Talk:Peyote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Castañeda's works have largely been discredited as serious anthropological texts. Is that worth a note in THIS article or is the section on criticism in the Castañeda article enough? --Dante Alighieri 00:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I just added a small note that Castaneda is considered by most to be fiction. --Bk0 04:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] dead link
I don't know if it should be removed completely, or if someone wants to go digging to find the proper link, but the link to the Canadian "Controlled Drugs And Substances Act" is no longer accurate.
- The first time you follow the link you are taken to an "Update Notice" page telling about a new technical environment for the Laws Web site. If you follow the http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-38.8/229687.html link at the bottom of the "Update Notice" page (or follow the "Controlled Drugs And Substances Act" link on the Peyote page a second time) you will see the correct page.
- Hvidberg 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Endangered
Shouldn't the taxobox contain some notice about the endangered status? 205.217.105.2 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it is on any official government list of endangered plants (nor do I know if that matters as far as wikipedia's taxo box is concerned). The general consensus is that it is highly endangered in the wild, some even consider it a cultigen. --Bk0 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
THE SACRED MEDICINE PEYOTE IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE WILD REGAURDLESS OF WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT SAYS. THERE IS MORE IN MEXICO THAN IN THE STATES AND EVEN THERE IT IS CONSIDERED ENDANGERED.
- That's the related (and not sacred) Lophophora diffusa. Circeus 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drug Use
The information about mescaline is a little off topic and sounds like it condones the use of the drug. Consider revision.
- I do not see the paragraph either condoning or condemning. How would you change it? Haiduc 2 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)
It claims that set and setting can [i]guarantee[/i] a healthy trip. I think few would agree that such a guarantee is possible. -Ballzac
- This is never guaranteed because a lot more factors should be taken into consideration, such as the mindset of the individual. I concur that the word guarantee is too definite in this article and therefore should be replaced with a better choice of word, such as assists. Adam 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anhalonium lewinii
I've seen Peyote referred to as Anhalonium lewinii, but Googling for it now there seems to be confusion wether it's just a type of Peyote, another name for it or if it's a seperate species. Does anybody know? 80.203.115.12 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Seems it's an obsoleted name. I'll make a redirect here. 80.203.115.12 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Peyote picture
Perhaps the image of Peyote on the bottom of the page should be removed. Not only does it look very bizarre and electric lime green, but it's a DEA photograph and thus doesn't send a very positive message about the sacred cactus. Wowbobwow12 05:08, 17 April 2006.
- To which image are you referring? Is it Image:Peyote.jpg? That one does have a bright almost lime-green color that is different from the other pictures here. It seems to be drawing, not a photo. I suppose we could remove that one. However, it's not the one that is labeled DEA. The one labeled as a DEA photograph ( Image:Peyote cactus and roots seized by DEA.jpg ) should stay because it is an accurate, informative picture of what Peyote looks like. It is not our job to send a "positive message about the sacrad cactus". Johntex\talk 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are probably correct in that we have enough other higher-quality pictures that the DEA photo in question is no longer necessary. Remember Wikipedia's NPOV policy, however: the goal for all articles is to present the subject matter in a completely neutral manner, neither positive nor negative. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The DEA picture is an nth-generation copy of a photo, processed out of all recognition - it's gone beyond "poor" to "actively misleading". I see no encyclopedic value in it. Stan 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Image removed :) - User:Skaterblo
-
[edit] Cleanup
This article needs split into sections and layed out as a 'proper' encyclopedia article. - User:Skaterblo
[edit] More botanical information
This entry seems to focus more on the chemical sides of this plant, rather than the actual details of it. Perhaps the entry should centre around the plant's surroundings and life, with the drug material as an afternote.
[edit] Irrelevant Phrase
There is a sentence at the end of the History section that reads, "Also check out our preview at boobs," which is a link to an article on breasts. Given the complete irrelevance, it is, I assume, a prank or vandalism, and I am removing it.
I have just tried to do an edit, and while the phrase in question appears on the page, it is invisible when I go to the edit mode. Can someone help me out?
[edit] How is it pronounced?
It'd be nice if one of you guys could add a sound bite to the article. I have no idea how it's pronounced, but guessing it's along the "coyote" lines. Anyone?
-It's pronounced as pee-oat-ee or pay-oat-ee
Being in spanish, the closest correct pronounciation written in english fashion would be Peh-yaw-teh (vowels as in "red" and "cotton"). NOT Pay-oat-ee
[edit] Peyotillo, Terminology, etc.
The article doesn't mention anything about the word "Peyote" being quite general, historically, only recently coming to mean L. williamsii specifically. The German Wikipedia also lists other cacti which were considered either Peyote or Peyotillo (False Peyote). They are:
- Ariocarpus fissuratus
- Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus
- Ariocarpus retusus
- Astrophytum asterias
- Astrophytum capricorne
- Astrophytum myriostigma
- Aztekium ritterii
- Strombocactus disciformis
- Obregonia denegrii
- Pelecyphora aselliformis
- Mammillaria longimamma
- Mammillaria pectinifera
And I'd like to discuss the possibility of adding a section like this to the article, and maybe creating separate articles -- one to discuss Lophophora williamsii as a cactus from a botanical stadpoint and one to discuss Peyote more generally.
Stones1982 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Baby Peyote Picture
Please note that I have added a picture that I took of my baby Peyote cactus. The reason for this is that there were no "true" pictures of a Peyote cactus, but rather 2 pictures of relatively old Peyotes which have both begun to flower. I believe this picture now fills a gap in the sequence of images now we have a picture showing a Peyote's inception. Adam 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legality in the United Kingdom
My Dutch friend sent me 3 cacti in the post: Trichocereus bridgesii, Peyote and a San Pedro. When the package arrived I received a note that this package had been opened by HM Customs. I have the HM Custom's card which is a generic addition to the package once it has been checked and resealed. Should I add this to the article as I received the package in pefect condition with all the contents intact and unharmed. If so, I will also upload the card they sent with the package. Adam 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's rather interesting, but I think you just got lucky. I'm fairly sure peyote is illegal in the UK, so the custom's official probably just didn't realize what it was. Or, perhaps, there was no proof that you intended to consume the said cactus. Fuzzform 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Peyote is, in fact, legal in the UK. This applies to the possession and cultivation of peyote yet not the preparation into a consumable drug. Renegatus (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Another image
Taken from the Department of Justice's website. Somewhat low quality, but perhaps if the article expands, it could be included. Fuzzform 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Separate article for Peyote as a drug?
Should there be a separate article for peyote as a drug in the way that cannabis has separate articles for its various uses (e.g. Canabis (drug), Medical cannabis, Hemp, etc.)? Perhaps the article needs to be built up a bit before we worry about that though... Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is clearly necessary, especially now that the Plants naming convention makes it impossible to have a plant article at Peyote anyway. Circeus 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have redirects for that. There is no need for an early split as long as the article is that short. Cacycle 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the naming convention (WP:NC (flora)) makes it impossible to title articles at the common name. In fact it gives explicit permission for such articles if they're culturally or economically significant enough. I think this one qualifies and I agree with the recent move. If there is sufficient information on the botany (botanical history, taxonomy, botanical description, etc.) of the plant versus its common use or perception, then by all means split (and take the taxobox off this page and place it on the binomial-titled page). --Rkitko (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
I think the pronunciation given in the article should be removed. Pronunciations of scientific names tend to vary wildly amongst botanists within the English-speaking world, and even more so when the pronunciation in other languages are considered. This would avoid the need for an IPA pronunciation (which would be silly since the pronunciation could never be truly international anyways). Anyone disagree? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Political correctness Pointless rant
An editor with no previous edit history from that IP Address has tried removing ", and you feel like an Indian, or what you figure an Indian feels like. Primitive, you understand" from the quote in the "Popular culture" section via this edit. I guess that editor feels that the particular text is offensive to Indians (or at least American Indians). I feel that such a removal would detract from the power of the quote, and I'd like to see consensus for such a removal here before it is actually removed. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- 70.247.37.136 has removed this bit of the quotation again. I would agree with Jeff G. that this bit of the quotation is highly relevant to the subject matter. I don't feel that this quotation from a 50 year old book would be offensive to American Indians, but rather it reflects the association of the plant with the cultures of some native groups. If 70.247.37.136 has a legitimate reason to remove this sentence of quotation, it should be discussed here as his edits and those of previous anonymous editors have been repeatedly reverted, suggesting that consensus is leaning in the other direction. DJLayton4 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Leaving political correctness aside, I have to wonder what the Burroughs quote adds to the article. I do not find it particularly informative or widely applicable. It is a marginally interesting bit of fiction, and it is presented in a highly idiosyncratic manner, in which the personality of the speaker seems to take precedence over the subject of the discussion. That personality is not particularly pleasant, as I understand Burroughs himself was not exactly out to win any prizes for sociability either. So why are we dragging him and his conceits into this article at all? Haiduc (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I obviously deleted the rant by Burroughs. As I previously mentioned, it does not inform the reader about peyote, it informs the reader about Burroughs. If we are going to quote somebody here, let's quote Weyerhoff, or Anderson, or Guy Mount. What they have to say is relevant here. Borroughs is not, and barely merits a mention. Haiduc (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)