Talk:Ayahuasca
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayahuasca article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sourcing and term issues
editThe end of the "Traditional Use" section includes three lists of "admixtures". In the third list, about half are referenced (to one source), the other half are not. Is this original research?
In addition, the description of the very last one, "bobinsana", has a few apparent issues, most notably the reference to "chakra opening". This cannot possibly be related to traditional use, since chakras are an East Asian concept, not a South American one. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Content on the benefits and risks
editI restored most of the content that has been removed about the risks and benefits of ayahuasca. While I tend to agree with some edits like this one, and with the fact that we should prefer meta-analysis when possible, I think that a lot of the removed content was valuable for readers. Some people really want to have details about the potential effects before trying a new drug, and the section seemed decently good.
Also, I'm not neutral here because I wrote it and I'm also not a medical expert, but it seems to me that the previous version of the lead was more nuanced, trying to convey that ayahuasca is generally considered "generally safe"[1][2], although it often has mild (and on some rare occasions severe) physical or adverse mental health effects. The should be enough to hint readers that are careful about their health that it's not totally safe, but while acknowledging that a large majority of consumers retrospectively have a positive impression of it (see the 88% statistics[3]). Also not sure the emphasis on psychosis is warranted in the lead, although I don't object to it being mentioned in the section "Adverse effects". Alenoach (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BMI needs WP:MEDRS sourcing, and in particular it is bad to undercut such sourcing with unreliable/old sources. Bon courage (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I will try to ensure that everything is supported by secondary sources from experts, restoring only what is solidly sourced. Note that this article should be counted as a reliable source (it's a secondary source and the author is a specialist). And also that some sentences are not making medical claims. For example the sentence about how shamans view vomiting (although if you really don't like it being in the section "Adverse effects", we can delete it). There are also a lot of media articles about people saying that it made a profound change in their lives, so it's notable to mention. It shouldn't be an issue if we mention their perspectives without a reference to a meta-analysis. Alenoach (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Since we have review articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals there is no need to use lay sources. Of course it may be reliable for WP:NOTBMI. Bon courage (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean the sources about people saying basically "it changed my life", I didn't intend to mix it with the medical claims, but rather to keep it in a separate and brief paragraph (at the end of the subsection "Psychological effects", or in a short separate subsection if you prefer). Perhaps the phrasing should make it clearer that it's WP:NOTBMI. Alenoach (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- No I meant The Conversation is unsuitable for BMI here. For the "it changed my life" stuff we'd need some WP:SECONDARY sourcing to avoid the "$X said $thing, sourced $X" undue problem. Bon courage (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean the sources about people saying basically "it changed my life", I didn't intend to mix it with the medical claims, but rather to keep it in a separate and brief paragraph (at the end of the subsection "Psychological effects", or in a short separate subsection if you prefer). Perhaps the phrasing should make it clearer that it's WP:NOTBMI. Alenoach (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Since we have review articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals there is no need to use lay sources. Of course it may be reliable for WP:NOTBMI. Bon courage (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I will try to ensure that everything is supported by secondary sources from experts, restoring only what is solidly sourced. Note that this article should be counted as a reliable source (it's a secondary source and the author is a specialist). And also that some sentences are not making medical claims. For example the sentence about how shamans view vomiting (although if you really don't like it being in the section "Adverse effects", we can delete it). There are also a lot of media articles about people saying that it made a profound change in their lives, so it's notable to mention. It shouldn't be an issue if we mention their perspectives without a reference to a meta-analysis. Alenoach (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both sources Adverse effects of ayahuasca: Results from the Global Ayahuasca Survey and Ayahuasca and Dimethyltryptamine Adverse Events and Toxicity Analysis: A Systematic Thematic Review carry this disclaimer: 'JS and DP are directors of a not-for-profit medicinal psychedelics research institute named Psychae institute, which has received funding from the biotechnology sector, and has a connected commercial arm which raises funding for researcher.' Are these sources related and if yes, why would one be kosher and the other not? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a general observation one is primary, one secondary. 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)