Talk:R. Gordon Wasson

message: According to a lecture by Hank Wesselman, Wasson believed that hallunicogens may have been the cause of human evolution. Can anyone cite a source for this or elaborate? Hank only mentioned it in passing. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hallucinogenics and evolution

message: This article is completely one-sided.  Advocates of pseudoscience such as Wasson always have reams of vociferous critics, none of whose arguments are even briefly mentioned in the article.  This may require a complete re-write. Bumhoolery 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I recommend deleting the entire spirituality section. Mmyotis (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am an atheist who supports the use of entheogens.  You suck at English.  Also, Columbus was NO scientist.  I'm very thankful that you apparently are not a regular Wikipedia contributor. Bumhoolery 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of objectivity 

message: This article doesn't cite sources, and it claims that a pseudoscientist has "revolutionized the understanding of the origin of religion."  Leaving out the question of what that sentence even means, most of this article reads like a geocities fan page.  And by the way, a lot of scientific visionaries have be derided or ignored because people did not understand or could not accept their ideas, but a much larger number of pretentious idiots have also been derided or ignored because their ideas make no sense. Jermor 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, Erowid has a much better article on R. Gordon Wasson: hereJermor 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Harvard has an even better one here.  This would probably be a great starting place if anyone has the time to improve the article. Jermor (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me to the list of editors willing to help. —Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The relationship between the origins of religion and ritual drug use is sound and well-supported.  Wasson's argument is not deeply flawed, but supported by current research.  Ritual drug use was the most likely catalyst and precursor to all religion.  There's a reason DMT is called the "spirit molecule". Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Wherever they are from, they are clearly misinformed. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite Needed

message: This article has been hit by a series of edits this morning. First the correctly documented information that Wasson was affiliated with the CIA was removed with the comment that "unreferenced" material was being deleted. Then, the incorrect and undocumented claim that Wasson was "director of propaganda" was added. Would this type of fraudulent editing be called 'vandalism'? JerryRussell (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave your reason for deleting this as un-sourced material. In fact a source is cited. You are now involved in an edit war. Please read the citation in it's entirety. It appears that the crazy conspiracy web site refers to possibly verifiable information. Also Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, which this appears to be. Also Wikipedia discourages personal attacks. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your support, Senor Cuete. Please note that I did not post the reference to the article at Jan Irvin's website, but rather 92.233.116.110 did, when he was claiming that Wasson was the "chief propagandist" at JP Morgan. My secondary reference is to a reputably published book by John D. Marks. I should have included a link to the Wiki article about Marks, which would establish the notoriety and provenance of the source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: You've reverted the good faith contributions of another editor five times. This is edit warring and you can be blocked for this. These contributions does not meet the criteria for vandalism. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring the crucial point, which is the total *irrelevance* of the citations in light of the recent iinformation added. The recent contributions are essentially vandalism because they are conspiracy theory, and they are unsourced (the sources make no mention of the information about Gordon Wasson that they claim to support). It is you, not I, who is engaging in edit warring, because you are defending the addition of unsourced, false and irrelevant information into the article. The article was already very high standard before all this recent nonsense. 92.233.116.110 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that the sources do not mention Gordon Wasson is false, actually the secondary source by John Marks spells this out very clearly. The primary source at National Securities Archive is in a file labelled "Wasson". The matter is being "escalated", I have opened a dispute resolution ticket here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#footer JerryRussell (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not quoted anything from the Marks book. I am referring to the FOIA citation. 92.233.116.110 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  "The primary source at National Securities Archive is in a file labelled "Wasson"" - Can you explain this?92.233.116.110 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: IP editor 92.233.116.110 has now reverted a good faith edit seven times. Is a sysop out there to block him? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "reverted a good faith edit" - incorrect, it is bad faith, wilful vandalism of a high-quality article by inserting unsourced bizarre conspiracy theories.92.233.116.110 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: At the Dispute Resolution Notice Board there is a list of Users involved. I only see two of the IP addresses involved in this dispute listed. 87.239.254.119 has been blocked for 6 months as a sock puppet. 159.53.46.142 is a server at JP Morgan. How is this address involved in the debate? Is 92.233.116.110 a sock puppet for JP Morgan? Since Wasson worked for JP Morgan, one would have to conclude that this is an attempt to censor Wikipedia by someone at JP Morgan. This is unacceptable. The talk page at 159.53.46.142 is disturbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:159.53.46.142. In, addition, there is an archive of other warnings not to vandalize wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:159.53.46.142/Archive_1. How in the world is this not blocked? 92.233.116.110 has done everything banned on Wikipedia - sock puppetry, edit warring, personal attacks, reverting good faith edits, ignoring consensus, etc. Why is this user not blocked? At this point I think JerryRussel would be justified in adding the content he wants, ignoring the disrupting editing of 92.233.116.110 or whoever he really is. Admins, where are you? Block this editor.
92.233.116.110 has returned again, and deleted my contribution -- this time, without offering any further comments on the talk page. Thanks to Jim1138 for restoring the material. As per the advice at the dispute resolution discussion, I will ask for a sock puppet investigation of the IP editors. JerryRussell (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  MK-Ultra edit-warring

message: The needed citation is here: http://botlib.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/wasson/BIOG.html
I don't have the patience to edit it myself.207.229.130.147 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Will add to the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "illustrated, limited editions that have never been reprinted"