Talk:Timothy Leary: Difference between revisions
AcidRock67 (talk | contribs) |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Timothy Leary/Archive 2) (bot |
||
(251 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Leary, Timothy|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} |
||
{{WikiProject Chicago |
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Illinois |
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject University of California |
{{WikiProject University of California|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Neopaganism|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness |importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Psychology}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-05-31|oldid1=843816357}} |
|||
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
==Information missing== |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.56.74.229|130.56.74.229]] ([[User talk:130.56.74.229|talk]]) 02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
|archive = Talk:Timothy Leary/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|counter = 2 |
|||
==External links== |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
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: |
|||
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
* [http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/52 A page devoted to Timothy Leary & LSD] with video of Reverend Lakko recalling Timothy Leary's guidance during the [[Marsh Chapel Experiment]], an interaction with [[Marshall McLuhan]], and other Leary links |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|||
* [http://www.ihaveamericasurrounded.com I Have America Surrounded - the Life of Timothy Leary] - website for a Timothy Leary biography. |
|||
* [http://lennyflatley.wordpress.com/2006/09/29/an-interpretation-of-timothy-leary/ An interpretation of Timothy Leary] -- Reviews Timothy Leary: A Biography, discusses Leary and Aleister Crowley. [[J. L. Flatley]] |
|||
* [http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/timothy-leary/ Timothy Leary] - Rotten Library article. |
|||
* [http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/47 "How to Operate Your Brain" Leary's guided meditation with video and music] |
|||
* [http://www.tfyqa.com/ TFYQA.com - Think For Yourself; Question Authority: Timothy Leary ideals] |
|||
* [http://www.zerosummind.com/timothyleary.html High Blotter Mark] - Zero Sum Mind article. (Seems to be a dead link) |
|||
* Listen online: [http://boomp3.com/m/733ac47c4b3f Think For Yourself] - (Seems to be a dead link) |
|||
* [http://www.vlib.us/beats/learyrivercity.html Dr. Timothy Leary, photographs, River City Reunion, 1987, Lawrence, KS] |
|||
*[http://alivemindmedia.com/static.php?page=hofmann ''Hofmann's Potion''] DVD Documentary about the Early Years of LSD featuring Albert Hofmann & Timothy Leary |
|||
Some will, of course, remain deleted. [[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] ([[User talk:Rosencomet|talk]]) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== 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). [[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] ([[User talk:Rosencomet|talk]]) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: 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. [[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] ([[User talk:Rosencomet|talk]]) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] ([[User talk:Rosencomet|talk]]) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: 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 [[The Smashing Pumpkins|Smashing Pumpkins]] concert.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}" |
|||
: I believe that eliminates all outstanding citation requests, so I am deleting the tag requiring them. The article has 32 references. [[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] ([[User talk:Rosencomet|talk]]) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. [[Special:Contributions/58.106.43.11|58.106.43.11]] ([[User talk:58.106.43.11|talk]]) 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Well, most documentaries state that he was recovering from a heavy trip, and refusing to come down from his room to greet them... --[[User:Torsrthidesen|Torsrthidesen]] ([[User talk:Torsrthidesen|talk]]) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
[[User:Italinux|italinux]] ([[User talk:Italinux|talk]]) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:There is photographic evidence of Timothy Leary sitting inside the merry prankster's bus further with Neal Cassady disproving Tom Wolfe's version. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== 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? [[User:Meishern|Meishern]] ([[User talk:Meishern|talk]]) 23:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
According with Timothy Leary's auto-biography (Flashbacks) published in 1983, he didn't mention anything about Harvard during fall of 1965.<br /> |
|||
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.<br /> |
|||
The aim of these shows was to reproduce psychedelic experiences and they used wording, lights, colours, strobe and some sort of kaleidoscope.<br /> |
|||
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). [[User:Italinux|italinux]] ([[User talk:Italinux|talk]]) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.144.2.26|75.144.2.26]] ([[User talk:75.144.2.26|talk]]) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Concord prison experiment== |
|||
An anon recently deleted some unsourced text, and I'm adding it here for archival purposes. Text follows: [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>.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). </blockquote> |
|||
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. [[User:Weremorl|Weremorl]] ([[User talk:Weremorl|talk]]) 05:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== 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?<br />--[[User:K10wnsta|K10wnsta]] ([[User talk:K10wnsta|talk]]) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Tim had 3 children: Susan (born 1947), Jack (born 1949) and Zachary (born 1973) and adopted by Tim and his last wife Barbara. [[User:Italinux|italinux]] ([[User talk:Italinux|talk]]) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== 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" |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/50.53.144.108|50.53.144.108]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.84.51.138|67.84.51.138]] ([[User talk:67.84.51.138|talk]]) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Surfing the Conscious Nets == |
|||
I stumbled across this [http://books.google.com/books/about/Surfing_the_Unconscious_Nets.html?id=OG5yQgAACAAJ 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? [[User:Scoundr3l|Scoundr3l]] ([[User talk:Scoundr3l|talk]]) 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: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.[http://www.lastgasp.com/d/5159/surfing-the-conscious-nets] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 19:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. [[User:ImprovingWiki|ImprovingWiki]] ([[User talk:ImprovingWiki|talk]]) 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. [[User:Aucirlo|Aucirlo]] ([[User talk:Aucirlo|talk]]) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Timothy Leary]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678165591 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150804024539/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7GSff4fIA&hl=en&fs=1& to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7GSff4fIA |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== 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). [[Special:Contributions/2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9]] ([[User talk:2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|talk]]) 23:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::OK-but you know we have RS by Wikipedia standards. What you are asking goes beyond that. [[Special:Contributions/2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9]] ([[User talk:2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|talk]]) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::My reading of the discussion at NPOV was that reputable sources were quickly offered to support describing Leary as a philosopher. Maybe [[WP:IDONTHEARYOU|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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: 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.[[Special:Contributions/2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9]] ([[User talk:2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9|talk]]) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 20:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 02:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Here is the situation: |
|||
*From [[Philosopher]]: "{{tq|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]].}}" <small>(definition [[Special:Diff/712063909|added]] by [[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]])</small> |
|||
*"Activist philosopher" is a made-up term to highlight the fact that it is not referring to the profession of [[philosophy]]. |
|||
*The LA Times story is titled [http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-22/entertainment/ca-30476_1_timothy-leary "COMEDY REVIEW : Timothy Leary Does His Stand-Up Philosophy Show on Sunset Strip"] and the only mention of the term in the article is "Leary did his stand-up philosopher act...". |
|||
*A throw-away IP is willing to edit war to promote the idea that Leary's occupation included "philosopher". |
|||
*The [[Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy|philosophy game]] is hilarious, but sprinkling links in articles should not be encouraged. |
|||
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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Msnicki|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" ([[User:The Four Deuces|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" ([[User:Masem|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 ([[User:Fyddlestix|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" ([[User:N-HH|N-HH]]). In other words, there is a consensus ''against'' applying the philosopher label at this time. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 09:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 09:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''': There are multiple reliable sources referring to Leary as a "philosopher". A quick Googling just gave me [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22timothy+leary%22+%22philosopher%22&source=bl&ots=2gLMltJDY7&sig=4m91J9u8uffUCo05BZR6kS39FHk&hl=es&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22timothy%20leary%22%20%22philosopher%22&f=false this book] (Malice in Wonderland: The Bush Junta from 2000-present by D. L. Joy) and a Time magazine article from 1996 calling him [http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984470,00.html "a psychedelic philosopher"]. -- [[User:Irn|Irn]] ([[User talk:Irn|talk]]) 10:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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.[[Special:Contributions/2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF|2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF]] ([[User talk:2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF|talk]]) 16:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with [[user:johnuniq|johnuniq]], who quoted |
|||
{{Quotation|*From [[Philosopher]]: "{{tq|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]].}}" <small>(definition [[Special:Diff/712063909|added]] by [[User:SPECIFICO|SPECIFICO]])</small>}} |
|||
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. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 14:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::'''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. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|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. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
It is ridiculous how long this debate has been going on. This page needs to be permanently blocked from editing. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
===Arbitrary break=== |
|||
:::::[[User:Msnicki|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. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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 {{tq|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 [[science]]s 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 [https://books.google.com/books?id=_DgmATBfmdQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD_L6XnOfLAhXiLKYKHWlzDD8Q6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false Your Brain Is God], [https://books.google.com/books?id=3IuCPwAACAAJ&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD_L6XnOfLAhXiLKYKHWlzDD8Q6AEIJjAC Neuropolitique], <s>[https://books.google.com/books?id=iqPzPBrsQU8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD_L6XnOfLAhXiLKYKHWlzDD8Q6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false Foucault and Philosophy]</s>, [https://books.google.com/books?id=44dvPwAACAAJ&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD_L6XnOfLAhXiLKYKHWlzDD8Q6AEIODAF The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead] and, of course, [https://books.google.com/books?id=kO7i5wXIZkwC&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK5NWcnefLAhXBoZQKHe-MCYo4ChDoAQg3MAY 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". [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::It would not satisfy me. I think it belongs there. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Duly noted, I will try not to make that mistake again. The reason I removed my question is because I realized it was unnecessary. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 19:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:If you'd like to revise a comment after it's already been replied to, strike the part you're deleting with <nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki> tags and insert the new text with <nowiki><ins>...</ins></nowiki> tags. Text that's been struck looks like <s>this</s> and text that's been added looks like <ins>this</ins>. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*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.[[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 11:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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". |
|||
{{nutshell|Wikipedia does [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|not]] publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|attributable]] to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.}} |
|||
[[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Which one? [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Take your pick. I listed several. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding RSs calling Leary a philosopher, I gave you [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22timothy+leary%22+%22philosopher%22&source=bl&ots=2gLMltJDY7&sig=4m91J9u8uffUCo05BZR6kS39FHk&hl=es&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22timothy%20leary%22%20%22philosopher%22&f=false these] [http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984470,00.html two] above, and now here are some more: [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19891001&id=AssoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y5EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4119,164828&hl=en philosopher-psychologist] from [[The Age]], [http://articles.latimes.com/1996-05-03/news/ls-98_1_timothy-leary psychedelic philosopher] from the [[Los Angeles Times]], [http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-11/news/vw-18892_1_timothy-leary/3 social philosopher] by the LA Times again, and [http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/tim-leary-drops-75-cancer-article-1.718764 psychedelic philosopher] from [[New York Daily News]]. -- [[User:Irn|Irn]] ([[User talk:Irn|talk]]) 16:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::'''psychedelic philosopher''' sounds fair enough for me. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal of cited information == |
|||
IP 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b is edit warring to remove properly cited information, as visible [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=712277246&oldid=712276932 here] where it reverts me and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=712278908&oldid=712277495 here] where it reverts another user. As this is unacceptable behavior, I have had to request that the article be protected. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You did the exact same thing I did YOU HYPOCRITE. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 08:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:"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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 08:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 23:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk: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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Protected edit request on 1 April 2016 == |
|||
{{edit fully-protected|Timothy Leary|answered=y}} |
|||
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
Please add the following citations to the description of Leary as a philosopher in the first paragraph: [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| title = All The Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release |
|||
| isbn = 978-1579129521 |
|||
| publisher = Black Dog & Leventhal |
|||
| date = October 22, 2013 |
|||
| last = Margotin |
|||
| first = Philippe |
|||
| last2 = Guesdon |
|||
| first2 = Jean-Michel |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=KXKnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT674&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGvrvZ6O3LAhUKmoMKHVBTCCI4KBDoAQhDMAg#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = "Come Together" was conceived as a political rallying cry for Timothy Lear, the psychologist, writer, philosopher, and apostle of LSD. |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| title = Malice in Wonderland: The Bush Junta from 2000-present |
|||
| last = Joy |
|||
| first = D.L. |
|||
| isbn = 978-1456724092 |
|||
| publisher = AuthorHouse |
|||
| date = March 18, 2011 |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0wtHO6-3LAhXHm4MKHVt0C944MhDoAQhMMAk#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = 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." |
|||
}}</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| title = Winona Ryder: The Biography |
|||
| last = Goodall |
|||
| first = Nigel |
|||
| isbn = 978-1857822144 |
|||
| publisher = Blake, John Publishing, Limited |
|||
| date = November 29, 1998 |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=OnC_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT27&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM0NeZ7e3LAhUDs4MKHfwmDXA4PBDoAQhJMAg#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = 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. |
|||
}}</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| title = Drug Use: A Reference Handbook |
|||
| last = Isralowitz |
|||
| first = Richard |
|||
| isbn = 978-1576077085 |
|||
| publisher = ABC-CLIO |
|||
| date = May 14, 2004 |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=X0mxxfbIbp4C&pg=PA183&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWi_aI8O3LAhXktYMKHQ5iB9U4ZBDoAQhFMAg#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs |
|||
}} |
|||
</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
| title = Modern America: A Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945 |
|||
| last = Donaldson |
|||
| first = Robert H. |
|||
| isbn = 978-0765615374 |
|||
| publisher = Routledge |
|||
| date = 2015 |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=t0TfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPg4HL8e3LAhXHwYMKHdyCAGw4jAEQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = 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." |
|||
}}</ref><ref> |
|||
{{cite news |
|||
| title = Leary defense held to name, job |
|||
| newspaper = Independent |
|||
| location = Long Beach, CA |
|||
| date = March 22, 1973 |
|||
| page = A-4 |
|||
| url = https://www.newspapers.com/image/18163018/?terms=Timothy%2BLeary%2Bphilosopher |
|||
| accessdate = April 1, 2016 |
|||
| quote = 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. |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
:{{admin 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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::By dragging the matter through 4 different drama boards over this simple content question, [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] has delivered us to bureaucratic hell. It is time to unprotect the page, requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATimothy_Leary&type=revision&diff=713066415&oldid=713065069 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=713071518&oldid=713065561 here]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=timothy+leary&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48 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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. -- [[User:Irn|Irn]] ([[User talk:Irn|talk]]) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: *Strongly opposed* This is an attempt by [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] to "own" a controversial topic, and to circumvent a consensual resolution through administrative force. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 21:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Request disabled due to lack of consensus — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::[[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." [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 01:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 04:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 05:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 07:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Plenty? Which one? Just show a '''single''' Wikipedia acceptable reliable source, and the issue is closed. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 08:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:There is six listed at the top of this section. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Then bring it to a vote to see if you have a Wikipedia consensus. ~~ [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 09:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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''" [[User:Blue Mist 1|BlueMist]] ([[User talk:Blue Mist 1|talk]]) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not "deciding" this. They are quite clearly reliable sources. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::As I have already patiently pointed out, two of those sources obviously do ''not'' call Leary a philosopher, and it is [[WP:NOR|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&curid=31088&action=history 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 22:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 22:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: '''Unsolicited third-party opinion''' - the description of "philosopher" in the lede is well-supported by sources that meet [[WP:RS]]. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 05:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Skyerise|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]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Additional references=== |
|||
References from [[HighBeam Research]]--[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<ref>{{cite news|last=Ressner|first=Jeffrey|title=Dr. Tim's Last Trip Psychedelic Philosopher Timothy Leary Prepares To Exit In Typical Style|work=[[The Buffalo News]]|quote=''Inside, musicians are serenading an Irish philosopher as he lies dying in bed among linens that depict cartoon rocket ships zooming over planets''.|date=June 2, 1996|accessdate=April 10, 2016|url=https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22847205.html|publisher=via HighBeam {{Subscription required}} }}</ref> |
|||
<ref>{{cite news|last=Waxman|first=Sharon|title=The Ultimate Trip of Timothy Leary; For the Psychedelic Philosopher, Meeting Death Was an Adventure|work=[[The Washington Post]]|quote=''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.''|date=June 1, 1996|accessdate=April 10, 2016|url=https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-785999.html|publisher=via HighBeam {{Subscription required}} }}</ref> |
|||
<ref>{{cite news|last=Ryon|first=Ruth|title=Bigger home for 'Little Woman'|work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|quote=''Her godfather was countercultural philosopher Timothy Leary.''|date=March 29, 1998|accessdate=April 10, 2016|url=https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4426209.html|publisher=via HighBeam {{Subscription required}} }}</ref> |
|||
<ref>{{cite book|title=''The Sixties in America Reference Library''|url=https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3441300052.html|publisher=via HighBeam {{Subscription required}}|quote=''Leary, Timothy, Psychologist, philosopher, teacher, writer, lecturer, LSD advocate''|isbn= 978-0787692483|accessdate=April 10, 2016|date=2005}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&oldid=prev&diff=714189396 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 05:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree. And Leary did not write about the philosophy of mind. "Mind expansion" is not a topic in the philosophy of mind. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
To argue that philosophy of mind expasion is not the same as the philosophy of mind would only be hair-splitting.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 04:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 05:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
The sources call Leary a philosopher of mind expansion. What your doing is merely hair-splitting.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 05:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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]]. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 06:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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?[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 06:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:No. Find a reliable source that supports the "philosopher of mind" category, or it will be removed, it's that simple. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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". --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 07:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, if you admit that this past behavior was mistaken, I guess I can let it rest. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]], you yourself [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=714353060&oldid=714315597 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 05:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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 [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] restored the category, I would direct that question to her also. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 09:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] made a comment that she then removed, but is still visible [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Leary&diff=prev&oldid=716673435 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::There's a reason I removed my post, seen in my edit comment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Leary&diff=prev&oldid=716673589] I don't like dealing with you. Kindly leave me out of this. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 05:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::In future, please do not remove your own talk page comments. It is unhelpful and confusing to other editors. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=717936526&oldid=717933593 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 20:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Philosopher redux == |
|||
[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] and [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator]] have each deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&type=revision&diff=715772532&oldid=715362031], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=next&oldid=715792462] and the sources and the claim that Leary was a philosopher once today. [[Special:Contributions/2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b|2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b]] and I have each restored once. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=next&oldid=715772532], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=next&oldid=715821889]. |
|||
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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yet again there is mention of anything but the underlying issue. There is no engagement. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 11:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::To your question, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]], "Is there any indication Leary claimed to be a philosopher?", the answer could not be more clearly yes. He ''testified''[https://www.newspapers.com/image/18163018/?terms=Timothy%2BLeary%2Bphilosopher] that was his occupation. This appears as source #6 in the protected edit request section above and in the article as citation #5. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I do not have a subscription. Can you please provide the quote so we can determine what he actually meant. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::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]].) [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}}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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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."''[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0wtHO6-3LAhXHm4MKHVt0C944MhDoAQhMMAk#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false] I hope that was helpful. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 17:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Complete nonsense. And yes, we have reliable secondary sources that says otherwise, as you well know. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 17:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Can you provide the secondary source that interprets his self-description in his trial? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 18:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You seriously ask for a secondary source that Timothy Leary when he said "philosopher" meant "philosopher"? This is beyond absurd. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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[https://books.google.com/books?id=lwQTdbbJOH0C&pg=PA7&dq=%22timothy+leary%22+%22philosophy+of+mind%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIoqDI-JjMAhUJ0mMKHeJMBmMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22timothy%20leary%22%20%22philosophy%20of%20mind%22&f=false] 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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Just another example of how wikipedia puts administrative procedure above efficiency and common sense.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 21:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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''.[http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/#SH5a] Huxley and Leary do not even get articles. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:No, wikipedias policies and the five pillars are no "administrative procedure". They are the necessary principles on which truth-gathering here relies on. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Can you name anyone you think could be described as a mathematician in a Wikipedia article that no mathematician would describe as one? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:That's a No True Scotsman fallacy. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 06:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not a story, it's a [[No true Scotsman|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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{Ping|User: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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No. Try again. I wrote the correct answer above. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Can you provide any example where I said that someone calling Leary a philosopher was not a true philosopher? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::So you admit that Leary is a philosopher. Good. Then we are done. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I though were not going to waste any more time with this discussion? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Correct. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== 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? == |
|||
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=8D53C6C}} |
|||
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? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 18:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:600F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per [[WP:TRUTH]].--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 12:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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".[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0wtHO6-3LAhXHm4MKHVt0C944MhDoAQhMMAk#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false] He ''testified'' under oath that his occupation was philosopher.[https://www.newspapers.com/image/18163018/?terms=Timothy%2BLeary%2Bphilosopher] Sources confirm that that really is what he thought he was.[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll8LcKr1b24C&pg=PA28&dq=timothy+leary+philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0wtHO6-3LAhXHm4MKHVt0C944MhDoAQhMMAk#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20philosopher&f=false]. At [[WP:ORN]], I presented a table[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=713384725&oldid=713380769] using data from Google Scholar showing that his top publications in philosophy had garnered over 1350 citations; in academia any over 1000 is impressive.[http://calnewport.com/blog/2013/02/17/the-single-number-that-best-predicts-professor-tenure-a-case-study-in-quantitative-career-planning/] 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.[https://books.google.com/books?id=of4J2dbKvMoC&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq=timothy+leary+income&source=bl&ots=ENAymFEq89&sig=nnxajrWzRncO1Vu-o6H_6EGEK34&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj27MLJnfPLAhVEuIMKHeuVC0wQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=timothy%20leary%20income&f=false] In every possible sense, the evidence is overwhelming that he really was a philosopher and that that really was his occupation. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:RS]], as backed up by {{u|Msnicki}}'s points. [[User:Rubbish computer|''Rubbish computer'']] ([[User talk:Rubbish computer|''HALP!'']]: [[Special:Contributions/Rubbish computer|''I dropped the bass?'']]) 12:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per [[WP:RS]]. <> [[User:Alt lys er svunnet hen|Alt lys er svunnet hen]] ([[User talk:Alt lys er svunnet hen|talk]]) 03:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per [[WP:RS]], [[WP:TRUTH]]. --[[User:AcidRock67|AcidRock67]] ([[User talk:AcidRock67|talk]]) 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:AcidRock67&diff=prev&oldid=719791395 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Msnicki&diff=719799084&oldid=719780271 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." [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 22:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Under circumstances like these, there may have to be an [[WP:SPI|SPI]]. In any case, if you cannot show that you have not supported "include" using multiple screen names, you views will likely be disregarded. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Msnicki&diff=719811809&oldid=719799084 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 22:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::AcidRock67 has now [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Leary&diff=719822009&oldid=719818839 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I deleted my other !vote. What are you still bitching about? --[[User:AcidRock67|AcidRock67]] ([[User talk:AcidRock67|talk]]) 01:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Persist in making needlessly offensive and uncivil comments and you will probably be be blocked. See [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 01:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
How about you take a quarter (or whatever you people have in New Zealand) and go call someone who gives a shit? --[[User:AcidRock67|AcidRock67]] ([[User talk:AcidRock67|talk]]) 01:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===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. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::<small>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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::Could you please read [[WP:PILLARS]] and start providing arguments and sources for your standpoints? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 04:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Already done. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' per TFD ----[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 13:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. -- [[User:Ollyoxenfree|Ollyoxenfree]] ([[User talk:Ollyoxenfree|talk]]) 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 07:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC). |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Tale.Spin|Tale.Spin]] ([[User talk:Tale.Spin|talk]]) 22:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove'''. Until and unless adequate sources are provided. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::You suggested adding a source that you yourself said was reliable. Since when did you change your position on the matter?[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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 [https://books.google.com/books?id=of4J2dbKvMoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=biography+timothy+leary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd2YGh38LMAhXEOj4KHS_MBa8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=philosopher&f=false 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. [http://www.britannica.com/biography/Timothy-Leary Britannica] and [http://www.biography.com/people/timothy-leary-37330 Biography.com] just describe him to be a psychologist. Neither his [http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1022.html NYTimes obituary] nor his [http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-01/news/mn-10774_1_timothy-leary LATimes obituary] suggests that he was a philosopher. His [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-timothy-leary-1334884.html Independent obituary] only mentions that he considered himself to be one. [[User:Hgilbert|HGilbert]] ([[User talk:Hgilbert|talk]]) 11:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===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. [[User:Hgilbert|HGilbert]] ([[User talk:Hgilbert|talk]]) 09:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, and of course it would be reasonable for [[WP:DUE|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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://www.britannica.com/biography/Timothy-Leary 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''? ([[User:Hgilbert|HGilbert]] ([[User talk:Hgilbert|talk]]) |
|||
:::@[[User:Hgilbert|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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 11:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::(Signature done; thanks for catching this) [[User:Hgilbert|HGilbert]] ([[User talk:Hgilbert|talk]]) 12:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/76.188.160.128|76.188.160.128]] ([[User talk:76.188.160.128|talk]]) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, his recognition as a philosopher by accepted authorities is exactly the standard used here. Do read [[WP:V|Wikipedia's standards for verifiable sources]]. [[User:Hgilbert|HGilbert]] ([[User talk:Hgilbert|talk]]) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
{{ping|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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*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? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*: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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 19:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Good catch. I've struck that link above. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|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]]. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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,[http://pacificapartners.ca/our-philosophy/] lawyers have client philosophies,[http://www.pgslaw.ca/about-us/our-philosophy/] grocery stores have pricing philosophies.[http://aldiuscareers.com/about-aldi/our-philosophy] 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. |
|||
::[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:RS]] says otherwise. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 10:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 11:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, it has not been pointed out. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 20:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 23:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 23:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Clearly, if you had any familiarity with the subject you would see that he was.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 02:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/philosophy 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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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 [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] above, our standard is [[WP:TRUTH|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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 03:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Leary&curid=91220&diff=716506243&oldid=716505550#Occupation:_include_in_lead_and_infobox] Fundamentally, I think it's time to put up or shut up. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 03:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 04:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[http://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=%22timothy+leary%22] 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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You are still using the notability requirements. They are still not valid. The sources are strong enough. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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]]. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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[https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22847205.html] 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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 07:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"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? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 08:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 08:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That's a non sequitor. Just because A is better than B does not mean B is not good enough. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 10:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 09:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::"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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::No, it doesn't mean any of those things, ever. See [[Philosopher]], [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/philosopher]. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
[[User:OpenFuture|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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 01:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 05:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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]], [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/philosopher]. 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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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 --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{Ping|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.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=timothy+leary&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48] Also, the search includes another writer, a cardiologist with the same name. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=713384725&oldid=713380769] for his philosophical works. As I explained at the time, I only counted his later works. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 03:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=713384725&oldid=713380769 here]. (Same link as last time.) [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [http://db1.archives.queensu.ca/ica-atom/index.php/alpers-antony;isaar 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.) [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Leary was in no sense a philosopher. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 07:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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." [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== The most dangerous man in America == |
|||
===Move to close RfC=== |
|||
{{archive_top|Instead of removing the material, I added an extensive footnote explaining the problem.[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 10:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
From the NYT source in question: |
|||
:{{tq|"Dr. Tim" was accused of sending many young people off on bad drug trips, and Richard Nixon called him "the most dangerous man in America." But it was not only the right that was cutting: "His rhetoric has a patina of phoniness," The New Republic's review of "High Priest" said. The New Yorker, reporting on a "celebration" in 1966, was merely condescending, saying that after the show, "with his disheveled hair and his white garments, he looked like a shipwrecked sailor, and very much alone."}} |
|||
: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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 04:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not sure why journalist [[Laura Mansnerus]] added this Nixon quote to Leary's obituary, and as much as I would like this quote to be true, I'm afraid to say this is one of those famous apocryphal quotes from Nixon that ''no researcher has ever been able to verify or confirm as true''. Because of that, I think it should be removed from this biography. What is far more interesting is to try and figure out where the quote ("the most dangerous man in America") originated from and who first published it. I've tried to do so and was left spinning my wheels. It's quite an interesting problem. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 04:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
;Follow up |
|||
:::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 06:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Journalist John Bryan made a similar claim in 1980, except he wrote that Orange County District Attorney Cecil Hicks called Leary "The Most Dangerous Man Alive" in 1972 when he set bail for Leary while he was on the run. |
|||
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? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Leary confirms this particular claim in ''What Does Woman Want?'' (1976); but it should be noted that Bryan might be citing Leary here |
|||
::What relevance does your question have to the debate on whether or not to remove the word philosopher from Leary's article?[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 16:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Writer Jay Stevens says it was a federal judge not a district attorney who called Leary "the most dangerous man in the world" |
|||
:::It is a reply to OpenFuture, ask them what relevance their point has. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* Editor Daniel Weizmann repeats the claim in an introduction to Leary's posthumous work (1997), saying Nixon made the claim in 1968 when Leary was a candidate for governor of California. |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Ron Chepesiuk in ''The War on Drugs: An International Encyclopaedia'' (1999), says Nixon made the claim in 1970, not 1968. |
|||
: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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Writer Don Lattin makes the claim twice in his book ''The Harvard Psychedelic Club'' (2010), with no footnotes. |
|||
::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? --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 03:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Minutaglio and Davis in their book ''The Most Dangerous Man in America'' (2018), attribute the statement Leary made in an interview: "He told one interviewer, “Richard Nixon called me the most dangerous man alive, and of course, I tried to be as dangerous to him as I could be." |
|||
:::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Elsewhere in the book, the authors attribute the quote to Michael Horowitz in 1972. |
|||
**Again, the authors attribute the impetus of the quote to others, in this case, Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, whom the authors say tried to convince the Swiss (where Leary was on the run) of Leary's criminality. "Mitchell impresses on his hosts the idea that President Richard Nixon believes Timothy Leary is the most dangerous man in America." |
|||
**"Nixon’s old friend, Secretary of State William Rogers, is also a law-and-order man. He and Nixon had originally become friends hunting Communists together during the McCarthy era, chasing them out of the shadows. But now that Nixon is president, Rogers has seen a darkness fall over his old ally. Nixon has always been obsessed with the enemy within, but now he’s increasingly vengeful, intent on punishing anyone who might oppose him. The president has even been steadily easing Rogers out of his inner circle. Rogers knows there’s one way he can prove to Nixon that he is still just as unforgiving when it comes to law and order: by bringing back Timothy Leary in chains. Rogers contacts the heads of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and spells it out: "There is a dangerous escaped American criminal on the loose, residing in Villars-sur-Ollon. Can your people hunt Timothy Leary down and hold him in prison until we can ship him back to the United States?" |
|||
*Author Robert Anton Wilson said that the ''National Review'' "listed Timothy as one of "the three most dangerous men alive" in ''The Starseed Signals'' |
|||
;Nixon White House tapes |
|||
*'''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 [[User:OpenFuture|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 [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]]'s remark, {{tq|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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* There's apparently a [[Nixon White House tapes|Nixon White House tape]] from July 23, 1971, that shows how Nixon formulated the plan to target Leary as a way to lift his poor poll numbers and help his re-election. I'm trying to find a copy online to listen to it. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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."[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 00:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Tape [http://www.easynixon.org/tapes/066-002 066-002], sometimes referred to as Conversation No. 66-2. [https://nixon.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/audio/066b.mp3 Event begins at 16:00]. Leary first mentioned at 18:09. No mention of "most dangerous man in America". |
|||
:Please see [[WP:TALK]]: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
***Oddly, while the tapes are online, there's no extant transcript. That doesn't make sense to me. It's been 52 years, and nobody has published the entire (unclassified) transcipts from Nixon's tapes? Somebody make it make sense. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
That's the pot calling the kettle black right there.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive_bottom}} |
|||
== Reference [36] to New York Times is inaccurate == |
|||
::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 03:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::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.[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy] 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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
There is no way that all ten of the sources provided are only using the informal meaning of the word.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Why is that? Is there a rule that if a word has an informal meaning, no more than nine sources will use it? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 02:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I did not say they are misusing the term, just that they are not using it as normally used in reliable sources about philosophy. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Just what exactly do you consider to be a reliable source?[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 02:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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.[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=philosophy&tbm=bks] [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B|talk]]) 04:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
One can look up reference [36] = the Dec 3, 1966 New York Times on the "TimesMachine" and see that p.25 says nothing about Leary, in fact this page is only advertising. There is no mention of Leary on p. 24 or p.26 either. This reference is inaccurate and needs to be corrected or removed. |
|||
== IP edit warring == |
|||
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1966/12/03/issue.html [[Special:Contributions/73.227.29.92|73.227.29.92]] ([[User talk:73.227.29.92|talk]]) 02:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=719652119&oldid=719620832 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=719678217&oldid=719676533 here], and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Leary&diff=719678434&oldid=719678354 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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Do you ever do anything other than look for random shit to complain about on wikipedia?[[Special:Contributions/76.188.160.128|76.188.160.128]] ([[User talk:76.188.160.128|talk]]) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I really don't care.[[Special:Contributions/76.188.160.128|76.188.160.128]] ([[User talk:76.188.160.128|talk]]) 04:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
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.[[Special:Contributions/76.188.160.128|76.188.160.128]] ([[User talk:76.188.160.128|talk]]) 04:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:How is removing content that is not properly cited an expression of "ignorance"? [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 04:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::IP warned for making personal attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.188.160.128&diff=719688475&oldid=719682945 here]. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 05:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:30, 13 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timothy Leary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2018. |
The most dangerous man in America
[edit]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.
From the NYT source in question:
"Dr. Tim" was accused of sending many young people off on bad drug trips, and Richard Nixon called him "the most dangerous man in America." But it was not only the right that was cutting: "His rhetoric has a patina of phoniness," The New Republic's review of "High Priest" said. The New Yorker, reporting on a "celebration" in 1966, was merely condescending, saying that after the show, "with his disheveled hair and his white garments, he looked like a shipwrecked sailor, and very much alone."
I'm not sure why journalist Laura Mansnerus added this Nixon quote to Leary's obituary, and as much as I would like this quote to be true, I'm afraid to say this is one of those famous apocryphal quotes from Nixon that no researcher has ever been able to verify or confirm as true. Because of that, I think it should be removed from this biography. What is far more interesting is to try and figure out where the quote ("the most dangerous man in America") originated from and who first published it. I've tried to do so and was left spinning my wheels. It's quite an interesting problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Follow up
- Journalist John Bryan made a similar claim in 1980, except he wrote that Orange County District Attorney Cecil Hicks called Leary "The Most Dangerous Man Alive" in 1972 when he set bail for Leary while he was on the run.
- Leary confirms this particular claim in What Does Woman Want? (1976); but it should be noted that Bryan might be citing Leary here
- Writer Jay Stevens says it was a federal judge not a district attorney who called Leary "the most dangerous man in the world"
- Editor Daniel Weizmann repeats the claim in an introduction to Leary's posthumous work (1997), saying Nixon made the claim in 1968 when Leary was a candidate for governor of California.
- Ron Chepesiuk in The War on Drugs: An International Encyclopaedia (1999), says Nixon made the claim in 1970, not 1968.
- Writer Don Lattin makes the claim twice in his book The Harvard Psychedelic Club (2010), with no footnotes.
- Minutaglio and Davis in their book The Most Dangerous Man in America (2018), attribute the statement Leary made in an interview: "He told one interviewer, “Richard Nixon called me the most dangerous man alive, and of course, I tried to be as dangerous to him as I could be."
- Elsewhere in the book, the authors attribute the quote to Michael Horowitz in 1972.
- Again, the authors attribute the impetus of the quote to others, in this case, Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, whom the authors say tried to convince the Swiss (where Leary was on the run) of Leary's criminality. "Mitchell impresses on his hosts the idea that President Richard Nixon believes Timothy Leary is the most dangerous man in America."
- "Nixon’s old friend, Secretary of State William Rogers, is also a law-and-order man. He and Nixon had originally become friends hunting Communists together during the McCarthy era, chasing them out of the shadows. But now that Nixon is president, Rogers has seen a darkness fall over his old ally. Nixon has always been obsessed with the enemy within, but now he’s increasingly vengeful, intent on punishing anyone who might oppose him. The president has even been steadily easing Rogers out of his inner circle. Rogers knows there’s one way he can prove to Nixon that he is still just as unforgiving when it comes to law and order: by bringing back Timothy Leary in chains. Rogers contacts the heads of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and spells it out: "There is a dangerous escaped American criminal on the loose, residing in Villars-sur-Ollon. Can your people hunt Timothy Leary down and hold him in prison until we can ship him back to the United States?"
- Author Robert Anton Wilson said that the National Review "listed Timothy as one of "the three most dangerous men alive" in The Starseed Signals
- Nixon White House tapes
- There's apparently a Nixon White House tape from July 23, 1971, that shows how Nixon formulated the plan to target Leary as a way to lift his poor poll numbers and help his re-election. I'm trying to find a copy online to listen to it. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tape 066-002, sometimes referred to as Conversation No. 66-2. Event begins at 16:00. Leary first mentioned at 18:09. No mention of "most dangerous man in America".
- Oddly, while the tapes are online, there's no extant transcript. That doesn't make sense to me. It's been 52 years, and nobody has published the entire (unclassified) transcipts from Nixon's tapes? Somebody make it make sense. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tape 066-002, sometimes referred to as Conversation No. 66-2. Event begins at 16:00. Leary first mentioned at 18:09. No mention of "most dangerous man in America".
Reference [36] to New York Times is inaccurate
[edit]One can look up reference [36] = the Dec 3, 1966 New York Times on the "TimesMachine" and see that p.25 says nothing about Leary, in fact this page is only advertising. There is no mention of Leary on p. 24 or p.26 either. This reference is inaccurate and needs to be corrected or removed.
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1966/12/03/issue.html 73.227.29.92 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Chicago articles
- Low-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- B-Class University of California articles
- Low-importance University of California articles
- WikiProject University of California articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class Neopaganism articles
- Low-importance Neopaganism articles
- B-Class Altered States of Consciousness articles
- Low-importance Altered States of Consciousness articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Unknown-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Selected anniversaries (May 2018)