Jump to content

Talk:Peyote

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castañeda

[edit]

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 Castañeda is considered by most to be fiction. --Bk0 04:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

dosage

[edit]

The information listed for average dose was wildly inaccurate. 5g of dried buttons wouldn't contain anywhere close to 500mg. In order for 5g to contain even the low end of the mescaline dosage scale suggested (200mg), they would need to contain 5% mescaline by weight. A more typical figure is 2%. Also, 500mg of mescaline is a VERY high dose, not a common dose at all, and "effective dose" is not the right term at all here (effective dose in pharmacology refers to the minimum dose to produce effects; I'm not aware of any study measuring the ED-50 of pure mescaline but its threshold is listed on Erowid as 100mg). I reworded the information. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: also removing the citation to out-of-date info from a 15-year-old text on "toxic drugs" (which should raise warning signs regarding the accuracy of the info regarding mescaline, which is decidedly non-toxic. I'm very new to wiki edits and short on time but if someone wants to add a cite to the dosage information, the Erowid page is probably the most reputable available source. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Endangered

[edit]

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)[reply]

Drug Use

[edit]

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)[reply]

Aldous Huxley wrote an essay "The Doors of Perception" [1] on the effects of mescalin which he deliberately took with an observer to look after him. If he is right then there is no reason not to "condone the use of the drug" Caffeine is a widely "condoned" drug! The essay claims that very little harm whatsoever can be attributed to use of the drug, and he speculates that it acts in a somewhat anaesthetic way upon the left side of the brain, which criticises the sense data that the right side gathers. By this hypothesis, or is it a conjecture, he accounts for colours all impressing him as brighter, and similar sense phenomena seeming more intense. Anther effect reported is a reduction of the sense that he needed to do anything about anything, a state that Aldous compares to the acceptance of seemingly unpleasant reality advocated by Buddhism. Should we or I add a link to his essay?DaveyHume (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC) On the other hand, one of the links states that various "entheogens" such as mescalin have been in use among Native American populations for centuries, and no harmful effects are observable. This is not quite as conclusive of harmlessness as it appears to be. Conceivably, persons sensitive to unidentified properties of the drug, might simply have been eliminated from a mescaline-taking population over the course of enough centuries.[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mescaline.com/huxley.htm

Anhalonium lewinii

[edit]

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)[reply]

Seems it's an obsoleted name. I'll make a redirect here. 80.203.115.12 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peyote picture

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Image removed :) - User:Skaterblo

Cleanup

[edit]

This article needs split into sections and layed out as a 'proper' encyclopedia article. - User:Skaterblo

More botanical information

[edit]

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. (Added by PS) The berries are quite sweet tasting, tho the seeds may well be bitter, so I removed statement about bitter berries.

Irrelevant Phrase

[edit]

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?

How is it pronounced?

[edit]

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

Peyotillo, Terminology, etc.

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Baby Peyote Picture

[edit]

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)[reply]

Legality in the United Kingdom

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Another image

[edit]
Peyote

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)[reply]

This false-color DEA image has already been discussed and removed from Wikipedia previously. See above, "Peyote picture". Peyote is not fluorescent green. Tova Hella (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another. --Hellahulla (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 week old button

Separate article for Peyote as a drug?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Political correctness Pointless rant

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now that you've deleted the "rant" the remaining mention of Burroughs has absolutely nothing to do with peyote. You might want to at least mention that he recounts his experiences instead of leaving it as discussing only yage, which is irrelevant. DJLayton4 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Law

[edit]

I don't see anything on the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act which states that peyote is exempt. If I'm missing something, please let me know, but otherwise I think that section should be deleted.

Never mind, I found it. :P—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Guns reference

[edit]

I thought they were eating mushrooms, not peyote. How can one be certain? 71.199.104.170 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add to a quote here but the bot keeps sending me nasty messages. I don't get it. If it has been properly quoted why is the bot doing this? Would a real person please read this and "approve" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffussing (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality, United States, Federal Law

[edit]

The section misleadingly cites law concerning federal exemption for members of the Native American Church and erroneously implies this federal exemption is racially limited. Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not racially limited, peyote use by NAC members is legal.[1] This exemption from Schedule I is as old as the Controlled Substances Act.

Code Of Federal Regulations SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS

Section 1307.31 Native American Church. The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.

U.S. v. BOYLL, 774 F.Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991)[2] addresses this racial issue specifically and concludes:

For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(12), does not apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for bona fide ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race.

The cited law in the entry, 42 USC §1996a Traditional Indian religious use of peyote [3]is a response to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)[4] and protects Indian religious use of peyote (without regard to NAC membership) from prohibition of religious use of peyote or penalization by state laws and defines Indian for purposes of this section but does not protect non-Indian NAC members from state laws against religious use of peyote.Moss&Fern (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs.[5]

The definition of Indian does not include all ethnic Indians and includes some people who might not be called Indians in common usage of the word or might not normally use that as the English word to describe themselves.Moss&Fern (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of this section— (1) the term “Indian” means a member of an Indian tribe; (2) the term “Indian tribe” means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)),[6] which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; (3) the term “Indian religion” means any religion— (A) which is practiced by Indians, and (B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within a traditional Indian culture or community; and (4) the term “State” means any State of the United States, and any political subdivision thereof.[7]Moss&Fern (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Matters are much more confusing and complex than this and I've not even refered to some very important laws, court decisions and other subjects, yet I may have written more than appropriate already. At least I had the sense not to try editing the entry page when I'm such a newbie. Moss&Fern (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be nervous about being a newcomer. Your points are all great and the current version of the law section is, as you point out, in serious need of revision. Please feel free to go ahead and make major changes. I would suggest trying to cover everything that you believe to be notable, but don't go into too much depth about any one topic. Citations are very important, and if you have trouble with them just let me know and I can help out. If you would like to be more thorough, a seperate article, Legality of peyote in the United States, for example, could be easily justified in addition to a revision here as there is much on the subject. If you need any advice or if you would like me to revise your changes, drop a line at my talk page or here. Thanks for your much needed suggestions and I hope you can find some time for making the changes! DJLayton4 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A seperate article on Legality of peyote in the United States would take much more time and legal skills and resources than I have. Some comment on relationship of Federal and State law and the special matters often related to "Indians/Natives" due to treaties, sovereignty issues and whatnot might be appropriate with links to places that address the relevant matters involved here. At the least some paragraph splitting seems necessary for clarity.

BTW, "American jurisdictions enacted these specific statutory exemptions in reaction to ..." may be be true of some states (I don't know) but other states have had exemptions much longer. Sometimes originating as statutes, sometimes soley due to state Supreme Courts (or whatever a particular state calls its highest court)finding the prohibitions unconstitional under state and/or federal Constition, sometimes as statues enacted so the statutory law conforms to the court ruling (l'd guess often to keep as much prohibition as possible spelled out rather than to liberalize the law). Can't offer citations at the moment though People v. Woody, 394 P.2d 813 (Cal. 1964), [8] comes to mind immediately and while looking for somewhere to copy the Woody citation I found some other cases mentioned at [9]. Woody not only predates the first federal exemption but refers to exemptions in at least two other states. I'm pretty certain Woody is still controlling in California though I haven't verified that. I actually got to this Wikipedia article hoping it would point me to a reference source for current Washington State law. I'll need to spend time reading the Wikipedia guidelines and playing in the sandbox learning how to do things correctly before I'm ready to make any entry changes myself. Advice would be welcome in both getting something reasonably coherent, concise and useful whipped together and in then formatting it properly and with appropriate links and such. I've been getting interrupted so much today I can't keep a thought long enough to write it down or tell if what I do write is worth saving so I'm signing off now. Moss&Fern (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1307/1307_31.htm
  2. ^ http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/religion/boyll.html
  3. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1996a&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.html
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
  5. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1996a&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.html
  6. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode43/usc_sec_43_00001601----000-.html
  7. ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1996a&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.html
  8. ^ http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/people%20v%20woody%20(peyote).htm
  9. ^ http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg04.htm

"often taking three years to reach its root"???

[edit]

According to the article: "All Lophophora species are extremely slow growing, often taking three years to reach its root". Does anyone have any idea what this means? Also there are only two species of Lophora.Senor Cuete (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Beavis and Butthead Do America

[edit]

I'm pretty sure when Beavis was tripping in the desert he was on peyote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DYlanReed (talk • contribs) 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Well he eats something, it could be a Peyote cactus, but I've not seen that film in a while. I should watch it, it's funny.--Hellahulla (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't alter a quotation unless the quotation itself is incorrect. Plus Kesey comment & general article comment.

[edit]

Please don't alter a quotation because you think what is quoted is incorrect. Address that seperately if appropriate. I'm not suggesting it's improper to use ellipses or such abridgement but changing the words quoted to "correct" it is actually making the quotation incorrect. Wikipedia Help has useful guidelines to useful consult about quoting, citing and much more. I'm certain Kesey was at work when the inspiration hit him and only took that part out because the citation doesn't verify that. I looked at the old citation and it didn't verify all it was supposed to which was another reason for the change. For what it's worth, in my opinion a lot of the other "popular culture" references are trivial and that's not what needs building up in the article on peyote. Moss&Fern (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

other names

[edit]

Do we have other names for peyote? Like buttons, mescal? Can anyone verify this? Alphapeta (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence on legality

[edit]

Under "Legality/United States" the first sentence is

Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not "racially" limited, peyote use by Native American Church members is legal and "racially" neutral in the United States.

This sentence doesn't appear to be grammatically correct, and I can't even parse it enough to understand what the author was trying to say. Maybe it should be reworded to say something like "Peyote is generally illegal under federal laws, however peyote use by Native American Church members in religious ceremonies is exempt from such laws." — Sam 63.138.152.219 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Purpose of Hallucinogen Content

[edit]

The article does not contain any account of the reason why peyote has developed through evolution to devote so much of its make up to hallucinogens. Has anyone considered this ?

Its seems an enigmatic function of the plant to produce something that has no apparent benefit to itself. Flowers, roots, thorns and clorophyl all have an obvious benefit that justify the energy used to produce them. What is the benefit of having hallucinogens present in peyote ?

Without answering this, the article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.116.167 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Mescaline page also needs expansion to better explain its toxicity (as is suggested on its talk page, the LSD page would be a good model). A topic that seems to be missing from wikipedia is the evolution of plant toxins ("plant toxin" redirects to "toxin"), which either repel herbivores or kill them, thereby protecting the plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the benefit to the plant is more enigmatic than a simple repelant or poison like a regular toxin, which makes it more interesting. I would like to hear an experts opinion and reasoning in relation to this subject as some people make bold claims about the genesis of these alkaloids which leads me to suspect there may be more prosaic explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.130.215 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a month since this has been raised. At some point does anyone suppose the article will have to be considered incomplete ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.10.204 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new article is needed. The topic of plant-herbivore defences has a huge literature, which is probably why nobody has written the article yet. A search in scholar.google.com on the key words "evolution plant alkaloid" produces a lot of articles, old and new. This is a big task that I, for one, don't have time to attempt. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is worth considering the general topic of the genesis of these materials through evolution by natural selection with a separate article on the subject, written by a qualified person, particularly considering the cultural impact of their adaptation for recreational, religious and philosophical purposes and some of the grand claims made for the genesis of these materials by various non-evolutionary agents. However, a start could be made with a section in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.66.13 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since this has been raised. Should this article be considered incomplete at the moment ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.69.12.236 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please let me thank Materialscientist for directing me to the appropriate forum. I posted my comment originally in the article itself, and the fit didn't seem right because my comment really was a question. It concerns peyote/mescaline in popular culture and reads: "I'm far too inexpert to make any changes, but there seems to be a significant omission: Aldous Huxley and his book 'The Doors of Perception,' which lent its name to the Doors of 'Light My Fire' [among others] fame and concerned [sic] the polymath Huxley's own experimentation with mescaline. Anyone? Thank you. Also [not really germane to "Popular Culture" rubric], with global warming, climate change, what have you, has the range of the peyote cactus moved north? Again, thank you." Perhaps both issues have already been addressed. I have to confess that because of the length of this article, I merely scanned it.HueyDeweyLouie (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)HueyDeweyLouie[reply]

Doors of Perception is really more germane to Mescaline, as Huxley used pure mescaline, not peyote. There IS a See Also link to Doors of Perception in the Mescaline article, but it might be worth mentioning the book in the body of the Mescaline article. I'm not aware of any research on the effects of climate change on peyote specifically; but there are studies looking at some other plants. Generally, these studies don't actually find changes in range; climate change affects the plant's potential range faster than the plants are able to disperse to newly suitable northern habitats (and peyote is a particularly slow to move). What these studies DO find is changes in mortality and reproductive success; plants in the southern end of the range are more likely to die and leave fewer offspring than those in the northern end of the range. And a lot of potential habitat beyond historical northern limits of peyotes range has been altered (by e.g. grazing, etc.) and is no longer suitable.Plantdrew (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Plantdrew. The context in which the potential migration of peyote cacti came up is kind of amusing: Central Texas deer behaving oddly. Well, amusing to me at least. Huey Dewey LouieHueyDeweyLouie (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names for Peyote

[edit]

I object to the listing of "common names" for Peyote. I have intimate knowledge of Peyote both in the "counter-culture" and the religious usage by Native Americans and these names are definitely **not** in common usage. The reference cited is "GRIN" (USDA). GRIN cites a book by Edward Anderson called "The Cactus Family". The book does not call the list "common names" and doesn't give references as to where these names came from other than to state that Cortes and the Spanish barbarians (Inquisition) called Peyote "Devil's Root". Also, the name "mescal buttons" is derived from an incorrect conflation of Mescaline with mescal beans which have no relation to Peyote and are poisonous. I have therefore removed this list until and unless better documentation is supplied concerning the sources of these names. Somaeye (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you object is not relevant. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your personal knowledge or my personal knowledge or anyone else's personal knowledge. See WP:RS. Anderson has written an entire book about peyote (Peyote, the Divine Cactus, 2nd ed., 1996, University of Arizona Press). His 2001 work The Cactus Family is still the main reference work in English for cacti (although a little dated now).
You have a point about "common names". I dislike the term as it is regularly used in Wikipedia; it really means "English names" as opposed to scientific names. It would be quite wrong to exclude English names given in Anderson. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "divine messenger" translation of peyotl/peyote doesn't seem to be supported by the source given. The source says

When a plant has been found to produce marked physiological effects it is likely than an explanation for those properties is to be looked for according to the substratum culture of the particular ethnic group. That has been the case for coca, "the divine plant of the Incas"; for peyotl, "divine messenger"; teonanacatl, "God's flesh."

It's pretty clear to me that "the divine plant of the Incas" is intended to be a description, not a literal translation of "coca". "Peyotl" is indeed often described as "a divine messenger", but this doesn't seem to be supported by any references as the Nahuatl meaning of the term. On the other hand, teonanacatl may be literally translated as "god's flesh"; many sources support this interpretation, although some suggest it should be translated as "god's mushroom"; at any rate the Nahuatl root "Teotl-", meaning "god" appears in teonanacatl; I would suspect a Nahuatl term translating as "divine messenger" would also include the "Teotl-" root for divinity. Sources I've found suggest that "peyotl" translates as "caterpillar" or "cocoon", and is so named for a resemblance between the tuft of hairs on the cactus and a hairy caterpillar. Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rather impressive article in the French Wikipedia says that "peyotl" means "shiny, silky, white, probably due to the appearance of the central depression of the cactus" but doesn't give a source. See also wikt:peyotl which connects the word to "glisten" with a source. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to remove this list: "Other English names include cactus pudding, dumpling cactus, turnip cactus, whiskey cactus, white mule, devil's root, diabolic root, Indian dope and mescal button." This is 100 year old drug slang. Look on Google or Google Books, none of these names are commonly used currently. Other Wikipedia pages on drugs do not include these sort of lists of outdated, obscure slang terms, especially not in the introduction. Just because someone (Anderson) included this list in a book does not mean that we are obliged to include it on Wikipedia.Tova Hella (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article about a drug, but about a plant, specifically a cactus. The practice of WP:PLANTS has been to list English names given in reliable sources. Anderson (2001) isn't just a reliable source on the subject of cacti, it's currently the comprehensive encyclopedic treatment in English. Yes, we are not obliged to include the list in Wikipedia. However, the fact that the list appears in Anderson makes it sufficiently noteworthy, in my view. I would be happy to move the list out of the introduction, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are these names not in common usage, but they are also insulting to the indigenous peoples who, at the least, consider Peyote to be an object of reverence and, at the most, consider Peyote to be a Deity.

To include "devil root", which was a word given to Peyote by the Spanish Inquisition, as a common name is like saying that a common name for Jews is "kike".

If these terms are included anywhere, they should have an explanation of where they came from and why they were used. Somaeye (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Many of the terms in the list were made up or used almost exclusively by opponents of ceremonial peyote use. The long history of ideologically-motivated opposition to peyote use has been described in detail in many scholarly books but is barely mentioned on this wikipage. Tova Hella (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Add a section under "Cultural significance" (for example) explaining (with sources of course) the origin of the names. But we don't censor in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think some of the listed "common names" are probably really descriptive phrases, not actual names (a la "divine messenger"). I'm skeptical that anybody has CALLED peyote "Devil's root", "diabolic root", or "Indian dope", rather than DESCRIBING it with these phrases. There is a source, but I'm not sure that Anderson was making a distinction between a name and a description. Plantdrew (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of long lists of English names, so I'm not desperate to have the list there (I didn't put it there in the first place). On the other hand, it is in Anderson, which is currently the secondary/tertiary source in English for cacti, it has been reproduced in GRIN, and some of the names are also in this Amazon book advert, so they are clearly notable. Assuming what Tova Hella says above is correct, the best thing to do would probably be to move the list to "Cultural significance" (or a subsection of it) with a sourced discussion of how the names came to be. This may be in Anderson's Peyote: The Divine Cactus, but I don't currently have access to it.
What does seem to be clear is that the most reliable sources so far found say that "peyotl" comes from a root meaning "glisten". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since mr. x-head doesn't seem to care that the majority of people here are not in favor of his editing - I would like to encourage others to delete the offending section.Somaeye (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not censor; see WP:CENSOR. The names are notable, within the article, because they appear in the standard encyclopedia for cacti. So simply removing the names is not acceptable – not because of my personal opinions on the list (I don't care either way, and in general I dislike lists of common names), but because of WP policies. I don't think the names should be in the lead, and I have suggested a way forward, namely move the list to a discussion of how they came to exist.
Instead of simply removing the names, take up Tova Hella's point and add a section discussing opposition to peyote use, then the names can listed there and contextualized. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You move it and discuss it. You're the only one who wants to include it therefore it's your responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somaeye (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; you need to give a reason for removing it which is consistent with WP policies, not simply that you don't like the names. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarks

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peyote&oldid=1213969449"