done by Tomsintown

Recently I just reverted edits done by "Tomsintown" who butchered the entire article erasing entire sections that belong in the article. He erased the Popular Misconceptions area as well as erasing parts of the "Decriminalization" area where it was mentioned a prominent steroid expert admitted there was no evidence steroids were actually "deadly". This is an obvious POV conflict. Erasing any opposition to the claim Steroids are dangerous in the article imbalances the neutrality of the article.Wikidudeman 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

TOM, Stop erasing and reverting my posts in this talk section!Wikidudeman 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Minimizing the side effects" paragraph

It reads like a user's manual with some pseudo science thrown in for good looks. Let's stick to verifiable, neutral facts here. Tomsintown 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That part of the article contains no pseudo science. And the "Medical disclaimer" was added for warning. I see no problem. Reverted.Wikidudeman 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Popular misconceptions" paragraph must be removed, its contents redistributed

This reads like a rebuttal from a pro-steroid POV. Frankly, so does much of the remaining article. Pity for an article on such an important issue! The neutrality tag is there for just cause until someone sweeps through this with a big broom (not necessarily steroid-infused big, though).

I suggest another way is found to mention these findings and studies and that the paragraph itself is removed. There cannot be a one-sided rebuttal that writes off criticism as "popular misconceptions". Very very wrong for an encyclopaedia. Tomsintown 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. NUMEROUS wikipedia articles have sections on urban legends,myths and misconceptions. Having on on Steroids who's reputation is ripe with myths and unscientific legends is paramount to this article. This section to the article may be 'one sided' but only because it's SCIENCE. When presenting scientific facts on wikipedia we don't sacrifice science for NPOV(See evolution article). Even though the article IF ANYHING seems bias against steroid use opposed to for it. If anything, the POV is balanced against steroids and steroid use. Removing these parts of the article makes this page nothing more than an anti-steroid rant, as I and numeorus others see it. When you've got a claim like "Steroids make your penis shrink" as a criticism of steroid use, That's not criticism at all. That's simply false. Presenting false claims in wikipedia as somehow on the same level as scientific facts is NOT what wikipedia is about. You need do do alot of research about wikipedia policy and anabolic steroids before making anymore edits. Wikidudeman 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then those "myths" should be placed in a paragraph that deals with "debated" or "controversial" points, as you and I both know there are many sources that do claim a connection between steroids and suicide exists. Penis size I'll give you. To only have a paragraph about "popular misconceptions" is to make the whole issue feel as if the issue isn't all that serious after all. It is simply the chosen words that can't be allowed. Quoting sources is good, but you need sources from both points of view. Tomsintown 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You must not have read the entire paragraph. We also have a paragraph on 'side effects' from anabolic steroids. You're new to wikipedia and you need to read more articles and see how scientific articles are put together. Read articles such as the Evolution article. That article presents evolution as being absolutely true even though the POV isn't neutral. This is because it's a SCIENTIFIC article. When dealing with scientific articles(Such as this one) you must have a POV favoring the science and not the myth. Anabolic steroids are a topic with TONS of myths surrounding them. This is why that part of the article is so important. Sure there may be 'sources' supporting the claim that steroids cause suicide. But those sources aren't scientific as the article clearly explains. Putting unscientific and baseless sources up would be like putting sources that the earth is flat in the Geology articles. Absolutely absurd and doesn't belong on wikipedia.Wikidudeman 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Don't make anymore edits (Aside from grammar or spelling) to the article until they are completely discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. That's how wikipedia works.Wikidudeman 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for cooperative editing

It seems like everyone who has participated recently agrees this is an article with many flaws. However, edit conflicts have erupted over 4 problems: (1) not everyone agrees as to the major flaws, (2) most of the edits have been removals of material rather than constructive additions, (3) there hasnt been much constructive proposing and compromise on the Talk page before making controversial changes, and (4) too much of the arguments have been over tags that are not that important and neither the tags nor the arguments actually improve the article. I propose the following to more efficiently improve the article with a lower level of conflict: (1) unless you can cite a source that it is false, do not remove any material without offering a rewritten version that improves what you find unsatisfactory about the POV or whatever, (2) propose anything more than minor changes here on the talk page first before changing the article, and (3) drop the debate over the tags-- they are not worth the conflict and put here on the talk page are nothing but an expression of an individual's dissatisfaction with the state of the article. alteripse 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

All true. I completly agree. Tis what i've been saying all along. Wikidudeman 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah alteripse! PPL need to learn that this should be a place to inform PPL, you know - like an encycolpedia should be. All these "USA centric" and other ambigious tags don't get the page any furtherCavell 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"May not produce real muscle"?

Someone added this little tidbit in on one of the effects. This is utter nonsense. What would steroids produce? "Fake muscles"? Haha. I don't even need to provide sources since the article contains literally dozens refuting this. My IP is currently blocked (I use AOL) so I can't erase that right now. Someone else please do it.Wikidudeman 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed nomination

A quite comprehensive article let down by poor formatting.

• The intro does not introduce the subject but only defines terms, should mention at least some of the major subjects discussed in the text below. See [WP:lead]
• No figures or illustrations.
• Too many lists, you might consider converting some to text.
• The references are unformatted. See [Wikipedia:Citing sources]

TimVickers 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I will try my best to change the article and make it fit the criteria for a nomination.Wikidudeman 02:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article has many good features, but is a very long way from GA. Its most serious problem is its NNPOV, including many phrases like "purveyed in the popular culture and the media." Don't say the media "purveys" (like purveying porn?--a very common usage, hence the NNPOV of purvey), they "report" or "state" or "maintain" etc.Rich 06:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at what I wrote above, I should have emphasized the NNPOV problem is not just or even mainly wording--It's the insistent effort to downgrade dangers and side effects.--And I'm not saying that the rewards aren't sometimes well worth those side effects. In any case if we strive to be fair and not overpush the safety we won't push the pendulum too far towards deregulation and get a countermovement towards greater regulation. I hope.Rich 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

In the intro it states Testosterone is the most potent natural anabolic androgenic steroid, while dihydrotestosterone is the most potent natural androgen. this is a bit confusing, do you mean to say that Testosterone is the most potent natural anabolic steroid, while dihydrotestosterone is the most potent natural androgen. ? TimVickers 23:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Testosterone and Dihydortesterone are both androgens. I made it simply say Testosterone is the most potent natural anabolic steroid."Wikidudeman 09:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect: 5α-dihydrotestosterone has much stronger effect than Testosterone. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anabolic steroids can produce numerous virilizing including increased protein synthesis, muscle mass, strength, appetite and bone growth.

None of the above are strictly masculinising effects. Suggest replacing "virilizing" with "physiological effects" TimVickers 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not good at spotting those kinds of details. I changed it.Wikidudeman 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• ..left ventricle morphology. Morphology is not a symptom. TimVickers 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article imply it's a "symptom"?Wikidudeman 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in the intro at the end of the list of symptomes caused by exessive doses. TimVickers 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Ergogenic" "virilization" "anabolic" and "androgenic" are not defined, except through hyperlinks.
• "Minimisong side effects" section seems misplaced, perhaps move it to just after the "Use and abuse in sports" secion?
• Part of the history section seems to deal with the current illegal trade Most illicit anabolic steroids are now sold at gyms, competitions, and through the mail. and would fit better in another place.
• The section on "Decrimininalisation" would be better titled "Pressure for decriminalisation"

What it says is "Side effects" it doesn't say "Symptoms". It reads "Anabolic steroids have also been associated with numerous side effects when administered in excessive doses or by those inexperienced and include elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels), acne, elevated blood pressure, hepatotoxicity, and left ventricle morphology." Left ventricle morphology is indeed a side effect.

The ventricles of the heart have a shape in all humans, however alterations in this morphology may be pathalogical. I made a change, see if you like it. TimVickers 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with them not being defined except through hyperlinks? Most articles I know of work like that. Letting other pages define the words being used.

Words like "Anabollic" are so central to this article it will make it harder for people to understand if they are not defined here. TimVickers 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I movied the 'minimising side effects' to right after 'use and abuse in sports'.
• I moved the part of the history that delt with distribution to the distribution area.
• Most articles on illegal drugs that deal with their decriminilization have it titled as such. However I will chanve it to "Movement for decriminilization."Wikidudeman 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are fine Tim. I'll see what I can do about defining "Anabolic" in the article somewhere. Wikidudeman 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cholesterol

Is it worth going into the details of the natural creation of steroids from cholesterol here? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Try here: steroid. alteripse 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Estrogen and the definition of steroids

There technically is no such substance: Estrogen refers to a member of a group of substances, for instance, Estradiol, created by aromatisation of Testosterone.

The easy solution would seem to be to replace most usages with "an estrogen" or "estrogens" as appropriate - it's slightly more precise, whilst still being easily understood. What do you think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The one other possible weakness of this article is that... Well, it never actually says what a steroid is. Just copying the first image and its caption from "Steroid" would be enough to fix this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So do it Adam.Wikidudeman 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikidudeman,it would be nicer to thank him for his hard work and civility under strained circumstances than to just say "so do it Adam."Rich 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply asked adam to make the corrections he thought should be made. He as of yet has not done it.Wikidudeman 06:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up of "popular misconceptions"

I have made a few minor alterations to this section regarding the issue of testicular atrophy. A cessation of endogenous testosterone production was cited as responsible. This is inaccurate and I have made the necessary adjustments.

Additionally, while I am not an MD or clinical specialist, I am in the final stages of my PhD, and I have been studying the molecular biology of the androgen receptor and other nuclear hormone receptors for the past 7 years. So, while I will not bog this page down with technical molecular information that most will not understand, I will attempt to clean up various parts of the page that are not strictly accurate and provide reference information where appropriate Rls9 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Much appreciated.--Richard L. HEY! Great work .. i must say thank you...it helped me BIG TIME with ma p.e project —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.110.16 (talk • contribs).

Richard, You sign your name by scrolling down and clicking the "sign your name" button which produces this.. Wikidudeman 07:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a currently practicing physician and I have to point out that I was shocked by the gross errors in the "popular misconceptions" section. Most notably, the article fails to take into account the EAT trial as well as the consensus panel of the American Society of Endocrinologists. In using steroids to treat patients with AIDS as well as wasting syndromes, the drug also possesses erythropoietic properties, something which I have seen cause strokes in users above the age of 40. Some of the articles used to support points are case studies, which have been long outdated by larger cohort studies and clinical trials. This is an extraordinarily biased discussion of anabolic steroids and it is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the current medical consensus on such a great site. I will gladly provide copies of the studies as well as include my references when editing the errors in the current text. TT 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) chantoke

Richard Peterson on constantly adding the 'experts needed' template.

Richard. You have added the 'experts needed' template over and over even though you refuse to defend your actions here on this talk page. I have removed your template one last time and I will notify you to an administrator if you continue to add the template without defending your actions here. It is official wikipedia policy to talk to other editors on the talk page about edits done to the article if they are disagreed upon. Simply editing the article without talking about your edits in the talk page or defending them is against wikipedia policy. WP:DR So here is your chance to defend your addition of the expert template.Wikidudeman 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, don't worry about the tag. Be an expert on what you know and improve the parts of the article you can improve. The article needs your expertise. alteripse 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Some other stuff

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/kennedy/kennedy.html --AF1987 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added new section

I have added a new section on the biochemical mechanisms of anabolic steroids and how their androgenic and anabolic effects process in the body. The section could use some more additions or possible corrections from experts in the field of endocrinology.Wikidudeman 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing 'Administration' section.

The 'Administration' section of this article seems to be based on nothing more than subjective experience of a steroid user and is not supported by any sources. It also gives medical advice(Which is against wikipedia rules). Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine. I will disperse what is not medical advice throughout the article as a whole.Wikidudeman 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up the administration section so that it does not give medical advice. I feel that this part of the article is of importance. I have added one reference to back up some facts presented here. Many more can be found, however almost everything here is commonplace knowledge in many medical professions. If there is something about the wording in this section that does not agree with you, please explain here. Thank you, Cavell 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks ok as far as I can tell Cavell.Wikidudeman 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The administration sections is still totally disingenuous. If Wikipedia really believed that you should speak to a doctor before administering steroids, it would not tell you exactly which kind of needle to use and provide links that describe exactly where you should stick yourself. This constitutes medical advice, even if it is prefaced by disclaimer. The potential dangers of people damaging nerves and blood vessels because they read it on Wikipedia prompted me to phrase it in a way that conveys the important modes of steroid administration, without supplying the details that might prompt someone to try it out on himself. --141.154.207.228 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Wikidudeman 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Altering "Use and abuse in sports" section

I have altered the "Use and abuse in sports" section by erasing the paragraph that mentions the study and provides not link and replaced it with a paragraph that is more precise and provides a formated link to the study sourced. I have also changed the name of the section to simply "Use and abuse" to be more general.Wikidudeman 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to be a bit bias

As a user of AAS, I must say this article comes off very pro-AAS...which makes it seem as if a user wrote the article. Not saying the article isn't right, but alot of people are gonna just write this page off as POV.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe most of the contributors have ever used anabolic steroids. This article contains only the facts. If you consider those facts to be "pro-aas" then so be it. They are simply the facts. We can not ignore some facts and present others or make up things just to make the article seem more in line with what you hear in the media. That would be un encyclopedic. This article only presents the facts as the scientific consensus determines them. If you believe some of the things in this article are untrue or something was not included then please post that and be very specific so we can determine if it should be changed. But simply saying the article is "pro-aas" because it presents the facts as they are is not constructive to the article.Wikidudeman 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These "facts" include (from the article) - "no scientific evidence has shown any long-term serious health defects from correct use of anabolic steroids." I'd like to ask, what is "correct use"? This is completely biased. If this is not bias, then every single drug article (including meth, cocaine, alcohol, etc) should include this sentence of "if used correctly, it has no serious long-term health defects". It seems that, since steroids are such a big $$$ industry for legitamite businesses, that lies and half-truths are constantly said and written about it in all forms of media. Peoplesunionpro 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, other articles should also say that, then; or is this a fact - and it is a fact, and something stressed in the literature about these materials (other than DEA-oriented literature); it is an important statement given the widespread non-facts about there being "long-term serious health defects" (and there really aren't even epidimiological studies of effects from "incorrect use"). The weird part here is I use to think Wikidudeman had the opposite bias from the ones you're accusing him of.....but get this, if this article isn't "anti-AAS" enough, or is seen as "too Pro-AAS", this implicitly suggests that the person complaining in that light needs it to be anti-AAS, i.e. to embrace the misrepresentations and distortions of the media/police/AMA hype machine - which is a USPOV. I recused myself from this article because my points about attitudes/laws outside the US weren't understood (re POV/globalize), and won't be around much on Wiki for much of the rest of the year - but I have been monitoring this article and have been encouraged by the assiduousness of Wikidudeman's and others' efforts to make it a truly neutral source of information, instead of one repeating or answering to the myths and lies of the anti-steroid hysteria machine and the ethic of the War on Drugs, which is only a USPOV and nobody else's.Skookum1 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Well, except for Singapore, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and other puritanical/repressive countries).Skookum1 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When the article says "when used correctly" it means when used in safe dosages and when monitored by a doctor as the studies sourced clearly show. The paragraph that says this clearly sources scientific studies showing that no serious long term side effects arise when used in safe dosages and monitored by a doctor.Wikidudeman 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted one paragraph because it seems to suggest that "because some teens that commit suicide didnt use steroids, that must mean steroids never are a factor in suicide". And deleted another because it seemed to suggest that "because Ahnold Swarzenegger's heart problem was not caused by steroids, then it is a myth that steroids can cause cardiovascular problems". Peoplesunionpro 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the paragraphs. Firstly the paragraph relevant to teenage suicide only says that because a teenager committed suicide after using anabolic steroids in no way does it mean the anabolic steroids are responsible. This is a very prevalent myth in the media and popular culture concerning anabolic steroids. If you want to provide a piece in the "side effects" section showing that anabolic steroids can cause suicide that also references peer reviewed scientific studies which are newer than the studies already sourced showing anabolic steroids have no effect on depression then you're free to do so. Just be sure to justify it on the talk page. The Arnold Schwarzenegger paragraph does not imply anabolic steroids can't cause cardiovascular problems. It only implies and CLEARLY SAYS that Arnold's problems aren't due to anabolic steroids. The side effects section clearly shows that it can cause cardiovascular problems when used in unsafe dosages.Wikidudeman 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikidudeman is going to hunt me down and kill me for this, but I too still feel the article is a bit bias. I'd stick on a NPOV tag based on this talk page, but it would be removed faster than you could say "roid rage" anyway... It is not about the actual facts in the Popular Misconceptions section, it's about the tone of voice and the choice of given facts. It reads like it's written to convince people that steroids are harmless. It's the way the sentences are formulated.

I'm really sorry, but in all my editing days I've never encountered an article kept biased so consistently as this one and without anyone interfering. Tomsintown 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't say the article is bias because of it's "tone of voice" because firstly this is text and there is no 'tone of voice' in text. Secondly, Saying the 'tone' of the article suggests bias is incredibly vague and unhelpful. The "popular misconceptions" section is very relevant to the topic considering the prevailing beliefs towards anabolic steroids contain numerous misconceptions which should be rectified. This was done in the evolution article as well. This article clearly lists and details all of the possible side effects from anabolic steroids from Hepatotoxicity to gingival enlargement. In no way does this article give the impression anabolic steroids are 'harmless' If you have a dispute with the 'tone' of the popular misconceptions section then please explain in detail why you believe it does not adhere to NPOV. Saying it's 'tone' suggests bias is too vague to be of any help. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A few quibbles, meant to be constructive. First, the correct adjectival form of the word is "biased". Second, writing certainly does have a "tone of voice"-- our article should be encyclopedic, not reminiscent of the Underground Steroid Handbook. Third, this article is already as tagged as a Bronx subway car and one more will not improve it a bit. Instead, please give us examples of sentences you think are too biased. If you can't suggest a more encyclopedic way to say it perhaps one of us can. alteripse 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly (and I apologise for my grammar). "Tone of voice" may be an awkward term for typed text, but it's still there. And in this particular article it's so that the addition of a map of Mexico seems a logical next step. Personally I'm mostly concerned about the great number of steroid myth retorts that follow one another as if gathered by Fox News or a team of skilled lawyers. There's also the issue of peacock words. I'll elaborate with a few examples:

- "but the number seems to be fairly low" (Unencyclopaedic formulation that should be something along the lines of "the precise amount, although difficult to estimate, appears to be below the expectations of.......based on........etc.")

- "Since anabolic steroids can be toxic (...), many users consider it ideal to get frequent blood work tests" (Now why does that need to sound so flowery? All that's relevant is that a certain percentage of users get a certain reported average of blood tests.)

-"So it is generally considered mandatory for all users to get blood work while using anabolic steroids." (This entire sentence is irrelevant. Unless some important institution or law made it mandatory, this is a conclusion that readers can make for themselves.)

-"Arnold Schwarzenegger is the target of yet another myth regarding the purported side effects of anabolic steroids." ("Target"? This word may imply that he was victimised. "Yet another"? Carries emotional baggage. "Purported"? Sounds scoffing. This should be rewritten as something like "Arnold Schwarzenegger has also been subject to rumours regarding the side effects of anabolic steroids". Then it should be explained how this was a myth, but in a "matter of fact" sort of way, not a "prove it, bitches" sort of way.

Furthermore, I personally have a problem with the word "myth" both in this article and others, but that's not something I think a lot of people will agree with. I find it unsuited for an encyclopaedia unless it's covering actual historic mythology. I think that in an effort to remain neutral, the unlikelihood of popular conceptions should be attributed to reliable external sources and nothing more. Let people decide for themselves what they wish to call this. Tomsintown 11:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the quotes...

-"but the number seems to be fairly low" Why is this not encyclopedic? Encyclopedia articles often address misconceptions and provide the actual facts in relevant subjects. I see no problem here.

- "Since anabolic steroids can be toxic (...), many users consider it ideal to get frequent blood work tests" What do you mean by "flowery"? This isn't stating a specific number of users get blood tests. It clearly stats that it's ideal to get a blood test while using AAS to monitor cholesterol levels.

-"So it is generally considered mandatory for all users to get blood work while using anabolic steroids." Would "ideal" be a better word opposed to "mandatory"?

-"Arnold Schwarzenegger is the target of yet another myth regarding the purported side effects of anabolic steroids." I changed "target" to say "Subject".

Concerning the word "myth". It's very relevant to this article. One definition of the word 'myth' is "an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution." from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Going by this definition, the assertions and beliefs that anabolic steroids can shrink testicles, cause brain cancer or make you go into uncontrollable 'roid rage' are myths.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing — Wikidudeman mentioned "numerous misconceptions which should be rectified" and that "this was done in the evolution article as well". I disagree with this; an encyclopaedia is not about "rectifying" anything. An encyclopaedia, especially when dealing with a controversial topic, never assumes a position and does not pursue truth but information. This goes for the (flawed) evolution article as well, though this is not the place to discuss it. Tomsintown 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are there to provide factual information and if there are misconceptions surrounding a subject then they will dispel false information concerning them. This approach has been taken with the Evolution article and has been accepted by dozens of administrators and sysop's throughout wikipedia. There is nothing flawed about the evolution article. If you consider it to be flawed then go to that articles talk page Talk:Evolution. I'll be happy to meet you there to discuss that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This entry feels pro AAS. Did Wikidudeman write the bulk of it? -MinnesotaDudeMan

The problem is that scientific truth has a pro-AAS bias. All you (those saying the article is POV, with the exception of Tomsintown, who makes some valid points) are saying is that it feels vaguely biased to you, and aren't making any definitive points regarding statements that you feel are incorrect, or information/points you feel are being neglected - or anything other than this general feeling of unease you have regarding the article's tone. This suggests to me that you're simply buying in to media/general public misrepresentations which doesn't gel well with the actual facts. When you use media terms like "roid-rage" you're further reinforcing the assumption that you're of this position. - 81.179.96.248 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Medical Uses section

This is not directly to do with the action of steroids but, in reference to their use in 'gender dysmorphia' I think this possibly should be 'gender dysphoria' (normally how a transsexual female-to-male or otherwise would be diagnosed initially). It looks like the term has been blended with the concept of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)... I didn't want to go and change it myself as the term may still be relavent to some extent and the page looks fairly well established by other contributors. -- S Thompson 2007-01-06. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.202.76 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't remember personally using that term but this is what it says..."Used for gender dysmorphia: whereby secondary male characteristics (puberty) are initiated in female-to-male diagnosed patients." And I looked for a site explaining the term and I found this one..Gender dysphoria: This is a medical term for feeling unhappy with your current gender (masculinity/femininity), which is in conflict with your physical sex. Many of us have mild feelings like this from time to time, but some people can be tormented by gender dysphoria for years on end.[[5]]Wikidudeman 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

GA questions

A great improvement, some parts I didn't understand. TimVickers 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oral administration, while perhaps the most convenient, suffers from the fact that oral steroids need to be chemically modified, and their metabolism into the active form can place strain on the liver.

This needs a reference to explain what this activation process is, and perhaps a link to prodrug.

• The section on PCT needs a reference or two, since specific dugs are mentioned.

• The phrase "Anabolic Steroids" should not be capitalised in the middle of sentences.

For the quote Oral administration, while perhaps the most convenient, suffers from the fact that oral steroids need to be chemically modified, and their metabolism into the active form can place strain on the liver. You need a reference for what exactly? Steroids that are taken orally are generally made bio-available by 7 alpha alkylation? 7 alpha alkylated steroids are hapatoxic? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence made it sound as it the liver takes a prodrug form of the hormone and chemically-modifies it into the active form. From you re-write I can see that instead the drug is modified before administration to block degradation in the liver into an inactive form. Do you think this would be clearer if there was a link to Biological half-life? TimVickers 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some more improvements and added references to the PCT section as well as correcting capitalization in the article body.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Suggestions for further improvement

• Some of the refs (47-49, 51, 61-63) are just links with no title or access date.
• There is no "See also" internal link section
• Summary style with links in further information at the top of each section (as in Biochemical mechanism) would help the reader find other relevant pages.
• Fewer lists, particularly in sections where all the text is lists, such as "Possible unwanted side effects"

Good luck with this article! TimVickers 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)