Talk:Eight-circuit model of consciousness

Sources

Right now, this article suffers severely from WP:PRIMARY. Here I will attempt to find some secondary sources which can provide context:

• [1] article in media studies
• [2] (note: conference proceeding)
• [3] book on Leary
• [4] article on ketamine
• [5] Psychedelics Encyclopedia (less than pleased that Andrew Weil wrote the Foreward, but... highly cited reference anyway).
• [6] book on psychedelics

Not impressive, but giving a sense of the context, at least.

jps (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please note that Robert Anton Wilson's book and work concerning and expanding on this model (as well as Ali's) are not primary sources to Leary's original model (they would, I'd think, be considered secondary and commentary). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with using it as a reliable source for anything but the musings of Anton Wilson, but it does speak to the notability of the idea at least that the football was passed to another who is certainly famous in his own right. jps (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I like McCray, W. Patrick. "Timothy Leary's Transhumanist SMI2LE". Groovy Science: Knowledge, Innovation, and American Counterculture. wplibrary for context. One brief mention in a flood of Leary concepts. All taken, saying 4 terrestrial and 4 post-terrestrial are about the extent of description in most good sources. fiveby(zero) 19:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on (probably book jacket) summations of this book here, perhaps this should be covered from a social science perspective. Reviews appear to be authored by university professors (Angela N. H. Creager and Fred Turner); two notable scientific journals (Science and Nature); as well as MIT News. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I am guessing there would be enough notable coverage of the book, "Groovy Science," for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is an obit for Robert Anton Wilson in The Telegraph [7] to help determine his credibility as a consciousness researcher and theorist. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. I think Wilson, Alli, et al fall squarely in the realm of "adherents". JoelleJay (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely the correct viewpoint. GrandMote (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discusstion

Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion. Nobody is saying this is set-in-stone way of describing human body-mind interaction and growth, it's a model from a reputable source, Leary, and adhears to WP:PRIMARY by summarizing Leary's original model. This was then later commented on and expanded by other reputable authors, including Wilson, who commented and described the model. The word 'model' is in the title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please revert your edit. [8] I said in the edit history [9] to discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD. This encourages discussion and avoids edit warring. Also, BRD doesn't say Bold revert, Bold revert and then D. Your actions are inappropriate. Also, please see WP:OWN

Would have liked to leave your edit for the discussion but what you did was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article, which can also be considered OWN. At that point a revert presents the entirety of the page. For much of the page it probably needs a clearer explanation that the model described is from Leary's work, but summarizing that work fits WP:PRIMARY. The Wilson additions, on the other hand, are commentary on another's model and are not primary although he adds to the model's explanation. Wilson, as well as Leary, are considered reputable authors and essayists. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the second and third time you have exaggerated. The first was "overall full-scale deletion". The second was "entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article" and the third exaggeration is "a revert presents the entirety of the page." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe let's stick to the subject. Describing your removal as huge seem appropriate, and maybe we can agree that removing nearly 11,000 bits of page-relevant descriptive material does change the focus of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevant if the material is based on unreliable in-universe sources (e.g. they take it for granted the model is correct or mainstream) and/or WP:OR. Such content should be removed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Shibbolethink. Please explain much more fully what you mean and really, please consider reverting your wholesale WP:OWN removal of the descriptors of this article. What unreliable sources? Which one(s) are unreliable, and once those are disregarded how many sources do you consider reliable? Then "in-universe", there is no such thing here. The WP:INUNIVERSE link goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. To repeat the obvious, Wilson wrote an entire non-fiction book about Leary's model. Ten years after if was first described. Wilson's book exists as a secondary source. Whether Wilson agreed with something or not doesn't seem at all relevant to your large removal of long-term material. Don't most non-fiction book writers agree that something is important, and that's why they write about it? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You said: Then "in-universe", there is no such thing here.

WP:FRIND:

• In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse
• The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

You said: To repeat the obvious, Wilson wrote an entire non-fiction book about Leary's model. Ten years after if was first described. Wilson's book exists as a secondary source.

Wilson is not an independent or reliable source. He believes the theory. He helped formulate it with the author. He has committed hoaxes before. He has no degrees or formal training in psychology or neuroscience. He is not a respected theoretician or expert in the psychology or neuroscience communities.

WP:ARBPS:

• Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
• Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics.

Detecting Bull$%#!, published 8 March 2022 by Al-Shawaf L in Psychology Today:

In fact, misrepresenting quantum physics almost seems to be a prerequisite for peddling psychology-adjacent woo. If you plan to spout vacuous bullshit and you want it to sound quasi-intellectual, you’re going to have to misappropriate some quantum physics! There are probably two things going on besides the field’s imprimatur of authority and scientific respectability. First, peddlers of bovine stercus benefit from the specialist nature of quantum physics and the obscurity of its principles. If readers don’t know much about the field, it’s easier for quacks to misrepresent its findings and axioms. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. They are saying a lot of what I was thinking when I edited the article to its present form. The only thing I can add at the moment is jps posted some links [10] to develop content that can be used in this article. I think one reason for developing this content is that it is reliable sourcing as compared to the in-universe style of sourcing that is present in the article. This reliable sourcing will help balance out the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Another option would be to merge this article to the Timothy Leary article in its truncated form. Maybe prune this article some more prior to the merge. In any case, would Randy Kryn be interested in a merge? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Just going to join as another voice here noting that Wilson is very unambiguously not a secondary source, as he is is no way WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, but in fact very a player in its construction and promotion, with no outside editorial controls or review function to his work, and has no research background or context for his treatment of these theories. Although, notably, that last component is far more determinative in policy terms than the previous two. Honestly, Randy, when it comes to this aspect of the dispute, this doesn't even pass WP:SNOW with regard to the question of connection to the work and the context in which the source discusses this 'model', and you've been here far too long to be thinking it would fly to position Wilson's perspectives as secondary, all facts considered. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm too dense to get why an entire book written about the model ten years after its initial presentation is not a secondary source which has then been itself integrated into the page. And of course I'd oppose a merge to the Leary page, this is a fine stand-alone article, especially if the long-term descriptors are brought back. Please research and understand that Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality testing and studies while at Harvard who later came up with this important 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification. I've also removed the notability tag, whatever else it is it's notable. As for Wilson, he is regarded as one of the most important writers and essayists of the 20th century in some circles, and his popular 1983 book on Leary's model still stands as the definitive commentary about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus (on this talk page) has determined that the sources are not acceptable for a stand alone article. I understand that you don't agree with this but you are swimming upstream. Also, JoelleJay gave much the same feedback at the current ANI [11], [12], [13]. Also, it seems you have removed the notability tag against consensus that is apparent on this talk page in this section and the "Sources" section. Please restore this tag because it is based on consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable. You seem to have very little if any knowledge of Leary's work and the notability of this topic, so please do not push from editing to merging (which amounts to a deletion). There is no consensus of all involved editors as yet, but comments from people working from the fringe theories page. I've finally alerted the Tim Leary and Wilson pages of this attempt, I didn't think this was needed but I guess so. As for your personal involvement, what about that revenge edit you did, you haven't addressed that yet but just seem to think that's a normal action. It isn't. [EDIT: adequately explained]. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. There are whole bunch of other editors involved as can be seen on this talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Well this sure has been made about me, hasn't it, at a huge ANI thread, at an off-site attack page, and your unaddressed revenge edit [EDIT: adequately explained, thanks]. None of those were needed but there they are. Hopefully more editors become involved, because if you think I'm missing the point and I think you folks are, it seems to me to be the fringe crowd pretty much demanding ownership of a long-term article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only briefly looked at Exo-Psychology and Prometheus Rising, but more from McCray, his chapter above and The Visioneers. It seems to me that "8 circuit model" is rather disconnected on its own. SMI2LE might be more informative for the reader and add additional high quality sources. fiveby(zero) 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Fiveby. The model's evolution could be traced back to Leary's invention of the Interpersonal circumplex. Timothy Leary's work has been attempted to be fringed, even though his contributions to personality formation and consciousness were pioneering. Wilson's assessment and commentary of the model came ten years after Leary presented it, not concurrently, so why he's not considered a valid source must still be questioned. I'd like to remind everyone that this discussion branched from a fringe page discussion questioning why Leary was removed from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists by an editor who described Leary as just a '60s druggie (I've argued that Leary without a doubt fits that category language). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am following the history of science, futurism and counterculture perspective and context from McCray. I notice that Leary never uses "consciousness" or "model" in Exo-Psychology, tho he may in other works. But I know hardly anything about consciousness research and have to look for someone to tell me about Leary, Wilson, Alli and Eckartsberg and to trace the idea from Leary's earlier work. The thing is i can't find someone to do that for me. What i do find is McCray and his perspective, Wilson and Leary both proponents of SMI2LE and this a part of I2. fiveby(zero) 15:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not commenting on the SMI2LE comment, and of course it would make a nice page. I haven't read all of Leary's work, not that into him as it would seem here, although I would highly recommend Wilson's writings - a recognized and honored writer who, like Isaac Asimov, had the ability to relate his topics in an understandable manner. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wilson's assessment and commentary of the model came ten years after Leary presented it, not concurrently, so why he's not considered a valid source must still be questioned. Please read what Shibbolethink said above. Secondary contextualization must come from the mainstream stance on a fringe topic, not from the topic's proponents, and certainly not from people with zero relevant academic credentials. The eight-circuit model has not been discussed at all in mainstream scholarship (no hits on Gale or Scopus), which means Wikipedia cannot go beyond the very bare minimum in describing it and TNT is likely the only option. JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree \with JoelieJay on this one. Sorry to say, this page does not seem salvageable. And it's nothing personal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly concur with the consensus that the article as it stood was far too based on WP:PRIMARY coverage and was just generally problematic in tone. That said, there is not yet a clear, robust, and unambiguous, consensus on what should change, so the continued edit warring by multiple parties while there is an ongoing talk page discussion about the matter here (as well as an ANI report and an FTN discussion) is highly inappropriate and needs to stop, before Randy ends up not the only one having their conduct scrutinized by the community.

Now, personally, I don't see the value in TNT here: what longterm benefit do we get from temporarily deleting an article that is clearly based on a notable topic, thus greenlighting a near-future recreation of the article? Far better to just fix the tonal issues now, so the reader arriving here can learn what ECMC purports to be about, but with the right framing and additional context to make it's lack of empirical rigor or academic origin clear. I mean, honestly, I think letting the content of the "model" speak for itself at length actually does a lot to illustrate how much it is not based in science or factual inquiry, which is a good thing. We just need some outside discussion of the topic for context. I'm not convinced that there aren't RS out there that do this, especially in light of the fact that Viriditas has alluded at Talk:Timothy Leary to recalling some. It seems to me that even if academic literature in experimental psychology took no direct, serious interest in Leary's post-academic life writings (and that part is definitely overwhelmingly true), some expert or another who specializes in discussion of psuedoscience has got to have had a go at some point in the last fifty plus years.

Regardless, until there is a clear path forward agreed to here, the radical additions and deletions need to stop. Honestly, an admin looking to make a point easily could have blocked four or five people over this cluster of disputes already, so for anyone still participating in the back-and-forth on blanking the article, I seriously advise caution. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I am not seeing any edit warring going on. The editing is in agreement with consensus. Blanking the article might be somewhat outlandish at this particular time. The conflict with editing this article seems to have passed. Keep in my mind it can be restored to any version. But I agree with the current version - if I may speak for myself. Please don't be overconcerned. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I spent about two hours on Gale, Google Scholar, and Scopus trying to find anything related to this model in mainstream academic RS, and got nothing at all. If we can't contextualize it properly it absolutely fails notability (NFRINGE). JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

People are getting ahead of themselves. This isn't science, it was never intended as science, and as such, you're not going to find any mention of it in scientific sources. The eight-circuit model of consciousness is based on the ideas set out in Leary's monograph, Neurologic, which he wrote (or composed) while in solitary confinement in 1973 in California Men's Colony, and then sent by letter to Joanna Harcourt-Smith. On the very first page of this treatise which composes the basis of this subject under discussion, Leary introduces the reader with the following statement: "The theories presented in this essay are Science Fiction." In the appropriate context and framing, WP:FRINGE does not apply. This is literature, or a form of philosophy. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh, possibly i'm misreading here but that sure seems like a different story than the one you're telling on Leary's talk page. So over there on Leary's page you say it's WP:FRINGE, but here it's "philosophy" - which is, in your eyes, somehow exempt from content policies? - car chasm (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory in the context of science. But, it's not science, it's a form of literature that overlaps multiple genres, such as clandestine literature, philosophy, and speculative fiction. Leary himself said this model wasn't science, but science fiction, and as archivists and bibliographers have shown, he has worn multiple hats ("social scientist, activist philosopher, man-of-letters and entertainer") so this is consistent with his character. Further, we know from his publishing history that he was writing underground works of non-science during this phase in his career, such as entertainment and science fiction (Jail Notes, 1970; Confessions of a Hope Fiend, 1973; Starseed; 1973). This does not exempt this model from content policies, but is acceptable for Wikipedia given what we know about the work as non-science (in other words, it has to meet the requirements for published literature in a non-science context). As for whether you are misreading, you recently claimed experimental researcher and psychopharmacologist Roland L. Fischer was a spiritualist during a related re-categorization campiagn.[14] Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Leary "science faction" and Wilson guerrilla ontology? If so, how would the WP article reader know from this? fiveby(zero) 12:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Easy, just return the page and edit in that the work is science fiction (if an author says their work is science fiction then it's science fiction, according to Lazarus Long) and add categories pertaining to science fiction. What's interesting about your link is that Leary's 1973 work isn't in copyright, which makes it easier to quote larger parts of it. It seems that what we have here, to coin a phrase, is a failure to communicate - on my part, for not realizing that the page was about a science fiction work and not a fringe page. Robert Anton Wilson's book then expands on Leary's interesting sci-fi concept, assuring that the wheels, they go round and round. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not so easy, i think, given WP's content rules. It's such a small bite from the Leary/Wilson apple that in my opinion you can't really serve the reader here without ending up with an essay straying well beyond the OR limits. That's what some of the editors arriving here have been trying to do, find something that allows this to fit in the content rules but coming up blank. Maybe Exo-Psychology or SMI2LE might serve better as introductions for a general audience? fiveby(zero) 14:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

lol actually. Just got back on Wikipedia and found the complete destruction of this beautiful article. What I thought of, first thing, was that if Tim Leary were alive he'd give the deleting editor a loving hug, a great big smile full of warmth and joy, and give a kind laugh at the sad foolishness of those who do such things. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Fiction proposal

The discussion is getting somewhat difficult to read when it's so condensed to one side of the page, and it appears to have shifted topics, so I hope nobody minds me making a new section. It seems like we all agree that we won't be able to find academic WP:RS in cognitive science supporting Leary's model. @Viriditas: mentions that Leary himself considered this to be "Science Fiction" which might make the article salvageable. However, I'm not sure that adding in a note that this is science fiction and recategorizing is sufficient per MOS:INUNIVERSE.

At a bare minimum, I think if we want to keep this article, we need WP:SIGCOV in independent, (non-fictional) sources like biographers of Leary and Wilson, historians, etc. If those can be added to the article and the content rewritten making heavy use of those independent sources, I think there's justification for keeping the article, though almost all of the current content will need to be paraphrased to be in an out-of-universe perspective.

However, if we can't find those sources either, there still might be a way to keep most of the content of the article, even if the article itself needs to be redirected. Generally there are fewer restrictions on material that's covered as part of a summary of a book. If the books where Leary and Wilson discuss this theory don't all have wikipedia pages yet, they probably do meet WP:NBOOK, I think Leary's books at least pass on his own historical significance. If Neurologic is the main place Leary outlines this model, that article could be created and Leary's description of the model could be put there, with this page as a redirect to Neurologic. Similarly, Wilson's books where he makes his own additions to the theory (Quantum Psychology? could have the content from Wilson's books transferred there.

What do you all think of this idea? - car chasm (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm:, just a heads, you neglected to sign your post immediately above. Would you do me a favour and delete this paragraph when you add the sig? Thanks!

These thoughts were originally constructed in response to fiveby's last comment above, but they fit well enough here, so I'll edit and place them here, where they might support CC's effort to refocus the discussion. I do agree that this situation presents us with particular challenges, when it comes to describing a work that (if the current reading is correct) intentionally blurred the lines between fictional and empirical writing. Nevertheless, I know of no policy which allows us to throw up out hands and altogether excise an otherwise notable topic, simply because we are having immediate difficulties in figuring out how to draft content that accurately relates it to the reader, particularly when there are no obvious insurmountable obstacles to doing so.

Furthermore, I've done some searching myself today, and did not find the complete dearth of coverage of this topic that was suggested, even with regard to scholarly works. (Just a little tip: start with Google Scholar. I know there's still a lingering bias towards the portals that became, and in many research contexts remain, the bread and butter for a couple generations of researchers, but google is the great aggregator today). There actually was a fair bit of coverage out there in RS, though much of it is not super in-depth, and to be certain, not everyone was "in on the joke", so to speak. Mixed in with the sourcing treating it as a counter-culture talking point are some who present it as legitimate neuropsychological speculation. Others clearly identify it as a form of mysticism (or else 'magick'), or analyze it from an anthropological or media studies perspective.

To be certain, the more based in hard science/fields connected to the "model" (neurology, experimental psychology) that a given source was, the more likely it was to mention the model incidentally. On the flip side, no sources that I found expressly identify ECMC as a work of science fiction, but several did clearly label it as a work of something like transgressionist art more broadly, indicating they were aware that it was not meant to be taken purely at face value. But my overall take-away is that even if we can only use an observation here, and a clearly attributed statement there from among these sources, it should be more than sufficient to create a lead (and if necessary, other introductory sections) which clearly contextualize the work for what it is. If that is accomplished, I am far less concerned about the impact of having in-depth coverage of what the model purports to be about, in its own written terms. So long as we relate that even Leary would advise you to contextualize it as a creative rather than empirical work, then we have done our job in providing the reader with the correct frame for interpreting the content.

Speaking to the side issue raised by Car chasm, I have no strong position with regard to whether any of this should be discussed in the present article or moved to an NBOOK article. I do think keeping it one space has the advantage of allowing us to integrate discussion of the contributions of the multiple authors who collaborated on this concept, be it art or pseudoscience, but that's not necessarily the most important factor. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Coming up blank" was poor wording, not throwing up of hands but move to SMI2LE and expand has been my proposal. McCray i think does a good job of describing the relationship to science fiction so not sure editors are reading that Groovy Science chapter. But that proposal isn't gaining any ground so i'll bow out. fiveby(zero) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fiveby I think yours is a valid proposal. Don't give up the ship! I have been trying to read the article you mentioned. I just haven't had the chance. But I will get to it. For anyone interested here is a link via Wikipedia Library: Timothy Leary’s Transhumanist SMI2LE. Please notice on this page there is a PDF download available on the right in the TOC box. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The proposal is to create a SMIL2LE article and merge content on this topic into it? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to read the article first and determine what is needed for sourcing, if we were to try to merge into a SMIL2LE article. If such a merge works I don't have a problem with that. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See also Neurologic (book). It appears that the concept of the seven or eight-circuit model was spread out over at least five books, quite possibly many more, including at the most basic level: Neurologic (1973), Exo-Psychology (1977), Cosmic Trigger (1977), The Game of Life (1979), and Prometheus Rising (1983). John Higgs makes the argument that the idea goes all the way back to his original work at Harvard and is Leary's magnum opus when one takes a wider view of his entire body of work. It's difficult for me to see that, but I'm trying to understand that POV. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

24-page booklet called Neurologic that is aguably Leary's most important work..his prison version has qualities that later embellishments are lacking Higgs seems much more interested in the earlier versions, ..number of radical changes to his eight circuit model...now claimed that it also described the evolution of a species through time...product of Leary's main strategy for regaining his credibility: that of seeming to concentrate on issues other than psychedelics... etc. Model moving from a psychedelics to a SF space migration and evolution version? Good stuff probably. Can't link the source tho.fiveby(zero) 16:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, great points @Fiveby: I abandoned that line of investigation when I realized there were no online versions of the original available, and frankly, I wonder if any exist outside of collections. But, I don’t think there’s all that much difference between the 24 and 44 page versions, other than a lot of added content. In other words, the original version was just shorter and more simple, but the longer version still includes that original material. Horowitz clears some of this confusion up in his bibliography. I will add more Higgs later. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise Has some advantages: the relationship to SF can be clarified, more sources available, more potential for expansion, and the reader would not be left wondering what these "post-terrestrial circuits" are all about. Call it a suggestion instead of a proposal. fiveby(zero) 14:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

While there is good potential for a SMILE article and even other new pages, and some good comments here, I think that this page should continue as a stand-along article due to its importance in Leary's and Wilson's work (see the "magnus opus" comment above which seems to fit). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I hope there's no opposition to my edits? Because such opposition won't make much sense. I had received a ping from someone in some ANI thread but failed to find the comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is opposition, your good faith and well-meant edit pretty much destroyed the page. It should be reverted, although many here will agree with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as Randy noted there is some opposition, but there is more support for the article as is via consensus.---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby:@Snow Rise: I have read half-way through the SMI2LE article and I think SMI2LE (as a topic) can be a stand alone article. This particular chapter, for which fiveby provided a link, can be used as an acceptable reference imho. (Here is the link again: [15]). Also, I was briefly looking at the end of chapter notes and saw more than 100 references there.

So, I'm thinking that surely there must be other works in those notes that significantly discuss SMI2LE. Now that I think of it, I will set up an article for SMI2LE in my user space that can be written, beginning with this chapter as a reference. Anybody is welcome to join in and help out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. Here is the link to the article in my user space: [16]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The ping was from my comment preceding this one. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm: -- As stated above, the Neurologic (book) article has been created. If the independent sources in the bibliographic section discuss the "circuit model" they might be useful for whatever is decided about the "Eight-circuits" article here. Also, if we could find one independent reliable source then we could merge "Eight circuits" into Neurologic or somewhere else. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Viriditas is to be commended for a very fine piece of encyclopedic prose, especially given the short turn around on the composition. I think it very adequately captures all of the context Leary's work and the theoretical/mystical framework for which it served as an origin point. I'm not certain whether it will ultimately be the best course of action to merge this article into that one, but the base we would be working with in that article certainly makes it a possibility. I would particularly like to hear Viriditas' perspective on the advisability of that course of action before we head too energetically down that road, though. If nothing else, the excellent job in outlining the background of the evolution of Leary's "Psy Phi" concepts will be useful (by way of an internal link) to the reader of any related articles on that topic that do end up being preserved (if any).

I can't speak for everyone, but this approach feels like our best opportunity to thread the needle between providing context and avoiding POV, describing Leary's work in a manner which provides the reader with the tools to decide for themselves whether this is psuedoscience gobbledygook (which, to be honest, is closest to where I fall on it), or brilliant observation, unsanctioned by the academic establishment, but full of higher truth. Honestly, without wishing to point fingers or disorder discussion just when we are getting somewhere, there was, in some of the previous discussions, a little too much of some advocacy for tailoring the content to fit the narratives of those extremes, when Wikipedia's role is really to provide as much information and context as possible to allow the informed reader to arrive at their own conclusions. I think Viriditas' approach here is a stellar example of how to do that, at least with regard to the one narrow subject (the book in question) within a cluster of Leary-oriented topics.

So, hopefully, as Steve says, we can build upon this with the right sources. I will aggregate what I found the other day to see what can be useful towards that end, once I have opportunity to sit at the right computer. I apologize that I have been slow to respond to some posts the last day or so, after proactively involving myself in the ongoing dispute: homelife emergencies dictated my time and may yet for the next couple of days, but I will at least try to supply those sources asap. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

To me, your intuition and rationale are sound. If one assumes this model is scientific, then yes, it must be viewed as fringe, pseudoscientific gobbledygook. I can’t imagine any way around that conclusion. I’ve noticed that up until 1969 (perhaps even later), Leary sounds remarkably lucid and cogent. After this time, for whatever reason, his ideas sound and look more like poetry and performance art. Confused about this change in his approach, I just did some reading about Leary’s arrests, prison time, escape, Nixon’s obsession with Leary as a way to misdirect the public, Leary’s exile in Europe, extradition, re-imprisonment, and the government’s framing of him as an informer. All of this clearly had an impact on his state of mind, but the most unusual thing I read about was how much and how frequently Leary used LSD and other drugs during his exile. For the two or so years he was on the run, Leary did not appear to have ever sobered up. In the way Minutaglio (2018) depicts it, Leary was high on acid for months or years at this point, only coming down when he re-entered the prison system. This must have had an impact on his thinking and writing. Having read Neurologic several times now, I get the impression of more of a Greek elegy or a political position paper informed by a personal philosophy than I do of a scientific proposal. While this constant high is conducive to some form of creativity, I don’t think it helps with the precision needed for a sober, scientific approach. Perhaps some drugs like stimulants might work for unique individuals like Paul Erdős, who would focus intently on obscure and esoteric math problems, requiring a kind of laser-driven concentration to accomplish their goals. My point in bringing this up is that Leary’s state of mind while expounding on the seven (later eight) circuits does not appear to be scientifically oriented, but rather more of one approaching religious ecstasy driven by entheogenic drugs. I am quite familiar with the counterculture literature from this time period, and I just don’t see how it can be seen as a serious scientific work. I think what we are really dealing with is an early form of transhumanist philosophy in the form of a style of literature that likely has a precise, scholarly definition that escapes me at the moment. The eight circuit model is already appropriately discussed in the Timothy Leary#Post-Millbrook section in this context, so unless that section is split out as a history sub-topic, I think this article should redirect there. That’s just a suggestion, as there is no permanent solution; I think the alternate suggestions by others up above are as valid or more than my own. I could also see this material replicated in different articles focused on the history of Leary, the history of transhumanism, and other topics as outlined above. . Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, notably '69 is about a decade after the start of Leary's use of psychedelics, with significant sustained periods thereafter. It's hard to contemplate a realistic version of the explanation for these works that doesn't include the impacts of that habit as a significant factor. But then too, we're also talking about a man who is being held in solitary confinement, who has had to quite the same drug habit (quite possibly very suddenly), and whose world has recently very much come apart in major ways. Now, I wouldn't venture to speculate as to how genuine Leary's claims that he was being psychologically tortured and deprived of sleep actually were, but I think it's safe to say at least that his circumstances were uncomfortable and difficult in the extreme. It's clear at a minimum that the writing that resulted was not put forward by Leary as an empirical work, whatever it's biology-adjacent features. Though arguably it has been received by some as a legitimate work of scientific inquiry purporting to map to neuropsychological principles, that is not the root of the book's (or the "model's") coverage in reliable sources.

Of course, we have to be careful here not to venture into OR in how we justify our editorial decisions. But sources do discuss some of this, and even cover the link between Leary's circumstances at the time, and the written work that resulted from this period of incarceration. So I think we can at least partially embrace your assessment of the work in objective policy terms. This cuts a little both ways, though more in one direction than the other. On the one hand, this only heightens the original concerns here, regarding the previous draft being too based in primary coverage, thus covering the topic on its own written terms, so to speak. And on the other hand, it signifies why we wouldn't expect to see coverage of this topic in scientific literature, but why it nevertheless has substantial notability arising from other coverage. Mind you, that was my outlook from the start, but the extra contextualization of your Neurologic article and your observations above has only sharpened this perception for me. I note this detail also because of some of the lines of discussion at ANI. I do think that aspect of the debate is thankfully going to end up being a moot point we don't have to resolve, but for the record, my take is that, if we wanted, we could easily source a neutral version of the article that has something to say about the topic while being consistent with NPOV and FRINGE.

So the question is, do we want to? My perception is that the consensus is leaning strongly against it. I have been agnostic on the question of an independent article up to this point, but at least three or four others here think that merging any useful content into one or two other articles is probably the way to go. With you tacitly joining that consensus, and my opinion on the matter divided, I'm certainly not looking to drag the matter out further. That leaves just Randy, as the one party firmly in the independent article camp. Now maybe some here feel we should take a little more time and work through proposals before rushing to a decision: that would also get no argument from me. But I'm trying to read the room, and I get the sense there is support for deciding on a merger solution right now.

So perhaps a straw poll, asking whether to retain this article or merge the content elsewhere? If merge wins out, we could just then take it a piece at a time, moving statements to the talk pages of the relevant articles and proposing additions, and evlauating the sourcing for those statements on a case-by-case basis. If keep wins out in the !vote, I guess we'd be somewhat back at square one? But that seems less likely. Anyhow, I don't see the need to RfC it, since we have five to seven people willing to !vote, most likely. But if Randy wants the extra eyes, that would be his prerogative to make a filing. I'd ask he not do that, because I don't see how it would do anything but prolong debate without being likely to change the outcome, but no one can force him to aver the use of the process if he wants, imo. Then again, this whole discussion arguably should take place via AfD anyway, and that would obviate the need for an RfC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

TLDR on the post above: is there support here for a straw poll (or a formal AfD) asking whether to keep this article or merge select content into another article (or articles)? It feels like at this point we have the info necessary to come to a consensus, but there's also not necessarily a rush. Thoughts? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see the model being viewed in the way you and Viriditas propose, and I think that's reasonable. But the issue is still how to describe it using independent secondary sources. Whether it purports to be scientific or mystic/mythic/philosophical/artistic, the ideas are still constructed in a way suggestive of a scientific model, and it would absolutely be misleading to readers to retain that without context. And while it's given SIGCOV in works by Alli, Wilson, et al, as far as I know they do not actually provide that necessary context either (on top of being non-independent as associates of Leary, and generally unreliable as occult nonsense). Also, Wikipedia still regards mystic New Agey philosophy as fringe, so it's not like recategorizing ECM as that will relieve us of FRINGE concerns. If no one outside of that area has characterized how the model is/should be interpreted, we're still back at square one. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would describe it as an example of late psychedelic literature, with elements of eastern mysticism and early transhumanist philosophy in the releated genre of prison literature. Unfortunately—and there's no way around this—it must also be categorized as pseudoscience, since Leary and other authors claim that this eight circuit model is an example of a new theory of evolution, which the so-called "Eight-Circuit Model of Consciousness" attempts to explain in "scientific" terms. To those of us who are not high on acid at the moment, this is no different from the Time Cube theory. And I should like to emphasize for the second time, that Leary came up with this idea after taking LSD almost every day for several years while in Europe. This is generally not the best way to do the hard work required to compose a sound scientific theory, and if memory serves, there are quite a number of studies on LSD and creativity that demonstrate this claim. In other words, LSD is good for coming up with new ideas, but not for doing the hard work needed to make those ideas work in the real world. Leary did the former, but failed to accomplish the latter. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Time Cube was exactly what came to mind when I clicked on that ref to earthportals.com JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems more a theory of Leary than a theory of evolution: mindmap, 5 level/brains/circuits, 7 circuits and time, 8 circuits and space migration. Instead of refinement of some theory, a concept used to explain himself at different times. 7 circuits and what drugs activate which, then when he wants to downplay the LSD and drug stuff in 1977 the "model" undergoes a radical change and part of SMI2LE. fiveby(zero) 14:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

> "And while it's given SIGCOV in works by Alli, Wilson, et al, as far as I know they do not actually provide that necessary context either (on top of being non-independent as associates of Leary, and generally unreliable as occult nonsense)." - To paraphrase Horace, 'Why do you laugh? Change the name and the story is about [Relativity].' Anyone who supported Einstein's theory could just as easily have been dismissed as his 'associate', therefore 'non-independent' and 'generally unreliable' as purveyors of what a Relativity-denier called Grundsinnlosigkeit, complete absence of basic sense. – .Raven  .talk 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like most organizations, runs on social consensus - enough people have accepted Einstein's theory for it to be accepted by the broader community, it's received no shortage of coverage from people with no background in differential geometry. If the only people who published papers about general relativity by the 1960s were Eddington and Hilbert, the hypothetical 1960's wikipedia wouldn't have an article on it, either. But if after fifty years the WP:CHOPSY test fails, and for a Harvard professor no less? There are far more ambiguous cases. - car chasm (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

1) WP:CHOPSY is (part of) an essay originated by drs. Tudor Al. Georgescu, who on his userpage self-quotes: "In many countries if you exercise critical thinking you land in jail. Or you will get lynched by an angry mob." I note that this is not praise of "running on social consensus".

2) After I'd read new articles on Plate Tectonics, I brought them up to my trusted teacher, who denounced the idea as nonsense. After I'd visited Argonne National Labs and held a vial of xenon tetrafluoride (XeF₄) in my hand, I mentioned that to my chemistry teacher, who replied, "Impossible: The Noble Gasses Do Not Combine!" The year after men first brought back rocks from the Moon for analysis, I attended the AAAS convention in Philly and got to ask Harlow Shapley about the new proposal that the Moon had begun as an outflung piece of the Earth (the chemistry matched), quite possibly after a collision. He reassured me: "Pure Velikovsky, dear boy, pure Velikovsky." (He was a famed critic of Velikovsky two decades earlier.) But now, half a century later, see giant-impact hypothesis, the first explanation offered at Origin of the Moon. So I'm keenly aware of Clarke's First Law. But note what these examples have in common: like Relativity, they involve the physical sciences, where clear and solid disproof, falsification, may, just may, come quickly.

3) Theories and models of the mind can be rather different in that respect: Psychoanalysis was categorized as unfalsifiable (thus not science but pseudoscience) long ago by Karl Popper, and even by former psychoanalysts. (See this reprise.) It's on our own list of topics characterized as pseudoscience {do look at other list entries while you're there!}... but we still have a full article about it, with Freud himself cited in 17 of the first 50 footnotes, and many associates (some would say disciples) cited in others, which per JoelleJay's rule are "non-independent" hence "generally unreliable". Where is the parallel effort to treat that article like this one, remove cites and the text citing them, until it's small enough (one sentence, one cite) to drown in a bathtub?

4) In fact, it is entirely within our mission statement as an encyclopedia to cover topics like pseudosciences, fallacies, superstitions, scams, hoaxes, and frauds — it is a public service to do so — because here we can provide a) enough coverage to be sought out for reading, and b) neutral coverage [even on "fringe" topics] so we're not rejected as biased, and c) honestly-brokered information on all sides so that readers are fairly warned of the pitfalls. If readers find nothing about them here, perhaps they will at a scammer site.

5) That's why we shouldn't "stealth delete" Psychoanalysis by whittling it down to nothing – readers who find it elsewhere on the web might not get such neutral coverage, or warnings of its flaws. *** The same consideration applies to this article.*** The cure for bad ideas is more information, not less. – .Raven  .talk 18:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing sources and topics here. WP:FRINGE is why we need an independent source on Psychoanalysis, it's not a directive to purge all mention of it from the site. This article's topic, however has minimal if any independent coverage, ergo it should be redirected. - car chasm (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

At the certainty of repeating myself a bit, the article now has "minimal coverage" of ANY kind, let alone independent, because roughly forty references have been deleted  from it, along with all but the first sentence. About 2/3 of the deleted references didn't feature Leary as an author. So what does "dependent" mean to you, other than you disagree with them?

By that reasoning, there are no "independent" sources supporting Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, or the Heliocentric Model, if you happen to disagree with them. That's a nifty dodge, really. – .Raven  .talk 02:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point WP:AGF strains credulity. If you can't understand WP:FRINGE, don't contribute to the project anymore. It's not my job to explain it to you. - car chasm (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "If you can't understand WP:FRINGE..." – The article which declares, "the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible" – so among the concepts it declares "fringe" are Newton's First Law of Motion aka inertia; the eternal inflation of the Universe; and time crystals? I understand that its writer(s) didn't know the difference between perpetual motion and a perpetual-motion machine, in short did not actually understand science. But you thump it nonetheless, because neither do you. – .Raven  .talk 04:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have issues with understanding the nuances of physics, Sabine Hossenfelder will explain these sorts of things to you for a modest hourly rate if you'd like, but, as I said, this isn't my job, I'm a volunteer here who primarily works in a different field of study. WP:FRINGE is a part of WP:PAG, if these sorts of hurdles are truly so insurmountable for you, you're best off contributing your time somewhere else. - car chasm (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "If you have issues with understanding the nuances of physics...." – This would be better directed to the WP:FRINGE writer(s) who asserted that "the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible", conflating the motion with the machine.

> "... if these sorts of hurdles are truly so insurmountable for you...." – Do you often display such reading comprehension problems?

> "WP:FRINGE is a part of WP:PAG" – And it's a pity that despite all your thumping it, you understand neither its factual errors nor its normative guidelines. – .Raven  .talk 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation, hidden by mutual consent

(Redacted) > "especially adding paragraph lengths of someone else's words." – Where? Clearly you didn't read the text you declared TLDR. – .Raven  .talk 18:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC) (Redacted) Yes, you're wrong. 2) first discusses my own experiences and quotes short single sentences by two of the other individuals I mentioned; then links (but does not quote) several articles; and finally wraps up with a note about physical sciences and falsification – which last bit certainly is not an original observation with me, but for that very reason seemed noncontroversial enough not to need citation. I suspect there may be quite a difference in our ages. By contrast, the first half of 3) is cited by links to sources, to show these statements are factual and NOT imagined by me. The last half concerns statements you may have seen before because either JoelleJay or I said them (the previous time, rather than just say "17 of the first 50 footnotes", I listed the footnote numbers); ring a bell? – .Raven  .talk 19:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC) I apologize. My mistake is definitely due to some of what you just said. I will redact my last two posts. Thanks for communicating. Also, today, I am experiencing some stress personally. I definitely should have been more careful here. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) And thanks for analyzing the situation. That was helpful. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Also, feel free to hat this conservation, if you so desire. It might be off-topic or something like that and interrupts the flow of the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Straw Poll

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus from this discussion on what to do with the page. Straw polls are generally not going to attract the necessary attention or have the broad advertisement present with AfDs that will likely be necessary to form any consensus on this topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

---

This straw poll is an attempt to determine what to do with this page. I believe the presented options are redirect, merge, AfD or whatever else. Please ivote in this section and if need be, discuss in the section below. Snow Rise's several paragraph post just above this poll has more info for interested parties. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This topic is sufficiently covered with independent sources in the Post-Millbrook section of the Timothy Leary article. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect. Snow Rise, I think you are correct that it is time to make some decisions. So, after looking at Post-Millbrook section in the Timothy Leary article I think coverage there is sufficient. Independent sources have been applied there. So, for now I don't think any content from the "Eight-circuits" article, based on primary sources, needs to be merged over there. Therefore I recommend just making "Eight-circuits" a redirect to that section (for now). An AfD is not needed. A redirect preserves the content for future discussions on other talk pages. Simple, neat, and easy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2023 (UT

• Redirect. I think preserving the page history makes sense because it may be useful on other pages, and if anyone decides to write an in-depth scholarly history of the occult esotericism of the latter half of the twentieth century we can always have a full article, but it's just not possible right now to write something cohesive without a good amount of WP:SYNTH. - car chasm (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait SnowRise has more that he is going through, and Viriditas pointed to Higgs which is a helpful source and goes to addressing my comments above. fiveby(zero) 00:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC) .

• Keep, indeed Restore to status quo ante, or the version Randy Krin suggests, without the "stealth deletion" process that has reduced it to one sentence with one source (making a redirect look obvious). JoelleJay and Steve Quinn have both mentioned finding multiple non-Leary sources on Google Scholar – but JJ pejoratively dismissed them out of hand because they support or use this model, and therefore aren't reliable, therefore this article can't have RSs. By such partisan circular logic, Relativity would always have been relegated to "fringe", as only Relativity's deniers (like the one who declared it Grundsinnlosigkeit, complete absence of basic sense) could have been deemed "reliable", and all its supporters would have been deemed ipso facto "fringe" themselves.
  We have articles on religion, philosophy, pseudoscience, and even obsolete science like Phlogiston theory. We keep, rather than delete, them because readers may want to know about those topics. That isn't necessarily an endorsement of their premises by us. We even have articles about criminals and their crimes, presented neutrally, neither praising nor thumping the pulpit and heatedly denouncing them. But somehow THIS is a topic that must not have an article? How curious.
  WP:EDITING is still a policy; the "nutshell" says: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than remove it). This is pretty much the opposite of what has been done, stepwise deleting most of the value that others had added, and moving to delete the remainder, rather than adding whatever "fringe" warnings they felt were missing. – .Raven  .talk 14:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge. We should maintain the history but the content itself should be merged into the O'Leary article where non duplicative and DUE. Otherwise, much of this page does not comport with wiki policies on DUE and reliable sourcing. This is a pretty blatant POVFORK potential article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's still a potential to serve an educational purpose here and more sources turning up beyond those of the older content. Easily more so than Tim O'Leary! Probably will end up redirected but editors are still working on it.fiveby(zero) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Um. You meant to link to the British soap-opera character and not the psychologist, right? – .Raven  .talk 09:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Just making fun of the typo and pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF. fiveby(zero) 16:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Lumos3 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge. Per the various discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Partial merge and temporary redirect. My extended reasoning can be found here for anyone willing to wade through a tediously long breakdown of my analysis of the competing factors. I'll try to render it into a more concise summary here in the next couple of days, but for the sake of not contributing to holding this up any further, suffice it to say that I think there is a valid encyclopedic topic here that can and should justify an article at some point, but the pragmatic hurdles at the moment so complicate the WP:PAGEDECIDE analysis that that the most prudent and policy-consistent approach is make this namespace a redirect until some basic quality and WP:V issues are addressed in proposed content. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Partial merge and temporary redirect to Leary subsection or book article if it is created before that time. There’s been plenty of time for people to improve this subject, but it hasn’t happened. I am still not certain which book would be the easiest to source for this, and since the current state of this article is less than ideal, the temporary redirect to the Leary subsection is ideal at this time. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, since this is a model in the company of ancient traditional ways of defining and explaining human consciousness (please read all of the Buddhist, Hindu, and yoga articles etc. concerning the modeling of consciousness, viable stand-alone pages) it does not fit the definition of fringe. The model does not claim to be science or neither proves or asks for the existence or need for experimental replication, thus making no claims based on proof. It simply puts forward a modeling derived from the experiences and thoughts of Leary, and then further built upon ten years later by Wilson (whose writings, as I've discussed, seem applicable enough as a WP:SECONDARY source to fulfill Wikipedia criteria). Leary could be said to be either thousands of years behind or ahead of his time, and his model fits better with the ancient texts as seen through the prism of what he put his brain through (and honestly seemed to come out the better for, what a beautiful human being he was in life). His contemporary addition to the ancient literature, as later added to by the analysis and commentary of Wilson, does not fall within science and so has nothing to do with fringe. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, and especially the last point. If we can find a way to leverage our sources (which may be limited in number and scope, but are also not nothing) to frame the rest of the article in this way, focusing on the 8CMoC as a work of mainly esoteric conjecture, pulling in strands of scientific knowledge, but in ways that actual experts in the relevant fields would never consider empirically valid or factually descriptive, I think it would go a long way to potentially bringing the disparate perspectives here together. I've said, and still maintain, there is no harm in discussing Leary's notions on what the 8CMoC consists of. We just have to first make it clear this was a very unique man, in a very unique set of circumstances, conjuring some very unique ideas. If we do that, it is just as you say: WP:FRINGE ceases to be an issue, and suddenly we do not have to wring our hands nearly so much over WP:V, MEDRS, or weight of the sources, relative to others in the related fields that Leary borrowed terminology from. Even heavy reliance on the primary sources becomes of very little concern if we have already framed the topic appropriately in the opening sections. I think some of the sourcing JoelleJay has provided below go a ways to helping us create that context, especially when combined with what we can source from Leary biographies, including those already used in our Leary BLP. Perhaps Joelle knows of more quotes along those lines? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

New Age esotericism is still considered FRINGE regardless of whether it claims to be science (For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine).

Primary sources are still not acceptable as the basis of an article even if the subject is properly framed (The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources. [...] the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. [...] In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability.) Wilson, as a coauthor of Leary and proponent of his ideas, does not qualify as an independent secondary [source] of reasonable reliability and quality.

There may very well be enough material from Higgs and other biographers to describe 8CM with only secondary sources, but it will have far less detail than any prior version of the article and will require secondary sources explicitly characterizing it as a "non-scientific" conjecture if that's the route we want to take. I am not convinced that his model was actually intended or received (by adherents) as a purely psycho-philosophical manifesto. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Wilson, as a coauthor of Leary and proponent of his ideas, does not qualify as an 'independent secondary [source] of reasonable reliability and quality'."

Wilson was coathor with Leary of one book, The Game of Life; another five books he wrote without Leary are in the Bibliography and had been cited in the sections now deleted. It's said that in 1947, Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with J. Robert Oppenheimer; should we therefore conclude that neither was independent of the other in all their separate work? Would that be quantum entanglement? – .Raven  .talk 05:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "New Age esotericism is still considered FRINGE regardless of whether it claims to be science"

I note that New Age and Western esotericism (found in List of New Age topics as "Esotericism") have no such top-tags nor categories at the bottom;* also, just below the section title of New Age#Beliefs and practices appears the line:

Main articles: Spiritual but not religious and List of New Age topics

Perhaps you might want to read the first-linked article of that line in regard to our previous discussion, as a path to resolution. Recall the phrase "Eastern spiritual traditions" previously mentioned as among Leary's influences, but now deleted from the article.

* However, the category "Perennial philosophy" does appear at the bottom of New Age; attn: @LokiTheLiar: – .Raven  .talk 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keepish. I'm persuaded by Randy and Raven that this is a topic within New Age mysticism, and that it's therefore a page about spirituality/religion, not about WP:FRINGE science or any other kind of science. However, I don't like the old version of the article because it really didn't make that clear. On other similar religious topics (like New Age or Christian Science), we make very clear that these are religions or spiritual movements. This page is titled like it's a scientific theory, and we write about it in a way that doesn't make clear that it's not a scientific theory. The skeptics attempting to correct this are IMO going in the wrong direction: they're trying to write about it like it's a bad or false scientific theory instead of a concept within New Age mysticism / Leary's assignment of spiritual qualities to psychedelics. Loki (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I *did* remove "Hypothesis"... sorry, I'm repeating myself. – .Raven  .talk 06:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Most recent straw poll discussion

• Please do not post protracted discussions in the ivoting - straw poll area. Such discussions disrupt the area by dissuading editors from participating. Hence I have opened a new section. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• In response to Viriditas's post, diff here at 01:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC) the first comment is below: ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "There’s been plenty of time for people to improve this subject, but it hasn’t happened." – Rather, attempts to improve the article have been reverted (and complained about at WP:AN/I!), as deletion after deletion has blanked most of the text and references; in other words, efforts to WP:FIXIT have been heatedly opposed, even lawfared, by those who are doing the opposite. In that situation, to argue that the article should go away because it hasn't been improved is like arguing that an assault victim should be turned away because s/he's a mess. You want to see an improvement? Let's restore the article to this (my earlier suggestion) or this (Randy Krin's suggestion); and then add the more critical viewpoints others have claimed were missing (but not added themselves). That would WP:FIXIT, right? – .Raven  .talk 02:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn’t change my position, only the redirect target. My interpretation of your response is that this supports merging and redirect to the book article on Prometheus Rising instead of the bio on Leary, as the version you link to cites PR more than any other source. This also hearkens back to my earlier position, which is that we are still free to copy elements of this model to multiple Leary-related articles, leaving the issue of a primary redirect to either a book or the bio, so back to the same conclusion. If you think the primary target should be the book, that’s fine, but as a stand-alone article, it doesn’t really meet secondary source requirements like it should, but again, this could change. I offered Randy one of these sources pointing to Exo-Psychology in the hopes he could start an article on that book, but he declined to pursue it. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  One of the complaints about this article has been "the majority of the sources are from Leary rather than from secondary source coverage. That's the crux of the issue", Leary being a primary source on his own model – while in the version I suggested, Leary's a minority of the refs. Now you suggest redirecting to the article on Wilson's book instead – but Wilson's a secondary source on Leary's work. What's wrong with having a majority of secondary sources? – .Raven  .talk 04:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• The problem as I see it is not sourcing, and I don't think Viriditas (who after all, originally came to this discussion specifically to say that there was more sourcing out there) is saying that either. The issue is with the content itself--the distance between where it is and where it needs to be, and the time it will take to make it even remotely policy compliant. I looked at about thirty different versions of this article while reviewing this dispute, including the two you just cited, and not a single one of them was anywhere near acceptable in terms of how it presents the fringe science involved here. We simply cannot have a live article about a subject that comes down to new age mysticism that says there are circuits in the human brain that anticipate the next step of human evolution (that's the opposite of how evolution works relative to the arrow of time), based on concepts developed by a man in solitary confinement, coming down off of a decade of LSD, while said article fails to provide the appropriate context and presents the resulting concepts as if they are mainstream science. We're just not going to do that--it's WP:UNDUE, WP:UNVERIFIABLE, and insanely WP:FRINGE.

Now Viriditas and I both want this to be a temporary affair, and have expressly said as much in our !votes. I gather from fiveby's comments that they also favour an article here, in theory. I think even Steven would not stand in the way of a large re-expansion of the article, if the right quality controls are met. If Randy, or you, or any other editor wants to sandbox a policy compliant version of the article, I think it is clear there will be strong support for it. Heck, the discussion is not even closed yet: you still have time. But so far, neither Randy nor you have done the necessary legwork to demonstrate what that article would look like, and confirmed that the sourcing and a reasonably verifiable approach to the content does in fact exist. WP:FIXIT/WP:BOLD does not remotely say that content has to be kept live if someone has a theory that it can be improved to be made consistent with policy, when it currently isn't; it merely says that you are encouraged to fix something if you can. So if you can, do.

Now, on arriving here, I pushed hard (against the consensus at that moment) for the position that this was in fact a WP:NOTABLE topic. I stand by that perspective, and I think about 2/3 of the participants in this discussion now support it. But WP:N is not the end of the analysis on whether or not a subject gets a stand-alone article. It is the start. A subject must still meet a feasibility/best approach test, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That is where the argument for a standalone article is floundering here. If you want to make the showing that the present shortfalls can be remedied, then do it. But Viriditas is right: we've had a decade and a half of the article on the acid-powered space pioneer precog theory of time-travelling neurobiology presenting the concept as legitimate science, and frankly, its not reasonable to expect everyone here to assume that this is going to be immediately rectified if the article is restored to where it was a few weeks back. But you, or Randy, or anyone could still WP:FIXIT in a sandbox tomorrow and, provided basic content policies were followed in the drafting, all evidence is that the consensus here would be behind you and the article could go back up with minimal delay. So do it, or convince Randy to bend his perspectives a little and draft within the consensus conclusions on the sourcing, or WP:DROPTHESTICK: those are really your only options, in light of the current consensus. The thing you're doing now (railing angrily against those who want those basic content guidelines respected) isn't getting us anywhere. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

> "neither Randy nor you have done the necessary legwork" – After watching Randy's work get repeatedly reverted, and a once over-20kb article knocked down to 1kb in repeated lump-deletions of as much as 5kb–11kb at a time, I'm not the least bit surprised that Randy stopped editing. I wouldn't want to waste my time working on edits I was sure would be reverted because people think the article simply shouldn't exist at all; that would be football à la Charlie Brown and Lucy.

If indeed, really truly, "the consensus conclusions on the sourcing" are that it needs MORE sources from a critical viewpoint, then WP:EDITING (notably WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:CAUTIOUS) and WP:FIXIT would suggest those of that opinion should have added such sources, rather than delete almost all the existing sources, and all but one sentence of the text.

In other words, restore that status quo ante and then add what you insist the article should include. Add, rather than subtract other people's work. – .Raven  .talk 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: the problem is not merely with the sourcing, it's also--in fact, more so--with the content. The "status quo ante" version you want to restore is deeply problematic with regard to multiple core content policies. The next paragraphs after WP:PRESERVE are WP:WONTWORK, which make it expressly clear that minority viewpoints supported by weak sourcing (i.e. at least the majority of what was removed in this instance) are not fit for preservation. WP:IMPERFECT does not require deeply flawed content to be preserved in perpetuum, and in fact implicitly requires that editors feel the article can be improved. WP:CAUTIOUS merely urges us to discuss changes: there has been abundant discussion about what the best approach here is. And your interpretation of WP:FIXIT, as I just mentioned, is clearly nowhere near what that policy actually says: it contains no mandate for other editors to support the preservation of flawed content--it merely authorizes you to fix problems that you feel you can fix, if you wish. And, again, no one is standing in your way.

Now, do I think that some small portion of the version you just linked could have been preserved at the outset of the dispute between randy and others? Maybe a portion. But the majority of it, as written, simply is miles away from compliant with basic content policies. And I certainly at this juncture understand why the consensus is that the only way forward is a redirect for the time being. But for the nth time: if you want to write a version of it that is, just do it. Only one person has shown interest in closing the discussion soon, and even they have said they are going to wait at least seven days before requesting a close. Sandbox it. Hell, if you want to draft and add content to the article right this minute, and it complies with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE, and someone reflexively removes it, I'll support you. The version you keep citing is clearly not acceptable, in numerous ways. But if you can make a version of it work, more power to you. You'll have my support and my compliments. But if you're not willing to do that, you need to let this go. Because we are going around in circles at this point, and I don't believe I am speaking inaccurately for the majority of editors here when I say patience will eventually run out on the WP:STONEWALLING of what seems to be a firm WP:CONSENSUS. I'm probably the person most sympathetic to your and Randy's take here, and even I'm getting exhausted now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, first attempt posted. Restored diff 1151305552; converted refs to cite and sfn templates; added a few, including text about reactions from wiki-article Neurologic (book). Incorporated June 2023 edits by @Randy Kryn: and @Lettherebedarklight:. Further references on critical responses welcomed. At some point those who insist this is "fringe science" should take more responsibility for documenting that claim, not WP:CENSORing what they dislike. – .Raven  .talk 19:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not drafting and reworking the content: all you did was restore a previous version of the article, comprised only of content already deleted by consensus. This version still is composed almost exclusively of primary, with the only two independent sources being a book by a "modern shaman" and a biography on Leary by a novelist and 'cultural historian', neither of which comes anywhere near satisfying WP:MEDRS requirements. The article still lacks any context whatsoever for the circumstances that give rise to the model, and still presents it as if it is a mainstream scientific concept. I'm sorry, but I can't fathom how you though this would 1) address the exhaustively discussed issues with WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE, 2) qualify as the kind of reworking I was talking about, or 3) be likely to move those forming the standing consensus to change their minds.

I'm afraid that for my part, all you have done is to confirm the consensus perspective of the majority here that the strongest advocates for this article are, with the current sourcing and existing approach to the content, unable or unwilling to present it in a form that anywhere near policy consistent, and harden my support for the position that a redirect is the only way forward at this juncture. This despite my initial and continuing position that there is at least a minimally notable topic in this subject and there should (theoretically) be a way to present it encyclopedically. Because if this is the best that can be generated at present, despite the laborious discussion about the issues above and the tone a policy-based article would have to strike, then no article is by far the more appropriate option, and I have to regrettably align with the consensus, for pragmatic/WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As I just said above, that (my very first edit to this article), was my first attempt. In my edit-comment there, as here, I welcomed further references on critical responses; since your group's claim has been that science rejects this model, surely you must have seen scientific sources that said so, therefore you could cite them. *I* was able to add a *journalistic* source out of that other wiki-article.

Instead, after I made my very first step to meet your invitation "to draft and add content to the article right this minute", adding citations wherever "citation needed" had been marked, and adding cited critical responses to Leary's work, even adding clarification that Leary blended concepts and metaphors from sources that were other than science – which you folks had complained were absent, but none of you had bothered to add yourselves – rather than ask for further text or documentation after that, or better yet adding it yourselves, all your group has done is delete the first of the very fixes the group of you had requested, indeed demanded; adding only a statement ("The model lacks scientific credibility...") that ironically you have offered no citations to verify – as the only reference you left after it quotes no "scientific" works, i.e. cannot verify that claim.

And that very first edit of mine there, my very first attempt toward addressing your concerns, has been met on my talkpage with an accusation of "STONEWALLING" [emphasis in original] (!!). Now I am forced to doubt the sincerity, the good faith, of both that invitation and those requests/demands, which previously I had assumed to be real. You and your group disappoint me. – .Raven  .talk 00:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

See my comments below. You are attempting to reverse the burden necessary on this project to maintain disputed content and change a consensus, particularly in the vein of fringe concepts. I WP:AGF that this is not intentional but I've run out of ways to describe the relevant standards, so I'm afraid I don't see the point in trying to thread the needle between your perspective and the majority's further. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

> "attempting to reverse the burden" – Cute. I cleaned up refs and added some, including not only all the "citations needed", but also one to support your position, which I tied to body text: "This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality. That blend has sparked criticism from some as "fringe" science or worse.[cited]" — text that, again, supports your position, but got deleted.

If you thought that wasn't enough, you could have said so, specified what else you needed, or yourselves added whatever cites you'd seen to support your position. What? Were there none else? Then on what factual basis do you hold your position at all? Or was it from divine inspiration? Whim? AM talk radio? Clairvoyance? I can't read your mind; neither can the reader. – .Raven  .talk 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

("The model lacks scientific credibility...") that ironically you have offered no citations to verify – as the only reference you left after it quotes no "scientific" works, i.e. cannot verify that claim. See WP:PARITY. I reused the source you originally cited--which actually did not support the accompanying text in the article--to instead verify that 8CM is indeed not considered scientifically credible and was not explored further by academics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, as regards "Further references on critical responses welcomed. At some point those who insist this is "fringe science" should take more responsibility for documenting that claim, not WP:CENSORing what they dislike.", that's not how this works, as you should well know by this point in your apparent quite lengthy tenure on this project: you bear the burden of making sure any content presented as mainstream science that you introduce/reintroduce/advocate for is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE--especially after you know it has already been challenged. Which includes, at a minimum, making sure that it is supported by reliable, WP:independent sources that meet our WP:MEDRS requirements. You knew that this content, as supported by these sources, had already been found to be deficient by the consensus here, so this is honestly starting to feel WP:disruptive. As far as I am concerned, you squandered an offer of help from the one psuedo-ally you had left on this talk page trying to find a way to maintain the article in the shortterm: reintroducing already completely rejected content was either a knowingly disingenuous response to my suggestion or a massive display of WP:IDHT as to the concerns raised by others here. Either way, you're on your own from here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

So the people who felt this was fringe can't or won't cite any reliable sources to that effect, even after *I* found one and used it to support the paragraph noting this topic had been criticized along those lines — a paragraph they deleted and replaced with a statement not verified by the remaining citation?

And rather than ASK for any further changes to the text as it stood, they simply blank most of the text again, including text which now had its "needed citations"? I guess those citations weren't really needed after all, since they made no difference to the result.

How can anyone expect their good faith to be assumed after behaving like that? – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is verified by the remaining citation, in fact the passage is quoted in the ref.

And you know full well that the issue with the text you reintroduced was not that it lacked citations. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's that ref text: Cultural historian John Higgs argues that Leary's idea of the mindmap exemplified by his book Neurologic is "arguably Leary's most important work", but was greatly diminished by newspaper accounts of his prison escape and related travails. Journalist John Bryan said that Leary sounded "like a Raving Madman from Outer Space. It was at this point that many of his former followers decided that Tim had overdosed—both on acid and on life."

Where does that support the new statement "The model lacks scientific credibility and has largely been ignored in academia." ? Bryan is neither a scientist nor an academician; he speaks for neither community. – .Raven  .talk 01:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the reference note again. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh and if you somehow still cannot understand that a "model" that derives from and relies on pseudoscientific New Age mysticism is obviously fringe, and that the total lack of engagement by academics is additional evidence the scientific community does not consider it worth exploring: here are some more characterizations of Leary's work as "lacking scientific credibility":

• from the very first, [Richard Alpert] and his associate, Timothy F. Leary, have been as much propagandists for the drug experience as investigators of it... The shoddiness of their work as scientists is the result less of incompetence than of a conscious rejection of scientific ways of looking at things.

Timothy Leary: A Biography, Robert Greenfield (quoting Andrew Weil), 2006, pg. 197.

• Leary also wrote [...] extensively about such subjects as exopsychology, neurologic, neuropolitics, neurogeography, and rejuvenation.

From the entry on Leary in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, William F. Williams, 2013, pg. 189.

• A once-promising researcher who abandoned the protocols of mainstream psychology for notoriety...
  
  Neuropolitics and Exo-Psychology were clear signs that Leary had strayed far from O'Neill's comparatively straightforward ideas, which were grounded in optimistic yet measured extrapolations of 1970s technology. It's difficult to determine exactly how people responded to Leary's two books. Contemporary responses were relatively rare and memories today are hazy.
  
  Leary incorporated another fringy ingredient besides space settlements and drug-enhanced mental capacity into his formulation for SMI^2LE.
  
  Was Leary's SMI^2LE program an example of 1970s "groovy science"? Can we even call it "scientific"? Leary presented few technical details, provided no blueprints for its realization, and shrouded his ideas in cryptic references to quantum fields and neurological circuits of consciousness. [...] In these ways, he differs sharply from "visioneers" like O'Neill who grounded their ideas about the technological future on detailed engineering studies and who published and occasionally presented research in professional scientific venues.
  
  Leary's ideas tapped into a potpourri of fringe sciences, including est, quantum consciousness, space habitation, and other topics that spanned physics, psychology, and the paranormal.

Groovy Science, ch. "Timothy Leary's transhumanist SMI^2LE", eds. David Kaiser & W. Patrick McCray, 2016, pgs 238–262.

• We have already noted that nineteenth-century religious movements were developed and systematized by way of evolutionary mythology. The evolutionistic framework has been similarly popular in the twentieth century [...] More importantly, it is a common theme in the literature of the new religious movements, as in Timothy Leary's seminal work The Politics of Ecstasy. Leary repeatedly links the use of LSD, spiritual evolution, the evolution of consciousness [...] He argues that the popular use of LSD heralds the next great evolutionary step for mankind.

Understanding Cults and New Age Religions, Irving Hexham & Karla Poewe, 1998, pg. 43.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And what prevented you from adding these to the article, perhaps under "Critical responses", rather than deleting what was already there?

ETA: Your refs are formatted and added.
You're welcome.
Will I now face further accusations? – .Raven  .talk 08:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of these are descriptions of Leary's proto-transhumanist ideas in general, not specific to 8CM. They demonstrate those concepts comprising what became 8CM were and are considered fringy/pseudoscientific/unscientific, but they are not detailed treatments of 8CM itself. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh? They're not relevant to the article? Then should we delete them? – .Raven  .talk 23:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes? The ones that are not used in the article should obviously not be in the article? JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So delete the refs along with the text they sourced, and now use that to justify deleting the sources also from the Bibliography which had been linked as "Please refer to the bibliography section for other works on labeling each circuit" (which now is not covered at all in the article)?

My goodness, if I tried that on other articles, how long before I'd get blocked or banned for WP:POINTY? – .Raven  .talk 05:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "a 'model' that derives from and relies on pseudoscientific New Age mysticism is obviously fringe"

Except the "New Age mysticism" was, as the article had said, "Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality" – e.g. "the Hindu system of chakras – which were and are not "pseudoscientific" but entirely NON-scientific, even religious.

Christian Science, which likewise makes claims about the nature of human life, is likewise not categorized as "psedoscientific" because it is all too clear that is entirely NON-scientific.

I could go on to truly contentious terrain – is it pseudoscience to claim that people rose from the dead c. 2000 years ago? – but I think my point is made already.

Now if federal dollars were proposed to support a Learyite clinic, there might be some need to debunk that idea. In the meantime, it's a philosophical, quasireligious idea about the psyche – categorized as "spiritual" at the bottom of that linked article Models of consciousness – and that seems like an appropriate category. Readers may even want to learn the details of what all the fuss is about; why shouldn't they learn those details here instead of somewhere else?

Do tell me you plan next to flag as "fringe", then massively blank, both Psychoanalysis and Christian Science, please. – .Raven  .talk 07:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality" was not supported in the source you linked. In fact, the page cited isn't even in reference to 8CM. But the source later does explicitly describe how 8CM was intentionally less spiritual than his earlier writings--the following passage is directly before the one I cited in the ref note:

Instead he went in the other direction, eradicating any vestiges of spiritual thought from his writing and aiming for a scientific, or pseudo-scientific, approach. This was evident when he attempted to remove religious phrases from reissued past writings. A sentence such as "The relentless web of Karma," for example, was somewhat tortuously rewritten as "The relentless web of Mind Mirror,"" and the meaning of the passage, to the casual reader at least, was lost.

This was evidence of an increasing atheism in Leary's philosophy. For Tim, the brain and nervous system were everything. He had no time for calls to any form of divinity beyond it. This is clearly illustrated in the addition of an eighth level to his consciousness levels mindmap, a system that now became known as the Eight Circuit Theory. People like Brian Barritt believed that beyond the seventh level was a profound experience that stripped you of your identity and merged you with some divine other, a "White Light" or "Godhead" that is familiar from most religious teachings. What Tim was doing with his eighth level was effectively reclaiming this experience as a product of the nervous system, describing it as some barely imaginable shift of consciousness to an atomic level, and thus denying the need for any form of external divinity.

Pinging @Snow Rise too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Atheist" is not "non-religious". Some branches of Buddhism allow the existence of gods, and some do not; none involve their worship. I'm an atheist and (completely consistent with that) a Religious Humanist. Non-theistic religions exist.

In any case, my edit included changing the short description from "Hypothesis..." to "Philosophical concept...", and adding "presented as psychological philosophy (abbreviated 'psy-phi')" to the lede — which you will note did not call it a "religion".

But then some people call Buddhism a philosophy rather than a religion. (Though I disagree.) – .Raven  .talk 19:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You said: "Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality"

"In the meantime, it's a philisophical, quasireligious idea about the psyche – categorized as "spiritual" at the bottom of that linked article Models of consciousness – and that seems like an appropriate category."

The source says that 8CM was a "scientific, or pseudo-scientific, approach" that disclaimed "spirituality". JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

While you quote Hexham & Poewe saying "More importantly, it is a common theme in the literature of the new religious movements, as in Timothy Leary's seminal work The Politics of Ecstasy."

So it seems even your sources' opinions differ on this. – .Raven  .talk 23:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Politics of Ecstasy was published several years before Neurologic and does not deal with 8CM. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That must have been a very short-lived "new religious movement", to die in just three years, 1970–1973. – .Raven  .talk 00:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... not that it lacked citations." So there weren't "citations needed" tags all over that article? And the text they tagged wasn't originally blanked as unsourced text? Because now you've blanked amply-sourced text. – .Raven  .talk 01:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue was and is that those are shitty sources that violate FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

But once you define a topic as FRINGE and never look back, automatically any source detailing that topic for the readers' understanding – say, a book on alchemy or phlogiston theory – becomes likewise FRINGE or perhaps PROFRINGE, right? So we can never have articles on those topics, either.

Of course there's no problem for sources that handwave those topics away without telling you any details about them, yeah?

That's the sort of filter or bubble that traps a lot of people. Tsk. – .Raven  .talk 10:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for obscure fringe concepts with little secondary independent coverage to be "detailed for the readers' understanding". Notice that the article on alchemy is not based on publications contemporary with alchemy or from modern alchemy adherents, and its status as a historical protoscientific concept is clear from the lead. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

However, the articles on Psychoanalysis, Creation science, and even Scientology, ARE based on contemporary publications — the first example heavily cites Freud, not merely contemporary but the "primary".

I would have thought that changing the scientific-sounding "Hypothesis" in the short description to a blunt "Philosophical concept", and noting in the lede paragraph that Leary himself presented it as "psychological philosophy" (he even used the abbreviation "psy-phi", which when spoken sounds like "sci-fi") and the paragraph that got deleted on Leary's sources (including "Eastern spiritual traditions", just might possibly have conveyed from the start that its status was not science (not even the "fringes" of science) but something else, as "philosophy" does not mean "science".

> "little secondary independent coverage" – It looks like you don't count Wilson and Alli as "secondary" and "independent". They did not come up with the concept, nor originally publish it; they're "secondary". They were not employed by, or otherwise dependent on or controlled by, Leary; they're "independent". Likewise the rest of the References section and Bibliography. – .Raven  .talk 20:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

...You're seriously interpreting my statement dismissing sources "contemporary with alchemy" as if I must then dismiss all sources "contemporary" with the topics they cover...

You sourced your attempt at de-sciencifying the article to a quote in Higgs' book that has nothing to do with 8CM, in a passage that does not discuss Eastern spiritual traditions at all but rather immediately follows Wilson's characterization of the proto-8CM ideas in Neurologic as a psychology/neuroscience concept ("I saw that he had synthesized everything of value in most of the major psychological systems of the twentieth century with everything I had ever heard about the current research on brain function, and he made it all suddenly, beautifully, coherent"), in a book that later states 8CM was part of an explicit effort to reject spiritual mechanisms AND that it was intended to reestablish Leary's scientific credibility.

There is a staggering consensus on this page that Wilson, Alli, etc. are not secondary independent RS, as evidenced by the many editors who have advocated removing the content cited to them. Close associates of Leary, like coauthors and friends, are not independent sources. People who contributed novel aspects of 8CM are clearly not secondary sources. People who are proponents of 8CM are not reliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Close associates of Leary, like coauthors and friends, are not independent sources."

Then no other early sources on Psychoanalysis besides Freud (the primary) can be cited, as he trained them in his system. In fact anyone who was trained in his system is dependent on that training to be able to discuss it, so no psychoanalysts can be cited on psychoanalysis... by that reasoning. – .Raven  .talk 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That the article on psychoanalysis is way over-detailed and contains primary sources does not mean that that presentation is acceptable. Primary sources are also fine when contextualized by secondary RS, and the majority of the sources in that article are not from Freud's contemporaries or acolytes. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

But others (including those already cited), would be reporting on Leary's idea (the meaning of "secondary") just like Wilson and Allis, and by your reasoning, if they *favor* his idea they're "acolytes" and shouldn't be cited; but if they report on it while *opposed* to it then they're "independent" and can be cited.

Sounds more like "favorable" vs. "unfavorable" than "dependent" vs. "independent".

So should all Wikipedia articles cite unfavorable sources but not favorable sources? Or only articles whose subjects you disfavor? – .Raven  .talk 01:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not 👏 the 👏 proclamations 👏 of 👏 its 👏 adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO, Wilson is not independent, but also your reading of WP:INDY is still way too broad. The opposite of independent on Wikipedia is third-party, not lacking an opinion. Wilson isn't independent because he directly contributed to the idea, and not because he liked the idea. If Wilson just wrote positively about the idea, he'd still be an independent source.

Your reading of that section of WP:FRINGE is also, IMO, tendentious: it's not about what we're talking about right now at all. It's about notability, i.e. which sources count for justifying an article's creation, and not about the content of that article once one exists. Loki (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "If Wilson just wrote positively about the idea, he'd still be an independent source."

Wilson wrote about a number of things in the books he didn't co-author with Leary:
(1) He wrote positively about Leary's idea; there he was an independent [secondary] source, as you say.
(2) He also wrote on his own ideas; on these he was the primary source, still independent of Leary. (If he'd been "dependent", would he have been permitted to thus deviate from Leary's labels?)

The same would be true if you or I or anyone else here wrote about the ideas of some other writer (not employing us), and then wrote about our own ideas, even if sparked by theirs.

In fact, Wilson wrote about the ideas of a number of other writers, ranging from James Joyce to Albert Einstein to Aleister Crowley, and used them as sparks to his own ideas (not to mention as characters in a novel), which he also wrote about; so was he "dependent" on them all? Not to be cited regarding them? – .Raven  .talk 05:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did I ever say Wilson was non-independent because he was a proponent? I said he was non-independent because he was a coauthor, and he is additionally not RS for this topic because he is an adherent of it. And what does The opposite of independent on Wikipedia is third-party, not lacking an opinion. even mean?? Independent and third-party are treated as virtually synonymous on wikipedia.

That section of FRINGE is absolutely relevant to what we are talking about right now. The discussion in this subthread is about the large swathes of text sourced only to adherents that were reinstituted by .Raven against consensus. I am reminding him that FRINGE literally says adherents are not RS, regardless of their independence from the author of the topic, and THAT is one major reason alongside non-independence and non-secondariness that Wilson et al are excluded as adequate sourcing for that content. JoelleJay (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "I said he was non-independent because he was a coauthor"

And I've pointed out that he co-authored one book, but solely authored five in the bibliography. How was he not independent in those five?

> "he is additionally not RS for this topic because he is an adherent of it."

That parses to me as "Favorable writers are not RS thus must not be cited; only unfavorable writers are RS and can be cited" — which is very nice for editors and readers disfavoring the topic, but lacks something for all other editors and readers.

> "FRINGE literally says adherents are not RS"

FRINGE literally says "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review". [e.a.] – .Raven  .talk 07:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• He was a coauthor and he contributed his own primary FRINGE ideas to the model.
• We don't write articles on FRINGE ideas based on the FRINGE perspective or for FRINGE readers, end of story. The views of adherents can still appear as they are reported in RS, but those views must still be contextualized by the mainstream stance. Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. What we cannot have is large sections detailing the model sourced only to uncritical repetition of adherents' views (e.g. the text you earlier reinstituted).

JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That's arguing that "views of adherents should be excluded from an article" on a fringe topic... the opposite of what WP:FRINGE says. – .Raven  .talk 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Earlier straw poll discussions

A "straw poll" on a talk page is not how deletion of articles at Wikipedia is done. That's at AfD especially for long-term articles. At the barest minimum the page should be brought back to most of this version, at least the short descriptions of each 'circuit' although the present short lead seems fine, for now and for any AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The only problem that I can see with that version, is the majority of the sources are from Leary rather than from secondary source coverage. That's the crux of the issue, which is why a redirect to the biography is a good short-term solution until someone can flesh out the article with secondary sources. Another, less popular solution, is to duplicate the eight-circuit model within each article about the five (or more) books which discuss it. I realize this sounds pedantic and confusing, but this problem is quite common. I've created articles that meet or exceed the threshold for secondary source coverage, only to have them deleted. Sometimes, I will leave them deleted, other times I might redirect to a better article, while still other times I will recreate the subject, which can be quite controversial or not, depending on the opposition. All I'm trying to say is that there's no one true way to solve this problem. You can approach it in a seemingly infinite (okay, not infinite, but it sounds good) number of ways. The best way in the interim, is to redirect to the bio. If you think you can do any of the above, then just recreate. This solves the time sink of constantly discussing it (this particular subject has been ongoing since at least 2011, as the talk page shows; that's ridiculous IMO) and gives you all sorts of ways to address it in lieu of having the extant article at this moment. You and I have participated in many, many articles together, in quite a peaceful and cooperative manner, so I hope you can agree that I'm not trying to push a POV one way or the other here, but rather attempting to solve the problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The problems with that would be the loss of the bibliography and External links related specifically to this topic. Readers coming here, and there are a lot of them daily, should at least have the brief summary (maybe not full but at least a good summary of the model) and then have the opportunity to become aware of the many books, articles, and other material available on this exact topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my above point. Would you be interested in helping to create articles about the books, which would preserve the links and replicate the relevant content? I think there's a possibility that you might be able to find the appropriate secondary sources with that approach, perhaps laying the groundwork for a future article. Just something to consider. Like I said, there's no one true way. As cliche as it sounds, there are many paths, all leading to the same or similar outcome. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This section concerns redirecting the page (a "delete from another mother"), which has to be decided by AfD and not here. The "at least keep the page" point I'm making is that this is a well-viewed article, and even a two or three sentence lead, which some editors have trimmed it down to, gives readers would data about the many articles and books which discuss the topic (there are way too many to consider this for a redirect, imo). And redirecting it just to Leary's page leaves out Wilson, who seems to be prominently included with this topic. Agreed about the many paths, yet the path of keeping this article in some form has the benefit of that bibliography, See also, and External links, which are important to this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're a gambler! Well, they will probably take this to afd, then. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd hope not, as there are at least some sources and, as I mentioned, the bibliogrpahy, See also and External links give it a boost. I don't see why anyone would take it to AfD actually, it is a long term and well written about topic. Not gambling, as at a minimum this would be redirected at AfD (but where, to Leary or Wilson or to one of the books). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

May the odds be ever in your favour. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but a straw poll is valid for developing consensus about an issue. There is no set in stone rule that says this or any other page has to go to AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, a redirect preserves the content of this page, and if deleted, the content will not be preserved. And, Snow is recommending that the content be available for future discussions on other talk pages (from what I gather). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to redirect from a talk page of a long-term article which has such sources, bibliography, and External links, would be something I haven't run across. Am questioning why you and others are so insistent on destroying this page. You're right that it shouldn't be AfD'd, but there is no reason it should be redirected either. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Randy. OK. Let's please discuss this on my talk page. See the section entitled "Straw Poll." This same issue seems to be coming up over and over and will dissuade others from participating in this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a very intuitive read, Steve: I don't think (unless I've forgotten it) that I expressly said as much, but keeping the article history and talk page discussion accessible is indeed a big factor in why I think the merge/redirect has advantages over a formal AfD and delete.

Randy, I really think you ought to view this as a bit of a gimme, all factors considered. This would not only see coverage of this topic expanded in other articles, and substantially ease the technical burdens for you or another editor if this article were to be re-expanded at a later date, but such an outcome would also include a partial existing consensus that there is no prejudice against recreating the article, provided that certain thresholds in sourcing are met, and the content meets certain conditions in terms of neutrality. These are substantial concessions to your position, especially in the light of the fact that you have not exactly shown a willingness to bend towards some clear consensus conclusions here regarding what is and is not due.

Honestly, other than trying to be even-handed in their interpretation of policy and the potential value of this article, there's no reason why the editors in the majority here should not just take this matter to AfD, as you are (perplexing) saying would be required, before a merger can take place. Ok, that's one read on policy, but it's not the best option for you, considering your priorities here. The selection of likely outcomes at an AfD (where you would start with a half dozen editors already prepared to !vote delete or merge), compared against the the likely outcome of a straw poll here (merger with the chance to revive a fuller article down the line, provided you don't base it all on primary sources), strongly militates for choosing the latter as the best way to try to preserve some hope for making a viable article in this space in the future--possibly the near future, if you can accept the agreement of consensus here about where the line between the primary and secondary sources is, and adjust your approach to the content accordingly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I for one didn't even know about this issue until car chasm brought the content dispute to AN/I. Now that I do, I'm seeing what Randy Kryn saw, a 20KB article cut down to 2KB, in which only a single sentence is left of the body text, and 95% of the references were deleted... which Boynamedsue called "stealth deletion" and "quite concerning"... and NOW the proposal is to remove what's left by converting it to a redirect. Whereas the option of restoring the full-length article and those deleted references, then adding MORE references (e.g. those JoelleJay snd Steve Quinn saw on Google Scholar) is at least as obvious. If editors feel it needs more refs than it has, adding rather than deleting refs is how to fix that. If editors feel it needs better notice to the reader of being "fringe", why not add that too? Deleting sourced content along with the sources is not WP's preferred methodology, last I heard. "Wikipedia is not censored", anyone? – .Raven  .talk 03:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are misstating the situation here. Article size has no relevance to notability of the topic. The references have not been deleted. They exist in different version of the page. It's also not about adding more references. It's about adding certain kinds of references that this page did not have in the first place. Saying "stealth deletion" is a mischaracterization. Stealth deletion implies that editors who are engaged in consensus editing are nefariously, intentionally, and underhandedly in the process of deleting this page with an unspoken hidden and cynical agenda. These types of editors would certainly be shirking policies and guidelines - and trying to get away with it. I guess we've finally been exposed. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "The references have not been deleted." – Special:Diff/1151305552 (23 April) has 41 references; Special:Diff/1158062505 (1 June) has 1 reference. If the word "deleted" does not express this change to you, how about "removed"? "erased"? "taken out"?

> "Saying 'stealth deletion' is a mischaracterization." – Really? Not only removing/erasing/taking out all but one reference, but also doing the same to all but one sentence of body text, over the course of five weeks, wasn't blanking out nearly the entire article, along with nearly all its sources? After which converting it to a redirect would be merely the coup de grâce ?

> "These types of editors would certainly be shirking policies and guidelines - and trying to get away with it." – Yes, including the very WP:FRINGE so often thumped in this discussion, e.g.:
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.   [emphasis added]
That is, creation science shouldn't be covered in articles on mainstream biology such as Evolution, but that's no reason to blank articles ABOUT creation science, or their sources.
Likewise, *** even if the eight-circuit model of consciousness IS declared "fringe" ***, that's no excuse to blank its sources, or body text; only to keep it out of "mainstream" articles.
IOW, the very editors who have been thumping WP:FRINGE have violated it.

> "I guess we've finally been exposed." – Yep. – .Raven  .talk 05:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And perusing your last three posts. I agree with what you said in the second one. You are essentially repeating yourself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Because I've written to players of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. – .Raven  .talk 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My friends and colleagues, as some of you will know happens with me from time to time, I have produced a wall of text below, despite telling myself I would only take time for a paragraph or two. I think it is germane to the subject and a fair summary of the current situation prevailing here, but looking at it, I can't help but think that leaving it unhatted would be problematic to the discussion / page readability, so I've taken the step of voluntarily hatting it. If anyone thinks it is important enough to unhat, I have no objections. And if someone decides to re-hat it after that, I object even less. ;D SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-hatted, by yours truly, because of the problems my rebellious and indefatigable fingers get me into. Responses (if any) should come outside the hat and at the next level of WP:INDENT. SnowRise let's rap 08:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Raven, I too have been in favour of keeping the article in some significant form, and agree that it is important we cover psudeoscientific topics irrespective of their reception in legitimate scientific literature, and even when they just have not been covered in said literature for obvious reasons: that state of affairs does not obviate WP:Notability or our mandate to create some informative content about the subject based on what sources do exist, provided a serviceable number that are WP:RS can be found. In fact, I would go so far as to call that second point an obvious truism resulting from several core policies. I also would have preferred if the removal of content had been restrained, gradual, and generally coming after a solid consensus, rather than before, as I feel somewhat happened here. So in several narrow but fundamentally important ways, I am closer to your and Randy's perspective on the situation than the consensus here. But that's also the key point: there is clearly a consensus now. It kinda developed ad-hoc after the edit war, but it's still pretty robust and obvious at this point. Here's the thing: notability does not guaruntee a standalone article, and the editors here have clearly decided that, at least for the present time, it doesn't make sense to have a standalone article here, until a better showing of sources, and a better application of their use, justifies it. And honestly, though the article getting merged is not my first choice solution here, I entirely understand why it is coming about. See, the problem is, there's only one person who has demonstrated both the motivation and the ability/familiarity to write this article, and that's Randy. Everyone else is at best one or the other (or neither). Even Viriditas, who seems to have detailed understanding of Leary's writings, does not think the independent article is the right approach. I am adequately familiar and would like to see the article expanded, but I don't have the time for that editing, and I have other content priorities when I can eek out some time. So it would be incumbent upon Randy (or you and Randy if your vociferous opinion here indicates a willingness to work on the prose) to construct any sort of article, and the problem with that is that Randy has leaned so absolutely into IDHT on consensus about some very basic policy matters that there's no way forward. He's more interested in contesting these restrictions that writing within them, and the consensus here is not to allow that. So discussion has been stuck in a stalemate, and now the result of that is there is now no shared middle ground to build upon, and those who support the consensus result are just willing to use procedure (quite legitimately, through a WP:PAGEDECIDE analysis) to enshrine the consensus through a merger proposal. If Randy would accept that Wilson is never going to be considered an WP:INDEPENDENT and fully WP:SECONDARY source, that would at least grant room from which to grow a consensus version of the article that maintains some more robust discussion of what the subject purports to be about. But Randy won't give an inch on that question (or on anything, that I have seen anywhere in this discussion, to be quite frank, as someone who arrived here from the ANI thread prepared to defend his approach at first). And I suspect from your comments at ANI that you are at best ambivalent to the question of Wilson's source, and possibly even in Randy's camp there as well. But let me put it this way. There's been about ten editors, give or take, talking about this cluster content disputes at the relevant talk pages and ANI thread. Among them there is a clear consensus that Wilson is unambigously a WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDEPENDENT source for this article. If you took another 990 average longterm editors from this project and broke them into cohorts of 10, at least 99 of the total 100 cohorts would agree with those conclusions. It's that much of a WP:SNOW issue. So the obstacles here are practical, and largely the creation of the article's chief advocate. I tried to bridge the gap by getting both sides to concede points they probably should, but the fact of the matter is that one of those sides represents a clear consensus, and they are tired of being stonewalled here, so they've reached the result they can live with. Randy has been determined to play for all the marbles, and that's the real reason why he is going to go home with an empty pouch, and only the second best resolution to this content issue will result. Meanwhile, the editors supporting the consensus outcome here cannot be blamed for choosing what they deem the best result based on the options presented to them.SnowRise let's rap 08:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thanks for your comments (& the hat). I'll try to be brief in reply:

• "the question of Wilson's source": You mean dismissing him as "dependent"? See the @Etippins: comment far up-page (20 Dec 2022): "... it's pretty clear that Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, and Antero Alli are three different people who wrote about this model." For one thing, if Wilson had been merely dependent, would he have made changes to the model in his own works? As for whether he's "primary": not when writing about Leary's original model. As for his own version? I've noted how often Freud is cited on his own idea, Psychoanalysis; why not cite Leary and the others on theirs?
• "If you took another 990 average longterm editors...": Hmm. As mentioned early in the AN/I thread, there seems to be a faction coming from FTN. Are you sure the proportions of opinion would be the same in a wider discussion?
• "... there is clearly a consensus now." Looking at the current !votes, I see 3 'Redirect's (one with a 'Merge' alternative); 2 'Keep's (one with 'indeed Restore'); and 1 'Wait'. By numbers alone, that looks like a 'no consensus'.
• But do "straw polls" follow the same rules as RfCs or AfDs? On those the rule is to weigh not by numbers alone, but also by arguments' fit to policy etc. A very short distance above your hatted comment, I noted that WP:FRINGE, so often thumped by the deletionists, in fact weighs against them. I won't re-quote its paragraph here; please look above. – .Raven  .talk 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)