Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

8 March 2019: Ongoing deliberation at NPOV noticeboard

In case any interested parties here missed this, since it is now buried in talk page debate above, deliberation is still ongoing at the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 07:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Avoid blurring different issues in the lede

The lede previously read:

"His advocacy of the idea [morphic resonance] encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory."

I attempted to change the lede to clear up some confusion, because there is nothing about precognition in Sheldrake's books on morphic resonance, nor on telepathy, nor on the sense of being stared at. He discusses these in different books, and he has never claimed that morphic resonance explains precognition nor the sense of being stared at. The empirical studies into telepathy are separate from the work on morphic resonance. This blurs together several separate issues.

Note that I preserved the two references in the paragraph I shifted down the lede, I did not remove them.

Esowteric+Talk 11:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summary used to undo my edit, "This seems supported by sources, e.g. "The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization" – that reference makes no mention of "morphic resonance". Hence I reverted. Esowteric+Talk 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Morphic resonance is the only plausible context for that article. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Sheldrake, on his web site, "Since the late 1980's I have been doing research on the sense of being stared at", and it's entirely plausible that he made his findings known, though it wasn't until 2003 that he devoted a whole book about it. Esowteric+Talk 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you look at ResearchGate, you'll see that Sheldrake published on the sense of being stared at effect prior to 2003 (two before or in 2000):

• Jan 2001: Follow-Up: Research On The Feeling Of Being Stared At.
• May 2000: The "sense of being stared at" does not depend on known sensory clues.
• Jan 1998: The Sense of Being Stared At: Experiments in Schools.

Regards, Esowteric+Talk 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, don't you, that this is largely a rebranding exercise, because he knows that morphic resonance is toxic? Guy (Help!) 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just looking for some common, middle ground here that all can to some degree agree on; something that is more charitable and nuanced than a blanket condemnation. Esowteric+Talk 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a "middle ground" when none is due is a problem in general, and seems to be the problem here. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What we had before (and will no doubt soon have again, once "consensus among editors" is invoked and yet more reversions are made) was a lumping together of Sheldrake's diverse work under the one umbrella of "morphic resonance", which means that all his work is thoroughly debunked as "woo" – which is presumably the aim (POSIWID).

What I am suggesting is that, okay Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance has been debunked. Fine. There's no change there.

As well as this, he has carried out separate work in the areas of precognition, empirical research into telepathy and the psychic staring effect. And people are perfectly free to add to the two citations that are already in place at the end of that paragraph. You'll note that I have not removed any of the citations. The only thing I have done is to move that latter part down below the material about morphic resonance.

Is this minor alteration such a big deal if it reflects the true nature of Sheldrake's work and reduces the possibility of renewed hostilities and possibly yet more action at noticeboards like AN/I, Ronz and JzG? Or do you feel that skeptics should be given carte blanche?

Oh, what the hell: I'm done here. "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." Esowteric+Talk 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Or do you feel that skeptics should be given carte blanche? That's BATTLEGROUND. Glad you're reconsidering your involvement. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay one of the sources (Hood) does mention morphic resonance and use the word telepathy; we'll go with that, even though it is wrong (wp:verify). I've re-used the Hood ref after "Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for 'telepathy-type interconnections between organisms.'" Esowteric+Talk 11:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that rather than blurring different issues, we're making distinctions that aren't. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Sheldrake is a bioligist

The lead paragraph in this article on a living person characterizes Sheldrake as a researcher in parapsychology first and a practitioner of pseudoscience. The lead paragraph should portray the individual in his or her primary role and impact upon society. In this case, that would be as bioligist. It's a travesty of truth to allow the ulra-rationalists to deface the Wikipedia article on one of the most impactful bioligists of the 20th century. Yes, Sheldrake has dabbled in experiments outside the norm. He video taped pets waiting for their owner to come home trying to see if pets are psychic. But he also has published many many many peer reviewed research papers in the field of biology and that is his primary influence on society. If the editors who have defaced this page applied the same standards to Sir Isaac Newton then Newton's Wikipedia article would open with a paragraph describing him as a religious maniac obsessed with alchemy and the occult. No mention would be made in the opening paragraph of Newton's Wikipedia article of his contributions to Physics or Mathematics.

In short, this article violates the Wikipedia guidelines for articles on living persons. It is very nearly libelous. Who the heck is in charge here? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake is no Newton.

Can you provide sources the demonstrate Sheldrake's work in biology is as noteworthy as his work in parapsychology? --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A complete list of Sheldrake's scientific and technical publications can be found on his website at https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/scientific-and-technical-publications

These include publications in the Journal of Experimental Botany, Nature, Biological Reviews, and many more widely respected scientific journals. I do not understand the rationale for mostly ignoring this significant several decades of research and publication in peer reviewed scientific journals and devoting most of the lead paragraphs to a misrepresentation of his work and a biased critical review of his less important and non-peer reviewed research and publications in paranormal or metaphysical areas. The criticism in the lead should be moved to a section on controversy or criticism and the lead should be revised to state simply what he has done including his extensive research and publication in the fields of biology and botany. Sheldrake's principle contribution to biology has been his research and formulation of theories surrounding the still unsolved problem of cell differentiation, the genesis of form at the cellular level. His current work, on Faraday Wave-Patterns in Water, explores the possible relationship between resonant frequencies, wave patterns, and morphogenesis as a possible mechanism for cell differentiation. It's a fundamental question in Biology and remains a mystery. Sheldrake is exploring what I would consider fringe theories but he does so with scientific rigor and answers to questions like this may indeed require fringe thinking. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is not persuasive. According to the list on Sheldrake's own page, the last of his publications in Nature was in 1974. The recent ones are basically flim-flam in dubious journals. Well, the researc into Faraday waves may be genuine, but "morphogenesis" is basically a magic-based idea, for which there is zero evidence, so this is just a coatrack (if I have the technical term correct). I think the consensus is that if it were not for the woo stuff, Sheldrake would probably not pass WP:GNG. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A list of his publications alone doesn't help. Independent sources are required. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorfree, so the last reality-based research he published was in 1987, and really he stopped publishing anything meaningful in biology in 1981 (14 years after his PhD). Most of his active publishing life has been spend pushing "morphic resonance", telepathy and other bollocks. I think you just demonstrated that the lead is exactly correct. Guy (help!) 18:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not making a notability argument nor did I intend the list of Sheldrake's publications to serve as sources. The list can be used to identify independent sources such as Nature and Biological Reviews. There are dozens of legitimate sources to establish Sheldrake as a notable contributor to the field of biology. My argument here is that the lead paragraph characterizes Sheldrake as an author and researcher in parapsychology then, in the very first sentence of the article, jumps right into criticism characterizing his work as pseudoscience. I am not arguing for removal of this biased and inaccurate perspective, I am suggesting it should be moved to a section on criticism of his work and the lead paragraph should more appropriately characterize Sheldrake as a researcher in the field of biology whose main contribution has been the formation of theoretical mechanisms of morphogenesis in biological cells.

Sir Isaac Newton spent the majority of his later life, 30 or 40 years, publishing biblical analysis and works on the occult and alchemy. If the Wikipedia article on Newton started by characterizing him as a biblical scholar whose primary works focused on the occult and alchemy, I would be making this same argument over on the Isaac Newton talk page. Of course, Sheldrake is not Newton. However, the formulation of hypotheses addressing one of the most fundamental questions in biology, cell differentiation and morphogenesis, is paramount and represents Sheldrake's primary contribution to science.

Sheldrake's current research continues to propose as an underlying mechanism for cell differentiation some sort of resonant field - he speculates either an acoustic or electric field, likely electric, which generates resonant frequencies giving rise to form in the underlying medium. Demonstrations of this effect can be seen in Faraday wave-patterns in water. It's science, not pseudoscience. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You are making an argument for a radical change in pov based upon only your personal opinions.

Please drop the Newton comparison. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorfree, Newton was an alchemist and exposure to mercury led him to be paranoid. He was also a complete arsehole. He burned the only known portrait of Robert Hooke and tried (unsuccesfully, luckily) to have Hooke's papers at the Royal Society destroyed. For a long time this was put down to Hooke and he fighting, but if you look at the facts it is clear that Hooke was a very popular man and held in the highest regard by almost everybody. He conducted about half of all the surveys by the fire court after 1666, because he had a reputation for being almost pathologically honest. Newton wrote the third volume of Principia in a way that was deliberately calculated to make it impossible for Hooke to understand it, according to contemporaneous accounts.

So: Sheldrake is indeed a bit like Newton - if instead of publishing Principia, Newton had stuck to Deist philosophy and alchemy. Guy (help!) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorfree, Sheldrake is known only for his contributions to woo. If he had not gone off on one about the scientific community's failure to accept his morphic resonance conjecture, he would almost certainly be unknown and have no article here. Promoting woo is what he is known for, and there's no evidence he's done any meaningful work in any other area for a decade or more. Guy (help!) 18:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize to clarify. Please correct me if I misrepresent your view(s).

I opened a discussion here claiming that Sheldrake is primarily and most significantly a biologist whose work in fundamental areas of the field should be reflected in the opening paragraph. In addition, I suggested that the criticism currently in the opening should be moved to a section on criticism. I would also suggest that his work in parapsychology be moved to a subsection but that is a secondary argument we can discuss later if need be.

The responses in this discussion raise the following points in opposition to my views:

Sheldrake's published works in the field of biology were primarily in the 70s and 80s. That is too long ago. (Please help me to understand this seemingly main argument being presented here - that his principle work was done at an earlier age and in his later years he shifted focus to metaphysical matters).

Sheldrake would not pass notability were it not for his later works in the field of parapsychology. That is, his published works in Nature and other peer reviewed scientific journals would not have been sufficient to qualify him as notable.

I am making an argument for a significant change based upon my personal opinion

I believe the main issue here is one's evaluation of the significance of Sheldrake's work in the 70s and 80s in the field of biology as reflected by his many publications in peer reviewed scientific journals as well as his many speaking presentations at conferences. I consider his work to be fundamental, addressing one of the most important unanswered questions in biology, and significant in that he formulated a hypothesis for the underlying mechanism governing cell differentiation and the genesis of form at the cellular level. Yes, it is my opinion. I worked in the field as a mathematician responsible for the creation of mathematical models attempting to explore the possibility that harmonic frequencies produced by electromagnetic fields in the cell structure could be responsible for cell differentiation. Sheldrake's work was invaluable to our studies and he was quite notable in the field of biology well before he began writing and speaking about metaphysical subjects. Sheldrake's contributions to biology extend beyond the formulation of hypotheses surrounding cell differentiation. He also provided insight and kindled interest in research into the ageing and death of cells "in an attempt to explore the significance of these processes in relation to growth and development, both normal and abnormal".

I disagree with the assertion that Sheldrake would not be notable were it not for his work in parapsychology. He was and is notable for his work in biology and was widely acknowledged within and without the scientific community well before he embarked on metaphysical studies. I do not believe he would be notable were it not for his work in biology.

Lastly, I do not understand this argument that because his primary work in biology was done in his 30s and 40s while his work in parapsychology was done in his 60s and 70s that the article should therefore reflect only his metaphysical works, along with a criticism of his work as pseudoscience, in the lead paragraph. Most research scientists and mathematicians throughout history have achieved their prominent works at an early age. Many by the time they are in their mid-20s. They spend the rest of their lives promoting, defending, clarifying, expanding, and refining the work they did in their youth. Some shift focus to entirely different fields. If we applied the same standard to other scientists, I think the absurdity of such a standard would become obvious. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia - all his recent work and publications are in a clear pseudoscience field and he is well known for that. His earlier work in biology is well in the past and while it may have be useful it probably wasn't enough to gain enough notability for an article. We reflect what is not what we might like to be the case -----Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll add: There won't be any changes without independent, reliable sources. Unsupported personal opinions matter little. Filling up a talk page with personal opinions is frowned upon. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You asked for independent sources earlier. I pointed you to a list of Sheldrake's scientific and technical publications which includes full references to articles published in Nature, Biological Reviews, and the Journal of Experimental Botany. Should I provide more detail wrt independent sources? Thanks. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorfree, that would be a novel synthesis from primary sources - though it does clearly demonstrate that his career as a biologist was short and not particularly productive, and ended decades ago when he took up his morphic resonance conjecture and other bollocks. Guy (help!) 23:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to learn more about this "basic Wikipedia" guideline. Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that I can read to learn more about why a researcher's early work is less important or relevant than his recent work? Thanks.

Several commenters have stated here that Sheldrake's work in biology in the 1970s and 1980s was not sufficient to qualify as notable for an article. How did you all arrive at this conclusion? The many articles he authored and published in peer reviewed scientific journals would seem to qualify as notable. The articles on parapsychology, published in non-peer reviewed non-scientific journals would not seem to justify notability. I am having a hard time understanding the logic here. Please bear with me and thank you for any clarification. Also, see Water Journal Vol 9 published in October of 2017 for Sheldrake's latest published scientific and technical work, definitely not pseudoscience. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people) to start.

His own works are not independent. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources.

This article is under sanctions. The restrictions on such articles make them unsuitable for editors without in-depth understanding of content and behavioral policy. I suggest spending time on other articles, tutorials, or other areas where you can learn your way around Wikipiedia outside of areas with sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, pointers, and advice. I was not addressing my comments in this discussion to the task of establishing notability. Were I to do that with Sheldrake it would likely be by using Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and providing independent sources to establish at least Criteria #3 listed there:

"The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)."

All of the following are easy to establish, have plenty of independent sources for verifiability, and qualify as satisfying the above criteria for notability:

Sheldrake is a former research fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he earned a PhD in biochemistry and was awarded the university’s botany prize. He was a Frank Knox Fellow studying philosophy at Harvard University and became a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology. From 1974 to 1985 he worked as a plant physiologist in Hyderabad, India.

In addition, one could establish notability using Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics to document citations to his published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, another way to establish academic notability.

But I did not intend to open a discussion on notability. I simply wanted to point out that Dr. Sheldrake is a biologist, that his primary impact has been in the field of biology, and the lead paragraph should reflect that. Further, the lead sentence of the article dives right into criticism. I did not think it would be controversial or even all that disputed that Sheldrake's credentials and publication history would demonstrate easily that the lead should reflect his work in the field of biology. However, it seems like there is firm disagreement about that among editors who have chosen to comment here. I'll step back and wait for others, if any, to come forward. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Propose some changes to the article, verified by independent and reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur, the weight of citations is to the pseudo-science stuff and its all he talks about having made the error of going to and asking a question at one of the HTLGI sessions - I'd be tempted to say it is also a cult. Unless there is citation support that is of equal of significant weight there are no grounds for change and this discussion should be closed -----Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. He is not a biologist and hasn’t done any science since way before Jimbo and Larry started this project. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctorfree, RESPECT MAH BIOLOGISTISM! To which the response is, sure, if you can show reliable independent secondary sources which do that. Guy (help!) 15:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this discussion should be closed until several issues raised here are satisfactorily resolved. These issues include:

What are the Wikipedia requirements/guidelines/criteria for stating that a person is a biologist

Is it appropriate for the lead sentence in an article that is a biography of a living person to include criticism of the subject rather than simple statements of fact

Is the age of scientific peer reviewed publication a determining factor in consideration and is there a Wikipedia guideline on this

With regards to the first, publication in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field qualifies as criterion for determining if a person is a biologist or a member of another field of science. To quote Jimmy Wales in his March 23, 2014 response to a change.org petition concerning Wikipedia guidelines and policies on fringe science and pseudoscience:

"Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

Further, WP:USINGPRIMARY, following a list of characteristics for reliable sources, states that:

A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".

The dozens of papers authored by Sheldrake and published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field of biology constitutes reliable sources to establish Sheldrake as a biologist. Their publication date is irrelevant unless some intervening research has obviated the relevance of those publications. Nor is the fact that subsequent to the scientific publications the author opined on other topics, discontinued some lines of research, or embarked upon research and speculative hypotheses in fringe areas.

However, notability as a biologist does require additional sourcing. Citation indices are the standard for scientific notability. There is room here for further discussion and research. Sheldrake's notability as a biologist can be established through his academic memberships, posts, and fellowships. I am not making a notability argument here, simply pointing out along with reliable sourcing that Sheldrake's works qualify him as a biologist.

The comments here stating that this is just my opinion or RESPECT MAH BIOLOGISTISM (huh?) are ill informed and mistakenly asserting guidelines that either do not exist (e.g. his work in the field of biology was not recent) or are misinterpretations of guidelines (criteria for classification of a person as a scientist in a particular field requires secondary sourcing - publication in peer reviewed scientific journals in the appropriate field is sufficient). It's not even clear that citing a peer reviewed publication in support of a claim that the person is a biologist is appropriately considered a primary source since the content of that publication is not being cited, simply the fact of publication is what is relevant - the source is "Nature" or "Biological Reviews" not the content of the article by Sheldrake.

The second unresolved issue, should there be criticism in the lead paragraph describing a living person, has not been addressed by anyone. I do not see how this can be disputed. The critical components of the lead paragraph should be moved to a section on criticism.

Why be so quick to close this discussion? Generally what this discussion is intended to accomplish is conformance with WP:NPOV and eliminate some of the possibly unintended bias in the article. That is an important goal especially in light of the fact it is an article on a living person. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In a very preliminary quick search for news articles on Sheldrake from reliable sources the following turned up:

A 1993 article in The New York Times Magazine refers to Sheldrake as "... the biologist Rupert Sheldrake". See https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/03/magazine/the-merry-mystic.html

A Washington Post lifestyle article from 1983 refers Sheldrake as "... Sheldrake, a well-regarded plant physiologist". See https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/06/09/sheldrake-the-magician/16f0802d-72a7-4296-9170-254b4d189410/

Any this century? These lengthy posts, expressing your own opinion with selective use of primary sources is getting us nowhere. Come up with current sources or please, please stop -----Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that User:Doctorfree is absolutely right when he states "The dozens of papers authored by Sheldrake and published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the field of biology constitutes reliable sources to establish Sheldrake as a biologist. Their publication date is irrelevant unless some intervening research has obviated the relevance of those publications. Nor is the fact that subsequent to the scientific publications the author opined on other topics, discontinued some lines of research, or embarked upon research and speculative hypotheses in fringe areas." This is not a matter of personal opinion, it is how things work in academia. A person's work doesn't suddenly become irrelevant in the field simply because they changed careers, retired, or began writing on others topics that weren't as well received. I note that there have really been no substantive responses to these statements of fact.

In order to satisfy the desire for more current media sources that describe Sheldrake as a biologist, here are a couple:

• Scientific American described him as a "renegade biologist" in 2014 here
• The Telegraph descrbied him in 2019 as a "scientist" who was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge" here.

Again, the fact that the man has a PhD in biochemistry and worked for a period of time as a research sceintist for mainstream insitutions is uncontroversial. His credentials and experience haven't suddenly disappeared simply because he now spends his time on fringe topics. Obviously that should be mentioned too, and in such a way as to distinguish it from his work in mainstream science. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has presented any sources that demonstrate Sheldrake's work in biology is as noteworthy as his work in parapsychology.

Again, make a suggestion for a change, indicating the supporting sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, you make a great case for describing his former career in the body of the article (spoiler: we already do). As per the last 15,471,984 times this was proposed by a Sheldrake fan, the sole purpose of including "biologist" in the lead is to give the false impression that his morphic resonance nonsense is based on something toher than pure conjecture, and that he is a legitimate scientific voice worth listening to, which the sources clearly establish he is not. Guy (help!) 17:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change first paragraph

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, parapsychology researcher, and biologist. He is known for proposing the concept of morphic resonance, which is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. In his early career as a mainstream scientist, Sheldrake worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978.

My proposal is above. I've deleted the references so as not to clutter the talk page, but would keep all current references as they are. I would add the above two references for the term "biologist". I think this version adeuqately shows that he is more well known for his fringe work than for his scientific career, but acknowledges his scientific background and previous mainstream work. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We need to identify the sources that support the changes. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think the Magisterium (who handle fringe issues) will allow such a change. Esowteric+Talk 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, we have been over this dozens of times. As a biologist, he would not qualify for an article. He has not been active in the field since forever, and he came to notice only after abandoning biology for fringe nonsense. That is all he is known for.

We should really have a FAQ, since it literally is a frequently asked question. Guy (help!) 16:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:JzG, I'm curious, who made you the sole decision maker around here? I'm getting a little tired of your ridiculous, condescending tone. Do enlighten me as to why you can't seem to even try to have a disucssion. I am not the first person to bring up these concerns and I surely will not be the last. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

How about focusing on content and provide sources supporting such a change? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

He has no notability as a biologist and the only valid use of that term is in the description of his early life. Continued insertion of that without consensus is edit warring especially given the volume of prior discussions on the subject. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, glorious masters. So sorry to have challenged you in any way. Obviously I provided sources, but those haven't even been addressed because clearly asking for them is just an opposition tactic devoid of good faith. I'm sure that the next person who tries to restore some balance to this article will be treated with similar scorn and contempt until they, too, decide to give up. Your coordinated enforcement of your doctrines would be impressive if it weren't so depressing. I'm done here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If the next one displays the same WP:IDHT, then yes, he will be treated the same.

You have been told that he is not notable as a biologist - see WP:NOTABILITY - and therefore his education does not need to be in the intro. It would only serve to give him unnecessary false credibility in the eyes of people who mistakenly think science works by authority of academic grades. It is in the body of the article, that is enough. The intro is supposed to summarize the most important parts of the article, and it already does - since his work as a biologist is not notable, it does not merit mention in the intro. All this has been explained multiple times in the archives, and nothing you said changes anything about any of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer, if Sheldrake hadn’t moved on to pseudoscience, there wouldn’t be an article about him in Wikipedia. Including something in the lede about his pre pseudoscience days is simply unjustified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.53.171 (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, or, instead of floating conspiracy theories, you could provide non-affiliated current sources that categorise Sheldrake as a biologist. Guy (help!) 10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Does Sheldrake have any peer-reviewed public original research in the various fields of biology to his name? If so, then he can be rightly described as a biologist (if such papers can be sourced). For comparison, see the astrophysicist Brian May. Arcturus (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding May, it's irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When did Rupert last do any biology of notability? It's questionable whether any of his biology was notable, and as always, he is not a notable biologist, he is however a notable wooster. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What's a 'wooster'? Arcturus (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody whose working environment is outside the normal realms of reality. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You made that up. Having read more of the above discussion I can see the point I made has already been covered at length. Some of the contributors appear to be excessively biased, so nothing more to be said here. Incidentally, I came here because I recently finished reading The Science Delusion. I don't hold with much of what Sheldrake has to say, but I would hope that any such views I have on this, or any other matter, would not lead me to biased editing on Wikipedia, but I guess that would be for others to judge. Arcturus (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, yes, some of the contributors are biased. Luckily there are enough reality-based editors that this doesn't tend to get into the article. Guy (help!) 00:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)