Jump to content

Talk:Psilocybin mushroom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

In the article

The article states: "The popularization of entheogens by Wasson, Leary, authors Terence McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson, and others has led to an explosion in the use of hallucinogenic Psilocybe throughout the world."

I wouldn't include McKenna in that list. By the time McKenna became popular, Psilocybin Mushrooms were already well known. I also wouldn't include Wilson. I don't think many people associate Wilson with the mushrooms.

I would include Richard Schultes.

The article states: "Psilocybe were known to the Aztecs as teonanácatl (literally "divine mushroom" - agglutinative form of teó (god, sacred) and nanácatl (mushroom) in Náhuatl)." Why say it means "divine mushroom" when the literal is "God's Flesh"? Somaeye (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasson & Wasson (1957, MUSHROOMS RUSSIA & HISTORY): in Nahuatl, nácatl means 'flesh.' But nanácatl is the suffix of teonanácatl, and means 'mushroom.' In Nahuatl, nouns are pluralized by doubling of first syllable. Nanácatl is derived nácatl in form, but not meaning - it doesn't denote 'fleshes' (flesh being a noncount noun ). The 'Flesh of the Gods' translation seems to come from idiomatic misinterpretation, and dates back to Conquest. It persists, but teonanácatl specifies mushroom - 'teo' meaning: of or pertaining to god[s], deity - i.e. divine, sacred or 'wondrous' (Wasson came to prefer the latter). Alas, a drop in the bucket - this entry appears to contain lots of misinfo. Prolly beyond correction in the milieu of pop discussion and interest - under wiki edit policy/practice ... for better or worse.

Terence McKenna and his brother Dennis were the first people to come up with a reliable method for cultivating psilocybin mushrooms at home and in 1976 published details in a book entitled Psilocybin: Magic Mushroom Grower's Guide - see Terence_mckenna#Psilocybin_mushroom_cultivation. So I think that alone should justify McKenna's inclusion. I would also include Richard Schultes. Screamliner (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the countless talks that McKenna gave throughout the late 60s and 70s. Danwiggy (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Mushroom Cults of Mexico

I find it surprising that Maria Sabina only gets one sentence. She does have her own entry, but her role as a curandera was substantially important in her community. Perhaps mention her occupation as a curandera/shaman? Danwiggy (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psilocybin mushroom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Is muscarine a psilocybin ancestor?

IMHO it's not, which makes the following sentence completely useless: "Present in varying concentrations in about 200 species of Basidiomycota mushrooms, psilocybin evolved from its ancestor, muscarine, some 10 to 20 million years ago.[17]". --Diogenes2000 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Psilocybin - 100% duplicated content

This article is just a shortened version of Psilocybin. Saberking321 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose merge to psilocybin

The contents of this article are already covered by psilocybin and psilocybe. Saberking321 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is a psilocybin mushroom as defined by this article? Surely it is just a mushroom containing psilocybin Saberking321 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Ths psilocybin article already covers everything here in a lot more detail Saberking321 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There is truly nothing in this article which is not covered better in psilocybin. Saberking321 (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You made your point above 3 times already, but have totally missed the point that this article is about fungi, the other is about biochemistry, therefore I am wholly opposed to such a merge and adamantly opposed to the unilateral move that you made earlier today  Velella  Velella Talk   21:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD comments

Some of the comments from the closed AfD discussion appear to raise reasonable concerns regarding this article, namely content duplication with Psilocybin. Editors may consider implementing solutions suggested by these comments. Juliette Han (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion; withdrawing my support. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


Psilocybin mushroom → Psilocybin mushrooms – was previously on the plural title but was moved in 2010 per this technical request. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) there are two main types of exceptions to the rule that in general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles. An exception is articles on groups or classes of specific things. The title in singular form is downright misleading as it implies that there is a single species of mushroom called "the" psilocybin mushroom. There is not. This is about a group of mushrooms collectively called "psilocybin mushrooms". Template:Psilocybe mushrooms clearly shows all the species that are included in this group – more than just those in the genus Psilocybe. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support It's inaccurate otherwise. This is a matter of technical policy. See further discussions below. (Summary: policy says succinctness is used if possible, and right now, it is most definitely: possible.) Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Somewhat confused. Wouldn't this be the same as, say, Carnivorous plant or Hunting dog or Flowering plant, referring to the sort of mushroom and not just one specific type? I don't think that necessarily excludes the notion that there are multiple types under that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes because it wrongly implies the very specific genus, "Psilocybe". I would also go with moving Template:Psilocybin mushroom to Template:Psilocybin mushrooms, unless someone has a better idea (it's incorrect otherwise). Altanner1991 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Is that type commonly referred to as just Psilocybin mushroom? Like, would this move be to distinguish that specific type from the broader category covered by this page?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly my point. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, you may want to adjust the move proposal to reflect that then. The current concern listed, which my comment and the !vote below sought to address, seems to be distinct.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    While I do not have the right (I think) to change the OP text, I certainly support improving its language to note: Psilocybe is specific enough to warrant singular, but not Psilocybin mushrooms which is an informal collection, per WP:Naming conventions (plurals). Altanner1991 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oh wow my bad, I was replying as though you were the nominator and clearly you are not. Whoops.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I might be a different person, but I am just as active a proponent of the move. :-) Altanner1991 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your inference from the title is mistaken. I can hand you one psilocybin mushroom, the existence of multiple species of them notwithstanding. Why is this any different from Mushroom? Or Cherry or Nut or Whale or Insect? Largoplazo (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    It is common knowledge that there are multiple types of mushrooms, cherries, nuts, whales and insects. The concepts "carnivorous", "hunting", and "flowering" are also well understood. In contrast, "psilocybin" is not well understood. Yes, my inference was mistaken. The point of moving to the plural title is to help readers avoid making mistaken inferences. Related to this is the question of whether "magic mushroom" refers to a specific type of mushroom or a broader class of mushrooms. I'm admittedly confused as to the correct answer on that one. Indeed there is a question as to whether there is a definite correct answer, or is this an "informal collection" whose membership is not entirely clear. Is there a definite and distinct difference between a "magic" and a "psilocybin" mushroom? – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Psilocybin mushrooms and magic mushrooms are synonymous as with "shrooms" as a whole; they are meant to mean the same thing. And to answer your question we do not have enough reliable sources to define the magic mushroom class of plants, it's informal, unlike Psilocybe which is in the encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias. If we don't allude to that informality we are misleading the public readership. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    I still don't get it! The plural doesn't carry a connotation of "exists in multiple types"; the fact that, in the other cases I mentioned, we use the singular for topics that exist in multiple types refutes the idea that that that connotation is tied to the plural. I don't see that speculation as to whether or not people know a priori that a given multi-category topic is multi-category changes that. In addition, the whole purpose of a Wikipedia article is to give key information, including this sort of information—and it already does! In the first sentence! "Psilocybin mushrooms ... are one of a polyphyletic group of fungi ...". End of confusion for the reader of the article. (Except that the sentence needs editing, because "mushrooms ... are one of" is incorrect.) Largoplazo (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    You do have a point with regard to whale. "Whales... are an informal grouping within the infraorder Cetacea". – wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Largoplazo, you make great arguments but I think they would be for a discussion at WP:Naming conventions (plurals). While the policy's examples don't include species, the concept "Articles on groups or classes of specific things." is still applicable. An informal summary between me and you is the degree of officiality surrounding the group: is it a taxonomic entity, or a more informal grouping within encyclopedic or other discourse? "Psilocybin mushrooms" would apply to the second part of that question. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Why would I need to discuss at WP:Naming conventions (plurals) whether the same principle that applies to insects or whales or nuts or cherries or mushrooms applies to psilocybin mushrooms? I haven't seen any argument here that states—in terms of any of the exceptions set forth in WP:Naming conventions (plurals) to the general rule that the singular is used—that would call for them to be treated differently. We are not talking about administrative subdivisions, distinct entities that are often considered together (analogous to the Florida Keys or the Americas), things that are only ever named as part of a collection they belong to, a language group, or any of the other exceptions provided.
    Even if one were trying to extrapolate from that list of exceptions, what most of those things have in common is that one doesn't normally ever use them in the singular: One doesn't speak of "an America", "a Florida key" (one would normally say Key Largo is "one of the Florida keys", not "a Florida key"), "a Maxwell's equation", etc. In contrast, "Here, try this psilocybin mushroom" is a natural thing to say, as is "That is a species of psilocybin mushroom". Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Complete nonsense. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    In other words, in addition to continuing to have no answer to my original question about comparable article titles, you don't have an actual counterargument to my latest comments. Largoplazo (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Alright. I am actually changing my opinion to Oppose because 3 counter-examples Carnivorous plant, Hunting dog, and Whale were the only ones in this discussion specific enough to remind me that the Wikipedia principle of succinctness should overturn the policy on plurals unless it would conflict with meaning, or per WP:COMMONNAME in the strictest sense. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion highlights the actual problem with this article: It should not exist. Lots of different fungi contain psilocybin, and many fungi contain many other hallucinogens too. Having a page with either of the proposed titles is like have a page "Caffeine plants" or "sweet vegetables": it makes no sense. Different fungi containing psilocybin have nothing in common other than the fact that they are indeed fungi and do contain psilocybin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberking321 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    What they have in common is that they are what people have in mind collectively when they speak of consuming hallucinogenic mushrooms for purposes of getting high, no? This isn't purely an arbitrary biological classification, it's one that's significant to humans' relationship to them. Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    There are mushrooms containing other hallucinogens than psilocybin and psilocin. If somebody mentions hallucinogenic mushrooms there is no reason to assume they are referring to mushrooms containing psilocybin even though these are the ones most often consumed by humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberking321 (talk • contribs)
    Generally speaking, terminologies which are commonly used in books or other authoritative sources and commonly used by people as well, will find their way onto Wikipedia as using that terminology. In this case a "magic mushroom", as commonly described in the slang equivalent, is essentially always "psilocybin-based" and so is represented on Wikipedia in that organization of article topics. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom, discussion, and the article title Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms. There are several different distinct species and, when used by individuals, they would ingest more than one mushroom at a time (I assume, depending on size). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pronunciation?

Do we want to add a note on how to pronounce this? RJFJR (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Student edits

This revert in the Research section was justified for several reasons: 1) the student editor combined poorly written history with unsourced research; 2) the Frontiers source used is from a predatory journal listed on WP:CITEWATCH; 3) the content, quote and sources to Michael Pollan are not WP:MEDRS-compliant for this topic; 4) studies on mice are too preliminary to mention; see WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:WHYMEDRS. Disputes should be settled among editors here on the talk page per WP:CON. A caution about edit warring and disruptive editing have been left on the talk page for student editor, Jmorales96. Zefr (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Zerf, the edit I used does not violate MEDRS, I am not giving any medical advice. The only things I aimed to do was establish that there is research being done with psilocybin. I updated the edit before undoing it, did you even read it? If this were a medical article, and part of a wikiproject revolved around medicince, as it was for the article Psilocybin therapy, I would understand. However this is an article about psilocybin mushrooms, and there is an area to establish research, I have no stance on this. I aimed to simply establish that there is research. I feel like I have to say this again. I understood where you were coming from in the article you were a part of, but you followed me into this one, and for what?Jmorales96 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psilocybin_mushroom/Archive_2&oldid=1153070981"