Talk:Roland Griffiths
 | A news item involving Roland Griffiths was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 October 2023. |  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Birthdate and age
editThe birth date and age of the subject are available online due to the government selling records to third party websites. However, I don’t think these sites themselves are reliable to cite. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Birth date sourced to A Livingston Genealogical Register. He is a Livingston on his mother’s side. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- His parents are “Sylvie Livingston Redmond, a writer who married William Griffiths Jr. in December 1940”, as listed on his grandfather’s page, Roland L. Redmond. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Middle name
editSourced to his dissertation published by Dissertation Abstracts International. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
To do
edit- Identifies as psychopharmacologist
- Chapter 5. Carpenter, Murray (2014). Caffeinated: How Our Daily Habit Helps, Hurts, and Hooks Us. Penguin. ISBN 9780698148505.
Current research:
- Microdosing
- Creativity
Since his terminal diagnosis
editThe NYT has an interview with him, and further coverage may appear in NYT and other media.-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
"Media ruckus"
editGriffiths was known for his 2006 paper "Psilocybin Can Occasion Mystical-Type Experiences Having Substantial and Sustained Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance", which The New York Times said "caused a media ruckus"..."
This is completely unnecessary and sensationalistic, and is an example of poor reportage intending to draw interest, clicks, and whatever attention they were looking for. Griffiths is probably the least controversial psychedelic researcher in the entire history of the discipline. By 2006, when the aforementioned paper was published, the notion that psychedelics, taken in controlled, clinical settings, could elicit personal so-called mystical, meaningful, and significant experiences, had been well known for almost sixty years in the literature. The very idea that this caused a media ruckus is not just absurd, it is ridiculous. I suggest removing this tidbit. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)