Talk:Timothy Leary/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "Timothy Leary tickets" returns 54 hits on google. I think somebody is trying to coin a new term on wikipedia.

No mention of Ken Kesey??


What about his interest in the internet / computers? __________

Leary did NOT originate the eight circuit model of consciousness.

Kyle
Yes, he did. Its based on his Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. Who do you think originated it?

In his first autobiography, "What Does WoMan Want", he relates in detail that the fully developed theory was presented to him one evening in October 1963 by a "Professor Adams" (certainly a pseudoname). This happened during an extended visit by Adams to the Millbrook mansion in New York. Adams, in turn, was acting as an emissary from an Indian guru who lived "on the mudbanks of the Ganges river". - Dr. Lightning

__________


Much of what was written about his sentence to prison wasn't accurate according to Chaos and Cyber Culture and Pschopharmocology. There were also two paragraghs discussing his escape/sentence but they were out of sequence so I fixed them.

Timothy Leary was kidnapped by Interpol agents at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan and extradited to the US in 1974

The word kidnapped seems a little POV, as it has the connotation of unlawful capture. I am changing it to detained, but if anyone can come up with a better NPOVism, by all means insert it.

It was unlawful capture -- the United States had no extradition treaty with Afghanistan at that time, and U. S. law enforcement agents (who got him, not Interpol) had no legal authority to detain or arrest anyone on Afghani soil.
It was, in terms of legality, in fact a kidnapping by agents of the government of the United States. However, using the phrase "unlawfully captured" is probably better in order to avoid a fight with those who think NPOV means you can't call a spade a spade.
Davidkevin 06:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence from Luc Sante's NYT book review article about that. Sante indicates it was legal. I noted that there's disagreement about that. The best solution would be to find a source that says it was illegal and include that as a sourced comment. Neutrality isn't avoiding an issue, it's just presenting both sides if there's a disagreement, preferably both sides can be sourced.
Noroton
According to the obit, he was arrested while still on board the plane (technically not yet Afghani soil). International law becomes very tricky when concerning international travel via airplane, and I'm not sure of the ins and outs of it, but I believe passengers are under the jurisdiction of whatever nation the airline is based in until they touch terra firma (which is why 18 -year-olds can drink wine on AirFrance flights even while in US airspace). If this is the case, then the arrest was legal, if ethically dubious.--Rockero 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle
Wasn't the flight out of Switzerland? There was no extradition treaty with them either, so it is still illegal. True?
While on vacation in Mexico, he tried hallucinogenic Psilocybin Mushrooms while participating in a Native American religious ritual, an experience that would vastly alter the course of his life.

In Leary's Flashbacks (ISBN 0874774977) he writes that he first used mushrooms while vacationing in Mexico, but not as part of a Native American religious ritual. According to Leary, Frank Barron, an old friend and colleague, had told Leary of such mushrooms in 1959, and it was with a scientific bent that Leary sought out the mushrooms in the summer of 1960 as a potential new avenue for affecting change within the framework of his existential/transactional approach to psychotherapy.

I'm inclined to believe Leary unless someone can cite a source for the current version of the event. Timbo 04:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've got a question about this one. There's that whole claim that the decapitation was faked for the movie, but no references. I've never heard that anywhere else. Can someone either verify, provide a reference, or alter the language to turn it into a claimed possibility rather than an established fact?

Was the catch phrase "Tune in, turn on, drop out" or "turn on, tune in, drop out"? The second makes more sense but that may not be a guide!

"These psychedelic substances cause hysterical psychoses in people who have not taken them..."

- Timothy Leary

"In the information age, you don't teach philosophy as they did after feudalism. You perform it. If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show."

- Timothy Leary


"A lot of psychologists I have known over the years agreed with Leary - they acknowledged in private that LSD was an incredibly valuable tool. But these same psychologists backed off as the heat from the government increased, until they all became as silent as moonlight on a tombstone. And Tim was still out there with his angry Irish temper, denouncing the government and fighting on alone.

"I don't want to discount that there are people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs, but are they the result of Timothy's research or the result of government policies? Leary's research was dosed down, and the media stopped quoting him a long time ago. Most people don't even understand what Leary's opinions were or what it was he was trying to communicate. By contrast, the government's policies have been carried out for 30 years, and now we have a major drug disaster in this country. Nobody, of course, thinks it's the government's fault - they think it's Leary's for trying to prevent it, for trying to have scientific controls over the thing. He deserves a better legacy than that."

- Robert Anton Wilson

I just began creating an 8-fold consciousness node if anyone's interested. Leary's philosophies get way too little attention from the mainstream, considering how monumental they were/are.

The factual accuracy of the following is disputed, but it was suggested on VfD that it be merged into this article from 8-Circuit Consciousness.

Dr. Timothy Leary, the famous guru of 1960's American hippie drug culture, developed a theory of evolution based on 8 circuits of ascending consciousness.

The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness

  • Intelligence/Reality
    • 8 Spiritual/Cosmic
    • 7 Mythic/Immortal
    • 6 Psychic/Psionic
    • 5 Sensory/Hedonic
    • 4 Social/Civilized
    • 3 Conceptual/Paleolithic
    • 2 Emotional/Mammalian
    • 1 Physical/Invertebrate


Ref : http://www.deoxy.org/8brains.htm

The pic and article on the DEA page http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/sanfran112403.html says that the DEA arrested Leary in 1972, while this article says he was on the run between 72 and 74. Which is right? Kwertii 19:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jail

How long was he in jail for? Did he die in jail? The article never says.

Kyle
He did not die in Jail.

God Children

I remember that Tim had a goddaughter named... I think Sarah. She was a young afro-American girl. Does anyone have any information on her? We should add her to the list. Joi 18:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unless she's "encyclopedic" (i.e. that she has, or could reasonably be expected to get in future, a wikipedia article on her own merits beyond being the godchild of an encyclopedic person) then I'd say adding her would merely be trivia (and thus not something I'd personally advocate). -- John Fader 19:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Noticed that I've been dropped from the list too. Not a big deal, but if I have a Wikipedia article that survived a vfd, am I not notable? --Joi 07:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a video of Timothy referring to Sarah as is grand daughter and me as his godson [1] -- Joi 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published Works

I added a published works section because Leary wrote volumes during his lifetime. The section is by no means complete, so please add to it if any of you have additions/corrections/etc. Timbo 23:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The correct order of the phrase is: Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

It was the title of a collection of essays by Timothy Leary on topics ranging from religion, education and politics to Aldous Huxley, neurology and psychedelic drugs. ISBN: 1579510094 --VeniceBruin 01:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The full Leary quote is "Like every great religion of the past we seek to find the divinity within and to express this revelation in a life of glorification and the worship of God. These ancient goals we define in the metaphor of the present—turn on, tune in, drop out." This was part of a formal press conference given by Leary in New York in September 1966. http://sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/library/stormingheaven/stormingheaven24.asp Merenta
It may be the "correct" way of saying it, but I heard him remix it in a bunch of ways rather randomly... --Joi 07:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

"At one point in his final delirium, he according the words "why not" to his son Zachery."

Am I stoned or is the above sentence meaningless? RodC

Our job is to state facts, and the quote is meaningful in the sense that it is Leary's last words. The quote has many meanings, and I believe a few are discussed on various web pages and/or books. --Viriditas | Talk 03:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean Leary's quote was meaningless, Viriditas, I meant the Wikipedia text, as I reproduced above, was meaningless (and I didn't get what the original writer wanted to say). However, while I was writing that comment, and even before I uploaded a slight style correction to the article, 24.34.92.38 rewrote that and other things. Cheers. RodC 10:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. --Viriditas | Talk 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FBI

What about the rumors that he turned in some friends to the FBI? 205.217.105.2 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite reputable sources? --Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/380815.stm count? 24.54.208.177 03:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again, please cite that source in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

After finding it interesting and googling it, the only results I found about this:

Leary claimed to have discovered an extra primary color he referred to as "gendale".

Are this page, or the archives for a website called gullible.info, so I'd say it's pretty dubious. Not confident enough to remove it though. 212.9.22.222 14:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it on the page yesterday and asked for a source. Someone else updated citing a Guardian Article from this week that more than likely is based on the Wikipedia article. Where did Leary make this "claim"? If this "fact" is true and/or important, why are there only 40 Google returns, all of which are the same phrase without new info. Unless someone can show where this claim was made, this "trivia" ought to be removed.--Snarfer 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I run Gullible.info which is a compendium of fabricated information. To the best of my knowledge, this post by a writer for my site is the first place this "fact" has ever appeared. We don't do anti-research to verify that facts are indeed incorrect, but they are nearly 100% fabricated. If there is a legitimate citation for this piece of information it is misinformed. I have deleted line from the trivia section. Kylestoneman 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't I feel stupid. Looks like I restored the edit with the Guardian cite, originally added by MitchR (talk · contribs) [2]. Kylestoneman, thanks for getting to the bottom of this. —Viriditas | Talk 05:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

From the article - Timothy Leary's ideas also heavily influenced the work of Robert Anton Wilson. This influence went both ways and Leary took just as much from Wilson. The first sentence seems manifestly true (and RAW says as much). The second seems eminently plausible, but I don't recall seeing any proof. Anyone have a source? Dan 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an interesting fact... I read Cosmic Trigger by RAW before I met Tim. When I met him, I asked him about the Starseed Transmissions and other things that RAW said Tim did. Tim laughed and said RAW made it all up. That comment could also have been party in jest, but he seemed to think it was pretty funny at the time. ;-) --Joi 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a great deal of mention about Timothy Leary in the musical "Hair." His name is mentioned often in the tune "Manchester England." "now that I've dropped out, why is life dreary dreary? Answer my weary queery, Timothy Leary dearie." There is also a number called "Hare Krishna/ Be-In" which is representative to the Be-In that happened in San Francisco. The tribe chants "Turn on, tune in, drop out." Just thought I'd share my experience.

There is no mention of the band Guster's song bearing Leary's name. It is on their newest CD "Satellite EP.

Cite Source?

Can anyopne cite the source for the following quote under 'Early Life'?

"an anonymous institutional employee who drove to work each morning in a long line of commuter cars and drove home each night and drank martinis .... like several million middle-class, liberal, intellectual robots."

if not maybe it should be removed...--Alex 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, but am not certain in memory, that this is a quotation from his autobiography, Flashbacks. Davidkevin 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall the same. —Viriditas | Talk 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think one can say with certainty whether or not Hunter S. Thomson spoke negatively of Leary in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It is truly a matter of opinion. I think Thomson became unsettled upon the realization of the disturbed nature of his own life, and Leary's acid generation was mentioned in passing. There was no sense of bitterness or spite on Thomson's part.

CIA

moved from article to talk:

===CIA Stooge?===
Odd that there's no mention anywhere on this page of Leary's CIA connections. The fact that he had such connections is not in doubt, the interesting and enduring mystery is the extent and nature of Leary's involvement with the CIA. Someone should do a section on this....

--He:ah? 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Obviously those guys at CIA are familiar with cognitive science(s) and related topics/studies/research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Wilson (talk • contribs) 04:46, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

The Tool sample

I just reworded the bit about a Leary speech being used for a Tool track. Does anyone know from where this sample came? I figure it's got to be from a spoken word album or perhaps a lecture. Anyway, it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansaikiwi (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


  It's not a Leary quote, it's Bill Hicks.

It is indeed a Leary quote, in the Live version which can be found on the Album "Salival" 

  It is a Bill hicks quote in the Studio Version.

Yeah, you're right, well done mate. Anyway, the live version has a Leary sample which I wish we could reference. Does anyone know? He says "Think for yourself, question authority" a few times and a little speech why. Kansaikiwi 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precision

I think this article could stand to be more precise in its description of Leary's academic career. Right now the description of his experiments' turn from scientific validity to debauched parties relies on a quote from a book review, which is presented as unbiased fact. His firing is similarly problematic in its phrasing - giving an undergrad drugs from "his stash" lacks clarity - laws were different at the time, and the cover of academic freedom makes this an action for which details are important. (I honestly don't know much about it - but reading it, I'm left without the information necessary to draw a conclusion about whether it was a reasonable firing). 24.136.38.121 17:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another link is needed

The link to the text Leary's US Supreme Court case is missing. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1960/learyvus.htm

I would put it in myself but I have been told by editors that putting such links in is "spamming" -- even though these same links are contained in other relevant articles.

<<<<<<<<<<<YAY AREAAAA>>>>>>>>>>>>

What is the <<<<<<<<<<<YAY AREAAAA>>>>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the page? It doesn't show up in the edit screen. Are other people seeing it when they view the page? Does anyone know how to get rid of it? Kriegman 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Uh?

Astronaut?

-Possibly referring to him being a "space cadet"

Millbrook

I think this section is an example of negative, subjective prose. Using terms like "who had been dragged through so much", "had been neglected and passively abused for many years", and "began to fall apart" is not proper. The only citation is a book review; the book's author is not cited, and there is no evidence offered that Leary's kids were abused, passively or otherwise. These are not presented as a quote, but just as material from a book review. Also, there is mention of Susan shooting her boyfriend, but no connection with Timothy Leary or Millbrook concerning that, and it took place well after Millbrook was closed. The addition of the phrase "Jack managed to repair himself, but has avoided publicity ever since" is totally argumentative, as is it's place here. I think the whole paragraph should not be there, so I deleted it. It goes beyond "weasel words" to something inappropriate in a biography. Rosencomet 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also dropped some similar uncited claims that "Leary's affidavits and archives provided the government with a significant amount of intelligence on the American left and drug scenes", and the phrase "the lack of convictions directly based on Leary's testimony does not mean that his information did not strengthen the government's hand considerably", examples of pure conjecture requiring the proof of a negative (just because I can't demonstrate something doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen). And I took out such hyperbole as "The testimony, which had been primarily instigated by Joanna, served as a controversial rallying point for the declining American counterculture" and "serving as a traitorous pawn in a vast governmental conspiracy against the left wing", which can hardly be considered factual material. Rosencomet 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Psychedelic experiences and experiments" there is this quote:
Later the Millbrook estate was described as "the headquarters of Leary and gang for the better part of five years, a period filled with endless parties, epiphanies and breakdowns, emotional dramas of all sizes, and numerous raids and arrests, many of them led by the local assistant district attorney, G. Gordon Liddy.[3]
Later described by whom? Anyone reputable? And where should the end quote go? Rosencomet 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Prison Experiment

I've replaced the section about the cited follow-up study with one that more accurately reflects its conclusions. While the article does mention that follow-up contact was attempted, it also says that it was found to be beyond the ability of the study group to do so effectively. The notion that there is a problem with comparing the experimental group with the control group due to these attempts is a conclusion of the editor who wrote about that, not one mentioned in the conclusion of the study he/she cited. However, the fact that the follow-up contests the original reports of the success of the experiment is worthy of note, and I've included some of the actual text of the study's conclusions to clarify their stand. Rosencomet 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

This article is getting kind of long, and there seems to be a tendency to throw in information without much organization. Anyone else think this article needs to be cleaned up? Jermor 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Writings

I am nearly positive that Leary wrote another academic book before using psychedelics. Can't recall title. May have been The Therapeutic Responce. Whatever its title; I beleive the book was an analysis (or interpretation) of positive psychotherapeutic results irrespective of therapist ideological orientation, in terms of von Neumann's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.

you are right, it was called Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation http://www.amazon.com/Interpersonal-Diagnosis-Personality-Functional-Methodology/dp/1592447767/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215047440&sr=8-1

I am not sure how much it used von Neuman's stuff though, I think he did win an APA award in 1957 for it, it's probably noteworthy but I don't know enough about it to add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.121 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

See WP:TRIVIA —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary's Memorial Volume: OUTSIDE LOOKING IN: APPRECIATIONS, CASTIGATIONS, REMINISCENCES

this excellent site for Tim would be a little better, more complete, with mention of his Festschift, OUTSIDE LOOKING IN: APPRECIATIONS, CASTIGATIONS, REMINISCENCES, published in 1998 by Inner Traditions International, edited by Robert Forte.

This book contains over thirty original writings and interviews about Tim and his legacy by many of the rascals, scholars, friends who knew and loved him. Praise and criticism. Thoughtful. Intelligent... 

63.249.102.204 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative bullsh$t on the page

Didn't nobody noticed the paragraph were it said Leary met Charles Mason in the jail??? Subtly inserted in the biography, it couldn't be more false! Tought I have no idea with who did Timothy Leary spend his time with in the jail I'm very sure it was not with Charles Manson, and for sure Charles didn't said that now he knew what to do.The Manson family kills were in 1969 and Leary whent to prison on 1972.... Conservative propaganda. I've erased the pharagraph by the way...


He does meet him. He talks about it in his auto-biography Flashbacks. I'm going to revert your edit.Kansaikiwi 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's true; he talks about it elsewhere in his lectures. So does Robert Anton Wilson. As a psychologist, he found the opportunity to observe Manson interesting. (It's not like they became friends or anything; Leary considered it one more bizarre and surreal event in a chain of them associated with his arrest and incarceration.) I know of no citation for the "alleged" Manson quote, though, and see no reason to keep it. Rosencomet 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also heard from Tim that he was "in the next cell to Charles Manson" - Joi 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds rhetorical though doesn't it? Jemmy Button 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the dubious Manson quote and added a cite for the cell-next-door. Jemmy Button 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uma's Dad?

This statement: "He is mentioned on a track of Daniel Tosh's CD, True Stories I Made Up, where he states, "I believe the act of non-doing is the most important act of all. Thanks Uma's Dad!" - referring to Leary as Uma Thurman's father" makes no sense. I wouldn't know Daniel Tosh if he bit me, but unless Tosh explicitly says somewhere that he is referencing TL, this liner-note is referring to Robert Thurman, who is Uma Thurman's father, and an influential Buddhist scholar. The "non-doing" reference makes much better sense as a Buddhist statement, esp. with the reference to Uma's dad. It's Bob Thurman, not TL. I'm changing this unless someone can show some better citations? Morgaledh 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary was married to Uma Thurman's mom before Robert Thurman was, but you're probably right to remove the quote.

Japan

Joi Ito's blogs say he lived in Japan late in life. Do mention it. Jidanni 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article by Joi Ito, and it does not say that Leary LIVED in Japan, just that he met him there. Later, Ito visited him in L.A. Unless you can document Leary setting up residence there, please don't include this. He was definitely a resident of L.A. from 1991 on. Rosencomet 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim never lived in Japan. He was visiting when I met him. - Joi 18:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Summation

A reprehensible showman. A charlatan. An interesting life. He was never at a loss for company..

--Philopedia 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Jemmy Button 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

etoy Mission Eternity

http://missioneternity.org/pilots/test-pilot-leary/

I've posted a picture of Timothy's mortal remains that are being used for this project. I'm involved and conflicted so I won't write on the main page about this, but I thought the image was relevant and neutral. More information at the link above. --Joi 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social science style references need to be replaced with wiki references

Currently there's a mixture. It's not a lot of work, but I just did a punctuation cleanup and I'm out of patience. Jemmy Button 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Please incorporate this material, if possible, into the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leary biscuits are crackers topped by a piece of cheese, butter, or other fatty topping, covered in turn with a bud of marijuana and microwaved briefly.[1]
  • In World War I Leary's father, "Tote" Leary, was drafted as a dental surgeon into the U.S. Army (commissioned a first lieutenant,[2] then promoted to captain just before the war ended in 1918) and assigned to West Point, where he
    "consorted with fellow officers and gentlemen such as General Douglas MacArthur, then the superintendent of West Point; Captain Omar Bradley; and Lieutenant George Patton. It was at West Point on January 17, 1920, on the day after Prohibition became the law of the land, that Tim Leary was conceived. Abigail would later recall that during her pregnancy, the smell of distilling moonshine and bathtub gin hung over officers' row like a "rowdy smog." Tote once told his son that while Prohibition itself was bad, it was not nearly as bad as no booze at all. At 10:45 A.M. on October 22, 1920, seven days before his father's thirty-second birthday, Timothy Francis Leary was born in Springfield, Massachusetts. Once Abigail gave birth to a son, General MacArthur, who had also been raised on an army post, took a special interest in the family."

Another possibly useful photo

Leary in 1990, with Seattle activist Vivian McPeak

Additional image of Leary, possibly of use in the article. He was visiting an anti-war vigil. Vivian McPeak, with whom he is pictured, was one of the spokespeople of the vigil, and is now executive director of Seattle Hempfest. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie poster.

Please note. The movie poster "Timothy Leary's Dead" is my copyright. I designed it for Paul Davids who produced the film. Aimulti (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Barron not Anthony Russo ?

The article currently credits Anthony Russo with initially informing Leary of his psilocybin experiences in Mexico and later travelling there with him for Leary's first experience. My own personal knowledge as well as many references attribute these events to Frank Barron, another colleague of Leary's at Harvard and later a professor here at UCSC. For instance, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_bio/ai_2419200701 and http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=88 . Before I change Russo to Barron (who also was one of the founding directors of the Harvard Psilocybin Project) I'd like to confirm with other editors and sources. It appears the only source for Russo in this matter is "The LSD Story" by John Cashman. Can someone confirm that Cashman states it was Russo rather than Barron ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield

  • Around this time, their Harvard colleagues grew uneasy about their research, and about the rumors and complaints (some by parents of students) that had reached the university administration about Leary and Alpert's alleged distribution of hallucinogens to their students.
  • Later, the Millbrook estate was described as "the headquarters of Leary and gang for the better part of five years, a period filled with endless parties, epiphanies and breakdowns, emotional dramas of all sizes, and numerous raids and arrests, many of them led by the local assistant district attorney, G. Gordon Liddy."
This has a fact tag for some reason. Wasn't this in Greenfield's book? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a biographer says it, these seem to be unsupported statements. The first one says that unnamed people "grew uneasy" about unquoted "rumors and complaints" about "alleged" activities. Hardly encyclopedic, and possibly a violation of WP:Bio. The second says that the estate was "described as" something very negative, but doesn't say by whom or where. Click on the citation, and you get "The page is not found". It seems to be an anonymous, unsupported quote.
Greenfield's biography is not well respected by those that knew Leary. Paul Krassner and Ralph Metzner have both panned his book. I don't think derogatory quotes from his book belong in an encyclopedic article unless accompanied by a source better than just Greenfield's rhetoric.Rosencomet (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Bio applies to Wikipedia:Notability (people). You obviously mean WP:BLP, and that applies to living people. You've stated your opinion about Greenfield's book before, and I will again point out, Greenfield's book was well-received and is considered accurate, even if it did manage to deflate the hero-worshippers and was critical of Leary's legacy. That said, the statements do not seem to be controversial and appear to be statements of historical fact. Please don't reply with a lengthy dissertation on why "the man" supports Greenfield and how the establishment is helping to keep Leary down by spreading disinformation. I already saw that debate on Talk:Hippie and it fails to address the problem. Are the above statements facts or not? As far as I can tell, they are, no matter who they are sourced to, whether Greenfield or another biographer. Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have never replied with "a lengthy dissertation on why "the man" supports Greenfield and how the establishment is helping to keep Leary down by spreading disinformation". Nor, with all due respect, does it matter what debate you "already saw". I don't know who you think you are talking to, but it ain't me; none of my lengthy dissertations have ever been about "the man".
If you actually READ what I wrote, my support that a citation should be required is clear: the first statement is neither supported nor encyclopedic, but simply says says that unnamed people "grew uneasy" about unquoted "rumors and complaints" about "alleged" activities. The second statement is an unattributed quote, with a dead link as a citation. This has nothing to do with hero-worship, and there is plenty of information in this article that puts Leary in a bad light that I do NOT object to, because it isn't unsupported rumor with no source or citation. Just because Greenfield says something was "said" by an unnamed "someone" doesn't make it a fact, and we do not KNOW whether these are facts. The first statement is supposition unless you can quote these "Harvard colleagues" and someone in the Harvard administration to verify it; and even so, who cares if they "grew uneasy"? The second is mere rumor; a quote without a source. Show me where the quote came from and who said it, and the need for a citation will be gone. And your statement that "as far as YOU can tell, the statements are facts" is irrelevant. Also, even if they ARE facts, are they encyclopedic, appropriate, and supported?Rosencomet (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. I think I already said that the quotes came from Greenfield. I have no idea who added them to the article, but looking at the history they appear uncontroversial and factual. That you would even question the "harvard colleagues" controversy, which is well-documented in the historical literature, is strange. Do you even own Greenfield's book? Viriditas (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, I don't have to own it. I agree with Ralph Metzner (who was actually there at Harvard and Millbrook) rather than Greenfield, especially in light of what others have said about the book. I'm glad you included that lengthy discussion between us, since it highlights my skepticism about Greenfield's book and many other people's who would know better than me (and does not contain me talking about "the man"), but my objection still stands, and "the quotes came from Greenfield" is no answer. It's not important whether I doubt that Harvard colleagues were uneasy; the whole sentence is of questionable value, being (as I said) about rumors and complaints about alleged activities with no one named. I'd feel the same no matter who the article was about. The second statement is worse: it has quotes around it, but no indication of who is being quoted; and it is NOT Greenfield - he's relating it. AND there's a dead link as a citation. This is why there is a "citation needed" tag; to request a citation. Who said the thing in quotes? Why are we reporting unnamed people's uneasiness about rumors or allegations? I'm not worried about Leary's reputation, I just think it's bad writing in an encyclopedia article. If Greenfield attributed his quote to someone he interviewed and that person was cited here, we probably would not be having this conversation.
And I suggest we just let this lie. I have my opinion and you have yours. I'm tired of being accused of some blind hero-worshipping stance or getting into another argument about Greenfield's book. My feeling that a citation is required has nothing to do with that. I just think quotes need to be attributed and rumors about allegations aren't encyclopedic. It's about well-written articles, not whether someone really WAS "uneasy". Rosencomet (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is a mess, the lead is not netural, and there's a lot of work to do. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uneasy

  • their Harvard colleagues grew uneasy about their research,
    • User:Kwertii added the "uneasy" bit on 01:12, 14 January 2004.[3] Rosencomet is unhappy with it. The question is, is it accurate? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the year 1967, Timothy Leary urinated many times. That's accurate, too. No one has any reason to doubt it, even without a citation. But is it encyclopedic? Notable? Relevant? :-)
The entire section implies, without evidence and contrary to the statements of both Andrew Weil and the President of Harvard, that Leary was fired because of either true or alleged distribution of psychedelic drugs to students, specifically undergraduates. But it's filled with weasel-words: "rumors and complaints", "alleged distribution", dismissed "after college authorities alleged that undergraduates had shared" (not due to, but chronologically "after"). And Greenfield wasn't even there! So why shouldn't one ask where he's getting this stuff, and ask whoever introduces it into an encyclopedia article to cite the source? On the other hand, Andrew Weil WAS there, and he says "Leary was fired for not showing up to his lecture classes". And Harvard President Nathan M. Pusey said he was terminated because he "has failed to keep his classroom appointments and has absented himself from Cambridge without permission". Now I'm not saying Greenfield is lying, and no one deleted the statements, but it's certainly in order to request a citation of his source in such a case. Being a "biographer" doesn't exempt you from explaining why your "facts" contradict respected witnesses. Weil and Pusey's statements are cited; where does Greenfield get his challenging statements? Rosencomet (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millbrook

  • the headquarters of Leary and gang for the better part of five years, a period filled with endless parties, epiphanies and breakdowns, emotional dramas of all sizes, and numerous raids and arrests, many of them led by the local assistant district attorney, G. Gordon Liddy
    • Quote is attributed to Luc Sante of The New York Times.[4] Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Well, if a real person can be linked to this quote in quotes with no attribution, then the citation request has been satisfied. All I got when I clicked on the link was a dead page. Rosencomet (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. Luc Sante said that in a REVIEW of Greenfield's book. He was just telling the story to his readers, as he perceived it, that Greenfield's book told him. This is just circular logic. I'm disgusted with the whole thing. You are, obviously, the one doing the hero-worshipping - of Greenfield. Whatever he says is true, and verified by those who repeat what he says in print. This quote should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Rosencomet (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chill out. I'm going through the article fixing references. If you want to argue that the quote is biased in some way, do so, but try to ratchet down your emotions. BTW, you are repeating yourself: Talk:Timothy_Leary#Millbrook. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, how about this: not only is Luc Sante's article merely a negative screed based on only the most negative aspects of Greenfield's book, it isn't even an accurate quote! The actual article says "This became the headquarters of Leary and gang for the better part of five years, a period filled with endless parties, epiphanies and breakdowns, emotional dramas of all sizes, and numerous raids and arrests, many of them on flimsy charges concocted by the local assistant district attorney, G. Gordon Liddy." The part in the article just says "many of them led by the local assistant district attorney, G. Gordon Liddy." Do you think that the editor placing the quote might have had a bias? Rosencomet (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I'm going to go through the page history right now and see who did that. BTW, the rebuttal to that passage is OR. "Others contest this characterization of the Millbrook estate; for instance, in his book, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Tom Wolfe portrays Leary as only interested in research, and not using psychedelics merely for recreational purposes..." Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the deal. We shouldn't be relying on book reviews for most of our sourcing. So, what you are looking at is temporary until we can get better sources in the article. The article needs to be rewritten from a NPOV, which is currently lacking. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We agree there. The article should be factual, not a balance between praise and derision. One can collect documented facts about a subject's life and works, and to a certain extent say "so-and-so, the distinguished authority, has said such-and-such", but it has to be expressed as a quote from a known unbiased reliable source, neither unattributed nor opinion. I will be very busy for most of th rest of the month, but will be happy to help once my obligation are fulfilled. Rosencomet (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the fat

"Creative works" should be turned into prose, highlighting his most important work and splitting out the list. This should include "Writings", "Partial discography", and "Multimedia performances". We don't need a bibliography here, we need actual prose. "Timothy Leary in pop culture" is another out-of-control train wreck that needs to be brought inline with good article criteria. Viriditas (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason that an article about a prominent author like Timothy Leary shouldn't include a bibliography. This article contains plenty of prose, and I don't think a paragraph or section talking about his books and only mentioning the ones someone thinks are his "most important" is a proper substitute. However, some of these books, like the recent Ronin titles,) are merely excerpts from other books Ronin has the rights to. At least Neuropolitique is an actual revision of Neuropolitics with new material; The Politics of Psychopharmacology and Musings on Human Metamorphoses have none.
I suppose there's no reason not to eliminate the heading "Creative works" and just let each sub-section stand alone as a section. Timothy Leary in pop culture might be better off as a separate article, with a short prose paragraph directing to it. Some of the items in the discography that he "also appeared on" just include samples of his voice used by someone, and could be moved to the pop culture section/article; at least one exception would be Seven-Up, a project he worked on with Ash Ra Tempel (he's even on the cover sitting at the mixing board). Also, while the computer game he created (Mind Mirror) belongs here, the three which merely contain versions of "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out" don't IMO.
I've also never agreed with those that think anything lengthy must be shortened. We're no short of ink here; there's no reason not to be complete and include all his books, recordings, etc if we can, rather than making value judgments about their "importance".
Leary WAS and IS a pop culture icon; however, mentioning every example of mentions of his name does seem excessive. But how to discriminate?Rosencomet (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing "Multi-media performances", it seems that only a couple of the entries are about actual multi-media performances. The rest are mentions of cameo appearances in movies, on records, and the like, and some are duplicated elsewhere. I intend to correct some of this.Rosencomet (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved some of the items from Multi-Media Presentations that WEREN'T such. Some went to the bottom of Discography for now. The rest, except for some which were duplicates (and one that was simply untrue) went into either the Filmography or Music sections of Pop Culture. Under Music I divided them by class: mentions of Leary, use of samples of his speeches, and songs named after him; any case where it is claimed he actually performed on the recording went to Discography. This all should be weeded at some point; there's no reason to list every time Leary was mentioned. Some, however, like the song Legend of a Mind, or his appearance in the famous film (and the release on record) of John Lennon performing All You Need Is Love from bed, are obviously more notable than others. At least it's a start. Rosencomet (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long articles usually split the bib. out to something like Bibliography of Timothy Leary and selectively discuss the most important works in the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary in pop culture

Please turn this into prose. This article isn't a dumping ground for trivia. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned the info about Timothy Leary's computer game "Mind Mirror" to the article. The game is based on his work, and he actually worked on the project, promoted it, demonstrated it and sold it at lecture appearances. I don't agree with Viriditas about all the info below being inappropriate or having been placed there as a "dumping ground". However, I do agree that simply listing games where the phrase "turn on, tune in, and drop out" is used is insignificant. Similarly, the famous song about Leary by the Moody Blues, "Legend of a Mind", belongs in the article, and perhaps the mentions in the Broadway & film hit "Hair", but not every time a band mentions his name or samples his voice. Rosencomet (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also returned the link to Leary's Filmography, but not all the text mentioning specific cameos and such. I may add something about his television career. And I placed all these items in sections under "Non-print creative works" as opposed to his Bibliography. Rosencomet (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • He is the subject of "Legend of a Mind" by the Moody Blues[3] He is also the subject of the Moody Blues song "When You're a Free Man" from the 1972 album "Seventh Sojourn", as stated in an interview during the 4 part BBC radio programme "The Moody Blues Story" presented by Anne Nightingale and aired in 1979. The song includes the line "How are the children, and Rosemary"
  • He is mentioned in The Magnetic Fields' song "Technical (You're So)": "You dance like a Hindu deity/Best friends with Timothy Leary"
  • He is mentioned in The Who's song "The Seeker": "I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked The Beatles/I asked Timothy Leary, but he couldn't help me either"
  • He is mentioned in the track Ain't going to Goa which describes him as "selling acid for the FBI" on Exile on Coldharbour Lane, the debut album by Alabama 3.
  • In the 1979 film adaptation of the Broadway musical Hair (film), Leary is mentioned in the final song, "The Flesh Failures/Let the Sunshine In": "Life is around you and in you/ Answer for Timothy Leary, dearie."
  • He is mentioned in the songs "Let The Sunshine In" and "Manchester England, England" from the musical "Hair"
  • He is sampled several times on the 1993 Porcupine Tree album Voyage 34, which is an instrumental interpretation of an LSD trip.
  • His Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out speech was used for a Nine Inch Nails track called "Fist Fuck" on the remix EP Fixed.
  • The phrase "turn on, tune in, drop out" appears on the Gil Scott Heron song "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".
  • A track titled "Left Handshake" was excluded from the album Last Rights by industrial band Skinny Puppy, leaving a blank track 10 on some copies of the album (There was about 2 seconds of empty space on track number 10). Clearance for a lengthy vocal sample from Timothy Leary's Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out (1967) was approved by Leary, but denied by the copyright holder. The song, in which a crazed Ogre responds to Leary's instructions for avoiding a "bad trip", was eventually released on the initial European edition of Brap (1996) and on a limited edition single called "Track 10" sold at the Skinny Puppy reunion concert in Dresden (2000). When Last Rights was released, the song listing simply skipped the number ten, listing song eleven after nine. Another page of the CD insert had the mysterious (at the time) message... "Song 10 is missing ?"
  • The progressive rock band Tool used a sample of an excerpt of his "Think for yourself. Question authority." speech for the intro to their song "Third Eye", as heard live on the Salival EP:
  • A song called "Timothy Leary" appears on the 1995 album Nevermore by the band Nevermore, lamenting his persecution by authorities. The following album was also entitled The Politics of Ecstasy the title of a book written by Timothy Leary in 1968.
  • A South African hardcore/punk band is named "timothylearyisinnocent" after him. However the name is more of a joke than an actual testament to Timothy Leary.[citation needed]
  • Dog Fashion Disco has a song called "The Acid Memoirs" which mentions Leary.
  • A song entitled "Timothy Leary" appears on Satellite EP, released in 2007 by Guster.
  • He is quoted in the song "Drop Out" by Infected Mushroom.

Games

TV appearances

Filmography

  • A full list of appearances (both as himself and in acting roles), direction, and other participation in film media by Leary can be found at: [6]
  • Leary makes a cameo appearance in 1992's "Roadside Prophets", where he educates Adam Horwitz's (Beastie Boys) character on existentialism.
  • In 1981, he had a cameo in Cheech and Chong's film Nice Dreams, wherein he played a doctor who had "the key" to Cheech's escape from a mental hospital. Rather than giving him the key to his straitjacket, however, he gives him a dose of LSD, telling him that it's the "Key to the Universe".
  • In 1984, Leary appeared as Dr. Byrthfood in the Devo home video release We're All Devo
  • In 1989 he had a cameo appearance as television evangelist Dr. Timothy Leary in Wes Craven's horror movie Shocker.
  • In Joel Hershman's 1993 cult classic Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Leary played white-suited Mr. Jones, who sells fake passports to fugitives out of an office that consists of a big white coupe parked in a deserted drive-in movie lot. He reassures the protagonist that none of his clients have ever been caught, except for the one who disobeyed his orders, got high on LSD, and went to Switzerland.
  • He is mentioned in the fact track on the DVD release of Blow
  • In Across the Universe, Leary is referenced when the gang goes to visit a "Doctor Geary", which is only one letter off

Bibliography/ Writings Problem

The dates on his writings seem weird. I have looked all over for any editions of Change Your Brain and Your Brain is God from 1988 but nothing. I think the Bibliography should have sources to see if the dates of their original publishing really are what they say the only editions I can find of these two books are the ronin publishing editions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.203.113 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

misinformation about Lisa Bieberman

{{Request edit}}

There are three factual errors in the sentence about Lisa Bieberman (in the paragraph where Leary and Alpert founded IFIF, under "Psychedelic Experiments and Experiences").

1. She did not run IFIF: she did unpaid secretarial work in its office for about a year. The office manager was Peter H. John, but the real authority was in the hands of Leary and Alpert.
2. She was not Leary's "protégée," at least not according to the definition in Webster's: he did not protect her, train her, or advance her career.
3. She was never Leary's lover. Isn't a false statement on this topic defamatory?

There doesn't even seem to be a footnote for this sentence: no clue who started the misinformation.

The person who inserted this sentence (217.28.34.132 at 17:19 15 January 2008) was informed enough to provide her married name, but didn't contact her for verification, though her e-mail address is easy to find. (See WP:BLP)

Given the minimal level of her role in Leary's organization, it's doubtful that she should be mentioned at all in the article; but if a mention is to stay in, it should be factually correct.

According to Leary's biography (cited in the article) Bieberman/Kuenning was heavily involved with Leary's organisation, at least until she fell out with him. She was also convicted of sending LSD across State lines in 1966. In the report of that trial, she is referred to as Leary's "disciple". I don't think we should downplay her role. 212.159.92.22 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am her husband, would someone else please correct this? (See WP:COI)

--Larry Kuenning (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the second two points have already been removed, and have removed the first one because, with that being the only mention of her in the article, there is really no need to mention her at all--Jac16888 (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet is the LSD of the 90s - it was: the PC is the LSD of the 90s

I wonder if the claim is wrong in the article, saying that Leary said: Internet is the LSD if the 90s. instead, he said 'The PC is the LSD of the 90s', in Chaos and Cyber Culture (1994). at that time, the net was quite young actually.

it might be preferable to update the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akos.maroy (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Timothy Leary

I can accept that Leary's bibliography, filmography, etc have been split off to a separate article as per User:Viriditas. However, I can't agree that there should not be an actual section for his works, with a link to that article, and I have supplied one. It's not appropriate IMO to simply bury a link under "See Also". That's for articles with some relation to the main one that might also interest the reader. This is an article SOLELY consisting of Leary's works, which have only been moved elsewhere because he was so prolific. In their absence from the article, I think this is a better way to direct people to this large body of his works. Rosencomet (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the anonymous IP (you?) put the works in section 2, which goes against the standard set by most, if not all biography articles and layout conventions. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet, I did not create the works article. The article was created by User:Whatever404 at 5:04, 22 October 2008[7], not by me. In the future, could you please try and check your facts? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections, not for the attitude. I don't know what anonymous IP you are referring to. If you mean the one that says "sorry, it doesn't go there", that wasn't me. My reference to you was to a line on the talk page a while ago about splitting such sections to something like "Bibliography of Timothy Leary". I didn't mean to imply that you created the works article. Sorry that it looks that way; I should have directed my comment to User:Whatever404. In any event, I just thought it needed something better than a line under "See Also" to direct to it, and I thank you for tweaking it so it looks more appropriate and doesn't mention Wikipedia. Rosencomet (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information missing

This article is overwhelmingly concerned with Leary's private life and association with drug-taking. He also did separate and important work in psychological theory (theory of personality etc.) that ought to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.74.229 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I'm not sure I understand or agree with the criteria used to delete all these external links, especially since none was provided. I think arbitrarily deleting 12 links added by other editors requires at least some discussion. Some of them seem to me to be as valid as some of what's left. On the other hand, I think a section with a different name might be more appropriate than just "external links". That seems to have become a repository for just about anything related to Leary. I will create an Interviews section for some of these links, and think about other possibilities. Maybe "Websites devoted to Timothy Leary". In the meantime, as a work resource, here are the deleted links:

Some will, of course, remain deleted. Rosencomet (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal

I changed the wording so it is not contradictory. If the stated & cited reason was failure to fulfill his obligations as a faculty member, to advance another reason makes little sense. However, to theorize that an additional factor may have influenced the decision, i.e. to say either that he would not have been dealt with as harshly if he had not also been in disfavor due to his unpopular LSD activities, or that his "failure to complete his lecture schedule" was just an excuse to dismiss him, is not contradictory (though, as sheer conjecture, it still may not belong in this article at all). Rosencomet (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Greenfield's biography has been criticized by many of Leary's colleagues as derogatory and inaccurate. Furthermore, the citation here isn't even from his biography, but from a book review of it. Even further, the quote doesn't match the citation; the quote reads "Chaotic tripping parties ensued, involving students, under "spiritual" or "philosophical" pretexts. In 1963, Harvard — famous for protecting its own — finally choked on the negative publicity and summarily dismissed Leary and Alpert." Not only is there no mention of allegations that Leary and Alpert gave drugs to undergraduates, but it mocks the notion that the Millbrook group used psychedelics for spiritual and/or philosophical purposes, calling these "pretexts". Finally, this claim as to the reason Leary was dismissed contradicts both Andrew Weil's statements and those of the president of Harvard. I believe it violates the guidelines for Wikipedia biographies, and is improperly cited. Simply stating that his dismissal was "after" some allegations by unknown and unquoted persons is not encyclopedic, especially when we have the real reason for dismissal from two reliable sources. I am deleting the line. Rosencomet (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also deleting the following line "Around this time, their Harvard colleagues grew uneasy about their research, and about the rumors and complaints (some by parents of students) that had reached the university administration about Leary and Alpert's alleged distribution of hallucinogens to their students." This line has had a citation needed tag since February of 2007, and is certainly the kind of claim that should not be in a biography without proper citation. Rosencomet (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also deleting the following line that has been unsourced since April of 2007. If someone can find a citation that isn't a quote of this very Wikipedia article, please return it to the article with the citation. " He was frequently spotted at raves with Psychic TV and alternative rock concerts (Ministry), including a memorable mosh pit experience at an early Smashing Pumpkins concert.[citation needed]"
I believe that eliminates all outstanding citation requests, so I am deleting the tag requiring them. The article has 32 references. Rosencomet (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic experiments and experiences section

"... when Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters visited the residence, the Pranksters did not even see Leary, who was engaged in a three-day trip."

In most articles, this sentence would only have one meaning. For an article on Timothy Leary, however, the sentence is ambiguous. I don't whether he was travelling or conducting an experiment on himself. 58.106.43.11 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most documentaries state that he was recovering from a heavy trip, and refusing to come down from his room to greet them... --Torsrthidesen (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According with Timothy Leary's auto-biography (Flashbacks) published in 1983, in the second part of the book, at chapter 24 (Pranksters Come to Millbrook) pages 204/205 we have two versions of the story. Timothy Leary there explains that the first version is Tom Wolfe's version originally published in 1968 on the book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" which reports: "Where was Leary? Everyone was waiting for the great meeting of Leary and Kesey ... Well, word came down that Leary was upstairs in the mansion engaged in a very serious experiment, a three-day trip, and could not be disturbed"

The second version of the story is Timothy Leary's version which reports: "I had been spending a few days in New York with Nanette (nickname for Nena von Schlebrügge, Leary's third wife). In Grand Central Station, waiting for the return train, I came down with a shivering sweaty flu. Around midnight Dick (nickname for Richard Alpert, later Ram Dass) met me at the Poughkeepsie station full of the news. Ken Kesey and his fabled day-glo bus had arrived unanounced"

According with Timothy Leary's version, him and Ken Kesey didn't meet that night because he felt very ill and went straight to bed. Timothy Leary's version continues by saying that the very next day, him and Ken Kesey with some of the Pranksters met in his personal office at the mansion in Millbrook and there they promised each other to stay in touch as allies.

During an interview in the late 90s, Ken Kesey was asked about the Pranksters' arrival in Millbrook and this controversial meeting with Leary. Kesey's answer was fully supporting Tom Wolfe's version and he said also that him and the Pranksters ultimately went away from the mansion without having met Leary at all. italinux (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is photographic evidence of Timothy Leary sitting inside the merry prankster's bus further with Neal Cassady disproving Tom Wolfe's version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Dates

If he was fired from Harvard in 1963 (...lecturer in psychology at Harvard University (1959–1963). He was fired from Harvard for failing to conduct his scheduled class...) how did he return to Harvard in fall of 1965? Was he hired back? No info is given. Anyone got any sources? Need to plug this hole. Did Harvard forgive him or did he beg them to take him back? Meishern (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According with Timothy Leary's auto-biography (Flashbacks) published in 1983, he didn't mention anything about Harvard during fall of 1965.
By fall 1965 he was already at the mansion in Millbrook, New York and was busy giving lectures and doing shows with some of his fellow companions all along the East coast, USA.
The aim of these shows was to reproduce psychedelic experiences and they used wording, lights, colours, strobe and some sort of kaleidoscope.
By the end of fall 1965 Millbrook mansion was ultimately closed down and Timothy Leary with his family travelled south towards Mexico where they got busted for $10 weed (2 joints). italinux (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Timothy Leary's first jobs

I read an article in Rolling Stone a few years ago about Tim Leary and was surprised to see that he was credited for working in a psychologist's office in my hometown, Butler, Pa as one of his first jobs. Unfortunately, that was all it really said and I haven't been able to gather any infrormation on it. It would be very interesting for me to learn more about this, and perhaps not coincidentally, the town has a bit of a hippie subculture following in parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.2.26 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concord prison experiment

An anon recently deleted some unsourced text, and I'm adding it here for archival purposes. Text follows: Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.The results of this experiment were later largely contested by a follow-up study, citing several problems, including time differences monitoring the study group versus the control group, and other methodology factors, including the difference between subjects re-incarcerated for parole violations versus those imprisoned for new crimes. The study that contested Leary's research concluded that only a statistically slight improvement could be shown by using psilocybin (as opposed to the significant improvement Leary reported).

There actually is a source for that in the article - I thought it was very bizarre to read about the positive results of this experiment, click on the source for it, and find that the source was a follow-up study that found the original experiment's reported findings to be incorrect. I'm going to put that text back in. Weremorl (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Progeny...

In the latter passages of this biography, there is mention of a son, Zachary. However, the article only details the birth of a daughter Susan and son Jack (born in 1947 & 1949, respectively) throughout the entire course of his life. Was this Zachary an hallucination of himself and those around him or did we just forget to mention when and under what circumstances he came into being?
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim had 3 children: Susan (born 1947), Jack (born 1949) and Zachary (born 1973) and adopted by Tim and his last wife Barbara. italinux (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Zach is now a blogger. He seems to have an uncanny resemblance to Timothy for an adopted son.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.128.143.43 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various

Leary proclaimed the idea of a licence for drugs like for driving. Somewhere on this record: http://www.amazon.com/Turn-Tune-Drop-Timothy-Leary/dp/B0028R1M00/ref=sr_1_cc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1285358211&sr=1-2-catcorr

At the end of the "Influence" section

I have removed the explanation of "Turn on, tune in, drop out," as it is contrary to Leary's own explanation in "Start Your Own Religion"

50.53.144.108 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC

Changed the Huston Smith section

It was written that Smith only had one psychedelic experience. In doors of perception, Smith states he used it on several occasions as an undergraduate in a "ritual" like way, and took peyote as a "duty" in a native American ceremony. So I changed the text accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.51.138 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing the Conscious Nets

I stumbled across this graphic novel and, frankly, I don't know what to make of it. It feels like a small pet project by Leary and some friends. It's cover reads "Timothy Leary Surfing the Conscious Nets: a graphic novel by Huck Getty Mellon von Schlebrugge". Within, the credits read "Inter-text: Timothy Leary" (the prefix "inter-" is used throughout the credits, perhaps as a play on "internet", which is a large role in the book). Huck Gutty is an obvious pseudonym, but appears to be a pseudonym for a character in the story (who is black and, presumably, not Leary). Huck Getty is meant to be "Nicotine" Jim Bauer, who is credited in the book as "Good Attitudes: Jim Bauer", which is a half step above "we would like to thank". From what I gather, the letters which make up the book were written by Jim Bauer (Huck Getty), but edited and assembled by Leary. The cover by line credits Huck Getty, but the internal credits list text by Timothy Leary. It's such a small circulation too, I've about given up trying to figure out what this book is meant to be. Any thoughts? Scoundr3l (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Like you've already observed, the content is mostly taken from letters written by Jim Bauer. The book was published by Last Gasp and is still available.[8] Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

334 watchers but references in terrible shape?

This page has a large number of watcher (334 at the moment) but the references are in terrible shape. I just fixed a bunch of the most egregious problems but there's a lot of cleanup work still needed. If you like this article enough to watch it, it could use some more love. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The article at current time reads "Though obtaining useful data (Leary and his associate Richard Alpert were fired)". "LSD-data", useful? Clear bias by a proponent of drugs. Banned drugs, for good reasons. These people are really about idolatry, that is the "data" people should see. Obviously Leary thought he had a totem, that was popular, seen in the phrases and lingo he uses. That is all they are about. Also known by various derogatory terms, later also associated with "yuppies", when the naive associations to peace faded. Forbidden in monotheism ;)

You're quite right. Go ahead and fix the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the editor is quite wrong. The current article attests to the useful data, such as the Concord Prison and Marsh Chapel experiments as only two examples. The conclusions of these and other studies (psychedelics can help people) have been supported in recent experiments. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Header image suggestion

Could someone consider putting a more vibrant, colorful, and expressive picture of Timothy instead of the current one on the header? It's so bland and depressing, and he was such a very outgoing and warm man--he should at least be viewed and remembered by that. Aucirlo (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I second this wholeheartedly! The Drug Survival Newsletter ran a piece on him in September/October of 1981 and he is smiling in ALL the pictures they have of him. Let's PLEEASE change this!! Stayhomegal (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timothy Leary. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it over here. Philosopher?

So, there has been a discussion going-on @ NPOV.Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Timothy Leary This began after one IP editor added Leary to category, "Philosophers". I am another IP--(and my IP has been dynamic/changing), who noticed that the category add was rv, so I took a look, and found what I thought was a good ref., so I added it. (the bibliography ref in the lede.)...................anyhow, I'm bringing the question back here where it should have been. And adding this, Contemporary philosophy#Outside the Profession . With the questions, should Dr. Leary be in the category? And/or should he be added to the "outsider"-list? In the discussion at NPOV, there are links and references to various reliable source mentions of Leary being, doing, and calling himself a Philosopher, but there is an editor of this page who wants to maintain some professional peer-group associations as the "test"--of who can be labeled as a philosopher here in Wikipedia. At this point, it does appear that Dr. Leary does not quite fit into the philosopher category, so I'm wondering what everyone else thinks? Keeping him in the cat. could open the door for others who may actually be better categorized as "outsiders", in the philosopher's article(s). 2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of sufficient reliable sources, there is no basis to describe Leary as a philosopher. The lead needs to be reverted to before the POV-pushing done by the IP editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK-but you know we have RS by Wikipedia standards. What you are asking goes beyond that. 2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Have you shown that the idea that Leary is a philosopher is a significant view in reliable sources? No. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the discussion at NPOV was that reputable sources were quickly offered to support describing Leary as a philosopher. Maybe you don't hear them. Frankly, I was surprised to see the question arise at all, having lived through the 60s. Whether you agreed with him or respected him or not, my personal recollection is that of course people thought he was a philosopher. It was the 60s. :) I think you should give this one up and move on. Msnicki (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, FKC, you have cited NPOV. But the sticking-point for you seems to be more of the fact that Dr. Leary was not degreed as one, recognized as one by "legit"-Philosophers-mainly? Or contemporary practitioners of the applied science of Philosophy of his time or after? And/or that he did not base his work in what he called philosophy in the acknowledged philosophers of the past, according-to the accepted standards for study and discourse in the highly specialized field? If-so I SEE YOUR POINTS. But trying to make that fit NPOV somehow, based-on your interpretation of WP:NPOV, is not doing it for me. For some reason, I am liking this to a discussion about whether or not Bill Nye the Science Guy is/was a RS, or acceptable inclusion as a RS on climate change topics in WP, and more importantly, could he be included in a group of Climate Change Scientists. I really do not know how that ended, or what WP policies were cited, but NPOV is too vague to use as a policy example in either case.2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki, it is not relevant what unnamed "people" thought in the 1960s, and I think you should know that. While someone did suggest at WP:NPOVN that at least one reliable source identified Leary as a philosopher, that same person also noted that one reliable source was not enough by itself. The fact remains that no one has shown that the idea that Leary was a philosopher is a significant view in reliable sources. That being the case, the reference to Leary as a philosopher needs to be removed from the lead, as it is misinformation and potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation as a serious work of reference. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of my surprise was not offered as evidence of notability but rather at face value, that, no surprise, others quickly provided reliable sources in the discussion at NPOV indicating that Leary was indeed regarded as a philosopher. He may not have been a good one, he may not have made any money at it, it's possible that only the most drug-addled thought he made any sense at all. But the sources do say he was philosopher. You sought a consensus at NPOV and it didn't support you and you don't seem to have a new argument here. You can't keep forum-shopping until you get the answer you want. Consequently, I'm going to revert your latest edit in a moment. Msnicki (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Leary was a philosopher can be read in two ways: (a) he thought a lot and/or made insightful commentary; or (b) he held an academic position as a philosopher and contributed to recognized philosophical journals. The lead of the article currently includes "Occupation: Psychologist, Writer, Philosopher" which is patent nonsense as no source supports the (b) interpretation. If (a) applies, the word is meaningless as lots of people think a lot. If a source with an in-depth analysis of Leary describes him as a "philosopher", and if there were any encyclopedic benefit to including such a meaningless term, the body of the article might include an attributed opinion, however there must be no mention in the infobox unless someone can show Leary was employed as a philosopher. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a third option, that reliable sources say he was philosopher and that settles it? Here at WP, the goal is verifiability, not truth. If you disagree, maybe you should write your own book claiming he wasn't really a philosopher, get it published by a reputable house, then we can have a section titled "Philosopher controversy". For now, the published sources and the consensus sought and obtained at NPOV seem pretty compelling to me. Msnicki (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you to show that Leary being a philosopher is a significant view in reliable sources, per WP:NPOV. That has not been demonstrated. Discussion at WP:NPOVN has mostly favored leaving out the "philosopher" label, on the grounds that there is so far not enough evidence to show that it is an important view in reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the NPOV discussion. A source doesn't get a lot more reliable than the LA Times and while no thought he was a new Aristotle, I think there was a consistent, if grudging admission that he was considered a philosopher. Yes, a lot of the discussion argued against considering him a philosopher but that's only because virtually all of that was YOU, repeating yourself over and over. Nobody else was anywhere near as insistent and NO ONE else worried that reporting something even the LA Times remarked on would damage WP's reputation. Wow. I think you just thought you won. It sure didn't look like it to me. I was about to revert to you again but got beat to it. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the situation:

Would editors please read the LA Times article as it was written—it is a review of a comedy act, not a biographical statement regarding Leary. The mentions of "philosopher" are not a serious attempt at assessing Leary's credentials. We will have to get the article semi-protected or wait until the IP finds another horse to beat. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, you should perhaps read the discussion at WP:NPOVN again. The IP editors supported calling Leary a philosopher. Here are the views expressed by the other users who commented, besides myself: "No evidence has been provided that he AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy. The source provided says he was an "activist philosopher," whatever that is. So I would take it out" (The Four Deuces); "Doing a google search (yes, not exhaustive) clearly shows that if the word "philosopher" is used with Leary's name, its a self-ascribed label that he called himself and not a professor that we could call him as such. The LA Times article above, for example, shows how he used "Stand-up Philosopher" to describe a stage act. He had a specific philosophy, but that's not same as being a philosopher by profession" (Masem); there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label (Fyddlestix); "we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term" (N-HH). In other words, there is a consensus against applying the philosopher label at this time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary refered to himself as a performing philosopher, the press called him a stand up philosopher because he often used comedy to grab people's attention. FKC you are like a broken record, making the same point over and over again. Maybe the reason Timothy Leary hasn't been ackowlaged by other philosophers is due to his controversial beliefs in the same way Terrence McKennas's stoned ape theory was rejected by anthropologists without even having been investigated. My point is philosophy is not a union, someone should not have to be acknowlaged by other philosophers to actually be one. Also there are many sources that credit Timothy Leary as a philosopher, but he really is on the outside of mainstream philosophy. What are your thoughts on Aldous Huxley, do you not think he should be credited as a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia talk pages are not there for discussing our personal opinions and beliefs about various subjects; they are there so users can discuss how to improve articles. Actually, what the hell, go ahead and keep violating the policies, and get yourself blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your obviously the kind of person who thinks your opinion is the only one that matters. You contradict everything you say with your own hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that only my opinion matters. I think that Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which users need to consider each other's opinions. I've tried to explain both that, under WP:NPOV, you need to show that the view that Timothy Leary is a philosopher is a significant view in reliable sources (which means that just one source is not enough), and also that there is general disagreement with you at WP:NPOVN, but you aren't listening, and the personal abuse you're directing against me makes it nearly pointless to continue to try to discuss things with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the cited source is reliable and it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, you do not have the power to overule other editors and I have not broken any of wikipedia's policys. I think Msnicki said all there was to be said and I am done with this debate. Obviously you cant even handle debate if you consider criticism to be personal abuse. I have better things to do with my time, goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You violated WP:NPA by describing me as "YOU HYPOCRITE". You might be blocked for that; you'll definitely be blocked if you keep it up. Personal attacks of that nature are not considered an acceptable form of "criticism" here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple reliable sources referring to Leary as a "philosopher". A quick Googling just gave me this book (Malice in Wonderland: The Bush Junta from 2000-present by D. L. Joy) and a Time magazine article from 1996 calling him "a psychedelic philosopher". -- Irn (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FKC--there are more than one IP in this discussion, you keep saying, "the IP". I am one-of the IPS, and again, mine is dynamic and keeps changing, but if someone really wanted to try, they are similar-(my IPs). You have been refuting what are normally considered reliable sources, repeatedly. That is not how WP is supposed to work. Also-mentioning gaming WP w/philosophy, this really has nothing to do with that, and why should Leary's article be stunted just to "punish" the philosophy game problem? What I'd really like to know, and really I don't think that it is too relevant to the problem one way or the other, but maybe just to help you, or me, or us, is "What would it take for you to agree that Dr. Leary was a philosopher?", and since you repeatedly say that he was not acknowledged by the field, but you conceded that "some" philosophers may have included Leary......so, do you have a list of American Philosophers, from Leary's time, and after, who ARE philosophers in your opinion? IMO-you are the one using too much WP:SYNTH to exclude Leary as a philosopher. Your "test"--is not as far as I can tell something or policy that we can use to judge this. Your persistent citing of NPOV, actually works against your point from the way that I look at it, where many have named Leary as a philosopher, so by my understanding of what you specifically cited for NPOV, it sticks. But I guess my most important question to you is who are these philosophers that are acceptable to you and maybe we can help each other that way.2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to show that Leary was a philosopher then they should provide high-quality sources showing that Leary was a philosopher, such as respected works of reference dealing specifically with philosophy. That's a crucial point that some users here seem to have lost sight of. As noted on WP:NPOVN, the term "philosopher" can mean different things, and it is disingenuous to suggest that Leary should be labelled a "philosopher", without qualification, simply because some writer at Time magazine (not a source noted for being a high-quality reference on philosophy) labelled him a "psychedelic philosopher." The book by D. L. Joy is also not a work specifically concerned with philosophy, and such not a high-quality source for this purpose either. Wikipedia looses its credibility as a reference if people can't grasp such basic points. This has nothing to do with "refuting what are normally considered reliable sources", and everything to do with employing good judgment in editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with johnuniq, who quoted

*From Philosopher: "A philosopher is any intellectual who has made contributions in one or more current fields of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy." (definition added by SPECIFICO)

Self-described, or activist, or performing philosopher is OK. Philosophy is an accredited profession, like medicine, or mathematics. To call Leary a 'philosopher' is demeaning and derogatory to philosophy. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt disagree with you more. Like Leary, Aldous Huxley never recieved a paycheck for his contribution to philosophy, it would be absurd to argue that he wasnt a philosopher just because he was never employed as one. There is no distinction between someone who practices philosophy and someone who performs it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with #766B's disagreement It is not purely accredited, and it is too narrow an assessment to compare it to say, medicine. A closer comparison would be- say- historian, whiich while being composed mostly of paid academics, can also be the preserve of gifted amateurs. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Fortuna, you're not understanding what was said. I am quoting the Wikipedia definition of philosopher!
Leary didn't even qualify as a quack, since he didn't practice philosophy to any standard. Your definition is unsound. According to you, a gifted 3-year-old could be a philosopher. What makes philosophy philosophy is that it is an academic discipline, just like history. Anything does not go as philosophy. Please re-examine your position. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What in world do you suppose anyone does to "practice" philosophy? He wrote books about his philosophy, that satisfies me. Consequently, I've rolled back the changes removing this. Msnicki (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write books about something they call their philosophy. That does not determine who qualifies as a philosopher on Wikipedia. (I've explained that we need high-quality sources calling Leary a philosopher, ideally works of reference dealing with philosophy). Looking at the article's recent revision history, it seems that you have been reverting multiple other editors over this issue; that is something you definitely should not be doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous how long this debate has been going on. This page needs to be permanently blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Msnicki,
"Practice to any standard": Writing books about his philosophy absolutely does not qualify him as a philosopher. Quoting Einstein does not make him a theoretical physicist. Balancing his checkbook does not make him an accountant. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blue Mist. What is supposed to be listed in the lead sentence and infobox is the subject's occupations'. Professional occupations. If they do not have the professional qualifications for the occupation, then it was not their occupation but rather an avocation. This can be discussed elsewhere in the article, but it is misleading to put avocations into the lead sentence and infobox as if they were professionally qualified occupations. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this business about there being some kind of standard for being a philosopher? That's obviously a completely made-up condition, just like the comparisons made to licensed occupations like medicine. Notice the use of the word, "any" in the definition given in our own article on Philosopher, which reports that A philosopher is any intellectual who has made contributions in one or more current fields of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy. ... More broadly, a philosopher may also be one who worked in the humanities or other sciences which have since split from philosophy proper over the centuries, such as the arts, history, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics.

All it takes is a quick Google search to find that Leary wrote or edited a whole series of books that defy description as anything except philosophy, including Your Brain Is God, Neuropolitique, Foucault and Philosophy, The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead and, of course, Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out. If you're questioning whether these are philosophy books, please look at them and then tell what you think they are instead.

Yes, many people thought Leary was crazy. Nixon thought he was "the most dangerous man in America". But except some possible distaste over his views on drugs, I'm struggling to know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by silly made-up tests, like whether he ever held a government-issued license declaring he was "registered professional philosopher" or held a paying job where his title was "staff philosopher". Msnicki (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate is pointless considering philosophy really isnt much of an occupation anyway. I doubt Aristotle, Plato, Socrates were ever paid for their ideas. As for Leary's credentials he did have a doctorate degree of philosophy from the university of berkeley, if that alone is not enough to qualify him as a philosopher im not sure what is. Also I really dont think it matters what tricky dick or the so called "silent majority" thought about him or his views. Psychedelics are probably the most misunderstood drugs to have ever existed, Leary was far from being crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would not satisfy me. I think it belongs there. Msnicki (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're new, so I'm sure you're not aware of this, but editing your remarks after they've been replied to is generally discouraged because it can make the responses look nonsensical. Above, I was responding to your question, would it satisfy everyone if "philosopher" was removed from the list for Leary. Now that you've removed the question, my answer doesn't make much sense anymore. Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I will try not to make that mistake again. The reason I removed my question is because I realized it was unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to revise a comment after it's already been replied to, strike the part you're deleting with <s>...</s> tags and insert the new text with <ins>...</ins> tags. Text that's been struck looks like this and text that's been added looks like this. Msnicki (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the sources cited here, and a brief googling, Reliable independant sources describe him as a philosopher. Arguing that they are wrong and pointing to definitions of philosopher or that he wasnt credentialled (*really* a silly argument if you look at the history of philosophy) is OR. RS call him it, so wikipedia can describe him as one. If you want to exclude that description, you need a better argument than 'Well he isnt!' Move on.Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody here actually LOOK at those sources, or read this Wikipedia article in detail? Those sources are NOT Wikipedia:RS, and they show that he was a writer and a psychologist, but NOT that he was a "philosopher" or a "mathematician" or a "psychiatrist" or a "biochemist" or a neuro-surgeon".

BlueMist (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about his books. If you don't think they're books on philosophy, what do you think they are? Inquiring minds want to know. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? BlueMist (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick. I listed several. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding RSs calling Leary a philosopher, I gave you these two above, and now here are some more: philosopher-psychologist from The Age, psychedelic philosopher from the Los Angeles Times, social philosopher by the LA Times again, and psychedelic philosopher from New York Daily News. -- Irn (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
psychedelic philosopher sounds fair enough for me. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to Leary being called a "psychedelic philosopher" if the statement is properly attributed. Calling Leary a "philosopher" without qualification has always been the problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited information

IP 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b is edit warring to remove properly cited information, as visible here where it reverts me and here where it reverts another user. As this is unacceptable behavior, I have had to request that the article be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such incredible hypocrisy. FreeKnowlageCreater is edit warring to remove properly cited information, visible at Timothy Leary: Revision History. Why not try practicing what you preach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should try reading WP:CIVIL. Persistent incivility can get you blocked. As to content issues, the situations are of course not the same: you are removing properly cited information for no valid reason, I am removing claims that can be found in sources but still need to be removed per WP:NPOV, since they give undue weight to the opinion of a very small minority - that Timothy Leary is a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did the exact same thing I did YOU HYPOCRITE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC) You cannot overule everybody on wikipedia, you are the only one who has a problem with the cited source crediting Timothy Leary as a philosopher. You stand alone, and nobody is listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"YOU HYPOCRITE" - really? That's a direct and blatant personal attack and under WP:NPA, you deserve to be blocked. Not much more for me to say under these circumstances. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense" which is exactly what you have done, edit-warring in exactly the way you criticize. Further, it's a description of your behavior, not of you personally -- he hasn't called you an idiot, for example, which would be personal -- and it's completely on target. This is how you've behaved. I think you should take the criticism to heart and think about you could modify your behavior to be more collegial. Msnicki (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." You should not need reminding of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to comment on behavior, just as you did when you went WP:ANI to complain about others' behavior (which, of course, turned out to be no different than yours.) But two caveats, it has to be true and it can only be about behavior, not a judgment of the person. I'm satisfied I did that, but you're welcome to take me to WP:ANI as well if you're still not happy. Msnicki (talk)

Just for the record, what I did was delete cited text claiming Timothy Leary was fired from harvard due to the controversy surrounding his psilocybin expiriments and the popularity of psychedelics on campus. This a common misconception as Richard Alpert was the only one who was fired and Timothy Leary quit and lied about being fired because he thought it would add to his rebel image. WikiPedant informed me that if I was going to make this claim I would have to find a new substantive citation to support it, which I am unable to do. This alone does not constitute edit warring for which FKC accused me of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are admittedly unable to find a source supporting your version of events, then one can reasonably ask that you not continue to try to add it to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, I only reverted WikiPedant one time after I forgot to explain my changes to the article. I don't need you to tell me this. 2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 1 April 2016

Please add the following citations to the description of Leary as a philosopher in the first paragraph: Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [4][5][6][7][8][9][reply]

References

  1. ^ Recipe from erowid.org
  2. ^ Greenfield, Robert, "Timothy Leary" a biography, as excerpted on the web site for The New York Times
  3. ^ Legend of a Mind
  4. ^ Margotin, Philippe; Guesdon, Jean-Michel (October 22, 2013). All The Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release. Black Dog & Leventhal. ISBN 978-1579129521. Retrieved April 1, 2016. "Come Together" was conceived as a political rallying cry for Timothy Lear, the psychologist, writer, philosopher, and apostle of LSD.
  5. ^ Joy, D.L. (March 18, 2011). Malice in Wonderland: The Bush Junta from 2000-present. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1456724092. Retrieved April 1, 2016. However, Leary was also a psychologist, a philosopher, a novelist, one of the most energetic promoters of virtual reality and the Internet, and an eloquent defender of individual rights. He saw himself as a philosopher more than anything else—a philosopher whose duty it was to teach people to "think for themselves and question authority."
  6. ^ Goodall, Nigel (November 29, 1998). Winona Ryder: The Biography. Blake, John Publishing, Limited. ISBN 978-1857822144. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Although it is true to say that Timothy Leary was a philosopher and a journeyman, an adventurer and a conqueror of the twentieth century, it is more likely that he will be remembered as the LSD guru who railed unrepentantly against the establishment and urged a generation to think for themselves, and always question authority.
  7. ^ Isralowitz, Richard (May 14, 2004). Drug Use: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1576077085. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
  8. ^ Donaldson, Robert H. (2015). Modern America: A Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945. Routledge. ISBN 978-0765615374. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."
  9. ^ "Leary defense held to name, job". Independent. Long Beach, CA. March 22, 1973. p. A-4. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Timothy Leary tried to testify in his own defense at his prison escape trial Thursday, but about the only statements that were kept in the record were his name and occupation — Timothy Francis Leary, philosopher.
information Administrator note I'd rather not make any changes to this protected article without consensus from other editors, although I recognise that adding additional sources is unlikely to be controversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By dragging the matter through 4 different drama boards over this simple content question, FreeKnowledgeCreator has delivered us to bureaucratic hell. It is time to unprotect the page, requested here and here. Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of those citations, #4 and #5 clearly do not describe Leary as a philosopher, and it would be improper to add them. If you are really convinced that Leary should be described as a philosopher, then at the very least you need sources that directly and unambiguously describe him as such, not sources that vaguely assert, without further elaboration, that Leary is associated with a "sort of LSD philosophy". I'm not surprised at all that some sources describe Leary as a philosopher, or that none of the sources you provide are high-quality works of reference specifically about philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources #4 and #5 say he explored philosophy and even "founded" one but you don't think that supports a claim he was philosopher? So that only leaves 4 new sources (3 hardcover books and a newspaper) that clearly do call him a philosopher and that's just not enough because they aren't sufficiently high quality?
It sounds like your objection is that you don't think he was any good as a philosopher, not a serious one, anyway, and that you don't think he had any impact a philosopher. Okay, he's no Kant, who I know you like, but have you looked at Leary's Google scholar citation count? The psychedelic experience, clearly a work of philosophy, got 295 citations alone. In the academic world, especially in a slow-moving field like philosophy, as opposed to something like engineering, where I teach, that's an impressive number. That alone might have gotten him tenure a lot of places if his philosophy hadn't involved drugs.
I'm coming to believe there's just nothing you would accept. But consensus doesn't mean unanimity. It is time to move on. It shouldn't be that big a deal to admit that, yes, among other things, he was a philosopher, however good or bad. Msnicki (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sources #4 and #5 do not say that Leary "explored philosophy". Source #4 says that Leary "explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs" and source #5 says that "he founded a sort of LSD philosophy", and this does not support the claim that Leary was a philosopher. Per WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." By using these sources to try to claim that Leary was a philosopher you are, clearly, going beyond what they actually state. Note that WP:RS states that, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." The key part of that is "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". What authors regarded as authoritative in relation to philosophy have stated that Leary was a philosopher?
WP:RS also states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is why I've patiently pointed out that works of reference dealing with philosophy would be the ideal sources for the claim that Leary was a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're ignoring the word "or" in the definition of reliable source. It doesn't have to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" but, rather, may be, or it may be "materials with a reliable publication process", which we have plenty of. -- Irn (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Strongly opposed* This is an attempt by Msnicki to "own" a controversial topic, and to circumvent a consensual resolution through administrative force. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I could find over a hundred different sources crediting Timothy Leary as a philosopher and it still wouldn't be good enough for some of you people.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you bet. Provide a hundred different sources, if you can - they might be perfectly acceptable and convincing, if, for example, they are high-quality sources specifically about philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request disabled due to lack of consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Many of the sources listed are reliable and of good quality. FKC, you just seem to have a bias against any philosopher who advocated psychedelic drugs, thats why you went to Aldous Huxley's article immediately after Leary's article was blocked from editing and deleted philosopher from his list of occupations.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that there are plenty of sources describing him as a philosopher, and I don't know why this is still a discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my problems with Leary being called a "philosopher" without qualification above, with reference to WP:RS. I would not have the least objection to having the article state that someone described Leary as a "psychedelic philosopher", but calling him a "philosopher" without qualification, or listing "philosopher" as his occupation, is something else again. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of sources describing him as a philosopher without qualifications. That you don't like it, doesn't change that, and doesn't mean you can remove it, just as I unfortunately can't remove it from the enormously overrated quasi-thinker Ayn Rand. WP:RS trumps our personal opinions. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty? Which one? Just show a single Wikipedia acceptable reliable source, and the issue is closed. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is six listed at the top of this section. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring it to a vote to see if you have a Wikipedia consensus. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't WP:VOTE about consensus. This is not an issue of 3 vs 2 votes or anything. Wikipedia has policies, and those should be followed. The article currently calls Leary a philosopher. This has been called into doubt. As a result there has now been provided 6 or more reliable sources calling Leary a philosopher. WP:RS trumps WP:DONTLIKEIT. You instead need to come up with a lot of reliable sources stating that Leary is NOT a philosopher. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you deciding for everybody what's "reliable source"? Quote WP:Vote -- "While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus" BlueMist (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "deciding" this. They are quite clearly reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already patiently pointed out, two of those sources obviously do not call Leary a philosopher, and it is original research to try to use them to support the "philosopher" claim. That's quite independent of the issue of the reliability of the sources in question. This is not, as Msnicki wrongly states, a matter of "hair-splitting", but of basic responsibility in using sources: editors should not use sources to try to support claims they do not directly support. Msnicki's revert is disruptive, given that there should be no need to restore those dubious citations, if the others were sufficient. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've explained why I think your argument is dumb. I don't agree with and doubt you can find consensus support for hairsplitting that sources reporting that "Leary explored the ... philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs" and that "he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid." do not support a claim that he was in fact a philosopher. Philosophers philosophize. That is what this one did. These sources support that and describe his work as a philosopher. Msnicki (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you find insistence on following WP:NOR "dumb" when that gets inconvenient, but WP:NOR is still an important Wikipedia policy. If you want to support a claim that someone is a philosopher, find a source that directly, unambiguously calls them a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another trip to yet another drama board? Sure. I would expect no less. Would either WP:RSN or WP:ORN seem satisfactory? Take your pick and I will follow. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsolicited third-party opinion - the description of "philosopher" in the lede is well-supported by sources that meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept your hair-splitting (because it is hairsplitting to claim that someone who explores philosophical implications isn't a philosopher), that leaves four reliable sources that DO call him a philosopher. Against zero reliable sources that offers the opposite standpoint. This isn't even a controversy, it's just you stubbornly pushing your non-neutral point of view, as you so often do. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise has now also objected to describing Leary as a philosopher, also arguing this is impermissable WP:OR. Consequently, I have posted a request for guidance at WP:ORN#Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

References from HighBeam Research-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4][reply]

References

  1. ^ Ressner, Jeffrey (June 2, 1996). "Dr. Tim's Last Trip Psychedelic Philosopher Timothy Leary Prepares To Exit In Typical Style". The Buffalo News. via HighBeam (subscription required). Retrieved April 10, 2016. Inside, musicians are serenading an Irish philosopher as he lies dying in bed among linens that depict cartoon rocket ships zooming over planets.
  2. ^ Waxman, Sharon (June 1, 1996). "The Ultimate Trip of Timothy Leary; For the Psychedelic Philosopher, Meeting Death Was an Adventure". The Washington Post. via HighBeam (subscription required). Retrieved April 10, 2016. Bill Kinsman, a friend who helped fulfill Leary's pharmaceutical needs, said the psychologist-philosopher went through 800 pounds of nitrous oxide -- laughing gas -- since December AND He was always described as a drug guru. That was so superficial, said Paul Krassner, who published the Realist magazine. There was so much more. He's part of a long tradition of philosophers -- a cultural philosopher, a spiritual seeker.
  3. ^ Ryon, Ruth (March 29, 1998). "Bigger home for 'Little Woman'". Chicago Sun-Times. via HighBeam (subscription required). Retrieved April 10, 2016. Her godfather was countercultural philosopher Timothy Leary.
  4. ^ The Sixties in America Reference Library. via HighBeam (subscription required). 2005. ISBN 978-0787692483. Retrieved April 10, 2016. Leary, Timothy, Psychologist, philosopher, teacher, writer, lecturer, LSD advocate

Philosophy of mind

In the absence of a source stating that Timothy Leary was engaged in philosophy of mind, he must not be labelled a "philosopher of mind", as that violates WP:NPOV. This edit by Msnicki restores a category that has no basis in anything in the article, and the edit summary used ("His philosophy of mind expansion doesn't count? Of course it does"), shows clearly that Msnicki's reason for restoring the category is simply based on her personal beliefs about philosophy rather than reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And Leary did not write about the philosophy of mind. "Mind expansion" is not a topic in the philosophy of mind. TFD (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The silly part of the recent fuss here and at Aldous Huxley (any others!?) is that referring to Leary and Huxley as philosophers is using a very informal meaning of that word that is only tenuously connected to its encyclopedic meaning. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literature about expanding the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world has very much to do with the philosophy of mind. Mind manifesting drugs are tools that are as useful to the philosophy of mind as the microscope is to biology or the telescope is to astronomy. Why do you think LSD was called the philosopher's stone? In fact the mysteries of eleusis, which nearly every ancient greek philosopher participated in, may have very well been a psychedelic drug. I don't think it is too far off to suggest that someone who was called a philosopher back in ancient greece might today be considered a shaman.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOR. You are entitled to your personal view of what the philosophy of mind is, but no one should be adding the category when there is no evidence of any kind that Leary is considered a philosopher of mind by reliable sources. In the absence of supporting sources, the category must be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that philosophy of mind expasion is not the same as the philosophy of mind would only be hair-splitting.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has any need to discuss an issue of that nature. If you want the article to include a "philosopher of mind" category, then per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, you need a reliable source supporting the claim that Leary was a philosopher of mind: that's perfectly simple. Please review the policies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable, and the category should only be removed once you have a consensus to do so which you currently do not have.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources of any kind that call Leary a "philosopher of mind", and of those users who have commented on the issue, most support removing the category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources call Leary a philosopher of mind expansion. What your doing is merely hair-splitting.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no source that calls Leary a "philosopher of mind expansion", and even if there was a source that used that exact expression, there is no evidence that "philosopher of mind expansion" has anything in common with the academic discipline called philosophy of mind. If you want the article to categorize Leary as a philosopher of mind, you need a reliable source that actually calls him a philosopher of mind. Your arguments are specious, and amount to an attempt to avoid the plain meaning of WP:NOR. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and after I find several different reliable sources you will find any trivial reason imaginable to argue that they're either not of good enough quality or that they're unreliable, and then after a week of debate across various forums and after I've found over a half dozen different reliable sources you will complain about there being too many sources and accuse me of being disruptive. Then ultimately you'll admit that you actually agreed all along but really just wanted your source to be the only one listed. That's how this goes right?2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Find a reliable source that supports the "philosopher of mind" category, or it will be removed, it's that simple. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources are needed? Give an exact number, please, because last time you complained there wasn't enough sources, but when six sources was provided, you called it "over-referencing". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for me to respond to that disingenuous request, as it does not really relate to the issue at hand, but seems to be an example of you complaining about my past behaviour. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you admit that this past behavior was mistaken, I guess I can let it rest. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture, you yourself stated, of the claim that Leary is a philosopher of mind, "That claim is both false, and original research." If you were willing to state that at the original research noticeboard, then why would you fail to state it here? It would have been more constructive than trying to provoke me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I remember writing that, but I don't remember the comment I replied to. I must have misunderstood it or replied to entirely the wrong thing. Sorry for the confusion. But that doesn't change my comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it seems perfectly clear that the "philosopher of mind" category is original research and needs to be removed. Or do you actually have a reliable source calling Leary a philosopher of mind? Since Msnicki restored the category, I would direct that question to her also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being disruptively edited by IP 76.188.207.154, who is restoring the "philosophers of mind" category despite agreement being reached on the talk page to remove it, and appears to have violated WP:3RR in the process. I have requested the article be semi-protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki made a comment that she then removed, but is still visible here. In answer to the question how 76.188.207.154 is more disruptive than me, the IP reverted multiple users (including another IP), which I did not, violated WP:3RR, which I did not, refused to discuss the issue on the talk page or try to reach agreement with other users, which I did not, and made edits without explanations in edit summaries, which I also did not do. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason I removed my post, seen in my edit comment.[9] I don't like dealing with you. Kindly leave me out of this. Msnicki (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In future, please do not remove your own talk page comments. It is unhelpful and confusing to other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REDACT, I am allowed to entirely remove my own comment if I change my mind and no one has yet replied. My post and my self-revert were one minute apart. It's no different than editing one's own comment if no one has yet replied, which we all (including you) do all the time. And you can count on me doing it again someday. I have no intention of changing my behavior just because you don't like it. Msnicki (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are certainly allowed to remove your own comments, however it is generally not constructive to do that, and I would politely ask that you not do so. Meanwhile, the "philosophers of mind" category has been restored by another IP address, and I have had to remove it once more, as being unsupported. It may unfortunately be necessary to have long-term semi-protection if such disruptive IP editing continues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm politely telling you that you're still not getting what you want. And if you have a disagreement with another editor, kindly work it out with them. It's not my problem. Msnicki (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher redux

Skyerise and User:FreeKnowledgeCreator have each deleted [10], [11] and the sources and the claim that Leary was a philosopher once today. 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b and I have each restored once. [12], [13]. I find any return to edit-warring this claim to be quite troubling. It's possible Skyerise was not aware of the discussion at WP:ORN#Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher, where I believe we reached consensus allowing the claim, but FKC participated in that discussion and simply has to know what happened there. I find his revert to be a return the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I thought we had put to rest. It's unpleasant, unhelpful and unnecessary and should stop. Msnicki (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Well, I find your behavior - notably restoring the claim that Timothy Leary is a "philosopher of mind", in the total absence of any reliable source calling him one - to be "unhelpful." Specifically, it is POV pushing, in violation of WP:NPOV. I've no intention of immediately reverting your latest edit; I agree that is best to solve disputes through discussion. I am not clear why you believe that there is a consensus for your preferred version of the article, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to remove the philosopher of mind category and have done so. That's unimportant to me and I agree you continued to object on that point. I didn't notice that was part of what was being deleted. I did notice the entire claim of being a philosopher plus the supporting sources were being removed. Msnicki (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The summary by Msnicki above (my side is wonderful and your side is edit warring) helps explain why this silly issue has dragged on for so long. There is no engagement with what editors on the "edit warring" side have said. To repeat the core issue, there are lots of sources mentioning philosopher in connection with lots of people, however an encyclopedic biography should not use language that would mislead a reader—however Leary may be described in colloquial language, he was not a philosopher in a formal sense. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the evidence and the discussion is at WP:ORN and you were there, too, and then you quit commenting. I think it was fair to conclude you were done. If you'd like to reopen the discussion, I think that's the place. Msnicki (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again there is mention of anything but the underlying issue. There is no engagement. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were there, you stated your opinion (but without any sources, other evidence or guidelines-based arguments to support it), I and others disagreed and then you quit participating two weeks ago. Msnicki (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leary was not a philosopher, did not claim to be one, and no reliable sources say he was. All we have are a scattering of uses of the term "philosopher," in the sense of someone who has an opinion about something, which could equally be applied to anyone who was not brain-dead. TFD (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per usual, your mode of debating is to repeatedly assert something already proven to be wrong. What do you think you will achieve with that? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a substantive response to TFD's assertion—is there any indication Leary claimed to be a philosopher? what source supports use of philosopher with more than the terms mentioned by TFD? Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed for weeks now, in several different forums, sources has been provided, they are still available higher up on this talk-page. Just scroll up. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnuniq. It is up to you to provide sources, and when you and others have provided sources you believe support your case, they have always been shown not to. It could be that you are working with a non-standard definition, and it would be helpful if you explained what you meant by the term. TFD (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that support the claim has been provided. You repeating a false claim does not make it true. You are trying to bully through your POV by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I guess it works sometimes since you have been doing this for years and still do it, although it has in fact never worked on any of the articles I have encountered you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reviewed each of your twelve comments currently on this talk page. None of them advance an argument regarding the underlying issue with the possible exception of one which says "There is six listed at the top of this section" when asked for a specific source. There is no engagement with the issues, just debating tactics to wear down opponents. That is not satisfactory in a collaborative community. Is there any indication Leary claimed to be a philosopher? What source supports use of "philosopher" with more than the terms mentioned by TFD? Johnuniq (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you DID see the sources. Good. Can you stop pretending like there are no sources now?
"There is no engagement with the issues, just debating tactics to wear down opponents." - Exactly, can you TFD and FreeKnowledgeCreator perhaps stop behaving like that? Because yes, it is you three that is doing it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To your question, Johnuniq, "Is there any indication Leary claimed to be a philosopher?", the answer could not be more clearly yes. He testified[14] that was his occupation. This appears as source #6 in the protected edit request section above and in the article as citation #5. Msnicki (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a subscription. Can you please provide the quote so we can determine what he actually meant. TFD (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote appears in both the section above and in the citation in the article. Here it is again: "Timothy Leary tried to testify in his own defense at his prison escape trial Thursday, but about the only statements that were kept in the record were his name and occupation — Timothy Francis Leary, philosopher." (You can request a free subscription to support your work here at WP:Newspapers.com.) Msnicki (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have access to some newspapers already, although for various reasons I would never use newspapers as sources for events that occurred decades ago. Anyway, that is too little information to determine what Leary meant. I do not think he meant it literally. It could be for example an attempt to compare himself with Socrates, who was prosecuted for allegedly "corrupting the youth." In his escape note in 1970, he had written, "In the uniform of Athens you jailed Socrates./In the uniform of Rome you arrested Jesus Christ." Sort of like Kennedy saying he was a citizen of West Berlin. TFD (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless wild speculation is not evidence. Other sources in the list also confirm that Leary regarded himself as a philosopher and that other WP:RS thought he was as well. At WP:ORN, I presented a table of over 1300 citations for his philosophical works found by Google Scholar that likely come primarily from philosophers in academia, given the way Scholar tabulates counts. I explained (with a source) that even in engineering, never mind philosophy, that's an impressive citation count that might have gotten him tenure anywhere in the country were it not for the his use of and views on drugs.
As for whether one might compare Leary to Socrates, that's an interesting question. One WP:RS says yes: "He was the Socrates of the Information Age because he was one of the few philosophers in our age who carried on the Socratic tradition of encouraging people to "think for themselves and question authority," his own authority included. Why? Because he saw himself as a philosopher whose job it was to teach people HOW to think, not WHAT to think."[15] I hope that was helpful. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless wild speculation? Unfortunately without a secondary source analyzing what Leary meant, that's all we have, including your interpretation that we must take it literally. Incidentally, did Russell, wittgenstein, or Heidegger put down "philosopher" as their occupations when they dealt with authorities? I agree that both Leary and Socrates taught people to think for themselves and question authority, and both of them were penalized for that. But that is not philosophy. TFD (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question was if he described himself as a philosopher. The answer is yes. What you are doing now is coming with weak excuses to try to discredit the issue. That's WP:OR, and you are doing it to push your POV. But Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and we have reliable sources. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is actually no, because no reasonable reading of his self-description would interpret it literally. At least that is how anyone familiar with Leary's or Socrates' writing would see it. Unless you have a reliable secondary source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Complete nonsense. And yes, we have reliable secondary sources that says otherwise, as you well know. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the secondary source that interprets his self-description in his trial? TFD (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see if we can clarify this. Your theory is that under oath and up against an obviously relentless prosecutor who held him to only his name and occupation, successfully objecting to everything else he claimed, that the "only reasonable" interpretation was that when Leary testified that his occupation was philosopher, that he was scamming them with an obvious lie intended to compare his situation to the Death of Socrates. And to make this work, I'm guessing your theory is that he'd also been lying for years about this and fooled all these other sources that also report he thought he was a philosopher. Do you have a source reporting that in private, he ever confessed to being something else, a race car driver, perhaps?
You're welcome to any theory you like but to make it credible, it would help if you could offer even a crumb of evidence that it could possibly be true. Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously ask for a secondary source that Timothy Leary when he said "philosopher" meant "philosopher"? This is beyond absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering how he thinks that could happen. Is he asking if The Amazing Kreskin or any other recognized mind-reader has weighed in on this? It's too bad they didn't have him hooked up to a polygraph at the time to verify he was telling the truth, though one suspects even that might not have been sufficient given the obvious unreliability of any contrary evidence when your mind is made up. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate is beyond absurd. If it wasn't for Leary's and Huxley's advocation of psychedelic drugs we wouldn't even be having this debate.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my delete of the philosophers of mind category. I don't disagree with you but the reason I was ready to concede this point is that I just don't think we have the sources to make the case. The best source I could find[16] makes the connection on the same page but nowhere near directly enough, i.e., in one clear sentence, to satisfy the skeptics or at least marginalize their arguments as unreasonable. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say Leary founded a philosophy of mind expansion. Philosophy of mind and philosophy of mind expansion are one and the same. I don't see why someone would need to find a source that says in exact words that Leary was a philosopher of mind to show that he was. All of the arguments against Leary and Huxley being philosophers seem to be nothing other than hair-splitting.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You normally *do* need to find a source that says in exact words (for a reasonable value of exact words) that Leary was a philosopher of mind. Otherwise it's OR or SYN. That a philosopher of mind is mentioned on the same page as Leary doesn't count. However, I don't know if we possibly can be more lax with categories, so I'm not reverting it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of how wikipedia puts administrative procedure above efficiency and common sense.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of mind is not the philosophy of mind expansion. There is nothing for example in Ryle's The Concept of Mind (which is a classic in the philosophy of mind) about drugs and transcendental experience, it's about what we mean by mind and how Cartesian dualism is an error. Regarding Msnicki's source, is your argument that James, Huxley and Leary wrote about drugs, James was a philosopher, therefore Huxley and Leary were too? But James was a physician and psychologist and wrote about many things other than philosophy. His drug views are not even mentioned in his entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[17] Huxley and Leary do not even get articles. TFD (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't believe drugs that reveal the mind to itself have anything to do with the philosophy of mind? Also, i'm curious as to what makes you think a person needs to be recognized by other philosophers or be employed as one to actually be a philosopher.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, wikipedias policies and the five pillars are no "administrative procedure". They are the necessary principles on which truth-gathering here relies on. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IPs, It is not what I think, it is what experts in philsophy think and I know that because rather than Google search "Timothy Leary"+"philosophy" I have read academic textbooks and books and articles by Ryle, James, and all the major philosophers. To be considered a philosopher one must be recognized as such in the literature, or at least address the topics in the literature. Neither Huxley nor Leary did that or represented that they did. It is the same with every discipline. TFD (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is purely something of your own invention. Nobody requires engineers to recognize other engineers, or street sweepers to recognize other street sweeper or mathematicians to recognize other mathematicians. These things are required for academic NOTABILITY, but that's not what we are discussing here. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Msnicki for removing the philosophers of mind category. Unfortunately, 2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B is edit warring to restore the category, without even giving a reason for this in edit summaries. The article may need to be semi-protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name anyone you think could be described as a mathematician in a Wikipedia article that no mathematician would describe as one? TFD (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that mathematicians, like Scotsmen, are not able to determine who is or is not a mathematician? You seem to be missing the point of the Scotsman story. Being a Scotsman does not make one an expert, it is a mere accident of birth. But being an expert, whether in mathematics or anything else, in fact does make one an expert in one's area of expertise. TFD (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a story, it's a fallacy.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
The point here is that you have decided that YOU and only YOU have the right to uniquely determine who is a philosopher and who is not, in blatant disregard of Wikipedia policies. Well, then this happens:
TFD: "No philosopher would call Leary a philosopher."
Someone else: <comes with an example>
TFD: "Ah yes, but no TRUE philosopher would call Leary a philosopher."
Obviously, Wikipedia has policies that are designed to stop that kind of nonsense. The relevant policy in this case is WP:RS. You know this. What we need to call Leary a philosopher is a reliable source that he is a philosopher. We have plenty. This case is closed, and you are only pretending to not WP:LISTEN and infinite WP:REHASH to push through through your biased POV in blatant disregard of policy.
I'm not going to waste more time on this discussion, you are just being disruptive. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OpenFuture:, the difference is that neither you nor I nor your Uncle Angus determine who is a philosopher, that is something that is determined by experts in philosophy. It's the same with mathematicians. TFD (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Try again. I wrote the correct answer above. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any example where I said that someone calling Leary a philosopher was not a true philosopher? TFD (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that Leary is a philosopher. Good. Then we are done. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I though were not going to waste any more time with this discussion? TFD (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Was "philosopher" an actual occupation (rather than just an avocation) of Timothy Leary and should he be described as such in the lead sentence and infobox?

There is consensus to remove this label from the lead and infobox. The reliable sources are a little hazy on this one. For instance, many of them point to how Leary considered himself a philosopher, which doesn't mean he was a philosopher. This is not so clear cut a case that the editors arguing for inclusion should be weighted more heavily on the basis of policy. Many editors supporting removal argued that he was not a professional philosopher or a significant philosopher. While some people dismissed these concerns as not based in policy, they are very much based in WP:DUE when we're looking at what information should go in a roughly two paragraph lead. It may be appropriate to discuss the fact that Leary considered himself a philosopher in the article body. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 12:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Was "philosopher" an actual occupation (rather than just an avocation) of Timothy Leary and should he be described as such in the lead sentence and infobox? Skyerise (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation: include in lead and infobox

Leary was a philosopher:

  • Include in lead: Timothy Leary was a philosopher in every sense of the word. At least ten different reliable sources consider him a philosopher and he received over 1300 citations for his contributions to philosophy.2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Numerous WP:RS have been properly cited in the article, reporting that Leary was a philosopher. One even calls him the "Socrates of the information age".[18] He testified under oath that his occupation was philosopher.[19] Sources confirm that that really is what he thought he was.[20]. At WP:ORN, I presented a table[21] using data from Google Scholar showing that his top publications in philosophy had garnered over 1350 citations; in academia any over 1000 is impressive.[22] He had a PhD, the terminal degree cited as the necessary credential at Contemporary philosophy#Professionalization. For the last 36 years of his life, he doesn't appear to have held any other jobs and his only means of support appears to have been writing and speaking about his philosophy.[23] In every possible sense, the evidence is overwhelming that he really was a philosopher and that that really was his occupation. Msnicki (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RS, as backed up by Msnicki's points. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:RS. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:RS, WP:TRUTH. --AcidRock67 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • AcidRock67, if you previously supported "include" as an IP, you should indicate that. It appears that you were previously using an IP address to take part in the Rfc. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)
Your editing history makes it quite clear that you previously edited as an IP. Your first edit was a comment at Msnicki's talk page, where you continued a discussion by 76.188.160.128 with Msnicki. That IP address edited your user page, which you did not revert, indicating that you and 76.188.160.128 are the same user. Since 76.188.207.154 and 76.188.160.128 have behaved the same way, the logical conclusion seems to be that you are the same user as 76.188.207.154. So it seems that you have supported "include" twice using different screen names. Both IP addresses geolocate to Ohio. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I think it is clear that there is reason to at least suspect that you have supported inclusion twice using different screen names. I am not the only person to suspect that. Msnicki commented, "It looks like you may be casting multiple !votes on the Timothy Leary talk page as your various IP addresses and again as your new username." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under circumstances like these, there may have to be an SPI. In any case, if you cannot show that you have not supported "include" using multiple screen names, you views will likely be disregarded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment by AcidRock67 at Msnicki's talk page appears to be an acknowledgement by AcidRock67 that he is the same user as the IPs, but in the absence of any admission from the IPs that they are the same user as AcidRock67, I have undone AcidRock67's removal of the IP comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AcidRock67 has now removed several of his own comments from the discussion above, which makes it effectively incomprehensible. For the record, the comment by me that begins "Your editing history makes it quite clear that you previously edited as an IP", was a response to the following now removed comment by AcidRock67: "Just because two people share the same opinion does not make them the same person", while the comment that begins with "Oh really?" was a response to a removed comment that read, "I honestly have no idea what the hell your talking about". AcidRock67, kindly cut out this kind of nonsense. It's extremely disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted my other !vote. What are you still bitching about? --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persist in making needlessly offensive and uncivil comments and you will probably be be blocked. See WP:CIVIL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avocation: remove from lead and infobox

Leary was not a philosopher:

  • Remove from lead: Leary was not a professional philosopher and to describe him as such is misleading to readers. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Sources that talk about Leary's philosophy use the term in a general sense in which anyone expressing an opinion is explaining his or her philosophy. That should not be confused with the subject of philosophy which has a body of literature and is a subject in universities. TFD (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source supporting your claim that those who call Leary a philosopher didn't mean that he was a real philosopher? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please post your comments in the discussion section and leave this area free. BTW since you want to add the description, could you please define what you mean by a "real philosopher." I did not say he was not a real philosopher, I said he was not a philosopher. Similarly, he was not a ballerina. I would not say he was not a real ballerina. TFD (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please read WP:PILLARS and start providing arguments and sources for your standpoints? --OpenFuture (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. TFD (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per TFD ----Snowded TALK 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per TFD and Skyerise and discussion below. What is at dispute here seems to be two uses of the term 'philosophy', the everyday use and the academic subject. It seems irrelevant whether Leary was paid (per Van Gogh below), Van Gogh is clearly noted for his contribution to art, and was thus an artist. Leary is not even mentioned in relation to the field known as philosophy. Perhaps another term exists or should exist for someone known for their thoughts, but is misleading to use the term philosopher. Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I can also find sources given time referring to Deepak Chopra as a philosopher, that does not make him one. Verifiability not truth does not cover I believe, careless use of words in a colloquial manner. He is certainly not a philosopher, for instance if one goes over to philpapers you'll see that none of his works are included or cited, unlike others such as William Lane Craig for whom this argument has come up in the past. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leary's book "Exo-Psychology" shows up on philpapers, files under "Philosophy of psychology". He is also being discussed in a paper on philosophy of religion, "Mysticism and Drugs" by J Kellenberger. I can't find one single realiable source that calls Deepak Chopra a philosopher. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The word "philosopher" is often used very loosely and there is no reason to believe that colloquial mentions such as "activist philosopher" or "stand-up philosopher" have the same meaning as philosopher. It's great that Leary wanted people to "think for themselves and question authority", but that is not related to the encyclopedic meaning of philosophy. Relying on mentions in relation to mysticism and drugs is stretching the meaning of philosophy too far. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2016(UTC)
  • Remove. I can't see any reason to add this. He had no training in philosophy, had no jobs in philosophy, and didn't (that I know of) write any. If we're going to rely on RS calling him one (or implying it in some way), we should make sure those RS are philosophers themselves. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. To be a philosopher you have to make a notable contribution in the subject of philosophy. I don't think academic credentials are required, otherwise we would have to rule out a number of perfectly good philosophers. The question is whether they engaged with the actual subject matter, as opposed to mysticism, meditation, taking too many class A drugs etc.Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Remove. In addition to the other comments, I think primary contributions were not philosophy, but rather guidelines on lifestyle. He advocated psychadelics as means of improved psychological well-being, not as part of any fundamental world-view. Given that his ideas were radical in his time, it is easy to confuse them as being a philosophy. But they are not one. Tale.Spin (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Until and unless adequate sources are provided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested adding a source that you yourself said was reliable. Since when did you change your position on the matter?2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not changed my position. The source was originally mentioned by another user, not by me, and I have not seen it. The source could potentially be acceptable if it were added, but that has not happened. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove one book of what might be called philosophy does not a philosopher make. If it were otherwise, the usage of the term in the lead and infobox would escalate out of control rather quickly. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The reliable sources we should be consulting are standard biographies of Leary that provide an overview of his life and work. Robert Greenfield's Timothy Leary: A Biography only suggests that he considered himself to be a philosopher, not that he was one outside of his own mind: see this search. I don't have access to the other major biography I can find, I Have America Surrounded, but it would be good to consult this, too. Britannica and Biography.com just describe him to be a psychologist. Neither his NYTimes obituary nor his LATimes obituary suggests that he was a philosopher. His Independent obituary only mentions that he considered himself to be one. HGilbert (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualify

It seems that Leary was a philosopher in his own view and in that of some others (primarily counter-cultural figures), but that this was not in the conventional sense of the term today, at least in professional contexts. (Diogenes the Cynic might also have trouble meeting this standard). I suggest that the term be used but qualified appropriately so that it is clear what this meant in his case. HGilbert (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and of course it would be reasonable for due mentions of views on the topic. The central issue here, however, concerns statements of fact given in Wikipedia's voice, rather than as attributed opinions with no qualification. For example, the current infobox blandly asserts "Occupation: Psychologist∙Writer∙Philosopher", and the first sentence of the lead echoes that claim. Like all matters of philosophy, the first problem is to define the terms used. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica just lists psychologist. How about that for the infobox and "philosophically-minded psychologist" for the lead"? (The collection of appreciations Timothy Leary: Outside Looking In has Alan Ginsberg, Robert Anton Wilson, and a few others calling him a philosopher. How about counter-culture philosopher? (HGilbert (talk)
@HGilbert: Well, something like that, if suitably sourced and attributed, may be good. However, the current issue needs to be resolved first. Would you mind adding your signature to the insightful "The reliable sources we should be consulting are standard biographies of Leary..." comment above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Signature done; thanks for catching this) HGilbert (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that a person needs to be recognized by other philosophers to actually be one? Also, how do you figure that because Leary was an icon of the 60's counterculture means that he wasn't really a philosopher? It appears to me that the only reasons why many of you don't believe Leary was a philosopher are either due to the disfavor of his views on drugs, or the fact that he was never recognized as a philosopher by his peers.76.188.160.128 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his recognition as a philosopher by accepted authorities is exactly the standard used here. Do read Wikipedia's standards for verifiable sources. HGilbert (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Skyerise: 1. Do you have sources that he was not a professional philosopher? 2. I can understand the argument that listing it as "occupation" in the info-box would require you to be a professional (although I disagree), but where is the policy that says that you have to be a professional for it to be mentioned in the lead? 3. So we can not describe John Kennedy Toole as a Novelist? He didn't make a dime from his books, as he died before they were published. 4. What is this "academic standards" bit? Since when isn't reliable sources the relevant standard. Please point towards relevant policies or earelier RfCs, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A "professional philosopher", huh? So by this logic we could not describe Vincent van Gogh as an artist either. Can you see the problem with this logic? --John (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yeah, even better example. And there's tons of leading scientists etc in the 18th and 19th century who did it only as a hobby. It's a nonsense requirement. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no grounds, of any kind, for saying that someone's occupation is "philosopher" when they are not employed as a philosopher. Incidentally, I've just noticed that Msnicki claimed above that Leary was the editor of "Foucault and Philosophy"; the book was actually co-edited by a different person, Timothy O'Leary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've struck that link above. Msnicki (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Depends on how you define the words. In fact both "employment" and "occupation" are defined as "profession", which makes what you said now is pretty much a tautology: There is no grounds for saying that someones occupation is a philosopher unless their occupation is a philosopher. If you define "employment" as "having a salaried employment contract" then very few artists could be said to have the occupation of their line of artistry, as very few have a steady employment contract of any kind. That line of argumentation is patently absurd, so I hope that's not what you mean. That leaves your argument either patently absurd or tautological. You choose. Or better, stop this nonsense POV-pushing and accept WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that being a philosopher is a necessarily a profession, any more than being an artist is one. But just as being an artist requires one to produce at least some artistic output, being a philosopher requires one to write about or expound on philosophy, which Leary never did. I think your confusion comes from the ambiguity of the term philosophy. It can be used to refer to a general view, for example the popular music group Mungo Jerry said, "Life's for livin' yeah, that's our philosophy." Investment firms have investment philosophies,[24] lawyers have client philosophies,[25] grocery stores have pricing philosophies.[26] But none of these sources speak about philsoophy as it is normally understood as a branch of knowledge.
The term artist is also used in a colloquial way which I am sure you would agree does not necessarily qualify one as an artist: piss artist, con artist, dole artist, artful argument, artistic license. If I were to say that calling Leary a philosopher was a complete work of fiction, it would not mean I was calling you a novelist, even if I found your views novel.
TFD (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says otherwise. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well as has been pointed out to you they do not. And just exclaiming WP:RS, WP:NOTRUESCOTSMAN, and various other references to policy, guidelines and essays, without pointing out the relevance to this conversation does not contribute constructively to the discussion. TFD (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has not been pointed out. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, your arguments are so absurd they don't even warrant a response. If you don't believe what Leary lectured and wrote about was philosophy, just what exactly do you think it was? Just the crazy ramblings of an acidhead? That just goes to show how little you know about Leary or his philosophy.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are absurd is a poor argument. Philosophy is a known subject, people have written about it since the pre-Socratics, textbooks have been written and it is taught at universities. Unfortunately you appear to have no familiarity with the subject, which is why you think that Leary is a philosopher. TFD (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, TFD, if you could focus your arguments on the sources, other objective evidence and the guidelines. You're entitled to your personal opinions of Leary, philosophy and the other participants, but posting them is unhelpful. Msnicki (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if you had any familiarity with the subject you would see that he was.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, it would be helpful if all editors took the time to read an introductory philosophy textbook before arguing who is or is not a philosopher. For philosophy of mind, I recommend Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind. If you are worried about the tone of the discussion, I notice you make no comments to 2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B. TFD (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in arguing about who has read more books on philosophy, as it is irrelevent to the topic at hand and a waste of my time.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, he should not have responded. But here's my concern with your argument, TFD. You're the one with 33K edits, not him. You're the one who should know better. It also looks to me like he's responding more than instigating.
More important, he at least has offered some evidence-based arguments, e.g., citing the large number of sources reporting that Leary was a philosopher and Leary's citation count. By contrast, essentially every argument you've offered has been either purely your opinion, e.g., opining that philosophy is not a profession, or your opinion mixed with WP:OR, e.g., arguing that the situation here is somehow similar to pricing at a grocery store. I think your tone is unhelpful but I think your insistence on arguing your opinion rather than the sources, evidence or the guidelines is possibly even more unhelpful. My guess is if you could find some sources or something in the guidelines to support your opinions, all of us, including 2605, would much prefer to discuss them, not you. Msnicki (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to dictionary definitions of philosophy. As you can see, it is meaningful to talk about the "philosophy Obama followed" or the "philosophy in the Republican Party." But neither use meets the main definition in Collins of "the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)." I think it is misleading to imply that Leary was a philosopher in that sense. He of course had a philosophy just as Obama, the Republicans and every other sentient being, but we do add it to every biography. TFD (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but this looks like still more of your personal opinion of Leary, not something for which you're able to cite sources or relevant guidelines in support. As pointed out by TonyTheTiger above, our standard is verifiabilty not truth. I appreciate that you believe you know the truth and that the rest of us are simply ignorant or stupid. But unfortunately for you, we have sources and you do not. Msnicki (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, words can have different meanings, and you would need to show that the sources meant philosopher as defined. The term "Indian" for example can refer to aboriginals from N. America or people from India. Editors should understand the difference and not confuse them. BTW what do you think your sources meant when they said Leary was a philsopher? Do you think that he was a philosopher as described in the Collins definition or do you think they meant he was a man with opinions? And can you please stop citing policies, guidelines and essays without explaining how they relate to the subject at hand. TFD (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onus is on you. Multiple sources say Leary was a philosopher and that he also thought he was, Leary testified that he was a philosopher by occupation, we have his citation count showing that his philosophical works were impactful, we have evidence that that's all he did the last 36 years of his life and that he had no other means of support. So I really think it's up to you to show that they're all using the term philosopher to mean something other than a philosopher as we understand the term. But so far, all you've offered is your opinion and tedious requests, e.g., for a secondary source to interpret (mind read?) what Leary really meant by his testimony.[27] Fundamentally, I think it's time to put up or shut up. Msnicki (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, please read WP:RS and WP:NOR. We do not argue who is and who is not a philosopher, because that would be original research. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It it surprising that you after many years on Wikipedia do not know this. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RS says, "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." If a reasonable editor wanted to know if Leary was a philosopher, they would seek out in books about philosophy to see if he is mentioned. The sources provided show classic google-mining. One for example says, "Inside, musicians are serenading an Irish philosopher as he lies dying in bed among linens that depict cartoon rocket ships zooming over planets." [The Buffalo News] (Leary was actually an American.) Compare that with the article for Immanuel Kant: "a German philosopher who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy." That is sourced to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which obviously does not even mention Leary.[28] It is not that there was a mainstream conspiracy to ignore him, it is just that he did not write about the subject. And I can cite multiple philosophy textbooks asserting Kant was a philosopher, while you cannot cite even one Leary was. TFD (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still using the notability requirements. They are still not valid. The sources are strong enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Silly example: Sharon Rider is a professor of philosophy at the University of Uppsala. Her profession is most decidedly "Philosopher". She is not mentioned by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Why not? Because she hasn't revolutionized the field. It's not a relevant test. Stop it with the WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first dispense with that silliness about the "Irish philosopher". Our own article reports that Leary was raised in an "Irish Catholic household". So when the Buffalo News[29] describes him as an Irish philosopher, it seems pretty likely they're referring to his Irish heritage. We can be even more sure that's what they meant by actually reading the article, where we'd discover the preceding sentence, "It's Sunday afternoon, St. Patrick's Day, and traditional Celtic music is wafting through the air outside a Benedict Canyon ranch home high above Beverly Hills." The only unreliable reporting is yours, falsely implying that the Buffalo News gets basic facts wrong and thus can't be trusted. And may I point out that you're railing against a source mentioned only here on the talk page, suggested by another editor, not me. Nowhere is it cited in article itself. This part of your argument could not be more wrong or more irrelevant.
Re: all this stuff about Kant, if anyone was claiming that Leary was as important as a philosopher as Kant, I would agree, that would be a very extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources. But no one is making that extraordinary claim. The claim is merely that he was a philosopher. The only extraordinary claim I see being advanced is yours, that if Leary wasn't as important as a philosopher as Kant, he wasn't a philosopher at all. And not only don't you have extraordinary sources for that extraordinary claim, you don't have any sources at all. All you have is your opinion. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that Leary is not mentioned in the Stanford source because he is not well known? In fact, he is very well known. And while Sharon Rider may not be as well know as Leary, she has degrees in philosophy, is a professor of philosophy, has written peer-reviewed articles in philosophical journals and is cited in philosophy texts as an expert. None of that applies to Leary. As for the Irish angle, certainly in some senses one could call Leary Irish, just as one could call him a philosopher, but it would be misleading to change the lead from saying he "was an American psychologist" to saying he was an Irish psychologist. Nor would we change American to Irish in articles every March 17, because on St. Patrick's Day everyone is Irish. Generally we would only call people Irish if they were Irish nationals. TFD (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was absolutely positively not my argument and it doesn't appear to be OpenFuture's argument either and I'm pretty sure everyone else reading this knows that. You've made some silly arguments misrepresenting an otherwise irrelevant source and claiming that Leary is no Kant, therefore he's not a philosopher and you got called on them. If your best response is a straw man, I'd call that close to no useful response at all. I think you're done. Realistically, I know I'm done; I've stopped caring about your opinions because that's all they are. Msnicki (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, no, that's not my argument. Once again then: Yes, Sharon Rider is undoubtedly a philosopher. That was my point. I'm glad you agree. And here's the kicker: She is NOT mentioned in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Do you understand my point now? Being mentioned in the Standford Encyclopedia is not a relevant test for being a philosopher or not. So the fact that Leary is not mentioned is irrelevant. OK? Is this clearer now? Can you agree that this was a bad argument, so you won't use such nonsense arguments in the future? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSCONTEXT: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Should be obvious that the most appropriate source for the statement that someone is a philosopher is a work by a philosopher or specifically dealing with philosophy, such as, for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or something similar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The most appropriate"? What does that mean? TFD tried to claim that because Leary was not mentioned, then he wasn't a philosopher. Is that the argument you are trying to make, despite the fact that I just proved it to be wrong? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever do you think it means? It means, that such sources are the best sources to use, and should be used in preference to other sources. Should that be hard to understand? You might also want to consider WP:NEWSORG: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. Many news organizations rely heavily on press releases from the organizations or journals involved. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles that deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles that only tangentially deal with a topic." Philosophy is an academic topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. So if the theory about Leary is correct, we should have no problem in finding an academic source for your extraordinary claim, or even a news article that gives more than tangential reference to philosophy. TFD (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non sequitor. Just because A is better than B does not mean B is not good enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. At debate is not a scholarly issue of the sort contemplated by WP:NEWSORG. This is not an abstruse philosophical question of what new experiments involving transcranial magnetic stimulation tell us about Cartesian dualism, it a simple question of whether Leary was or was not a philosopher as the term is generally understood. Msnicki (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever I think it means". OK. I think "generally better" does not mean "required" which is the argument you are making. And you are arguing for that a person being quoted by a philosopher means we can say the person is a philosopher. That is most decidedly not so. In the case of Sharon Rider she has been quoted by historians. That does not make her a historian. That is just yet another nonsense argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Msnicki: Sure, but generally understood where—in a pub or in an encyclopedia? The word "philosopher" means someone prone to pondering in the former, and someone who produces work published in works on philosophy in the latter. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean any of those things, ever. See Philosopher, [30]. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFuture, please don't place words in my mouth, or attribute to me views I have not expressed. "Whatever do you think it means?" is a rhetorical question, and does not imply that my words mean anything you choose to say they mean. Simply put, I meant that sources specifically about philosophy are the best sources to use for the claim that someone is a philosopher. I did not say they are required. You are in no position to tell me that that is my argument when it is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for assuming that your entry into this discussion was in any way relevant. I will not do that mistake in the future. My apologies. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: No, the term is not the conflict. The conflict is if we are to accept the existing reliable sources, or if we are going to do our own original research and redefine "philosopher" to mean something different than philosopher says it means only for the purpose of this particular article. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the RS you mention, the noted authorities on what is/is not 'philosophy'? The term IS the conflict here, we all recognise that 'philosphy' has an additional everyday usage but is it helpful to the reader to conflate the two? Pincrete (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about "additional everyday usage". You are also not a noted authority on what philosophy is. For a definition of philosopher, see Philosopher, [31]. There has repeatedly been claimed in this thread that philosopher has two definitions, one meaning "someone who thinks a lot" and the other being "noted academic within philosophy". Both those definitions are false, please stop claiming that there are two definitions. There is one definition, and we adhere to it. That definition does NOT require you to be published or have a reference in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quote: "In the information age, you don't teach philosophy as they did after feudalism. You perform it. If Aristotle were alive today he'd have a talk show." //Guess Who --OpenFuture (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: I am replying to your comments included with your vote above. While it is true Learly had a PhD, it was in psychology not philosophy (although for historical reasons, PhD is short for "doctor of philosophy.") Also, while his writing has been cited in academic writing, he was writing about psychology not philosophy and was cited by psychologists. For example, the writing on the first page of the Google scholar search that has the highest number of citations is "Multilevel measurement of interpersonal behavior: A manual for the use of the interpersonal system of personality," published by the Psychological Consultation Service and is cited in psychology papers and texts.[32] Also, the search includes another writer, a cardiologist with the same name. TFD (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In academia, it truly doesn't matter what your PhD was in. A PhD is a terminal degree, meaning if you have one, you are now considered "fully educated", so to speak. You're now expected to know how to research and add to knowledge on your own. After the PhD, many develop new interests. This is why you will so often see faculty in any given department with PhDs in another field.
On my own campus, we have a PhDs in atmospheric science and applied math teaching CS, PhDs in material science and biomedical engineering teaching EE, PhDs in material science, applied math and bioengineering teaching ME, PhDs in ecology and zoology teaching biology, etc. My campus is too small to have a philosophy department, but at our larger sister campus across the lake, there's a PhD in history teaching philosophy. A PhD is basically a checkbox in academia. If you have one, you're eligible for the tenure track, otherwise you're limited to the lecturer track. This is why, when you look at the faculty listings at a lot of schools, they often don't even say what they got their PhDs in. What actually matters is their competence.
Re: the "Multilevel measurement" paper, that is something Leary wrote while he was still working in psychology. I deliberately excluded it and all his other psychology papers from my citation count[33] for his philosophical works. As I explained at the time, I only counted his later works. Msnicki (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some professors do not have doctorates and some have no degrees at all, it depends on the university. And of course some professors expand into other disciplines and there are writers with no degrees who publish peer-reviewed articles and academic books. But the point of the article you referenced is that most philsophers today have PhDs in philosophy. I do not see by the way any philsophical works in the Google scholar search. What are you referring to? TFD (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Students call all their instructors "professor" but if they don't have a PhD, it's virtually certain their actual title is lecturer or maybe senior or principal lecturer. It is truly rare for any university, certainly any mid or upper tier university, to appoint anyone to the tenured professor track without a PhD. And even to be a lecturer, you need at least a master's. If you don't have a PhD, the rule is you have to have a degree that's higher than whatever you teach. Bachelor's degree holders can teach associates (typically at a junior college), master's can teach bachelors, PhDs can teach anything.
The only exception I personally know of is Lynn Conway, who became a professor in EE at University of Michigan with only a master's, but she's an IEEE Fellow, widely recognized for work on the Mead & Conway revolution and the recipient of numerous awards. Without a PhD, the faculty code at most universities only allows appointments to lecturer track or, in some cases, as a "professor of practice", a misnomer since PoP's are not generally voting members of the faculty (unlike even lecturers.)
Re: those works by Leary which I counted as philosophy, please refer to the table I introduced at WP:ORN, seen here. (Same link as last time.) Msnicki (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first work you counted as philosophy is The psychedelic experience, which has 295 cites. It was co-authored with Ralph Metzner and Richard Alpert, who were both psychologists. Most of the cites are in psychology papers and I could not find any in philosophical journals in the first few pages. Here is an example of a full professor at a reputable university who had no post-secondary education. I admit it is rare but universities are at liberty to appoint whomever they want. Michael Harrington, who had an MA in English literature and a law degree was a distinguished professor of politics at Queen's College. Incidentally, where I studied as an undergraduate, professors were not called Professor, but Dr. or Mr. (I don't remember any women professors who did not have doctorates.) TFD (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your examples involve individuals who originally received their appointments 40 to 50 years ago at universities outside the US. I've heard that 40 to 50 years ago it was possible to get a tenure track appointment without a PhD here in the US as well. Not anymore. Universities cannot appoint anyone they want, not here in the US, not if they want to maintain their accreditation. Msnicki (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leary was in no sense a philosopher. Peter Damian (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Queen's College is in New York City. The other example, Queen's University at Kingston, is of course outside the U.S. I would not assume that every single accredited university in the United States would never hire a professor who did not have a doctoral degree, but it is unusual. But the point is that the section "Professionalization" says that the requirement of a PhD in philosophy is what has professionalized the discipline, not the possession of a PhD, which was typical before the professionalization. Incidentally, the section also says, "While it remains common among the population at large for a person to have a set of religious, political or philosophical views that they consider their “philosophy”, these views are rarely informed or connected to the work being done in professional philosophy today." TFD (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close RfC

As creator of the RfC, I plan to close it shortly. I will give another day for further discussion. Skyerise (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concede there are more !votes to exclude than include. But it's inappropriate to close your own RfC. Closes should be done by uninvolved editors. Msnicki (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought that was the process (maybe it used to be, I've been here for over ten years). But I reviewed it and you are right. So, I move to close the RfC and we can field objections here. I won't close it until there is a consensus. Or we can just wait for 30 days to be up. I expect that to just end up bolstering the 'exclude' position. The people !voting to 'exclude' are here from Wikiproject Philosophy. These are informed opinions, unlike the 'include' !votes. Skyerise (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC's should generally run for 30 days and closed by an admin. In theory an admin should not just count votes, but look at the arguments, but that's not always the case. It saddens me to see that so many people blatantly ignores wikipedia policies in this case, but in the end, even though Leary clearly was a philosopher, he also obviously have not had any significant impact on philosophy, and it wasn't his main occupation, so the world isn't going to collapse just because this is left out. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can post a request at WP:AN for an administrator to close. OpenFuture, if Leary did write about philosophy of mind, can you provide an example where he differs from Ryle, or any other philosopher of mind? TFD (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does your question have to the debate on whether or not to remove the word philosopher from Leary's article?2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reply to OpenFuture, ask them what relevance their point has. TFD (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your question, OpenFuture's statement is relevant to the discussion. You should be able to figure that out without me having to explain why. Next time try taking your questions to the philosopher of mind section of the talk page instead of asking them here.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFuture said, "Leary clearly was a philosopher...." I asked OpenFuture to provide an example where Leary differed from Ryle or anyone else. I guess you think that it is relevant to say he was a philosopher without providing any evidence but irrelevant to ask for evidence. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More of your disingenuous nonsense, TFD, I'm getting really tired of it. 1. The RfC is not about if he is a "Philosopher of mind", it's about if he is a philosopher, which we have plenty of reliable sources stating that he is. You know this, don't be dishonest. 2. Since when do you have to "differ" to be a philosopher, and what does that even mean? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be a philosopher of mind, one has to say something about the philosophy of mind. Leary never did AFAIK. As to your other point, if someone was a philosopher of mind, one would expect that they would have made some sort of original contribution. Surely you are not saying that Leary had nothing original to say on the topic. But if you think his views did not differ from other philosophers, can you please tell me whose philosophy he was following. Would you categorize him in the analytic or rational school for example. And if you now think he was not a philosopher of mind, then what branch of philosophy did he specialize in and how does he compare to better known philosophers. TFD (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I request we let the discussion run the allotted 30 days before closing it. Clearly, this is has been a contentious issue, so it's worth getting it right. Personally, I would like the additional time to reconsider the arguments. I often change my !votes at AfDs and it's possible I should change my !vote this time. Most of those arguing against inclusion offer personal opinions ("he's just not a philosopher and that's all there is to it") and impossibly high bars ("he's no Kant!"). But there is one argument I would like more time to consider, namely, what is the standard for the definition.
Those opposing inclusion argue that if other recognized philosophers don't regard him and refer to him as a philosophy, he really isn't and they point, e.g., to his lack of inclusion in the Stanford encyclopedia. That's not an impossibly high bar but I still don't know if that's most appropriate. It would be helpful, e.g., to know what percentage of all full-time faculty in all philosophy departments in the US are included there and what percentage of the omissions are because, if we looked at them, we'd decide these people just really aren't philosophers. It would be helpful to have some data here but none has been offered.
What also troubles me with in this argument is the point OpenFuture has raised, which is that it seems to confuse the question of whether he was a philosopher with the question of whether he was good enough or successful enough at it to have become notable solely based on his work as a philosopher. I think all of us would likely concede that was the question, the answer is likely no. But that's not the question here. Notability is clearly established and he would sail through any AfD in a heartbeat as a WP:SNOW keep.
Here, the question is content: What do we report? Did he do what's described as what philosophers do, as described in our articles and he did he seem to meet all the criteria (e.g., the PhD required to be professional)? To me it looks like yes. But I totally concede he doesn't appear to have been very successful at it.
Finally, I was struck by Skyerise's remark, The people !voting to 'exclude' are here from Wikiproject Philosophy. These are informed opinions, unlike the 'include' !votes. I'm satisfied they're here out of personal interest, not because they've been canvassed, but it does raise the question whether other groups at WP might bring different opinions to the table. Perhaps the discussion should be more widely advertised. One thing I'm sure all of us have noticed the tension in many debates between those preferring a more scholarly or, perhaps, "encyclopedic" tone versus those a common language approach. I think it's worth the full 30 days to continue thinking about this. Msnicki (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 4/5ths of professional teachers of philosophy are NOT philosophers, anymore than a drama teacher is a dramatist or an actor, so it isn't surprising that these teachers are not listed in philosophy textbooks. An art teacher is not the same thing as an artist. 'Artist' itself is one of those terms that is used loosely as well as in a more defined way. How many musicians, writers, actors, through to celebrity chefs and plastic surgeons are sometimes described as 'artists', when the meaning in context is clearly that they are skilled and creative in what they do, not that they produce visual art. IMO that is the case here, nothing produced by Leary would be generally recognised as contributing to philosophy, except in the everyday colloquial sense of being 'thought provoking about life' and none of the sources suggest anything else. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the controversy over Timothy Leary's advocation of LSD, and because Richard Nixon once called him "the most dangerous man in America"; he would have never became notable soley for his contribution to philosophy regardless of how good or successful of a philosopher he was. It is more likely that he will be remembered as just an LSD guru who told people to think for themselves and to question authority. I personaly believe someone would have to be a fairly radical philosopher to actually be incarcerated or executed for their ideas. Relevant quote by Timothy Leary: Socrates once said "divinity lies within". The religious leaders of Athens said "you can't say that, Socrates. The gods are in control. Who are you to say you have a self? How dare you think you can know? The gods determine. Sacrifice to the gods; obey the gods." Socrates said "No. Look within." For that they gave Socrates the hemlock, because he dared to tell people,"Think for yourself. Question authority."2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TALK: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the pot calling the kettle black right there.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, it is not that Leary did not have the same status as Kant, it is that he did not write about the same subject. While as you say that is a personal opinion, since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, one would expect that reliable sources are required which in this case would be texts about philosophy. I think though the problem arises from philosophy having several meanings. TFD (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "informal" vs "formal" meaning of "philosopher". That's a red herring dreamed up by those who for some reason opposing viewing Tim Leary as a philosopher. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Webster's: there are several meanings. 1 (c) best describes the discipline: "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology." But it can also mean "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group." Similarly the term school can refer to an institution of learning or a group of herring.[34] In both cases, informed readers distinguish the two meanings and understand from context which is meant. However, I can see that some readers with no familiarity with the study of philosophy could confuse the different meanings. TFD (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that all ten of the sources provided are only using the informal meaning of the word.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Is there a rule that if a word has an informal meaning, no more than nine sources will use it? TFD (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were all using the informal meaning of the word they wouldn't specifically call him a philosopher, they would only refer to his opinion as his philosophy. I don't see how you could argue that every single source is simply misusing the term philosopher.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they are misusing the term, just that they are not using it as normally used in reliable sources about philosophy. TFD (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just what exactly do you consider to be a reliable source?2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source on philosophy would be a standard textbook or an article in a philosophical journal. All the hits on the first page of a google book search appear to be reliable sources for philosophy.[35] TFD (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that states someone has to be mentioned in a textbook, or in some article in a philosophical journal to be a philosopher. I highly doubt Seinfeld and Philosophy mentioned on the first page of the google book search would be much of a reliable source anyway.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are reliable sources and weight. The book Seinfeld and Philosophy is written by scholars in philosophy and popularizes the topic by relating stories in Seinfeld to major philosophers and philosophical problems. A introductory textbook I used actually began each section with writings by popular writers, including Leary btw, in order to segue into major topics. TFD (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

IP edit warring

Recent editing indicates that the article is once again being disrupted by editors using IP addresses. Someone editing from IP 76.188.160.128 has recently reverted three different users to restore an uncited passage, here, here, and again here. This user appears to have a record of edit warring at this article, which includes making reverts without any explanation in edit summaries or attempts to reach consensus on the talk page. I intend to request article protection again shortly, but I wonder whether further sanctions might not be necessary to counter-act the long-term edit warring indulged in by this user. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever do anything other than look for random shit to complain about on wikipedia?76.188.160.128 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continue making personal attacks, or uncivil comments, and you are likely to be blocked for that alone. It makes for a pattern of disruptive editing that goes beyond simply edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care.76.188.160.128 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not care that you are likely to be blocked for your behavior, then that strengthens the case for blocking you, as indicates a lack of willingness to cooperate with other users or respect the norms of this site. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to cooperate with you. You are an example of everything that is wrong with wikipedia and i'm done responding to your ignorance.76.188.160.128 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing content that is not properly cited an expression of "ignorance"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP warned for making personal attacks here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AcidRock67 is continuing the same behavior he indulged in as an IP, using his new account to bypass semi-protection. AcidRock67, cut it out. I disagree with you, 87.115.63.172 disagrees with you, and Skyerise disagrees with you. That's three against one. Under circumstances like this, you cannot continue reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for disscusing improvements that could be made to the article, not for making complaints about other editors. I'm surprised that after 7 years you still don't know this. --AcidRock67 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are related. Your unacceptable behavior affects article content. It would improve this article if you could be persuaded to stop behaving in such an unacceptable fashion. If you do not stop restoring that passage despite the lack of agreement from other editors, I will be forced to seek some kind of sanctions against you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. --AcidRock67 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of response makes it fairly clear that you have no interest in abiding by Wikipedia's policies, which makes it likely that you will eventually be blocked indefinitely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article continues to be a target for disruptive IP editing, most recently by IP 2605:a000:1200:e013:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, who has reverted both C.Fred - see here - and myself (see here. Unfortunately, it may prove necessary to keep the article semi-protected for a lengthy period to discourage such behavior. Comments? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You consider every edit you disagree with to be "disruptive". 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not, I consider editors who continue reverting no matter how many other users disagree with them to be disruptive. You clearly are not new to Wikipedia, and you should know very well that such behavior is not considered acceptable - especially since you have been warned about it. If there is a disagreement over content, then you need to discuss the issue on the talk page and try to reach consensus. In this case, the content issue should be a simple one: the passage you restored is uncited and suffers from poor grammar, therefore it should be removed. Continue reverting multiple other users to restore it, and you will likely be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should not need a consensus to restore the deleted text when there was never a conensus to remove it in the first place, and saying that Leary quit from harvard university is not poor grammar. You consider everyone who disagrees with you to be "disruptive", and accuse other people of edit warring and violating wikipedia's other policies when your doing the exact same thing but you come up with these twisted overly bureaucratic interpretaions of the rules to fit your agenda so that your right and everyone else is wrong. No reply necessary, i'm done dealing with you. 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are simply showing that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. You need to discuss controversial edits on the talk page and see how many users support one version of the article or the other. In this case, the passage you are seeking to restore has been removed by 87.115.63.172 (see here), Skyerise (see here), myself (see here), and C.Fred (see here). Inclusion is evidently supported by you, by AcidRock67, and by 76.188.160.128. More users support removing the passage than keeping it (and with better reasons). Under such circumstances, it's not simply bad manners to keep restoring the passage, it is disruptive editing that could get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for "i'm done dealing with you", I'm afraid that is not how Wikipedia works. This is a collaborative project, in which users are expected to discuss disputed issues with other users and try to reach consensus. If you continue to behave in a way that indicates that you have no interest in doing this, then you will be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Having re-examined the issue, it appears from this edit that you are in fact AcidRock67, editing while logged out. If that's the case, then you are guilty of disruption, by making it appear that your position is supported by more users than it actually is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new user and their IPs are disrupting this topic and wasting the time of volunteers. I haven't been around when their edits needed reverting but would like to ask anyone reviewing consensus here to include me on the oppose until thoroughly discussed and if agreed side. @AcidRock67: If you want to be taken seriously, please try a different approach. Assume good faith is mandatory; that means you must assume those disagreeing with you are doing it from sincere beliefs about what would be best for the article. Contributors either collaborate or (eventually) go elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand wikipedia enough that i'm able to recognize it for what it is, bureaucratic bullshit. The sheer amount of regulations lets more veteran editors use their understanding of the rules as leverage against less experienced editors, this way bureaucracy subsitutes for the lack of more traditional organized hierarchy. Experienced editors reinforce their own status by smacking newcomers with their ignorance. This process is strengthened by cryptic lingo, in which phrases such as "del per nom. Fails NPOV, relies on OR, and has a SNOW chance of improving to BLP standards" are not uncommon. 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTFORUM. Either stay on topic, and discuss how to improve the article, or stop commenting here. You posts could be removed if you continue to abuse this page by using it for random chit-chat. Equally, you need to stop editing while logged out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - I'm the original person who took down the supposed Flashbacks information. I'd like to first of all apologise for not discussing the reason for the sentence removal without consensus, however it really did look like a typical case of exaggerating a bland sentence to the point of inaccuracy. I've got a copy of Flashbacks in my house. I read it recently. I checked it before making the edit. I also checked on Google Books just to be on the safe side. The information (supposedly from Flashbacks) wasn't there either. So I thought it was safe to remove the sentence. Although I have a roaming IP address, I'm sure there's some fancy program which would let anyone see the work I've done on Leary's Bio page over the past couple of years. MY IPs do have a similar look to them. My point is we're surely all here to get an accurate account of Dr Leary's life and to stop Wikipedia from spreading misinformation. Of course the exact information in the sentence may appear in some other guide to Leary's life and if it does, perhaps the person who keeps putting it on Wikipedia might show us the source. The actual sentence where the the original editor has expanded it from doesn't seem worth adding to the Bio as it looks IMHO pretty superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.24.70 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think the original editor has expanded, 'By May 1963 we received over 500 applications for the summer program, and of these aspiring neuronauts 300 were accepted.' P. 160, That's from my old 1983 HB first edition of Flashbacks. This quote is in relation to the International Foundation for Internal Freedom. A search for 300 & 75% on the Google Books version doesn't provide us with anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.24.70 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to clarify the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I was offline for a long spell and missed the disruptive antics. Some editors have a funny habit of exaggerating their sources, perhaps without realising the need for clarity. I'll see if I can open a new section here to discuss another mistake which might need some discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.120.162 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millbrook - When Timothy Leary Met the Merry Pranksters

Leary's Bio on Wikipedia currently claims Dr Leary was 'locked' in his room (in Millbrook) on a 3 day trip and therefore couldn't meet the Pranksters when they arrived in their famous bus. However, according to the source (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, p. 99, new edition, Black Swan, 1989) he was 'engaged' in a 3 day tripping/isolation experiment, not 'locked'.

I'd like to see Wikipedia clarify the story, perhaps with the following evidence:

According to John Higg's biography on Leary: 'It is not true, as Tom Wolfe wrote in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, that Tim refused to meet them [the Merry Pranksters], as there are photos of Tim with Neal Cassidy on the bus. Tim was ill with flu that day...' (I Have America Surrounded, p. 78, 206)
According to Leary's autobiography, Flashbacks, he returned with flu at night time to find the Merry Pranksters had arrived at Millbrook and being so ill he went straight to bed. At some point over the next few days, Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs met Leary 'quietly' in his room: 'We looked each other in the eye and promised to stay in touch as allies. And we have to this day.' (Flashbacks, p. 206, 1983)

I guess there might be a Kesey or Babbs biography out there to clarify further. Thanks all - I can tweak any citations added as I have the books mentioned above in my house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.120.162 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leary's Income a Trivial Matter

'He had difficulty generating income' – this is biased nonsense as it clearly doesn't reflect his entire life. For example does it include his one time Porsche which was bought from his own income? The fact that the comment is grounded in Greenfield's deliberately sensationalist biography degrades the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. I've therefore adjusted the comment to a less judgmental one. If Leary ended up living on the street for a long spell, his personal finance might warrant an inclusion in his biography, otherwise the trivia of his 'income' looks like superfluous gossip out of a tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.151.18 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar Chronology

"Following the resolution of the war, Leary decided to pursue an academic career. After retroactive suspension and eventual reinstatement at the University of Alabama, he ultimately completed his degree via correspondence courses and graduated in August 1945." This is a bit disconcerting. I'm going to transpose the sentences to avoid the apparent time travel.Lewis Goudy (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timothy Leary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timothy Leary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Leary/Archive_1&oldid=1137255435"