Talk:Timothy Leary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

At some point in the late 1960s, Leary moved to California and made many new friends in Hollywood. "When he married his third wife, Rosemary Woodruff, in 1967, the event was directed by Ted Markland of Bonanza. All the guests were on acid."[7]/Correction:Ted Markland was not a regular cast member on "Bonanza" but was a cast member of the television series "The High Chaparral". 24.95.180.236 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

However, "Bonanza" is part of a direct quotation. I'm leaving this open, but the way forward is not a simple substitution of The High Chaparral for Bonanza. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - Concur with the above - the quotation is exactly as stated in the New York Times - we can't "correct" quotations. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Art Linkletter

Why is there nothing on the major feud between Leary and Art Linkletter? [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Because no one bothered to add anything. No one is stopping you from adding something if you have a suitable citation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I just gave a suitable citation. However, my knowledge of the article's topic is not great, and it would probably be better for somebody with greater knowledge and interest in the subject to add things. AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This article has recently been edited by two IP addresses, 71.72.44.225 and 2605:a000:123d:c01f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, who both seek to label Leary as a "philosopher". For the record, there has been extensive past discussion, including a request for comment, on the issue of whether the article should label Leary a "philosopher", and a consensus was reached that it should not. See the talk page archive for details about this; a link is here. The IPs both geolocate to Akron, Ohio, so they are presumably the same person. I suspect that they are being used by AcidRock67, a now indefinitely blocked user, who in the past repeatedly edit warred in an attempt to have the article describe Leary as a "philosopher". I think I can provide further evidence of this if necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Leary/Leary, Ph.D.

"Timothy Leary" may not be the correct way to address Dr. Leary. The Wikipedia heading can be excused, but not the treatment throughout the article. If he had a legal granted Ph.D. by peer agreement and review, then he is Dr. Leary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.184.104.187 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

The article does not need a "Criticism" section. Such an addition may have been made in good faith, but it is misguided. Leary's views are obviously not mainstream and there is no purpose to adding a "Criticism" section as though they were something that required a counter-argument or refutation. Any relevant material about how people criticized Leary should be worked into other sections of the article, rather than being segregated in a separate, purposeless "Criticism" section. I do not believe that the material in the "Criticism" section ("New Yorker critic Louis Menand reviewed Robert Greenfield's exhaustive biography of Leary. "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown," according to Menand. "He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high.") is of sufficient importance to be included in the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Content added by IP

Someone editing from various different IP addresses, most recently using IP address 72.35.208.23, is edit warring to try to add the following content: "To many skeptics, Leary's psychedelia was the pseudo-intellectual con of a publicity seeker. New Yorker critic Louis Menand reviewed Robert Greenfield's exhaustive biography of Leary. "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown," according to Menand. "He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high.""

I reject content of this kind as worthless and inappropriate to a biographical article. No doubt there were or are many people who would could be considered "skeptics" of Leary. It is unencyclopedic to add vague assertions about what "many" skeptics of Leary thought of him without identifying who they are, leaving the reader to guess. No purpose is served by adding Louis Menand's opinions about Leary to the article; they fall firmly into the category of trivia. Many famous or infamous people get negative things said about them. Unless such comments come from people specifically qualified to comment, or are particularly well-known, they are not important enough to warrant including in articles. The IP editor is also fixated on adding a "Criticism" section. The very idea of adding a "Criticism" section to a biographical article is inappropriate. No encyclopedic purpose is served by including a section dedicated to negative claims that people made about someone. The "criticism" should be added, where relevant, to other parts of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am the author who has been reporting the common criticism that Leary was a publicity hound and unscientific. An entire, well-regarded biography by Robert Greenfield develops this theme. This criticism has been made regularly since the early 1960s. This addition is being serially deleted, rather than improved or reorganized. Whether a section is called "Criticism" or "Publicity Seeking" is not so important. But readers should know that for decades Leary has been called a faker and attention seeker. When he is called a shaman, a seer, a revolutionary, the main response has always been that no, he's making it up for attention. There's no scientific basis for his claims. I apologize for being unfamiliar with the Wiki interface, but I think the content issues are clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BillHaywood. Thank you for your efforts at improving the article. However, I fundamentally disagree with what you are trying to do here. Adding a section titled "Criticism", and filling it full of arguments about why Timothy Leary was a bad person, is like adding a section titled "Criticism" to the article Adolf Hitler and filling it full of arguments about why Hitler was a bad man. It's really not needed. The "Criticism" section cannot simply be retitled "Publicity seeking", since as written it contains much more than only claims that Leary was a publicity seeker. What I would suggest would be that you work any content of importance that you wish to add into existing sections of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

So do that rather than continually delete significant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.243 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As already noted, I don't believe that all of the content you are adding qualifies as "significant". Only potentially some of it might. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit, write, and improve rather than delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.243 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it is up to you to make a case on the talk page for whatever addition you may want to make and get agreement for it. Please list whatever additions you want to make here so that they can be properly discussed. As I've said several times in edit summaries now, you need stop editing the article using multiple IP addresses and a Wikipedia account as well. It makes it difficult for someone viewing this disagreement to tell whether there are multiple people supporting your edits or (as is in fact the case) only one. Editing using multiple IP addresses, and an account, has the effect of making it seem that there is more support for your position than there is, whether that's your intention or not. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The key text you wish to add appears to be this, "Leary was primarily a publicity seeker, according to many critics, with a knack for pseudo-intellectual slogans. New Yorker critic Louis Menand reviewed Robert Greenfield's exhaustive biography of Leary. "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown," according to Menand. "He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high."

Respectfully, I do not find that to be important or worthy of inclusion in the article. Unless the "critics" referred to played some important role in Leary's life, or can be shown to have affected his reputation to some degree, I don't believe their opinion matters. It is not even clear exactly what a "pseudo-intellectual slogan" is supposed to be, so why would you suppose that mentioning that Leary has been accused of promoting "pseudo-intellectual slogans" is helpful? Louis Menand's comments are simply one of any number of negative or hostile things that people have said about Leary over the years. There is no good reason why they, or any of dozens of other similar things other authors have said, should be included. Those comments from Menand would not even belong in an article specifically about Robert Greenfield's biography of Leary, much less this article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the early 1960s, the essential debate over Leary was whether he had intellectually sound things to say, or was a publicity hound who made baseless claims for sensationalist reasons. I propose adding:

In the academic community, many researchers felt that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support Leary's ideas about drugs. Even before Leary began working on psychedelics he was known as a theoretician rather than a data collector. His most ambitious pre-psychedelic work was Interpersonal Diagnosis Of Personality: A Functional Theory And Methodology For Personality Evaluation. The reviewer for The British Medical Journal wrote that Leary created a broad, intricate, and confusing methodology for testing psychiatric conditions. However, "Perhaps the worst failing of the book is the omission of any kind of proof for the validity and reliability of the diagnostic system advocated," wrote reviewer H. J. Eysenck. "It is simply not enough to say" that the soundness of the system "can be checked by the reader" under clinical conditions.[169] When Leary still wrote for an academic audience he co-edited The Psychedelic Reader in 1965. Penn State psychology researcher Jerome E. Singer reviewed the book and singled out Leary as the worst offender in a work containing "melanges of hucksterism." Singer complained that rather than providing scientific data about the effects of LSD on the mind, Leary used metaphors about "'galaxies spinning out and up at rates which exceed the speed of light'" and a cerebral cortex "'turned on to a much higher voltage.'"[170]

Leary was primarily a publicity seeker, according to many critics, with a knack for pseudo-intellectual slogans. New Yorker critic Louis Menand reviewed Robert Greenfield's exhaustive biography of Leary. "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown," according to Menand. "He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high."[167] After Leary's death, a fellow Harvard man, the psychiatrist Robert Coles, said Leary's challenges to authority were confused and missed the mark. The country has severe problems of poverty and privilege, said Coles, and "he addressed none of that." PBS commentator Anne Taylor Fleming said that Leary was "grasping for fame right up until the end" as he publicized his failing health on the internet.[168] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.243 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

In the first place, as already repeatedly requested, could you please stick to your account instead of switching between your account and multiple IP addresses? If you insist on editing from multiple IPs and from an account as well, that might look like potential sockpuppetry, even if engaging in sockpuppetry is not actually your intention.

In the second place, while I do thank you for putting forward a new proposal as a way forward, I think what you are suggesting is only partially acceptable. Most of your proposed addition should be acceptable if you can properly cite it (see WP:VERIFY). Some of it, however, is in my view not written in a way appropriate to an encyclopedia, for example, "knack for pseudo-intellectual slogans". An encyclopedia should keep a formal tone, and thus shouldn't use a term such as "knack" except in quotations. It is not clear to me, and I suspect will not be clear to most readers, what a "pseudo-intellectual slogan" is. I suggest you think of a better phrase to use instead. The comments from Menand, Coles, and Fleming are trivial. They are just random observations from random people about why Timothy Leary was a bad person. We could include dozens of similar comments, to no good effect. We shouldn't be including things like that here for the same reason that we shouldn't fill the article Adolf Hitler full of random observations about Hitler. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The common criticism that Leary was a showman should be represented. The quotes I provided are not from random people. Coles in particular is very accomplished over decades and well known in Leary's field. Commentators from PBS and The New Yorker are notable cultural leaders. More importantly, what they say is relevant. Same with the reviewers from The British Medical Journal and the sociology journal. If you can find better quotes from more authoritative figures, please provide them. Change the word knack if you do not like it, but the phrase "pseudo-intellectual" is common and captures the critique. What do you call a scientist whose scientific judgement is that LSD raises the voltage of the brain? The phrase properly characterizes the complaints of the scientific community who were not impressed by Leary going on about brains on LSD being galaxies spinning faster than light. And the quotes and ideas in my paragraphs are extensively cited. When you have a Penn State researcher characterizing Leary's work as "hucksterism" as early as 1965, and The British Medical Journal saying even his serious 1950s work was fact-free, then you have a community of doubters who considered Leary a pseudo-intellectual. It has the form of deep wisdom, but skeptics said it was empty. Readers should know that people did not just disagree with Leary, they ridiculed the value of his public contributions. Actually, his claims were usually such vague metaphors that there were few specifics to contest. Pseudo-intellectual. Leary: "Start your own religion. Start your own country. Don't buy any of the old codes. They are static and canned. Write your own Ten Commandments." These slogans are exciting cheers for nonconformity, but nothing more. Leary was not a philosopher. The Leary article has long been dominated by his fans. Readers should know the detractors went beyond Richard Nixon and G. Gordon Liddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it is a common criticism? Your assertion is not enough here. Perhaps it is true, as you claim that Robert Coles is "very accomplished over decades and well known in Leary's field"; even if it is, that does not make him an authority on Leary, or give his comments any special relevance to this article. The rest of your comment, similarly, simply consists of assertions; there is nothing there that might convince someone not in agreement with you. Louis Menand's comment is simply an incidental observation in a review of a book. No matter how important you believe Menand is, a passing comment he happened to make in a book review does not merit inclusion here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The biography of Leary has voluminous documentation of his publicity seeking. This is relevant whether this criticism is common or not. But even the laudatory writing about him recognizes he sought the public eye -- he is celebrated as masterful at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That comment is completely irrelevant to the issue of the content you want to add here. Nothing you have said addresses either the inappropriateness of a "Criticism" section consisting of an assortment of comments critical of Leary from various people, none of whom played an important role in his life or are noted as commentators on Leary, or the triviality of the content you are so insistent on trying to include. That includes the comment from Menand, "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown...He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high". Again, so what that Menand said that? Presumably any number of people have made similar comments; there is no need to quote them all. What precisely is it about Menand's comment that makes it so important that it must be included? You have given no reason except that Menand is supposedly a "notable cultural leader". Would you include every comment made about Leary by "notable cultural leader", and if not why that one in particular? There is no logic to such additions. If people during Leary's life described him as a publicity seeker, that could be noted briefly; it does not benefit the article to add gratuitous quotations. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've repeatedly tried to explain the inappropriateness of your edits to you. You've been reverted not only by me but also by two other editors,Snowded (see here) and C. Fred (see here). Could you please stop behaving in this unacceptable fashion? The article is not your personal property and you cannot keep overruling any objections or criticism from other editors. Please describe all the content you would like to add on the talk page and make your case for it. You owe this to other editors, since it would make clear to them exactly what content is under dispute and what kind of case you are able to make for it. That way we can judge which parts might be acceptable and where in the article they should be placed. Appropriate content can go in existing sections, with no need for a separate "Criticism" section. If necessary a request for comment can be placed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The basis for the additions has been explained at length. Editor Freeknow complained of a lack of evidence, then objected to including quotes. That is not good faith editing. The criticism of Leary as a publicity hound doing meretricious science was common throughout his career and repeated in top media outlets by significant people, whether FK has heard of them or not. And the conclusions of the go-to biography by Greenfield should not be suppressed. The Menand quote about it is especially useful because it summarizes the conclusions of a very long biography. The entire Leary article lacks balance. It does not communicate the extent to which Leary's product was not taken seriously. FK objects to having a separate section including this, but it is apparent that much of the aversion is to the content. The very first line of the article is a flat out lie. Leary did not limit his use or advocacy to clinical settings. He claimed it on occasion, but usually ignored it. BillHaywood (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede Sentence

A user has reverted an edit without addressing the spot on the Talk page where it was first suggested. Here is the original rationale for the change, which I have moved to here:

The opening line of the essay is false. It reads TL "was an American psychologist and writer known for advocating the exploration of the therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs under controlled conditions." Leary claimed primarily of alleged spiritual growth and consciousness expansion through LSD. This went way beyond "therapeutic" treatment of mental illness. The phrase "under controlled conditions" makes it sound like Leary might even have limited his advocacy to clinical use. He did on occasion advocate professional guidance under controlled conditions. But his "tune in, drop out" slogan was a broadcast for usage, not a narrow cast call for clinic-like use. The tripping at Millbrook was often not a controlled setting. A more accurate opening line would be: TL "was an American psychologist and writer who advocated liberalized use of psychedelic drugs like LSD. He claimed that careful use of LSD could be therapeutic, advance spiritual growth, and expand consciousness." The opening line should not take as fact that which is to be debated: whether he was a force for controlled or barely controlled use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The person who reverted the lede wrote that the original was "more encyclopedic." Possibly, but it is flatly inaccurate. Leary encouraged taking LSD way beyond therapeutic use. Rather than delete an improvement in accuracy, the writer should smooth it or address the falsity of the original lede. The underlying significance is that the opening line should not take sides on whether Leary was responsible or irresponsible.

Post-Milbrook (eight levels of consciousness)

User bogdan has deleted this sentence because it lacks a cite: "Leary did not specify the location of the eight circuits in any brain structures, neural organization, or chemical pathways." This is not a reasonable request because you cannot find a cite for something that does not exist. Many, many books exist, none of them explain where Leary's larval circuit is located in the brain. Saying so is not the sort of thing that requires a cite. Leary and his fans need to provide the evidence that these circuits are real. The larger passage says Leary literally claimed there are evolved circuits in the brain waiting to activate during space flight and extra-terrestrial settlement. People believe this stupid stuff. The sentence I added was a very gentle counterbalance. Anyone who cares can examine his book and confirm that no evidence exists for these eight brain circuits outside Leary's tripping. Bogdan also started his explanation for the edit by challenging whether the sentence was added in good faith. The lack of good faith is in the pseudoscientists. The eminently reasonable qualification of loopy claims should return. Stop using process to block balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK - edits (including this apparently good faith edit) need support from "WP:Reliable Sources" - if none exist for whatever reason, then the edit may be regarded as "WP:Original Research" - which is not allowed - also - if no "WP:RS" cite exists, then the text is not supported, and should not be added - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Publicity Seeking -- inclusion

There's been weeks of talk and waiting for consensus. Time to publish the two paragraphs. In the above Talk sections "Content added by IP" and "Post-Milbrook" there is extended and repetitive discussion of whether to include the view that Leary was an attention seeker. In the Content added by IP section I proposed two paragraphs to invite consensus. Only one person commented, Freeknowledge, who has been repetitively reverting edits and usually not engaging with reasons given for the added material.

Here is the current version of the proposed paragraphs:

In the academic community, many researchers believed that Leary provided little scientific evidence for his claims. Even before he began working on psychedelics he was known as a theoretician rather than a data collector. His most ambitious pre-psychedelic work was Interpersonal Diagnosis Of Personality. The reviewer for The British Medical Journal wrote that Leary created a confusing and overly broad rubric for testing psychiatric conditions. "Perhaps the worst failing of the book is the omission of any kind of proof for the validity and reliability of the diagnostic system," wrote reviewer H. J. Eysenck. "It is simply not enough to say" that the accuracy of the system "can be checked by the reader" in clinical practice.[99] When Leary still wrote for an academic audience he co-edited The Psychedelic Reader in 1965. Penn State psychology researcher Jerome E. Singer reviewed the book and singled out Leary as the worst offender in a work containing "melanges of hucksterism." In place of scientific data about the effects of LSD, Leary used metaphors about "galaxies spinning" faster than the speed of light and a cerebral cortex "turned on to a much higher voltage."[100]

Leary was a publicity seeker, according to his harshest critics, who said he used pseudoscience to sound profound. The New Yorker's Louis Menand reviewed Robert Greenfield's exhaustive biography of Leary. "The only things Leary was serious about were pleasure and renown," according to Menand. "He liked women, he liked being the center of attention, and he liked to get high."[101] After Leary's death, a fellow Harvard man, the psychiatrist Robert Coles, said Leary's challenges to authority were confused and misdirected. The country faced great poverty and privilege, said Coles, and "he addressed none of that." PBS commentator Anne Taylor Fleming added that Leary was "grasping for fame right up until the end" as he chronicled his failing health on the internet.[102]

The reason given for deletion was "thank you, but as already noted, the article doesn't need a collection of random comments about Leary from assorted people none of whom have a plausible claim to be authorities on him"

None of the sources are random. But the more important issue is balance. Much of the Leary article is embarrassingly fawning. It needs to explicitly include the ubiquitous criticisms of Leary that he was unscientific and a publicity hound. These themes are extensively documented in the go-to book by Greenfield: Timothy Leary: A Biography. The sources in the proposed paragraphs on Leary's "hucksterism" and evidence-free science are as authoritative as it gets. The quote from New Yorker writer Louis Menand is especially worthy because it summarizes the lengthy biography. Although Leary had the reputation of a rebel, he did not actually address the great questions of power and poverty in society. That is why it is good to have balance from Robert Coles, a contemporary of Leary, fellow Harvard man, a psychiatrist, and unusually accomplished commentator on mental health. It is worth noting that Leary put his process of dying up on the internet, that speaks to the attention grabbing, so the quote from Anne Fleming is entirely appropriate. And the sources do not all have to be "authorities on him." They just need to be knowledgeable about the aspect they comment on, otherwise the article is going to have to lose Susan Sarandon and a half dozen more sources.

The reasons given for numerous deletions are repetitive and do not engage the explanations for inclusion. Here are edit reasons that user Freeknowledge did not respond to (exclusive of Talk page, sometimes):

An entire biography demonstrates that Leary was a publicity hound. I provided several quotes representing voluminous criticism for that. Stop hiding his character.

This wiki is fawning and needs balance.

Most important aspect of Leary's career returned to article.

Article should acknowledge intensely controversial person was controversial. There are three critics not one: Menand, press conference, law suit.

This is the chief criticism of Leary. Quotes support.

The paragraphs in question have been extensively revised by me; Freeknow only deletes, never improves.

And what do homosexuality and drinking blood have to do with any of this? They have bearing on whether Freaknow's deletions are in good faith. Check out the Talk page for the Wiki Reference Desk, the first thing that came up when I checked on Freeknow's other activity. There is endless back and forth when Reference Desk editors complain that Freedknow was pestering them with repetitive questions about drinking blood and the nature of homosexuality. See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_132#Freeknowledgecreator's_questions

Yo, please comment, y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHaywood (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of inclusion. Go ahead and add it. Nobody really gets to gatekeep a Wikipedia article like Freeknowledgecreator seems to be doing. The method FKC is using is known as edit warring and is not productive of article improvement. Skyerise (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

BillHaywood, if you believe that the article presents Leary in an unreasonably positive way ("embarrassingly fawning"), the correct way of dealing with that would be to remove any undue material or non-neutral language that biases the article in favor of Leary. I would be all in favor of that. However, I am totally opposed to your adding trivial comments about Leary from various people, none of whom appear to have any claim whatever to being authorities on his life, in the interests of so-called "balance". Louis Menand's opinion of Leary is completely inconsequential. You say that it "summarizes the lengthy biography"; that is complete nonsense. One cannot "summarize" a book length biography in one comment. The same thing is true of Robert Coles's opinion of Leary; in an effort to make it look relevant, you have noted that Coles was "a fellow Harvard man", as if that makes Coles an authority on Leary; it obviously doesn't. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

FKC, currently, the consensus is against you. But carry on... Skyerise (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I made my most recent revert of BillHaywood's misguided edits before seeing your comment here. If you want to defend someone who is adding inappropriate trivia that is your choice, of course. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to collaborate rather than use revert as a weapon. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If BillHaywood believes that Robert Greenfield's biography of Leary is a good source, then I would suggest that he actually use the book as a source, instead of adding a comment about Leary from a review of the book, which looks very strange. BillHaywood's addition would be less bad if you and he would agree to the removal of just a few unnecessary details, such as the part about Coles being "a fellow Harvard man", which has nothing to do with anything. Coles's place of employment is irrelevant and has no bearing on the accuracy of his views about Leary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the book is available to you as well! And yes, discussing the details is what the talk page is for, not for shutting down new editors completely. It seems that not all of Bill's changes were objectionable, but reverts are faster than discussion, aren't they? Well, go ahead and see what you and Bill can agree to agree to... Skyerise (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't see anything much of value in those changes - the full paragraph added largely duplicates material in the preceding paragraph. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The paragraphs are different. One is from scientists dismissing the scientific credibility of Leary. The next is from people attacking his public persona. In bits and pieces here and there, the article does include facts that can be used to suggest Leary hogged the spotlight. But not all readers will put that together. The publicity seeking needs to be specifically addressed. Bhay

Skyerise, as it happens, I do have a copy of Greenfield's biography of Leary (I don't know why you would feel sure that I do). Just to repeat the obvious, the book is a much better source than a comment someone makes in the course of reviewing the book. I will be happy to cooperate with BillHaywood in improving his addition if he can only cut out on the stupid personal attacks and abuse, as visible above. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, all the same old personalities. Some things never change here. LoL! Skyerise (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I just mean that I've been following this article for years. Just been away for a couple. All y'all may not remember me, but I remember you! Skyerise (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Freeknow no longer disputes that publicity seeking is a worthy topic. There is a paragraph ready and waiting to address that. If he is not satisfied with the contribution, he should improve it. The article as a whole needs loads more smoothing, condensing, and active verbs. Freeknow only deletes, never edits. Stand clear of people with some energy or write something. And do some editing, the page has been stagnant for years. Bhay

Viriditas, please do not make unexplained reverts, as you did here. It's rude, and also contributes nothing to discussion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Some pages are stagnant for years because nothing new has happened, simply adding material because you have energy is dubious. The question some editors are raising here appears to relate to questions of weight. You might sensibly add a referenced sentence to publicity-seeking (I would suggest The New Yorker Review quote) but a whole paragraph is out of proportion - the bulk of the text already makes that particularly clear. The issues on pseudo-science etc are already covered for example no need to repeat. If people are happy with that as a compromise I'm happy to make it -----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a question of weight -- and readability. Leary advocated LSD, he went to prison, he seized the spotlight. The attention-grabbing needs to be easily spotted because it is central to his legacy. Sources addressing whether he was a charlatan or a pioneer need prominence. Burying the Menand New Yorker quote and chopping the rest of the graph does not do this. Appropriate weight could also be achieved by putting the Menand quote in the first one or two paragraphs of the article. That would frame the scattered but not explicit references to showboating throughout the article. Otherwise, the subject really should be its own titled section. An 8th grader looking for an essay topic wants to come up with "con man or revelator" as easily as "prison martyr for inner sight." I've been significantly condensing the article (which does not even use active verbs consistently) without losing content, so space is not an issue. BillHaywood (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The more interesting and relevant topic is how much Leary delayed and set back the psychedelic research community, particularly in terms of psychedelic therapeutics. Because of his reckless behavior, the science was halted and the research was put on hold for many decades. It was irresponsible for him to encourage recreational use as he did (it’s not for everyone and can have complications for something like 2-10% of the population). IMO, that’s the topic area you should focus on, as it has the most encyclopedic potential and relevance. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that aspect covered in reliable sources?-----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course. It’s the primary criticism of Leary (and by implication his legacy) in the professional, academic, and historical literature. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine, then include some referenced material that uses it! -----Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Menand quote is relevant and I am open on where it is placed - but it is a review and not a peer-reviewed article from the field. Other material in the contentious paragraph is already covered. I don't think it is burying it to use Bill's phrase. Given that there are multiple references to the behaviour one option is to use it in the lede - would that help? -----Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Menand quote in the lede is fine. I don't get the reference to peer review. PR is good, but it is no way a requirement, especially outside the hard sciences. Many non-peer reviewed materials are authoritative. BillHaywood (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If it’s the same quote I think you are referring to, then it should be avoided in the lead in favor of an encyclopedic summary. I also don’t know what Snowed is referring to in terms of “peer review”, as that doesn’t apply to this biographical article. The point of using the primary criticism of Leary’s admitted abandonment of his role as a scientific researcher in favor of becoming a cultural leader, is that it is the essential framing device from which all other criticisms derive. Your criticism of him as a self-absorbed egotist follows from this state of affairs, and his legacy is in stalling scientific advancement in psychedelic therapeutics for many decades as a result of his irresponsibility. The general consensus in the academic literature today, according to people like Tom Roberts, a professor of educational psychology, is that “The ‘Timothy Leary era’ of informal or illegal explorations ‘caused a lot of problems’”[2] as it led to drug prohibition and the halting of scientific research. Although this is covered in dozens of journals and books, Lattin (2019) is the latest to summarize it thusly:[3]

...some argue that Leary and Alpert’s psychedelic crusade in the 1960s was the main reason that university research into the potential medical benefits of psychedelic drugs was shut down from the mid-1970s to the 1990s. In my book, Changing Our Minds, the longtime psychedelic activist, Amanda Feilding, summed it up to me by saying, “Timothy Leary left a legacy of making LSD almost untouchable.” Roland Griffiths, the lead researcher in an array of ongoing psychedelic therapy studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told me that Leary “played a very significant role in the backlash.” “Leary was an iconic figure at the time, but he modeled the wrong outcome by departing from the scientific method,” Griffiths said. “He had a lot of interesting things to say, but he didn’t pursue a systematic and cautious approach.”

This is the primary, core criticism of Leary and is a part of his legacy. While you might find it interesting to focus on the idiosyncrasies of personality and character, all of that is secondary to this criticism. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

rosemary woodruff- leary

Given the 2002 NYT obit, which I just added and seems to not have previously been in the article, there may be enough material for an article on her, or possibly at least a section. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In Music

The section says the Moody Blues recorded two songs about Leary, but only mentions one of them. What was the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.231.206 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"When You're a Free Man". Looks like it was deleted as unsourced but without correcting the "two songs" intro. I've restored the song title, with ref this time. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Eight-circuit model of consciousness undergoing extensive reduction and discussion

From the long-term [[4]] to its present removal of the main descriptors, the page and an attempt to save it is being discussed on its talk page (now the spectre of deleting it and merging it here has been raised). Please come by to lend some knowledge about Leary and the importance of the model. This started when Leary was removed from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists, which seems to me to fit him to a "T". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The person doing that re-categorization isn't the least bit familiar with the bio subjects they are re-categorizing. Just add the category back. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha. Me reverting and arguing the case on both the category and the 8-circuit model has turned into a long and ongoing WP:ANI thread. I agree that most if not all the participants, most from the fringe Wikiproject, know little if nothing about Leary and Wilson's work, and the attempt to throw me in hot water from four or five of them (including an off-site reputation attack) comes from me knowing a little-butnotall about them. Other voices are needed here to bring better knowledge than mine into the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Now here's what left of the Eight-circuit model page since this morning. Life is good if you are a deletionist. Well, here's what one take would be. On the other hand, what Tim would have done if he still was with us (a hug, a big smile, and a kind laugh at the sad foolishness of those who would do such things). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the Leary corpus back in the late 1980s while I was in the university library. I think it’s accurate to describe ECMC as a fringe theory, but that doesn’t mean we can’t write about it. There are plenty of RS that talk about it, but you have to do some major research to find them. The allegation by the deletionists that there aren’t is wrong. Yes, it is a fringe theory, but it’s also characterized by enough RS to allow a fully fleshed out article about it. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Randy, can I ask, just because of the nature of how you've made reference to the man in a couple of occasions now, were you personally acquainted with the man? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)