Talk:Terence McKenna - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.37.248.33 (talk) at 19:06, 27 June 2014 (→Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:06, 27 June 2014 by 72.37.248.33 (talk) (→Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terence McKenna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

NPOV

The article fails WP:NPOV in particular WP:PSCI and WP:VALID in presenting KcKenna's wacko positions and claims without putting them in the appropriate context as they are considered by mainstream academia - completely absurd nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

To agree in slightly different expression. The article contains far too much of McKenna's thought and work from primary sources. An encyclopedia article should present the thought and work of an individual only as and if discussed in reliable secondary sources. If the ideas, claims and positions of the individual are not discussed in secondary sources they should be mentioned and very briefly summarized, the reader interested in them can read the individuals works, listen to their lectures etc. Detailed explanations of McKenna's ideas synthesized and extracted from primary sources are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Explanations/interpretations of Mekenna's work should come from secondary sources and include (briefly) analysis and commentary. Material is only appropriate content for an encyclopedia if it is notable enough to be discussed in secondary reliable sources. Self published original research; unverified possible copyright violating primary sources; and unreliable sources are not appropriate sources for WP. Facts arrived at by editors based on consulting/analyzing primary sources are not appropriate content for WP, these facts must be sourced by secondary reliable sources. If secondary reliable sources have not noted these facts they are not encyclopedic content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Considerable work has been done on the article and I think the tags can be moved from the top of the article to the "Thought" section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

agreement from me Screamliner (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even more work has now been done, I think the tags can be moved from the top of the article to the "Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero" section. Thoughts anyone? Screamliner (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag can be removed from the article completely. If an editor seeks to emphasize the mainstream scientific consensus or add some criticism that would probably be appropriate but the material in the article now is rather well supported by references. I think the statement about the Stoned Ape Theory, "While receiving some praise, the theory has been widely disputed." may not be quite right per WP:FRINGE etc. Again if someone wants to strengthen the presentation of the mainstream scientific position that would help. I think the article fairly and from quality sources presents McKenna's thoughts and influence that is the subject. I still intend to remove the Watkins Objection section and put it below. I think the primary tag can be removed, although primary sources remain, most of them are supported by other refs or are appropriate. The additional citations tag is toast the article now has an abundance of quality sources. I am BOLDLY removing all three tags. I think any needed improvements can be made through conversation here and incremental edits. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

i do not have any objection to the general tags being removed and specific objections being noted instead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

The sources for this article are atrocious (unreliable, self published, copyright violations, primary did I say unreliable). See the tags. I have added a source, with a link to the chapter that could be used to improve the article substantially (particularly in regards to my comments in the above section "NPOV").

Jenkins, John Major (2009). "Early 2012 Books McKenna and Waters". The 2012 Story: The Myths, Fallacies, and Truth Behind the Most Intriguing Date in History. Penguin. ISBN 9781101148822.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Much of the material in this article is subject to removal due to the poor quality of the sources the above source can be paraphrased to redo some of the content appropriately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I will drop this one into the mix

Pinchbeck, Daniel (2002-08-06). Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 9780767911528. Retrieved 1 February 2014.

discusses his impact on rave culture etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I have done what I could with formatting the refs and adding appropriate tags. It is my hope that an interested editor will use the above two sources to rewrite much of the article, barring that I may proceed to remove much of the poorly sourced, non encyclopedic material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am currently going through the article and improving as much as I can. Also I own both of those books mentioned, so will do what I can when I get the time. If there is anyone out there who owns true hallucinations and can get all the page numbers needed from that book that would be excellent. Screamliner (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some notes regarding sources. Verification is not just looking at the material on the web. If a You Tube video is used as a source there must be some "chain of custody" or authentication of origin. Videos of McKenna or Hicks may be copyright violations and without evidence of origin there is no certainty the videos are not edited or pirated. The information from archive.org goes a long way towards resolving this issue, links should probably point to this source as You Tube is problematic.

okay thank you I will sort this out and the Hicks reference is now referenced to his CD released audio performances Screamliner (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Likewise the excerpts from the Magic Blend magazine the published article should be directly referenced and if a "convenience copy" is used it must be verified as accurate and not a copyright violation. There is also the problem with McKenna videos and books as they are primary sources and WP content should be based on secondary sources. The deoxy.org material is potentially problematic what is the credibility of the source and is the material they use of McKenna's accurate to the original? I'm not sure using McKenna's spoken words in a piece of art/music counts as a reliable secondary source. We should be looking for published scholarly work that discusses McKenna's ideas, positions and influence. That said that his spoken word is incorporated into (notable?) works of art does speak to the significance of the particular words and the influence of McKenna.

The High Times interview is a better source than McKenna's books (secondary vs primary, notable etc.) the issue was if the convenience copy linked to is accurate and not a copyvio. If the article can be verified by checking at a library it should be used (it is not a requirement that the article be available online, but the published version should be consulted). Likewise the Nature and Health article/interview. Is the copy online accurate compared to the published version? Is it within copyright usage (some excerpts are)? Did the editor who verified In Pursuit of Valis: Selections from the Exegesis consult the book? Again just reading the material online doesn't resolve the issues. In the "Valis" instance I think the website where the convenience copy is can probably be considered credible, just providing an example and input.

Sorry I just looked online with regards to Valis, it won't happen again I know what to do now Screamliner (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be significant improvement being made in the article and it's sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Schultes, Richard Evans (1993). "Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge by Terence McKenna". Life Sciences. American Scientist (Book review). Vol. 81, no. 5. pp. 489–90. JSTOR 29775027.

I have not been able to verify the convenience copy linked to someone with access to JSTOR can. There is material that can support McKenna being identified as an ethnobiologist and his position in the field. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Should the article state he made his living as an Asian art dealer and professional butterfly collector? This is in both the LA Times obit and the Omni 1993 references? - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fisher, Lucy (1992-08-15). "Paradise lost and found". Books. The Times.

Another (less than favorable) review of Food of the Gods. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thomas, Scott (1993-05-02). "In the Amazon, tour guides for a journey of the mind". Book Reviews. The Buffalo News. p. E7.

A review of True Hallucinations. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hodgkinson, Tom (1994-07-01). "Fungus freaks - True Hallucinations by Terence McKenna". New Statesman & Society (book review). Vol. 7, no. 309. pp. 37–8.

Another review of True Hallucinations with lots of content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help and info. I have just registered with JSTOR they are offering free individual accounts which allows you access to 3 items every 14 days and I can confirm the verification of the American Scientist book review and I will incorporate into the article. Schultes, Richard Evans (1993). "Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge by Terence McKenna". Life Sciences. American Scientist (Book review). Vol. 81, no. 5. pp. 489–90. JSTOR 29775027. Screamliner (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing of the article has improved dramatically. With some additional removal of primary sourcing most sections except "Thought" have been pretty well sourced. I think many of the poor sources can be removed. The sources needing verification should remain until an editor with the time and resources checks them.

Horgan, John (2012-06-06). "Was Psychedelic Guru Terence McKenna Goofing About 2012 Prophecy?" (blog). Scientific American.

Although technically a blog it meets RS (editorial oversight, notable publisher, notable author). Good discussion of McKenna overall. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I presume most of the remaining sources from McKennas books (presuming the page numbers can be found and verified) fall under WP:ABOUTSELF so should be ok? i.e. the biographical events and a few quotes? (Obviously not including the novelty theory sections for the time being as that still needs a lot of work) Screamliner (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to have a go at re-working and improving the "Stoned Ape" section over the next few days. I now have a lot of good quality secondary source material to work from. I have also discovered a copy of True Hallucinations on my bookshelf so I should be able to get some of those requested page numbers at some point Screamliner (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to this section today and will try and improve a bit further over the next few days Screamliner (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some criticism of 'Stoned Ape' in this book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a9uCXbV90vMC& i have been working from, which I will include a some point. Screamliner (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is also some criticism of novelty theory for anyone working on that section Screamliner (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3 I'm just going through the sources and wondered why http://www.sheldrake.org/ has been marked as unreliable. The paragraph in question is covered by other sources now anyway but I am just interested as to why this should be labelled unreliable? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to slightly re-work the novelty theory section over the next few days so it is more reliant on reliable sources to get it up to the same standard as the rest of the article. Screamliner (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Done - I think the novelty theory section is now up to the same standards as the rest of the article Screamliner (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Watkins objection

This entire section is referenced only by self published original research. Has there been any discussion of this in RS? Pending comment I am going to remove this section and place it here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Watkins Objection

A British mathematician named Mathew Watkins saw a discrepancy in one of the steps in McKenna's process, where he took the first graph and reversed it. When he placed this reversed graph on top of the existing graph he aligned it in such a way that the "teeth" meshed. But they were not meshed exactly and this left little bits of the graph on both ends slightly misaligned with each other. Watkins decided to be more precise with this alignment. He aligned the reverse graph with the existing graph and let the numbers decide what happened. It wasn't visually pretty like McKenna's TimeWave, but it was mathematically sound.

The result is what has become known as the Watkins Objection, and while the resulting Time Wave pattern is only slightly different, a small difference can be quite significant when you are dealing with time on such a grand scale. While the significant dates remained the same, one thing that was discovered with the Watkins model is that the Time Wave has absolute novelty both at the beginning and the end of the wave. This suggests that there might be some cyclical nature to the wave, and time itself. For the standard model wave, it had been argued that the zero value at the end of the waveform implies some kind of singularity at the end of the process - or at the end of time. But Mathematician John Sheliak in his analysis of the time wave, suggest that what this revised wave was implying, however, is that there may be singularities at both ends of the continuum. This he argued could also suggest a closed system that may be undergoing some kind of cyclic renewal process - perhaps each cycle expressing ever higher ordered states of complex form, or Novelty where universes emerge from zero-point, or vacuum field, go through an evolutionary process, then perhaps return to zero-point field at the end of the cycle. This cycle may then repeat itself, possibly with increased complexity and Novelty.

McKenna was extremely pleased with Watkins and Sheliak’s interest and interpretations stating that: "I owe a real debt of gratitude to both Watkins and John Sheliak, but especially John. His work now makes explicit every stage in the construction of the timewave, any interested mathematician can now satisfy him or herself as to the precise details of the construction of the timewave…I am happy to admit my error in the construction of the wave. Novelty Theory can now mature into a genuine intellectual discipline in which we can hope to see the contributions made by many people exploring the field."

Refs

^ Eden, Dan. "Terence McKenna's Time Wave Theory". Viewzone.
Sheliak, John. "Delineation, Specification, and Formalization of the TWZ Data Set Generation Process - Philosophical, Procedural and Mathematical" (PDF). levity.com.
Sheliak, John. "Delineation, Specification, and Formalization of the TWZ".
"Novelty Theory Bombshell". levity.com.

Moved from article for preservation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added a new small section for the Watkins objection as it came up in a reliable secondary source I was editing from Screamliner (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting

Some puzzling reversions have happened regarding copyediting the article. The original was

He also formulated a concept about the nature of time, based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, which he called novelty theory and which he believed predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

The first comma doesn't belong there, and the structure "which ... and which" is not very appealing. My version:

Using fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, he formulated a concept about the nature of time he called "novelty theory", which he believed predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

An earlier variant of this change was also reverted. In the interest of making the text more "grown up", one shouldn't have too many sentences that start "<subject> <verb> ...". The next blip on my radar was

McKenna's hypothesis was, that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity; so the presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack hunting primates caused the individuals who were consuming psilocybin mushrooms to be better hunters than those who were not.

Again, the first comma shouldn't be there. Also, the "so" clause should be connected to the hypothesis. My change:

McKenna's hypothesis was that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity and that the presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack hunting primates caused the individuals who were consuming psilocybin mushrooms to be better hunters than those who were not.

This was claimed to have "grammatical errors", but is there nothing wrong with that sentence. The new addition of a colon also seems awkward. Screamliner, I hope you don't take this in a mean way, and I apologize in advance, but are you a native English speaker? I've seen a couple Russians make similar use of commas in English, though that may just be coincidence. vzaak 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No ofence taken vzaak. Yes British English.

My reason for breaking it up how i did is due the fact that there are 3 main points to the hypothesis:

1. low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity: (description of proposed impact)
2. slightly higher doses the mushroom acts to sexualy arouse: (description of proposed impact)
3. At even higher doses the mushroom would have acted to dissolve boundaries: (description of proposed impact)

With regards to the usage of commas, as far as I am aware, there are no definitive rules so yes whatever you think. My understanding is that they can be used in that context because "He also formulated a concept about the nature of time which he called novelty theory" is a complete sentence itself, therefore placing "based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching" within commas is appropriate. In your second example "McKenna's hypothesis was, that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity" I used it because it just felt like a natural pause and it is my understanding that a comma can be used for that purpose also.

Ok how about this?

Also using fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, he formulated a concept about the nature of time which he called "novelty theory," believing it predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

I've changed this now to something similar I, think it should be okay. Screamliner (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Screamliner (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

btw I am not claiming to be an expert on grammar, so if the colons need removing that's fine. The grammatical errors I was referring too here were my own. Screamliner (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded it so hopefully will be okay now Screamliner (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Rosencomet, we still have a problem regarding WP:FRINGE. Earlier you asserted that you read it, but you then went on to say, "Nowhere can I find the notion that it is the purpose of Misplaced Pages to sort science from pseudoscience". However it's right there in WP:FRINGE, especially WP:FRINGE/PS. The McKenna article deals with pseudoscience and therefore falls under discretionary sanctions, but you've continued to claim otherwise.

You recently deleted criticism of novelty theory for the second time. This is a violation of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI. I have cited WP:PARITY again and again, in edit comments and on this talk page, but it doesn't appear as though you realize what PARITY is about. If you have a better source that can satisfy WP:PSCI then please offer it; in the meantime, do not delete such criticism.

Friction began with your very first comment above, where you seemingly didn't understand that I was removing unsourced material added a notorious WP vandal. When someone makes a point -- especially one that cites a policy -- you need to respond by addressing that point instead of merely stating your own opinion. I hope future interactions will go smoother. vzaak 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my edit of this single sentence because it uses only one source, a high school student's essay. I also reiterate that this is NOT an article about a fringe theory, it is a biographical article about an author, and a biographical article is not the proper venue to argue the merits of every theory of the subject, any more than every biography about a priest should include a section debating whether God exists or his beliefs are valid. I do think a single section about criticism, with PROPER citations (not blogs, as you keep inserting, nor one sentence in a non-scientist's book claiming with NO support that "the scientific community considers this to be pseudoscience"), would be appropriate, but not a refutation next to each report of the subject's ideas. In my opinion, you are misapplying WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all. WP:PARITY in no way contradicts my assertion that a high school student's essay is not a reliable source. At NO POINT did I argue whether one or another of McKenna's ideas are pseudoscience; I have argued whether your citations are valid and reliable and properly placed. In particular, besides the high school student, I question Sam Woolfe's article in his personal blog as appropriate, Brazilian film maker Alexandra Bruce's single sentence claim that "the scientific community considers this the be pseudoscience" to be relevant from the glossary of her book 2012: Science or Superstition (since she offers no reason to believe that she knows what "the scientific community" considers, such as a study or poll, and therefor we must assume it is merely this filmmaker's personal opinion), and whether archaeologist Johan Normark's article, again in a personal blog, in any way supports the statement made by Bruce, especially since he does not mention the opinion of the scientific community at all (his article may or may not be useful for other purposes, but not to support this statement). You can keep repeating your claims about pseudoscience as much as you want, but you keep ignoring that I have NEVER argued that point. I have argued whether the citations you supplied support the statements you have used them to support, which IMO they do not, and are not reliable sources. And I do believe you have a WP:NPOV problem yourself about articles that you associate with pseudoscience, to the point that you are inappropriately introducing arguments about the VALIDITY of an author's ideas into biographical articles about that author and the associated talk pages. If these were articles about The Stoned Ape Theory or Timewave Zero such debate might be appropriate, but an article about, say, Thomas Jefferson doesn't require a discussion as to whether democracy is a valid political theory with citations by people who think it isn't; that belongs in an article about democracy. This is particularly true if the citations introduced are from personal blogs or high school students, or don't say what you claim they say.Rosencomet (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all" is an amazing statement. WP:NPOV applies to all articles; in particular, the following applies to all articles: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included...See Misplaced Pages's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience." That is a link to WP:FRINGE/PS. See WP:PARITY regarding sources that may be used to critique fringe theories. vzaak 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are purposely misrepresenting what I am saying. 1. I meant that WP:NPOV has nothing to do with my edit in this case, since it is about the use of a high school student's essay as a source, and has nothing to do with my "point of view". 2. You keep ignoring that I have NOT argued or debated the issue of what is or isn't pseudoscience, but the validity of certain citations. STOP claiming that I need to review "whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience", since it has nothing to do with my edit. Also, nowhere in WP:PARITY or WP:NPOV will you find that a high school student's essay or a personal blog is an acceptable source. WP:PARITY DOES say this: "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." I also point out AGAIN that this is not an article about a fringe theory, it is an article about an AUTHOR. But go ahead, tell me to read it again, and pretend I have said things I have not said again. I stand by this: the citations I have criticized are improper and not reliable sources, they should be deleted, and the sentence containing quotes from the high school student's essay should be removed. If you claim THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY believes something, you need to cite some real indication that they DO, not just that a filmmaker THINKS they do. Instead of reversing that, IMO you should find better citations from actual scientists in the field. (And frankly, I don't think the Novelty Theory is science either, but MY point of view is irrelevant, too. I know a bad source when I see one.)Rosencomet (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You said to me, "you are misapplying WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all". So the point about WP:FRINGE/PS applies to me, but the point about WP:NPOV doesn't? This is very confusing.

As I explained earlier, "novelty theory" is obvious pseudoscience, and Bruce is only telling us what is obvious. "Considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community" does not mean that a poll was conducted among all the scientists in the world. Why do you think it's not a reliable source?

Novelty theory isn't taken seriously by the scientific community, as indicated by a Google Scholar search. Scientia Review is the #1 and seemingly only relevant hit, with the rest being oriented around rave or drug or New Age culture. Scientia Review has more editorial oversight than McKenna's self-published ideas. Reliable sources are always context-dependent, and a Ph.D. isn't needed to lampoon novelty theory. That's where WP:PARITY comes in. Why do you think it's inappropriate for a critique? vzaak 00:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? 1. I think Bruce is not a scientist herself, nor is she quoting any reliable source when she makes her statement about what the scientific community considers about anything. She gives us no idea as to how she reached this conclusion. It is clearly an opinion, since she offers no source. 2. The material from Scientia Review is a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT's essay, and not a reliable source from a scientist. From it's website: "The Scientia Review is an e-journal that publishes secondary school writings in STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics." "Foremost, The Scientia Review emphasizes scientific and technical writing as an important skill and discipline for all secondary school students." I see nothing to support your assertion about its "editorial oversight". It may be featured because the Review thinks the student is creative, relative to his peers, or that the essay is well written, but I see no reason to accept it as a reliable source, and especially not the SOLE reliable source, and heavily quote it with the line "Novelty theory has been criticized for" in front of it. Criticized by who; a high school student? Why should that matter? You said it yourself; it is a LAMPOON of the theory, not a scientific analysis by a reliable source. I hate to say it, but I think you just like it because it says things you agree with; otherwise you would not repeatedly ignore my quite reasonable objections to it's use as a source. If I used a high school student's essay stating McKenna was a genius and Novelty Theory was a great achievement in the advancement of human knowledge, would you honestly accept it as a reliable source? If, AS YOU SAY, the ONLY "relevant hit" you can come up with is this high school student's essay, maybe the scientific community is not as uniform in it's regard as you think. Maybe this critique is insufficiently supported, if at ALL.Rosencomet (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats not how Reliable sources work - we dont get to evaluate how they got to their conclusions, that up to the publishers. And it certainly doesnt take a genius or any type of exceptional source to know that when you ask scientists "If I make a graph based on the pictographs of the I-ching, and then make variations of that graph and place it on a timetable of history, when it shows the world is going to end in 2012 -is that science or pseudoscience?" what the answer from the scientific community is going to be. To suggest that would be anything other than P - S - U - E - D - O - S - C - I - E - N - C - E* is the WP:REDFLAG statement that would need exceptional sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

ok - the answers quite possibly would include quite a number of "GET OUT OF MY OFFICE", a smattering of "Huh?", quite a few "Are you on drugs?", and the occasional "That's not even wrong." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PARITY clearly shows the validity of the source Vzaak seeks to use. That there are no publications in major journals (or essentially anywhere) that address the topic is 1) Evidence of rejection by scientific mainstream: 2) The reason clearly exlained in the policy cited for using the aforementioned reference. Regardless of where it occurs WP:FRINGE applies. An article about an individual that contains substantial explanation of the individuals ideas is an appropriate and neccessary place to present the mainstream consensus view relating to those ideas. As said before lack of publication in major (or even minor) journals of scientists evaluating, implementing or in any way seriously considering the ideas presented is strong and clear evidence that such ideas are pseudoscience (not to mention the failure of the world to end in 2012). To refer to the "for instance", if a priest were known for or if the article contained their ideas on the existence of god then the mainstream response and interpretation of those ideas would in fact belong in the article. Pseudoscience is a different matter (and each article should be considered individually) WP is clear on pseudoscience and this article falls under ArbCom decisions on pseudoscience. If the material concerning McKenna's ideas and theories is reduced to a several sentence mention, specifying the mainstream position would still be appropriate, as the material is lengthy and provides "justifications", rationale and explanation of development of these ideas, it is appropriate to describe clearly their pseudoscientific nature through criticism (like the source in question, as no journal has even considered his ideas seriously enough to publish material on them) and through clear and prominent presentation of the mainstream scientific view on the material McKenna's ideas deal with. Read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY with some care and you will find they are very clear about presentation of fringe/pseudoscience material. The fact this material is in a biography does not negate these policies in any way. WP:DUE applies to all content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the novelty theory criticism to use Normark instead, just because he gave more practical details. He's also an expert in archaeology and Mayan studies. vzaak 05:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

With regards to vzaak's recent changes to the opening paragraphs. It is my understanding from reading WP:PARITY that it is valid for criticising pseudoscientific theories/ideas not for general lampooning of the person in question. Therefore imo this blogs use in the novelty theory section or in relation to novelty theory in the opening paragraphs is appropriate. But not for general critisism of McKenna as a person. The criticisms are directly related to novelty theory and you already have that covered. Screamliner (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I think to claim that the quotes from RS in the opening paragraphs are "hagiographical views" is really over the top. Screamliner (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention PARITY for opening paragraph. This is basic NPOV, where all significant points of view must be represented. Normack qualifies as an expert per WP:BLOGS and is able to make the assessment that McKenna is attempting to appear scientific when he is not. It's not appropriate to start the article with a flurry of laudatory quotes, lacking a critical outside perspective. If you have better sources for criticism then please introduce them. vzaak 21:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

With thanks to recent edits/effort. And specifically about the newly improved Stoned Apes paragraph - may I please cite the original, definitive 'better source'? "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" by B.P. Akers (http://realitysandwich.com/89329/terence_mckennas_stoned_apes/). Addressing a concern stated above, about source (S Woolfe) being "blog of a guy who works for a "libertarian-leaning magazine" in London ... Is he a member of the scientific community, or an authority on anthropology?": The author of the original article is a phd scientist. Accredited in both biology and anthropology. With peer reviewed research, published in journals of scientific societies - fields including ethnobotany and mycology. Note (as reflects) his research as cited in WP entries e.g. Psilocybe hispanica; Rock Art of the Iberian Mediterranean Basin; and Villar del Humo. Since its Mar 28, 2011 publication, info from "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" - has been copied/pasted by many, like Mr Woolfe, without due citation. As for this WP entry on Terence McKenna - my experience with it goes back to 2006. In view of that, and certain remarks above, may I note "Concerning ..." specifically cites WP's "entry for TM (which seemingly reflects ongoing tampering to keep a properly celebratory, uncritical tone)." I find that echoed above by vzaak (Jan 26) WP "has historically had problems with editors aiming to promote pseudoscience or lessen its criticism, which eventually lead to the arbitration case on pseudoscience." I question whether WP policy and practice is functionally sufficient to ensure WP purposes - against an 'inspired' determination of oppositional counter-purpose (TM hagiography). Whether appropriate edits here can stand against 'edit war' and subterfuge that's prevailed at this entry for years - is unclear considering, e.g.: "WP editors wish to minimize Terence's significance, so I think it's good not to let the bastards get away with this" (posted June 2, 2013, by ‘foxfire’ i.e. WP editor Peter Meyer: http://mckennaforum.com/forum/mckenna-forum-group1/terence-mckenna-forum-forum24/stoned-ape-theory-mckenna-shlain-hakim-bey-thread3.3/) Again thanks to vzaak and others (TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom). With concern even doubts for this entry; may be a lost cause. Past conscientious edits have been easy targets for zapping - unable to stand or endure against a doggedly determined proprietary interest of McKenna 'admirers' (believers, followers, what are they exactly?), acting as WP editors, in service to a charismatic icon's PR. Time will tell? Akersbp (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) akersbp

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Terence McKenna. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

There is a minor spelling error in the following section:

When examining the King Wen sequence of the 64 hexagrams, McKenna noticed a pattern. He analysed the “degree of difference” between each successive hexagram and claims he found a statistical anomaly, which he believed suggested that, the Ken Wen sequence was an intentional construct. With the degrees of difference codified into numerical values, he worked out a mathematical wave form based on the 384 lines of change that make up the 64 hexagrams. McKenna was able to graph the data and this became the Novelty Time Wave.

In the second sentence, "the Ken Wen sequence was an intentional construct." should read "the King Wen sequence was an intentional construct."

72.37.248.33 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Mavericks was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference EsquireJacobson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference Jenkins was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Categories: