Talk:Aztec entheogenic complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Entheogenic redirected to a band.. so i remove the link.

[edit] Article title

Is there any particular reason why the article's title is capitalised? Unless "Entheogenic Complex" rates as a formally-defined compound noun (and a cursory search reveals only one other instance in which the two words are combined, so I guess it isn't), then it should probably be at Aztec entheogenic complex. Also, the use of these substances for shamanistic purposes was practised by most, if not all pre-Columbian Mesoamerican societies, including non-Aztec Nahua speakers and non-Nahua speakers alike- which would be good to note, if not expand upon, here.--cjllw | TALK 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page. I think the title is not very good anyway, regardless of capitalization. Piet 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Would Aztec entheogens be better? Piet 13:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a better title, or even something like entheogen use in Aztec society. I dunno, sure that there's a better name for it out there somewhere...--cjllw | TALK 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinicuichi

Sinicuichi is mentioned as one of the entheogens, but its page mentions nothing about psychoactive properties of the plant. Perhaps it needs an update or there should be a caveat here

  • None of the listed alkaloids are known as hallucinogens so this section is quite suspect. The whole article has a number of very dubious claims with no documentation. I've noted a couple. There is a lot of accurate information but, as pointed out elsewhere, the lack of in-text citations diminishes the value. The references ae also not the best available on this topic.Itzcoatl (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)