Jump to content

Talk:Owsley Stanley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diet

[edit]

Diet section needs a source. Nareek 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below...208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful Dead box

[edit]

Is it really necessary to have about a third of this article taken up by a Grateful Dead box? Nareek 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't neccessary or appropriate; Owsley was employed by the GD but was not a member of the band nor was he associated with a majority of the items in the GD box. I replaced it with a more succinct and appropriate 'See Also' section. I hope people feel free to add to that section as appropriate and not revert to the box template. If there were a 'Drug Subculture' box template that would indeed be appropriate, but the GD box is not truly encyclopedic because it gives a false impression of the nature of the association.  Erielhonan  20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In his book "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test" Tom Wolfe refers to Owsley as The "White Rabbit". This might help understanding the Jefferson Airplane's song

Alice D. Millionaire

[edit]

The article states that the song Alice D. Millionaire is about his 1967 bust, although the song was written and played in 1966. Either his bust was in 1966 or the song refers to his earlier bust. 09:25, 19 January 2007 (CET) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.16.233.102 (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've just changed the article to bring it in line with the STroy Garcia bio. STroy does not confirm that "millionaire" was a mis-identification; nor does the bio confirm that a newspaper headline in 1966 when Stanley was arrested read "LSD Millionaire Busted" and inspired the song. Since both those assertions were also unsourced, I've removed them. I'm pleased my edit also brings the article into line with the above comment. Swliv (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I have amended some of the more glaring inaccuracies in this article and added a little detail to some sections, but being new to wikipedia editing I am not sure how to properly reference my edits, much of which stem from personal communications with my father, the subject in question. I am concerned that without the proper citations they might fall victim to the "true but not verifiable" standard, and it would be a shame to have outdated published inaccuracies trump truths gathered directly from the subject's own mouth. Anyone have any suggestions on how to best go about referencing this properly? Thanks! DrStarfinder (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)DrStarfinder[reply]

Musical References -- Trivia?

[edit]

The Musical References section includes these references:

In 1990, a UK psychedelic Ska Punk band named themselves AOS3 after Stanley's initials, culled from a chapter of the book "The Brotherhood Of Eternal Love". They used an Image of Stanley as a t-shirt graphic, and named their first tape release simply "Owsley".

Glasgow psychedelic pop group The Owsley Sunshine, take their name from a brand of LSD produced by Stanley.

Australian band The Masters Apprentices released a song called "Our Friend Owsley Stanley III" in the late 60s.


How are references to Owsley by completely obscure, inconsequential groups at all encyclopedic? 75.111.158.23 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose removal of the most trivial references. Ones that are to be left in should be well-sourced (e.g. Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne). Switzpaw (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steely Dan

[edit]

I removed the copyright lyrics to a Steely Dan song because there is no non-speculative evidence that the song in question is about Owsley Stanley. I've read that Messrs. Fagan and Becker have never confirmed this rumor, and that the best critics can say is that it may be partly inspired by Mr. Stanley. That's not a good enough reason to include the lyrics to half of the song in this, only apocryphally related, article.

My edit was reverted, and so per WP:BRD, I'm here on the talk page documenting the reason for my edit. If there's no response in a while, I'll remove the lyrics again. -68.185.201.26 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you didn't bother to look for references, as there are untold numbers of them. Please stop posting notices on my talk page about this article. If you wish to discuss this article, please do it here. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing this article here; there's no need to be rude. I posted to your talk page so that you would know that I'm discussing it here. I don't assume that you compulsively check the talk page of every page you've ever edited, and your only reply to my first post there was to delete it. Talk pages here are for communication, and you failed to communicate.

Now, if I question whether something in an article is a fact, it is not incumbent on me to find references for it. You, however, wrongly re-instated copyright lyrics (leaving no edit summary to communicate w/ anyone), and you only did the proper work of removing the copyright material and adding references after I bugged you. The request for references was not "spurious", as you claimed in edit summary here, because this is a source-based encyclopedia, and no call for references is spurious.

Thank you for posting references, and for removing the copyright material, as I had already properly done. Next time, do it without having to be bugged repeatedly, and do it without talking down to other people.

Don't make me log in. -129.120.40.157 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page clearly says: If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do so on that article's talk page. -- I'm sorry that by choosing to ignore that, you forced me to repeat it here. I'm also sorry that you didn't bother to engage in a cursory search for references before deleting the material. I'm completely unmoved by you calling me rude, however I will assume that this petulant outburst probably was simply a result of having been frustrated over being proven wrong about whether this fact was confirmed by Becker and Fagen. Dlabtot (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot, hi. I apologize for going off there for a minute. I'm sorry; yelling at you was inappropriate. I'm happy enough to know that Becker and Fagan were writing about Stanley after all. The sore spot is that I don't like being treated badly when I'm not logged in. Linking to Pot/Kettle is very cute, but it doesn't excuse anything, nor does it make you look good. Rudeness is not an excuse for further rudeness, neither from you, nor from me. I was wrong to be rude.

I was correct, however, when I said above that your reversion of my first IP edit was not in good form. You really did re-add copyright lyrics to the article without citing a source. That's straight-up wrong. Now you've fixed it, so we're all good.

Finally, I didn't remotely ignore the note on your talk page. I read it, wondered how I would know that you're paying attention to this talk page, and decided I should tug on your sleeve about it. I know that my watchlist is very, very large, and just because I revert an IP edit on some article, that doesn't mean I'm paying attention to its talk page, in the long run or even necessarily in the immediate future. I was actually trying to let you know in the politest way I could about my post here. Not everybody is in all places at all times, so I don't expect you to be. Thanks for listening. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you read my note, ignored it and posted there anyway? And you read the part that says "After I read your message, I will delete it." and then posted another? I was in the middle of wading through the sources and I had to take the time out to read your second message. Did you consider the possibility that I was following your suggestion and finding sources? Please respect my wishes in the future, and do not leave messages about articles on my talk page. If you wish to discuss an article please do so on the article's talk page. If you wish to leave a message for me that is not related to an article, use my talk page. I endeavor to assume good faith of all users, whether logged in or not. But I certainly don't need any lectures from you about editing or civility. Please refrain from such in the future. However, should you choose to pursue such criticisms, there are appropriate venues, such as WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, or - dare I say it - my talk page. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix and Purple Haze

[edit]

I noticed that Dlabtot removed the reference to the alleged connection between Stanley's LSD and Jimi Hendrix's song "Purple Haze", commenting that it was "not worth tagging as I'm sure no source exists for this." The Purple Haze story has risen to a level somewhere between urban legend and rock folklore, and in the past Wikipedia has coughed up at least one dubious reference in its favor; it was mentioned as being "commonly believed" in a paragraph about the Hendrix song in the indian newspaper The Hindu. However, it appears that Owsley himself debunked the theory in his response to a post by Scott Beale of Laughing Squid about Stanley's rare interview with Joel Selvin of the San Francisco Chronicle. (Beale legitimized the comments as indeed being from Owsley in an update to his post.) The reason I bring this up is because the story is mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on Hendrix and the song, so for consistency's sake it would seem to me that either it should be removed from those as well or allowed to remain here. Personally I think it's worth mentioning as a persistent and controversial legend that has found its way into rock folklore but on good authority (Stanley himself) appears to be false. - Elmarco 06:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't need to be 'debunked' to be excluded - rather - material must be verifiable to a a reliable source to be included. So it's neither here nor there but a pseudonymous comment on a blog purportedly from 'owsley stanley' means nothing. There are also posts on that blog from 'doc watson' - do you think they were from Doc Watson? Dlabtot (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to his obituary in the New York Times, "He did not, contrary to popular lore, release a product called Purple Haze; in interviews, he sounded quite miffed that anything emerging from his laboratory could be thought to cause haziness rather than the crystalline clarity for which he personally vouched." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the 1960s, popular strains of cannabis were much more "psychedelic" than today's "medical" strains. One of the first strains created in the U.S. was "Haze" which originated in Santa Cruz, California in the early 1960s. One variant has a purple color (not unusual for cannabis) and is called "Purple Haze". It is not clear whether that name was used before or after 1967 - if before, it might have influenced Hendrix, and in those days, any overt drug references were simply not allowed. Of course, if the variant occurred after 1967, then it was likely named after the song, as cute word play. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date and place of death

[edit]

I think most of the US media got his date of death wrong, probably because of the large time difference between Australia and the US (15 to 18 hours). The Australian newspaper of record, The Australian, reports his death for Saturday, March 12, 2011, as does NPR.

The article mentions his place of death as Queensland; if one reads the article carefully, one might be able to deduce that it was in Far North Queensland. That's still a large place; why not write: "A statement … near his home in Mareeba, Queensland." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The police media release can be found at http://www.police.qld.gov.au/News+and+Alerts/Media+Releases/2011/03/ under the heading "Saturday, 12". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date was indeed wrong, but not due to the time differences; since he died at around 6 or 7 PM in Australia, it was still Saturday March 12 throughout the world. No, the error stemmed from the ambiguously written family statement, which, written on Sunday, stated that he "died yesterday," but then wasn't released to the press until Monday. I know because I wrote the damned statement, but it's hard to reference that sort of knowledge here, so I've had a devil of a time correcting the mistake. Thankfully, the NYTimes obit writer was kind enough to insert a correction into their obit, so the same reference link now shows the corrected date. Hopefully this will settle the issue; my prior attempt to correct this error was undone due to a lack of references. As though the papers get everything right all the time! Ha!

Mention of Stanley's name in a Frank Zappa song

[edit]

Twice today, I have attempted to post something about Stanley being referenced by name in a Frank Zappa song. Both times, my post has been deleted. Can someone please tell me why? The first time, I thought it was because I had included the copyrighted lyrics, so my second attempt left out the actual lyrics, but it too was deleted. If there is some question as to relevance, even though Stanley's name is only mentioned once in the song, it is highly relevant to his legacy as the Frank Zappa album in question ("We're Only In It For The Money") was well-known at the time (1968) as a commentary on the hippie scene and all its trappings. Or have I unwittingly violated some other Wikipedia regulation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.47.243 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I saw the comment in the History section from DKqwerty. I've rewritten this post once again. It no longer contains "poorly sourced original research," because it is only a statement of fact: That Stanley's name appears in a specific Frank Zappa song. And if it's a copyright violation, someone's going to have to tell me how or why, because it doesn't include any lyrics at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.47.243 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unsigned- Sometimes editors get carried away w/their S&M Hall-Monitor-on-English-Teacher fantasies. Any Nazi can delete your enthusiasm. But WP's supreme editorial standard is to Serve Your Article. Actual co-operation, real work towards improving together on what [& *who*] life brings to us- These require thought from a more meaningful POV than was shown you. Those who go about jerkily deleting valid info rather than working towards a consensus with the improvement your new info points towards may be wrapped up in one bit of WP guideline, stuck in looking @trees, missing out on life's tropical forest. Whereas WP actually supports you with its Ireal policies of tolerance, generosity, forgiveness, and support for newer editors.
Sadly- you were abused repeatedly here. The fact that this editor has since declined to clearly engage your earnest postings above says it all. WP Trolls @Work. Sadly it is the relative newbie who forgets politeness and pretends to be a robot slaved to imagined "rules".
WP has one inviolate "rule"- We respect western copyright. But WP was created for *you* to take-on the monotone of commercial media-machinery. Conformity is so passé! Still you, friend will get further with our pointy-headz here if you'll use a WP handle & account. W/out our basic ID You may appear a hit-&-run WP vandal. And I hope you'll be back, with your ire. Your point about Zappa does belong here. &You *should* quote the lines from the song- it's a lawful usage of copyright, as criticism, as well as the clearest evidence for your point re: notability of the subject. The simple point that obvious facts lacks "citations"? This is mindless, not ground for 'speedy deletion' or committee-of-one rudeness as you experienced. WP articles already proliferate with "Lists"- piles of such obvious notes as yours, sans clutter. Still bored neophyte Deletionists have taken up frustrating every new Editor that their little scripts locate. So there's the history for you to check when such rudeness recurs.
If any editor feels differently about this, I'd like to suggest they are welcome to include additional sourcing within the article as their contribution towards improvement. Thus is what's known as editing by consensus-&not taking the spiked club to a new editor. WP is manifestly flexible and our rules are actually quite generalized. Deleting valid info is never an improvement, for any reason except lawsuit. The basic WP standard is for VERIFIABLE information- Not "verified" information. WP is not machine code for perfect people. It's a community discussion where you act ignorant at your peril- Or engage in generosity, open towards greater information for everyones' benefit Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead re-write

[edit]

Sorry to drop in like this, but with Owsley's passing I feel it's possible for a gloss of The Bear's life to celebrate an authentic assessment of the one-man renaissance he was... rather than just this one-scandal blurb [ie "LSD cook"] our materialistic media wants to regurgitate, where Bear is the punch-line for jokes about the Aquarian 1960's being some frontier dead end, beyond any social value.

No, his chemistry was authentic natural growth, in a free American space. A perky part of his inscrutable alchemy with the larger picture around him, one profound hologram phase within a deeply romantic shaman journey. He drew gold from the earth & from us. His psychedelic vision of accomplishment ought to be portrayed as such- in a single flashback.

So, as I tried to do just that, I invite others to do it better. Style is ultimately a question good taste, where less is more. I'd only object if a more narrow context were re-introduced. Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic presentation

[edit]

Introduction reads like a fan page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debollweevil (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A POV panegyric

[edit]

This article is in serious need of rewriting to eliminate the worshipful fan-club tone that runs throughout it. 24.159.30.49 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mimeograph that sentiment.76.234.123.33 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good historical writing

[edit]

I doubt that this article could improve very much or should be changed very much. Some people would prefer to expand it into a hagiography, while others would rather contract it into a police report. Good historical writing tells more than "just the facts", it tells why people did what they did, what it meant to them, and what it felt like in its own context. That's why people still read Thucydides. His worth is not decreased because you can tell he liked the Greeks. Ornithikos (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Owsley Stanley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
This article is full of broad facts but not a great deal of detail (hence the "Start" rating). Owsley is an important cult figure among a dwindling subculture, but does not seem to be standing to the test of time for wide-scale notability (hence the "Low" priority).  Erielhonan  20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC) You could say the same about Jesus. Let's see, he turned on the Beatles... how could that possibly qualify him as notable? He's had articles written about him (which is really Wikipedia's basic standard), and popular songs written about him. Is it possible you're just being a WikiNazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 02:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Owsley Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Owsley Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

https://eatmeatdrinkwater.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-bears-words-of-wisdom.pdf and http://ecologos.org/owsley.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.170.115 (talk • contribs)

The information above is not controversial, and conforms to the Wikipedia standards that you have presented. None of it is controversial, nor does it need to be deleted. The "meat only" diet is something Bear was well known for.208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more info: http://www.thebear.org/essays1.html 208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/owsley-stanley-the-king-of-lsd-82181/ 208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC) One of the links on the main page is from Bear's own blog. I think we can trust that his words won't change posthumously. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-add the "Health and Diet" section to the main page

[edit]

Diet and health

[edit]

Stanley believed that the natural human diet is totally carnivorous and that all vegetables are toxic, thus he embraced a no-carbohydrate diet. refOwsley Stanley blog posting. 25 February 2006./ref He claimed to have eaten almost nothing but meat, eggs, butter, and cheese since 1959 and that he believed his body had not aged as much as the bodies of those who eat a more "normal" diet. He was convinced that insulin, released by the pancreas when carbohydrates are ingested, is the cause of much damage to human tissue and that diabetes mellitus is caused by the ingestion of carbohydrates.

Stanley received radiation therapy in 2004 for throat cancer, which he first attributed to passive exposure to cigarette smoke at concerts,refOwsley Stanley blog posting. 2 March 2006./ref but which he later discovered was almost certainly caused by the infection of his tonsil with HPV. He credited his low carb diet with starving the tumor of glucose, slowing its growth and preventing its spread enough that it could be successfully treated despite its advanced state at diagnosis. ref A rebuttal of Owsley's position /ref AND ref Owsley's "Words of Widsom" /ref ALSO ref See Bear's "Diet and Exercise" Section /ref

The above information had been on the page, but only needed a citation for the last bit. None of the information is either salacious or damaging to the reputation of this deceased person. It is truly what he believed, and the references above show it. I removed the HTML formatting from the references above, so if someone want to reinstate it using the above info, you'll have to re-insert the greater/less-thans.208.44.170.115 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More from Rolling Stone: Owsley Stanley the king of LSD It is quite clear that this information is pertinent to the life of Owsley Stanley aka "Bear". Leaving it out would be omitting a big part of his life and thoughts.208.44.170.115 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

[edit]

There’s gotta be a better photo of the man than this profile shot of his arraignment. Anyone? Artificial Nagger (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Cargill a "scion?"

[edit]

Is Melissa Cargill actually connected to the Cargill family that owns the agribusiness? I find no reference to a Melissa in the linked Wikipedia article. Her DOB is August 11, 1942, at least according to Twitter. 2601:441:4481:5C50:8D16:2931:273F:4BFF (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albums recorded

[edit]

@JesseAF13: Hello. About my edit here, Live at the Carousel Ballroom 1968, the Big Brother album, does say "Bear's Sonic Journals Presents" on the cover, and Bear did refer to his concert recordings as his sonic journals. But that album was released before the formation of the Owsley Stanley Foundation, so it shouldn't be listed in that section of the article. It is mentioned elsewhere in the article, though, along with a few other albums. Anyway, just thought I'd expand a bit on my edit summary. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Mudwater Response from user talk page Howdy Mudwater. I was just curious as to your assessment on why the Bear's Sonic Journal Big Brother Carousel Ballroom show isn't a Bear's Sonic Journal, even if it the attached press release identifies the release as such (they specifically identify it as the first one in the series, in fact), and the fact that it literally says "Bear's Sonic Journals" on the cover of the album. Your point about it not being directly released by the Owsley Stanley Foundation is perhaps valid, but this album was being made and directly oversaw by Stanley himself, set to be released through Columbia & Legacy. Then Stanley died in a car accident. The mostly-finished product is then finished, overseen by his wife Rhoney and son Starfinder, and released with Columbia & Legacy, as per contract. Then, they make the Owsley Stanley Foundation, and continue the series. It's publicly stated to be a Bear's Sonic Journal, the Owsley Stanley Foundation was not an entity when it was produced, and it says so on the cover. For these reasons, i'm putting it back. JesseAF13 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater Yes, as previously stated, I am readding the Big Brother Carousel Ball for the aforementioned reason. Anyone else is free to talk to me about it if they disagree. I'll even throw in some JesseAF13 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseAF13: Hello. Thanks for the detailed explanation, and for your recent updates to the article. I was thinking that, since Live at the Carousel Ballroom 1968 was not released by the Owsley Stanley Foundation, it should not be included in that section. But based on what you're saying, it might be better to include it, as it seems to have set the pattern for the rest of the albums. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owsley_Stanley&oldid=1237681317"