Talk:Terence McKenna/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Timewave zero

readme

Looking through the 7.1 software archive that 66.134.102.50 added a link to, I realize that I was the one that compiled it and wrote the readme. For the life of me I can't remember when, or how I released it. Or how I lost it. I'm interested to know how the person who put up the link came by it. Leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to let me know. — Clarknova 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nominating this article for deletion

From WP:VF

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

From WP:FT

Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.

This article needs cleanup and more sourcing. It is showing its age and has not been revised to meet Wikipedia's rising standards. That said, the proper response to Novelty Theory's crackpot character is to improve the article. Nonimination for deletion is the lazy way out. It has now been nominated twice. The first vote failed and as of this post the second vote also has a (slim) majority in favor of keeping it. Both have failed. Deleting articles and expunging records is not the way to advance a rational agenda. If you object to this article's material please improve the criticism section and reference your contributions properly. — Clarknova (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Numerology Vs. Mathematics

I thought in order to be NPOV a lot needed to be said about his claims to Novelty Theory being a "mathematical theory", most mathematicians would disagree to that status. There is very little "mathematical " about it, it is much more numerlogical. Of course the article still needs to be NPOV and respect Mckennas's views but since it is a theory that, if even considered by the mathematical community at large, which it is not do to it's very numerological nature, would be a very controversial theory, and is usually rejected outright by those few mathematicians who have even considered it (it's hard to even find links to such criticisms made by trained mathematicians because it is so very rarely considered do to it's obvious numerologica nature.) It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal to the best of my knowledge (something to be expected considerig McKenna's rejection of the methods of what he called "Western" science--a disrespectful misnomer IMHO considering the many valuable contributions from the East.) I added some material about the controversial nature of the claim, I tried to be NPOV, as a matter of fact the effort was an attempt tp make the article more NPOV, and less lauditory, although fans of McKenna's work might disagree to the success of my NPOV eforts. If you change any of my additions please discuss it here first.

I suspect some might consider relegating all such criticism to the "criticism" section, but since the claims to it being a "mathematical" theory are so dubious I think its appropriate that the controversey of the claim be mentioned where the claim is first stated, especially since the claim is made right next to the very numerological sources. If you don't understand the difference between numerology and mathematics please refrain from attempting to contribute to this portion of the article, as little of use is likely to be added someone who does not know anything about the subject.

For the record I respect some of McKenna's efforts, namely his efforts to preserve plants used by indigenous cultures, I just think a lot of his theories were silly, a feeling which I tried to keep out of the article, only mentioning, in a attempt to make the article less POV, the very real controversy of his claimes to Novelty Theory being on a sound mathematical or scientific ground. --Brentt 08:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I just rewrote much of what you added, so the article discusses the theory's numerological basis without actually criticising that through math. There isn't any reason for the article itself to be critical of novelty theory, as encyclopedias aren't here to make claims about what is and isn't objective fact. I also got rid of some redundancy in wikilinks and in the paragraph at the bottom of criticisms. However, I beleive that everything you brought up is still in there, as it should be. --Heah (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Defintitely an improvement on my edit; its now a more neutral phrasing and structure than either my version or the previous version. Thank you for the contribution. --Brentt 10:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Travel Prophecy Fulfilled

Whats interesting to me is that the work of Dr. Ronald Mallett may fulfill the time travel prophecy by 2012, though i suspect Dr. Rons already got his time machine working. And wouldn't you say that the internet and Wikipedia also fulfill the consciousness shift criteria?

Is McKenna being serious?

Terrence McKenna is not known to have ever issued such a statement. Indeed, in his published books, interviews, and recorded lectures McKenna consistently treats the theory as seriously as any of his other material.

I've listened to all his lectures I could get my hands on, and have never had the feeling of him treating the thing as a scientific theory. I even read the Invisible Landscape and it is described in an introduction - justifiably so I believe - as akin to a dense alchemical grimoire - that was also my feel for the book - using all theories at their disposal to attempt to explain something unexplainable, incoherent and passionate, but certanly not scientific. True, he did say it was a theory of mathematics, and that is totaly false. Actual factography was never his strong point :), and if confronted with the fact that it isn't math, I think he would have no problems retracting such a statement. He created the wave using just the basic mathematics, and some geometric intuitions, so I think that by seing a mathematical theory he meant only in the sense of dealing with numbers. I dont have the quotes to demonstrate this feeling, will look for them. I dont think he would call the thing a parody - I think he liked it (and how wouldn't he, since it came to him in such a drastic trip?), but was himself split about believing or not in it. But when presenting it, he allways called for people to test it by comparing the predictions of it with their own sense of the important events in history (supposedly he verified the Mayan end date by looking at the italian rennaisance) - thats more akin to other divination methods than science. Also I think he refered to it as his pet theory, and as some freakish object, etc. I see that there is a link in the pseudoscience to novelty theory - and again, he made no claims about it being scientific (I mean it was more like a channeled idea in a trip, totaly irational, antithetical to science), and that was a criterium of what constitues a pseudoscience in the beggining of that article. Just because something appears to one in a trip doesn't make the person that tripped it believe that its necessarely true - though it usualy makes one fond of the idea - for instance a guy in a trip saw an insectoid creature that explained that it is a mental parasite, living of the strength of emotion of the hosts - and he discusses the problem of the reality of such experiences, and is not ready to either believe or dismiss the experience. I think thats the logical adaptive attitude people take towards things they encounter on their trips, especially if tripping so intensly as McKenna, and believe that McKenna shared that aditute. He talked about pearing over the abyss and pulling something out of it - timewave zero was such an irrational object.

-aryah

Perhaps your right about Mckenna's view towards the theory--I suspect, though I could be wrong, Mckenna was not a typical dogma entrapped pseudo-scientist and would have been open and understanding of criticism. But I think many people take his theories as somehow having some scientific authority since he intentionally or unintentionally put a veneer of scientism on it (while at the same time critisizing the important parts of science.) and that may qualify it as "pseudo-science"--a lot of people have a pretty poor understanding of what qualifies something as "scientific". Pseudo-science is a pretty loaded term with a lot of grey area (althought there are some pretty clear cut cases) and this is definitely one of the grey areas.

That being said I think the difference between numerology and mathematics is much more clear cut. And this definitely falls into the numerology category, not mathematics. --Brentt 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think wether McKenna took himself seriously or not depends on the time period and his venue. In some speeches and for some audiences he was more committed, and for some, less. Usually he makes some kind of verbal disclaimer, but I have a video produced by Sound Photosynthesis where he's shown discussing the theroy as fact.

One thing McKenna -never- did was publicly announce his theory was a parody. This is Peter Meyer's assertion. Meyer may have had some private discussion with McKenna along these lines, but there's no record of it, and it's likely that he never knew McKenna personally.

McKenna always allowed for the possibility that Novelty Theory was accurate.

As a side note: In his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule, Dr. Rick Strassman prints the trip reports of several of his DMT test subjects. One of them stands out as a sentient, parasitc insect hallucination. In this case the mantids (or whatever they were) were feeding on the emotions from the test subject's heart. — Clarknova 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If his theory didn't make any serious point in Euler's continuity sense, he made one in Dawkin's memetic one. Hey, I've never red the Invisibles nor heard about McKenna's theory but how come I still came out with the same conclusions? The easiest explanation for this convergence is that there are fat ideas at work here. This was the remark he was emphasizing. Our brain is the possibility mill, the idea hatchery, the memetic vault, whatever background, school, research we've made, we are permeable to contamination - especially when it is coming from trusted side sources. So yes there is indeed an important question of influence.

You're right to mention Burroughs (or maybe Morrison), this drunk had an acute sense for catching any mind virus left aside. His ad hoc metaphor about extraterrestrial intelligence engineering our language had humongous consequences in our perception of reality.

And hey again, even irrationality has place within mathematics - almost all real numbers are irrational!

BTW: His model doesn't point Renaissance in 2012 but more in 2004 (see here). Or if you have enough Cells it might have happen just right now! Gilemon 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "irrational" about irrational numbers (just like there is nothing "imaginary" about imaginary numbers--no more than any other kind of number anyway). Its a completely different meanning from the non-mathematical sense of "irrational". As a matter of fact in the everyday sense they are deduced from pure rational thought, so they are actually very "rational" in that sense. The reason why they call them "irrational" is a holdover from the days (ancient greece) when they weren't really comfortable with the idea of a number that couldn't be expressed as a fraction--ironically because they had some irrational restrictive notions about what a number should be, so they called them "irrational". So in the sense you mean, "irrationality" doesn't play a part in mathematics (thats not to say there is nothing "irrational" in mathematics, its just that irrational numbers are no more "irrational" than any other kind of numbers.) Brentt 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s what I’m saying; you’ve been permeable enough to see this irrationality in Mathematics as something "rational". "Being a language, mathematics may be used not only to inform but also, among other things, to seduce." Benoit Mandelbrot Gilemon 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Software

I have a copy of Timewave Zero 4.3. Is there really a Fractal Time 7.1? I cannot find it. --Ajay5150

yeah. does the link not work anymore? i just clicked on it and got a 403 permission error. If that happens to others too it should be removed. but i've downloaded it in the past- it isn't much improved from 4.3; it has some insignificant additional features that i can't recall as well as being in bad color. More importantly it uses a slightly different timewave, having taken watkins' objection into account and reprogrammed accordingly. --Heah ^talk 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I found some versions linked at deoxy. If they are the latest anyone can find, perhaps we should link them on the main page? Steved424 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

McKenna's description of hyperspace or the meeting with the hyperdimesional object

~~GS~~

Can anybody provide me with a link or tell me what McKenna's description of hyperspace was like? He mentioned that there was an entrance into hyperspace or a hyperspatial breakthrough by a hyperdimensional object. Recently, a friend of mine mentioned the novelty theory and I wanted to know if somebody could tell me what the description of his hyperdimensional space was like.

Not quite answering your question, but you might find The Reciprocality Project and The Third Age interesting. Bear in mind that I'm pretty sure the dopamine stuff is wrong. Steved424 22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Read The Archaic Revival and Food of the Gods. McKenna is a huge proponent of "the end of history" when man will be freed of obsessions with technology and time, and return to a utopian life of Dionysian pleasures and harmony with the Earth. Also, psychedelic mushrooms are purported to be interspecies communication ( pheromones ), so if you blend all this together, you can get an idea what McKenna's idea of hyperspace might be. FireWeed 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutralization needed

This article desperately needs fact checking and slant-reverting by a knowledgeable math/sci editor. I am too busy myself, but I want to note that the present version is absurdly credulous. This "theory" would not be regarded as anything but sheer nonsense by mainstream scientists. ---CH 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't loose too much sleep over it - this is what McKenna is known for. The man has more scientific knowledge than most people, and not by a little, combined with a gift of words. He's able to make the most absurd notions sound like plausible, credible science. The man is known to embellish.

Example - in at least two of his books, Terrence McKenna has advocated the theory that psychedelic mushrooms are an alien species "from the heavens." He gives evidence that their spores are ligth enough to by carried by the wind, "perhaps to the edge of the atmosphere," that being purple in color would shield them from deep space radiation, that the shell of the spores has an electron density more than most metals, and that long-term survival plans for a species only require a limited number to survive such a journey. How did McKenna reach this conclusion? While "tripping" from mushrooms, one of them told him so - he was skeptical at first, but further research on his part confirmed the possibility.

Now if that isn't crackpot, I don't know what is. And yet, if we forget the main assertion and listen to the "evidence," it sounds somewhat reasonable. This is the most compelling example, but there are others. So, while the message and the messenger aren't one and the same, the fact that this is being described as a scientific theory looses some of its luster when we remember whose theory it is, and what else he theorized on. I realize none of this background is presented in the article, but ...

FireWeed 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

McKenna does indeed have an elegant way with words, and an intellect capable of convincing most what he says is worth considering. Now to dismiss 'tripping' as a reason to discredit his theories (just theories and nothing else, as all theories are, not truth) is absurd. McKenna was trying to make sense of his powerful trips (the Ayahuascan tribes gained all their knowledge from visions), what western science fails to realize is that there're limitations to scientific measuring tools and even more limitations on our sense organs, and DMT is a key which is the only chemical that fits into a lock in our brain. When trying to explain a trip during one of his lectures he claimed "a song is a song", meaning you can't take this information back to waking life, and spent his time trying to make sense of these visions and to bring some of a song back to us.

When talking about time wave zero McKenna stated "if I’m right... I’m a genius, if I’m wrong... I’m a mad man". He also always presented this theorys up for debate & without the dogma of most scientists. On another note the 'spore' theory is quite possible, as all our water is melted ice asteroids that fell to earth but again that’s simply another theory.

-C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.40.48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pronouncing myself on this article. However, based on one account that Terrence McKenna has given on novelty theory - and which can be viewed at will - it is not at all unscientific. In fact, it is completely scientific. Novelty theory can be explained in three points:

1. Over linear time new forms of complexity are continuously being created in the universe (hardly controversial).

2. The rate at which these new forms of complexity are being created has accelerated continuously since the big bang and will continue to accelerate (again, hardly controversial)

3. We human beings are unique in our known universe since we're the only creatures that can intentionally pursue the creation of new complexity, and in doing so we are ourselves increasing the rate at which new forms of complexity are being created (again, hardly controversial)

Novelty theory basically says that change is constant, and the rate at which change occurs is constantly accelerating. It takes nothing more than a reading of the historical record, the history of the universe and objective empirical observations to come to the same conclusion.

So, unless you disagree with this understanding of novelty theory - which is based on the clear and concise spoken account by Terrence McKenna himself - there is no basis for calling it unscientific. The lecture at which he describes novelty theory can be found here: part 1 and part 2. Novelty theory is discussed at the end of part 2, but it's probably a good idea to listen to the entire lecture to understand the context in which he explains novelty theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.54.119 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia external links guidelines and the FTS site

From Wikipedia [[1] external links guidelines]:

"Links normally to be avoided

...

Links mainly intended to promote a website ...

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

...

Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."

The linked to page is a purchase page for selling of the software and the site restricts access to relevant content. The link is therefore in violation of wikipedia guidelines and should be removed from the external links section.66.42.71.57 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another wikipedia guideline is: "...avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". This [[2]] series of edits added three links to the same commercial software site.66.42.71.106 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not the one who made those earlier links. I agree the links in that particular edit were added in a spammy promotional way, but I included a link to Meyer's site in my edit because it included some useful information about how McKenna picked the end-date of the "timewave". You can look at my edit history and see I'm not a link spammer, nor do I have any interest in promoting the timewave theory which I think is total bunk (I happened to look at the novelty theory page because it was linked to in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article which I had edited to help explain that the Maya did not really predict the end of the world in 2012). The fact that one person linked to the site in a spammy way in the past should not bar anyone from every linking to any of Meyer's writings ever again. Hypnosifl 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you are not a link spammer. Thanks for providing an even better reference link which quotes McKenna. And thanks for your willingness to consider whether or not a fifth link to Meyer's site is appropriate for this article. I share your opinion of timewave theory.

Meyer's sites should be linked to when appropriate, but at one point there were over fifty links from wikipedia articles into Meyer's hermetic site alone [3]. Applying wikipedia policies and guidelines (including but not limited to commercial website guidelines) has resulted in fewer links to Meyer's sites, as is partially documented by Google searches [4] [5]. 4.246.200.40 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that there were a number of other links to Meyer's site, although only 2 are in the actual article. But it shouldn't be that surprising that an article on novelty theory should reference him, since he is the designer of the timewave software and his site is the only one I know of that contains his writings on the subject. Anyway, compare McKenna's explanation for his choice of the end-date vs. Meyer's...here's McKenna in the interview that's the current reference:

Terence: Peter Broadwell, who is sitting in the front row, has labored mightily to make the time-wave theory accessible to people. My original reason for choosing the 2012 date was very idiosyncratic. It had to do with temporal distances from the date that the atomic weapons were used on Hiroshima. But once we had this program running well enough that I could see what was happening, I felt that the time-wave gave very good agreement with the historical data. The time-wave maps novelty, coming and going, from historical time. Configure it so that you'd have the zero point in November, 2012; in that case the deepest ingression of novelty before modern times was in that fifty year period in the fifth century B.C., when Laotzu, Mencius, Ezekial and Zoroaster and Plato were all active. Such a moment! Nothing has been done since except adumbrations of that work. Then, of course, as you mentioned, the end of the Mayan calendar, which is a very, very strong coincidence.

And here's Meyer in the other site I tried to add as a reference:

The approach he originally took to determining the zero date was to look for an event of great novelty in recent history, and to take this as the start of the final 67.29-year (24,576-day) cycle. The use of a uranium bomb to kill 80,000 civilians on 1945-08-06 seemed to him the most likely candidate for such an event. Adding 67.29 years to the date of the incineration of Hiroshima brings one to mid-November 2012. Influenced by the fact that the current 13-baktun cycle of the Maya Calendar ends in December 2012 McKenna adopted 2012-12-22 as the zero date.

Meyer's explanation is far more clear--where McKenna says vaguely that "it had to do with temporal distances from the date that the atomic weapsons were used on Hiroshima", Meyer says specifically that the timewave contains a final 67.29 year cycle and that McKenna just looked for "an event of great novelty in recent history" to match with the beginning of this cycle (assuming from the start that history was almost 'over'). It also makes it more clear that this method originally led to an end in November of 2012, and that McKenna than adjusted it based on the Maya calendar, while in McKenna's quote it isn't even obvious that he *did* adjust it, he just says that the end of the Mayan calendar is a "strong coincidence" along the lines of the other "coincidence" which he thinks supports his choice of end date, the fact that the "deepest ingression of novelty" was in the fifth century B.C. If you can find any other reference for the fact that the original choice of end-date was based on this 67.29 year cycle and looking for a historical event to match it with, and that this originally led to an end-date of November 2012 but this was adjusted to match the end of the current 13-baktun cycle of the Maya calendar, then by all means add it, but if Meyer's page is the only reference that makes this clear then I don't think it makes sense to delete the link just based on the fact that his page is referenced a few other times in the article. Hypnosifl 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More information, less secondary stuff

It would be so much better if the formula(s) that give rise to the timewave were stated explicitly instead of being referred to in abstract, indirect wording. Also, I feel that removing much of the reported opinion would improve the article. Axel 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theory

This article really needs some serious work. WP:FRINGE says that we should represent the mainstream science view as truth and fringe theories should not be given undue weight. Anything that cannot be supported by peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals needs to be labelled as "claims" from such-and-such author and not presented as "Truth". The opening sentence (at least) needs to state that this is not mainstream science. After that, we have to clarify or expand on what is being said because the language in this article is more or less just random scientific terms strung together without meaning.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? And prey please enlighten us where is the article it says anything is "true"? An example would be nice. The7thdr (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't all info at least be shown a little light, so some might not think this is truth, or want to peer review this theory. dose that mean it HAS to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.123.144 (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Novelty theory to Timewave zero

I propose moving Novelty theory to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this is that "Timewave zero" is a much more common name for this stuff than "Novelty theory", and is somewhat more common than Time wave zero. Additionally, the term "novelty theory" is more commonly used to refer to one or more social science theories than it is to refer to the subject of this article; that would not a problem with the name "Timewave zero". Cardamon (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Novelty Theory will need to become a disambiguation page. Do any of the aforementioned SS theories currently have articles? — Clarknova (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the Social Science theories (I am not even quite sure how many of them there are) named Novelty Theory have an article yet. Cardamon (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been moved accordingly. along with the present talk page. any messed up redirects will be soon fixed automatically. DGG (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophetic value of this theory

According to page history, it has not been edited in November or October 2008. Yet, it accurately predicts November 2008 as the next peak of "novelty" after 9/11. The recent terror attack in India was called by the media "Indian 9/11", due to severity and complexity of the attack. Now i know it's probably a coincidence... but not a trivial one. Please, do not delete this article, it will be very interesting to observe it in October 2010. 79.179.126.254 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

October/November of '08 is also the Crash of '08 in stock & bond markets. As prophecy is generally non-specific and can be applied to essentially any event if you interpret them correctly, this does have a certain 'spookiness' to it that warrants hanging onto the 3k of data. Just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.185.42 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the election of Barack Obama took place in November 2008. Certainly a time of great change... but isn't this true of all modern times? Please keep this article anyway. I love referencing Wikipedia for alternative theories because elsewhere on the internet it's tough to find anyone who even tries to correct their own bias... 96.231.193.141 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

once I was looking at a pretty zoomed-in timewave and could relate most of the peaks to events in my life. placebo effect? it could have been. but i guess only time will tell. this difficulty in objectively differentiating a "novel" event to one that is not is what made one website delete its thorough page on the theory to replace it with a caption "thus it is to be considered pseudoscience [as what may be novel to some may not be to others]." Twipley (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

screenshot?!

You made that program on the screenshot in QBasic, am I right? This is ridiculous!!! 92.52.193.197 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

timewave peaks

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timewave_9_11_2001.png screenshot shows peaks around 09/01, 10/08, and 09/10, but aren't peaks pointing to periods of low novelty? i thought that the depressions pointed to novelty, that is, more novelty the nearer the curve is to a null value (that is, 0.0000000). Twipley (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been using the Timewave Calculator program at the Timewave2012 website (http://frequency23.net/timewave/index.php?option=com_agora&action=search&task=search&keywords=graph+meaning&author=&forum=-1&sort_by=5&sort_dir=DESC&show_as=topics&search=Submit) This calculator creates Novelty Values and the Graph that displays them over time. I have the same dilemma: The graph shows novelty values which approach zero as they approach the baseline. At 12/21/2012 the novelty value becomes zero. This can only mean (at least to me) that novelty ends in 2012; not that it becomes infinite. Bmansurchit (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i may be wrong, but i always have viewed this theory as novelty to "become infinite" in 2012. Twipley (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

edit: here's some page i've just found (which i'll later read): http://www.hermetic.ch/frt/doc/overview.html Twipley (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 19th section

The ET talk by the astronaut happened on the 20th of April. I'm not sure whether that should be taken as any kind of confirmation, but then again I don't think the dating on the theory is supposed to be exact. It's also not the first time this astronaut has made that claim before the media.

I'm sure there was SOMETHING happening somewhere on pretty much all of the past significant dates...how do we know what's a possible confirmation and what can be attributed to the fact something interesting happens every single day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.244.123 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The pandemic flu started as of around 26th April, a quite striking novelty event for the world. Surely it's not the 5 days that would matter, since 9/11, the November 2008 was also the month with greatest novelty ever since (as predicted by the timewave). This seems to be interesting in showing that the theory can predict novelty. By showing significant world-impacting events to occur around these dates, this meets the verificability criteria of Wiki's standards. Please, keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticism section has clearly been rewritten by someone with a pro-Timewave bias. Much of the criticisms are answered and ridiculed without being allowed to develop, and some are even put in sarcastic quotation marks. It should either be removed or redrafted from scratch, and both sides should be cited. I'm pretty sure some sound scientific criticisms can be found for this hypothesis. Serendi^podous 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The timewave theory is based on intuitive pattern recognition and should be classified as an artistic interpretation of reality, like a poem or a painting. It is inappropriate to criticise art as unscientific. Systemizer (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So you say. But you're going to need more than your own opinion to back this up. Critics need to be given a fair hearing, and those who respond to critics need to be given a fair hearing. You can't simply say "they're wrong". That's your opinion. You need to cite others' opinions. Serendi^podous 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RM POV

If it's not going to be deleted or merged, then what is going to happen to it? Because it can't exist as it is; it is in blatant violation of about fifteen different Wikipedia rules. It is effectively someone's personal promotional essay on Timewave, not an encyclopedia article on timewave. Since I know nothing about Timewave, I don't think I can redraft it. But someone has to. Serendi^podous 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can try, but I'll definitely require assistance. Any volunteers? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do whatever I can, but most of my help would be stylistic and rules-based. The November 2008 deletion discussion refers to a number of outside sources which could be employed. Serendi^podous 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic help would be really good, especially since I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. And I'll need any help I can get. Do you have any idea where I could start improvements (as in specific parts of the article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Panic! (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I forgot to sign my post...Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most troubling section is "Criticisms", which is basically one editor bashing critics of timewave without citing any outside sources. Serendi^podous 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any references to cite in that section. Thanks again for helping! (: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Use that as long as you are making improvements.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 2012 doomsday prediction

This article is a mess and most of its material is either uncited or brazenly opinionated. It has already been nominated for deletion twice, and probably would be best served to be trimmed down to its barest essentials and merged with the 2012 doomsday prediction article. Serendi^podous 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Or just removed altogether? Its inclusion here would merely muddy the water, which is already quite murky enough!--PL (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I happen to know it was covered in at least one History Channel documentary... Serendi^podous 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since 2012 is a significant date to many people, the article should certainly not be deleted or merged with much more abstract articles.77.162.130.139 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This article may be a mess, but that is no reason to merge or delete. We don't delete based on the state of an article, we delete based on notability and proven facts. Timewave Zero is abstract and doesn't go into the detail that this article does. it just needs some work.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The article needs general clean-up, but there's no reason to delete it. This is indeed a notable article, since 2012 is a big thing for both believers and skeptics. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I still think Timewave zero would best work as part of this article. With the unsourced "Software history" section taken out, it would easily fit into a subsection, and, as it is is a major theme in the 2012 doomsday prediction, it should be alongside the galactic alignment or new age ideas. Serendi^podous 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Timewave Zero doesn't really work near as well on its own. Since this article and Timewave Zero go together so well and are linked, they should be merged. Plus, there doesn't seem to be a need for "Software History", although there are a few sourceds there. But that doesn't really mean that everyone will listen to us, right? (: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is,

(a) it would make the article more complex than it needs to be, and

(b) by multiplying its aspects, will tend to suggest that the whole concept is worthy of serious academic consideration -- or that Timewave Zero is -- when (to judge by the rest of the article) it clearly isn't.

If Timewave Zero can't stand on its own two feet, even when leaning on this one, then perhaps it should just be allowed to collapse? Ergo, kick the stick away?--PL (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been nominated for deletion twice and survived. It's not going anywhere. Simply leaving it to rot leads to what I just dealt with yesterday; cadres of true believers tailoring it to their own cockeyed agenda. All of the article's "information" can be preserved if properly condensed. Believe me, condensing this material will not be that difficult.Serendi^podous 09:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed more unnecessary sections, and were it to be included in this article I could easily reduce it by another 30% or so without losing anything. I promise, it will work, and this way there'll be more people to keep an eye on it. Serendi^podous 10:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Provided that it's removed entirely to here, on your head be it! ;) But are the two articles really worth spending all this time and energy on? --PL (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm just interested in symmetry. Bit like you and that Shipton sentence maybe. Serendi^podous 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. But at least that was about a fact! Meanwhile, IMO the new insertion is far too long, diffuse, complex, and largely irrelevant to 2012, and makes the Timewave theory seem far more important than 2001 theory itself. --PL (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on reducing it. Serendi^podous 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Timewave now has fewer words than Galactic alignment. Duly unimportant-ised. Serendi^podous 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, you are always working on this when I'm sleeping! So, how much more do you think we have to do yet? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a fresh read through and see if it makes the remotest bit of sense. If it does, then we're done. If it doesn't, square one. :-) Serendi^podous 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be vastly shorter - if it ain't referenced, it needs to go. This is controversial fringe-theory stuff and the only way to make those kinds of articles tolerable is to insist on careful referencing for everything that's not mainstream science. I'm not sure about the merge - but I look forward to a discussion in order that I may be better informed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were to take the "if it ain't referenced, it needs to go" philosophy literally, then 80% if this article would be deleted. Do I have a go-ahead to do that? Serendi^podous 07:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It would be a violation of the Wikipedia principles. Use "citation needed" tags. Systemizer (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to yes, add introduce more citations into the article. I don't think because it is a controversial fringe theory, that it should be removed, no. There are many articles in Wikipedia about fringe themes, like futurology, future trends, trends, the technology singularity... Furthermore, Timewave was part of a research, has citations to its original and following studies, and meets the verificability criteria by predicting specific novelty dates that can later be confirmed or not. I don't think it should go to Doomsday theories, this is a mathematical theory of time and novelty, not a doom prediction. However it is just a mathematical theory.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 

Merging Timewave zero with 2012 doomsday prediction implies reducing the size of the article to a few words and is tantamount to deleting it. This article has been nominated for deletion twice, and both times the verdict was "Keep." Systemizer (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Novelty theory section on Terrence McKenna's wiki page contains more useful information than this entire article, and is better written. Redirecting the article there would make more sense. Serendi^podous 15:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Novelty theory section on Terrence McKenna's wiki page consists of 13 sentences; here is one of them: "Novelty, in this context, can be thought of as newness." Systemizer (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the most troubling sections. At least now the article makes some kind of sense. I know that what I did may cause some concern but the sections I removed were too full of opinion and original research to stand, particularly since this page involves living persons. This article, as it stands, needs work, but it isn't scaring me anyomre. Serendi^podous 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's looking a lot better! You made the right choice by deleting criticisms. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope the more traditional editors of this page don't have a problem. Thanks for your help! :-) Serendi^podous 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It was a team effort. (: Thanks for you help too! Chocolate Panic! (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope - it's not better. Now you have an article that is almost literally a long sequence of "McKenna says...."/"McKenna claims...."/etc paragraphs (Read it! I'm not exaggerating!) - with references that are either from McKenna himself (these are "primary sources" and of small value) or other people saying "McKenna says..." - which may only serve to confirm that McKenna said something - not that what he says is actually true. Where are the all-important secondary sources? There is not one single non-McKenna reference here that says that any of this stuff is either true or false! That's gonna fall foul of all kinds of WP:FRINGE rules. Pseudoscience articles (which, like it or not, this undoubtedly is) are required to take an agressively neutral stance - this one does not - there is no longer any contrary viewpoint whatever. Just because you can't find references for a contrary view does not give you license to write a one-sided article. Now we MUST prune the number of primary references to a reasonable number - and remove so-called references that are really only newspaper and similar reports of what McKenna says (which we're not disputing here) - when that's done, we must again, ruthlessly prune unsourced statements - and now you have an article that could only justify being a couple of paragraphs at most...at which time, a merge into a larger context would make a lot of sense. We're not here to explain one man's unsubstantiated theories - a brief summary and a link to his writings in his biography page is plenty for that. If there are no confirmable facts in reputable sources relating to this theory - then the article must be agressively shrunk - and what's left would be ripe for a merge into something else. SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The point wasn't that the article was perfect. The point was that it was better. Check out how the article looked about a week ago when the "criticisms" section was still part of the article. That was bad. And yes, the first part of the article is a lot of "McKenna says", but it isn't entirely "McKenna says". It's a little difficult to find other sources. And since I'm still fairly new, I had no idea about the FRINGE rules. But it is decently hard to get a good article when there's only a few people who are actually working on it. If the article bothered you, you could've done something about it. I'm trying to work on it, but there's only so much Serendipodous and I can do. He did merge the article, but another user unmerged it.

...I'm really sorry if that came off as offensive. I didn't mean it to be that way. If you could help with the sources, that would be really great! _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC>Panic!} —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

There is no consensus for the deletion of the Timewave zero article and its replacement with a paragraph only in 2012 doomsday prediction with the loss of background and detail that that entails. If you want to proceed I suggest you (User:Serendipodous )start a RFD for Timewave zero. Lumos3 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a consensus. two people objected, one changed his mind. Another initially objected, but allowed me to go ahead with it as long as I took responsibility for it. The background and detail you refer to is mostly either unsourced New Age babble or biographical material about McKenna himself, which, since Wikipedia already has an article on McKenna, is unnecessary. Serendi^podous 11:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also support the merge. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for the merge for sure...Chocolate Panic! (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Merge. We must remove the majority of the large number of primary sources (per WP:FRINGE) - and prune those sources that don't confirm the truth or falsehood of this theory at all - but only confirm that McKenna did indeed say what we claimed he said. What we have left will be nothing more than a paragraph that hits the highlights of the theory - says that McKenna says such-and-such (with one or two links to his primary-source writings to confirm that - and to allow people to find out more if they wish to) - and a paragraph balancing that by saying that mainstream scientific evidence does not exist to back the theory. At two paragraphs - this could be rolled into either the 2012 article or (as I would prefer) the biography article for McKenna - where it would be entirely appropriate at that length. SteveBaker (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Case for merger is convincing to me. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The misconceived AfD has been closed, but the merge issue still stands. I will keep this discussion open for a few more days and, unless significant objections emerge, I will merge it. Serendi^podous 09:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no concensus for a merger . McKenna's time wave only tangentially refers to the 2012 doomsday and is a much bigger subject. There is no reason to merge it . Lumos3 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop merging you promised a few days dabate yesterday. Lumos3 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to propose a merger again now that the AFD is out of the way then go about it the proper way. Put merge tags on both articles and have a section headed merger so that editors can see whats going on and add their comments under that section. What you are doing is hiding a merger discussion within a misleading topic heading. This wont attract the attention of interested editors Lumos3 (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There already is a section labelled merger. You just created your own adjunct to it. Removing your topic heading brings it right back into line. Serendi^podous 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now restarted this entire debate just for you. But I don't know why, since I don't think you would accept any result that didn't conform exactly to what you wanted. Serendi^podous 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 2012 doomsday prediction June proposal

Serendipodous has reopened a merger proposition with 2012 doomsday prediction now that the Afd has failed. This requires a new set of voting since the discussion above was confused and ended with a withdrawal of the merger proposal in May. The article has moved on since that time. Lumos3 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) See the diff between the 22 May and today [6] Lumos3 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

(I'm still with you on this, Serendipodous, I'm just kinda busy right now) This article, while notable, can't really stand on its own. Some of the content of the article is really quite unecessary--we don't need to ramble on and on about irrelevant things. The most popular and notable tenent of the theory is its connection to 2012, which is one of the reasons why it should be merged. _{<font-c=D269IE> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!}

Agree--- sans move its weakened form will be once again seized by cranks. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

The 2012 doomsday prediction article is only tangentially related to timewave zero. McKenna admitted the choice of the end date is arbitrary and he simply chose it as a plausible option. His use of fractals to show novelty through history can generate any number of time lines. Timewave is a subject in its own right. Its notability has been established in the recent Afd .There is too much material to describe the timewave and do justice to its critics within a short section of another article. Lumos3 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lumos- though I have not much to offer in terms of new input affecting the merger proposal, I felt it was important to second Lumos's point and quantify the support for this article a bit. Timewave, as a topic, surely makes references to 12/21/2012, however this is only a small part of the concept, and suggesting this article be placed within the 2012 thread is as logical as suggesting all materials addressing Mayans be similarly consolidated to 2012. Moreover, timewave is not a pop-culture ethos or poorly considered theory, it is a abstract conceptualization of history using mathematics to illustrate cyclical patterns. I say this not to denigrate the 2012 theory, but to draw a contrast- one is a loosely created cultural idea, the other an application of math and science to observe something thought to be unmeasurable. Whether you agree with the results is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.49.34 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This merger was not closed. It is still ongoing. Lumos does not want the article merged, and is throwing as many obstacles in the way of that happening as he can. The AfD was not closed because the article was notable. It was closed because the attempt was to merge the article, not delete it, and mergers are not covered in AfD. Serendi^podous 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to merge. Junk plus junk doesn't make better junk. It would merely muddy the water even further. The Timewave Zero junk should be allowed to stand on its own feet, provided that it contains its own criticism section: it seems to be perfectly adequately represented in the 2012 doomsday article, which already contains more than enough junk of its own. --PL (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If I come back to this article in, say, six months, will it be the nightmare I saw? Who will take responsibility to ensure that this article follows Wikipedia standards? Because so far no one has. To date the only people who have come out against the merge (other than you) are apparent supporters of the theory, which which doesn't bode well for their objectivity. Serendi^podous 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't re-add the criticisms section. That was by far the worst part of this article. In the case that you (PL, not Serendipodous)) are willing to do something about it and deal with the vandals, then that's not near as bad as simply re-adding the section. _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 05:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm totally uninterested in protecting patent nonsense. If the vandals succeed in making that nonsense even more patent, let 'em! Hopefully that will eventually result in the article's being taken down. ;) --PL (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But it hasn't and it won't. If four deletion attempts won't take it down, then nothing will. I'm afraid that here we have found one of the points at which Wikipedia's system breaks. Serendi^podous 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was hoping we wouldn't get there. As for protection from vandals, I can't do anything right now, simply because in a few hours, I'm disappearing until Friday (Friday where I live). :( _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!}

OK. I've added a new 'Summary of objections' section. --PL (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad, PL. You're doing a pretty good job of being respectful in this discussion. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I always try to please! ;) --PL (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know that at least someone on this site is polite. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

Terrence McKenna's drug-induced fantasies don't require a separate article all to themselves.Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone of writing

To make sense this article needs to attribute everything it says. It must not speak of this theory as if it is an absolute truth, but everything must be in the words of either its author, later contributors and its critics. Wherever possible attributions and sources must be stated. Systemizer you are using a tone of voice more approriate to a religious text or mathematics. Lumos3 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, Systemizer, you have re-posted various versions of the article some 96 times in the last three days. This could be construed as vandalism -- of the system! -- and is certainly excessive (to say nothing of obsessive). Try using the 'Show preview' button? That's what it's for. And please stop trying to monopolise every last detail of the article. It's meant to be a communal effort. If you can't tolerate anything other than your own ideas, it does rather suggest that you're feeling pretty insecure about them. --PL (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page.--Systemizer (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Er no, Systemizer. You didn't answer any of these points -- and took 6 further edits not to do so. Want to answer them here? --PL (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PL and Lumos3. I mean, it's one thing to want to improve an article, but it's quite another to be obsessed with it. I don't even have that much time to edit Wikipedia, and I'm on summer vacation right now. Wikipedia is an effort which requires many, many users, rather than just one. You (Systemizer) haven't discussed anything recently on the talk page that I can see, while the rest of us are discussing matters communally. Want to try dropping in sometime, or at least going outside and do something else?? _{<font-c=D2691E> Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC> Panic!} 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And do stop being ridiculous about philosophers and scientists. The fact that philosophy underlies science doesn't make philosophers scientists, any more than the fact that philosophy underlies politics makes them politicians. Whitehead ate, too, but that doesn't make him a dietician. Natural Philosophy, now, that's a different matter: it's by definition the study of nature, and thus 'natural philosopher' is what scientists used to be called. But not Whitehead. Unless, of course, you mean that he was a theoretical scientist. Besides, the 'Objections' section is there to record objections, not to judge them. --PL (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Systemizer, please keep your responses here, not on other people's talk pages, so we can follow the discussion. And remove any citations to Wikipedia articles. I removed one and you put it back, . Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not put it back. I deleted the hyperlink to the Wikipedia article and left an explaining remark. Those comments are essential.--Systemizer (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And not on mine, either. This is not a personal matter. Afraid to discuss it openly? Oh, and I just love your word 'repeatedly' (to say nothing of 'obscessively')!! --PL (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor sources

• http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_peak_everything is a blog
• http://lifeboat.com/kurzweil/fastest.possible.data.transmission.speed.jpg is from a website without clear authorship or authority

They cannot be used as sources in Wikipedia See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Lumos3 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a reference in one millimeter from the image's hyperlink; http://lifeboat.com/ex/law.of.accelerating.returns Why haven't you checked it? Kurzweil is among the most honoured US scientists: http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.ray.kurzweil If you are so lazy, you should keep as far away from Wikipedia as possible.--Systemizer (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a technologist and inventor to me. --PL (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of those, Lumos! (-: Chocolate Panic! (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Habit v Novelty

Systemizer keeps removing this item from the description of the Timewave, last time with the comment -" It is not a definition of the term "novelty." And this article is not a collection of miscellaneous quotations)" . On the contrary McKenna saw the tension between novelty and habit as a central part of his idea.

In support I offer this quote from Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, By John Horgan, Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, ISBN 061844663X, Page 186 [7] -

When I told McKenna that I wasn't sure how his timewave theory worked, he launched into an explication of it. The essence of the theory is that existance emerges from the clash of two forces, not good and evil but habit and novelty. Habit is entropic, repititious, conservative; novelty is creative , disjunctive, progressive. "In all processes at any scale , you can see these two forces grinding against each other . You can also see that novelty is winning."

Lumos3 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"novelty is creative , disjunctive"
According to both Whitehead and McKenna, novelty is not disjunctive. On the contrary, it is conjunctive. This example shows that the journalist who has written the book you were going to quote HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. The same applies to you.--Systemizer (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't use the quote appropriately. Systemizer's opinions just that, opinions, and in any case we don't accept editor's own research or even expertise as a reason to include or exclude anything. The book seems to be ok as a WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No sense at all

This article makes no sense at all to the lay reader. What exactly is being described here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the content of the articles he wrote that were deleted, it isn't surprising. He's been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I have the OK to adjust the tone to make the article less of a formal essay? _{<font-c=D2691E>Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC>Panic!} 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a "formal essay" would in fact be intermediate between what this article currently is, and what it should be. An essay, for all that it is unencyclopaedic, at least has at least some minimum structure & narrative flow, which this scatter-gun, jumpy, bullet-point & quote laden, 'article' lacks. Some third-party summarisation and analysis of the topic would help, I suspect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually being mildly sarcastic when I said "formal essay", but you're certainly right. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I suspect that this article is sufficient of an inkblot test that I wouldn't be surprised if there were supporters out there who might state something similar to your sarcastic comment with a straight face. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. (-: I don't support the article's current condition--do you want to help me work on the tone of writing and terms used? Chocolate Panic! (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a try -- though my primal instinct is to run away screaming. ;) How does one quantify "novelty" in order to "graph" it? Isn't "fractal waveform" an oxymoron? Basic questions like these make me wonder if there's anything to this beyond a bunch of pseudomathamatical doublespeak. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say you had to. But thank you for accepting! (-: And I really can use all the help I can get--I'm certain that I'm the youngest person working on this article, and I require a lot of people to bonk me on the head at times.  ;) Chocolate Panic! (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Hmmm -- {{find}} seems to turn up little (nothing?) beyond woolly new age books. What (who) is considered to be WP:RS on this subject. Has any mathematician actually gone through this stuff to attempt to determine if anything in it makes even superficial ('can we calculate this?' rather than 'is it meaningful?') sense? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts are lovely, aren't they??) I'm not sure what counts as reliable in this case. Perhaps the analysis of a mathematician or a reliable scientist? But I can't find anything like that. I'm guessing that no, no mathematicians have actually read through/into novelty theory, which makes this rather hard...I guess I'm going to sleep on the matter. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a preliminary shot at it. Whaddyathink? Have I killed it, or merely winged it? --PL (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, PL! It looks a lot better. And you got rid of the Eschaton section before I had the chance to attack it again.  ;) Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it does seem to me to make a bit more sense (not much, though!). I've done a bit more trimming -- mainly by cutting out the quotes in the footnotes -- but people may care to do a bit of copy-editing re fonts used (italic? large bold italic?). (OK, just done that.)

Are we all agreed so far?

If so, I suppose we shall now find ourselves arguing with You Know Who about whether Whitehead was really a 'scientist' or not -- a scientist being by definition a person who 'does science' (i.e. one who not only proposes theories, but tests them by practical experiments, evaluates them on the basis of the tests and finally draws general conclusions from them -- or a member of a team that does). Personally, I've never seen an academic source that describes him as such. If so, Wikipedia is not the place to suggest that he was -- whether by destructive editing or not. That would come under POV. --PL (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let's get geared up for our arguments with You Know Who...Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he starts an edit war, it's important that we all insist repeatedly that the article be based on what is established here (a couple of reversions each should do it), so that he quickly runs out of individual reversion options on pain of being blocked -- even if he tries to disguise them by posting a couple of dozen consecutive versions with only a word or so changed.

But then, of course, he can always contribute creatively to the discussion here, if he wishes, and so help influence the result. --PL (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that we weren't all on the same page--I think we are. I'm with you here. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been RAPED of any meaningful information which would actually allow a readaer to have any clue as to just what it was that mckenna came up with 9or thought he came up with)...whether you agree with him or not. You have to go back to my March 2009 revision to find that yes, actual mathmaticians and a physicist studied the very complex math involved. And YES there is actually a complex mathmatical formula which has been published. I provided references for all of this. However, all mention of the publication of the funderlying mathmatical theory and the critique and scientific evaluation of that theory, as well as the punlished core tenants of Mckenna's idea, has been replaced by 'numerology associated with magic' and other pointless crap without any references whatsoever. who this serves and to what end, escapes me. I don't care whether the underlying hypothesis is flawed, stupid, satanic or brillinat. Without actually posting the information McKenna proposed as the basis of novelty theory..the math..., the scientific review of that math and McKennas interprative application fo the formula, there is no reason for this page to exist any longer.GGS (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your favoured version was in gross non-compliance with wikipedia policy -- containing large swathes of unverifiable material, and what few sources were given (often in non-compliance with WP:MOSLINKS) were often of questionable reliability. If you wish to assert that "actual mathmaticians and a physicist studied the very complex math involved" -- then I would suggest that you cite peer reviewed scientific and mathematical journals containing the results of this study. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

WP:PSTS states that secondary sources often "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", and that it is these sources that a wikipedia article should primarily rely upon. This seems to be exactly what is lacking from this article. What reliably-sourced evaluations do we have of this topic? All that I can see is McKenna's own claims & credulous (and often questionably-sourced) regurgitations of them. This really isn't acceptable, particularly on a topic that is way on the outer WP:FRINGE -- to the extent that the phrase "not even wrong" would appear to apply (in that it is not even sufficiently mathematically/scientifically coherent to be disprovable). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at the sources used, and all I saw were sources directly linked to McKenna himself, aside from the few new age books and a news article. I don't think these really work too well in the case of WP:FRINGE and reliable sources. It can be somewhat difficult to find reliable sources on such an abstract concept, however. _{<font-c=D2691E>Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC>Panic!} 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could be argued that the subject is really McKenna's Timewave Zero, on which he was undoubtedly the world's leading (if not only) expert. But then in that case his contributions can't be regarded as secondary sources. However, Wikirules seems to allow for the fact that, for kooky subjects, one may have no option but to cite the kooks themselves, faute de mieux. In this case, though, we should have to decide whether it is Wikipedially valid even to raise the subject in the first place.

However, I have an idea. How about asking Systemizer to provide the reliable secondary sources (here, initially)? Why should the rest of us bother our heads about it? After all, he seems to think he's the expert on the subject... ;) :( --PL (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

McKenna is surely the primary source for this material -- being "original philosophical works" plus possibly purporting to be "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments". I do however like your idea of asking that this topic's proponent(s) provide us with the reliable secondary sources necessary to turn it into an encyclopaedic article (rather than a mere laundry list of McKenna's garbled claims). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest, Lumos. Seems reasonable enough to me, even though the reference is only to a secondary source on McKenna, rather than to evidence on the validity or otherwise of his theory or on wider acceptance of them. Any more suggestions? Are the banners at the top ready to be removed yet, or should we wait a bit, just in case? --PL (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave them up for now, just to be safe. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Meanwhile I don't know about you, but I'm rapidly losing interest in this whole subject. Now that most of the jargon-based mystique has been removed, it doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans! --PL (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm still interested. I don't really know why--I honestly know nothing about the subject, but it's still fun working on this. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Since Mckenna made no claim that his idea was scientific , how can it be described as pseudoscience. It is a metaphysical theory . Are we to label all of metaphysics as pseudo science? Lumos3 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to state that he makes claims about the physical universe - "The main signs of macroscopic nonlocality are psychokinesis, teleportation, and time travel." It also is made to appear scientific - look at the image of the software, and the fact that it's a "complex mathematical formula." There might be a better word for "totally unscientific nonsense dressed up with math," but... Hipocrite (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hipocrite -- "A bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; that is why the universe is evolving toward infinite interconnectedness or nonlocality" is clearly a pseudoscientific claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also complete gobbledygook! --PL (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It's a metaphysical theory, while being a pseudoscientific one at the same time. It can be both, without stereotyping metaphysics itself. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, both the language and the concepts, have little relationship to the field of metaphysics. The claim simply cobbles together standard terminology from binding energy ("A bound system has typically a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; this is what keeps the system together") with quantum mysticism (a widely mocked field) babble about "infinite interconnectedness or nonlocality". The result is a conceptual 'dog's breakfast' that is insufficiently coherent to be "even wrong". It is scientific language without scientific meaning -- which puts it squarely in the realm of pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay...now I get what you're saying. The thing is, I haven't even ventured into high school science yet, so it takes some time to beat these things into my head.  ;) _{<font-c=D2691E>Chocolate} ^{<font-c=9966CC>Panic!} 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother if I were you! ;) --PL (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently meaningless doublespeak

• "Novelty" as its commonly defined, is a subjective, and thus not a measurable, concept.
• The "universe's intuitively perceived interconnectedness", is likewise a subjective, and thus not a measurable, concept.
• So the article needs to explain how these 'immeasurables' end up becoming 'graphed'.
• A fractal pattern (which is random) and a wave pattern (which is regular) are antonyms -- so "fractal waveform" is a meaningless oxymoron.
• The "numerical" values of the King Wen sequence are a simple sequence 1, 2, 3, … 60. How does this lend itself to a "complex mathematical formula"?
• The statement "McKenna interpreted the apparently fractal nature and resonances of the wave, as well as his theory of the I Ching's configuration, to show that the events of any given time are recursively related to the events of other times" appears to have no no meaning congruent with the meanings of resonance and recursion.

The whole thing appears to be little more than a confusing word-salad of mathematical terms, without any real meaning. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that these problems in the article are actually problems in the theory and explain why Timewave Zero itself is a contradiction. For example, the points you made about the graphing of novelty and the "universe's intuitively perceived interconnectedness" and the contradictory nature of a "fractal waveform" appear to be problems with the theory itself. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Systemizer's favoured version

Is there any WP:CONSENSUS supporting Systemizer's favoured version?

• For myself, I am against it, I consider that it gives far to much emphasis on primary sources (especially McKenna himself) without any reliable expert secondary coverage to make sense of it (aggravating the 'word salad' lack of comprehensibility, that I have alluded to in sections above). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted it because I believed there is in fact a consensus against it. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased.......

Much of this article is biased... And, yes, you can go ahead a right this off.... It needs to be either redone or deleted. For one, this isn't pseudoscience, as it's never claimed to be... it's an expression of the right-brain; just as your science is strictly left-brained. Partial............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.71.204 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying Summary section

User:99.25.150.125 made a recent edit to this page attempting to clarify the Summary section. As I noted to the complaint at the village pump, the edit seemed more suitable for a talk page. The edit is below. —Ost (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

According to me:

• In my understanding a bound system refers to a stationary galaxy (one without expansion) , so this would have taken less energy to create in the big bang theory . Our observations are that the galaxy is expanding, rapidly i may add , so this galaxy (with expansion) would take a greater amount of initial energy and a constant energy to keep expanding. The residual waves of energy from the initial blast of the big bang could have effects on the galaxies constant energy, thus effecting expansion . What happens after the initial energy waves wear off are only theory.

• As for being interconnected , all planets are connected through the gravity of another. If a planet larger than ours was to float passed us in space and our planet came within the larger planets gravity , that planets gravity could pull our planet out of orbit , at the very least.

• As for the rest of this , ie. the psychokinesis , teleportation , and time travel , personally I don't see the correlation. Two of the three would only be possible through scientific advancement and maybe not necessarily on the energy in the galaxy .

I hope this helps , jeff.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.150.125 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2009

Nonsense

The article makes the claim:

As the human civilisation approaches its absolute peak (Peak Everything), universal interconnectedness undergoes an exponential growth (see an example[12]), culminating in Nature's overt macroscopic nonlocality[13] reached by 21 December 2012.

This has a number of problems:

1. Both the (MOS-non-complaint) link for 'Peak Everything' & 'example' appear to be complete non sequitors (and their inclusion is obvious WP:SYNTH).
2. This material bears no particular resemblance to the McKenna quote cited as substantiating it:

In other words, technologies seem to be converging toward opening up the Bell-nonlocal quantum realm, where, presumably, all the intelligences of the universe are communicating in some kind of standing wave form.

Both forms are of course meaningless pseudoscientific babble -- but they're not equivalent pseudoscientific babble (the only commonality would be that they both mention "nonlocality" in some form). It's bad enough when we have to deal with McKenna's own word-salads, I see no point in admitting made-up word salads into the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, could somebody tell me how you get:

The main attributes of the overt macroscopic nonlocality are psychokinesis…

…from…

When you travel in hyperspace, everything is interactive. The whole universe is as a person and we are relating or dancing with everything. The child says 'Mom, I danced with a rock'. The reply is 'Rocks don’t dance.' We know that everything dances. You poke it; it pokes back.

?Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto…

A bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; that is why the universe is evolving toward infinite interconnectedness—nonlocality.

…from…

…you know the marble will roll down the side of the bowl—down, down, down—until eventually it comes to rest at the lowest energy state, which is the bottom of the bowl. That’s precisely my model of human history.

(or from anything else in the cited text)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-similarity of the timewave

The primary attribute of a fractal is 'self-similarity' ("any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size" -- M-W). I cannot see any indication from the images in this article that the timewave is genuinely "fractal". Do we have a competent source (i.e. a mathetmatician) to attest to this description? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Because McKenna's description of time was not based on anything resembling science.Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Systemizer

Just to note that this editor is blocked for a week for edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I don't believe that this article meets WP:GNG pursuant to that interpretation I have proposed deletion. Terrance McKenna is not an expert on the nature of time nor does "timewave zero" have the qualities of a coherent metaphysical or philosophical position on the nature of time. What it does represent is a grab-bag of scientific sounding language devoid of real meaning. I don't see this as being something with any body of secondary sources referencing in a notable manner, the entire article is derived, it seems, from primary sources.Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can use PROD on an article that has survived AfD four times. I suggest another AfD instead if you really think deletion is the way forward. Personally, I think it probably should have an article, but it should be a much shorter, better referenced and more coherent one. Sadly, there has been very little progress of late due to edit warring and the best anybody has been able to do is try to stop it getting worse. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It didn't survive AfD four times. AfD proposal was successful the first time and then the article was put back in.Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed redirect to 2012 doomsday prediction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was redirect to 2012 doomsday prediction. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Which has a section on timewave zero.

• Support Verbal chat 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support: what's here is too much of a meaningless 'word salad' to be useful. Lacking RSs discussing/interpreting the topic, I think redirection is best. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete but if deletion isn't an option I'll Support a merge as a compromise solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If deletion is to be considered then we need to start another AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Is all this nonsense really intrinsically tied to the 2012 nonsense? Is there anybody who adheres to theories of this type without being in the 2012 camp? If it really is inextricably linked then I think the redirect is appropriate. If not, then I think we should gut this down to a few well referenced paragraphs and keep it separate. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my preference, I think this is closely bound to the 2012 piffle. That being said if you are not satisfied with merging with 2012 what about merging with Terrence McKenna?Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not objecting. Just asking what the position really is. The sad thing is that the article is so incoherent that I still don't really have a good idea what it is really about. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The objective truth of Mckennas Timewave concept is does not bear on the notability of this article. The Timewave had an existence before it got linked up with 2012 and has had sufficient discussion and reference for it to aquire a cultural notability in its own right. Lumos3 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can you point us at some RS sources for that? As it stands the article takes McKenna as the source. If that is incorrect, and separate notability exists, then we are looking at a complete rewrite. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I trust the proposers will go through the normal Wikipedia Merger / Deletion process , which has failed 4 times before, the last time only 3 months ago. This seems to be a case of if you dont get the result you want just keep trying . please read the arguments made in these proposals which are linked at the head of the Talk page. Lumos3 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to approach this in a constructive way. If you can show RS references then we can move forward. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the references which have McKenna as an author we have 5 reliable sources which attest to the Timewave as a notable cultural phenomona , note NOT to it as science.

• Cunningham, Eric , Hallucinating the End of History, an academic with an academic publisher
• Jestice, Phyllis G. Holy people of the world - A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia - Entry in an Encyclopia with a major educational publisher
• Horgan, John (2004). Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality - published by a leading educational publisher
• St. John, Graham (2004). Rave culture and religion. published by another major publisher -Routledge
• Palmer, Judith (18 October 1996). "EVENT The Incident ICA, London". The Independent. a leading Uk national Newrspaper. Lumos3 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for a WP:REDIRECT does not require a WP:AFD. And actually, the first AfD was a success. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So if there is no further discussion I'll go ahead and set up the redirect.Simonm223 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please dont. This discussion is hardly a basis for a back door deletion. A redirect means all the material in this article is lost and readers are directed to a small paragraph in another article. This is an underhand deletion. Lumos3 (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be unanimity. Considering a single user is opposed to the redirect and everybody else who has commented in the month of August has supported it I'd say that provides a mandate for a redirect.Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have two voices in support and my voice opposed , by no stretch of the imagination can that be considered concencus. Plus you have not answered my argument that you are in fact deleting this article and are avoiding due process by going about it in a devious way by proposing a Redirect. Lumos3 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Three to one. And your "argument" is without merit -- redirects DO NOT require an AfD -- as has been stated numerous times in answer to questions on WT:AFD (read the archives of that page if you don't believe me). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks discussion provides 3 in favour, 1 opposed and 1 who is not opposed but who did not voice active support either. Consensus =/= unanimity and plenty of time was given for discussion. Sorry, I understand you feel this article has merit but the majority of involved parties feel that this is not independently notable from 2012 milennarianism in general.

Furthermore the article was filled with nonsensical language and had essentially no second or third party references. And finally, as has been pointed out, an AfD is not necessary for a redirect. Again, sorry, but there is concensus.Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. For the record. Plus, Timewave was always linked to 2012, just not December 21, 2012, until Mckenna learned about the Maya. Serendi^podous 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons already given. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though it might be better to pare the 2012 mention and put most of the explanation at McKenna (which needs cleanup anyway; technological singularity is usually not connected). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have provided the second and third party references above and below.( all the links are in the article refrences section) There is no provision in Wikipedia for redirecting an established article. in this way. Take it again to AFD if you must mut dont try to game the system in this way.

Cunningham, Eric , Hallucinating the End of History, an academic with an academic publisher

Jestice, Phyllis G. Holy people of the world - A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia - Entry in an Encyclopia with a major educational publisher

Horgan, John (2004). Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality - published by a leading educational publisher

St. John, Graham (2004). Rave culture and religion. published by another major publisher -Routledge

Palmer, Judith (18 October 1996). "EVENT The Incident ICA, London". The Independent. a leading Uk national Newrspaper. Lumos3 (talk)

• None of which contain any significant discussion or analysis of McKeena's claims -- just mention or regurgitation of them. And could please cease and desist your baseless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT demands for an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, no - per WP:MERGE this sort of discussion is exactly how merges should be decided. AfD is explicitly not for proposing a merger of content. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support The topic is of marginal notability. It deserves a brief mention in the 2012 millenarianism article, but it doesn't warrant a separate article. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An RfC with no fixed topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the RfC was that a redirect does not require anything beyond a local consensus (which consensus had been achieved). -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Timewave zero has existed as an article since 2004. It has survived 4 attempts at AFD. Can it be within the spirit of Wikipedia to in effect delete the article by substituting it with a Redirect after only a brief discussion involving a few members on the discussion page without alerting the wider community to its impending removal through an AFD or Merge. Comments please.Lumos3 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am re-framing this RFC title to a more neutral position which includes the discussion of the REDIRECT proposal within this article as well as the wider principal of whether a Redirect of this nature requires a wider consultation across Wikipedia community. Lumos3 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"the wider principal of whether a Redirect of this nature requires a wider consultation across Wikipedia community" -- is OFF-TOPIC! The correct forum for it is WT:AFD. The topic of "the REDIRECT proposal" has already been decided in #Proposed redirect to 2012 doomsday prediction, and I object to your attempt to change the RfC to include this already-settled topic mid-way through the RfC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction. It survived 3 AfD actions after failing to survive the first of the four and then being reinserted. And a redirect does not require an AfD.Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore six editors support the redirect, this is simply the efforts of a single editor to block a consensus action on this page.Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that replacing a large and longstanding article with a redirect (without merging content) is similar to deletion. The processes do not require an AfD for redirects, and it was consulted on here, so nobody has broken any rules but I have no objection to there being an AfD or some other appropriate process to put it on a more formal footing if that is what it takes to demonstrate fairness and openness and also put an end to the argument once and for all. Just don't imagine that it will save the article, which is a classic example of complete bollocks. The more scrutiny it gets the less hope it will stand. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close as off-topic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT:

1. Redirects do not require an AfD. That is well-established at WT:AFD.
2. Even were there a question over #1, the question that this RfC raises is off-topic here, and should be discussed on WT:AFD not here.
3. WP:REDIRECT (&WP:MERGE) are editorial (not administrative) decisions, and can thus legitimately be made by consensus on article talk.
4. Such a consensus has been reached, to redirect the article.
5. Recreating the article against such a consensus is WP:DISRUPTive.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to rename the title, I hope he complies quickly. The off topic argument ignores the body of the entire RFC. This is a poor title, which can easily be fixed. Ikip (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The correct forum for discussing the breadth of coverage of AfCs is WT:AFD, not here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Lumos3 is WP:CANVASing on this issue: [8][9]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Contacting relevant Wikiprojects for more input is not a violation of any Wikipedia rules. Ikip (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal: (i) this article isn't under deletion discussion, so WP:ARTICLERESCUE is not relevant (nor is it a Wikiproject) & (ii) the message was not "neutral" but blatant "Campaigning". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly the answer to the question is No. This "question" is abuse of the RfC process, WP:POINT. Second move to close. Verbal chat 16:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

At what point do editors abuse the deletion process? After 6 deletion nominations? 7? There is obviously support for this article to stay as is, otherwise it would have never survived three nominations for deletion. Calling this editors RFC WP:DISRUPTive and WP:POINT,and attempting to close this RFC a day after the RFC opened, when the editor is just trying to attempt to garner wider opinion on this redirect is clearly what is WP:DISRUPTive. Do editors here fear the wider scrutiny of wikipedia? Lets let the RFC process take its course. Ikip (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The point at which "editors abuse the deletion process" is off-topic here. There is not support for this incomprehensible word salad of an article "to stay as is" -- see #Proposed redirect to 2012 doomsday prediction above. Calling editors (yourself and Lumos3) who edit against the consensus "WP:DISRUPTive" is simply WP:SPADE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Off topic -- the question before this RfC is whether a WP:REDIRECT requires a WP:AFD, not the redirection of a specific article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support no redirect This is a very well referenced article. The RFC just opened. Obviously consensus in the past has been to keep this article, not redirect. Lets give other editors a chance to comment first. Ikip (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) You're in the wrong discussion. This RFC concerns the matter of whether the procedure for redirecting articles should be the same as that for deleting articles. For the redirection discussion itself, see the above section.

• Speedy close This is a Wikilawyerish attempt to push the debate into an unrelated policy issue. There is a big difference between redirection and deletion, as redirection retains the article's history and its talk page (allowing the article content to still be viewed), whilst deletion destroys all traces of the article. The former is an editorial matter (as editors can easily do and undo it), whilst the latter is an irreversible step that requires sysop action. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close There was two weeks of conversation prior to doing the redirect. There was a strong consensus, during those two weeks, that the redirect go ahead. This is a single editor's effort to override consensus, nothing more.Simonm223 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Converting an article to a redirect does not, and should not, require wider input across the community.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• As S Marshall says, this is a matter for discussion by those editing the article. Redirection is not deletion - Hypterdeath is right - and AfD is not a process for deciding on redirection. Redirections are decided by editors editing the article in question. Every editor but one who has been editing the article agreed on the redirection. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I am concerned the outcome of the November AfD (the one in which I commented and !voted keep) was: "It's notable bollocks." But many notable topics are best handled as part of a bigger article, and I am glad that one was found for this topic. Hans Adler 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why isn't this simply merged to Terrence McKenna? I see more coverage of this topic in that article than in the current redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, and Novelty theory is also a redirect to the 2012 article. They should both point to the mckenna article, and the 2012 article should direct readers to sections inside the mskeena article. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirects don't need a separate AFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've seen this issue being raised before, with editors whining that their article was redirected by one editor with no discussion beforehand; referring to it as "sneaky deletion" amongst other things, and accusing editors of being lazy or weaseling their way out of a "proper" AfD, hiding behind the justification that it's only "an editorial decision". At first this seems petty, but I can see where they're coming from, after all a redirect does effectively wipe out all the text that was once there, and especially if no merge is done, that article is akin to being deleted in the sense that it disappeared from readers who might not know how to revert an edit. But that's just assuming bad faith. I think the way User:Rossami so eloquently put it at the end of this discussion should put this RfC to rest. -- œ^™ 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the information on Timewave Zero at the new redirect tells me more in a single paragraph than the original article ever did in its several pages of length. Great work, whoever did the editing, and I'm firmly behind the change. DustFormsWords (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the merged tag ?

Why is this redirect tagged as a merger when there was no merger discussion and the article content has not been merged with the destination article? Lumos3 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's simply for categorization purposes, and in fact it is better for 'your' former article to be categorized as such, so it will be known that there was usable content in this redirect, so I don't know why you're complaining. -- œ^™ 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The merger category suggests there was a proper public debate for a merger on Wikipedia when no such thing happened. The article was simply replaced by a redirect. I intend to resurect the article in a rewritten form at some point and I dont want to see the facts distoted in this way. Lumos3 (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was redirected after a "proper public debate", as the RfC confirmed. Admittedly, as I can see no evidence that material from this article was merged into 2012 phenomenon, the template would seem to be superfluous -- but not much more so than the {{R with possibilities}}. In the unlikely event that you, or somebody else, finds something extensive but other-than-an-incomprehensible word-salad to say about this topic, the redirect will be replaced by an article, and all redirect templates removed with it -- so I don't see what you're fussing over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't really need to be a debate in order to add the {{R from merge}} tag though, but you're right there wasn't an actual merge of content, however the subject itself was duplicated, and I just think it helps to categorize former articles this way, because the {{R from duplicated article}} tag adds it to the Unprintworthy redirects category and just didn't seem very accurate either. -- œ^™ 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)