Talk:Terence McKenna

Terence McKenna is properly described as an ethnobotanist

I see that in the most recent edit Plantdrew removed the characterization of McKenna as an ethnobotanist, presumably from ignorance as well as prejudice. McKenna, along with his then-wife Kathleen Harrison, founded Botanical Dimensions in 1985, whose stated aim was “to collect, protect, propagate and understand plants of ethno-medical significance and their lore.” See more on the BD website at http://botanicaldimensions.org/

Terence McKenna presented a 2-day seminar in San Francisco (which I attended) entitled "Ethnobotany and Shamanism" and which is preserved on 4 DVDs published by Sound Photosynthesis -- see their catalog of McKenna talks at http://www.soundphotosynthesis.com/Terence_Mckenna.html See also several YouTube clips of McKenna speaking on this subject.

As with the refusal by WP editors to characterize McKenna as a philosopher (see my comment above), this refusal is based on the false position that only someone who has published articles in one or more academic journals in some field should be acknowledged as a practitioner of research in that field. This is mere prejudice by WP editors which commonly afflicts WP articles, and is one reason why WP cannot be regarded as a reliable source of information. Its pretence to be an 'encyclopedia' is ludicrous. Only the foolish and ignorant ever cite WP as an authorative source. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is entirely reasonable that someone must have "published articles in one or more academic journals in some field [to be] acknowledged as a practitioner of research in that field", although there may be occasionally be people active in a field with no publications in academic journals. For example, I'm not finding any academic papers authored by Kathleen Harrison, but I think it is fair to describe her as an ethnobotanist based on the projects Botanical Dimensions works on. I saw Dennis McKenna was missing from Category:Ethnobotanists and added him; it was pretty ridiculous that Terence was listed as an ethnobotanist and Dennis was not.

And it's pretty ridiculous, considering how closely all three worked together in earlier years, to list Kathleen and Dennis as ethonobotanists but to refuse to grant this attribution to Terence. Please see my further remarks on Botanical Dimensions below. Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Terence was interested in ethnobotany, and his ex-wife and brother are fairly described as ethnobotanists, but I don't think Terence was an ethnobotanist. Admittedly, I don't know what exactly his role with Botanical Dimensions was, but it's pretty clear that BD is primarily Kathleen's thing, not Terence's, as his involvement with BD ended with his divorce. A couple lectures purportedly about ethnobotany doesn't make Terence an ethnobotanist. His involvement with BD might qualify him as an ethnobotanist, but the article doesn't say what he did for BD.Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to thank Plantdrew for cleaning up this Talk page after Brian Aker's early editing attempts (thanks Plantdrew). I note however that he removed the attribution of 'ethnobotanist' simply because he "doesn't think that" Terence merits this, and he is not prepared to restore it because he doesn't "know what exactly his role with Botanical Dimensions". As I pointed out, Terence and Kat were co-founders (in 1975) of Botanical Dimensions. I knew Terence personally from 1986 through 1994, and I can tell you that Terence was as much involved with BD as Kat was. I also visited their plant repository on the Big Island of Hawaii, where they were cultivating plants of ethnobotanical significance. (Here is a photo of their house there: http://www.fractal-timewave.com/pics/mckenna_house_hawaii.jpg A small part of the plant repository is visible at the left of the picture.) Plantdrew says that BD "is primarily Kat's thing, not Terence's, as his involvement with BD ended with his divorce." That's not true, since Terence gave at least one public talk after his divorce which was intended to raise money for BD, and even if his involvement ended with his divorce (in the early 1990s) that would still mean that for about 20 years he was involved. Plantdrew says that: "A couple [of] lectures purportedly about ethnobotany doesn't make Terence an ethnobotanist." Note the use of the prejudicial 'purportedly'. Has Plantdrew viewed the 4 DVDs of Terence's seminar in San Fransisco entitled "Ethnobotany and Shamanism" (available from Sound Photosynthesis at http://www.soundphotosynthesis.com/Terence_Mckenna.html)? Peter Meyer (TWZ author) (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter Meyer (TWZ author) do you know the copyright status of this photo would it be suitable for upload to Wikipedia and use in the article? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a source that would satisfy WP editors, i don't think, but McKenna graduated from Berkeley in 1975 with a degree in "ecology, resource conservation and Shamanism". Given that the majority of his career was based around using and learning about ethno-important plants and bringing them to the west for use and preservations quite clearly places him in the box of at least ethnobotanist. His knowledge of botany was extensive, to say the least. For the record, Dennis McKenna is an Ethnopharmacologist, not an Ethnobotanist. I don't have a source for that except the man himself. I am a personal friend. 122.60.120.107 (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Amadeus

With regards to McKenna being correctly classified as a ethnobotanist, I completely agree and have edited accordingly. I feel that I have added enough sourced information into the article itself to justify this change (see the botanical dimensions section specifically.) With regards to McKenna being correctly classified as a philosopher again I completely agree. To state that you need to have "published articles in one or more academic journals in some field [to be] acknowledged as a practitioner of research in that field" in regards to philosophy is simply reducing the term philosopher to only apply to a western modern academic only interpretation of the word. I feel this is a false premise and completely unjustified and I have edited the article accordingly. --Screamliner (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a review of Food of the Gods by Richard Evans Schultes which originally appeared in American Scientist and who according to Wikipedia may be considered the father of modern ethnobotany. Here are a couple of highlights: "A masterpiece of research and writing, this volume should be read by every specialist working in the multifarious fields involved with the use of psychoactive drugs....Terence McKenna's 313 pages are overflowing with well-ordered and skillfully written cultural, sociological, historical, legal and moral discussions on the political future of drug uses....This volume will long be consulted by researchers and others who may not be convinced by McKenna's scholarly venture into a highly controversial realm of thinking. It is, without question, destined to play a major role in our future considerations of the role of the ancient use of psychoactive drugs, the historical shaping of our modern concerns about drugs and perhaps about man's desire for escape from reality with drugs."

I'm going to post this in the scientific community section of this talk page as well as it is relevant for both Screamliner (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the American Scientist book review mentioned above (full ref below) multiple sources refer to McKenna as an ethnobiologist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Misinfo about McKenna stopping the use of psilocybin

Read the description and uploader comments in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO3LlYzQU4g

Terence: "At first I cut back on Cannabis, because it seemed to trigger the seizures. But then I easily got that corrected. Now I'm smoking as much dope as I ever did. I haven't been taking ayahuasca, because the vomiting reflex is too scary in terms of the brain seizure reflex. They're really closely related. So I've been taking psilocybin. We happen to have some actual pure psilocybin, not mushrooms. And it's great. So I guess the answer is no. I want to probe into it, I want to understand it. I mean obviously, death is a very big deal."

The excerpt is from this 1999 interview with McKenna: http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v10n2/10206mck.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:4800:660:D850:E64B:264C:3797 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellynests (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the misinfo from the wiki. The original source (Dennis Mckenna's book - The Brotherhood of the Screaming Abyss) contains no reference to Terence Mckenna's 'existential crisis'. <Bellynests>

---

I've just checked the edit history and can see that the paragraph in question has been removed and reinstated several times. I'd advise those involved to actually READ Dennis's book (the original source quoted by Bruce Damer in his 'Deep Dive'). As previously stated, the information regarding Terence Mckenna's psilocybin use was removed prior to the books release. Bellynests (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea what this is about, but the "existential crisis" happened to his brother, not himself. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I removed the Novelty theory section because it was infested with an unknown amount of nonsense added by socks of this banned user,

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive
• Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs)
• Blastikus (talk · contribs)

It's really crazy stuff ("gravitoelectrical treeing", "flux tubes", etc.) which doesn't match the sources and has little relation to the article. An older version of the section possibly contains uninfected material, however it's largely unsourced and seems to include original research. vzaak 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Note there may well be more of this unsourced nonsense in the article; I only removed an obvious chunk of it. vzaak 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up Vzaak I have attempted to create a more coherent and factual section on novelty theory Screamliner (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about this value judgement of this section, and possibly others, as "nonsense". If the subject is well known for a theory, it's not the job of an editor to judge its content, only to report it faithfully. I might consider the entire content of the Bible to be "nonsense", yet I would accurately report what it said on a subject if an article called for it.Rosencomet (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I said unsourced nonsense. It's original research. And it's nonsense. Incredibly, someone has restored the nonsense. Just look at that link. None of the sources mention "gravitoelectrical treeing", "flux tubes", etc. The views of McKenna are not being faithfully reported. For example the sources suggest nothing remotely close to "when two matter waves become connected by mutual constructive interference (quantum entanglement, rapport), they imagine or grok each other". This is the same foolishness that was added to other articles (see the first sockpuppet report above). The McKenna article was vandalized. The vandal is a banned sockpuppeteer who is an actual crazy person. Please don't restore this unsourced original research again.

P.S. For another dose of crazy by the same guy, see this:

The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well.

Fucking nuts! vzaak 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vzaak the section which keeps being restored is unsourced and original research and I agree that the views of McKenna are not being faithfully reported. I have listened to and read a lot of his work and and I have not heard him describe novelty theory in such a overly complex and incoherent manner, plus the section tells the reader little to do with how the theory was formulated or the mathematics underpinning it. In my opinion it is poorly written and confusing. I would argue that this is much more coherent and detailed edit However there is definitly some room in this edit for McKenna's speculations on what novelty theory meant in 'real terms' (i.e. 'the hyper dimensional object at the end of time' and how it was affecting the historical process, the planet, humans and culture) Screamliner (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

vzaak is well-known for his antisocial behaviour: http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-wikipedia-battle-for-rupert-sheldrakes-biography/

Your version of the Novelty Theory section is full of tautologies and unsourced misconceptions:

• "Novelty, in this context, can be thought of as newness, or increased activity and options." The number of options (degrees of freedom) is entropy, which McKenna defines as the opposite of novelty.
• "The peaks in the graph represent the abstraction of 'stasis' or habitual stability, while the valleys represent novelty or change." A change can result in a decrease of novelty. Therefore, novelty is not change.

So, you are not qualified to edit this article, Screamliner. 192.69.217.195 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If you continue your personal attacks against editors IP, you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, all the unsourced crazy stuff is back again,[1] "gravitoelectrical treeing", "flux tubes", the whole mess. People, this is just vandalism. The Rupert Sheldrake article had a similar infestation of nonsense. Compare

• "Sheldrake views the universe as a swarm of matter waves (elementary particles, atoms and molecules), spiralling down the gradient of their synergetic (energetically favourable) constructive interference"[2]
• "McKenna viewed the universe as a swarm of matter waves, spiralling down the gradient of their synergetic (energetically favourable) constructive interference"[3]

Neither case is sourced or has much relation to the article. Obviously.

TheRedPenOfDoom and Screamliner, you were editing the article after 192.69.217.195 restored the crazy stuff, so now your changes have to be separated from the crazy. vzaak 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

go ahead and revert to pre crazy - removal of bad external links and erowid as a source is simple. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I ended up just restoring Screamliner's section on novelty theory. I don't have an opinion on this new material; my only intent was to remove the obvious nonsense of "gravitoelectrical treeing" etc. vzaak 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom I am quite new to editing Wikipedia and just wondering why you feel Erowid is not a valid source? Especially when most of the links are to archived interviews or magazine articles. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

a reliable source has a reputation for fact checking an editorial oversight. Erowid does not. While the originals of the content they collected may qualify as reliable sources, we cannot link to the erowid site because 1) any copies posted there violation WP:ELNEVER and 2) there is no verifiable "chain of custody" to validate that what they have posted is actually what the original states.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to re-add the section on 'the Watkins objection' as this was left out in vzaak most recent restoring edit and I think it's relevant Screamliner (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I restored a version that was older than I had intended. Sorry. vzaak 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Scientific community

Since Alexandra Bruce, the author of the book Vzaak cited, offers absolutely no support for her flat statement "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community", we can only conclude that this is her opinion. As such, my edit "some members of the scientific community" was IMO appropriate. One might also add "according to film producer Alexandra Bruce" to the statement. She offers no poll, no study, no source claiming to represent "the scientific community". She simply says this is so. I am willing to accept that some members of that community believe this, if evidence is presented. She, being a film producer who graduated from Brown University with a BA in Semiotics, is NOT a representative of that community and has no business speaking for it. The other "source" you supplied was from the blog of an archaeologist who describes himself as "an opponent to pseudoscience and new-age" and McKenna as a "Prophet of nonsense", who makes NO statements about the opinion of the scientific community, just his own.Rosencomet (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A worldwide poll of the scientific community on whether McKenna's "novelty theory" is pseudoscience has not been conducted, nor will it be. That's not how science works. The onus is on you to show that the scientific community has taken "novelty theory" seriously. Please see WP:FRINGE. Also, blogs are suitable for counterbalance per WP:PARITY. vzaak 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it better to add a new paragraph to the end of the 'novelty theory' section stating the criticism of the theory. In a similar vain to what has been done in the 'stoned ape' section. Surely the opening description is not a place for others opinions and criticism. Also stating such an absolute as the scientific community regards this as pseudoscience is surely a false statement. Is novelty theory even purporting to be science? and if so then "some members of the scientific community" is a much more truthful and appropriate statement. I am going to make an edit along these lines, obviously feel free to discuss and/or adjust accordingly. Screamliner (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, criticism should be prominently included. Please read WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE WP:GEVAL. vzaak 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this kind of "support". So far, all you've presented to back up the notion that "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community" is a statement in a book by a film producer without even an attempt to back it up, a disparaging article in the BLOG of an archeologist (a different field from the subject's) who says nothing about the scientific community, and an article apparently by a high school student: "The Scientia Review is an e-journal that publishes secondary school writings in STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It provides an accessible forum for the best examples of scientific and technical prose written by high school students, including essays, review articles, research papers, and science books for children." This is the level of sources being used to place repeated "criticism" on the ideas of the subject of this article, and Vzaak says he doesn't have to support the statement that this author's ideas are pseudoscience, others have to show that it is NOT considered pseudoscience. I find that absurd. Rosencomet (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph using only a high school student's essay as a citation. You seem to be really stretching to find any possible citation to disparage this author's work, and I wonder why that is. I also wonder whether other sources used on this page are as tenuous.Rosencomet (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the source for the criticism paragraph in the Stoned Ape Theory section of this article, "A Critique of Terence McKenna's 'Stoned Ape Theory'" by Sam Woolfe, is the blog of a guy who works for a "libertarian-leaning magazine" in London called the Backbencher; not as a reporter, but as a "Marketing Administrative Assistant." Is this really an encyclopedic source? Is he a member of the scientific community, or an authority on anthropology? Is his blog peer reviewed? Rosencomet (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fantastic that the top paper from Google Scholar is from the The Scientia Review. It's the right level for a critique of McKenna's "novelty theory", and it likely has more oversight than McKenna's self-published work. The scientific community never took the 2012 eschatology hogwash seriously, of course, which is an example of why WP:PARITY exists. (It doesn't appear as though you've read WP:PARITY, or the others mentioned, WP:FRINGE WP:PSCI WP:GEVAL.) Also please see WP:ITA regarding your additions of in-text attribution. Please read all the aforementioned policies carefully. vzaak 03:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I, too was looking for sources on Google Scholar. The first result I found was Mark Heley giving serious consideration to McKenna's theories in his books The Everything Guide to 2012 (2009) and 101 Things You Should Know about 2012 (2010). Mark Heley is the producer and director of the 2012 documentary Frequency Shift. He writes, "As a hypothesis, timewave zero has some very compelling qualities. It challenges the idea of linear time in a more radical way than has ever been done before... Where it appears more flawed and limited is when it is taken literally as a predictive model. Novelty is open to interpretation."[4][5] The next book in the results is The 2012 Story: The Myths, Fallacies, and Truth Behind the Most Intriguing Date in History by John Major Jenkins, who apparently holds McKenna in high regard. Jenkins is a "pioneer of the 2012 movement", according to the short blurb at Google Books. The third result is a self-published book by Joseph Wouk, which cannot be used here. The fourth result is a sample of a book by Daniel Briggs: The Purification Papers, Mandala Books, ISBN 978-0-578-00762-5. Briggs writes like he's neck-deep in the 2012 movement—he takes McKenna's theories as gospel.

There are other writers who quote McKenna but none from the scientific community. I don't see anything remotely supporting the conclusion made by Alexandra Bruce that the scientific community thinks this or that thing about the theories of McKenna. The silence from the scientific community is certainly damning, so it is very easy to conclude they think McKenna is a crank. However, I don't think we should quote Bruce, not even with attribution. Yes, her conclusion is in her book, yes it is a reliable source by Wikipedia's easy standards, but we as human editors can come to an agreement to ignore portions of our sources. It's done all the time at various Wikipedia articles: editors can determine that source A is good for everything but the incorrect statement about X. I think Bruce falls into this category. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The most scholarly people who comments on McKenna include mathematician Matthew Watkins who wrote "Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination?" Watkins is sympathetic to the ramifications of McKenna's theory but he concludes that it was based on faulty assumptions, that McKenna purposely changed the formula to get to his target date, rather than let the natural formula speak its own conclusion. The other very scholarly person is John Sheliak. As Gregg Braden says, Watkins "offers an honest assessment and the recommendations that lay the foundation for the later revisions by physicist John Sheliak." Sheliak is a nuclear physicist, a mathematician, and an applied scientist. Sheliak said that McKenna's theory is interesting but that the timewave corresponds to observed history in a general sense, difficult to analyze, difficult to link to specific events. Neither of these guys says McKenna's theory is pseudoscience, even though they show no mercy as they point to its severe faults. So Bruce was making up the bit about what the scientific community thinks. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not the least bit surprising that there's a mathematician in the world who is into numerology and 2012 eschatology ("it wouldn't surprise me if something quite remarkable does occur on December 21, 2012"). Yet despite his explicit sympathies, Watkins says, I must conclude that the "timewave" cannot be taken to be what McKenna claims it is.

Likewise it's not surprising to find a physicist in the world who is into the 2012 nuttery. A brief listen to this should tell you what's going on with John Sheliak.

Folks, this is not a borderline call. Numerology is pseudoscience. The various scientifically-sounding ideas surrounding the 2012 phenomenon, of which novelty theory is one, are pseudoscience. The sources are just stating the obvious.

Characterizing something as pseudoscience does not require a poll among all the scientists of the world. If that were the criteria for calling something pseudoscience then nothing could be called pseudoscience and the word would cease to have meaning.

Wikipedia has historically had problems with editors aiming to promote pseudoscience or lessen its criticism, which eventually lead to the arbitration case on pseudoscience. Please look the case over and be advised that this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Please read WP:FRINGE. Thank you. vzaak 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not moved by your argument, such as it is. I have no wish to promote pseudoscience, but I fail to see this topic sufficiently classified as such. Problem #1: You referenced a pop culture writer who decided she can speak for all of science. Problem #2: I pointed out two scholars who commented respectfully but very critically on McKenna, and you dismissed them as cranks. What do you know that they don't? Problem #3: You brand novelty theory as numerology but the article as it now appears does not support such a simplistic label. Novelty theory may well be more than numerology; according to Watkins and Sheliak, the idea holds more promise once McKenna's mistakes are excised. The biggest problem I see here is that one Wikipedia editor feels he is the arbiter of what is pseudoscience, despite evidence to the contrary (scholars actually working the hypothesis, finding and even fixing faults). Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

he promoted Machine elf, that humans evolved because they took psychedelic mushrooms and that patterns from the I Ching can be graphed to show that the universe ends in 2012, just like "the Mayan calendar says". How is that NOT clearly pseudoscience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A mixture of numerology and 2012-apocalypse nonsense revealed while tripping on mushrooms? This is like an exaggerated caricature of pseudoscience. For goodness' sake, it's 2014. Reliable sources tell us the obvious. This stuff is pseudoscience. Please see WP:PARITY.

Re #3, I did not say novelty theory is exclusively numerology, of course.

Fringe views must be placed in context with mainstream views (WP:PSCI). This is a policy. I did not call Sheliak (or anyone) is a "crank", but he evidently holds fringe views. Now that you mention it, Sheliak's site does have all the indicators of crankishness: flashing background, distracting animations, 90s-era feel, promotion of Dean Radin, etc. On the youtube audio linked previously, he goes into all sorts of 2012 end-of-the-world nuttery, 9/11 conspiracies, and who knows what else. With regard to the McKenna article, Sheliak does not represent the mainstream view; he represents the fringe view. He's explicitly promoting McKenna on his website. Fringe views must be placed in context with mainstream views (WP:PSCI). This is a policy.

For any given pseudoscience idea, one can probably find a scientist in the world supporting it. According to your argument, this means that the thing is not pseudoscience, and therefore almost nothing can be called pseudoscience.

Everyone please read WP:FRINGE; I am not convinced this has happened. vzaak 18:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, yes, I have read WP:FRINGE. However, YOUR OPINION as to whether this or anything else is pseudoscience is irrelevant, as is your concern that "therefore almost nothing can be called pseudoscience". Nowhere can I find the notion that it is the purpose of Wikipedia to sort science from pseudoscience, or for editors to take on that crusade. I have not even argued with the use of that term! I DO have a problem with the statement "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community", and what you've used to support that statement. And obviously I am not the only editor who thinks so. I merely suggested it be changed to "Some members of the scientific community", and you have responded with a fervor that smacks, IMO, of ownership. I suggested specifying where the characterization came from, and was reverted again. I pointed out that you were using a non-scientific community member's statement as a source, and a blog from someone in a different field who says NOTHING about the scientific community, and that in regard to the Stoned Ape Theory you included a critique based on a high school student's essay, and you still have a "revert everything, those who disagree with me have no merit" attitude. Binksternet, frankly a better researcher and editor than I, has introduced articles by members of the scientific community that obviously indicate that "some members" is a better statement, but you continue to fight for your exact absolutist language and refuse to allow modification by other editors. And AGAIN you use the phrase "be advised that this article falls under discretionary sanctions" with another editor, when it does NOT, since the issue is your use of a statement and particular inappropriate sources. IMO, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to report on a subject, not judge his work. It should not be characterized by a distain for the field he works or writes in, or for anyone who might write anything favorable about him. I urge you to reconsider your stance. Rosencomet (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included...See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience." WP:PSCI is part of WP:NPOV, which is indeed a non-negotiable policy. Also see WP:PARITY regarding sources that may be used to critique fringe subjects. See WP:ITA regarding the removal of in-text attribution. I've stated all these policies before, both here and in edit comments, but you haven't responded to these points. vzaak 02:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a review of Food of the Gods by Richard Evans Schultes which originally appeared in American Scientist and who according to Wikipedia may be considered the father of modern ethnobotany. Here are a couple of highlights: "A masterpiece of research and writing, this volume should be read by every specialist working in the multifarious fields involved with the use of psychoactive drugs....Terence McKenna's 313 pages are overflowing with well-ordered and skillfully written cultural, sociological, historical, legal and moral discussions on the political future of drug uses....This volume will long be consulted by researchers and others who may not be convinced by McKenna's scholarly venture into a highly controversial realm of thinking. It is, without question, destined to play a major role in our future considerations of the role of the ancient use of psychoactive drugs, the historical shaping of our modern concerns about drugs and perhaps about man's desire for escape from reality with drugs."

I have also posted this in the Terence McKenna is properly described as an ethnobotanist section of this talk page as well as it is relevant for both Screamliner (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Another link from Scientific American relevant for this discussion Screamliner (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Novelty theory is part of the 2012 phenomenon

There is already a source in the article stating this explicitly, a search confirms it, and McKenna is in the 2012 phenomenon article. 2012 is an important aspect of the idea which is easily communicated to readers. vzaak 18:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My edit was not disputing that fact, I am aware that it is part of the 2012 phenomenon and that it is in the 2012 article and I agree that the 2012 date ended up being an important aspect of the idea. But that does not mean he formulated a "2012 eschatology". He formulated a hypothesis about the nature of time based on patterns in the I Ching. The graph could have been placed anywhere on the historical timeline, the end date is arbitrary. It is due to McKennas 'best fit' placement that it reached the 0 point in 2012 and he seemingly wanted to align with the mayan calendar and the 2012 phenomena as well. But the theory came first, the 2012 date is secondary to the actual ideas underpinning Novelty theory. And to suggest otherwise is misleading. I have made an edit which hopefully reaches a happy medium. Screamliner (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The entire section Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero needs extensive editing per (WP:DUE). The current sources are primary or unreliable see: WP:RS. The explanation of the ideas are far to extensive, interested readers can consult McKenna's works. Where it has been found notable and discussed in reliable sources it should be in the article as summarized, analyzed, evaluated and discussed by reliable sources. An article in The Independent says, "The game is Timewave Zero; the rules, a computer model based on fractal dynamics, plotting a graph of every peak and trough in our planet's 4,500 million-year history." There is certainly some discussion and evaluation in other sources like the Jenkins 2009 book but WP should strive for concision and give details only as due.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

Moved from article for preservation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 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",[6] 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 [7] 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 Wikipedia 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.[8] 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 paragraph 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[9], 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 [10] (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)