Talk:Machine elf

Removed Reasoning section

This article describes a claim made by an author based on their own personal experience. It's my belief that there doesn't need to be a section attempting to explain/describe the possible source of this author's claim. Until there's evidence that all people experience this phenomenon during a psychedelic experience, then there seems no need to try to explain it, as it remains only the author's experience. This article is just documenting a phrase that is in popular usage amongst a certain population.TheRingess (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not only a "claim made by an author based on their own personal experience". Rather it is an attempt by an author to label a phenomena experienced by many. I am restoring this section while I add references. Then I may well cut it back some - it may be this article should be merged with Dimethyltryptamine Pontificalibus (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, to my untrained eye the original wording of the article seemed to imply a single claim made by a single author based on their own experience. Thanks for rewording it to make it more apparent that this is not just the work of a single author.TheRingess (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It very much is a claim made by a single author. Albeit an influential author, whose evocative prose may predispose people who take DMT after reading his works to interpret their experiences in light of his "machine elf" metaphor. There are trip reports out there where people talk about seeing machine elves, but as far as I'm aware no other reliable sources have adopted McKenna's nomenclature. DMT experiences may frequently include a feeling of having contacted "entities", but evidence that this is a universal, inescapable component of the DMT experience is lacking. Certainly there are other people who've written about entities contacted on DMT/ayahuasca trips who do not describe said entities as "machine elves". Strassman notes frequent experiences of contact with mantid/insectile entities in his research subjects. Reichel-Dolmatoff thought that visions of felines was a universal aspect of the ayahuasca experience. I see no reason to lend creedence to demagogues who think that everybody else must experience a psychedelic in the exact same way they do.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the "psychedelic experience". That usually implies LSD, mushrooms, etc. and those lead to a wide variety of different experiences for different people. This is about DMT which very consistently creates experience similar to what McKenna describes. His explanation is so famous because it was the first one to really summarize the universal DMT experience. 65.214.187.19 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Universal DMT experience"? Evidence please. Read Strassman or somebody besides McKenna. DMT is no different from LSD/mushrooms/etc in that different people (or the same person at different times) have different experiences. McKenna was a self-aggrandizing hack, and I refuse to let him tell me what I "should" experience. His explanation was famous because he was a gifted writer and he wrote it in the 2nd person so credible people think when he wrote "you" he was actually talking to them.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a "self-aggrandizing hack" isn't exactly a neutral perspective. It also depends on where you're getting his comments on DMT from - in some cases, he discusses the experience as if it were objective, however in other lectures, it's made clear that they are subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.122.3 (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference?

i feel like i should add a citation, example or see also that links to something about the Salvia Goddess, but can't easily find a decent source and am not sure what i'd do with it. does anyone have advice, or want to add it themselves? 94.193.221.42 (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How I think this could become a more informative article

After researching the matter a bit I conclude that McKenna's "machine elves" is not an original concept, although it's an original name for it. There are many reports of people who had experienced elves or similar strange beings under DMT, before McKenna.

So I think this article should be renamed something like "DMT elves" or "DMT entities"; or, it could even be expanded and generalised to include other entities that appear under psychedelic drugs, like the Salvia Goddess that the previous fellow proposed. This case I think would be more interesting, as we could also add possible scientific explanations for these experiences that could apply for all such phenomena (I can find a few such references).

If anyone has an opinion about this, please say so here. Wawawemn (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Point. My vote would be "DMT entities", then perhaps "Machine Elfs" could re-direct to this page with its own sub-category for McKenna. Rick Strassman is a good source for this. Jason (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do that, as this article gives the impression that the elves that appear under DMT are McKenna's "discovery". I will read a bit more of Rick Strassman's work, as well as other references older than McKenna's. When I have enough info, I'll start making the change.Wawawemn (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Alex Jones talked recently about the DMT elves. Since this article was tagged as "lacking references", I decided to add a bunch to it (all cited), including that Alex Jones one. The reference I gave to Alex Jones was a link to Youtube where he actually says those things that claimed in one of his shows. Then, user 76.22.208.42 deleted my whole Alex Jones entry saying it was due to "uncredible sources" Because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia can someone explain whether this user was making a valid point, or if s/he was just "vandalising" (or however it's called)? I'm not sure if I should revert, fearing an "edit war". Wawawemn (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another user re-added the paragraph, and then yet another user deleted it again. Since now I know that I'm not the only one who finds no valid reason for removing it, I reverted the changes and invited those opposed to discuss it here before removing it again.Wawawemn (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the article acknowledges "his show was received with ridicule by a number of sources", why should we include mention of it? It seems likely to merely confuse the casual reader. What does it add to our understanding of the subject? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

I think that the fact of something being received with ridicule by someone else does not mean it should be erased from encyclopedias. Even if I agreed with the "number of sources" mentioned, the post could serve as a piece of information (which is the point encyclopedias exist). Wawawemn (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't include every viewpoint in an article, only those that aid in a balanced understanding of the subject. To give undue weight to claims widely ridiculed by reliable sources would not be helpful to our readers. In the Venus article we don't mention that Japan's first lady visited there and said it was green (1).--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "Machine Elves" were more popular than Alex Jones (they are not even close, unfortunately), then what you just said would put me straight.

Another thing: You talk about the readers' "understanding of the subject". In this article, what do you think should be the point where weight should be given?

It's just a bunch of references to entities existing in an "abnormal" dimension.

There's no point in the article that we should "protect" from other insignificant information (unless we go into POV disputes regarding which of the cited people here is more significant).

In general, until either this article becomes a more serious one, (including serious possible explanations of the elves) or it becomes PART of a more serious one (see my "How I think this could become a more informative article" section above), then I still see no reason in giving weight to one reference over anotherWawawemn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately the main problem is that the content you have added currently amounts to WP:OR because it lacks WP:RS. Take a look at the guidelines to familiarise yourself with what we can and can't add as content. An editors personal observations are not admissible. Blog and forum posts are also unusable. --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Main reference I cited was Youtube which IS allowed as a source on Wikipedia as far as I know. The other main one was boingboing.net. As far as I know, this is not exactly a "blog", but a webzine. Not sure if that's allowed as a refernce, but I'll look into it right nowWawawemn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it difficult to understand indents on Wikipedia. Hopefully this comes out fine. I found that boingboing is actually a "group blog". According to Wikipedia's rules "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". By this, boingboing should also be considered a reliable source.Wawawemn (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"News outlet" refers to an organisation such as Reuters, Associated Press, NY Times, Gaurdian, etc. How does boingboing meet the criteria highlighted above? And doesn't Alex Jones own the copyright to all footage he airs? even if someone else has placed it on Youtube? see WP:YT. Also in the first sentence, "On one of Alex Jones' TV shows he told how the government "elites" smoke DMT before the "clockwork elves", as he calls them, appear to them and instruct them what to do," you add a cite which is just a link to the video, the editorial commentary is yours, you are not citing a secondary source. This happens again when you say, "His show was received with ridicule by a number of sources," because this is your observation. Is there a WP:RS that offers such a commentary? one that we can cite here? If not, we will have to scrub the content. --Semitransgenic (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP rules say "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs". By your definition of a news outlet, can you name me one that "hosts an interactive column it calls a blog"? I would appreciate it if you could give here such an example and then explain what makes it a "news outlet" as opposed to boingboing, which also posts news written by professionals and subject to its editors' editorial control (I am truly interested to learn, not being ironic). Regarding the YouTube copyright "issue", can you show us how you know that there is actually a copyright issue? (if you do, then I would be happy to look elsewhere for a reference to Alex Jone's show to replace the citation). [Regarding your last two points (from "Also in the..." and onwards): Those are my observations of what the cited references (of which the reliability is a different issue already mentioned by your previous two points) say; isn't that what we are supposed to write on Wikipedia?]Wawawemn (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

it's not "my definition" of news outlet it's the standard definition. Examples of news outlet blogs include:[1][2][3][4]. Difference between this and boingboing? Give WP:RS and related policy a good read, it boils down to reliability and notability. Boingboing is one of hundreds of random blogs out there reporting random stuff, what makes it, or its writers, notable? I think the distinction should be pretty clear.

Jones' site clearly states at the bottom "©2011 Infowars.com." Jones owns the copyright to his own footage, hence the legitimacy of Jones posting his own videos to Youtube. The video you link to is an upload by someone other than the copyright holder, it therefore represents an infringement of copyright, we are asked to avoid linking to such material.Which of those sources discusses that "His show was received with ridicule by a number of sources." Anyway, the problem here is the sources so please list further queries on WP:RSN.--Semitransgenic (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend this piece of information any further because I don't really care that much about it (I just added it in the first place because the article was tagged as "lacking citations"). Just for the record, though, I don't think boingboing is "one of hundreds of random blogs" etc. So, it's not "pretty clear", because different people can have different opinions about "reliability and notability"- that's why I was asking for a standard definition that would separate boingboing from nytimes as a news outlet blog (and not just your opinion of what you think is reliable/notable and what not), which you obviously can't provide right now (though I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and I would still like to see it if anyone can provide it).

Regarding Alex Jone's material, as far as I know, just because something is copyrighted doesn't necessarily mean that ANYONE other than him who posts it is committing a copyright infringement (it could be s/he has his license to do it). (I would like to be corrected if I'm wrong about this.)Wawawemn (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

nothing to do with my opinion, everything stated appears to reflect a consensus opinion arrived at by wikipedia editors, hence the various policy pages. Like I said, feel free to raise the reliability issue at WP:RSN if you need input from other editors. Sure, they might have a license, maybe you could find out? --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)