Jump to content

Talk:Salvia divinorum/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Neutrality

I removed the comparison of Missouri law equating drug use and distribution with child molestation. It's a simple instance of bias, as no written encyclopedia would bother to make such a shock-value comparison (but might instead compare it to other drug crimes). UMassCowboy 13:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

it's quite clearly pro-salvia and has MANY unsourced claims and irrelevant statements --Lordkazan 19:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As requested with regard to previous accusations of bias...can you point out the parts, in particular, you are concerned about? If there is a bias, it should be worked out. --SallyScot 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - Salvia Divinorum is not a controversial subject like abortion or gay marriage. This is an article about Salvia Divinorum. The content is relatively undisputed. The content is highly appropriate and relevant. If you want pro-drug or anti-drug rhetoric, go to articles about those topics. Reswobslc 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

---

This article seems to get comically biased in parts. If you look at the Experience section, some the listed common effects include "life changing experiences, contact with beings or entities" and "visiting parallel universes".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzyblob (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

---

I've changed the intro to the list of ‘high dose’ effects (not quite listed as 'common effects' as you suggest) to add the term 'reports of'. In other words the preamble now reads "At high doses the effects become more powerful and may additionally include reports of etc, etc, etc". Hopefully this clarifies that the experiences are of course subjective.
--SallyScot 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Bummer... I assumed taking Salvia LITERALLY transported people to parallel universes! So you mean its not like the colored pills in The Matrix movies? I sure am grateful Fuzzyblob pointed out the "bias" and had you edit it out. M. Frederick 21:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Visionary art

At the time of writing there are four images relating to Salvia's chemistry - with the inclusion of a schematic of salvinorin's chemical composition, and three separate photographs of extracts/crystals. I'd suggest that just the schematic and one photograph of salvinorin crystals would be adequate.

I have an alternative suggestion. The article claims Salvia may inspire some to create Visionary art. Perhaps an example of this could be included. My preference would be for as notable an example as possible, e.g. by an artist of the calibre of Luke Brown - such as this well known image - although there are plenty of other examples from a variety of sources [1] [2] [3] [4].

I guess it would boil down to agreeing the idea in principle, choosing and getting consensus re a suitable image and getting the artist's permission. Any thoughts?

--SallyScot 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I found an image [5] which I think works well as it's a nice clear painting, quite iconic, that looks good as a thumbnail as well as at full size when clicked. The image was uploaded by the author (website here) so there are no copyright concerns.

--SallyScot 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I Absolutely love the Salvia Inspired Art that was on the Site 14 Feb 2007! It's JUST Wonderful. Carl McCall 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW why were the Links to those Salvia Art and Music Sites removed today: I didn't bookmark them and I wanted to. they were Useful ... Carl McCall 00:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I briefly added a link to another salvia-visionary art site in the 'Expression' section firstfox 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've 'cleaned up' the article's External links following User:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me's second posting of the links warning tag {{external links|date}}. Though personally I don't think these kinds of warnings are the most helpful. Such tags can be used too easily in place of proper discussion, making an editor 'look busy' without doing very much. Anyway, here's a summary of what I've removed...

Salvia news page - The page wasn't actually linking to any live news. - Links were out of date or required subscription.
Vandersnatch Labs, Sweden - page not found - tried this several times over the last week
Chemistry subsection - migrated the subsection and all links to the Salvinorin A article.
Law subsection - removed one of the links, Australia Crusaders, it's on Legal status of Salvia divinorum article
Media stories subsection - made this a subsection of References as they are in the appropriate style.

--SallyScot 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Media stories

There may be a debate to be had about the comprehensive inclusion of Salvia related media stories. My preference is to include reference to all major stories that may be found, any run by notable (if not necessarily reputable) news agencies (i.e. excluding minor publications - small circulation school / college hobbyist magazines, blogs, etc.).

Perhaps this will have to be reconsidered if the number of articles becomes really unmanageable, but as they are, included at the tail end, they're practically an appendix and they don’t really interfere with the article's main body.

I also argue for some kind of disclaimer e.g.

Notable media reports are recorded as they occur. Their comprehensive inclusion here does not necessarily signify or sanction individual story contents in terms of accuracy, balance or other encyclopedic standards of course.

The case against using disclaimers (WP:NDT) seems to be applicable when a disclaimer in effect only reaffirms existing Wikipedia policy and is hence mostly redundant. For example, something like "some people may be offended by the following article content" would mostly be redundant given Wikipedia's overall policy (see Wikipedia is not censored).

However, in wanting to include this fully comprehensive Media stories list in order to completely document the Salvia divinorum phenomena (in particular its associated controversy), we do not at the same time want to necessarily confer them undue legitimacy. In other words, Wikipedia has a policy about using reliable sources (WP:RS). We don't want readers to mistake the potential inclusion of sensationalist journalism, which may be factually incorrect and/or misleading as being consistent with this policy (i.e. in effect tacitly approving the included reports as being of a reliable nature), so I suggest a disclaimer is appropriate in this case.

--SallyScot 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as the media articles are supporting the legal status of Salvia divinorum, they're plenty reliable, even if the allegations the stories also make, unrelated to Salvia's legal status, are disputed. It would be like making a case for putting a disclaimer at the top of Category:Presidents of the United States saying warning: these politicians don't always tell the truth. Reswobslc 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the Legal status of Salvia divinorum is just one aspect (and a separate article). It's a situation not really paralleled in many other subjects, e.g. on US presidents or such like where, in order to establish the facts, Wikipedia's policy is quite straightforward - refer to good links, not bad ones. - Whereas here, sensational media stories are themselves a significant aspect the overall Salvia phenomena.

--SallyScot 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed eye hallucinations

For those wanting a replacement to the S-A-L-V-I-A scale, look at this article already on Wikipedia dealing with dissociatives but not specifically just Salvia. The scale of "levels" describes levels that are strikingly similar to the SALVIA scale. Although the article apparently needs improvement, it could certainly be associated somewhere with the Salvia divinorum article. Reswobslc 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

S A L V I A rating scale

appears to be copied directly from an external website, http://www.sagewisdom.org/usersguide.html and I am therefore removing it, as the website expressly forbids copying of its content.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ich (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

Putative original idea section moved here

This was an unsourced section from the article that probably constitutes original ideas. It cannot go back into the article without a reference to a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cacycle 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a paraphrase of similar information at http://www.sagewisdom.org/faq.html which is cited throughout the entire article. What more could one ask for? Reswobslc 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of effects

An effective mnemonic device to associate one's level of impact can be found in this phrase, coined the "S-A-L-V-I-A Scale" (starting with the least powerful effects):

  • S - Level One — "Subtle" effects of Salvia in small doses
    • Perception that "something" is happening, with no explanation
    • Relaxation
    • Meditative feelings and heightened sexual sensations
    • Increased interest and excitement in immediate surroundings
  • A: Level Two — "Altered" perception
    • Enhanced colors and textures
    • Changed space and depth perception
    • Dream-like experience, "eye candy" hallucinations with closed eyes
    • Awareness of distinction between fleeting visual effects and reality
  • L: Level Three — "Light" visionary state
    • Clear images with fractal and geometric patterns with eyes closed
    • Two-dimensional imagery with eyes closed
    • Vague images or dream-like "eye candy" hallucinations, without confusion with reality
  • V: Level Four — "Vivid" reaction
    • Impression of a complete, dream-like state of alternate reality with eyes closed
    • Complex, three-dimensional images with eyes closed
    • Hearing of voices
    • Knowledge of reality with eyes open
    • "Shaman" level; journeys to foreign lands, encounters with spiritual beings, feelings of becoming another person
  • I: Level Five — "Immaterial" existence with consciousness severely affected
    • Lack of individuality; universal consciousness merges with other objects, real or imagined
    • Lucid thought processes; movement coupled with confusion
    • Extreme pleasure or fear felt by the experimenter
    • "Sitter" level; need for someone else present who watches and ensures an injury-free, reassuring experience for the disoriented person
    • Absence of reality; wrapped in an inner experience
    • Distinct visions of alternate realities
  • A: Level Six — "Amnesic (amnesia-like effects)" — the most extreme
    • Loss of consciousness; no memory of experience afterwards
    • Falling down; thrashing about
    • No perception or recollection of pain or newly acquired injuries
    • Deep trance-like state not often sought, since no memory remains after the experience
    • No recollection and loss of all control, thus discouraged by most sources

Extracts - error?

"Extracts facilitate more powerful experiences at lower doses. The use of highly potent extracts by novice users is therefore generally discouraged, and sitters are recommended even for more experienced users."

Is that meant to say "... more powerful experiences at _higher_ doses."? It seems counter intuitive and makes concentrating it seem stupid. I don't know enough about it to change it though, just in case it is right. 212.108.17.165 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I reworded generally, including the following sentence...

"Extracts reduce the overall amount of smoke that needs to be inhaled, thus facilitating more powerful experiences. The use of highly concentrated extracts is an issue of some concern, particularly when undertaken by inexperienced users without the aid of a sitter."

--SallyScot 15:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I misread it to an extent. I hadn't realise 'lower' referred to non-concentrated leaves. Still, if I can misread it, so could others. Thanks for changing it, much clearer.

Rereading it, that seems to imply that lowering the amount of smoke inhaled increases the effects, which I don't think is what you intended. Does this sound ok?

"Extracts reduce the overall amount of smoke that needs to be inhaled, thus making it easier to receive a higher dose than intended. The use of highly concentrated extracts is an issue of some concern, particularly when undertaken by inexperienced users without the aid of a sitter."

The "than intended" could always be removed if it isn't appropriate. --212.108.17.165 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I have tagged this article with {{original research}} and added several fact and or tags to the Modern methods section. There are several assertions that are definitely or without citation. I haven't looked over the Experience section but it may have some areas in need of reference work too. IvoShandor 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On the experiences section: However, from the many experience accounts posted to the Internet (The drug database Erowid has over 800 entries) some general trends can be vouched.
This is a big jump to make, 800 cases hardly constitutes "most" or even "many" for that matter, the parts of the section that are based on this assertion are likely OR. IvoShandor 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Modern methods - smoking

OR1: [water pipe to cool the smoke] - I've included a reference to the Salvia divinorum Research and Information Center smoking advice page.

Aye. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OR2: [torch lighters often preferred] - as per OR1

Aye again. Coolio. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OR3: [relatively low concentration of Salvinorin A in unprocessed leaves] - the relatively low concentration of salvinorin A in unprocessed leaves is relative to the concentration of salvinorin A in processed, or enhanced strength leaves. - It can't be relative to anything else (such as in any other type of plant) because salvinorin A is not known to occur in anything other than in the Salvia divinorum plant. This is therefore a 'common sense' relationship that can be made between the strength of untreated Salvia leaf and the strength of extract enhanced leaf in which 5, 10, 20 or whatever times the amount of original leaf was used in making the extract.

It should be clarified to tell us the rough number then (in the unprocessed leaves). As it is now there is no way to make a common sense connection between the 5X, 10X or 20X and the unprocessed leaves because it only states that it is low, which cannot be assumed just because the extracts are stronger. See what I am getting at? It's a non sequitur, just because the extracts are stronger the writer can't assume that the unprocessed leaves are "low," only lower than the extract. Am I making any sense? IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CN1: [extracts widely available] - surely this tag isn't necessary. Many of us have been trying to avoid including overly commercial links in this article, working hard to remove them in fact. I could include something like "as a quick on-line search in Google will verify" - but isn't the wide availability of Salvia extracts simply a common sense point?

I agree that avoiding commercial links is important, perhaps just mentioning where they are widely available, I don't think we can assume that a reader knows enough about Salvia to call knowing that it is widely available common sense. Probably doesn't need a citation if it is that easily verifiable though, maybe just clarify. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CN2: [even as high as 100x] - I found 60x advertised on-line via a quick search, I've changed the article down from 100x accordingly, I have heard of higher strength ones available, but I don't know how credible such claims are - see above reasons for CN1 as to not adding commercial links.

Roger. I am OK with this approach. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Combinations

This section sounds quite feasible to me, but I agree it does also look quite ORish. I have removed it from the main article for now and copied the wording into discussion below, where it can stay for a while, pending someone coming up with a source for it.

Some choose to use a tincture or quid, and then smoke leaves or extract after the first sensations are felt, typically around the 15-20 minute mark. This produces an experience resembling the often overwhelming quality of smoked extract, while also stretching the intense sudden nature of smoked Salvia to the duration of a tincture or quid, around 50-60 minutes. Due to the longer duration of effects, this is not recommended for inexperienced users of Salvia, since unpleasant or frightening trips will not end quickly as they would in the case of just smoking.
Indeed, anything I pointed out here wasn't because it was implausible or anything. I just think we need some verification to make sure this wasn't someones experience translated into a Wiki page or something, that's all, I don't doubt that every word of it is true but as an encyclopedia, as you seem to have concurred by removing the text to the talk page here, we must have reliable sources for assertions of fact. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience

"800 cases hardly constitutes [...] "many""... I disagree, and I otherwise suggest that +800 (now over 900) reports is a significant number.

"A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population [...] The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise" - Opinion_poll#Sampling_error

OR policy, as I understand it, is intended to guard against ad-hoc pronouncements that the reader has no way of verifying. So an article about Quantum Physics, claiming that the results from particle accelerator experiments proved this or that, without giving any sources, would not verifiable. The lay reader can't be expected to know the technical theory and workings or have access to a particle accelerator themselves of course.

On the other hand, if the reader is suspicious about claims made in the Salvia experience section, or simply wants to learn more about this for themselves from source, then I would argue that it's not unreasonable for them to go read some experience reports. It doesn't require an unreasonable amount of technical knowledge; any lay person could do it.

And in fact, in the past, when the Salvia experience section has had people come along adding their $0.02 with their own not necessarily representative accounts, views and opinions, these have been fairly quickly removed.

Unless and until there are particular issues raised with specific points made in this section I've removed the OR tag on this basis.

--SallyScot 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your above points and will try to comment later, I am pressed for time. The reason I raise issue with the use of a drug database to vouch for general trends is because: 1)The collection is purely anecdotal and there is little if any way to verify the claims made there 2) There is no way to know the total number of Salvia users so to characterize this as many and vouching for general trends among all users is inaccurate. Thus it would seem anything based upon assertions there and then imposed as general trends here would constitute OR. IvoShandor 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Just quickly to address point 2) - It can seem counterintuitive, but what in fact constitutes a fair sample size is actually quite independent of the size of the population as a whole. In other words, if you're suggesting that the sample may be too small in relation to an essentially unknown number - i.e. the size of the entire population of Salvia users, then the point is that the size of the whole population isn’t really a key determinant here. As I say, I just wanted to raise this quickly for now, but there are underlying statistical equations if you really want to go for a full mathematical proof. --SallyScot 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that all Erowid accounts are not only self-reported but selected by editors for criteria such as quality, originality, interest, and whatever else would make a good drug trip narrative. Also, there's no way to know whether the "900 accounts" were made by individuals or contained duplicates. The whole thing is basically a collection of anecdotes, and as the saying goes, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. This is a more substantial objection than merely talking about whether the population size is appropriate. The Crow 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I added some additional comments above. Overall this article looks really good though, just so you know, I just noticed the few things I pointed out originally, that's all. IvoShandor 06:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it posible to creat a seritonin storm from multiple trips in one day and continually doing that for about three days? I just don't know. 9:35am July 12,2007

External links / Media story references

Anyone else think the external links on this article are a bit excessive? I count 7 forums, 2 law links, 2 How to Grow Salvia links, 7 other links, and 54 media stories. Surely there is no need for 54 media stories or the grand total of 72 external links. This certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of WP's external links guideline. IvoShandor 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

With regard to the comprehensive inclusion of media stories, I guess it boils down how you interpret the EL policy and what you define as 'External links'. Classically, this is a section, named as such, with a limited number of links to the home pages of some of the most notable websites mainly dedicated to article's subject, as indeed we have in this case.

Media stories do not really fit into this category however. They're typically just links to specific articles on news media websites of course. So these haven't been listed under 'External links' as such, but included under the 'References' section instead.

Some of the media stories will be referred to in the main article text, but in any case, I would argue that they're generally justified as further references in the context of the overall Salvia divinorum phenomena - by which I mean specifically that media reporting is an integral part of the overall controversy surrounding Salvia divinorum.

Not including the media stories so comprehensively, choosing an arbitrary number and limiting it for the sake of argument to, say, just six stories, would by contrast then leave the reader somewhat in the dark. It would be misleading as to the actual extent of the news coverage.

Having said that, it should also be noted that the current intention and practice has been only to include stories run by notable (if not necessarily reputable) news agencies (i.e. excluding minor publications - small circulation school / college hobbyist magazines, blogs, etc.). - So it's not a complete free-for-all.

Another point I'd emphasise is that their inclusion doesn't interfere with the reading of the main article. In fact, I've just made a change to the sizing (div class="references-small"), so that they now take up less space and look more discrete, in line with all the other Reference section entries.

Appearing as they do, at the end of the main article, this effectively results in the presentation of a comprehensive and thorough looking 'appendix' which adds value to the article as a whole.

I think it would in effect be a form of censorship to remove them.

--SallyScot 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. I am going to open an RFC on those links, there's no way 54 media stores don't constitute a link repository which WP is not. IvoShandor 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you don't have the time or the patience to discuss fully, then, by all means, take a break. However, RfC guidelines state - "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first." - RfC - so I don't think you can really have it both ways.

Wikipedia also has a guideline - "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." - IAR - which I guess some admin types really hate, but which, as I see it, is there, not simply to encourage anarchy and chaos, but rather to encourage us to think about the underlying reasons for any policy.

The underlying reason for perhaps limiting the number of links is given as that they "can dwarf articles and detract" - WP:NOT#LINK

So it's primarily this 'distraction' reason which should be weighed against other competing arguments.

The argument I'm making in support of comprehensive references to media stories is that the information adds overall value to the article. Against this (in the absence of you properly presenting such argument) may be that they perhaps could be felt to clutter and distract from the article.

However, to counter this, it can be seen that the references have been extensively grouped, sorted, consistently formatted, and filtered.

The media stories are grouped by country of origin, each sorted in descending story date order (latest headlining nearer the top), fully formatted (following Harvard referencing, consistently using the Cite news template), and only stories by notable agencies are included.

On such basis I suggest that they add value more than they possibly interfere with the reading of the main article. And, as I've said, appearing as they do, at the end of the main article, this effectively results in the presentation of a comprehensive and thorough looking 'appendix'.

I think they look quite neat. I mean, the article's list of included Citations is fairly extensive too, but I don't hear an argument they they're too distracting.

It seems to boil down to the issue of whether including information comprehensively adds overall value to the article versus cutting it out somehow on the basis that value is outweighed, because it overwhelmingly distracts.

Media reporting is an integral part of the Salvia divinorum phenomena. I've taken the time and made the effort at least to make a case for inclusion, but really, consistent with the purpose and whole point of an encyclopaedia, information inclusion should anyway be the default position. The burden of proof, or at least, an obligation to make some kind of reasonable argument against this, should really be with the exclusionist.

--SallyScot 11:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the literature list would be better maintained on an external salvia related site. While it might be a valuable resource for some, it is clearly not encyclopedic and violates several Wikipedia guidelines. Cacycle 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, if the media stories are such an important aspect mention it in the article. 54 external links is definitely distracting, arguing censorship in this case is absurd. This has nothing to do with censorship and everything with this being an encyclopedia and not a collection of links. Anyone who can use Wikipedia can use Google. And I am attempting to resolve this but your resistance will require additional comment from other users, including Cacyle above. If more folks don't show up to the talk page RfC will be the only way to determine consensus. The fact that your convinced I am out to censor this article implies your opinion isn't going to change despite the fact that the article is in violation of WP policies and guidelines. IAR doesn't not apply here. IvoShandor 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Media stories are referred to in the article. If you think the information detracts more than adds then you are entitled to your opinion (and right to raise it of course), but IMO the information is not just a collection of links - a point which I've addressed. They’re reference information which has been filtered, sorted, grouped and formatted consistently.

As to the other point about moving the information elsewhere - Wikipedia seems to me to be a good place to maintain such valuable resource material - as the infrastructure is established and in place. We have the readership, contributors, templates and tools to make it work here.

IAR may apply. Implying it doesn't because it violates WP policies and guidelines is simply a contradiction in terms.

I don't object to consensus. I'd just make the point that RfC input is more likely to come from administrator types generally unsympathetic to IAR. I invited comment with a discussion point over four months ago in fact (#Media stories). I did receive one message on my user page suggesting that they were "highly relevant" and should be kept, but otherwise, given the hundreds of Salvia article edits meantime, I've just generally taken a lack of readers' objections as an implicit okay to leave the information in.

If a genuine readership consensus did emerge to the contrary however, then I would of course reconsider.

--SallyScot 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experiences admins are the ones who cite IAR the most out of any editors, especially when closing discussions. I really don't think IAR applies to external links (this is open to interpretation). Links should add something to the article, 54 media links is just redundant.

Are there no other editors on this page? Is it only you? I am not changing my view (which is my personal opinion -- in this case backed by policy) so it seems we are at an impasse. IvoShandor 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with this. I don't care enough to be continually berated by anonymous editors below. Hopefully someone else will take into account what I said. Page unwatched. IvoShandor 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I have a suggestion for a possible compromise. It’s an innovation that some may still object to though, so I may again be calling on some latitude from IAR.

I propose the creation of special reference article, a 'Salvia divinorum: Further references' page, which, as the name suggests, would support the addition and maintenance of reference information; articles of interest included as further resource which are not (necessarily) cited in the main article.

A possible objection to this that I would anticipate could once more be WP:Not#Link. If so, then I would again, with ref to IAR, be asking for a justification as to 'why not?' in terms of an understanding of the underlying reasons for 'rules' it's felt to be violating (as distinct from verbatim repetition of the 'rules' themselves). I'd suggest that it can't be upheld that a special reference article would still distract from the main article - as, in putting the information on a separate page, it's exactly this 'distraction' issue which is being addressed.

I take the point that search engines can also be useful tools to initially get hold of some of this information. However, they aren't the best for the organisation of such information - as, when it come to matters of deciding relevancy, categorising, grouping, sorting filtering and formatting then "people do it better".

In fact, it's my understanding that it's precisely this point which is behind Jimbo Wales concerns about automated search engines - he wants "to get human intelligence to do what algorithms cannot".[6]

The proposed page would contain more that just Media stories. Not spam links of course, but there are many more technical and other serious Salvia related articles of interest. Check out the Further reading entries on my user page for example. Some of these are still in a 'raw' form, yet to be formatted with a Citation template, or sensibly grouped and otherwise organised, but the point is, there's other source material which is potentially worth including as further resource info.

--SallyScot 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine idea for anybody's SaviaDivinorumPedia. (The Mediawiki software is free; anyone's free to use it.) It's a daft idea for Wikipedia.
I've just deleted all the links to forums for blatantly infringing WP:LINKS. Those who are keen for the article to more other links than are obviously necessary had better prune them carefully before somebody else comes along and prunes them ruthlessly. -- Hoary 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Re. "It's a daft idea for Wikipedia" - Again, as always, and without simply repeated chanting of policy as mantra, I'd appreciate an improved understanding of underlying reasons --SallyScot 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are dissatisfied with WP:LINKS, please voice your dissatisfaction within its talk page. If you want underlying reasons for WP:LINKS, you can ask for them there too. If WP:LINKS seems OK but this subject or article is thought to be in some way exceptional, please say how it's exceptional.
"IAR" is something you might appeal to when those rules don't seem to fit, or lead to an unfortunate result. I don't notice this here. -- Hoary 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube exposure

I tried to add a section relating to the fact that there is now an abundance of videos on You Tube featuring Salvia trips. The item was deemed to be Original Research??? I mean, you can verify the facts of this by going to You Tube and typing Salvia. After this revert I went and searched for other sources that corroborate the observation and found many, including discussions on a number of forums about the danger these videos are doing; in terms of hastening prohibition. The most useful links amongst those I found following a brief survey are these: (link removed by User:Pie4all88 when archiving, since it triggered the spam filter) [7] [8]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

---

There are some general matters of style which marked the edit out as being rather clumsy. Some of which on their own, like not signing your post above, could be overlooked for a newbie entry, but which altogether rather give the appearance of you having just charged in with your $0.02. It looked like you just bolted your paragraph on the end of the article, rather than consider where it might best fit for example, and you capitalized all the words in the section heading. - Minor points, but why not consider familiarizing yourself with some of the Wikipedia style guides, as well as creating yourself a user account in order to create a better impression.

Anyway, even more important are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The most serious of which that you've violated in my estimation being to do with neutral point of view (or NPOV). There's this simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."

You'd written things like - "The videos appear to demonstrate that the drug is garnering a reputation as being the ultimate substance with which to test ones resolve. Such videos serve only to highlight that Salvia divinorum is not a party drug. This type of popular exposure will serve only to hasten action by the authorities." - without citing who (of note) holds these opinions. It seems like they were expressed largely as your own opinions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you simply to air your opinions in this way.

There may indeed be merit in including some reference to the YouTube phenomena with regard to Salvia. But the edit as it stood was simply not encyclopedic enough. I've removed it for now on that basis.

--SallyScot 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

OK so your a fuckin expert, this is your pet subject and as such this entitles you to ownership of this page? Take your head out of your ass doc and cut the precious little asshole crap. If I had time and the know how I would have tidied the entry. I tried to make the wording "coherent" so as to fit with the "scientific" airs and graces the page posesses. Fact is, if you and others on Wiki are going to intentionally obscure valid popular sociological observations - which can be verified by actually going to Youtube and typing the word "salvia" - well then that's really sad. Added to this is a secondary observation; which can be supported by viewing comments on Youtube and on Salvia forums. This relates to an expression of resentment that videos of Salvias ill informed use are being displayed; and what this entails with regard to the infringements on freedon of use that will ultimately follow this publicity. From what I can see some one with more time and interest in this subject could have taken the information and contextualised it: to just ignore it becasue it doesn't suit your little intellectual dictatorship is just sad. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] --143.117.78.169 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, which does not publish, original thought, research, unpublished conjecture, or your observations about the world, which is what the You Tube videos constitute. No one is implying ownership and your profanity laden tirades are more likely to get you blocked from editing than they are to facilitate the inclusion of the You Tube links. IvoShandor 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is relevant information. It is an observation (an observation that is not mine alone and if you looked passed your nose you would get this) of popular trends in Salvia usage. Just because there is no peer reviewed academic work on the subject does not invalidate the observation. Furthermore, you are a hypocrite, because there is an entire section included, called "expression", which amounts to nothing more than "original thought, research, unpublished conjecture, [and] observations about the world". There are a number of personal web pages cited in this section. We also have citations from Erowid: an organisation fronted by individuals who identify themselves as Earth and Fire Erowid; with staff supplying only nicknames to identify themselves. You see this brings the aforementioned objections into doubt. You want to adopt a hard science encyclopedic façade, yet when it suits the purposes of those controlling this page, dubious content is deemed permissible. ......... added at 15:27, 24 June 2007 by 143.117.78.169
Calling IvoShandor a hypocrite isn't helpful, but thank you for avoiding the earlier anal references. Things are perhaps looking up. You say: there is an entire section included, called "expression", which amounts to nothing more than "original thought, research, unpublished conjecture, [and] observations about the world". That seems a fair comment. I've marked the section accordingly; if better sources aren't forthcoming, it can be removed. So let's cut the junk rather than adding to it. Does no article in a medical journal deal with the effects of this plant? -- Hoary 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous, any more personal attacks will likely get you blocked. I reverted your edit because it is original research. Going to youtube and typing "Salvia" isn't "proof" enough, it is still original thought. If someone wrote an editor-reviewed article that appears to be at least a little bit credible, then it is good enough to add this statement. To assert that the increase in videos on youtube is likely to "hasten the banning process" of Salvia.. well.. says who? you? Let's see some specific sources here. Also blogs are not allowed. Wikidan829 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to add that there are citations provided from a webpage that is a commercial distributor of Salvia. The sections entitled Ingestion, After effects, and Controversy are also dubious relative to the criticisms that were leveled at the You Tube entry. Also, the Erowid study being cited (Baggot) was based on questionnaire response, it was not a scientifically based qualitative study, it was a personal interest study based on quantitative analysis. This Salvia Divinorum entry is currently not of encyclopedic quality: it's a drug users "how to" guide that is being controlled by a commercial interest and a bunch of drug geeks.

--143.117.78.169 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have raised issue with Erowid above. Instead of calling me names try reading the talk page. I will no longer respond to any comments you make and anything you say on my talk page will be immediately removed as trolling. Don't insult me again. IvoShandor 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
calling someone a hypocrite in the context of the objections that were raised is not an insult, it is a statement of fact; this can be easily verified by viewing the comparisons made. Yes, there's lots of "talk" on this page, what about actually doing something to edit the problematic sections as hastily as the You Tube item was dealt with? ... added at 19:45, 24 June 2007 by 143.117.78.169
Even if they are solidly grounded in fact, personal attacks are a no-no on WP. If somebody's edits or edit patterns demonstrate double standards, criticize them according to whatever seems the right standard.
Don't take this comment as assent to criticism of IvoShandor's edits, which I haven't looked at. (Indeed, I haven't even glanced at the article, other than at a section that was specifically criticized above.) -- Hoary 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

it seems a simple way to resolve this would be for the enthusiastic you tube contributor to find reference of a politician or other freedom stealing oppressor using you tube videos as an example of why salvia should be made illegal. [[User:aaronlife|aaronlife}} June 27, 07

---

I've included some narrative on Media stories and put it after the Controversy section. It also mentions YouTube, with reference to quotes made by Daniel Siebert in today's edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. [18]

--SallyScot 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erowid

Regarding 143.117.78.127's comment in the edit summary in placing OR tags against the Experience and After effects sections (11:09-11:17, 29 June 2007). Namely where they put...

"Original research caution - readers need to be aware of this. Erowid is a contentious reference source in terms of verifiability"

This is entirely misleading. The Erowid.org website itself issues guidance on how to read articles that it hosts. On page 20 of 'Erowid Extracts' magazine, in the same issue in which the Baggott survey was published there's an article called 'Hey, it's a Library', which responds to some common criticisms.

'How to read Erowid.org' is summarised on page 21, where they suggest that you always...

"Check Authorship. The articles published on Erowid are written by literally thousands of authors. When evaluating an article, readers need to ask: Who wrote this article? What are their qualifications? Have they written other articles?" and "What someone says in an Experience Report should be taken differently than something someone says in a research review article."

The Baggott survey is a research article. E. & F. Erowid are mentioned in the article's credits as a matter of courtesy for their help with the preliminary data, i.e. in enabling access to the surveyed users. The principle research itself was conducted by M. J. Baggott (BA) of the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute and was assisted by J. E. Mendelson (MD) of University of California, San Francisco.

As well as appearing in 'Erowid extracts', analysis of the data has been presented several scientific conferences, including the April 2004 “Towards a Science of Consciousness” conference in Tucson, AZ, and has also appeared in the journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

I have removed the OR tags on this basis.

--SallyScot 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Expression

Re. Others claim musical inspiration from the plant. Some examples of this include the songs "Salvia Divinorum" by 1200 Micrograms, "Rosetta Stoned" by Tool, "Salvia" by Deepwater Sunshine [9], and "8 Foot Sativa" by 8 Foot Sativa.

Can anyone cite some evidence that "Rosetta Stoned" and "8 Foot Satvia" are actually Salvia inspired?

--SallyScot 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Why was the entire section of Expression deleted? How does that benefit the wikipedia reader?

June 26, 2007,

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronlife (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The Expression section was initially deleted by anonymous user 143.117.78.169 at 20:05, 24 June 2007 as part of a series of deletes that they made following the reversion of their own 'You Tube' edit - see the discussion entries #YouTube Exposure for further background.

Another anonymous user 65.8.61.147 struggled to revert it back but it was again reverted (again anonymously) at 12:14, 26 June 2007 by 82.29.233.201

Actually, though I doubt this had much to do with 143.117.78.169's real motivation (it looked to me more like he was just throwing his toys out of the pram), I think there's perhaps some validity in the concern that the Expression section, and the remaining Experience section, could benefit from improvement in terms of their citations.

On the other hand, I thought that none of the content is, or was, particularly contentious or outrageous, and I agree that the reader in this case was not best served by its straightforward, immediate and unannounced deletion.

Anyway, I do intend to do something about it in the next few days, but it's looking a bit like an overall edit war at the moment. I'm hoping things will calm down and I can reinstate something sensible soon.

--SallyScot 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sally, that's strange. I think it's a worthwhile section, I was just talking to someone today who is an artist and wants to make a salvia inspired video. - aaronlife 6/27/07

I think I can safely say that Rosetta Stoned by Tool being inspired by Salvia can not be sourced. Their lyrics are multi-faceted, and in interviews they joke about psychedelic drugs, but rarely mention any of them in particular. In fact, I'm pretty sure I never heard any member of Tool ever mention Salvia. Wikidan829 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
SS you are another of the many hypocrites on wiki: because you cite Wiki contribution guidelines to others yet do your best to worm past them when nobody is observing. This is evidenced by your remarks here and on your personal discussion page.
The expression item is not relevant and it suggests that there is some clear connection between Salvia and creative activity when there is nothing to support this assumption. Some people create as a result of the influence of one drug or another, while others do not; arguably, those who do, had a creative dispostion to begin with. I mean, why not have a section over on alchohol dedicated to expression? Quite a few great writers, painters, composers, were pissed drunk a great deal of the time.--143.117.78.169 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous, I seriously wish I knew what you were talking about. We are against Original Research and SallyScot clearly displayed that in this conversation. Someone added Rosetta Stoned and 8 Foot Satvia as "salvia related" songs, which, without sources, is completely original research. SallyScot then posted here to ask if anyone has sources, to eliminate the OR factor. Having responded to that bunk, keep in mind that these Article Talk pages are for commenting on the article, not the contributor. If you have an issue with SallyScot take it to the user talk page. Wikidan829 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience and expression

I've rewritten the Experience section (and associated Expression sub-section) in an attempt to address some of the concerns raised about original research and lack of citations. Individual experience accounts and summarisations that may be considered 'reliable' are limited by some of Wikipedia's policies. However, cases do exist which have been published more formally, so I've sourced from some of these instead.

If you feel that this has stripped out some otherwise useful information then you're invited to add wherever you feel it's lacking, but please bear in mind generally that sources should be properly cited and all contributions considered for overall quality.

--SallyScot 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

links to myspace are not acceptable please view wiki policy on this. Also, saying numerous examples can be "found on the internet" is not acceptable in this context either. Lots of stuff is "found on the internet" this does not amount to a reliable verification of claims; in addition this applies to referencing forums and blogs. Also, visionary art claims cannot be substantiated; anyone can make art and claim it was visionary, where's the proof to support that it was directly connected with an experience, it's simply based upon someones word.--143.117.78.127 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Your statement of Wikipedia policy is too strident. I've viewed the 'wiki policy' on this as you suggest, and it doesn't simply say "links to myspace are not acceptable". There's a section in WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (my italics), which implies common sense may be used. The Wikipedia articles on Lily Allen & Tori Amos have links to their MySpace sites for example.

However, in order to show willing to move this discussion on, and to help establish whether or not objections are being raised just for the sake of being objectionable, in my latest edit I've completely removed the MySpace link and references to the Salvia song and reworded the article accordingly, so we can leave that part aside and just tackle what's left.

You go on to say - "anyone can make art and claim it was visionary, where's the proof to support that it was directly connected with an experience"

Again, I suggest that this indicates a misunderstanding of policy. Verifiability does not equate to 'truth', and in any case does not require the accompanying submission of 'proof' as such (i.e. a substantiation of the basis of claims themselves). Wikipedia has articles on all manner of subjects (Creationism is a good example), which it simply wouldn't be able to cover if verifiability was taken to be the same thing as veracity.

Once more though, if it helps, I have reworded the section, so it now more clearly says that the examples "claim" to be Salvia inspired rather than simply implying, as a matter of fact, that they are. Readers will be in a position to make their own determinations and decide for themselves.

--SallyScot 14:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Critique

This is a good article. It's almost worthy of GA status and not too far from FA status. However, there are some things that need to be fixed:

  • Laundry lists. There are REALLY bad laundry lists in this article that need to go. The whole Media story references section needs to go, and if any are referenced in the body, move the citation to the citations section. The e-mail addresses therein must also go. The See also section should also be trimmed down as much as possible, and any articles already linked in the body of the article should be removed from the see also section. External links should also be trimmed down as much as possible, since they're definitely spam.
  • Organization. Some things are just out of order. The See Also section should be below the references, and I feel that Experience and After Effects could be merged into one section.
  • Funny writing. There are some goofy things in this article that should be copyedited. Example: However, this theory is not without dispute. Another example: There's further reference to this survey and its results in the After effects section below.

Other than those three complaints, this article is good. It's well written and well referenced, which is the most important thing. The pictures are good and it flows well. If you make those changes I listed, this will definitely be GA quality, and some more work could land this an FA. I'll try and work on this when I get a chance, but anyone else is welcome to make those changes. Jolb 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is one important thing that you are overlooking here and that is the extensive linking to the Sage Wisdom website operated by Daniel Siebert. There is no disputing Sierbert's standing with regard to expertise in this area, however, there may be a conflict of issues[19] problem if one considers that the Sage Wisdom website is a comercial domain that profits from the sale of Salvia Divinorum. I find this objectionable and think only references to Sieberts published works should be included; rather than links to the website. I also have to object to the direct link to a myspace page and the the fact that this is the only offering of evidence for the influence of Salvia on music making, it seems rather weak (and may simply be someone plugging their own band).--143.117.78.169 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that myspace references are inappropriate. As Jimbo Wales once said, "I am really serious: you MUST write with attention to SOURCES. Random message boards do not count. Internet achives of unknown provenance do not count. We need newspapers, magazine articles, actual government documents, etc. REAL SOURCES." That should definitely be removed.
On the other note, Oversourcing one source is inappropriate, and commercial websites aren't usually reliable, but unless there's obvious POV, I think that for now, we can let them slide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 July 2007
To clarify for retrospective reading of discussion (not always easy to follow as the article gets further edited), but 143.117.78.nnn’s objection about the myspace music link was a complete red herring here. This sort of thing may elicit a quick “I agree” response from the unsuspecting reader, however, the fact is, at the time of 143.117.78.nnn’s post, there was no such myspace link included in the article. - It’s just another example of misleading bluster. --SallyScot 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Without necessarily agreeing that the project is a formally recognisable Wikipedia policy (I'm not sure it is as such), the stated aims of the 'laundry list' project seem in any case to suggest two different approaches depending on the context and content of the said 'list'.

Namely; only remove completely if the entries not notable / unhelpful, but otherwise, incorporate contents into the flow of article text where possible.

The media story references as they stood were not trivial. Only notable stories run by notable news agencies were included (i.e. the references already generally excluded duplicate stories, minor publications - small circulation school / college hobbyist magazines, blogs, etc.).

I do not see a reasonable justification for completely removing them. Assuming you didn't want to have a go at improving the article by incorporating into the main body flow yourself, then it would be more consistent with the stated goals of the 'laundry list' project if instead you'd simply identified your concern as a discussion point and invited someone else to take a look or further comment.

In fact, many of the entries are explicitly referred to in the main article. So the deletion was also quite indiscriminate and destructive in this respect. As it stands it leaves a load of article references pointing to entries which no longer exist!

In addition, media story references have a different format and are of a different ilk to scientific journal and research papers for example. It is more appropriate for journals to use the standard {{Citation}} template, whereas news stories should utilise {{Cite news}}. Putting the references in distinct sub-sections within the overall references section was felt to be helpful in this respect. It also allows different grouping strategies to be used. Author surname order for standard citations; news report date order for media stories, within grouping by country - both felt to be useful factors of relevance to the particular chronological and local significance of 'news'.

I do take the point that the Media stories main section in the article could maybe have benefited with some work to expand the narrative. Media reporting is an important part of the overall Salvia divinorum phenomena and it is probably worth saying a bit more about this. Pending this expansion what I do not see however is how the reader (and/or prospective article editor) is best served in the meantime by unhelpful outright deletion of all the references.

--SallyScot 14:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of the ones I deleted were referenced, then please go back and copy them into the citations section. However, a section like that is obviously against wikipedia policy. If you don't think that it counts as spam, then just look at all the other featured articles. Not a single featured article has a section like that, not even current events with extensive media coverage like Roe v. Wade, South Australian state election, 2006, or Intelligent design.
Most of those media sources weren't referenced in the text. They didn't serve as a citation... they were just "external links." Take a look at Wikipedia:External links. Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.
Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.... Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
Obviously, wikipedia policy frowns on external links in general, and it ESPECIALLY frowns on ones that link to repetitive news stories that add no content. If they aren't references, they need to go. Jolb 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say how strange it is that my FA (the election) was used as an example as to why said laundry list needed to (justifiably) be removed. I see no commonality between either the subject or the style of writing. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The EL guidelines concern themselves with "external links that are not citations of article sources." going on to state "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.".

This preference for proper citation has been reflected in the Salvia article as it's developed and matured. The article now contains appropriate references to The Salvia divinorum Research and Information Center (Daniel Siebert's site) and articles supported by Erowid for example.

I suggest on this basis that the External links section is no longer adding much value to the article overall. In fact, more than anything, it simply acts as a magnet for spam, something which I and others have spent much of our editorial time constantly reverting and fixing. As such I've removed it completely.

Similarly the "See also" section guidelines says "it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article". Again, I suggest that the article has reached a state of development that it already has sufficiently wikilinked other articles of interest within its body text, so I've removed this section too.

I think the resulting article overall, with just the remaining narrative sections and one grand reference section, looks more impressive as a whole.

--SallyScot 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Great work! Jolb 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

News references

I've added some of the News references again. This is intended to quickly fix the article references broken by Jolb's earlier wholesale edit of the entire section. Some other entries not yet article referenced have be also included again, with a view to further working into the narrative. I have left out some of the originally included media stories, but left in others which I feel are more noteworthy. I believe this is more consistent with regard to the stated goals of the laundry list project (to which I'm not unsympathetic) rather than completely removing the entries altogether. I've included some comments against the references to give context and help with their future integration. I've also removed all journalist email addresses.

--SallyScot 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Some further work on Media stories narrative has been done. Further integration work still intended, but not much more (by me at least) for a little while. I'd suggest in any case that the number of remaining News references isn't currently without justification. The greater majority are now explicitly referenced in fact. - With others anyway generally adding weight and supporting more implicitly. For example, article narrative making points such as - "These stories generally raise alarms over Salvia's legal status" - would be less well supported if the references were otherwise whittled down to a bare minimum. In fact, in that case the article could then find itself having to defend against the charge of having cherry picked perhaps unrepresentative stories in order to emphasize particular points.

--SallyScot 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Further critique

I've noticed something quite wrong with this article: original research.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but if you need to "prove" things in the text, then you're doing original research. For example, the two references to "Forums" qualify as original research, because they do not cite a respected source which states the information, they prove the information. That kind of proof shows that an editor went out of his/her way to research that, and therefore, it is clearly original research. I will begin working on removing original research. Jolb 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's all gone. Jolb 20:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Also, this sentence: A report on several Salvia species[6] has looked at the efficacy of some ‘folk’ uses of the genus. Salvia divinorum, as one of the species included in the study, was found to work as a diuretic. is awkward. It stands alone, and it seems to be misplaced. I don't have access to the full text of the citation, but it should probably be changed... It should not talk about "A report," rather, it should just state that it is used in "folk" medicine as a diuretic. Also, I think it should be placed in the "Short term" section. Jolb 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this one myself. Jolb 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


This sentence needs a reference: However, extrapolation from the observation of temporary physiological effects in rats to suggest more serious psychological consequences is questionable, particularly given that Salvia’s short-term effects on motor-control have already been observed and well documented in human subjects.

I inserted a {{cn}} tag until that is fixed. Once that gets fixed, we should have a Peer Review and then nominate the article for GA status. Jolb 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I also removed all the unused references. The article is much much better now. Jolb 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed edit summary comments suggesting that some might find the cross-referencing style used in this article rather hard work (e.g. "doing references like this is a chore" - 19:41, 21 July 2007 Jolb, and "why did you pick the most confusing references format ever?" - 19:23, 21 July 2007 Jolb).

The article's referencing method, whereby short format cross-references appear ahead of fully formatted citations, with the short cross-references effectively linking back to the reference points in the article (via ^ or ^ a b c etc) but also forward to the fully formatted citations (via the short reference text itself) was introduced to this article by user OldakQuill in edits they began making 00:13, 22 December 2006[20]

It took me a while to get my head around it but I felt there were worthwhile advantages.

For a start, short format cross-references may include a specific page, page range, or section reference - useful when citing from large articles and allowing different multiple short references (e.g. for distinct pages, page ranges, or sections) all to point forward to the same single fully-formatted citation - so the short forms are quite literally proper cross-references (see how this works for the article's "Marushia 2002" reference for example).

Having the short form cross-references also allows the citations themselves to be properly organised, i.e. for journal and research articles alphabetically by leading author surname as is the convention. Without the short form cross-references, if instead full format citations were placed inside article's <ref> tags, <reflist> would simply generate its list in the order in which they came in the article - not very easy then to find any given citation.

There are some other advantages too. Short format cross-references don't interfere with the article's text as much as full format citations would. For example the article's first sentence would otherwise need to fully include...

  • Medana, Claudio; Massolino, Cristina; Pazzi, Marco; Baiocchi, Claudio (Dec 2005), "Determination of salvinorins and divinatorins in Salvia divinorum leaves by liquid chromatography/multistage mass spectrometry", Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 20 (2): 131–136, doi:10.1002/rcm.2288, retrieved 2007-05-04{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

...somehow, each all within <ref> tags within the body text.

Overall, I think the cross-referencing method is worth persevering with. However, I have encountered some limitations and difficulties to be overcome along the way. OldakQuill introduced the method using {{Harvnb}} - the short Harvard citation no brackets template which has the general form {{Harvnb|AuthorLastName(|s)|Year|TextLocation(optional-p/pp=)}}. {{Harvnb}} uses multiple surnames (up to four, and year) to forward link to {{Citation}} template.

However, the generic {{Citation}} format is not as good as some of the custom citation templates in some cases. For example, {{cite news}} is a better format for citing media stories, and {{cite book}} generally better for books. Unfortunately, these other citation templates do not link with {{Harvnb}}.

Last but not least of course, freehand citations are also a problem with {{Harvnb}}.

So, to get a working forward link from inside the <ref> tags {{Harvnb}} needs instead to be replaced with [[#Reference-...]] - the 'free-format' version of wikiref template, which hooks up nicely with {{wikicite}}. It can all seem rather esoteric, but the reference simply has the form [[#Reference-YourMadeUpId|RefTextToBeDisplayed]], and all {{wikicite}} is really is simply a 'wrapper' around your custom citation with a made up id matching that of [[#Reference-...]] so that the link between them works.

Given that {{Harvnb}} doesn't work for all types of citation it might be an idea to stop using it altogether - and maybe change all the existing occurrences to switch them over to [[#Reference-...]] and {{wikicite}}. That way it will be less confusing with all references using the same technique rather than having two methods appearing the same article.

--SallyScot 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has since been done. All {{Harvnb}} usage has been switched over to [[#Reference-...]] + {{wikicite}}. This way it will be less confusing with all references using the same technique rather than having two methods appearing the same article. --SallyScot 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I removed the last {{cn}} tag and I've nominated this article for a peer review. Let's hope it's productive. Jolb 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Alright, nobody helped in the peer review. We got no human comments, only one automated comment. I'll nominate this article for GA status now. Jolb 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This GA has been put on hold as it lacks a NPOV due to the lack of views on this plant in parts of Europe and Asia. This is most noticable in the "Controversy" section. When this issue is addressed feel free to leave a note on my talk page. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take the article to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

As a European (UK) based editor who's made a number of contributions to this article I have to say that the lack 'rest-of-the world' views, media stories, pronouncements by politicians and the like regarding legal status is quite a fair reflection of the lesser attention that Salvia is receiving in comparison to the US. It's not really a result of a US-centric bias in the writing. It just so happens that a much greater furore has kicked off in the States - especially following the Brett Chidester case (Brett's Law) - and the article naturally reflects that.

--SallyScot 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, other wise its good. I'll pass it, and as I would for any article this one can always be expanded. Also when you feel that the article is ready feel free to take it for an A-class peer review. Tarret 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Great! This article deserved it. Jolb 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Identity of pipilzintzintli and poyomatli

I've included some further references on the identity of "pipilzintzintli" and "poyomatli" - suggesting no overall current consensus with regard to either.

However, I think the case for "pipilzintzintli" is perhaps somewhat stronger than that for "poyomatli". - Jonothan Ott at least puts forward some detail arguments in support of Wasson's theory.[21]

For "poyomatli" I haven't yet found much beyond Dweck's paper,[22] which is just a passing reference in a work about Salvia in general (i.e. the genus, not Salvia divinorum in particular). The reference made in Dweck's paper is only substantiated with further reference to Mann, 1989 - a book entitled "Murder, magic and medicine"[23]. There's perhaps a stronger case for Cacahuaxochitl (Quararibea funebris) as "poyomatli" than there is for Salvia divinorum. Erowid's Cacahuaxochitl summary for example mentions "poyomatli"[24], and there are some other website mentions too [25][26]. Unfortunately however, some potentially promising further research papers - which might add more serious weight one way or the other - seem to be available online only on a subscription basis - these include tantalizing titles such as "Ethnopharmacology of Sacred Psychoactive Plants Used by the Indians of Mexico",[27] "Ethnopharmacological table on some reputedly psychoactive fumigatories among Middle and South American natives"[28] and "Aphrodisiac Use in Pre-Columbian Aztec and Inca Cultures".[29]

In some of these cases, although the full article text can't be accessed, the search engine's return of brief summary text can be quite suggestive. For example, a Google search on "poyomatli" that returns the "Ethnopharmacological table…" result, also returns some associated text "…The Aztecs used poyomatli,. the flower of the cacaua-. xochitl plant, as an admix-. ture to smoking tobacco…"

Anyway, it'd be good if anyone has full access to either Mann's book "Murder, magic and medicine", or other more relevant research, and can further elucidate here.

--SallyScot 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Trips

I believe that the "Immediate effects" and "After effects" sections lack some balance. There is no hint that consumption could lead to an unpleasant experience or downright bad trip. Delta G 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I've added the following paragraph to Immediate effects section...

Pendell expresses some concerns about the use of highly concentrated forms of Salvia. In its natural form Salvia is more balanced and benevolent, and quite strong enough, he argues. High strength extracts on the other hand can show "a more precipitous, and more terrifying, face" and many who try it this way may never wish to repeat the experience. (Pendell 1995)

--SallyScot 10:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Antidepressant properties and k-opiod agonists

There are some serious errors of citation in the language around salvia as an antidepressant and the activity of k-opioid receptors. The quote referenced that supposedly supports the antidepressant conclusion is:

k Antagonists possess utility in the treatment of opioid dependence and have been shown to have anti-depressant activity as well as block stress-induced behavior responses.[30]

But Salvia is not a k-opioid antagonist, it is an agonist. Huge, huge difference. It is well-established that activity of k-opioid agonists (such as Salvia) is expected to cause "dysphoria, nausea, and psychotomimetic effects" [31]. Having dealt with that incorrect citation, we're left with the Hanes citation, which is a report of a single case study of a single individual. While interesting, scientifically speaking it carries virtually no weight. With that in mind, the comment dismissing the forced-swim tests as "contested" seems also to be inappropriate. It seems like the research is entirely inconclusive, and the scientific theory and evidence seems to point to the opposite of antidepressant activity. This content really needs to be rewritten with a neutral attitude and a careful reading of cited material. The Crow 00:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also noting that regarding the Baggot survey, the article presents only part of the results, leaving off most of the reported negative aftereffects. This kind of selective reporting is really not neutral. The Crow 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Good work with regard to k-opioid activity here by The Crow. - Though it's interesting as to why "depressive-like" effects inferred in rats might be contradicted by accounts coming from actual human subjects. Any inference about rats' state of mind from forced-swim tests are based largely on observations of Salvia's physiological effect. Salvia's effect on motor-control is also well observed in humans (I wouldn't expect it to improve my swimming ability). This begs the question as to why inferences from rat behaviour would be favoured over reports from human subjects who are not generally reporting depressive like effects.

I don't have an issue with generally wanting to suggest that - "Studies are inconclusive on the long-term effects of Salvia on mood." - The difference between agonist and antagonist is noteworthy. However, I do have concerns over including - "K-opiod agonists such as Salvia are well-known to cause dysphoria in humans. [32]" - This could easily be construed as a supporting reference for the 'fact' of Salvia causing dysphoria. However, the quoted reference doesn't actually mention Salvia divinorum or salvinorin A. In fact, looking deeper into it, it doesn't really refer to k-opioid agonists at all. Rather it refers specifically to "kappa opiate agonists", and strictly speaking, the term opiate means a substance/drug that is extracted from opium (or is similar in structure). Salvinorin A may be an opioid, but it is not an opiate. Furthermore, each of the main receptor categories (mu, delta and kappa) can be further subdivided into various opioid receptor subtypes. Other journal references to salvinorin A suggest that it is very much a "selective" k-opioid agonist, so different k-opioid agonists could indeed be expected to have quite different effects. I've therefore reworded the article to say "other different types of k-opioid agonist, namely opiates, are understood to cause dysphoria in humans." - Further reading of further research may further elucidate here.

Also, I’m not sure I’d fully agree with the concern raised about biased & selective reporting of Baggot's survey results. The Salvia article simply refers to the most commonly reported effects. It's a summary. If it were felt that this was insufficiently detailed then what other effects should be mentioned? Those reported with a frequency of >15%? Or >10%? I think the Salvia article as a whole should be borne in mind. A request was made in the discussion topic above for balancing mention of Salvia's potentially unpleasant effects for example, and the article was subsequently amended to say that many may find it terrifying and "may never wish to repeat the experience". And there's the Controversy section referring to a wide range of views on the subject of course. --SallyScot 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the significance of "k-opiate agonist." The kappa distinction refers only to types of receptors, not substances, hence there is no such thing as a "kappa opioid" or "kappa opiate". As far as the term "selective", this only refers to the letter designation of the receptor. A "highly selective k-opioid agonist" means that it is highly specific to the k-opioid receptor as opposed to delta-opioid, mu-opioid, or for that matter dopamine receptors. Subtypes of subtypes are known to exist, but to my knowledge the definition of selectivity is not applied at this level. The Crow 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think - "It is well understood that k-opioid agonists cause dysphoria in humans." - is overstating the case. It could imply that it is well understood that all k-opioid agonist are known to do this, and this simply does not follow, at least as far the given reference is concerned. --SallyScot 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the survey results, I will explain the problem I have with the balance. The 44% figure for 'improved mood' is quoted prominently and attributed antidepressant effects, yet we have left off responses like 'irritable' (5%), 'worsened mood' (4%), 'decreased self-confidence' (2.4%), decreased insight (1.8%). If the 44% figure is taken as reliable then I don't see how the others can be ignored. Also the study never used the language "anti-depressant". So I think it is not appropriate to inject characterizations of this type considering the mixed results. The Crow 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Re - "the study never used the language "anti-depressant". So I think it is not appropriate to inject characterizations of this type" - the study used the term "antidepressant-like effects" so I've reinstated this and also fixed the percentage number, which for long term is 25.8% reporting persisting improved mood (44.8% was for shorter term). --SallyScot 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I take the point that maybe some reported negative effects could perhaps be referred to somehow, but I'd suggest that particular care should be taken here. I don't really follow the argument - "If the 44% figure is taken as reliable then I don't see how the others can be ignored". A figure of 44% is not so much reliable as it is significant, simply because of the number of respondents that percentage relates to. A figure of 0.6% is clearly less significant (and also less reliable) by comparison. The survey deals not with physical measures like height and weight, but with subjective phenomena - changes in feelings and mood. 4 or 5 percent of any population could easily report feeling more irritable or being in a worse mood from time to time just naturally - without having taken any form of mood altering substance at all.
I don't think that the article should just flatly have things like - "Regarding dependence, the Baggott survey found that 0.6% percent of respondents reported feeling addicted to or dependent on Salvia at some point, and 1.2% reported strong cravings." - without further context. The study itself reports - "We found little evidence of dependence in our survey population " - and of the figures it says - "there were too few of these individuals to interpret their reports with any confidence". If you believe that the 0.6% needs to be referred to at all in the article's summarising of the results (and I'm not convinced that it is really warranted) then, at the very least, it has to be conceded that it's potentially misleading not to also include this context. I've reworded article text on this basis. --SallyScot 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There still seems to be some unbalance regarding how k-opioid agonist activity is being generalized. You have been extremely careful in making sure that dysphoric effects are only attributed to "some" k-opioid agonists, yet you seem to have no problem in speculating that Salvia may be useful in treating drug addictions, "in line with other k-opioid agonists", without having a citation to any actual study that concluded this. It seems that if we're going to speculate regarding what Salvia may do because it is a k-opioid agonist, then we ought to be uniform in that speculation, and state that it may also cause dysphoria as a k-opioid agonist. The word "may cause" in general should be a red flag to WP:OR. Wikipedia should not be creating new information by drawing inferences between primary sources. The Crow 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for retrospective reading of discussion (not always easy to follow as the article gets further edited), but, as with the Crow's claim - "the study never used the language 'anti-depressant'", the following accusation - "you seem to have no problem in speculating that Salvia may be useful in treating drug addictions" is again an unfortunate case of misdirection. Prior to this point citation had already been included which has the following...
"Thomas Prisinzano, an assistant professor of medicinal and natural products chemistry at the University of Iowa, said salvia may help doctors treat cocaine addicts. [...] You can give a rat free access to cocaine, give them free access to Salvinorin A, and they stop taking cocaine" (Masis 2007)
Wikipedia should not be creating new information by drawing inferences between primary sources. - Agreed... and neither was it the case!
--SallyScot 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Baggott survey

The original summary display of the Baggott survey results may have lacked contrasting data, but it was nice and easy. Simply referring to the most commonly reported phenomena (>20% occurrence) was at least a clear approach.[33]

I understand the argument for wanting to include some contrast (as with the revision [34]), but, as I've suggested, I think particular care needs to be taken if you want to refer to less significant percentages. For example, contrasting 'Improved mood' (44.8%) with the two negative factors 'Worsened mood' (4%) and 'Irritable' (5%) may be inviting the reader to somehow tally these up (4% + 5% = 9%) which I think is potentially misleading.

The survey simply wasn't set up for the participants to rate on a scale their feelings of 'Calmness' versus 'Mind racing' / 'Heart racing' for example. One could ask; why not contrast 'Irritable' with 'Calmness' - either in addition to, or instead of, the other factors?

I'd suggest that unless the effects are clearly contrastable from their descriptions, such as 'Increased Connection with Universe or Nature' compared with 'Decreased Connection with Universe or Nature' then they shouldn't be contrasted, otherwise it could look like you're injecting your own analysis (i.e. original research).

Also, the 'Connection with Universe or Nature' results were not included in your summary, thus overlooking a significant effect with a reported frequency of 39.8%, and leading me to wonder about other commonly reported effects not lending themselves to such easy contrast which were also overlooked.

I've attempted to address some of these concerns in my edit.

--SallyScot 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a smaller number means "less significant" in any case. What does "significance" mean anyway with regard to cold hard numbers? Either your numbers are reliable or they aren't, and if they aren't, then a reliable researcher does not publish them. I doubt the people who experienced worsened mood or other adverse effects felt that they were "less significant". Randomly selecting a value of 20% as "common"... who decided 20% is sufficiently common? Perhaps you felt that was straightforward. I happen to notice that a number of 20% conveniently cuts off the most negative effects as well as effects that specifically contrast with the positive ones you seem interested in highlighting.
In fact, the whole Baggot survey is somewhat dubious in my estimation, as the population is a self-selected group of Erowid readers who are presumably more experienced with psychedelics and thus more likely to be open and accepting to such experiences, as well as possibly inclined to cast them in a positive light. As such, the survey is just a novelty with little more significance than a USA Today pie chart. It is not published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and merely "it's been presented" suggests no credibility, it only means that a few people were interested in hearing about it. My main concern is that if you are going to provide positive responses, then you shouldn't likewise ignore the negative ones just because you think 20% seems a pretty good idea for a cutoff number. Regarding "connection with the universe", this is not typically an item in a credible scientific or medical study. I see it as an result of soliciting trip reports from a group of self-selected Erowid readers, serving to make the whole survey look just a bit more loopy. Include it if you absolutely must; I do not see how it serves to increase the credibility of this article. The Crow 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

As I've suggested, we're not talking about 'cold hard' measures like height and weight, but with subjective phenomena - changes in feelings and mood. The researchers published their figures comprehensively, but with the lower percentages there were also published comments such as - "serious adverse events were rare in this young population" and "We found little evidence of dependence in our survey population." - So it's not so much the case, as you suggest, that a reliable researcher should not have published these lower figures in the first place, it's more the case that a reliable summary should take care not to show them out of context.

Your point about adverse effects not being "less significant" for the people that experienced them is rather an emotive one. As I've said, 4 or 5 percent of any population could easily report feeling more irritable or being in a worse mood from time to time just naturally - without having taken any form of mood altering substance. Further interesting comparison could be made with the world's most popular psychoactive drug, caffeine, for which it has been found that 10% of people with even only a moderate daily intake (235 mg per day) reported increased depression and anxiety when caffeine was withdrawn,[35] and for which about 15% of the general population report having stopped caffeine use completely, citing concern about health and unpleasant side effects.[36]

I don't know who initially considered 20% as "common" with regard to summarising the survey results. I didn't include the article's original reference to the Baggott report and these are the first edits I've made in connection with its summarisation. But it looked like a round number. If it had been set to 15% that would have included 'Improved Concentration', 'Drowsiness', 'Dizziness' and 'Lack of Coordination'. If set to 25% it would have excluded, 'Mind Racing', 'Lightheaded', 'Increased Self Confidence'. Either way, I don't think the implication that a random value had been "conveniently" chosen is particularly appropriate.

In any case, if you do want to refer to some of the lower percentages for contrast, all I'm asking is that you take particular care when doing so.

With regard to your attempts to undermine the validity of the research as a whole: - Of course, the population with regard to any psychedelic study involving human subjects is necessarily self-selected. You can't just administer psychedelic substances blindly to unwitting subjects (unless perhaps you’re doing CIA research).

You seem to be suggesting that accounts from people who've taken Salvia are perhaps dubious because they're the just the sort of people who might take Salvia.

And the survey has been published elsewhere aside from 'Erowid Extracts' actually (Baggott, M. (2004) "Use of salvia divinorum, an unscheduled hallucinogenic plant: a web-based survey of 500 users." Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Volume 75, Issue 2, Page P72). So your comment - "the survey is just a novelty with little more significance than a USA Today pie chart" - is perhaps just giving away your own personal bias, as is your "loopy" comment with regard to reported feelings of 'Connection with universe or nature'.

You've claimed - "scientific theory and evidence seems to point to the opposite of antidepressant activity" - but frankly, thus far, this doesn't seem to well supported. Your undermining of a survey of human responses seems then to be in favour of observations of rat mobility (in conjunction with some old NIDA report - which seems to be referring to drugs specifically extracted from opium) as being somehow better scientific evidence from which to draw conclusions.

--SallyScot 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sally D"

This is my first involvement on the subject, but I notice that reference to "Sally D" as an aka for Salvia divinorum in the article's lead section has been included (and reverted) a few times in the past. My suspicion about the term is that it's really one only used, if not originally completely made up, by the media. - So that they can say things like - "it goes by the street name of Sally D", which sounds somehow more menacing than simply Salvia divinorum or Diviners Sage say. If that's the case then I don't think this largely invented term warrants mention in the lead (maybe a passing reference in the Media stories section if at all). I could be wrong though. Can anyone else reliably cite some frequency of use of the term other than in media stories?

--SallyScot 11:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The only name I ever hear for it, on the street or otherwise, is "Salvia". Reswobslc 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nightline on ABC will cover salvia divinorum tonight (10/2/07)

I dunno if it will say anything that could add to this article, but just in case, I wanted people to know so they could watch it. 68.197.174.169 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The news report was of interest and has been referred to in the article. --SallyScot 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

The article was not promoted to Featured Article status, and the reasons why can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salvia divinorum/archive1. However, I think this Featured Article review wasn't up to par... only one person left their opinion, and no comments were made after I fixed two of the five complaints (and the other three seemed to be style suggestions rather than conflicts with any of the Featured Article Criteria.) Regardless, if we can fix the remaining complaints, we'll definitely be ready for Featured Article Status. Jolb 09:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we try nominating it again soon, or is there a rule/guideline on how often an article can be nominated? 68.197.174.169 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We could, but little has changed since the last time we nominated it. Even though we received next to nothing in terms of feedback, i think it's likely that if we were failed before, it will be failed again since little has changed. Jolb 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)

SallyScot's edits

SallyScot, I noticed that you reverted some of my edits. I think your reverting a few of them was counter-productive, and none of your reverts to my edits assumed good faith.

Because of the comments we got during the Featured Article review, I took the advice of one user and replaced the sentence:

Differing studies suggest no overall consensus so far with regard to the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum on mood.

With this one:

Salvia divinorum's effects on mood are controversial, as different scientific studies on the effects of Salvia and related drugs have reached different conclusions.

I made that change on the suggestion of a Featured Article reviewer. So, already, that's two opinions against one.

Regardless of wikiality, I believe the sentence I wrote is much more clear and is better grammar.

I also made the following change on the suggestion of the Featured Article reviewer: I replaced:

The relatively recent emergence of Salvia divinorum in modern Western culture, in comparison to its long continuing traditions of indigenous use elsewhere, contrasts widely differing attitudes on the subject.

with:

Salvia divinorum, despite its long history of use in Central America, is virtually unknown in the United States. Therefore, response to Salvia in United States media and academia has been mixed.

Again, I feel your sentence is choppy and confusing, and mine is more clear.

I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm not going to change them back. However, the two sentences I replaced are pretty awful, so would you either change them to whatever you want or revert them to my versions? Thanks! Jolb 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Jolb. No bad faith issues here. I accept and appreciate that you have best intentions for the article.

My edits weren’t strictly reverts. Though I see how they could be taken that way as my changes were quite subtle. I didn't think they needed much alteration as the featured article criticism only suggested to me some minor considerations as to flow.

I changed my original "Contrasting studies suggests no overall consensus so far with regard to the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum on mood." to "Differing studies suggest no overall consensus so far with regard to the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum on mood." In other words, I changed the opening "Contrasting" to "Differing" for the sake of clarity. I don't think it was a particularly halting sentence in its original form, and so felt only a slight change was called for. I had some issue with "Salvia divinorum's effects on mood are controversial, as different scientific studies on the effects of Salvia and related drugs have reached different conclusions." - as I don't see that the studies have really reached conclusions, so I felt that to say that they had was an overstatement.

Similarly, with "The relatively recent emergence of Salvia divinorum in modern Western culture, in comparison to its long continuing traditions of indigenous use elsewhere, contrasts widely differing attitudes on the subject." - I felt this was simply a minor issue of flow and a minor change, namely newly including the two commas, where there was previously just one long sentence, would help with any tripping over the prose here. I felt your alternative was unnecessarily US-centric by comparison.

I'm happy to work to a consensus . - I didn't see these as 'edit war' type issues. Basically I chose slightly (and subtly) reworking the original forms as a simpler way forward (simpler for me at least). - Apologies if any of my changes looked like bad faith reverts.

--SallyScot 22:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. If anyone has an objection to those sentences, it's no problem; we'll surely hear about it in the next featured article review. Jolb 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)
Jolb. - I noticed that SineBot signed your comment here. Your own signature version links to a seemingly spurious talk page entry (i.e. Talk:Marc_Lemire/Archive_1#This_article_was_horrible). Is this intentional? --SallyScot 11:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol, yes, it is intentional. I think that's a funny joke and I don't really have much of a user page... and I've never seen any rule stating that it HAS to link to your user page. Jolb 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)

"Maria Pastora"?

Would that not be "Ska Maria Pastora" or "Hojas de Maria Pastora"? Because "Maria Pastora" - "Mary the Shepherdess" - is just an avatar of Mary mother of Jesus (IIRC); the correct names as I remember them mean "Herb of Mary the Shepherdess". Basically an example of the Christian-Prechristian melange one not rarely finds in rural Latin America. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be ska Maria Pastora. I've amended accordingly. --SallyScot (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"A Warning"

I have experimented with almost every mind-expanding, mood-altering and shape-shifting chemical out there. I am a rabid anti-prohibitionist. But In My Humble Opinion, after trying it several times, I have come to believe that for some people, salvia can be a very very dangerous drug. The hallucinations are sudden and extremely vivid; much more so than L.S.D. When on acid, one knows that one is experiencing the effects of a drug, and for the most part, doesn't totally lose control of time, place and self. With Salvia this is not at all true. Salvia made me hallucinate most vividly - and not always pleasantly - and I was at times unaware of who I was, where I was, and WHEN it was. I can see some individual suddenly seeing himself attacked by a bear and defending himself against this bear only to find out later he stabbed his wife. I don't mean to sound alarmist about this, I just think that for all the support it gets, there should be some kind of warning that this is a very potent and powerful chemical that can put you extremely out of touch with reality, even if it's just for ten or twenty minutes.

142.179.13.62 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your concerns. The article currently includes the facts that salvinorin A is the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive compound known, that it can induce intense and profoundly altered states, and, particularly when using high-strength extracts, that some people may find Salvia divinorum terrifying and may never wish to repeat the experience.

The point about the inclusion of any such detail in Wikipedia is that it must be well-sourced. If we do not remain vigilant on this, particularly over a subject where there's much strength of feeling and controversy as in this case, then it would quickly descend into a free-for-all. And the article would suffer as a result.

In this context, the notion of your partner perhaps seen as a bear, subsequent tragic stabbing and all, is, at end of the day, merely speculation. That's putting it rather bluntly I know, and I don't mean to diminish your concerns, which I'm sure are quite sincere. However, on the other hand, I've personally read a number of reports for example from people who've claimed that Salvia has in effect saved their lives. - Cases of depression, addiction, and other crises, where Salvia's visions and insights have helped greatly, when approached in what we might call a more respectful and proper 'shamanic' way for instance.

But, whatever, and in any case, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the only material an encyclopaedia can reference is material originally published elsewhere, and by reliable sources of note. It's not a place for the publication of original research, or personal points of view, no matter how well intended they are felt to be.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a report on erowid.org of an individual at a party becoming delirious, grabbing a knife and threatening people. He came back 15 minutes later to discover himself being apprehended by police. It seems to be the only incident of its kind documented, and of itself isn't a reliable source, but I figure I'd mention it on the talk page. It may be worth adding something like the following: "The effects of salvia divinorum vary and are not yet fully understood. Given that extracts of salvinorin A can be very powerful, individuals considering using the substance should take care to ensure their own safety and that of those around them." I do understand the issue of NPOV so take what I say here with a grain of salt. 75.141.52.231 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The only warning i have to give you: don't be scared of it. Let your brain overload and like, dont try controling your buzz.-Pascal, I took it twice and loved it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.212.9 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some cautionary notes to the article. --SallyScot (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Endangered Status

Salvia Divinorum is extremely rare in the wild, existing only in a small region of Mexico. I would like to suggest someone add a "Conservation Status" graphic in the quick info pane on the right. (I would do so but it requires one to be registered) The graphics are here: Conservation Image Table and an overview of the guidelines is here: Wikipedia:Conservation status. The plant falls unambiguously into at least the Vulnerable category, and it is more likely Endangered or Critically Endangered. A relatively small amount of human activity (development in the Sierra Mazateca region) could stomp this species out. Thanks very much for maintaining the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.52.231 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I think it would be fairly uncontentious to say that Salvia divinorum was an extremely rare plant. - I think I could find sources for that. However, Wikipedia's Conservation status guidelines say, "Please do not use a conservation status that has not been officially given by an authoritative source. Your own judgement may be considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policy to include." By this I take it to mean one of the authorities such as IUCN. For example, I searched the IUCN Red List; there are 14 species of Salvia listed, but not Salvia divinorum. I also checked NatureServe conservation status (though I wasn't entirely sure I what I was getting from its search engine). So, at this stage, unless someone else wants to investigate further, I don't think much more could be done than include something in the narrative of the article. Dale Pendell describes it for example as - "An extremely rare cultigen, found only at a few locations in Oaxaca."[Mexico] - Which isn't an 'official' classification, but is good enough to go in the body text. --SallyScot (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The only warning i have to give you: don't be scared of it. Let your brain overload and like, dont try controling your buzz.-Pascal, I took it twice and loved it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.212.9 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

User:Diza added a {{cleanup}} tag on 8th January 2008 (at 16:17) with an edit summary comment "one of the worse wiki artuicles ever. about 30% of it is repeatative"(sic).

From this rather unhelpful remark I can only assume Diza has issues with the lead section.

The article had a peer review on 26th July 2007. The first point made was a request to expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. And so this was done (i.e. the lead was expanded as a result).

WP:Lead says - "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

The fact that most articles don't contain a lead capable of standing alone as a concise overview is not a reason to criticise one that does. This article has good article status. So, in lieu of some more constructive criticism, I have removed the {{cleanup}} tag.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salvia_divinorum/Archive_3&oldid=864129897"