Talk:John Major Jenkins

Education ? Some evidence of credibility ?

I came here from a History-channel video regarding the "Mayan" notion that the world ends in 2012 (which is in dispute).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Utpcth_0tc&feature=related

The video includes someone that advocates the use of hallucinegenic drugs, and so I checked Jenkins to see if he was also less-than-credible. I'm inclined to believe he is not credible, and would be interested in seeing what advanced degrees (if any) he may have, and where they came from.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Use and advocacy of hallucinogens

I hope that there won't be any more attempts to downplay Jenkins' use of psilocybin mushrooms, or to deny that he still advocates use of "natural" hallucinogens (as opposed to LSD). His own words in http://www.zaporacle.com/wp/2009/09/a-mutant-convergence-how-john-major-jenkins-jonathan-zap-and-terence-mckenna-met-during-a-weekend-of-high-strangeness-in-1996/ show that he used psilocybin mushrooms on more than just "two occasions":

"Jenkins:

It was early May of 1996, and a providential turning point was upon me. Visionary philosopher Terence McKenna (popularly known as a spokesman for psychedelics) was coming to Boulder, Colorado, which was almost my home town, even though I lived a few miles from the outskirts. I guess I should confess that in the year or two before Terence’s arrival I had access to supplies of freshly grown psilocybe cubensis mushrooms. I had ingested them fresh on two occasions in the previous two years. And more recently, I had done a dose that exceeded by far anything else I’d ever experienced. Since age 18 I had always approached drug use — even marijuana smoking — as opportunities for exploring consciousness. Insights dawned, and the total reintegration I experienced while coming down was an incredibly useful liminal zone in which congealed a new synthesis of my Mayan calendar research."

His present advocacy of peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, and ergot is found on page 384 of The 2012 Story.Jschiapas (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoing incorrect summation

The previous version stated: "For example, he [Jenkins] says that all human beings should have some direct experience of "sacred plants"..."

This is a complete inversion of what a full reading of the passage states.

In his book The 2012 Story Jenkins discusses methods by which a spiritual seeker can “awaken a sense of wholeness,” stating that “the concept of initiation is centrally important” and “sacred plants” are “not the only methods that can result in an initiatory experience; others include any safe initiatory process that supplies the seeker with a death-rebirth journey in which the egoic reference point is temporarily suspended.” So, Jenkins actually carefully qualified that sacred plants are not a required method.

Jenkins also states, on the same page 384, that “different temperaments will benefit from different approaches.” He then states that he will discuss “three methods representing three broad categories: sacred plants (initiation/transforming), meditation (knowing/being), and service work (action/doing).” He next states that “Ideally, all human beings should have some experience with all these areas.” Notice that the sentence correlates the “methods” with sacred plants, meditation, and service work, while the “three broad categories” or "areas" relates to the concepts in the brackets. The “areas” that Jenkins suggest human beings should “ideally” have “some experience with” refers to the bracketed topics, not to the “methods” that include sacred plants. This distinction is clear in a complete reading of the text, the intention of which was inverted in the inaccurate summation of the earlier version. All quotes above are from page 384 of The 2012 Story (Tarcher, 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chambers109 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the use of the term "advocacy" by jschiapas is misleading. It is possible to discuss the pros and cons of a topic without explicitly "advocating" their use. I have yet to see one citation to a statement by Jenkins in which he explicitly "advocates" the use of these substances. In fact, there was a non-advocacy statement provided. The heading should thus be changed to "Uses and Position on Hallucinogens." Chambers109 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling for intervention by "Owner" of this article, re: Jenkins' advocacy of hallucinogens

I am calling for the "Owner" of this article to intervene in what has become an edit war over Jenkins' use and advocacy of hallucinogens.

I think it would be good for the article to emphasize that Jenkins advocates use of hallucinogens only in a sacred/shamanic context, with proper initiation, etc., rather than recreationally. However, Jenkins' "position" on hallucinogens is clearly advocacy of "natural" ones, and non-advocacy of LSD.

The following are two issues I would like to raise.

ISSUE 1. Chambers109's post of 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) on this Discussion page provides exactly what Chambers109 claims to have not yet seen: "a statement by Jenkins in which he explicitly 'advocates' the use of these substances". (i.e., peyote, psilocybin mushroom, and ergot.) Chambers109's objections that Jenkins doesn't say these substances are "required", is a straw man: Jenkins' "explicit advocacy" of such substances is clear from Jenkins' statement that ideally, all human beings should have direct experience of them.

To remove any doubt about this, here are the two full paragraphs in question(The 2012 Story, p. 384-5):

"There are many ways to awaken a sense of wholeness, of being and acting in congruence with the unfolding of life. This effort is predicated on the understanding that the tower of ego is an unsatisfactory place to be, that it has gone rogue,turned pathological, dislocating human beings from their humanness. There are many ways to catch a glimpse of essential wholeness, the unity consciousness of One Hunahpu restored, and different temperaments will benefit from different approaches. I'll discuss three methods representing three broad categories: sacred plants (initiation/transforming), meditation (knowing/being) and service (action/doing). Ideally, all human beings should have some direct experience with all of these areas.

(SECOND PARAGRAPH BEGINS)

"In the first example (sacred plants), the concept of initiation is centrally important. Sacred plants and shamanic techniques of transforming the consciousness are not the only methods that can result in an initiatory experience; others include any safe initiatory process that supplies the seeker with a death-rebirth journey in which the egoic reference point is temporarily suspended. I've chosen sacred plants (psychoactive tools of shamanism such as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, ergot) for two reasons: (1) they have a prominent role in the 2012 discussion, both popular and academic; and (2) they informed the beginnings of Western philosophy."

Note that at the beginning of the second paragraph, Jenkins refers to the "first example" by the term "sacred plants", rather than "initiation/transforming". To argue that Jenkins doesn't advocate use of natural hallucinogens requires a very strained interpretation of his own words.

ISSUE 2 In "Revision as of 17:57, 14 July 2010" to the article, Chambers109 makes Jenkins' "non-advocacy" sound more general than is supported by Jenkins' own words. For example, Chambers109 removes a direct Jenkins quote from the main text, and relegates it to a footnote in favor of Chambers109's own wording that gives a somewhat different impression. Moreover, Chambers109 deletes the important fact that Jenkins was referring specifically to the LSD experiment he (Jenkins) had at age 19.

Here are Jenkins' own words: (p. 401 of The 2012 Story)

"I don't advocate LSD use or suggest that [my own experiment] be repeated."

and here is the version given by Chambers109:

"Jenkins stated in his book The 2012 Story that he does not advocate the use of hallucinogens such as LSD and that he does not suggest people should repeat his own experiments."

Note that Jenkins' own words say nothing about hallucinogens such as LSD, and refers only to his one experiment with LSD, not to "his experiments", a rephrasing that could easily be misinterpreted as a advising against hallucinogen use in general.

Perhaps Chambers109's own misquoting of Jenkins is the cause of Chambers109's confusion as to whether Jenkins is advocating hallucinogen use, or merely "discussing their pros and cons".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschiapas (talk • contribs) 20:52, July 14, 2010

Fourth attempt to improve the inaccurate paraphrase

I have added the following minor change to the misleading and inaccurate paraphrase of Jenkins's discussion of the shamanic use of sacred plants in his book The 2012 Story (p. 384). One can read the complete quote and see that sacred plants are being referenced because of their shamanic use in inducing initiatory and transforming experience. This is the context of the discussion, which was neglected in the original paraphrase, the previous editor opting instead to convey a pejorative insinuation that is not bourne out by a reading of te actual passage. So, the more accurate paraphrase reads:

In his latest book, The 2012 Story, Jenkins draws a clear distinction between LSD and other hallucinogens. He suggests that "sacred plants", which he defines as "psychoactive tools of shamanism such as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, [and] ergot,"[10] can serve as initiatory experiences.

Because of the defamatory intentions of several wikipedia editors, wo can weild consensus and have my posts deleted, the accurate information on Jenkins's work will probably have to occur here in the Discussions page. I anticipate that the above changes, though minor and resulting in a more accurate characterization of the passage from Jenkins's book, will probably also be reverted/undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chambers109 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again protesting Chambers109's repeated deletions and watering-down of Jenkins' own words

I'll begin by stating that Chambers109's accusation of "defamatory intentions" is itself defamatory.

I also find it curious that Chambers109 seems to believe that his or her watered-down versions of Jenkins' words are "more accurate characterizations" than what Jenkins actually says. If Chambers109's objection is that the quotes are not providing the necessary context, then Chambers109 should provide the context, not give us "more accurate characterizations" of what Jenkins says.

I'm pleased to see, though, that Chambers109 has finally stopped trying to delete Jenkins' use of LSD from this article. I showed previously that that deletion had not only eliminated an important element in the history of Jenkins' use of hallucinogens; it had also removed the context for Jenkins' advice against using LSD. Having decontextualized that advice, Chambers109 had then substituted a corrupted version of it, which version lent itself to interpretations that are not supported by Jenkins' own words.

In this latest revision, I've restored Jenkins' own statement that all human beings should have direct experience of hallucinogens. (Note that I've added, "with proper guidance, in a sacred context"). As you can see in my previous post in this discussion, I supported that restoration (here) by quoting the two full paragraphs that contain Jenkins' statement and give it context . There was nothing "excessively broad" in that revision, and what I'd written was no mere "claim". Jenkins' own words were "Ideally, all human beings should have some direct experience with all of these areas". One of those "areas" was named by Jenkins himself as "sacred plants", which he went on to define as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, and ergot. What I said was "For example, he says that all human beings should have some direct experience of "sacred plants", which he defines as "psychoactive tools of shamanism such as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, [and] ergot". Exactly what, then, is "excessively broad" about my characterization of Jenkins' statement?

Now that I've qualified the words "direct experience" by adding "with proper guidance, in a sacred context", I honestly don't see how anyone could consider the newest revision "inaccurate", or "excessively broad". However, if that's how they see it, then let them quote the two full paragraphs in the article itself, and make no more accusations of "defamatory intent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschiapas (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallucinogens

The section on hallucinogens was junk so I removed it. Not only is it directly contradicted by some of his own writing, but it appeared to be a collection of every negative-sounding bit of innuendo around. The sources were far from great. Please ensure that any material on this subject is sourced rigorously and stated in terms of studied neutrality, with due weight given to the subject's own denial of the assertion that he promotes hallucinogen use. VRTS ticket # 2010071410045091 refers. Please note that this was also brought to the attention of the arbitrators by email. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit left Category:Psychedelic drug advocates on the page. I assume this was an oversight on your part and so have removed it as well. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

JzG Said "The section on hallucinogens was junk so I removed it. Not only is it directly contradicted by some of his own writing, but it appeared to be a collection of every negative-sounding bit of innuendo around. The sources were far from great. Please ensure that any material on this subject is sourced rigorously and stated in terms of studied neutrality, with due weight given to the subject's own denial of the assertion that he promotes hallucinogen use."

The "sources" are Jenkins' own works, as you must surely have seen. How much more "rigorously" could I have cited them? I cited nothing but his own works, so none of what I'd written was "innuendo". If he contradicts elsewhere, that which he said in his own works that I've cited here, then quote those contradictions rather than delete the section. And please cite your source for your claim that "the subject" (Jenkins?) denies promoting hallucinogen use.

I'm reverting your changes, and wish to report them as vandalism.Jschiapas (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have commented on your talkpage, please do not add the disputed content again without community support or your editing privileges could well be restricted. Look for support at the community discussion at the WP:BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to Jenkins' books, but, if he advocated hallucinogen use in those books, that seems relevant to the article. On the other hand, "the subject" denying promoting hallucinogen use could quite properly be in the OTRS ticket, which we would not have access to. For the record, extensive quotes of Jenkins' work in Wikipedia would be copyright violations, but may be required to determine exactly what he said and what, exactly, is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, anyone may check my Talk page and see that you did not leave a comment there until after I'd made the reversion. (I made the reversion at 20:54, 19 July 2010, and you left your comment at 20:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC).)

I wonder: will JzG face any disciplinary action at Wikipedia for making grave accusations with no corroborating evidence? Or is Wikipedia even interested in knowing whether he has any evidence? Here's what he said:

The section on hallucinogens was junk so I removed it. Not only is it directly contradicted by some of his own writing, but it appeared to be a collection of every negative-sounding bit of innuendo around. The sources were far from great. Please ensure that any material on this subject is sourced rigorously and stated in terms of studied neutrality, with due weight given to the subject's own denial of the assertion that he promotes hallucinogen use.

Is Wikipedia really going to let JzG get away with calling that section "junk"? How could he call it "junk", when he admits that it only "appeared" to be a collection of innuendo? Will Wikipedia let JzG get away with saying that the sources were "far from great", when they're Jenkins' own writings? And why isn't JzG being asked to substantiate his assertion that the section is directly contradicted by Jenkins' own writings? Where's JzG's source for his claim that Jenkins denies promoting hallucinogen use? Does JzG actually know anything about Jenkins' writings? Unless I'm mistaken, he'd made no contribution to either the John Major Jenkins article or a 2012 article on Wikipedia until he made the above accusation.

I also note that the complaint against me at WP:BLPN cited "biased paraphrasing, [and] poor sources". No evidence for that accusation is given. However, I'm prepared to make at least one concession: if Wikipedia holds that Jenkins' own writings (some less than a year old) are a poor source for what he believes and advocates, then I plead guilty. However, you can check the revision log for the article, and see that I'd already successfully defended some of what JzG deleted. When did the rules change, and who changed them?

To finish, I'll add that nothing that now remains in the John Major Jenkins article meets the standards you're imposing. Therefore, the most honorable thing for Wikipedia to do is to blank the entire article, and say that Jenkins is too controversial for Wikipedia to cover.Jschiapas (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to take some comments from a book and report them and this does invariably create a selective view of the story. I am unable to see the complaints and as yet unable to find access to the book, although I did do a fair bit of reading and research into the subject of the article yesterday. Please don't take the removal personally as when we receive complaints about additions we often remove them first and then discuss them. Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I will try very hard not to "take personally", the fact that Wikipedia chose to handle this matter through pompous, demonstrably false attacks on my edit, rather than by politely informing everyone that because of the sensitive nature of the matter, the section had been blanked, pending evaluation of sources. I will try not to "take personally" the accusation by Wikipedia's JzG, that the section he removed was "junk". I will try not to "take personally", the fact that he supported that accusation with demonstrable falsehoods. I will also try not to "take personally", the fact that Wikipedia allows its personnel to do such things with impunity.

Regarding Jenkins' advocacy of hallucinogens, I capitulate. I trust my capitulation will be a satisfactory "consensus", and have edited the article again. Wikipedia needn't obtain a copy of Jenkins' latest book, the "The 2012 Story", since that book is viewable with Amazon.com's "Look Inside" feature. I was able to view the critical pages 384, 395, 396, 397, 400, and 401 this morning. I assume Wikipedia can do the same. (Note that the publisher had to give Amazon permission to display that material.) Since Off2riorob's only objection is that Jenkins' advocacy of hallucinogens is inadequately sourced, I agree to remove all mention of advocacy, and will add that Jenkins denies advocating hallucinogens. I will cite Wikipedia's JzG as the source for that denial, since JzG insists that that denial be included, has cited no source for it, and is apparently considered a satisfactory source by Wikipedia. I have expanded one quote, which Wikipedia can verify online.

I do have one question: what is the source of JzG's assertion that Jenkins denies promoting hallucinogen use, and why does Wikipedia apparently take JzG's word on this? Has JzG or anyone else at Wikipedia been in contact with Jenkins about this article? Jschiapas (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, your reversion deleted information that I was directed to include by JzG. Therefore, I have restored it.

Regarding your newest comment on my Talk page:

In my latest edit, I had capitulated to your only issue(that of "advocacy"), by removing all references thereto, and including Jenkins' alleged denial. Is that not sufficient "consensus"? Your charge of "possible excessive quotation" is a new one, not previously mentioned by you, and not in the original complaint (which primarily that Jenkins' own words are not satisfactory sources about his views). Don't you think it's a little unreasonable to demand that I give you a reliable independent source on what Jenkins says in The 2012 Story, which you can view on line yourself, at Amazon?

Also, I find very interesting your statement that "there has been some objections sent to the foundation regarding your additions." What are those objections, and who has made them? I can't possibly "discuss" them, to arrive at a "consensus" without knowing this.Jschiapas (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, Regarding your latest statement on my talk page, that no one else is supporting the addition of Jenkins' denial that he advocates use of hallucinogens: Yes, there is someone. It's JzG, of Wikipedia, who directed me to include it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. As this is only the latest falsehood that Wikipedia has put on line regarding my contribution to this article, I withdraw from further participation in Wikipedia. But other contributors might like an answer to my earlier question:

What is the source of JzG's assertion that Jenkins denies promoting hallucinogen use, and why does Wikipedia apparently take JzG's word on this? Has JzG or anyone else at Wikipedia been in contact with Jenkins about this article? Jschiapas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC). — Jschiapas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is all about citations, independant citations, if you want to discuss anything please present your desired addition and a citation conforming to WP:RS this standard, are there any book reviews you have citations for? JzG is an administrator and a trusted OTRS viewer, OTRS mail is from members of the public and sent regarding additions that are disputed to our articles so JzG is a highly trusted user here. Also please stop bolding comments and my username, there is no need and it is against talkpage etiquette, simply italicizing is plenty Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors may be worth reading. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Outsider's Perspective: This Article is a Mess

Consists almost entirely of direct quotes from the subject's writing. Also, from an outsider's perspective, looking at the sources, I think that saying he "advocates" the use of hullicinogens is a bit strong. Not sure if or why his opinion on that particular subject should even be included in the article in the first place. I'm not saying that either of the above editors are right or wrong about the issue...it's just not relevant and seems to be a moot point that is destroying the integrity of this article. Need to focus more on his basic biographical info and publication history, rather than the details of his philosophy on life. The quotes in the article are wordy and confusing to a lay-person who is just trying to get a little more info aItalic textbout this guy. The Eskimo 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's notable at all, really. We really need evidence of that.

However, if he is notable, and he really did advocate use of hallucinogens, it should be in the article. We might, however, need 3rd party sources for his advocacy of the use of hallucinogens. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Going through the cited sources, his body of work looks noteable to me...but he definitely does not seem to be "known" primarily for publically advocating taking hallucinogens (if he did indeed advocate it). BOLP issues aside, I'm not sure that information (true or not) is any more relevant to his bio than mentioning that he advocates drinking coffee in the mornings, or taking vitamins before bed. I wonder if perhaps the whole "hallucinogen thing" is more of a comment on the source of his somewhat non-mainstream ideas. If so, I think it would require a really strong source that directly makes that link to include in the article. Just MHO. The Eskimo (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with The Eskimo's comments here. Whatever JMJ's position on hallucinogen advocacy might be is beside the point. That's not what he's known for, and whatever that personal position is it has nothing to do with whether or not his calendric ideas & 2012 millenarian writings (ie, basis for notability) are correct, or accepted. Those claims are disputable (and disputed) on their own merits, but trying to tie them in with 'hallucinogen advocacy' seems irrelevant and a little WP:POINTy. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I see your point, and tend to agree with it. However, the fact that he used hallucinogens while developing his theories might very well be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It very well may be relevant and true, but unless an unbiased source clearly states the two things to be related, then we are not in a position to draw that conclusion ourselves. I for one think it needs to stay out of the article space, at least for now. The Eskimo (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, not to contradict myself- I want to approach this issue as NPOV as possible since it was discussed at lenght above- but one of the editors arguing for including the advocacy of hullicinogens pointed out that Jenkins himself wrot about hullicinogen use and its effect on his work. Here's Jenkins' quote, writing about taking hullicinogens: "Insights dawned, and the total reintegration I experienced while coming down was an incredibly useful liminal zone in which congealed a new synthesis of my Mayan calendar research." He is hardly "advocating" anything here, but does indicate it was at least an influence. If an editor is really set on including a hullicinogen reference in the article, something like "Writing about his Mayan calendar research, Jenkins described ingesting hullicinogenic plants as being useful to his studies." Or something like that. I personally am not going to include it b/c I think its getting pretty close to ORIGINAL and UNDUE, but I would probably not oppose it if set in the right context.The Eskimo (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative view of cosmology section

Ok, I now know more about John Major Jenkins than I ever wanted to (thanks, Wikipedia) but since I'm hooked, I'd like to propose this to replace the Alternative view of cosmology section. I think it sums up all the main points, keeps some pertinent phrases in direct quotations, and is overall more user-friendly and understandable to the layman than a thread of excerpts from his books. I would be BOLD and just go ahead and post this...but, in this case,I would rather ask for a second or third opinion...and welcome any tweaking to the proposed section for clarity. (Oh, and I'm pretty sure I kept all the appropriate references in place! -AND I'd just like to mention that I thought the first sentence was pretty cool, so I left it in place, even though I had some different ideas for it :)):

Jenkins considers secular, scientific approaches to cosmology a byproduct of limited thinking. He maintains that a higher state of consciousness and universal understanding exists, and that it is subconsciously present in modern humans through a primordial memory, but that these higher planes of thought were more easily accessible to humans of the remote past, such as the ancient Mayans. http://alignment2012.com/chapter3.html Specifically, Jenkins points to players of the little understood ancient Mesoamerican ballgame as being “heroic semi-human deities” who, “through a kind of sympathetic magic” maintained the cosmic balance of the universe.[Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, p. 137.] Jenkins also maintained that, in order to accept and understand his cosmological theories, one must also accept the premise that the Mayan kings journeyed to “distant places,” and continuously “renewed” their kingdoms at specific points in the Mayan calendar. [Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, p. 322.] Jenkins is also a supporter of “The Lost Star” theory which extrapolates the existence of a binary companion of the Earth’s sun based on mathematical discrepancies in “earth wobble.” http://www.alignment2012.com/thoughtsoncpak-sent-to-heidi5-24.html

PS- I'm a little unclear on the capitalization rules of "earth/Earth" in accordance to WP standars, so maybe somebody can help with that. Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just exposed the references to see them clearly. Those Earths look ok to me. Well, its all self published but its imo a fair bit better than what is in that section now and would be a clear improvement. Lets see if anyone else has an opinion as there is no hurry. Well done, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the primary sourcing is frustrating, but it looks a lot better than what is there atm. thumbs up --Errant Tmorton166<sup>(Talk)</sup> 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll consider that an endorsement. The changes have been made. This has also prompted me to hop over to WP:RS and brush up on the sourcing policy. I went ahead and put a Google Alert on this guy to see if any new sources pop up that could replace the primaries. Thanks for the help! The Eskimo (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

2012 mayan calendar

well, I just when to a conferences about 2012 from MR Jenkins. I don't know what his was talking about, most of all he talked was about spiritual thing, and ceremonial.in his presentetion I never saw the mayan calendar, just a lot of photo of ceremonial. one thing I know he is wrong about the date of 2012, his theory it base on a figure with two line and 3 circle, and now in tortugero they found another stone with figure, that some archaeologist it saying that the 2012 it on the stone.

let me say something about it not 2012, (it is 2016)why, because I found in my reserch that the ball court from chichen itza in Yucatan have this mauserement. 150 meter in to feet it is 490, now inchs it is 5880 166 meter in to feet it is 545, now inchs it is 6540 68 meter in to feet it is 223, now inchs it is 2676 270 meter in to feet it is 890, now inchs it is 10680 the total is 25776 why this number because the mayan long count being with the number 144 if you say 25776 + 144 = 25920 that it is the total cicle of the 13 constellation of the zodic, and one constellation take 2160 years to go around the sun that is call an age. 2016 it Aquarius (300º) 4176 Capricorn (270º) 6336 Sagittarius (240º) 8496 Scorpio (210º) 10656 Libra (180º) 12816 Virgo (150º) 14976 Leo (120º) 17136 Cancer (90º) 19296 Gemini (60º 21456 Taurus (30º) 23616 Aries (0º or 360º) 144 and 25776 Pisces (330º). now say 144 + 2016 = 2160 x 12 constellation = 25920. this it is only one, all ancient ruins have the same numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docmuelita26 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

bad form

Wikipedia bent to outside pressure to remove references to Jenkins's advocacy of hallucinagens. If Wikipedia is willing to censor itself due to outside pressure, then it can't trumpet free speech. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed some claims from the lead that had no reliable sources. An article by Benjamin Anastas isn't enough to claim him one of the most lucid, etc. The article clearly needs work to make it balanced. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Less vague

Do we have anything less vague than his predictions "portends major changes for the Earth"? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Major Jenkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101206003414/http://www.syfy.com/2012/investigators.php to http://www.syfy.com/2012/investigators.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)