Talk:R. Gordon Wasson

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs Unassessed (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hallucinogenics and evolution

According to a lecture by Hank Wesselman, Wasson believed that hallunicogens may have been the cause of human evolution. Can anyone cite a source for this or elaborate? Hank only mentioned it in passing. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page to Robert Gordon Wasson

The man's first name is Robert, not Richard as it currently reads. I refer to the following sources:

Contemoprary Authors Online
American Men & Women of Science. A biographical directory of today's leaders in physical, biological, and related sciences. 17th edition. Eight volumes. New York: R.R. Bowker, 1989.
Your local college card catalog.
Amazon.com.

Hence, I am moving this page to Robert Gordon Wasson and changing the lead sentence accordingly. --Rednblu 20:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of objectivity

This article is completely one-sided. Advocates of pseudoscience such as Wasson always have reams of vociferous critics, none of whose arguments are even briefly mentioned in the article. This may require a complete re-write. Bumhoolery 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of critics so did Galileo ,Coppernicus, Colombus, and Newton. Well it goes to show like most crtitics and bum Bumhoolery they are usually spouting judeo-christian dogma learned in sunday school. Scropio 75 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.10.194.130 (talk) 15:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I am an atheist who supports the use of entheogens. You suck at English. Also, Columbus was NO scientist. I'm very thankful that you apparently are not a regular Wikipedia contributor. Bumhoolery 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumhoolery, please take into consideration that there is no orthodox scientific answer as to the identity of soma. This is a valid anthropological question, but there is very little academical coverage on it. Gordon Wasson is a major and respected figure in its 20th century study. Of course there are alternative ideas, and anyone can click on Soma, and there you can read a very balanced overview of the main-stream surface of the subject, as far as I can tell. The same with Hofmann's theory about the kykeon. There are no very much more accepted theories. Even though it kinda doesn't work. I don't think that the article is one-sided. It is well balanced, and I find eat easy to read. It gives me the info and the links that I propably need if I typed Gordon Wasson's name in the search field. At least that's my experience. --Siphersh 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. What part sucks? A user of ethnogens who is an aethist? I guess where you live they must suck. I guess you have never been face to face with it. I would expect this from a 21 year old dork who constantly contributes online content, no one will read instead of getting a girlfriend? Try gettting out of from behind the computer and go experience life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.194.130 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Needed

This article doesn't cite sources, and it claims that a pseudoscientist has "revolutionized the understanding of the origin of religion." Leaving out the question of what that sentence even means, most of this article reads like a geocities fan page. And by the way, a lot of scientific visionaries have be derided or ignored because people did not understand or could not accept their ideas, but but much larger number of pretentious idiots have also been derided or ignored because their ideas make no sense. Jermor 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]