Wikipedia

Talk:Ayahuasca/Archive 1

< Talk:Ayahuasca
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Viriditas in topic Image alignment
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The article states: "The legal status in the United States of DMT-containing plants are somewhat questionable. Ayahuasca plants and preparations are legal as they contain no scheduled chemicals"

Anyone object to chaning this to say that they are at least technically illegal in the united states if they contain any schedule I substances? I don't know what they're talking about when tehy say "no scheduled chemicals". This seems blatantly wrong.

As the CSA applies to any materials containing scheudled substances, such as bananas and people, and classifies all such object as the controlled sbstances, a DMT containing vine IS DMT.

You could be charged with the equivalent of thousands of doses for having a vine that's enough for one.


Could add that enforcement is unlikely due to ignorance, and perhaps lack of enthusiasm/times when the opportunity presents itself, if a source is found.


Anyone object to chaning this?

Parasites/Medicinal Value

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

as the intense vomiting it produces can clear the body of dangerous worms and other parasites common in the rainforest.

This seems a little unlikely, as most parasites live in the intestines, not the stomach, and no matter how intense the vomiting is, it's unlikely to cause partially digested food to reverse its course along the small intestines, pass by the Duadnum/Pyloric valve and exit through the stomach/esophagus. Parasites don't really do too well in the stomach, as it's a pretty hostile environment, what with the Hydrochloric acid and all. I suggest we remove this section unless there's some evidence somewhere to back this up. Note: purgatives are certainly sometimes useful in medicine, but the removal of parasites specifically is what seems incorrect to me. --User:Overand @ public terminal 160.39.225.2 09:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

the ayahuasca treatment as i understand it traditionally includes extensive dietary restrictions for days before and after, and fasting on the day of drinking the brew, which most certainly does have an effect on the intestines, and on any parasites therein, and purging thru vomiting is not universal although common, purging thru defecation does also happen and perhaps these are the cases anecdotally referred to as clearing parasites... perhaps the reference to clearing parasites can remain while the vomiting being the cause of their removal be edited.

It should be reworded- first, we're talking about traditional usages, ie what they use it for rather than what it actually does. but perhaps more importantly, it shouldn't say "vomiting"- it can (and often does) cause intense diarhea as well, it just gets everything movin' in there, and can keep it movin for days afterwards . . . --heah 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This text should be revised to mention the anthelmintic properties of harmala alkaloids (particularly harmine and harmaline), which actually do reach the large intestines (Hassan, I. 1967. Some folk uses of Peganum harmala in India and Pakistan. Economic Botany 21: 384.). Thus, this action is two-fold; a direct action on the parasites by these harmala alkaloids (particularly harmine in ayahuasca) AND through increased intestinal motility that is caused by these alkaloids. Jcc 30 June 06

Recipe?

Would some sort of example recipe be apropriate, or should we just leave readers to work it out from the external links?

The text already provides the basic recipe (boil stuff up). I think for specific recipes (and there are many of them possible, with lots of different plants) the external links are sufficient. (Also, providing a recipe would make the page illegal in certain countries, e.g. Australia.) -- Rkundalini 01:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<:<:<:<:<:<:<:<>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:

As I am an Ayahuasca drinker myself, I strongly agree with you. Wikipedia should not go into this kind of detail, as it may be even harder to American Ayahuasca users to have the freedom do take the tea. As you might know, it is stil in dispute the legal right to drink the concoction within the American territory, and one of the arguments of the prosecutor was exactly that it might "spread its evil effects in "the American Youth".

Moreover, Giving the recipe here is overflowing the scope of Wikipedia, as I see it.



Don't you want to save the children? Why do you hate children?


The best way to help our lovely little kiddies is to put them in jail. I read that somewhere.

spirit in the city?

has anyone read "spirit in the city"? i haven't; from examining it online it seems to be about how to bring shamanistic religion into your life, but isn't about ayahuasca. but i could be wrong, so please say something if i am- otherwise i think the book should be deleted. there are a million books on shamanism, and imho the list here should only have books particularly relevant to ayahuasca (as all the others are.) eg, i don't think there should be any michael harner books on the list either . . .

Ross, i removed your book from the list because it isn't about ayahuasca. wikipedia is not the place to advertise yourself and its against the rules to do so. If you write a book about ayahuasca feel free to put a link to it here; but otherwise, your book is just one of thousands about co-opting ancient spiritual practices into new age drivel. for instance, shamanism should certainly NOT be employed to help Nike become a bigger company, like in that one article on your site . . . It is a religious path essentially diametrically opposed to consumerism and capitalism. But that doesn't even matter, as this entry is for ayahuasca, not shamanism. ayahuasca is not in any way related to voodoo, except in that voodoo incorporates ecstatic techniques and ayahuasca creates one. thanks for understanding. Heah 19:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A lot of work in perspective...

Hello to all past and present contributors,

I have rewrited the first phrase to avoid the classic confusion between vine and tea, and to restore priorities: as almost all other vernacular names, ayahuasca firstly refers to the vine.

In reading the history of this article, I realized it is some kind of stalactite: successive depositions around an almost unchanged initial nucleus, without other guiding strategy than a form of crude gravitational force. Clearly a deep reorganization around a well thought-out architecture is needed for this article to honor its subject. My proposal is to structure it along botanical, anthropological, pharmacological, and psychological aspects, with notes and references. A lot of work...

I have reformatted the Books section according to a mixed MLA (the italics) - APA style (the rest), combining lisibility, accuracy, and handiness (ISBN links). It is also enriched in scholar references. Doctorcito 18:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sounds good to me, doc. if you need a hand, just tell me what to do. I'd be more than happy to help you out where needed, especially with grammer and stuff. I feel much more comfortable with your scholarly analysis and contribution than mine! Heah 19:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

constituents

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that under US law some of the chemical constituents are legal, and others are not? B. caapi is grown commercially within the US, and contains no banned alkaloids.

Also, should Syrian rue really be listed here? Yeah, it's a good MAOI source, but it's not a traditional ingredient in ayahuasca. It's an old-world plant, not an amazonian one, and the name "ayahuasca" also refers to the B. caapi vine. (I hear the vine and Syrian rue have subtly different effects, as well, but not having had ayahuasca I wouldn't know.)

  • technically, none of the plants are scheduled, and can all be bought, sold, imported, and so on; they are also grown commercially within the us. concoctions made from these plants, on the other hand, are illegal- ie ayahuasca tea, as a prepared dmt drink. ayahuasca has never officially been scheduled but has occasionally shown up as a scheduled substance because of the dmt. perhaps there should be a little something about all that. as for the rue and caapi, i kinda think this just needs a lot of rewording and reworking. i feel like rue should at least be mentioned, as people have different ideas of what ayahuasca is. you're right, of course, and from what my good friend tells me the differences aint so subtle.Heah 14:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"technically" speaking, such beverages are decoctions, not concoctions. Jcc 30 June 06

Cultural bias

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edited the page a little to remove some of the cultural bias (more correctly, ignorance of the indigenous cultures using ayawaska) which gave this article a strongly Euro-American viewpoint that ayawaska is only a psychedelic and that DMT is an essential element. DMT is not essential, and ayawaska is used for non-psychedelic medicinal purposes as well. Murple 31 Aug 2005

I agree with above, the people who continually associate ayawaska users with thrill seeking drug users are frankly fucking arseholes who do not have the slightest idea what the are talking about. Dirk Diggler Jnr 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely couldnt agree more. also ayahuasca Analogues which do not contain b.Caapi are NOT AYAHUASCA and should not be called as such. These druggy fools are not only completely disrespectfuly but linguistic simpletons. As for "pharmayhuasca" that is a total joke and insult to the culture of Ayahuasca. Its basically calling some chemical concoction "drug vine". Imbeciles.


Interating how the cultural bias comes through in this section on cultural bias! By the way, the correct spelling is 'pharmahuasca', and I don't see much use in these judgmental labels for these so-called fornicating rectums or 'druggy fools'. Seems to me that ayahuasca, and the alkaloids therein, are used to expand awareness rather than contract it. Could we try to be a little more patient with those of us who are not as far along the path? Jcc 30 June 06

Opening

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article opeing needs to be fixed, it uses way too detailed language. The whole article doesn't need to be in the 1st sentence. Something like "Ayahuasca can be either a giant Amazonian vine or the psychoactive infusions prepared from it." would be much more consise and be easier to read. -Ravedave 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"retreats"

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've removed all the "retreats" from the churches section pending discussion. i'm sorry, i know many of you are good people doing good things, but it just smacks too much of spam. i don't think they are really valid external links under the external links guidelines. So we should discuss this. the ones i removed are below. --heah 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • www.wanamey.org
  • www.heartoftheinitiate.com
  • www.a-keys.nl/ayahuasca/
  • www.naturezadivina.org/home_us.htm

From a conversation with heart of the initiate, so anyone else interested can weigh in:

I appreciate the work you guys are doing, but i'm really not sure that your library qualifies as a valid external link under the wikipedia external link guidelines. particularly the first few "links that should normally be avoided":

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
  2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.


Your library, while perhaps being written with an eye to different aspects of the human condition, don't seem to have a whole lot to do with ayahuasca, per se. A collection of links to lots of articles about ayahuasca might be one thing, but almost the entire thing is written by the guy who runs your organization, ralph miller, with a handful from stewie wild.

As for soga del alma and wasiwaska-- soga del alma has a chapel, yes, but they are also a legally recognized religion in the country of peru, with members from all over. And they don't seem to really run retreats, although they do host the yearly conference. wasiwaska--which i don't think there is actually a link to--is primarily a research facility, not a place running ayahuasca retreats.

I really don't mean to denigrate the work that you guys are doing. i'm just not sure what your link adds to the article that makes it link-worthy under EL guidelines. You say that you are one of the older and more popular ayahuasca retreat centers, but i'm not sure that that, in itself, is something that would make your site worthy of a link. there are LOTS of retreat centers these days, and linking to them seems to go against EL guidelines. generally, as a rule, businesses just don't get linked to. I know that you guys are not in this for the money; running ayahuasca retreats in the jungle isn't something one gets into for the cash. but the fact remains: your website exists primarily to inform and attract people regarding your own retreat center. the library consists almost entirely of the thoughts of ralph miller. generally, operations such as yours just don't get linked to.

anyone else care to voice an opinion?

--heah 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion

Someone put up a link to an organization calling itself aurorbaha in the organization's section http://www.aurorabaha.org/ . This link is bogus for the purposes of this entry. It is actually related to the Baha'i faith and has absolutely nothing to do with any bona fide ayahuasca group. As such it has been taken out.Thamarih 07:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The individual responsible for the Aurora Baha link has taken it upon themselves to delete a log in a discussion regarding an article. This is sockpuppetry and against wikipedia's terms of service. The link has been taken out again, together with the comments of said individual. Thamarih 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And they are once again doing it. This individual is a sockpuppet. Administrators be warned. Thamarih 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators, the individual with the handle Aurora Baha is committing sockpuppetry, malicious deleting and changing entries. Per the Wiki terms of service, I ask their account be temporarily suspended Thamarih 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer AuroraBaha is removing links and adding material to this site that does not meet Wikipedia standards. The link for the Fatimiya Sufi Order was indeed added in July of this year. That this individual has now removed it needs intervention by the administrators. This individual is vandalizing this page Thamarih 09:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer AuroraBaha has made an unsubstantiated claim regarding his group. Inquiries have been made to the bona fide ayahuasca churches, and no one in South America has heard of it. Until such time as they can demonstrate membership, administrators be warned that this individual is committing sockpuppetry Thamarih 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - AuroraBaha
You are NOT Assuming Good Faith in Violation of Wikipedia Policy - List of supporting evidence follows -
Engaged in malicious personal attacks in violation of No Personal Attacks Policy; lying generally, but specifically about ownership of Aurora Baha's domain and its legitimacy as a Religious Society; User Thamarih is a sockpuppet of Curandero101 and has been previously blocked for similar activity; Repeated Violation of three-revert rule for which user has been blocked previously; Repeated Violation of Conflict of Interest by posting external link to personal website of "Fatimiya Sufi Order" under Ayahuasca Churches; claim WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that user Aurora Baha is a sockpuppet - AuroraBaha
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

The website www.auroabaha.com is registered to an individual, one Seven Thunders also going by the name Lobo. It therefore has no independent value.Thamarih 09:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lobo aka Aurorabaha's idea of truth

Lobo, has the truth prevailed about your claim,

"I am of Taino descent born in the Quisqueya/Hispaniola, the first place in modern history where the use of the Sacrament (in the form of Cahoba) was recorded, in 1496. I became a Pipe-Carrier in 1996 and had Hambleche on Bear Butte with a Lakota Sun Dance chief; Keeper of the Elks Altar (this elder is well known by the Altar he Keeps). I acquired my pipe-stone directly at the quarry in Minnesota and carved both the pipes which I now carry. I began to work with the Shipibo-Conibo in 2001, and was given Camalongo as a plant to diet with - hence I became a Camalongero; In March of 2002, in the Peruvian Amazon, I received the Fire Altar of Purification of the Eagle and the Condor when the Pipe and Ayahuasca were brought together; I was later initiated as an Ayahuasquero. A banco (bench), serving as a specific function and tool of the Mother, is always bestowed by La Divina Madre Herself - a matter clear to those who have sat in ceremonies with one. "

The thread is here: http://ayahuasca.tribe.net/thread/82db6f81-9517-4572-8c4d-ba945ea96783

When you said to me in email in February,

"''Regrettably, though mostly of Lebanese decent, my family uprooted from Lebanon (Miziara Region - NE of Tripoli, and about 25 minutes from Khalil Gibrans home) and relocated to the Caribean Islands. Hence, my first language is Spanish...I have only begun learning Arabic in more recent years''."

Yes, let the truth prevail indeed. Your website is registered to yourself. Neither the Santo Daime, the UdV, or any number of offshoots in SA have heard of AuroraBaha. Obviously the truth has prevailed - publicly today - that you have a proclivity to fudge it. Thamarih 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators, note that the sockpuppeteer Aurorabaha has registered under another name, i.e. Ayahuasca Churches, and is once again removing items from the main article.Thamarih 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that sockpuppeteer Aurorabaha removed the item under IP address 66.68.115.56 which is registered to ROAD RUNNER CO HOLDCO registered in TEXAS AUSTIN ROAD RUNNER HOLDCO LLC, i.e. the location and IP of Aurorabaha aka Seven Thunders aka Lobo Siete Truenos. This is a blatant case of sockpuppetry. This action also violates the 3RR rule. Thamarih 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. - AuroraBaha
You are NOT Assuming Good Faith in Violation of Wikipedia Policy - List of supporting evidence follows -
Engaged in malicious personal attacks in violation of No Personal Attacks Policy; lying generally, but specifically about ownership of Aurora Baha's domain and its legitimacy as a Religious Society; User Thamarih is a sockpuppet of Curandero101 and has been previously blocked for similar activity; Repeated Violation of three-revert rule for which user has been blocked previously; Repeated Violation of Conflict of Interest by posting external link to personal website of "Fatimiya Sufi Order" under Ayahuasca Churches; claim WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that user Aurora Baha is a sockpuppet - AuroraBaha


Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Aurora Baha is a legally documented Religious Society which utilizes the Sacrament Ayahuasca. We are intimately involved in alliances with other Ayahuasqueros and other Churches involved with the Religious/Sacramental use of Ayahuasca, with a view towards Universalism and the Gathering of all peoples in Peace.

Any claims to the contrary is by a certain individual who abhores the fact that we hold certain Spiritual tenants of Baha'u'llah [Baha'i Faith] as important to our Religious view, and have made it their personal crusade to defame anything Baha'i or Baha'i tolerant.

This matter was refered to Wikipedia for Vandalism for the original removal of the listing under Ayahuasca Churches and for the false allegations made by the same person.

I have temporarily left the link out until such time as it is independently added by a different party, we having become aware of Wikipedias "Conflict of Interest" policy. Thank you for making us aware of the policy.

I have also removed the link to "Fatimiya Sufi Order" which was added by the sockpuppeteer Curandero101 on July 10, 2006 and is the alternate (sockpuppet) of the individual Thamarih who originally vandalised the Aurora Baha Church link. The link to the "Fatimiya Sufi Order" removed is the personal creation (and website) of the same Thamarih/Curandero101 and is therefore subject to the same independent review and "conflict of Interest Policy". This user has been formally reported for being a sockpuppet of Curandero101, the third of such incidence against him. He has presently already had two accounts closed for sockpuppet activity and has had his sockpuppeteer account temporarily blocked for the behaviour on several occasions.

added by Aurorabaha

Domain registration of Aurora Baha at aurorabaha.org is in truth registered to the Religious Society :

Domain ID:D118493370-LROR
Domain Name:AURORABAHA.ORG
Registrant ID:SPAG-34587500
Registrant Name:Aurora Baha
Registrant Organization:Aurora Baha - Spiritual Society


added by Aurorabaha

reinstated comment, slightly out of place now: WP:EL specifically prohibits adding links to your own website. if people think it should be added after discussion here, then we can add it.
from what i understand, the disagreement between you and thamarih goes back some ways, but regardless of that or what he thinks of you and your site, you're simply not allowed to add links to your own site. sorry.
--heah 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTS FROM TALK PAGES. blanking is considered vandalism. assuming good faith, you probably though that since it was resolved, you could remove it, but DO NOT DO THIS under ANY circumstance except vandalism. we don't simply delete comments here, we archive them, so everything is available for viewing.
I'm not sure what truth you seem to believe is prevailing by giving the domain and so on of your site . . . but if the edit warring doesn't all stop, this page will be protected, and one or both of you WILL BE BLOCKED FOR three-revert rule, which stipulates that no one may revert a page, in whole or in part more than 3 times in 24 hours. --heah 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policies are to be applied uniformly. Personal Attacks, reverting more than three times, and Conflict of Interest posts are all violations. In addition so is sockpuppetting and vandalism. After learning about the 3RR and Conflict of Interest policy we refrained from any other modification. As to the other various violations which user Thamarih/Curandero101 is clearly responsible for (and has previously been blocked for), it has been formally reported to Wikipedia. AGAIN, POLICIES ARE TO BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY. P.S. Good-faith includes Not-Biting the Newcomers. Wikipedia:Don't_bite_the_newcomers - Aurorabaha

Sockpuppetry by Aurorabaha

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sockpuppet Aurorabaha is continuing their violation of Wiki policies and has been reverting items in the main article without justification ans blanking comments in the discussions. They are doing this under IP address 66.68.115.56 which is registered to ROAD RUNNER CO HOLDCO registered in TEXAS AUSTIN ROAD RUNNER HOLDCO LLC, i.e. the location and IP of Aurorabaha aka Seven Thunders aka Lobo Siete Truenos. Such items have been put back again. Thamarih Thamarih 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove P.J. O Rourke quote.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest that the PJ quote in this article be removed.

His account of the experience differs radically from any other account we have seen, especially when he claims that he did not get sick.

Perhaps he missed the intense nausea everyone else did through divine providence. Or perhaps the unidentified rum punch which he drank was not Yage. Zenexp 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

After taking Ayahuasca for the first time myself, I did not vomit. Granted I took a very small dosage (4 grams Mimosa Hostiles, 2 grams Syrian Rue), I did feel nauseated for a brief period but did not vomit. 74.230.147.81


Fatimiya Sufi Order

Latest comment: 16 years ago35 comments10 people in discussion
It's unusual to set an edit at the beginning of a topic on a talk page that post-dates the discussion. However, for the record, many of the editors advocating for this group side were determined to be sock puppets of one editor who was repeatedly warned and blocked due to their behavior and banned indefinitely. They are:
MARussellPESE (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone (possibly the Aurorabaha clown) keeps taking out this entry. This is a legitimate Ayahausca group. Please note that the person or persons removing this entry are doing so out of pure politically motivated malice.Thamarih 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The person who removed the Fatimiya Sufi Order gave no reason for removing it. The Fatimiya Sufi Order is not a commercial venture. It is a bona fide Ayahuasca Church like the others except, like PaDeva, it is not Christian. If you decide to remove it, please give reason and not just nonchalantly place it under a commercial rubric when it isn't. Thank you. Thamarih (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this "sufi order" exists beyond the single blog page that isn't even supported on its own server. That page makes no connection to the subject matter at hand. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR & WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The person MARussellPESE is an ideological hack of the Haifan Bahai organization who regularly (together with his other members of the Bahai IT committee active on wikipedia) regularly puts a spin all of the articles on wikipedia to a specifically Bahai bias. The Fatimiya Sufi Order is a bona fide incorporated body at law in Australia and has a membership. If Mr Russel and his harassing Bahai cohorts do not cease their harassment we are happy to take the matter to a higher legal authority. Thamarih (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Fatimiya Sufi Order is a bona fide incorporated body at law in Australia and has a membership." — Prove it, or don't you know the difference between proof and proof by assertion?
"If Mr Russel [sic] and his harassing Bahai cohorts do not cease their harassment we are happy to take the matter to a higher legal authority." — That's a WP:PA and WP:THREAT and has been properly reported. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not legally bound to prove anything to those whose intent is purely malicious and here gratuitously advancing the agenda of the Bahai organization. You are however free to obtain such information through the regular legal channels in which others normally obtain such information. The information regarding our group has been on this page for almost two years now. Other than Aurora Baha (a one-man organization organization apparently supported and financed by your organization) none of the real Ayahuasca churches or organizations frequenting this page have had any problem with us in the past. If you are going criticize the Fatimiya, then you should do so to several of the other groups listed here as well. Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, and we are happy to stand by this assertion in any context. The entry remains and there is no rational reason for its removable. The Fatimiya Sufi Order exists, it has a membership and it is an incorporated body at law in the Commonwealth of Australia. None of the other Ayahuasca Churches have been required to submit such information here before, and neither do we, nor is it customary to do so, especially since it is not a requirement of wikipedia to do this. It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law. We also believe this individual is now stalking all our submissions on wikipedia. Thamarih (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of the Fatimiya Sufi Order, and we are a bona fide Ayuhuasca Church. The challenge to this entry on the Fatimiya is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.219.59 (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I too am a member of the Fatiymiya Sufi order. Many further articles exist as supporting evidence to this fact. Instead of unjustly demanding "Proof" why dont you qualify what proof is required.

You make reference to the link website and state "that isn't even supported on its own server.". Paid web hosting does not make a supporting article any more or less valid. Therefore your only counter argument for removal is completely baseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.197.227 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of the Fatimiya Sufi Order, and I can certainly verify that it exists for I have attended practically all its meetings and sessions. Moreover, it is indeed a genuine spiritual group/church to which the sacrament ayahuasca is central. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.110.224 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell do I care about Amazonian psychotropics? I do care about people peddling propaganda and nonsense. Read WP:SOAP.
Proving that you exist should be trivial. Does your church have a real brick and mortar presence or are you just hopping from terminal to terminal in the Brisbane public library? Read WP:LINKS for why this site of yours keeps getting slammed. Try starting with the fact that that blog barely makes connection to the subject. WP is not the place for adverts.
Thamarih, you've been edit warring on every article you touch. Your first warnings were from, and block was for, conduct on this article. It doesn't take rocket science to figure you're up to disruption wherever you go. I came here to lend a hand. Obscure articles can languish at the hands of editors with agendas unless watched. Frankly, I'd like to drop this from my watchlist, but you come back every time your block expires to shove this link back in.
"Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, … It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law. We also believe this individual is now stalking all our submissions on wikipedia." — Care to actually provide some evidence? Or is that not necessary down under? Besides, that is still a personal attack and legal threat. Stop it. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A "church" does not need to be a building to be legally viable whatsoever. As a PhD student within the field of studies in religion, I can say with some authority that it is grossly ignorant of world religious history to maintain that a physical building is central to the authenticity of a religious group. This is merely a Christian bias to the conception of religiosity, and rather a late one at that. Moreover, this unconscious insistence on the presence of a building as representative of authentic religion is part of the reason Anglo-Australians have never been able to properly understand the indigenous religion here, where the land rather than a building is considered the sacred locus par excellence. Needless to say, this pertains all the more in any shamanic or shamanic-oriented context, in which nature is seen as the true temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.110.224 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Russell, what you care or do not care about Amazonian psychotropics is none of our concern. That is your business. Your stating this so matter of factly, however, is a concession by you that your presence is completely out of place on this page. However, the fact is there is clear documented track record by you and the organization you belong to of acting in bad faith on wikipedia towards all those the organization considers ideological enemies. This is very much a relevant issue because your attacks and stalkings of me are not unique to me alone. You have done it to others who have stated identically to what I state here about your behavior and actions. You harass, and you harass maliciously, gratuitously hiding behind wikipedia regulations you seek to manipulate to your own ends! If this was the first instance of me stating this, you could hide behind assuming good faith, but clearly there are now numerous voices stating unequivocally that you only act out of bad faith. Only recently I caught you blanking pages in the discussion logs of the article Juan Cole; this, when such an act is considered to be a clear case of vandalism. You vandalized an entire discussion entry because it made you and the organization you belong to look bad. Simple as that.

Now "reserving ones rights in law" is not a threat. We reserve our rights! It is our rights you are seeking to violate so we reserve our rights.

Third, if third party verifiable sources wish to be found for the existence of the Fatimiya Sufi Order, then, normal public searches through the appropriate public offices should suffice. The blog (as the blog states unequivocally) is the only online portal. There are others here stating for the record they are members of this group. This in itself constitutes a verifiable third party validation.

Fourth, a half of the entries on the Churches were actually added by me. PaDeva (a Neo-Pagan Ayahuasca church based now in Santa Fe, NM) was added by me as was the Friends of Santo Daime Australia. The official Brazilian Santo Daime entry was put back by us when someone had inexplicably taken it out. There were a few others as well I cannot remember at the moment.

Fifth, by their nature Ayahuasca churches - other than the predominant Santo Daime and UdV churches - are modest sized groups and usually secretive organizations of some level. Many of these groups with the entries are not even officially incorporated bodies yet they are widely recognized by the global Ayahuasca community to be legit. Unfortunately the organization Mr Russell is attempting to promote, i.e. Aurora Baha, is now widely recognized by the Ayahuasca community itself to be largely un-kosher. I am happy to furnish further information to that end about Aurora Baha if Mr Russel so wishes. According to statements by Mestres of the UdV (which is only second to the Santo Daime in terms of numbers and organization amongst Brazilian Ayahuasca churches), worldwide the UdV has possibly a maximum of only 3-5 thousand official members in total. Yet this is the same church which won a sweeping court victory in the United States Supreme Court against the US Justice Department. In the United States where this victory was established, the maximum number of official, card-carrying members would not exceed two to three dozen at most. The Santo Daime is more fluid and with a slightly higher membership globally. In North America its official membership would not exceed any more than a couple of hundred, if less. PaDeva, as to the last number count, was only 40-50 lay members with only a single dozen full members. You can look and see on their page. PaDeva was lucky in that Israeli scholar Benny Shannon cited their existence in a single note of his The Antipodes of the Mind (Oxford: 2004). Until their website was released, the citation scrutinized will reveal that the only place this was actually verified was on the forums section of Ayahuasca.com. If this is a valid criteria, then, beyond public searches, the existence of the Fatimiya Sufi Order can be similarly verified.

Finally, the individual who removed the entry again is none other than one of the numerous aliases of Mr Russell himself. This is acting in bad faith as clear as day. Thamarih (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I don't begin to have the professional qualifications to dissect and diagnose that diatribe.
You've repeatedly said that it's easy to prove this group exists beyond the blog. One more time: Prove it. Look at WP:V for some criteria. It's not my job to search this out. It's yours.
You've repeatedly said that its easy to prove. Then do it. Find the phone listing and paste the link. Find the newspaper article and paste the link. Find the registry and paste the link. You've repeatedly flung invective instead of doing the most rudimentary research. Stop wasting time. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Find the registry yourself by paying the appropriate fees and filings to obtain such information. You are harrasing and commiting vandalism of this page. All of the points stand, and furthemore no requirement has been asked by wikipedia of the other churches listed here that you are asking of us. Kindly cease and desist. This is your final warning before I report you for vandalism! Thamarih (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead boyo. You're on your third revert. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Readers may wish to note the following: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel, Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite, Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully, Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence, Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

That stated, you have been answered by more than one person now and your reasons for exclusion are thoroughly unjustified. Thamarih (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I quick search by myself and i already found 1 source referencing the Fatamiya on Ayahausca.com . You can find a the link at the following address : http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=21 .

To MARussellPESE please if you are not even going to read the discussions taking place ("Wow! I don't begin to have the professional qualifications to dissect and diagnose that diatribe.") then i do not beleive that you are acting in the spirit of wikipedia !

Also 2 of the three criteria that you attempted to define are not listed in the wikipedia verify page that you linked too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.197.227 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've been "answered" by anon Australian IP addresses [1] [2] [3]. Hardly convincing.
All of the other churches listed here managed to at least procure their own domain names. You've got one page on blogspot.com. Hardly convincing.
Thamarih, you accuse me of harrasment, vandalism, bullying, threatening, etc.? Your block log speaks for itself. Take your axe and grind it elsewhere please. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MARussellPESE again you ignored the actual content of my reply. Please try re reading and respond in a correct manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunchief (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editors tend to get ignored. I was responding to Thamirih. You've got no right to define a "correct manner" of response. Read WP:V and WP:RS. The Ayahausca.com edit is a passing reference in another online source. Circular references are suspect. You refer to them. They refer to you. Suddenly you're both legit? Refs need to be published by reliable sources. MARussellPESE (talk)

The Ayahasuca.com source is not a circular reference. It is clear that it is not. Where have you seen the fatimya sufi order make reference to ayahausca.com for it to be circular. When dealing with the subject of AYAHAUSCA then AYAHAUSCA.COM is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunchief (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunchief, we'll put up a website and then watch how these Haifan Bahaim IT committeedogs continue to bark even louder. This is how they do things with virtually everyone here and this is how they recently went to court against their Orthodox Bahai rivals attempting to bully them into disbanding themselves (and lost badly in the process, I might add). You will see. MARussellPESE and his Haifan Bahaim IT committee thugs (such as Jeff3000) have axes to grind with absolutely anyone and everyone who is even remotely going to challenge their abusive, self-aggrandizing self-promotion and unfair monopolization and farcical historical whitewashings and blatant spin-doctoring of wikipedia. They are specifically appointed and paid by the Haifan Bahaim offiociocracy to this very end and purpose. This is a cult with an agenda to rewrite history to its own twisted advantage and erase all evidence to the contrary making it look like what it really is, i.e. a malicious cult, as I have been telling you all and showing over and over during the past year or so. Basically the story here is that they're desperately trying to take down the Fatimiya entry on this page so they can then (after well over a year and a half) reinsert Aurora Baha's entry. You will note, as I said on Ayahuasca.com back in December 2006, that Lobo Siete Truenos aka Aurora Baha aka Francis de la Maza was being supported and directly financed in his bamboozlement by the officiocracy of the Haifan Bahai organization itself – a fact which they initially denied publicly. Here is MARussellPESE proving to everybody that what I said back then was absolutely correct. In any case, thanks for all your help here, buddy.

And, Mr Russell, unless we are able to teleport between places, there are several different IPs operative here. I know it is a regular habit of you Haifan Bahaim to impugn others by the very same hypocritical double standards you yourselves are used to operating under, but I am in southeast Queensland, two others are in Brisbane, Sunchief is in Sydney. Now Cleveland, Ohio, where you are, might be a backwater, boondock smalltown where distances are short, but here on the East Coast of Australia there are massive distances between places. Between Sydney and southeast Queensland there is a 1000+ kilometre difference. Between Brisbane and where I am in southeast Queensland there is 250 kilometre difference. If we are able to teleport at such fast paces, as you seem to be accusing us, perhaps it behoves you then take us more seriously when we say that we will leave no stone unturned to expose and unmask to the world the bamboozlement, abuse, chicanery and charlatanry you frauds and Haifan Bahaim IT commitee members are peddling all over wikipedia. la'anut'allah 'aleyka fi kulli hin wa qabla hin wa ba'ada hin Ahwa85 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Conspiracies everywhere! Everyone watch out!
All I've asked for any source that meets WP:V & WP:RS from Thamarih.
  • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - WP:V
  • "Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers … "- WP:V
  • "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." - WP:V
  • "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs [emphasis mine], forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." - WP:V
ayahuasca.com is not a reliable source for the "Fatima Sufi Order", and it only mentions it in passing anyway. It's probably using the blog as a source and hasn't fact checked it.
If they did they'd probably have turned up what I did. When I Google, Yahoo or Excite "Fatimiya Sufi Order" I get the blog, or forum and blog postings pointing to the blog - all of them rather dated. Maybe that's why we can't get research - only invective.
I'm not asking you for anything more than I'm asking of editors in articles I'm actually interested in. (I'm rather hidebound about sources in case that isn't clear.)
Whenever I'm dealing with Thamarih, instead of getting actual results or research, I get reverts and ad hominem attacks as per usual. So much for a "correct response".
I could care less about ayahuasca, and even less about this Aurora Baha outfit. If they're using ayahuasca, then they're almost certainly not Baha'i as that religion proscribes drug use, except as prescribed by a competent physician.
Now, do you actually have something to contribute that meshes with WP policies; or are we going to be treated to another diatribe about my person, beliefs, hometown, musical interests, etc.? MARussellPESE (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fatimiya.blogspot.com and ayahausca.com

There are also syncretic movements with Sufism (Fatimiya Sufi Order), Gnosticism (Gnostisismo Revolutionario de la Concienca de Krishna, based in Colombia), Sikhism, and Wicca (Padeva).

The above passage was written by an anymous editor named "admin" who writes for a personal website named "ayahausca.com". While it is true that the website in question appears to have academic and notable writers writing for or hosting content on the site, this particular piece is not notable and does not merit inclusion in the article at this time. Furthermore, this link is being used by an editor(s) as justification for adding "fatimiya.blogspot.com", the official website of the Fatimiya Sufi Order.[4]. In summary, both the website and the blog fail Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, based on that of websites (WP:WEB) and organizations (WP:ORG). It is important to remember:

Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

For this reason, I am submitting a request for {{Editprotected}} at the bottom of the page. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

The editor Viriditas states about Ayahuasca.com site that "true that the website in question appears to have academic and notable writers writing for or hosting content on the site, this particular piece is not notable and does not merit inclusion in the article at this time." This statement is contradictory, nor does it spell out or specify the reasons for un-notability per wikipedia guidelines. Note the following is now the official Fatimiya Sufi Order's website, http://www.fatimiyasufiorder.org/

So that excuse has been answered. Notability of the Fatimiya Sufi Order has indeed now incontrovertibly been established per its reputation amongst the worldwide Ayahuasca community, which the administrator of the site (who also goes by name Xythos and is the head of the PaDeva Church which is included here) has resoundingly confirmed. The reasons for locking this page by the editor Viriditas - who in our opinion might be a sockpuppet of MARussellPESE himself - are unjustified and not motivated by good faith. A new link to the Fatimiya Sufi Order needs be established with the new address. Ahwa85 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the statement is contradictory, and I suggest you read it again. Some of the articles on the website might be considered notable, but not all. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Viriditas. Further, regsitering a domain name does not "incontrovertibly …[establish] … its reputation amongst the worldwide Ayahuasca community". That would require actual sources speaking on behalf of that community to so state.
Argument fails as proof by assertion. Can you stop now please? - MARussellPESE (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is gratuitous. You haven't established a single criteria as to the reason for the exclusion of this simple link based on the criteria you claim -- and it is largely an irrelevant argument where this page is concerned, anyway. A link is a reference. The Fatimiya Sufi Order is an Ayahuasca Church. This article is about Ayahuasca not the Fatimiya Sufi Order, which is where theis argument you make would be relevent. Now if we establish the standard you claim, then half of the other churches (other than two) need to be taken out one by one as well.

Furthermore you initial gripe was about the inclusion of a blog. That issue has now been taken care of. Your excuses are just that and very much motivated by bad faith not good faith. Apparently a motivating standard on many articls with MARussellPESE is indeed bad faith. Ahwa85 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Your group needs to meet the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What? "You haven't established a single criteria as to the reason for the exclusion of this simple link based on the criteria you claim "
All of the following have been cited, if not linked to — repeatedly, over the cours of this discussion.
This has got to be right down there with some of the stupidest WP arguments ever. That it's occurring on a feel-good psychotropic drug's talk page, and that it's the users who have lost their cool, makes this laughable. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, (editors please take note) this is the second time the following post made by initially by me Mistsister303 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) on the 17/06/2008 has been removed by an un-named party (as well as not being responded to):

This is difficult for our group to do when the criteria appears to be changeable by the editors. No, MARussellPESE, we can't stop now. 

  "Further, regsitering a domain name does not "incontrovertibly …[establish] … its reputation amongst the worldwide Ayahuasca community"."

I suggest you consider this remark, as in it you seem to suggest that reputation amongst the "worldwide ayahuasca community" is some sort of benchmark for inclusion, I think you may need to be reminded of several matters here. As stated by you: "I could care less about ayahuasca, and even less about this Aurora Baha outfit. If they're using ayahuasca, then they're almost certainly not Baha'i as that religion proscribes drug use, except as prescribed by a competent physician."

The link to the Fatimiya Sufi order existed on Wikipedia for two years prior to your challenge to its authenticity. The timing of your interest in this group, particularly since you are not interested in Ayahuasca, seems out of place since you have certainly not delivered similar challenges to the authenticity of the other Ayahuasca groups. Please check the Aurora Baha website. Not only does Aurora Baha use the Bahai Greatest Name Symbol but, he/they have signed the "covenant" with the Bahai organisation. http://www.aurorabaha.org/covenant

Maybe you'd like to check and question his/their credentials when a review of this organisation's authenticity comes up? If, as you say, drug use is contrary to Bahai prohibitions, maybe you should challenge the credentials of this "covenant" as proof of their existence within the Bahai organisation.

Doesn't their own validity rest on this document, which, according to your high standards of Bahai scholarship, most likely contradicts the rules and regulations with which it claims affiliation and authority? Doesn't this circumvent any authority this person may have?

In establishing our (the Fatimiya Sufi Order's) inclusion within the entry, the only serious challenge to our authenticity has come from a person who by their own admission "could care less about Ayahuasca". How is it possible that someone who knows nothing about the structure and organisation of the Ayahuasca community, much less cares about its practice, be considered an acceptable editor of its content?Mistsister303 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT BLANK OUT ANY COMMENTS HERE BY OTTHER EDITORS. This is a discussion page and in the interests of level handedness and good faith these discussions are designed to be recorded for future posterity SecretChiefs3 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please MARussellPESE, do not belittle the editors of this page, nor the users of Ayahuasca.

This has got to be right down there with some of the stupidest WP arguments ever. That it's occurring on a feel-good psychotropic drug's talk page, and that it's the users who have lost their cool, makes this laughable. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing so is EXTREMELY insulting to the traditional users of this plant medicine, their communities and the various traditions associated with it. The previous comment made by me Mistsister303 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) was, I believe, simply establishing precedents for potential further editing issues, as well as for the valid inclusion of the Fatimiya. Comments that categorise the matter at hand as a question of dispute amongst "feel-good psychotropic drug" users who have "lost their cool" is vearing VERY CLOSE to outright dismissal of a great number of communities, indigenous peoples and associated traditions. Also, please no more BLANKING. Mistsister303 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

tone

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just jumped in an worked on the Westerner and "tourism" thing to give it a more 'pedic tone. If anything's gone awry cause of that, apologies. Wasn't till I read earlier talk stuff that realised the article keeps getting pocked. Would be a pity to spoil some interesting stuff here.Julia Rossi 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tags for now since the section has been heavily revised since they were placed. If anyone still sees issues with the tone or the neutrality, please explain here. —Celithemis 01:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

MAOI and tyramine

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article portrays the MAOIs in ayahuasca to be deadly in combination with certain diets. In reality, the pressor amine "tyramine" present in aged foods, has a higher affinity for the MAO enzyme than do the "reversible", selective MAO-A inhibitors, harmaline, harmine, etc.

The extreme dietary restrictions are associated with pharmaceutical MAOI's which are irreversible, unfortunately someone somewhere began proliferating the misunderstanding that since beta-carbolines are a kind of MAOI, they are unsafe to consume unless you follow a strict diet. This is not the case, and gets people unneccesarily worried about consuming harmala alkaloids.

(Note on the text above) This is very well said. Big thanks to who ever posted those clear words of wisdom. Although tyramine is metabolized by MAO-A, harmine and harmaline are both reversible inhibitors of MAO-A, while these older "suicide" inhibitors irreversibly bind to MAO-A and/or MAO-B. And to recap, MAO-A is the isozyme of MAO that metabolizes serotonin and DMT, along with some other monoamines (Jace1 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).(Jace1 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

"Activation" by MAOI

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's incorrect to state that MAOI activates DMT. DMT is already active. Instead, the MAOI inhibits (that's what the I stands for) de-activation which would otherwise occur in the gut. 76.200.150.238 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Experience

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be a discussion/description about/of the typical Ayahuasca experience, if for no other reason than as something of a public service warning? The typical brew (caapi/viridans) can be particularly intense and I saw only one passing reference to that effect.

There is also wider interest in the symbology of hallucinagenics, and Ayahuasca - for whatever reason - seems to produce something of a uniform hallucinatory experience.

That is, most users experience/report similar states and symbolism: otherworldly entities, out-of-body experiences, etc.

I realize, on the other hand, that such a discussion might not coincide with the Wikipedia mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezoris (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The experience is not really hallucinatory, because it is actually not a false perception (it is, indeed, "real"), nor is it lacking in a tangible stimuli (i.e. ayahuasca). Both of these criteria are the key components that define a hallucination or hallucinatory experience, and they both are missing in this case. Nor is it hallucinogenic for the same reasons. The experience is, in fact, psychedelic- which literally means a revealing or manifestation of the soul or psyche. In short, the experience is much like a brief examination of one's thoughts and actions over the life, and the implications of those thoughts and actions. There can be other stuff, too, which may be described as "religious", or as contact with "others"; e.g., the deceased, deities, aliens, etc. (Jace1 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

strongest natural drug?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

is ayahuasca strongest natural drug what planet earth has ever had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentagonshark666 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there stronger natural products, if we consider potency. Salvia divinorum, and especially its major active component salvinorin A, are more potent by weight.(Jace1 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Full protection of the article

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Given that the current system of carrying on discussions while reverting the addition/subtraction of the blog link seems to have exacerbated rather than solved the issue, I have locked the article against further editing for a period of seven days. This is not an endorsement of the current version, and consensus-based edits can be requested during this time by using the {{Editprotected}} template. --jonny-mt 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no more sole blog link and therefore conflict as such -- unless certain parties make it so. The reasons for editprotecting as such are presently completely unjustified. The Fatimiya Sufi Order - whose notability has already been established - now has a website, which is, http://www.fatimiyasufiorder.org/ Thank you for your consideration. Ahwa85 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You have not established the "notability" of the website using Wikipedia's criteria for WP:WEB and WP:ORG. Please do so, and I will reverse my position and support inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the website is based on the notability of the group itself which has already been established via Ayahausca.com and the membership who have spoken here. If you are removing us, then you need to do it to every other Ayahuasca Church as well, except the Santo Daime and UdV, since we are in the same boat. Ahwa85 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that more pruning of links is in order, however we need to concentrate on the task at hand. You claim above that notability was established. Please review the criteria for WP:WEB and WP:ORG and tell me how the site/group meets the requirement. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criteria and the criteria in no way instances the facts and issues of this case at all. I do see various criteria being taken out of context. Or maybe you have not understood them yourself. Nor have you instanced within the guidelines, besides vagaries, what exactly is the objectionable issue. Per your citation of said criteria seven-eighths of wikipedia as a whole needs to be changed, and especially all the Bahai articles which link to the various sites of the Bahai World Centre in Haifa, Israel, not to mention similar. I see your citation of said guidelines as completely irrelevant to the task at hand. It is as if I were to cite traffic regulations in a case involving tort. Apply the guidelines meticulously to the actual issue please, and let's talk about it. You have not done so. I am waiting your response. Ahwa85 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I believe might be a conflict of interest on your part in continued participation on editing this article. Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MARussellPESE You state you are a Bahai. This is not a personal attack since it is your own confession.

"Have you made the pilgrimage to Haifa? If not, I highly recommend it. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 

   That's strange. I was there the same year. What month? Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)"

       Ah. I spent the summer in the country, and I think I was in Haifa in late June or July. I was curious if we had actually walked by each other on the street; The world is really a small place. And yes, I do live in Hawaii, on the island of Maui. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In interests of fairness both you and Mr Russel need to recuse yourself from further participation on this article. We are happy to continue this process with previous editors who have specifically contributed to this page and know something about the subject. Mr Russel especially needs to recuse himself since he is on record above making personal attacks and malicious comments on virtually every contributor of this page who has ever been and will ever be. While you yourself and others have let these comments slide with absolutely no rejoinder to Mr Russel, yet we are being victimized here by Haifan Bahais who say they are not even interested in the subject for pointing out the obvious SecretChiefs3 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for cheering up my day with uproarious laughter and happiness! You must come to my next birthday party to help entertain the guests. Do you know how to make little animals out of balloons? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} Please see this request asking for the deletion of these two websites from the article. I am also open to further deletions if they are deemed necessary. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed an odd piece of vanity vandalism (diff). Apologies for not asking first, but i don't see any possible way the edit could be controversial, so. --heah 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayahuasca.com

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

hi everyone-

once the page is unprotected, i'd like to put back the link to ayahuasca.com and the ayahuasca forums. i'm not really sure why the link to the forums got removed in the first place; neither ayahuasca.com nor forums.ayahuasca.com are in any way associated with fatimiya sufi. removing the link to ayahuasca.com that was placed next to the fatimiya link in order to vouch for the legitimacy of fatimiya was one thing, but ayahuasca.com and forums.ayahuasca.com are exactly the sort of websites that external links sections are meant for. It meets number 3 and 4 of WP:EL "what should be linked to": it contains a vast amount of information that greatly expands on the information in the article, but isn't fit for inclusion in the article, eg brewing methods, experiences, connections to shamans/retreats/materials, interviews, growing techniques, detailed scientific and medical info, and so on and so forth. if you don't want to call it a reliable source, that's fine with me, but there's still number 4 of links to be considered--sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources but still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. There are plenty of knowledgeable sources at the forums and at ayahuasca.com proper, and a vast wealth of information that really deserves to be linked to; we're talking about an external link here, not a citation or reference.

again, i'm not sure why the link was removed; the link to the forums wasn't even in veriditas' request.

thanks.

--heah 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article seems to top out the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" point in "Links to be considered". Like the "Fatimiyah Sufi Order" I suspect that a lot of these, especially the "Churches" are linkspam. The list should probably go through a thorough WP:ELNO review here on the talk page.
By way of comparison, the religion page with which I'm most familiar, Bahá'í Faith, has six external links. Christianity has three. This one has over thirty. Yikes!
In that vein, I think Ayahuasca.com should be given consideration, but the forum should not.
Once this comes out of the edit block, may I suggest that we reproduce the whole list here on the talk page and vote on them? MARussellPESE (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, far too many links. There are several which are straight-up commercial linkspam, which i would just go ahead and remove now but i feel like a dick doing things like that while the page is protected, even if i theoretically can.
My main reason for wanting a link to the ayahuasca forums is that it has more information than any other place. the ayahuasca.com page is under construction at the moment, its previous contents having been deleted a year or so ago. I'd suggest you go to the forums and briefly check out the first few sub-forums to get an idea of the wealth of information available there: virtually complete lists of medical and food interactions, extensive information on cultivation, a huge amount of information on making the tea, and so on and so forth. plus, you can actually ask questions, and they will be answered. It really is an excellent resource . . .
I'd be fine discussing all of them, but i see no real reason to wait just to discuss. --heah 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I just visited the site (ayahuasca.com). It is a nice site, but weak on the science, and the editors seem to be nominal and perhaps absentee. For example, even the editor's own publications are not listed in the science section. Otherwise an informative site, but hard to take seriously as a high quality link until the science has been updated with references (no permission is required to provide lists of scientific references, so there is no legal reason to leave this undone).(212.149.206.150 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC))
Latest comment: 16 years ago51 comments2 people in discussion

here are the links. i'm going to start going through them and weighing in.--heah 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayahuasca churches

Nice job Heah! Very even-handed. Comments are below. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Law

Personally, i think these should all be removed, with the exception of the actual court decision. pertinent ones can be found at the UDV article, and are redundant, all being articles about the same thing. --heah 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, these are redundant, but I like the firstamendmentcenter.org article the best as journalism. The religionlink.org page has the most links itself. Keep those two. Pitch' the rest. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

Image alignment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Images work best when they break up the text in the appropriate place. Right-aligning all the images doesn't really work. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayahuasca/Archive_1&oldid=1136541167"