Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

BBC and WP:SUBJECT on his wikipedia article

It does not yet seem to me that Sheldrake's concern over his Wikipedia page entry is defining enough in the context of Sheldrake to meet the threshold that we would include it in the article ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm inclined to agree - is it just because it's about WP that we find it interesting? Not sure. Has it been picked up elsewhere? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, his web page by itself would not be sufficient to include mention, but the BBC World Service interview on on 1 Nov 2013 increased its notability.[1] (at 8m02s) --Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I hadn't seen that. That's quite significant - certainly worth a mention I'd think. Actually, I've starting to think this biography needs a Controversy section. It's sort of covered by some of the other headings, but not as cleanly as if we had something like that. What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE "controversy" sections are by their very nature not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have an inevitable conflict of interest here, is it worth keeping it a disclosure? The problem with that is that by complaining to the media, with complaints about a conspiracy that doesn't exist, Sheldrake hasn't given anyone a right of reply. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Has Sheldrake's public complaining about conspiracy theories on Wikipedia reached the point where it is a notable aspect of his profile or is it just navel gazing by Wikipedians thinking that anything involving Wikipedia must be important? To me it currently seems UNDUE. If he is still in the media about this in another six months or a year, then it would seem more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it´s not worth mentioning at this point. We could put one of those "This article has been mentioned in media"-things on the talkpage, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT says, "A mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article. To avoid self reference, a mention needs to reflect its importance in their overall body of work." I don't think that's happened yet.

In the BBC interview alone he said there is a "systematic attempt to distort hundreds of pages on Wikipedia" and "they've got about five people banned so far". In making such fringe claims, WP:PARITY comes into play, allowing the claims to be debunked by self-published sources.[2][3] The article's own history page contradicts many of the claims. It's quite a curious case of self-reference. vzaak (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that Coyne has responded in the New Republic, and Chopra in some newspaper out of San Francisco, we have *more* than passed the WP:NOTEWORTHY standards, and are coming close to the controversy over bias in Sheldrake's wikipedia page being qualified to have a dedicated article per WP:N. Suggest a new talkpage-section be started, in which the additional sentence-or-two that will now have to be added, to the Sheldrake BLP mainspace article, is hotly debated. As for this talkpage section, please do not suggest sentence-wording here... if possible, restrict comments in this section to attempts to elide three-and-counting reliable sources from mainspace. p.s. Oxygen of publicity; think about it please. Backfire. Unintended consequences. Insert further shooting-oneself-in-the-foot metaphors here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

in english, por favor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm learning to speak Seventy-fourish. I think he's urging care in discussion and editing because of the potential for what intelligence-types call blowback. The effects of observation observer effect referred to in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could also prove problematic. David in DC (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

David gets the gold star. Blowback is part -- not the entire -- but part of the reason why jihadists *particularly* hate the USA. See for instance Iran and Iraq of the 1950s, and the billions in military funding to Israel today, cf stuxnet. For a similar problem, impacting other nations, see the Suez Canal in the 1960s. For the same effect in fiction, see what princess leia says to the empire -- the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through you fingers.

    Plain english: TRPoD, if you want The Sheldrake Media Phenomenon to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity, do exactly what David says, and if David makes an edit, never revert it, and if somebody else dares revert David, *you* revert them. This is a suggestion not an order, but David's been on the BLP circuit for years, and if he sees a problem, there is a problem, so trust him. WP:REDFLAG does not apply to whether or not Sheldrake is a biologist. It only applies to whether or not morphic resonance is, or is not, mainstream science. Period. Full stop. No hopping the field-of-inquiry-fences into BLP violations. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have commented out the "incident". There is still no evidence that Sheldrake being upset about the Wikipedia article about Sheldrake has become in anyway a defining aspect of Sheldrake or of any importance outside of Sheldrake being upset. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

No one has presented any rationale for why Sheldrake's whining about the coverage of him in Wikipedia is at the WP:SUBJECT threshold. Yes, Sheldrake has whined about it on his blogs. Yes the BBC had an interview where he whined about it (where they did not interview any other parties to get other views) and Sheldrake's friend Chopra whined on Sheldrakes behalf on Huff Po attacking the same "militant atheist skeptics" that he is whining about on his own blog about the Wikipedia article about Chopra because whining about a friend does not look as bad as whining about yourself. But its all just a nonsense blip. Sheldrake will get over the fact that he cannot have Wikipedia be a platform for promoting his ideas. Or he will maintain a new pointless crusade against conspiracy theories of militant atheist skeptics Wikipedia for the next six months or a year and then we can consider his obsession to be a worthy aspect to cover. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC defines WP:NOTEWORTHY, not wikipedians. Reliable Sources define pillar two, not wikipedians. WP:UNDUE is not a license for wikipedians to delete Reliably-Sourced-materials. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points

WP:UNDUE is PRECISELY a "licence" to delete sourced content that does not appropriately belong in an encyclopedia article because of its triviality.

BBC does NOT define whether or not filler on a slow news day is an important encyclopedic aspect of an article, se WP:NOTNEWS . per your As your WP:NOTEWORTHY , it specifically points out "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies ... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." So, from a neutral point of view, and Wikipedias other policies such as WP:SUBJECT, I still fail to see that Sheldrake and his friends making bizarre conspiracy claims about the Wikipedia article are at this point important enough to Sheldrake to include. If he is still squawking and getting covered about his whining in 6 months, then come back but otherwise this is just calling out a pimple on his nose and not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Focused discussion on the opening sentence

I attempted to leapfrog this issue earlier with the bold edit of "scientist". There have been changes to the first sentence again so I am reopening. In this section please focus only on this issue and resist distractions. As described similarly before, here is the issue at hand:

There have been many new proposals to the lead, but few address the root problem of conflicting sources. Nature, which is arguably the highest-quality source most qualified to judge Sheldrake's status, comments on him twice: calling him a parapsychologist, and in another article calling him a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. Other such characterizations can be found in other scientific journals, for example New Scientist calling him a biochemist-turned-parapsychologist. Those three references are currently cited in the lead. [Edit: and most recently, "pseudoscientist" in The New Republic.] On the other hand, Sheldrake is sometimes reported in popular media as a biologist.

I currently see four options:

1. Give more weight on the the most informed, highest quality sources; Nature wins on this front.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...

2. Describe both sides of the conflict. This was my recent proposal:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues; he describes himself as a biologist researching natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists have described him as a former biochemist doing research in the field of parapsychology. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...

3. Elide the conflict. This was Barney's proposal:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...

4. Encompass both sides with one term, "researcher".

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer, and researcher. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...

vzaak (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, I have a-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y- no idea why there is such an allergy to calling him a scientist. ...if you compare Mr Sheldrake's notoriety to Richard Dawkins, HE'S called a 'biologist'....and him and Mr Sheldrake have the same life-experience and BOTH became notorious because of their work and their writing. I almost give up hope that this article will ever be correct:(

Veryscarymary (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

....and he writes as a scientist http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-rupert-sheldrake/the-active-voice-in-scien_b_3036438.html I don't think the huffington post would allow him to write for them if he wasn't AND you're ignoring all the links, CURRENT links I gave above from other main-stream editors who use the word 'scientist' or biologist to describe Mr Sheldrake!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Veryscarymary (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Veryscarymary (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well Mary, if you don't understand why you should call him Dr Sheldrake, I reckon that anything else on his page is probably a little bit too complicated for you. Anyway, I reckon my master has just turned off the M1, and he should be home in about fifteen minutes. All those scientists observing me are starting to get a little bit agitated, and I don't want to disappoint them, so I'll go and sit by the front door for a bit, and they can get that satisfied look about them. I have no idea why they should be so pleased when I do this, but if it makes them happy, why not. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Veryscarymary (talk · contribs) Richard Dawkins is actually a good example of another former scientist. I'd label him a popular science author and rationalist campaigner, and former biology professor, as AFAIK he is not involved in any primary research any more. Would be interesting to see his publication history. Anyway, we're not discussing that page, we're discussing this one. Also, I realise you were born in 1921, but there's no need for the d-a-s-h-e-s or the exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope this discussion is not highjacked again. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2013

I put "focused" in the title; could we please keep the distractions to a minimum this time, preferably to zero. vzaak (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I dispute that Nature is the "most informed, highest quality sources" in this instance. It is an anonymous opinion piece that would not be subjected to the usual peer-review process, that was later attributed to the journal's editor, John Maddox,[4] who doesn't have a Ph.D. It's notable, but Nature does not decide whether people are scientists or not, and I am more than happy to describe Maddox's opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

strange that Sir John Maddox was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and knighted by HM Government though, eh? What's better PhD or FRS, I know which I'd rather have. Being very creative again with out interpretation of sources, aren't we? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, look at the sources at the end of the first sentence of the article. Those are the "three references" I mention above. It's not the book-burning thing. vzaak (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and for the record, I think you are referring to refs [5-7]. It looks like [5]"Overhyped" is also an unsigned opinion piece that says nothing about whether he is a biologist, but ventures that he also researches as a parapsychologist, likewise [6]"When science meets the paranormal" is also an unsigned opinion piece in a popular magazine, and unfortunately I don't have access to the [7]"Telepathic charm seduces audience at paranormal debate", though author John Whitfield appears to have a Ph.D.[5] in evolutionary biology. --Iantresman (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you vzaak (talk for opening this up with the sources. That helps, at least to me. I think it would be productive for everyone on the page list the sources for the opening lead regarding Sheldrake's biography to the language they are suggest,i.e. biologist, biochemist, spook hunter, or whatever. It will be much easier for all of us just to compare sources and find the most common primary and secondary sources that are consistent and voila' - we should have an opening sentence that makes sense. Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that we explain his notability in the first sentence, so how about:

“Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author known for his claim that morphological development is directed by telepathy.”

That way the reader knows what Sheldrake’s about right from the get-go. The down side is that other parts of the lead might need adjusted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, are you serious? Do you actually believe Sheldrake claims ontogeny is directed by telepathy? If so, you have zero familiarity with his work. Which brings up the question: what the hell are you doing here? Why are you trying to influence the Wikipedia page of someone about whom you know absolutely nothing? Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alfonzo. 76, you are not contributing value here on the talk page, and since the article is semi-protected you won't be contributing to it either. I've warned you on your talk page, and I hope you take the warning seriously. vzaak (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr Sheldrake is called 'a scientist' in wikipedia's disambiguation page Sheldrake I rest my case.... Veryscarymary (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"resting your case" on Content in Wikipedia is a very tenuous position to put yourself in. He is now an author on parapsychology and not a scientist at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Which sources are you basing that on, that he is "not a scientist at all"? --Iantresman (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

the very same wikipedia redirect page upon which Veryscarymary rested her case that we must include "scientist". (and yes, my claim based on the same not reliable source should be given as much weight as Veryscarymary's)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is such a problem, but I guess now I see what all the hoopla is about this page and why it's getting attention in the press. Since when does Wikipedia decide to interpret people's biographies based on a few opinions of editors or opinions of a few sources? Since when do we decide to refer to him as a researcher instead of a scientist so as not to offend 3 editors in talk? There is nothing controversial to call Sheldrake what he is, a scientist with his degree in biology. Cambridge University uses this, proper sources such as New Scientist use this, the Perrot Warrick fund which pays for the parapsychology research uses this. If mainstream science does not consider Sheldrake a 'good' scientist, that is irrelevant. If it is relevant, then it needs to be attributed as a quote, not as a way to reformulate a biography in a way that no encyclopedia ever would. From what I have gone through already on this talk page, it's obvious that there is a bias against the man among editors here and that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. I think it's time we move this into some form of mediation or arbitration, get all the editors with ideologies to promote off this page, and let a neutral team come in here and clean it up. Or delete the page entirely. This is not getting anywhere. If you disagree, then please post the sources below that contradict this with a reasoned argument as to how Wikipedia should hold this unique guideline that no other publisher or encyclopedia would. So far all answers make no sense whatsoever. Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because I've said a similar thing to vzaak on my talk page, and because it's been referred to below as a "rant" and evidence of some difficulty with my mental health, I'm reprinting something I typed yesterday:

I doubt Sheldrake would write his bio the way I would. I think if Sheldrake wrote it, alone, it would include more accolades and less criticism of both himself and his work.

If I wrote it, alone, it also might include a better balance of accolades and criticism of Sheldrake, the human being, too. But he'd like my treatment of his work no more than his acolytes would.

If I wrote it, alone, the version I wrote would horrify FRINGE-fighting fanatics and Sheldrake acolytes, alike.

HYPOTHESIS: If I forswore editing the page, and all of its current editors did the same, and 10 totally uninvolved, BLP-savvy editors worked the thing over for a month, it would be both BLP- and FRINGE-compliant.

PREDICTIONS:

Sheldrake still wouldn't like it.

I'd be satisfied with it.

FRINGE-fighters would set about to destroy the finally-compliant article and engage in some or all of the following WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors: campaign to gut WP:BLP as it relates to living fringe theorists, ridicule the uninvolved editors who'd re-written it, harrass anyone who tried to keep the article stable as re-written, and campaign for sanctions against anyone who was achieving any success in maintaining the re-write.

This business of refusing to allow the word biologist in the lead is fanatacism. Its inclusion would mislead no one, despite arguments to the contrary. The article, as a whole, would more than adequately inform them that he's a biologist whose views do not conform with those of 21st century mainstream biology and that he's waaaaay out on the fringe. But the fanatics wouldn't let biologist in the lead no matter what the consensus was, and no matter what sources say. Just like they think the adjective "mainstream" as a descriptor for "science" violates NPOV. There is no such thing as mainstream science, in their view. Only SCIENCE and quackery. Just like "fundamental tenets of modern science like COE and the impossibility of PMMs" is inadequate to them. "Tenet" is somehow too weak. The word must be "facts", goddammit.

The stubborn, incorrigible refusal to include biologist in the lede, the tenacity of the prohibition of the phrase "mainstream science" and the refusal to accept "tenets" as an adequate synonym for "facts" are all symptoms of a disease. The disease is a danger to wikipedia. I hate saying Chopra's right about anything, I truly do. But his essay from HuffPo is right. The recent counterpoint from The New Republic is wrong. (Albeit funnier and better-written.)

David in DC (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophyfellow, your suggestion is well-taken... but it would end with grudges. Also, it would hurt the long-term maintenance-quality of the article. Vzaak and Barney are doing a ton of heavy-lifting here. If they will just stick to mirroring the sources, rather than picking and choosing which sources they like, or abusing the sources (note the *second* sly attachment of three sources which justify calling Sheldrake a 'parapsychologist' to the current okay-you-forced-me-with-your-npov-tag use of the word 'scientist' ... when the slightest bit of WP:GOOG or the sources provided by Mary would correct the problem). But yes, if this is not resolved in a week or two more, then grudges or no grudges, I suggest we get some agreement worked out where everybody is banned from editing (including reverts) in mainspace, except for David of the WP:BLP crowd, Paul_B. of the WP:FRINGE crowd (if they are willing), and Liz of the WP:NICE crowd (if she is willing). I would also think Roxy or TRPoD might be able to act as the representatives in place of Paul_B, whereas IrWolfie and MilesMoney definitely could not. Myself as the rep for WP:NICE, or Lou Sanders, would be conceivable... but not optimal, cf grudges above.

    However, again, this nuke-the-page-and-let-David-start-over is wrong for wikipedia ... we want ALL the folks here NOW to learn how to behave, which means how to *not* drive away other editors, which means how to *not* cherrypick sources, and most especially which means how to *not* abusively broaden WP:FRINGE into an excuse to belittle the religion and the personal background of somebody with which you happen to personally disagrees with about phytomorphological theories. So, much as I agree that David could whip the article(s) into shape with little trouble, and they would be great work... I disagree that we should press the big red nuke-and-start-over-after-we-topic-ban-everybody-button. There is still hope that folks will listen to reason, and ignore the siren-song of rationalizations.

    If you insist that we need to press the button, Philosophyfellow, because of 'external pressures' that are giving wikipedia bad press... well, I disagree, of course... but I'm not unwilling to set a WP:DEADLINE of sorts. How many more days, before the launch-window is officially opened, do you suggest? Either we get everybody here on the talkpage now satisfied by that point, or we hand the reins to David and his chosen band, and everybody else leaves, voluntarily or otherwise, in other words. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm both flattered and horrified at 74's suggestion that I lead a merry band of well-intended editors in an effort to make this article both BLP- and FRINGE-compliant. As I said above, if the current crew of well-intended folk cannot work things out, I think we need the help of previously uninvolved, veteran, savvy editors, whose allegience is to the wikipedia project, as a whole.

I'm waaaaay too emotionally invested in BLP to lead such a group. Also, I'm not previously uninvolved. There isn't even any reason to suspect there's a consensus that I'm savvy. I qualify as veteran, and I trust editors of good will on all sides would concede that I'm well-intended and concerned about the project, as a whole.

What's going on on this page is, depending on your orientation, a mockery of BLP or cluelessness of the importantce of FRINGE. But more importantly, it's becoming a threat to the credibility of wikipedia, overall. It's getting to be time for some sort of intervention. Even mediation or arbitration seem poor solutions to me. Arbitration, in particular, is liable to have unintended consequences, only sharpen grudges and lead to more BATTLEGROUND behavior on a more epic scale.

Please be clear about one thing. I most definitely decline to be considered for the role 74 has suggested I might fill. My appreciation for his trust in me is deep. But my horror at the prospect is even deeper. I'll quote Morris Udall now, when he was asked to lead an ABC (Anyone But Carter) movement in 1980

If nominated, I will run ... for the border. If elected, I will fight extradition.

David in DC (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If I don't know who Paul_B is, could I represent him? I wouldn't of course, but still. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot represent him, Roxy. He's dead. He doesn't do science any more. David in DC (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, I'm talking about uid Paul_B, who tried to talk some sense into uid Atethnekos, the latter who methinks is quite lost, deep inside the long grass of scepticism, over on the Fringe noticeboard. Wikipedia:FTN#Theories_of_Muhammad_in_the_Bible (about to be archived so check there if you don't see it on the mainpage) Here is the relevant quote by IrWolfie, from that discussion, who skeptics here not familiar with Paul_B might be more inclined to trust -- "a viewpoint like this can be characterised as fringe if either 1. it is a minority position within a specific tradition or some academic discourse 2. it directly impinges on what is under the purview of science with falsifiable claims." For the record, I will note that Wolfie's first claim is flat-out wrong, totally in violation of the 2013 arbcom decision that for any issue (PER field of inquiry) there can be simulaneously the mainstreamView / significantMinorityView / questionableView / fringeView / totallyObviouslyCrapView. (Sheldrake has published in so many fields that he has ideas falling into not one, not two, but all five damn categories.) But the second part, Wolfie's directly impinges part, is the key point. WP:FRINGE is simply not, in any conceivable way, a license to delete sources you disagree with, which is what Atethnekos wanted to do, so as to erase all mention of Mohammed from some article they were warring in. HistoryOfTheTextualInterpretationOfTheBible==Science? No. Therefore, WP:FRINGE cannot apply, there are simply zero claims-directly-impinging-on-any-field-of-science.

    David, your shermanesque statement to the contrary, with the power of morphic resonance I will shape your... oh crap, WP:REQUIRED, I totally forgot! Nevermind. You don't have to do it. You should have quoted Cool Cal: "I do not choose to". That guy knew what wikipedia was all about. But with luck, folks here will let you fix up mainspace, without any admin interference whatsoever. I am pretty convinced, given all the noticeboard dramahz already during the last four months, the next step is not going to be 'mediation' methinks, but rather straight to the top, ending in the reverse of the 2010 transcendental meditation cases. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material Everything in that decision is good advice, here on the Sheldrake article, by the way, as long as those reading the arbcom decision don't make the deep mistake of hearing "SkepPOV" whenever the arbcom folks mention "NPOV" ... which of course would *entirely* change the meaning of the decision! Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you talking about? When in that discussion did I ever say anything about deleting anything? I never wanted to delete anything related to that discussion. Erase all mention of Mohammed? What? When did I ever say that? I never wanted to do that. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, I have replied over on your talkpage, we have enough trouble here without dragging in the question of whether Muhammed's appearance is specifically predicted in the Bible.  :-)   Once we hash it out over there, we can post a summary here, if that helps. Vzaak, Barney, TRPoD, Ken, you are all mentioned over there... but I warn you, it is a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the Passive-agressive approach of Bartleby the Scrivener: I would prefer not. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome

This has not been a focused discussion; no arguments were offered for the revert of "scientist" after I had added it. On these grounds I have restored "scientist" again. Anyone is free to revert, however discussion is needed upon doing so (WP:BRD). vzaak (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling him a scientist in the opening sentence implies that he's mainly known for his scientific work. You wouldn't start an article about Barack Obama by describing him as a lawyer, since he's better known for being the President. The fact that there are sources that call him a lawyer is irrelevant--of course there are, he is one, after all. Sheldrake is mainly known for pseudoscience, not science, just like Obama is known for being the President, not for being a lawyer.

And in this case it's particularly bad because if you call him a scientist, that misleads the reader into thinking his pseudoscientific work is really scientific. It's literally true that he's a scientist even if he's doing unscientific things right now, but no reader is going to interpret it that way. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I respect your point of view that you see Sheldrake in this way, but many sources including the BBC, universities, National Geographic, national newspapers, etc (links provided above) are not consistent with this view, though I recognise that there some people who have described Sheldrake in this way. --Iantresman (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The comparison to Obama is quite apt; part of the *reason* he became POTUS is exactly *because* he was once a professor of Constitutional law, in Chicago. It is not just *literally* true that Sheldrake is a scientist, who sometimes does work which is dubbed pseudoscientific (but not always -- he also publishes about theology, about philosophy, about politics, and from time to time about mainstream science... giving a lecture on axion stuff at his alma mater recently for instance). The key point is that, unless the reader is told that Sheldrake has highly respectable credentials as a scientist, and twenty years of beyond-undergrad research experience in the mainstream of science, it is impossible to otherwise grok how his telepathy-like ideas became so popular.

  Just like the Constitutional-lawyer-in-Chicago credentials *explain* Obama's Notability, the scientist-credentials-in-Hyderabad *explain* Sheldrake's Notability, plus *explain* why he became successful as the author-or-co-author all those books. (No morphic-theory sans science PhD, no book-sales sans science PhD, no militant-sceptic-warfare sans science PhD. :-) Wikipedia editors do not get to delete reliably-sourced materials, which are literally true, as part of some misguided quest to keep the poor gullible reader from thinking that Sheldrake's work which is borderline-or-over-the-line-pseudoscientific is identical with mainstream science. There is a difference between describing the *specific* things which Sheldrake has done, as themselves being specifically called-pseudoscientific-by-Reliable-Source-$foo-in-year-$baz ... and *purposely* misleading the reader about the literal truth, whilst saying we do it so as not to mislead them! Wikipedia must reflect the sources, never *correct* the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that Obama being a lawyer helps explain how Obama became president.

It's *also* true that we *don't* start the Obama article by saying "Obama is a lawyer." We describe him as the president. Oh, we do mention being a lawyer in the article, but it's not so prominent in the lead. See WP:LEAD on "relative emphasis".

Just like we don't start the Obama article by saying that he's a lawyer--even though being a lawyer helped him become president--we shouldn't start the Sheldrake article by saying that he's a scientist--even though being a scientist helped him get an audience for his pseudoscience. Sheldrake is not mainly known for acting as a scientist, despite being one, and calling him one not only is bad relative weighting, it also misleads the reader into thinking his pseudoscience is science. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee, I understand your concern about opinions of Sheldrake, but it's not our role to create a page that warns readers about how they're supposed to interpret the content. Every incarnation of the lead has prominently figured statements that described Sheldrake as outside accepted scientific norms, so it's bordering on blatant bias to further change terminology that certainly applies (the man has done biochemical research, thus he's a scientist) just because we think giving him any credibility could lead people to listen to him. The term "scientist" is not the make-or-break of Sheldrake's legitimacy, but it is definitely applicable and belongs here. The Cap'n (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

i have swum in the ocean. that does not mean that describing me as "a Swimmer" is the best reflection of what and who i am. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference being that you didn't spend the better part of a decade swimming, nor identifying yourself in all your literature as a swimmer, nor called all of your work swimming. The man calls himself a scientist, he's done scientific research, written scientific books, how is this an issue? And the word "hypothesis" simply means a proposed idea, which is what MR is. How and why does that not apply? Please address these issues before reverting to a version that effectively says "that wacky nonsense this crackpot Sheldrake calls an idea." I'm trying to respectful as I've always been a fan of your work, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, but it'd be nice to meet you halfway. The Cap'n (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that you're not known for being a swimmer. If you have a Wikipedia article as, oh, a mathematician, that's because you are known for being a mathematician.

Sheldrake is known for being a pseudoscientist. He's not so well known for being a scientist.

The difference being that you didn't spend the better part of a decade swimming

The fact that he spent many years as one doesn't matter, since it's not what he's best known for--I'm pretty sure Obama spent more years as a lawyer than as a president.

he's done scientific research, written scientific books, how is this an issue?

He did those things, but that's not what he's famous for. What he is famous for is almost the opposite of those things. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is known by a small number of people for being a pseudoscientist. Other sources know him for his challenging and controversial scientific hypotheses. If we check some independent secondary sources, you'll find that few mention him as a pseudoscientist. See for example, Scientific American (2005)[6] Financial Times (2012)[7] (2013),[8] Skeptical Inquirer (2000),[9] Times Higher Education (2012)[10] Discover Magazine (2002)[11] The Guardian (2012)[12] BBC (2012)[13]. --Iantresman (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sources generally don't use the word "pseudoscience", but they clearly indicate that he's not acting as a scientist when he does the things he's famous for. When his scientific activities are mentioned, it's to contrast those with the nonscientific activities that he's best known for. So although you could argue that the exact word "pseudoscientist" shouldn't be used, it's still true that whatever the right word is, it isn't "scientist", and he shouldn't be referred to as a scientist. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I read some criticism, but the best I could find is that Sheldrake "is known for his controversial theories" (see below). I think that if you want to support your interpretation, you'll need to offer a quote and citation, as the ones that I found, are consistent with my original description:

• Scientific American (2005) "Sheldrake, a botanist trained at the University of Cambridge,"[14]
• Financial Times (2012) "An experienced scientist, Rupert Sheldrake is a robust and eloquent defender of science and the crucial role it plays in modern society"[15]
• Financial Times (2013) "Sheldrake, 69, has written more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books and is known for his controversial theories"[16]
• Skeptical Inquirer (2000) "Sheldrake’s hypothetical .. Sheldrake has conducted new experiments"[17]
• Times Higher Education (2012) "Sheldrake is not sceptical enough. He's against scientific "laws" but convinced of the permanence of scientific "facts" "[18]
• Discover Magazine (2002) "Sheldrake earned the righteous scorn of his fellow biologists for suggesting that pets communicate telepathically with their masters by way of invisible morphic fields. But some physicists think he may be onto something"[19]
• The Guardian (2012) "he seems more like the Cambridge biochemistry don he once was, one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation, winner of the university botany prize, researcher at the Royal Society, Harvard scholar and fellow of Clare College."[20]
• BBC (2012) "Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake"[21]

--Iantresman (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The lines you quoted do call him a scientist, but for cases like the Skeptical Inquirer you are taking those quotes out of context--they are mentioning he's a scientist and they describe his scientific work in order to contrast it with the nonscientific work for which he is best known. They are not saying that he is acting as a scientist when he is doing that work.

You're also including a number of quotes from sources that do really call him a scientist but where it's outside the source's area of expertise. The Guardian is not an expert on whether someone is a scientist, and should not be quoted to settle that issue if there is any dispute about it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is as expert as it needs to be on determining whether someone is a scientist. Indeed, it's hard to imagine what greater expertise anyone/thing could have. That is, determining whether someone is a scientist is not itself some scientific (or any in any way complex) question that requires years of specialist education to understand. By contrast, it's just a basic fact about the world, easily determined, and determined in this case in the affirmative. There is also no dispute about whether he is scientist - at least none outside wikipedia - because, as noted, it is simply a fact. That's why the Guardian, and all the other sources listed above, state it so plainly. And that's why it should be in the article as part of the basic biographical details about the man. Barleybannocks (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken, we don't start Obama with "is a lawyer" because the bulk of reliable sources call him POTUS. It's not a *logic* decision, it is a *sourcing* decision. Bulk of reliable sources call Sheldrake either an "author and biologist" or more commonly "biologist and author". This matches what Sheldrake calls himself... though he prefers to be called "biologist and world-renowned author".  :-)   The whole vague 'scientist' thing was an attempted temporary compromise, between people that do not want to reflect the bulk of the sources (for the entirely honorable reason that they do not want to mislead the readership), and people that insist pillar two is *defined* purely by sources, and reject the ability of editors to pick and choose the 'winner' amongst the sea of reliable sources. Anyways, I agree saying biologist-n-author is not the end of it, and have suggested the compromise phrase of "biologist[4]-and-now-parapsychologist[5], author/lecturer, etc". How do you like that alternative? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverted several times after adding the descriptor "scientist" into Sheldrake's opening sentence. Here's my issue and argument that none of the people reverting me have addressed. If A) the dictionary definition of a scientist is someone who is an expert in one of the natural or physical sciences, and B) Rupert Sheldrake has a Phd in biochemistry and is known to have done botanical research, and C) 8 reputable sources choose to describe Sheldrake as a scientist/biologist, then D)uh, how is this a controversial decision? I'm not being rhetorical, someone please answer me.

Sheldrake is an acknowledged scientist, and the justification I've heard that he's only notable for opposing science is specious. It's true most of his publicity comes from his wacky hypothesis, but no one would care anything about that if he didn't have a reputation as a scientist to contrast it with. The fact that the word "scientist" has been reverted over & over as "not notable enough" but "lecturer" remains is utterly unreasonable; he's able to lecture because he has a reputation as a scientist with fringe theories. If Sheldrake weren't a scientist, he'd just be some crazy dog person swearing his pet can read his mind, no one would care, there'd be no WP article and we'd all have dozens of hours of our lives back. But he is, he may be, we do, there is and we don't. If anyone can explain how anything about Sheldrake is relevant without his scientific background, I'll drop it, but until then I'm going to keep pushing (but not warring) to make this article sensible. The Cap'n (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is an acknowledged scientist by tens of reliable sources, mostly journalists; but, simultaneously, he is an acknowledged pseudo/former/not-a-scientist by at least four rock-solid reliable sources, mostly scientists or science-specialist-journalists. The root cause of the problem, is that a handful of editors here are very concerned that the public know The Truth About Sheldrake... and are confused about how broad the scope of WP:FRINGE/WP:GEVAL/WP:REDFLAG/WP:VALID actually is. They think, if somebody is called fringe *once* by some medium-important scientist, that means it is open season to downplay academic credentials, delete reliable sources they disagree with, and slap the "pseudo" label on the BLP's religious beliefs, philosophical concepts, even their recognized mainstream work. Anyways, this has been going on since July, but we are finally coming to the end of it. Either everybody will figure out what blowback means (gracias to David for coming up with the correct term), or somebody with a very large ban-hammer will show up, and everybody on this talkpage will get a strong discretionary-sanctions-lashing. I prefer the former outcome. Hope this answer your question; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Capn: Sheldrake's scientific background is relevant, but being relevant only means mentioning it in the article, not putting it in the lead. Putting it in the lead implies that he is mainly known for being a scientist. He's not, and putting it in the lead implies that the pseudoscience that he is mainly known for is science. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the reliable secondary sources list below disagree. They note he is a scientist/biologist, and that he is known for his controversial work. Please provide some alternative reliable secondary sources that suggest otherwise. --Iantresman (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Degree in the first sentence

It's not Wikipedia's style to repeat the Ph.D. in the first sentence (Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman). I've seen no Wikipedia articles which do this. The degree is there in the infobox; there's no need to repeat. The first sentence has to describe why the person is notable, and Sheldrake isn't notable for getting a Ph.D. People aren't notable for getting Ph.D.s unless they are twelve years old. vzaak (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The information does not need to be beaten into the readers head. It’s already available near the top of the page in the infobox. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As my edit summary indicated, it's a poor substitute made as a concession to the wearisome, incessant and misguided bleating that a Living Person with a Cambridge Ph.D. in biochem cannot be called a biologist in the lead sentence of a Biography about him because a militantly skeptical POV requires beating into the reader's head that the subject of the biography is on the fringe. David in DC (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Davy, my boy, I fear the stress of Wikipedia editing is getting to you. It sounds like the talk page is wearing your nerves a bit thin. If the definition of the word biologist is starting to sound like bleating, and you’re having paranoid fantasies of militant skeptics being out to get you, then maybe you need to take some time off. You could take a nice leisurely drive out to the countryside, relax, unwind, unbunch your panties, and take your mind off of Wikipedia for a little while. You may not feel like you need a break, but you don’t want to end up like old Deepak Chopra now do you? I hear Deepak’s paranoia has reached such an extreme that he’s now convinced that a diabolical organization of gorillas, skeptics, and skeptical gorillas has it in for him. So, do yourself a favor and take a little WP:WIKIBREAK, for your own mental health. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind concern. It's misplaced but diagnosing another person's mental health by drawing inferences from his wikipedia editing is a notoriously difficult science.

No worries about the panties. I go commando. David in DC (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, psychology isn’t always an exact science you know. But I think you can see how that little rant you posted on your talk page might give some editors cause for concern. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Clairvoyance? You expressed concern about my mental health 13 hours before the posting on my talk page. I had thought your inference was drawn from my post on this page, just above yours. But if it was based on a "rant" not yet "ranted", I think you're providing anecdotal evidence in support of parapsychology. David in DC (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You know David; somehow I just don’t think that this occurrence is going to be the evidence that finally convinces the world that psi is real. Oh, and it would be precognition, not clairvoyance. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, David in DC, I'm getting continually reverted for trying to say Sheldrake has worked in science at all or that MR is hypothesis (as opposed to some vague nonsense he made up a name for). I think I'd burst into flames if I actually tried to use the term "biologist" instead of just "scientist," which would be pyrokinesis, to keep with the parapsychological theme. The most irksome part of all this is that I don't even really care about Sheldrake or morphic resonance... it's just become a matter of principle to get this article right. The Cap'n (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cap'n. I'm with you. We will get there. Keep calm and carry on, as the old saying goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

gallows humour

p.s. Just in case, maybe you should set up a video-recording-apparatus near your keyboard? If you do burst into flame, and the recording survives the conflaguration, your username would become a footnote in history. Actually, you better not get out the camcorder, because then people who want to prove pyrokinesis is real, will concentrate their mental energies in your direction. Wait... but if you don't get the camcorder, people who want to disprove pyrokinesis, but also want to keep Sheldrake from being called what a significant percentage of the reliable sources call him, might just risk pyrokinesis getting some popularity, if only they can keep Sheldrake's wikipedia bio from giving him any popularity!    p.p.s. Hmmmm... we want to keep Sheldrake from getting positive publicity... so we'll blackball his name on wikipedia... which gives him international exposure in the mainstream media... d'oh... the end of high prices!    p.p.p.s. Dear drive-by ArbCom admin, mandatory disclaimer follows, this entire paragraph is ha-ha-only-serious, nobody here is wishing that the human being -- or in Roxy's case possibly the canine being -- masquerading under the pseudonym The Cap'n will actually catch on fire. You can now resume your vandal-fighting elsewhere. These are not the droids you're looking for. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bio needs more on Sheldrake's ideas

Since I've opined on a couple noticeboards generally, thought I should read the article and opine more specifically.

• Section: Selected books - intro not really necessary and looks like it's just a battleground, noticing edits just while I was reading the article.
• "Morphic resonance is discredited by numerous critics on many grounds." Critics don't discredit, especially in an article that only alludes to the arguments made; they criticize, challenge or whatever.
• Overall there does need to be more description from WP:RS of what his books are about. (And of his critiques of mainstream science.) I'm aware of details of some of his work but this article does little to remind me of what his theories are or why they get others so excited. So new readers must be even more mystified. Putting the section "Origin and philosophy of morphic resonance" before the books as a description of his views would help.
• Any unnecessarily duplicative and/or low quality criticism should be removed.

My bias: I do believe that there is some sort of organizing intelligence as the basis of reality, but I doubt it can be proved scientifically. The "organizing intelligence" is just too unpredictable to be scientifically proved, so it has to be an article of faith. (Some dogs are just more psychic than others; two we had in a row - thus didn't influence each other - knew when Daddy was leaving work and ran to the window in those 20-30 minutes before he got there; the third one and I didn't know and didn't care.) I think it's more important to debunk alleged scientific truths that try to explain such reality with scientific precision. However, anecdotal evidence is fun to play with intellectually and, more importantly philosophically/metaphysically. CM-DC talk 03:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

per WP:VALID the more detail we present about his ideas, the more we have to include about how the mainstream academics see them as hocum.

you should let Sheldrake know about your psychic dogs so that he can set up some experiments that he can send to peer review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post the following at CM-DC's talk but I think it may be useful here. While an editor may have observed a psychic dog, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge that reliable sources do not support the notion that dogs have psychic powers. Accordingly, no matter how convinced an editor may be that their dogs are psychic, they should not attempt to use Wikipedia to "debunk alleged scientific truths". Since we are exchanging personal observations, rather than thinking my dogs have magic powers that I do not, I would prefer to think that my pets are sufficiently intelligent and caring to pick up subtle cues about what I am likely to do next. Science is more interesting than hocus pocus—saying "they're psychic" explains nothing and predicts nothing, while working out how Clever Hans did arithmetic is much more useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are entertained. Laughter is the best medicine. Or as Gandhi (disputed) said: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Anyway, re: dog anecdotes, maybe it's just that dogs can tell time. Geez, I should have studied if the psychic one got confused in her predictions when daylight savings time happened.

Anyway, good luck to those who agree with my suggestions. Feel better; this article only insults his scientific methodology; I've had much more severely messed with BLPs to deal with before; like maybe 1/2 my time editing Wikipedia. Sigh. CM-DC talk 05:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to drop the book intro - but I thought it was a good place to try and capture some of the frisson that erupts each time he published something. That seems to be lacking from the article to me. This BLP seems to be deserving of a controversy section given so much of his notability arises from these. I've moved the Origin and Philosophy section per your suggestion. I think the Sokal stuff is ridiculous WP:OR, and the refusal to include a significant encounter (covered by at least 2 RS's) with Dawkins is truculent. Blippy (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, your repeated assertion that the article " needs a controversy section" is flatly against the NPOV policy WP:STRUCTURE and for which we have a specific NPOV clean up banner {{controversy section}}. Please explain how the fuck creating a blatant NPOV violation would in any way help to resolve POV issues in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree the expletive is needed, I am also against a controversy-section. We already have the interactions-with-other-scientists section. Blippy, explain a little more about what you are trying to achieve here. Are you just saying that the article should not be point-counterpoint style? Because *that* is a good thing. But having an explicit 'controversy' section means WP:EDITORIALIZING that we prolly do not want to do. Editors here think that whether Sheldrake has his PhD is controversial... but the Reliable Sources tend to use the word *very* sparingly, except UsaToday and such. Rather than suggest vaguely that article-deserves-a-controversy-section, please be specific about what you would move into that controversy-section, and why. Vzaak already has the article organized mostly chrologically, which *is* pretty standard for a BLP. Why split the chronology into 'not-controvery' stuff, and on the other hand, 'controversy-stuff'? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Sokal stuff is nor OR, and the Dawkins thing is an unreliable anecdote that Dawkins doesn't think Sheldrake is good enough for attention. Given the Gandhi quote above, it suggests that Dawkins doesn't think that Sheldrake even merits ridicule because he's irrelevant. However, on the OP, yes, we do need more content from Sheldrake's ideas. Unfortunately, since they don't make much sense, it is very difficult to summarise them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections generally frowned upon, especially when criticism galore already integrated throughout the article. Also note: Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_ref-1 and its linked WP:Criticism essay Here's the tag if you need it {{Criticism section|date=July 2013}}

Coincidentally I happened to turn into an interview with Dawkins on AlJazeera this week, who I just knew was some sort of determinist/materialist. I was surprised that he just kept making snotty comments about people who believe in God, instead of making rational arguments, of which there are many. (Were his selfish genes too tight? ha ha) If he did in fact debate Sheldrake, and WP:RS covered it, should have a sentence or two.

As for summaries, there is no doubt it helps if editors actually write material that is needed. If the article is overwhelmed by partisans of any side who constantly discourage such editing, it may get discouraged. Can't say from experience if that's true here... but people should write it if they think it needs to be there. CM-DC talk 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I accept the general frowny nature on controversy sections, but it seemed a reasonable mechanism to allow such content to be included given the polarity of editors here. I've tried to incorporate such content e.g.

Sheldrake has been described as having to continually defend himself. In one incident Sheldrake encountered Richard Dawkins as part of Dawkins' 2007 TV series "Enemies of Reason" wherein Sheldrake suggested they discuss the evidence for telepathy. Dawkins allegedly replied "There isn't time. It's too complicated. And that's not what the programme is about," Sheldrake claims to have responded that he wasn't interested in taking part in another "low-grade debunking exercise", to which Dawkins reportedly replied: "It's not a low-grade debunking exercise; it's a high-grade debunking exercise."

However the argument back has been that The Guardian and Huffington Post aren't RS's!! Farcically, in the same "Interactions with other scientists" section a piece of WP:OR about Sokal keeps getting put back! Sadly for many things Up is Down, Left is Right, Black is White, WP:OR is WP:RS, and WP:RS is meaningless on this article. Blippy (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

blippy get it through your head when a reliable source says that an unreliable source said "X" that does not make "X" a reliable fact. All the reliable source does is verify that the unreliable source said "X". You have given us generally reliable sources (and nothing is always a reliable source) that verify the Sheldrake has said that Dawkins has said something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm... TRPoD, if a Reliable Source is found, which says that some Unreliable Source said quote X unquote ... that is the definition of WP:NOTEWORTHY. It is irrelevant whether or not X is a fact; what *is* a fact, and therefore belongs in wikipedia, is the Reliably-Sourced sentence fragment "In 2013 it was reported[1] that Alice said X" with the cited Reliable Source in the brackets. We do *not* thereby imply that X is a fact, and moreover, if some *other* Reliable Source is published in which a mainstream scientist asserts not_X, then we are careful to describe the conflict, and say which side is mainstream. But we don't have pillar six, that everything written in wikipedia must be objectively factual... all we have is pillar two, that everything challenged must be Reliably Sourced, to prove Noteworthy/Notable, and Verifiable. Blippy's source seems fine, if the *factual validity* of the Guardian story is your only argument. Plenty of stuff that Hannah Montana says is also bogus, and *much* more widely reported, not because she speaks facts, but because she is a Notable/Noteworthy celebrity. Sheldrake is in the same category, more or less, just a biologist-and-now-also-parapsychologist, versus a teevee-star-and-now-also-musician. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

uh, no, wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. What we have is partisans in opinion pieces stating that Seldrake says that Dawkins invited RS on his show to talk about cupcakes. RS said "I want to talk about steaks." Dawkins replies "my show is about deserts so if you want to talk about steaks i am not going to have you on my show". There is nothing there. if it was actually news, the reliable sources would have at least contacted Dawkins to get his version of what happened. the editorialists didnt. there is nothing there. if you are somehow claiming that Chopra is a big enough opinionista that his opinions should be included, then we have "Chopra thinks that Dawkins should have allowed Sheldrake to appear on Dawkins show to talk about telepathy and he thinks Dawkins refusal is an example of the ' unsavory side of defending science,' " or "Sheldrake complained in his book and to his friend Chopra that Dawkins should have let him on his show to talk about telepathy and Chopra published Sheldrakes complaint in an op ed in the Huff Post ," in the first case its pretty much out of bounds on BLP grounds - Chopras opinions about Dawkins are clearly inappropriate in the Sheldrake article. The second case just makes Sheldrake look whiny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that wikipedia is notnews... but the correct guideline here is WP:NOTEWORTHY. If some reliable source, e.g. the Guardian, saw fit to quote some BLP doing some partisan whining... which happens all the time in politics and in hollywood as you prolly already know... and if said BLP already has enough WP:N that they have their own wikipedia article... then wikipedia can have a sentence or a sentence-fragment saying what happened.

Sheldrake says he debated Dawkins in private[1]. The show did not include Sheldrake[2]. Chopra says what a shame[3]. Dawkins made no comment on this situation, but elsewhere said $foo about Sheldrake[4].

Those are facts. Of course, alone -- by themselves -- these gossipy 'facts' do not justify creation of a Brand New Article in wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS... but all participating parties are already in Wikipedia, so that makes these quotations WP:NOTEWORTHY facts, which do belong, in the appropriate article(s). In this situation, the quotes belong specifically in the Sheldrake BLP article, *because* Sheldrake spends quite a lot of time complaining about the politics-of-science, whereas Dawkins to my knowledge has *never* bothered to complain publically (in a WP:RS) about Sheldrake, or if he did, it was just passing mention. (Contrast with Wiseman, who complains specifically about Sheldrake all the time, at length, in depth.)

  At the end of the day, this talkpage-tiff over the Dawkins-vs-Sheldrake incident is just a symptom of the larger problem, which is deleting reliably sourced materials that disagree with Coyne/Maddox/Randi; see talkpage sections below. Wikipedia editors cannot pick-n-choose amongst reliable sources: either the source is reliable *per* WP:RS, or it is not. Newspapers judges noteworthy-or-not, wikipedia editors *reflect* their choice. Cherrypicking means, keeping sources & sourced-sentences you agree with, deleting sources & sourced-sentences you disagree with. Iantresman is not cherrypicking. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the key *visible* problem here is cherrypicking. But the underlying problem, is the idea that, if what one WP:RS says conflicts with what another WP:RS says, then us editors get to pick the winner. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins (again, like everything else on this talk page)

Sheldrake partisans writing editorials in which they criticize Dawkins based solely on Sheldrake's version of a conversation is not something that should be included in the article, first based on NPOV issues in that the original and the repetitions in the opinion pieces do not give Dawkin's version of what happened, second because they record NOTHING. Sheldrake wanted to talk about issues that Dawkins didnt want to cover in his show and so Dawkins didnt include him in the show. BIG FUCKING DEAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Template

I have placed one, for the first time in my short wiki career (I've been registered since 2008), because the lede is now in violation of this wiki policy. It has been requested that no change is made to the use of those NPOV violating words for one week - so I haven't. Please could somebody who knows tell me what biology Shelly has done in the last thirty years, and why we should call "morphic resonance" a theory. Then I wont have to suggest that we change it back in a weeks time. Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, that was fun. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Repeated, with a slight addition, from BLP noticeboard) Here are the BLP and NPOV problems. [22]. It took about an hour. Using the words misleads no one and does not violate WP:FRINGE. Deleting them is derogatory toward the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. Fixing WP:BLP violations does not require consensus. But it's impossible to fix them here, because of determined edit-warring by editors with a skeptical POV. WP:NPOV would be to call him a biologist (or scientist), call his ideas hypotheses (or theories) and use the body of the article to tell the story of his life, including the voluminous (and accurate - I'm not a Sheldrake acolyte) material from reliable sources critiquing the ideas he promotes that are deeply flawed. Adding material opposing the theories is totally justifiable. Derogating the living person by deleting reliably sourced biographical info about him is not. David in DC (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog. His writings and research are about biology. He's putting out books about living things like plants and dogs. He's describing a theory that rests on a bunch of hypotheses.

His writings and research are well-critiqued and refuted by other scientists. That doesn't mean he's not DOING biology. Just that his writings about biology are almost certainly wrong.

His ideas are hypotheses and theories. These words lend no credibility to the ideas, they just categorize them. Correctly. Hypotheses can be tested and found wanting. The same goes for theories. That doesn't mean they're not hypothese/theories. It just mean they've been tested by the scientific method and been found wanting. David in DC (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

his "ideas" are "ideas" and can most appropriately be described as "ideas" or "concepts". "Hypothesis" and "Theory" have multiple uses and sometimes very specific meanings. We have sources such as [23] identifying Sheldrakes "ideas" as "virtually vacuous". we do not serve ANYONE other than Sheldrake by using words which might give the reader a misinterpretation when we have absolutely adequate words to use that do not have that chance of being inappropriately misinterpreted. To insist on using words that are in fact likely to mislead our readers is to be pushing a POV and I urge you to drop your stick.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The source you give above, "So-called "formative causation" - A hypothesis disconfirmed"[24], uses the term "hypothesis", even in its title, at least a dozen times, and the term "idea" never. --Iantresman (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No answers so far. @David, his writings are books, not research. Research gets peer reviewed. He hasn't done any research. That makes him an Author. Same thing goes with the tag Biologist, it just doesn't apply. Not for thirty years. He used to be a Biologist, not any more. Just to prove I read the drama boards, like Obama used to be a lawyer, now he's a POTUS, except that the difference between a lawyer and a POTUS isn't as great as the difference between a biologist/scientist and a sheldrake. The Lilac Pen Of Doom has adequately dealt with the Theory/hypothesis/notion/ideation thing.

The only reason I didn't directly revert a la Doom was that I didn't have the bottle after the plea to leave it for a week. I do appreciate that DC Dave acts IGF. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources provided by TRPoD to Rose's peer-reviewed paper[25] (above) mentions that "Sheldrake's paper claims that the results of the experiment which we jointly planned, and which was conducted by myself and Ms Harrison..." seems to contradict that view, as Rose seems to be aware of both a paper (not a book) that Shreldrake wrote, and an experiment that was conducted with Rose and a Ms Harrison. Prof. Steven Rose is sufficiently qualified and experienced to ensure that their joint experiment followed the scientific method. Although Rose disagrees with Sheldrake's hypothesis (Rose's term), nowhere does he question Shreldrake's science or credentials. This is peer-review in action. --Iantresman (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

you are partially correct. the Rose was written in 1992. so its not been 30 years, its been 20.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If he is only writing books and not peer reviewed research, how do you account for this [26] list of a dozen articles published in peer reviewed journals over the last decade or so? Blippy (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about the quality of those journals, the impact factor, and the quality of the peer review? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)You mean "Journal of the Society for Psychical Research " and "Journal of Parapsychology" and "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing"? You are not actually putting them forth as actual peer reviewed journals are you? Rather than being evidence of to support your position, thats just more evidence for the other interpretation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What Doom said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, by its very nature is pseudo - that is it has elements that on first inspection appear to be genuinely part of the scientific process but on closer inspection fall short. These journals are pseudo, and generally peer review is lacking or is not critical. Also, within the scientific process publishing is only a step towards completion of the process, which is acceptance, there is a lot that comes after that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your breadth of knowledge about these journals is commendable. Sources please. --Iantresman (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you are no longer saying Sheldrake avoids peer review, but that it's just you don't think the peers who reviewed his work are good/prominent enough?? If good/prominent enough reviewers wont read his work (Dawkins for instance?) then how can they ever review it? These journals are WP:RS and are peer reviewed. What beyond this matters for a WP article? You are sounding decidedly POV afflicted in such efforts to shift your own goal posts. Blippy (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

completely off topic - not being taken seriously by real scientists and scientific journals is the bed you have to sleep in when you have spent 30+ years of your career as an unrepentant pseudoscientist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, You are being serious aren't you? You honestly believe those 'journals' represent reliable sources, yes? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to refute the fact that these journal are peer reviewed or just continue with POV smears? Your claim was that Sheldrake only publishes books. False. You claimed he did so to avoid peer review. False. Do you accept this and wish to move on to discussing the quality of those journals? Blippy (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow. Breathtaking. Demanding that we treat a journal dealing with clear WP:FRINGE issues as something that is peer reviewed due to lack of sources that say it isn't, is entirely the wrong way round. Again, it is wikilawyering with the obvious. We need to assume with WP:FRINGE issues that sources are unreliable unless we have contrary. Anyway, want sources, how about this one on Rivista specifically [27] - the is dealing with its tendency to print creationist papers - another WP:FRINGE issue that is tangentially related. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Even more breathtaking is your refusal to acknowledge that these journals are peer reviewed - whatever 'you' think of their quality. The accusation was that he only wrote books - do you accept that is false? The other accusation was that this was to avoid peer review - do you also accept that is false? If we can't get intellectual honesty on these basic points, what hope is there to reach consensus on more difficult areas? Blippy (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

if you think they are reliable peer reviewed journals, please take them to the reliable source notice board. We will be waiting for you here when you come back smelling of fish. We will be able to plug our noses in time because we will be able to hear the laughter from here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to compare hard and soft science. That's is not a fair comparison. For example, physics is a wholly different beast to psychology, to parapsychology. This is why universities have specialist departments staffed not by "parapsychologists", but scientists with other qualifications, such as psychologists, engineers, theoretical physics (eg. Princeton's now closed PEAR); psychiatrists and psychologists (U. Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and U. Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit and U.Arizona's Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health). Unfortuntely it is not up to Wikipedia editors to make a judgement call on these areas of research, the universities and their staff have made that decision for us, and it is our job to neutrally describe their research (per WP:NPOV). But if you have relevant independent reliable sources, by all means, bring them to the table. Prof. Steven Rose's paper mentioned above is good example. Editors here welcome critical material, if it is properly sourced. --Iantresman (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a biologist. This should appear in the first line of the lead. Consider the following from another wikipedia article - "Samuel B. Harris (born April 9, 1967)[2] is an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist...". Thus, on account of Sheldrake's far superior credentials, academic employment record and publication record he should be described as a biologist. Can use this as a source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Another source "Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake. He talks about the relationship between science and religion." BBC - here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018nsjk/Belief_Rupert_Sheldrake/

And another "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist" here http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ted-conference-censorship-row-8563105.html Barleybannocks (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake the skeptic

There is a sense in which Sheldrake is a "skeptic", but the term itself is most often used these days to apply to people who generally oppose the content of much of Sheldrake's writings and lectures. (Sheldrake in his own writings uses the term "skeptic" to identify such people as well!) To call him a "skeptic" or an advocate of "skepticism" in the lede is a violation of WP:ASTONISH because it misleads all but the most sophisticated of readers. There may be another term of art which we could use to describe his contrarian position towards mainstream thought, but "skeptic" is too loaded to work well here. jps (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what wikilinks are for. The very first sentence here says: "Skepticism, as an epistomological argument, poses the question of whether knowledge, in the first place, is possible. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this, skeptics oppose dogmatic foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic positions that are self-justified or beyond justification, without reference to others."

Fits the graf it introduced in the lede to a tee. Just how stupid do you think our readers are? David in DC (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

David, your point is well-taken (and hilarious), but might border into WP:SYNTH. Do we have a quote where somebody Notable is explicitly saying that Sheldrake is sceptical/skeptical about conservation of dark energy, or something like that? As for the points made by JPS... clearly Sheldrake is in fact taking a position of classic-philosophical-scepticm, in his philosophy-of-science writings. But there are plenty of modern-anti-pseudoscientific-skeptics like Randi/Dawkins/Wiseman/etc who have interacted with Sheldrake over the years. The former groups says to question the foundations of science; the latter group says that to question the foundations of science is heresy. This has always been the case with Sheldrake: even in the 1970s, his ideas were "well-received by classicists/philosophers/etc but laughed at by my peers in the science departments" ... so there is some truth to the notion that readers may be confused. Is there some reasonably-common-nowadays word for 'Skeptikoi'? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A hodgepodge of points

1. The article is getting long. I appreciate Barney gathering all these reviews, but in some places it seems too much material; too much weight. I would suggest commenting out a few. Also, it's unencyclopedic and unhelpful to the reader to just say "So-and-so reviewed such-and-such" with no further information. At least those should be commented out.
2. Regarding longness again, there's now an extensive Rose v Sheldrake section. I've argued in the past that Wikipedia editors should not be jumping into the middle of a scientific debate for which there are only primary sources. For example one WP user is absolutely convinced that Richard Wiseman is disingenuous via a misinterpretation of primary sources. Wikipedia can report conclusions of scientific papers, i.e. the interpretations of their authors, but shouldn't wade into the muck without the use of secondary sources. The lack of secondary sources also indicates the relative unimportance.
3. The original way the mainstream view of perpetual motion machines was stated was to cite them as pseudoscience. Attempting to soften the lead, I removed the pseudoscience part, but this left an opening where the mainstream view was not clearly explained, which I would suppose has resulted in jps' insistence of saying "fact". Since "fact" here is awkward, and comes across -- rightly or wrongly -- as editorializing. This could be avoided with the re-insertion of the pseudoscientific characterization of perpetual motion machines.
4. In dealing with pseudoscience, WP editors have to exercise judgment informed by reliable sources. Morphic resonance falls under 2. Generally considered pseudoscience, and as such there is no mandate to call it anything in particular like "theory" or "hypothesis". There is a common confusion here with WP:SYNTH, which only applies to implication statements in the article. Editors using informed judgment to determine whether a topic is pseudoscience, as explained in FRINGE/PS, is not SYNTH.
5. With regard to the opening sentence, the root question is not "What is Sheldrake?", but "What is Sheldrake notable for?"

vzaak (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the opening sentence, he's not notable for his date of birth, but that's in there. Nor do many know his first name is Alfred, but that's there too. And since this sentence serves to introduce the man and place him and his work in context it is clearly appropriate, given the precedent set by the rest of Wikipedia, to let people know he is a biologist. It's also true and supported by numerous reliable sources.

Moreover, even if it was only what he's notable for, he's very notable for his work in biology - that's what the Nature editorial was about, for example. And that's what his wager with Wolpert is about. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So what secondary sources do we have describing aspects of Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience? --Iantresman (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, another attempt to have a reasonable conversation fails because some people cannot listen or comprehend basic policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I dialogue fails when one person does not continue with it, or makes an unhelpful comment. I hate it when people don't listen. Fortunately I did, as is evidenced by my comment, and reasonable request to assess reliable secondary sources. Please. Most the the sources I have seen contradict the assertion that he is known for his pseudoscience. I am well aware of some primary sources calling some of this work pseudoscience, and am happy to include them, but I'd like to assess the quality and number of secondary sources to see how they compare to those I provided above. I'm sure others would too. --Iantresman (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - which pieces by renowned scientists that highlight fundamental scientific problems with the content of Sheldrake's books and other writing of are you disputing the existing of? What book reviews do you dispute the existence of? They're in the article - please read it and read the originals. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been stated that Sheldrake is "Generally considered pseudoscience", a statement that I believe you uphold. I'm not going to find sources for you. Which secondary sources are you putting forward that supports this. If they are in the article, tell me which ones, and provide a permalink so they can be assessed. --Iantresman (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough Iantresman (talk · contribs), there haven't been any surveys of how scientists view Sheldrake's contributions to knowledge, so we have to go with the preponderance of sources, paying particular attention to those with accomplishments in science. This is per policy. These sources - principally Maddox, Rose, Wolpert, are backed up by others making similar noises The sources are in the article. Sheldrake says in his FAQ [28] "There is a great variety of opinion and openness within the scientific community. Many scientific colleagues are friendly and supportive of this work, and help me with advice and in other ways" Then who the fuck are they? Why aren't they doing research? Why aren't they writing into the Guardian supporting him? If they exist, they should be heard. Please provide examples support from scientists (we've already got Josephson). Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And those are great sources! They belong in the lede. But they do not eliminate Iantresman's sources. The BBC is not fringe. You cannot downplay the BLP's PhD/theology/mainstreamResearchWork, just because some of the ideas that BLP has published as some points in their lives are dubbed pseudo. That is the problem here. WP:FRINGE does not apply to everything Sheldrake has ever done or will ever do. WP:REDFLAG only applies to telepathy-related claims, or subquantum-physics-related claims, not to the claim that 95% of reliable sources refer to Sheldrake as a 'biologist and author'. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Maddox, Rose, Wolpert are three individuals, and their views are derived from primary sources. We do no exclude them. But they are not representative of how Sheldrake is viewed by the world at large, for which we defer to secondary sources (see next section). --Iantresman (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If we ignore the fact that all of the sources above are cherry picked, and many do not support your conjecture. But what you're saying Iantresman (talk · contribs) is that on a topic that is scientific - whose subject claims himself that he is doing science - that instead of looking at the opinions of high ranking scientists (plus for generosity any sociologists or philosophers of science) we should rely on the ability of journalists, whose credentials we can't be sure of, to write accurate descriptions of someone who clearly overemphasises his own importance and achievements, when they probably don't realise that their words are going to be cherry-picked for the importance of accuracy in sources that Wikipedia needs. This is not honest. Meanwhile, Vzaak (talk · contribs)'s points to improve the article are ignored. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they were not cherry picked. I have always supported the inclusion of scientists' views on Sheldrake, and do so now. The sources I provided are reliable sources that have the necessary resources to take into account all views, including scientific views, and summarise their findings. You are more than welcome to provide your own independent reliable sources that support your view, but I couldn't find any. There is no dispute that some scientists consider some of Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, but this appears to be at odds with the world view of him, where he appears notable for his controversial theories. I am not ignoring vzaak's points, I am specifically address point #4 above. --Iantresman (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, the guy is a scientist - a biologist. There is no debate at all about that fact. It is easily sourced to a number of reliable sources. Thus, even if Sheldrake's work is considered psuedoscience it is important to let the reader know that this particular pseudoscience (biological pseudoscience) is being put forward by a properly credentialed biologist. It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide to strip away someone's credentials or withhold them from the reader in order to try to forestall some potential over-positive reactions by readers to the mere fact he is a biologist. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you're new to this, have a look at WP:FRINGE, and our articles on scientist and the scientific method. A scientist does science. Sheldrake doesn't do science. You work out the rest. The sources provided by Iantresman (talk · contribs) are nonsense - I'll provide a better analysis in due course. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Sheldrake is a scientist in the sense necessary to be called a scientist in blurbs about him, introductions, biographies and the like. That's why there are so many perfectly valid and reliable sources which describe him as such. If he then does very controversial work that some label pseudoscience he is still a scientist (as opposed to a non-scientist) doing very controversial work that some label pseudoscience. A point also made in those some of same sources. It is not for wikipedia editors to re-assess people's basic academic credentials in light of the quality, or otherwise, of their work. That Sheldrake is a biologist is therefore, simply a fact about the world, well sourced, and indisputable. And if the wikipedia policies say otherwise then cite the relevant section of the policy where it says people's credentials should not be accurately portrayed if their work does not match the standard some think should come from those with such credentials. I looked and saw nothing like that at all. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BarleyBannocks, you are correct, and Iantresman is correct. The problem is that Barney is wanting to elide facts about Sheldrake, by incorrectly expanding the scope of WP:FRINGE. Just because Sheldrake has, at some point in his life, made some claims that some scientists (Maddox/etc) called pseudo... does not therefore mean any source which calls Sheldrake a biologist (see Ian's list), or any ideas about spirituality Sheldrake has, or any philosophical musings Sheldrake as published, must therefore be tarred & feathered as fringe. Barney, I swear, you read WP:FRINGE again, it only applies to scientific-sounding claims. It is a plain pure-dee fact that Sheldrake is a biologist(-and-now-also-parapsychologist). You cannot delete reliable sources you disagree with, and point to WP:FRINGE. This is not truth-o-pedia, where readers get logically-sound objectively-verifiable scientifically-proven Truth. This is wikipedia, where readers get the pablum that reliable sources like the BBC feel fit to publish. You need to understand that wikipedia reflects the mainstream media -- famously dubbed the lamestream media in political contexts -- which is *not* identical with SkepticMag alone. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"At some point in his life, from 1981-2013". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly your position. Also known as SkePOV. But as you well know, the idea for morphic fields was from around 1971, not 1981; that was just when his book was published, and the ideas became Notable by wikipedia standards. Your abuse of wikiPolicy is that, based on his pseudophysics, you obliterate all his other positions, in five or ten distinct fields of inquiry, and even purely-demographic facts, as "pseudo". It is blackly funny; Orwellian sceptisicm. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the talk page

Whatever the justification for this edit is, it's surely not the one given in the edit summary. Practically the only thing this talk page establishes is that a few FRINGE-warriors refuse to listen to the editorial judgment of those who disagree with them. The talk page establishes no consensus to ban the words scientist or biologist. Maybe it's per WP:FRINGE, or per WP:OWN, or per WP:TENDENTIOUS. But it's surely not "per the talk page". David in DC (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I collected some reliable independent secondary sources, which seem to suggest that he is NOT known for being a pseudoscientist, but for his controversial theories. I have requested some reliable independent secondary sources that suggest otherwise. These are the ones I have:

• Scientific American (2005) "Sheldrake, a botanist trained at the University of Cambridge,"[29]
• Financial Times (2012) "An experienced scientist, Rupert Sheldrake is a robust and eloquent defender of science and the crucial role it plays in modern society"[30]
• Financial Times (2013) "Sheldrake, 69, has written more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books and is known for his controversial theories"[31]
• Skeptical Inquirer (2000) "Sheldrake’s hypothetical .. Sheldrake has conducted new experiments"[32]
• Times Higher Education (2012) "Sheldrake is not sceptical enough. He's against scientific "laws" but convinced of the permanence of scientific "facts" "[33]
• Discover Magazine (2002) "Sheldrake earned the righteous scorn of his fellow biologists for suggesting that pets communicate telepathically with their masters by way of invisible morphic fields. But some physicists think he may be onto something"[34]
• The Guardian (2012) "he seems more like the Cambridge biochemistry don he once was, one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation, winner of the university botany prize, researcher at the Royal Society, Harvard scholar and fellow of Clare College."[35]
• BBC (2012) "Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake"[36]

--Iantresman (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A few more secondary sources:

• BBC (2002) "modern maverick Rupert Sheldrake"[37] (2005): "Biologist Dr Rupert Sheldrake"[38] (2005): "Dr Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author"[39] (2012) "scientist Dr Rupert Sheldrake"[40]
• New Scientist (2004) "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake"[41]
• The Times, Anjana Ahuja. "Science Notebook" Times [London, England] 3 Dec. 2007: 16. "Rupert Sheldrake, an independent biologist and author". Mark Henderson Science Editor. "Theories of telepathy and afterlife cause uproar at top science forum." Times [London, England] 6 Sept. 2006: 22. "Rupert Sheldrake, an independent biologist"
• The Daily Telegraph (2012) "Alternative scientist Rupert Sheldrake"[42] (2004) "Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author"[43] (2005) "psychic scientist Rupert Sheldrake"[44]
• The Independent (2013) "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist"[45]
• Nature (2004) "Rupert Sheldrake, a former biochemist and plant physiologist at the University of Cambridge who has taken up parapsychology"[46] (2006) "a parapsychologist .. the researcher, Rupert Sheldrake"[47]

Academic

• Open University "Rupert Seldrake is a biologist and writer"[48]
• Binghamton University, Ask a Scientist "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist"[49]

--Iantresman (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian and David, the underlying cause is the deeply-held belief that NPOV *equals* SkePOV. Once you make that deep mistake, you can only see sources that *agree* with SkePOV as reliable sources, because disagreeing with NPOV==SkePOV must mean the disagreeing-cite is *pseudo*. This in turn leads to infinitely expanding the power of WP:FRINGE and also WP:REDFLAG ... if you have *one* source which says "this particular part of the morphic stuff is pseudoscience" (and there are in fact four perfectly reliable sources for such that I know of), that means you can say the rest of morphic stuff is pseudo, the inventor of morphic stuff is pseudo, the academic credentials of the inventor are pseudo, the spirituality of the inventor is pseudo, et cetera ad infinitum.

    This is the only explanation that explains how one can discount the BBC as a reliable source methinks. It also explains why certain parts (anything not SkePOV) of the article-talkpage can be discounted. TRPoD means to say, per the valid parts of the talkpage. But do not be too hard on them; they *are* the one who helped *get* the initial temp-compromise of 'scientist' into mainspace. They are on the fence. But until we get beyond the assertion that NPOV==SkePOV, no sustained progress will be possible. We have a ton of sources that say 'biologist' ... but because those sources are not SkePOV, they cannot count as 'reliable' because one REAL scientist one time said Rupert was "pseudo", and mainstream==sceptic==NPOV! This is a good-faith mistake; folks are trying to protect the readers from being misled... but to do so, they are trying to keep the readers from being led away from the sceptic point-of-view, under the mistaken impression the SkePOV is identical with wikipedia's (N)POV.

    For each field of inquiry, biology/physics/philosophy/theology, there are mainstream/alternativeMinority/questionable/fringe views. WP:FRINGE claims by a BLP in parapsychology-based physics, does not permit editors to hop the field-of-inquiry-fences, and downplay the BLP's mainstream biology work, his spirituality, his philosophy-of-science, his politics-of-science, and so on. I continue to assert there is no skeptik konspiracy... our trouble is an emergent phenomena that wikiCulture has so far failed to fix... but positively there is a SkePOV, or there is positively, if you prefer. As David hilariously pointed out, Sheldrake holds the sceptic stance, towards conservation of dark energy.[50] Ninja-reverted, of course. Blasphemy! That *former* scientist was banished from the tribe, Nature said so in 2004, and they *cannot* be a sceptic, they don't even subscribe to ReasonDotCom SkepticMag! Sigh. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eloquently put 74. You have framed and nailed the issue precisely. This is how leading media outlets can be dismissed as unreliable and blogs trumpeted as RS - and interestingly, this is exactly the phenomenon Sheldrake himself has written about, what I like to concatenate to sketpimentalism. Fundamentalism of all sorts warms the cockles of one's heart because having access to the truth allows everything else to be weighed and judged accordingly. Radical skepticism of Sheldrake's sort provides little succour in this regard. So I fear the triumph of SkePOV over NPOV will imPOVerish us all. Blippy (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. NPOV does not equate to any particular POV. NPOV is a writing style that neutrally describes different points of view. The idea that a particular POV (such as a particular scientific point of view) represents the actual truth, has been consistently rejected by the community.[51]WP:TRUTH --Iantresman (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So what to do? How does a page get wrested from the devout grip of the skeptimentalists? Perhaps it is early days, but the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard seems to have ground to an inglorious halt. Is the only option to to let them have their shiny unblemished way? Surely such things are a dagger at the heart of the WP project...? Blippy (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what secondary sources are presented. --Iantresman (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a principle on Wikipedia: when there is a controversy try to find a consensus. In this case, it is clear that those who want to see Sheldrake labeled a "scientist" in the lede without qualification are going to be opposed by those who think that such would be misleading. The basis for the second group is that much of what Sheldrake has done in the last thirty years or so is criticized by mainstream scientists as not being science. On the other hand, there obviously exist sources which describe Sheldrake as a scientist because at some point in his life he was participating in the mainstream scientific community. So where to go from here?

My preference would be to leave it out simply because I think it is easier to remove the word than it is to explain why there may be some controversy over the word (and there is indeed controversy because we have many secondary sources which explicitly call Sheldrake's work "pseudoscience", so WP:NPOV would demand that we not label him a "scientist" without acknowledging that this is, at the very least, controversial.)

All the sources are in the article already. There is no reason to wrangle them here. We have sources which are laudatory and some which are not. The most reliable sources are the ones that basically dismiss Sheldrake's recent forays as pseudoscience, but further than that there is not much more we can say about sources. The question is, how do we get to a consensus knowing that this controversy exists?

jps (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dismissing Sheldrake's recent forays as pseudoscience does not mean that Sheldrake is not a biologist. It just means he's a biologist (because he is) whose work has been criticised by some as pseudoscience. There seems to be quite a bit of equivocation going on here which would be little different from saying that Damien Hirst shouldn't be called an artist because some people say what he does isn't art. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/9168804/Damien-Hirst-should-not-be-in-the-Tate-says-critic.html Barleybannocks (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"recent forays" ????? Clear competency issues here. What should not be overvalued are his "youthful indiscretions" in actual science.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Yet another SPA who turns up complaining about this article, apparently willingly following the WP:IWONTLISTEN approach with regard to policies. Oh how I wish we had the German approach to such nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I did listen. I read the policies. Unfortunately, for you, as noted by numerous editors above, they support what I am saying. Thus you might want to reread them yourself. Nothing in there about creating such an ambience of untrustworthiness that readers might legitimately wonder whether Sheldrake himself exists. He's a biologist, get over it. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) Your behaviour indicate you haven't, but here is another one - WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus amongst pro-Sheldrake faction here is irrelevant because the community consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies, and you can't get round that without a wider discussion of how to deal with fringe issues, however many WP:SPAs or rambling IPs turn up here and try to back up each other's ridiculous viewpoints. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My behaviour? What, disagreeing with you is forbidden by policy. I think not. The simple fact is that Sheldrake is a biologist. Numerous high quality sources describe him as such, most probably because it's a well known fact. As for the fringe guideline, that applies to his ideas and not his basic biographical details. If I'm wrong then cite the section in question that says biologists can't be called biologists if their work is controversial to the point of being considered pseudoscience. I looked, no such policy/guideline, nor nothing like it, exists. As I said, he's a biologist, get over it. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney, please don't be incivil to new users per WP:BITE. Please do not dismiss editors outright that disagree with you, it is not constructive. WP:FRINGE is a guideline, trumped by WP:NPOV, a core policy. All editors here welcome criticism in the article, but it is not truth per WP:TRUTH (a core policy). I do not see editors that disagree with you, trying to push their own viewpoints, that would contravene WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Editors describe reliable secondary sources, of which there are many. I'm still waiting to see yours. --Iantresman (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. If I were a bully/coward/zealot, I'd use this as a pretext to collect a bunch of similar past statements by Barney, assemble a posse and try to get him banned! How fortunate that most editors on this page are not bullies/cowards/zealots. Ben Finn (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

and lets all stay focused on the content and the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm- Lantresman listed a reference which referred to Sheldrake as an 'independent biologist'. That may be the way to resolve this. By stating he is an independent biologist, or even an independent scientist - it allows for him to both have his proper credentials and show that he operates outside of the mainstream. I would support that edit. Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Further, the sources above have no problem describing him as a scientist who "is known for his controversial theories", allowing us to put his credentials in context. I am still waiting to see those secondary sources that question his status a scientist/biologist. --Iantresman (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the independent biologist/scientist solution. Blippy (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Sheldrake's status seems somewhat like that of James Lovelock, who is often described as an 'independent scientist', perhaps by himself too. Ben Finn (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, nobody is arguing that he's never done any science in his life. What they are saying is that he's not a scientist in the context of doing the things for which he is best known. The things that he is best known for are not science (but have a large contingent who wants to call them science).

Whether he has biology credentials is irrelevant. Obama has lawyer credentials, but we don't start the article on Obama by saying "Obama is a lawyer...". His most well known activities don't involve practicing law, and likewise, Sheldrake's most well known activities don't involve him practicing science. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all the reliable secondary sources listed above, disagree. What alternative secondary sources should we be looking at. --Iantresman (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

His biology credentials are highly relevant. That's because Sheldrake is the biologist whose work in the general field of biology caused an uproar on publication. The reason Nature reviewed it at all (and so harshly) is straightforwardly because it was from one of their own brightest young things. That some have since decided that it is better called pseudoscience is of no real consequence. All that means is that he is a biologist (as opposed to a non-biologist or a layman) whose work, on biology, is considered by some to be pseudoscience. This contrast - the contrast between Sheldrake and, say, von Daniken - needs to be made. And it needs to be made also because, as noted in various sources, it is precisely the fact he has such impeccable scientific credentials that gets up many people's noses and makes him notable in the first place. This is why,for example, he features in so many broadsheet newspaper articles, and why there are documentaries about him on BBC. And this in turn is why we have an article on him here. Thus the fact he is a biologist is central to his notability.Barleybannocks (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

He had scientific credentials 30 years ago, but he threw them away and has not had any scientific credibility for most of his career. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't throw them away. You can't actually throw such things away. He has them still and will have until the day he dies - unless, eg, the awarding body decides to revoke them, and even then.... Thus your argument is quite wrong on that factual score. Perhaps the reason you are misunderstanding this is because you are conflating credentials with credibility and then taking his lack of credibility as a lack of credentials as if they were one and the same thing. They're not. His credentials, not credibility, are a significant part of what all the fuss was/is about and this fuss is why he is notable. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

He has his degree, but a degree alone does not ="credentials". And scientific credentials is a thing that he does NOT have.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, he does have scientific credentials. He has, eg, numerous degrees up to and including a phd in science subjects. He has various scientific research postings at various universities. He has a scientific employment record within various scientific and scientific-business institutions. And he has an extensive scientific publication record in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is how he differs from, eg, von Daniken, and this is in large part why he's notable. This is why all the sources call him a scientist/biologist. And all of these things are why the article should not conceal this fact from the reader.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, he does NOT have scientific credentials, no matter how many degrees he holds. People with scientific credentials dont get their TED talks yanked from the the mainspace distribution and paced with a disclaimer on the blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes he does have scientific credentials. TED has absolutely nothing to do with this particular question. You seem to be making up all manner of stuff as you go along. The guy's a biologist, however much you would like it to be otherwise.Barleybannocks (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

An independent reliable secondary source disagrees with your characterisation of the issue, and still described Sheldrake as a biochemist.[52] I am not aware of any sources that corroborate whether TED gets to decide whether people have scientific credentials, suggesting your description is WP:SYNTH. It is also worth noting that while TED gave their reasons for removing Sheldrake's talk,[53] the TED Scientific Board subsequently had to retract their Statement.[54] --Iantresman (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantres: Those "reliable secondary sources" fall into two categories:

• Sources that call him a scientist for the purpose of contrasting to his current nonscientific/pseudoscientific activities, and
• Sources that actually do call him a scientist, but are not reliable sources for this information--newspapers have no expertise in determining whether someone is doing science and the fact that they call a pseudoscientist a scientist doesn't make them reliable sources for him being a scientist in anything other than a historical sense

Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ken, you write as if determining whether someone is a scientist is a tricky scientific question of its own. A question requiring a doctorate or some such thing to answer. It isn't. The Guardian, the BBC, etc etc etc, are absolutely qualified to determine whether someone is appropriately called a biologist. There is nobody/nothing in the world more qualified than those typo of highly reputable news sources - not least because there are no formal qualifications, nor any complex to-be-learned method, for determining the answer to this (very simple) factual question. Thus we have numerous reliable sources for this basic piece of biographical information and nothing but a few peculiar arguments from editors here going against them. There is no dispute in the wider (beyond wikipedia) world. The guy is a biologist. And since he is noted as such in the sources, that really should be the end of that.

It is also highly relevant for the reasons set out just above.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Determining whether someone is a scientist is not a scientific question, but it certainly can be a tricky one. jps (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not tricky at all. Sheldrake is a scientist in a perfectly straightforward sense of the term. Perhaps with other senses of the term there might be grey areas that are difficult to resolve, but thankfully, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, such determinations are completely made for us and therefore we don't need to concern ourselves with them in the slightest - we just go with the (now copious) sources.Barleybannocks (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether he "is" or "is not" is not really the actual question/issue. It is whether that terminology is the best way to describe him or if there are better terminologies that more accurately reflect how he is viewed by the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in a biography the facts about the man are important. Even if that wasn't obviously true, however, the second question you ask has been answered for us by the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, New Scientist and all the other top quality sources cited above. That's how he is described everywhere else and so that's how we should describe him. How the scientific community judges his work is a separate issue and is dealt with at length elsewhere in the article. You seem to be struggling to distinguish basic factual details about the man from scientific judgements on the merit of his work. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC, the Guardian, the Independent are the high quality end of the popular press, but they are not mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a mainstream academic question though. I mean, which academic departments do you suppose investigate whether people are scientists? Barleybannocks (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We present EVERYTHING through the mainstream academic view WP:VALID "There are many such beliefs in the world, ... even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." and Wikipedia:VALID#Good_research "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources." and Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. ... Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." Here, it is present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Even if only for the simple reason that there is no mainstream scientific view of Sheldrake's academic credentials. That is, it is not a scientific hypothesis, nor even a pseudoscientific hypothesis, nor any kind of hypothesis at all, that Sheldrake is a biologist. Quite the contrary, it is simply a plain fact. It is basic biographical information that should be stated plainly in his biography. As I said above, you are confusing the man with his ideas. They are not the same thing at all. Sheldrake is a biologist. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Something's being a scientific hypothesis or any hypothesis is not a necessary condition for that something being a mainstream academic view. Spinoza espoused rationalism. That's not a scientific hypothesis etc., but it is still the mainstream academic view. That is, if you open up books published by reputable academic presses, issues in reputable academic journals, etc. which focus on the topic of Spinoza or rationalism or intellectual history generally, this view will be well-attested, but its contradiction will not be well-attested. The same process can be employed for Sheldrake and a result can be obtained: Either a consensus that he is a biologist without qualification, a consensus that he is not a biologist, or no consensus. If the first is the case, then this article can simply say that he is a biologist. If the second is the case, then the article can simply say that he is not a biologist. If the last is the case, then all significant views have to be presented without prejudice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake isn't well enough known to be a subject studied at university. There won't be textbooks on the scientific study of the Sheldrake. There is no academic in the world investigating whether he is a scientist - except if there are some on this page doing it here, now. There is no debate on this issue. He is a biologist. His theories are what are debated/argued over/rejected, not his credentials, nor his date of birth. Barleybannocks (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is plenty well enough known to be studied if anyone wanted to. There will not be textbooks on the scientific study of the Sheldrake because that can all be debunked in about 6 pages, 7 if you are verbose. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How are you going to debunk Sheldrake himself? Are you now claiming he doesn't really exist? Are you saying there is some dispute over whether he's a real person?Barleybannocks (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The process can be employed regardless of whether the person is a subject studied etc., or not. For example, Graham Priest is a logician. How can this description be justified? With that process: You go through those such reliable sources, and you can see that the description is well-attested, but the contradiction is not well-attested. Say someone comes to the Graham Priest article and writes that he is a biologist, another person challenges this description and removes it. How could that dispute be resolved? The same process could be employed again: Survey those sources and see what they say. To depend on whatever one judges to be "simple fact" is dangerous: One person's "simple facts" are another person's "contested opinion". The better course, and the only one that is within policy for this encyclopedia, is to just represent exactly what the reliable sources say without prejudicing any significant viewpoint. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And the reliable sources say he is a biologist. And there is nobody/no sources at all say he isn't.Barleybannocks (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is regularly invited by universities to give lectures such as Cambridge,[55] University of London,[56] University of Surrey,[57] his books are found in reputable insitutions from London's Natural History Museum,[58] to Arizona State University,[59] to the Smithsonian Institution,[60] and he is considered a research interest by several academics,[61] and is also the subject of academic papers,[62][63][64] and books.[65]--Iantresman (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So by my count, we have over a dozen independent reliable secondary sources, based on similar sources we have access to, who have decided to call Sheldrake a scientist/biologist, and just two that call him a parapsychologist. We do not ignore the academic view, it's just not the world view. --Iantresman (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

removed "decidedly psuedoscientific " as it's not a true statement but a personal opinion

I have removed the above as not only is it personally damaging, but it's not actually a true statement the word 'decidedly, smacks of biased, warped opinion. I am also dismayed to see how much further these arguments have got and how little consensus has been reached. It's a sad, sad day for wikipedia editing when there are such forceful opinions, that aren't actually shared by Mr/Ms/Mrs General Public Veryscarymary (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that "decidedly pseudoscientific" should only be used in a quotation. However, if it is in a quotation and we attribute it to the people who said it, I don't see the issue. jps (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And now "widely"

The introduction now says that "morphic resonance .. is widely considered pseudoscience"[66][67]. The use of the adjective "widely" is clearly a weasel word. Editors have been pushing for good peer reviewed sources, yet the reference provided for the "pseudoscience" assertion is a book on Foreign Policy[68] by economist Ruchir Sharma. It does not appear to be a reliable source, let alone an independent reliable secondary source.--Iantresman (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cricket Iantresman (talk · contribs) - you do really know how to creative interpret sources don't you? How is "widely" given the views held by the following:

• Prof. Peter Atkins FRSC
• Sue Blackmore
• Robert Todd Carroll
• Prof. Brian Charlesworth FRS
• Prof. Jerry Coyne
• Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS
• Martin Gardner
• Prof. Barry Keverne FRS
• Sir John Maddox FRS
• Prof. Michael J. Morgan FRS
• Prof. P.Z. Myers
• Prof. Alan J. Parkin
• Prof. Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow OM Kt FRS
• Dr Adam Rutherford
• Prof. Steven Rose FSB
• Michael Shermer
• Prof. Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS
• The Rt Hon. Prof. Robert Winston, Baron Winston FMedSci FRSA FRCP FRCOG FIBiol FREng(Hon)
• Prof. Richard Wiseman
• etc?

The sources back up the assertion. You know it, but you're trying to wriggle out of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since they don't want widely, just include the FULL LIST of those that consider it psuedoscientific. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

With WIKILINKS all round. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The source provided did not support "widely". A list of names is not a list of sources, there is nothing for editors to check. Please provide sources, you would expect no less. --Iantresman (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• It seems that Prof. Peter Atkins acknowledged in a live radio debate that he hadn't actually studied Sheldrake's evidence.[69][70] Which part of the scientific process do you think Atkins was using, or perhaps he is psychic? I couldn't find a source suggesting that Atkins thinks that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, let alone that we should consider him a reliable source. Leg before wicket or are you playing fantasy cricket? --Iantresman (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "widely" is a bit of a word to avoid if, for no other reason than it's slightly question begging (widely in relation to what group?). I would prefer something like what we have in the third paragraph of the lede, "scientists and skeptics have labeled it pseudoscience", but have to admit to not being too concerned about the current phrasing and am certainly not bothered enough by it to change it myself. jps (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Immediately after writing this, I have decided that I actually can be bothered. [71]. jps (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should look at the sources first. --Iantresman (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've all read your opinion to that effect. jps (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are there any sources that say or in any way give any impression it is NOT widely regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream academic community? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is my initial analysis of the names:

• Sheldrake:"if he’s actually read the evidence?". "No" - Prof. Peter Atkins.[72]
• "Sheldrake is scientific" - Sue Blackmore.[73]
• "Granted its scientific" - Prof. Steven Rose.[74]
• "Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist" - Dr Adam Rutherford.[75]
• "admitted that he had not even seen the book" - Michael Shermer [76]
• "the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies" - Prof. Richard Wiseman.[77]
• "Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist" - Robert Todd Carroll.[78]

Two hadn't read Sheldrake's evidence/book, four say he is scientific, and Wiseman said his study saw the same results. This is not looking very good. --Iantresman (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

are you purposefully trying to present things out of context? "Sheldrake is scientific - at least in many respects ... [Sheldrakes ideas] did, indeed, appear completely scatty. ...And as for the paranormal, I spent the best part of 30 years trying to find evidence of paranormal phenomena and failed. My initial belief was wrong, I concluded, and so I changed my mind and became sceptical. Sheldrake has not changed his mind, and goes on believing in telepathy."- Sue Blackmore.[79]--

"Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility " - Prof. Steven Rose.[80]

"Sheldrake is a sort of "God of the gaps" scientist. He sees gaps in knowledge, and inserts supernature as an explanation. There are three basic flaws with use of this tool. First is that it's just not scientific." - Dr Adam Rutherford.[81]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided more context than a list of names, and a citation so you can check the context. None of them say or imply that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscientist (they say the opposite). Blackmore disgrees, Rose's "philosophical" is not about science, and Rutherford is discussing a "supernatural tool". But let's not distract ourselves from the anticipated reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You false context in a manner that displays either severe lack of WP:COMPETENCE or a deliberate attempt to mislead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think if we want to say these people have said Sheldrake's ideas are "pseudoscientific" (quite a specific complaint) then we had better have them actually saying that. Most of the quotes above not only don't say it (none of them say it explicitly in fact), but don't even come close. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Found two (in addition to Maddox):

• Jerry Coyne, on his blog.[82]
• PZ Myers on his blog.[83][84]
• Maddox opinion piece in Nature.[85]

Total pseudoscience sources to date: 3. --Iantresman (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't use any word that matches pseudo[-]scien* doesn't mean they don't mean it is. Rose for example gives a very good definition of how matches pseudoscience without actually mentioning the word. Morgan says he is "very wrong". They all broadly agree and show a deep consensus that it's not scientific.

I really can't believe we're having this argument. In the words of Stephen Fry: "Are you incapable of rational thought? You cannot be that stupid" [86] . Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to libel someone you really should have a good source. No?Barleybannocks (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

By conducting an experiment designed to falsify morphic resonance, Rose demonstrated that Sheldrake is proposing a scientific hypothesis. This applies to Wiseman as well. The implication of testing morphic resonance is that it's testable and therefore scientific. The opinions expressed by a handful of critics cannot overturn the fact of testability. If this fact goes unreported, the Sheldrake page cannot be considered neutral. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Barney Not according to:

• per WP:SYNTH "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• per WP:LABEL "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
• per WP:GRAPEVINE (WP:BLP): "Remove immediately any contentious material [..] that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"

--Iantresman (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

that they think it is "not science" dressed up in science clothes is most certainly "implied " and is many cases stated even if not using the specific term "pseudoscience"; so your SYN argument is off the table. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the quote specifically contradict your claim, they specifically tell us that they think Sheldrake is "scientific". And then you are drawing your own opposite conclusions which is WP:SYNTH. And it still fails WP:LABEL and WP:GRAPEVINE. --Iantresman (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, Ian, you're arguing that we should not call the idea of morphic resonance a "pseudoscience", right? jps (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that there are sources which state that morphic resonance is pseudoscience. But I have a problem when editors claim that some sources are describing something that sounds to them like pseudoscience, but the author is not saying that it is pseudoscience. Just because it lays eggs, has a bill, webbed feet, and lives in water, doesn't mean its a duck, when it turns out to be a Platypus. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like duck, it can still be a goose. --Iantresman (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

QTip, Just because Iantresman can't tell the difference between a duck and a goose doesn't mean we shouldn't call MR pseudoscience. That has to be one of the most specious points made on this page recently. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we need to decide how to write the article. Arguing over arcane interpretations of sources is missing the point, in my humble opinion. We are in agreement that there are sources which characterize morphic resonance as a pseudoscience. Therefore, it should be uncontroversial to include this in the article. The exact wording can be discussed. jps (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone actually oppose inclusion in the article, as long as the sources are clear and the extent of that view is not misrepresented or misattributed. It is also worth noting, however, that there are a significant number of scientists (at the moment not far off a match in terms of numbers with those who say pseudoscience) who say it is not pseudoscience (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong).Barleybannocks (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Significant number"? The only ones I see are Hans-Peter Dürr and David Bohm, neither of which are really considered to be on the up-and-up when it comes to matters of fringe interpretations of quantum mechanics upon which Sheldrake seems to desperately want to hang his hat. jps (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, Nobel laureate in Physics

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York

That'll be 8 so far, counting your two. Iantresman also provided a set of links to a number of academic works referencing Sheldrake and his ideas which I don't think were from any of the above named scientists. Thus we'll almost certainly be over ten once those are taken into account.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Differentiating between a duck and goose would be a species point. --Iantresman (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Iantresman (talk · contribs) - could you please provide us with these references as a list with full titles of the papers, etc? I suspect many of these are psychology-based which is a science that hasn't yet moved away from prescientific and quasi-philosophical (i.e. nonsensical) ideas, in which the ghost of Freud looms large, but if they have positive comments and aren't published in pseudojournals then we might be able to include them. Also important is what they say rather than just citing him as they may be citing him negatively. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC) - PS books on spirituality in horses, which is the best I found, don't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The main source for 4 of them is the letter signed by all at the Huffingotn Post in which they, amongst other things, defend Sheldrake from charges of pseudoscience. The link is above where this list is repeated. It's nothing much, just an opinion piece in HuffPo, but it's in line with the other sources currently used for the contra Sheldrake views. Bekoff's article is also cited above. Josephson's is, I think, in the article already. And Iantresman has, below I think, provided a list of academic books in which Sheldrake and his theories are discussed in terms of being science.Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that you're correct, Barney. Brian Josephson is a fairly famous pseudoscientist in his own right. Marc Bekoff is an ecologist who doesn't really seem qualified to judge this particular matter of physical import, and the remainder are just signatories of a letter to TEDx (along with Chopra) who are all related in one way or another to pseudoscientific speculation on consciousness or alternative medicine. Yes, scientists can support pseudoscience. Yes, these people are somewhat notorious for doing so. Shall we move on? jps (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to rule out everybody, including Nobel laureates because they disagree with you then you would appear to making a mockery of the very idea of a scientist. I don't think it's up to wikipedia editors to try to change the world through these pages. These people are scientists plain and simple. More so than a good number on the list of critics. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are scientists or not isn't really the issue. The issue is whether morphic resonance is a pseudoscience. I do not consider this list of pseudoscience-supporters to be a good list on which to determine that morphic resonance actually isn't a pseudoscience. jps (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So a list saying yes is a good list but a list saying no is bad one. Not quite sure I follow your reasoning. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While we don't really write Wikipedia on the basis of listing people who say this or that, it's nice to know precisely who the people are who do say such things. That there are certain scientists who support pseudoscience is rather unremarkable. Further, I do not think this particular list demonstrates that there are a significant number of scientists who think morphic resonance is not a pseudoscience, especially considering that many of those on the list are notorious supporters of pseudoscience (Josephson, Hameroff, etc.). jps (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Josephson has somewhat of a reputation for supporting "fringe science" but he should be included of course. Deepak Chopra has worse issues (alt med kills, at least MR doesn't). Please though, anyone else? Anyone? Please, the key is sourcing, let's get these sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there - links above where the list first appears. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources that describe Brian Josephson as a fairly famous pseudoscientist. --Iantresman (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss the (lack of) existence of such sources at Talk:Brian Josephson. jps (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of OR going on here interpreting certain scientists who support Sheldrake. Barney the barney barney (talk) - are editors allowed to interpret in this manner? Clearly we have conflicting sources that say conflicting things. It would make sense to show both sides if that is the case, would it not? Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a leading question Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) - and I guess you know the answer. There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). Please provide solid sources, and we'll include them. We already have a small number, but WP:GIVAL applies, i.e. we shouldn't be pretending that the views of Josephson, Tudge and Chopra are mainstream or giving them undue prominence. Josephson is a well known for his unorthodox academic activities. Let's not pretend he isn't, like we're not pretending that this page isn't WP:FRINGE. I keep asking for sources. Please provide sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we could go through the above list of Sheldrake's critics and make some observations about the particular reasons for notability of around half, and it isn't for their science. That is, a significant number of them are involved in various, but in many cases the same, non-scientific advocacy groups. Groups which advocate science be pressed into the service of a singular religio-socio-political agenda. Many others are very outspoken atheists - a view on religion which may by held by a majority of scientists but which in no way can be construed as the view of mainstream science. It is therefore unclear which particular hat those particular commentators were wearing when they critiqued Sheldrake. Indeed, the responses by some of those supportive of Sheldrake make reference to this situation. Thus, I think, it is clear we do not simply have a group of scientists qua scientists on either side here, as opposed to a significant amount of scientists qua religio-socio-political activists. It's also far from clear the we as editors should turn a blind eye to this since it will almost certainly have been mentioned regularly throughout Sheldrake's career, and has definitely been mentioned prominently with regard to the TEDx controversy. A groups of random scientists saying sciencey things with nothing but science on their mind this is not.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

what nonsense. whether someone is an atheist or not has zero relevance on their ability to critique science or in this case pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that whether someone is an atheist necessarily has relevance in that way. What I said, and if you want sources there are dozens, is that when someone is a high profile member of a non-scientific group (and is notable only as a member of that non-scientific group) and critiques science that seemingly run counter to the non-scientific aims of that non-scientific group, in a manner that is clearly related to the aims of that non-scientific group, then it is not immediately clear that we can treat their critiques as primarily coming from scientists qua scientists as opposed to scientists qua members of a non-scientific group. The same obviously goes for positive reviews if they come from members of another non-scientific group with aims seemingly supported by the science in question. Are you suggesting that, eg, it is a coincidence that almost everyone on the list of detractors is either a member of such a non-scientific group or allied with some of the aims/beliefs of those groups through widely known non-scientific commentary? Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, utter nonsense. People get professorships and fellowships of learned societies for doing science that is considered excellent by their peers, not for sociopolitical advocacy of religious viewpoints. While good scientists are usually good sceptics, because scientific scepticism is part of the scientific process. It does seem that statistically, if you're a good scientists, you are likely to be an atheist too. But you get known for your science, and this works both ways - Brian Josephson is notable for his pre-Nobel work in physics, not his post-Nobel dalliances with the supernatural. Furthermore, Lord Rees is a Christian, winner of the Templeton Prize - and as master of Trinity, he's disowned Sheldrake. Steven Rose and Richard Dawkins mutually disagree with each other on other things. WP:GIVAL we have to go back to relying on credentials. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but many on that list have no professorships nor fellowships of learned societies. And many others on the list are best known for their non-scientific religio-political activism. These point are made in a number of our sources and so to say, eg, Richard Dawkins speaks only as always as a scientist is fairly ridiculous. He sometimes speaks as a scientist, but more commonly speaks as a high-profile New Atheist. As such, and since numerous source mentions facts like this, we should not, imo, simply pretend it isn't true. As I also said though, the same is obviously true for some scientists who support Sheldrake. Thus we might say that the scientific community qua scientific community has largely ignored Sheldrake (his views have certainly not been taken up by that community in its work on morphogenesis), an additional dispute has arisen in the wider world primarily over the perceived metaphysical implications of his theories. Some see this as trying to introduce magic into science, while others see this as an attempt to remove immaterial Platonic entities from the heart of science. These and other issues drag the discussion into areas of philosophy, philosophy of science, religion, and politics, and I don't think we should simply shut our eyes an pretend these issues don't exist. They do, and are frequently referred to in reliable sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophers and sociologists of science with academic credentials would be good sources too. We have one, Mary Midgley, and I believe this is covered in the article. Again, more pro-Sheldrake sources would be welcome. Dawkins is not one of our sources for this article, although I have no doubt as to what his views are, I don't think the extrapolation is too hard. Let's not get too bogged down with that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to make their own interpretation. WP:RS is a core policy that warns us against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

• WP:BLP: "information about living persons .. must adhere strictly to .. Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR"
• WP:SYNTH: "Do not [..] reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:GRAPEVINE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"
• WP:LABEL: "The prefix pseudo- [..] Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."
• WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources"

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). --Iantresman (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

none of that applies as "morphic resonance" is not a living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Really??? (1) WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY apply to all Wiki content. (2) Calling "morphic resonance" pseudoscience, or called Sheldrake a pseudoscientist, may be affected by the fact that this is a biography of a living person. --Iantresman (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

reconsidering "widely"

per Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories the use of "widely considered pseudoscience" is probably ill considered. WP:SPADE, we just call the spade the spade without any of the accusations of "weasel" and use "morphic resonance is a pseudoscientific concept"]]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no problem attributing some scientists describing some of Shreldrake's work as pseudoscience, if that is indeed what they say (ie. not what editors think they mean). This is not the same as saying that Sheldrake's work IS pseudoscience, as is evidenced by all the other sources that disagree. --Iantresman (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, WP:SPADE applies to the behaviour of editors, not content. --Iantresman (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Considering Iantresman (talk · contribs)'s tireless efforts to point this out, I'm in favour of a WP:LEAD summary that contains a summary of the quite numerous criticisms, of not only that it is pseudoscience, but why it is pseudoscience, with appropriate mentions of vagueness, falsifiability/testability, and contradiction of existing scientific theories. This is pretty much what we have at the moment, anyway. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And in contradiction of the many reliable secondary sources which tend to describe Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist,[87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] compared to the odd blog which describes him as a pseudodscientist.[100][101] --Iantresman (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Ian, just repeating your point over and over doesn't make your assessment any more intelligent or correct. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a very straightforward assessment. Here are some sources that say P, and here are some fairly equal and opposite sources that say not-P. The question being why should we completely ignore the sources that say not-P. Surely not simply on the grounds that the scientific community has not accepted Sheldrake's work since that point is consistent with both P and not-P. That Sheldrake could simply be wrong, even wildly wrong, but scientifically wrong nonetheless, does not seem to have been considered as even a possibility by the pro-P advocates. And yet a number of sources make this point.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know Barney, just repeating your point over and over again... The difference is that I provide a rationale and back it up with over a dozen sources, whereas you back up your statement by insulting my intelligence. --Iantresman (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I need you to walk me through this Barney the barney barney (talk), because I am not seeing the common sense you suggest. You say: There is no OR going on, only WP:COMMONSENSE (from some of us at least). It doesn't appear your being forthcoming here and let me explain why it looks that way. Using the latest source as an example. Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only says Sheldrake is a well known biologist, but that his work needs to be reconsidered in addition to acknowledging that it has been peer reviewed. You ask to provide "solid sources", and if so "we'll include them". Well that's a pretty solid source. You mentioned this source should be dismissed because he is professor of ecology, failing to mention he is professor emeritus of ecology AND evolutionary biology. Why should this source not be considered again? And since this, like a number of other sources, conflict with other sources, why is it we should only consider one batch and not the other? Doesn't common sense suggest that to say neutral, we must provide both? I'm failing to see your argument here, but if you provide one, especially one that I cannot refute, I'll be happy to accept your claim. Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please list all of the active threads...

About this article or editors' behavior in editing this article that are ongoing on the noticeboards? I know about the current BLP noticeboard thread, which is properly noted on the top of this page. But if there are others, it would be nice to know just how many BATTLEGROUNDS this thing is being fought out upon. Especially because it was just suggested that one of my edits might be seen as an attempted "suicide by cop". David in DC (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is under dispute at neutral point of view and fringe theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_.28again.29 Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the following (editors are welcome to add missing discussions):

Active threads

• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN   "Sheldrake again" (P) (Barney)
• (Nov 2013) WP:BLPN  "Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP_mess" (P) (Philosophyfellow)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AN/I  Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake (P) (User:Mangoe)

• (Nov 2013) WP:NPOVN "Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article" (P) (Alfonzo Green)

Inactive threads

• (Oct 2013) WP:BLP "Rupert Sheldrake" (David in DC)

• (Aug 2013) WP:DR  "TALK:Rupert Sheldrake" (Tumbleman)
• (Jul 2009) WP:FTN "Rupert Sheldrake" (Hrafn)
• (Aug 2013) WP:FTN "Rupert Sheldrake" (Barney))
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Conveying_the_acceptance_level_of_a_fringe..." (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Fringe_squared:..." (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:FTN "Fringe theorists" (Dan skeptic)

• (May 2008) WP:RS "Are_the_writings_of_Rupert_Sheldrake..." (Hrafn)

Other threads

• (Oct 2013) User:Vzaak/Sheldrake response
• (Jan 2012) User:I am not a dog/Sheldrake
• (various) Discussions on user talk pages

User related / Blocks

• (Oct 2013) WP:AE user:198.189.184.243 (One month block per AE) (Vzaak)
• (Oct 2013) WP:AE User:Tumbleman (indef block per AE) (User:IRWolfie-)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AN User:Bbb23 (jps)
• (Nov 2013) WP:AE Alfonzo Green (P) (User:Mangoe)

--Iantresman (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Do not remove the NPOV tag until the administrators noticeboard NPOV dispute has been resolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add the {{POV}} tag until you've actually explained with reference to policy, why the article is not reflecting scholarly consensus on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine it's because you, amongst others, have included stuff that is inappropriately/inadequately sourced and rejected stuff that is more than appropriately/adequately sourced. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, are you psychic Barleybannocks (talk · contribs)? There's a mechanism for that don't you know. Specifics please; and references to policy. No weaselling that there's not scientific consensus on this issue, please, it's extremely duplicitous. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Biologist. Exceptionally well sourced - excluded because some here don't want it to be true. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) ::::::from the article "From 1967 to 1973 Sheldrake was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University,". Its right there in the lead section, first sentence of the second paragraph. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no objection to calling him a "English biologist, author and lecturer" the way it's done across the whole rest of wikipedia as far as I can see? You seemed to be arguing above that we shouldn't say this. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this sentence "Scientists and skeptics have described morphic resonance as pseudoscience because of a lack of evidence that supports it and its inconsistency with established scientific theories" is a bizarre non-sequitur. Maybe someone actually said that and maybe they didn't, but it's currently unsourced and completely wrong. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"non-sequitor" is not POV violation. If you want the mainstream views expanded and moved up to the first mention of MR, we can do that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was not merely that it was a non-sequitur. It's more that it's unsourced. And given how stupid it is, I doubt it will ever be sourced. That is, I can't imagine that anyone ever actually said such a thing. But if sources can be found... 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleybannocks (talk • contribs)

In the various editings, a long sentence source with the group note got split into two sentences and the group note went along with only the second sentence. I have re-added it to the first sentence as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have run many different sources together into one sentence that doesn't make sense. Did anyone actually say the nonsense that's currently in the article or did you just make it up?Barleybannocks (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The article says that "scientists and skeptics have described as pseudoscience"[102][103]

• This fails WP:WEASEL "Numerically vague expressions", suggesting unanimity when it is not.
• The sources [8]-[13] given are misleading or unreliable. (1) Ref #8 is a book on Foreign Policy by economist Ruchir Sharma (2) Ref #11 by Rose says the opposite "Granted its scientific"[104] (3) Ref #13 by Jones says only that Sheldrake "gives it a proper pseudo-scientific name 'the morphongenic field'", and then notes the opposite, that it is "a scientific theory [..] he suggests a variety of scientific experiments"
• It further fails WP:SYNTH, WP:LABEL and WP:GRAVEVINE per my comment above.[105] --Iantresman (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a WP:REDFLAG claim to assert that there is not near universal unanimity within academic world that morphic fields as anything other than pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And i cannot believe that you are so blatantly misquoting Rose again!! He is NOT stating ""Granted it's scientific." his full clause is "Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility,..." You are either incompetent or trolling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be using the word "pseudoscience" almost interchangeably with terms like "wrong", "false", "lacking in evidence", "silly" etc. These are all quite different and to lump them all together and claim "near unanimity" on this very specific point is a stretch at best. Moreover, as was argued above, many of the people on your list have quite specifically said the idea was scientific (even if they did think it was wrong, or even crazy) and thus we have good reason to think (proof positive in fact) that there is no near unanimity within the scientific community on this specific point. What there is near unanimity for is that Sheldrake's hypothesis is not accepted by the scientific community, or dismissed by the scientific community, but there seems no unanimity for the term "pseudoscience". Barleybannocks (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

show that there is any measurable level of support / agreement /consideration that MR is a valid idea within the academic community -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say there was any real level of support for the idea. Indeed, I said the exact opposite - I said it had been "dismissed". But near universal dismissal does not entail the stronger claim that the idea is almost universally considered pseudoscience. That would appear to be merely your take on things and not something supported by the various quotes from the various sources. Barleybannocks (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney (and to a lesser extent TRPoD) have refused to admit that the relevant policy is the very first sentence of WP:NPOV. All the reliable sources. Nothing has changed; this is the same argument, repeated ad infinitum. BarleyBannocks hit the nail on the head: oneIdeaSheldrakeHadOnce==WP:FRINGE, therefore *everything on the BLP page is fringe, pseudo, factually_false, illogical... any source can be elided, if it disagrees with this approach. Sigh. Tag mainspace with the fails-to-be-NPOV-tag? Why, when SkePOV==NPOV? Deep-double-sigh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

see, you have may have put your finger on the pulse of the problem if you are only reading the first sentence of the policy. because the policy goes on for quite a ways beyond that first sentence. it gives specific instructions and guidance on how to deal with fringe topics and and pseudo science topics. You should read them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that policy suggesting we should lie about, or otherwise conceal in any way, basic biographical information in case the reader gets the (wrong) idea that the person might know what they're talking about. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Who has been suggesting that we put lies in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You, and others, have been suggesting that the basic biographical details about the man be finessed, to speak euphemistically, so that people do not get the idea that he might know what he is talking about. Thus, eg, there is an objection to calling him a biologist lest anyone think better of his theories on account of it. And this type of consideration appears to underlie almost all the discussion on this page. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Sheldrake undoubtedly uses misleading language to misrepresent his scientific career (as detailed on Rational wiki). He might know what he's talking about but the acid test in science is acceptance by your peers. Everyone's brain is fallible - and a minority suffer from fallibility problems - but collections of brain can broadly agree which of the minority are suffering from fallibility problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make potentially libellous comments about Sheldrake misrepresenting his scientific career/credentials, or being in some sense mentally ill, then you're going to have to do a whole load better than Rational Wiki. The best course of action, however, imo, would probably be to delete/cross out (TED fashion) your last comment.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get into legal threats. The big problem with this approach is that Sheldrake would have to prove in a court of law, I claim fair comment, and I expect to be able to call a number of senior professors to support me as expert witnesses, and Sense About Science have shown how they can galvanise support. Not scared by legal threats - the article should accurately reflect scholarly consensus. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making legal threats. I'm telling you that if you want to make wild allegations about mental illness and fake credentials then you had better have something better than (ir)rational wiki at your disposal. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't discuss mental health (although there a few hints, there's no reliable public medical diagnosis). Not fake credentials either - just misrepresenting his real credentials to make his academic career appear more notable than it was. Also, not relying on rational wiki, I'm confident of support of the scientific community if Sheldrake does want to sue. In fact, did you read ANYTHING I just said, or did you just ignore it and insist on telling me a bunch of misrepresentations of what I'd just said? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I did read it. You made some pseudoscientific points about a "fallible brain" that you suggested Sheldrake suffers from, and now you are making allegations about serious academic impropriety on Sheldrake's part. I'm just pointing out that nothing even remotely like that will be going into the article unless it can be uber-sourced (ie, not to some extravagant rational wiki story-telling).Barleybannocks (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fallibility means being wrong - look it up in a dictionary, you might learn something. You don't have to be mentally ill to hold a belief that is wrong. Also, not serious academic impropriety (which implies fraud, which historically has been rife in parapsychology but let's not go there), Yes - minor issues in which he avoids lying but makes himself look better than he is - especially to those who are easily confused, like many people here it would seem. More misrepresentations of what was said. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what fallibility means, and if all you meant was that he was wrong then why put it in such a pseudoscientific/quack way as if this was some physical condition of the brain. That made it sound like you were suggesting mental illness. And as regards your second point, what you said sounded like you were suggesting serious impropriety rather than just what pretty much everyone does. If that's all you meant then why put it in such grand, and potentially libellous, terms. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) - just to clarify, I did not accuse Rupert Sheldrake of being mentally ill. I do believe however he is wrong, and this view is shared by all bar one of the scientific sources that I can find. You took a word and misinterpreted it - I allowed you the opportunity not to understand it, but if you say you did, I am left with the conclusion that this understanding was not due to incompetence on your part. Please stop. You are doing your case no good. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to editors to decide whether in their opinion, someone's theory is falsifiable, scientific, or whatever. It is also not up to editors to judge someone else's description of Sheldrake's work, and decide whether in their opinion, it is a description of science, pseudoscience or whatever. This has to be explicitly stated in the source, that is what secondary sources are for. --Iantresman (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, these mythical "secondary sources". The surveys of the scientific community - oh wait we don't have any of those, so must be wrong. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead says "Morphic resonance is rejected by numerous scientists as psuedoscience and magical thinking"[106] still uses a weasel word "numerous" (this is a simple concept to understand), and is not supported by the sources where we have the odd couple of people who mention pseudoscience (including a book on Foreign Policy, mentioned above), and the rest inferred by editors through WP:SYNTH in violation of WP:LABEL and WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLP. No editor is suggesting that we exclude the description by some scientists that they personal believe is work to be pseudoscience, but this is not the same as what is written in the introduction. --Iantresman (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We have Sheldrake himself as a source in his continual complaints about the "dominant orthodoxy" of the "mechanistic" world view leaving his morphic resonance in the distinct non orthodox ultra minority.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that Sheldrake's supporters would be agreeing with Sheldrake that the scientific community's view is "dogmatic", and "institutionalised -ism" against his ideas. We do need to include Sheldrake's responses to criticism - he deos have a right of reply. Heaven forbid though we actually use this page to discuss how to improve the article rather than how to disimprove it by obfuscating sources, and using deliberately misleading language. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Sheldrake does not have a right to reply in the article. We have the responsibility of placing comments in appropriate context, but within the framework of WP:VALID and Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance and WP:PSCI . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Sheldrake's hypotheses are in the minority. No one disputes that science rejects Sheldrake's hypotheses. But that is not how the introductory paragraph describes it. --Iantresman (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and unilateral declaration of no edits

David in DC (talk · contribs)'s unilateral fiat in his revert that no one can edit the article PLEASE give it a rest for a day. Please read my last edit summary. PLease read my last talk page post. PLEASE. PLEASE. One day won't hurt, I promise. Just fix my misspelling in this edit and rest. It's Sunday. Even G-d rested on Sunday.) is unacceptable and inappropriate. Particularly when the lead now does not put bogus-ness of Sheldrake's idea into context until the third sentence. Policy: WP:VALID the nonsense that Sheldrake has been spouting for thirty years must be called out as such immediately, particularly since he is known as much for the disdain the scientific community lays on his position as for his work itself.

And to claim such a fiat, and know there is disagreement, and then check out without engaging in discussion is complete bullshit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said, it was a plea. Made on bended knee. Begging is sorta the polar opposite of issuing a fiat.

I have no authority to do impose any kind of ukase, ban, prohibition, moratorium, edict, proclamation, demand, proscription, prescription or sanction. I can issue no Papal bull nor transmit any Mosaic commandments. I apologize for being unclear about that. I thought the quotation you've republished was fairly clear, but re-reading it I can see how one might have missed the fine nuances.

I had meant to cajole, wheedle, urge, request, ask or in some other way appeal to the better angels of our natures. Please note that I intend to speak of individual natures. I understand that any reference to any sort of mythic collective nature of our kind would be inappropriate and unacceptable. I just got a notice about that. Others reading this explanation may have, too. Still others reading this may be the enforcers of said notice.

Good luck to you all. David in DC (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

it is not a "plea" on "bended knee" when your first response is to jump in and revert someone who makes a change with your sole rationale as "i just wanna have this sit at my preferred version for 24 hours while you guys come to my enlightened understanding of policy" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Yes, I can see how letting a half-day's worth of good faith effort sit for a full 24 hours while all sides reflected on it was unreasonable. The deadline is so pressing, the danger of misleading the public so great, and the obvious foolishness of worrying about WP:BLP when there's so much fringiness popping up all over are all evident to me now. Yeah, you're right, the request for a 24-hour ceasefire was a truly evil one to make. I certainly won't do that again.

As for your calling "bullshit" - BRAVO. Google the phrase "left wing bullshit". You'll find a moribund blog that stands testament to the signal achievement of my life, thus far. David in DC (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You asked for 24 hours. Your version was reviewed and found wanting per WP:NPOV and was modified. Did you leave the modification for 24 hours of consideration? No. You , on bended knee, "pleaded" by reverting back your your personal version. A version not supported by any type of consensus on the talk page. You made no opening discussion on this talk page nor any response to the post on your talk page. If you were expecting that type of behavior to produce any good will, you are sadly deluded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

tldr

TRPoD, you are correct that David is attempting to assert WP:OWN over the mainspace, for the moment. He has taken than mantle from Vzaak, apparently with Vzaak's consent. David has also worked something out with Barney, Blippy, BarleyBannocks, Iantresman, Ken, Alfonzo, et cetera -- implicitly for the most part, methinks. This david-de-dictator scheme isn't unilateral, it is on my suggestion, at least partially, and I'll take the blame for it, rather than have you mad at David. He is trying to help; WP:AGF and WP:IMAGINE. The same applies to yourself, of course; you are also trying to help!   On the content-issue you bring up, we violently agree: the very first sentence needs to mention 'parapsychologist' or just flat 'telepathy-like' rather than waiting until the third or fourth. Those efforts are the crux of Sheldrake's fame, and also his Notability. As for the way in which David is trying to preserve mainspace with his own vision of the article, for a few brief hours, roughly 24, and certainly less than a triple-digit-hour-count... that is not *great* of course... but look in the mirror. What has been happening for the last four months?

  David's gambit is only a test, to see if consensus can be achieved, by breaking the back of the dispute through a massive rewrite. His RfC is intended to bring in fresh eyes, that can review his version with a fresh mind. You and myself and Alfonzo are too WP:INVOLVED, and what David is asking for is a ceasefire. He is also trying to keep BarleyBannocks at bay, in mainspace, if that makes you feel better. Anyhoo, per WP:HIGHHANDED methinks that David should not continue forever in his pathway... but notice that is a redlink!

  The relevant policy, which David is attempting to operate under here, is WP:IAR. He's trying to improve the encyclopedia, in a good faith effort to fix this basket-case. Even though you disagree about specific content, and find David's mechanism repugnant to "the traditional way" of working on articles, even you have to admit: there was no consensus *before* David started his quest for consensus, now was there? So try and give him a little slack. Maybe, against all odds, his guerrilla-BLP-paratrooper-approach will turn out okay, and bring consensus to mainspace, and peace to the talkpage. If not, well, we're no worse off than before, eh? Hope springs eternal. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

His "test edit" failed which was quite obvious by the short time it took for another editor to review it and find it wanting and make other suggested changes.

and he was down on his knees, pleading... with his finger on the "revert" button, but no discussion or attempt to get agreement from editors on the talk page before or after initiating his unilateral move. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There were four months of discussion, while you and Barney and Vzaak held your collective-yet-merely-emergently-organized fingers upon the revert-button. Reinforcements from FTN have arrived; you are no longer so alone. Agree that David's attempt was a failure. Certainly it was not unilateral. Certainly it won agreement with some editors, besides the folks who believe wikipedians are free to delete Reliably-Sourced-materials, if they so choose, based on their own personal logic/truthAnalysis/etc. Predict that real-world media exposure for Sheldrake, getting interviewed about bias in his wikipedia BLP, will thus continue. Predict that you and the other FTN folks will continue to shoot scepticism in the foot. Predict you will not believe this message to be true. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise Edit for Lead

Folks, thought about this long and hard. The ONLY compromise that seems reasonable here would be to simply refer to Sheldrake as an English author, lecturer, and independent scientist, notable for his concept of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy in animals, and his criticisms of scientific dogmas. Although I would prefer the simple 'biologist' as most references support that - I think this is the only reasonable alternative. This should satisfy the Skeptics, since 'independent' is both truthful and asserts he operates outside of the mainstream POV, and scientist because all sources support he is doing scientific research where applicable. Please provide thoughts from both sides of the argument and please, can we just do this and be done with it? I'll resolve the BLP thread if so - and then we can get into the meat of the article, we can all move on and enjoy a nice thanksgiving holiday and have something to be grateful for. I'll make the edit in a day or so unless someone wants to jump in. Philosophyfellow (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your suggested lead is only even vaguely appropriate if it is immediately followed by the full placement of "morphic resonance" as complete pseudoscience that is utterly rejected by the mainstream academic community. Any consensus or compromise must leave the article in compliance with WP:VALID , WP:BALANCE and WP:PSCI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well vaguely appropriate seems like a step in the right direction. Agree that criticisms from scientific community should be in the lead. Not sure what 'immediately followed by the full placement..' means but we agree it should be in the lead. Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a step in the right direction.  :-)   TRPoD is wanting to make sure that the meaning of 'independent scientist' is clear, namely, that Sheldrake's theories about the subquantum physics, and his cognitive-research trying to discover telepathy-like phenomena, have been labelled as pseudo/parapsychology/etc by various sources. Maybe my old chestnut of "independent scientist-and-now-parapsychologist" can be more-concretely a step in the right direction? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the names given above, two had not read Sheldrake, only three mention Shreldrake as pseudoscience (none peer reviewed), the rest either did not mention it was pseudoscience, or no source was provided to check. Most of these did reject Sheldrake's theory, but describing it has complete pseudoscience is WP:SYNTH and not supported by the sources, even less by peer reviewed sources. --Iantresman (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one thing missing in the lede is the fact that Sheldrake was a prominent and important figure in biochemistry up to (and including) his 1981 book - I understand New Scientist ran a competition for ideas on how MR might be tested prior to the Maddox rant. It is this fact (his contribution to biochemistry) that Maddox responded to and what seems to have led to his becoming persona non grata within biology. So while I embrace the independent scientist idea, I think the significance of Sheldrake to all sides of the debate is that he has such a solid pedigree. Arguably this is the reason he has generated such interest - pro and con. Can I suggest something along these lines:

Sheldrake as an English author, lecturer, and independent scientist, notable for developing the concept of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy in animals, and his criticisms of scientific dogmas. Sheldrake made significant contributions to plant biochemistry prior to his publications on Morphic Resonance which generated considerable controversy, and led to accusations of embracing pseudoscience.

This scene doesn't seem to get painted very clearly in the lead currently, and instead of leaping immediately into the controversy I think we would do well to at least name/describe it's nature. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

he is not at all notable for the actual science work. if that is what we were judging him on he would not have an article. the only reason he is notable is for his work as an author and the reaction that work has had. to give the emphasis on his early work as you are suggesting is to give it WP:UNDUE weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not every fact in every article need be notable enough to have its own article. Once there is an article about X (ie, X is notable enough to have an article) all sorts of facts about X that are not notable enough to generate an article on their own should be included. Indeed, one could take any notable life and split it into pieces sufficiently small to be not notable enough on their own to justify an article. Thus with Sheldrake, we have lots of small details that feed into his general notability (eg, his academic credentials and work in botany) but which on their own would not necessarily warrant an article. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say every fact in the article needs to be notable; but the lead sentence needs to specifically cover why the subject is notable and the rest of the lead needs to cover the rest of the subject in proportion to the coverage and impact it has had. Sheldrakes early bio work is miniscule importance and scant in coverage by third parties.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you really believe that then remove his date of birth from the opening sentence. He's certainly not notable for that basic biographical fact. Barleybannocks (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Be fair here BarleyBannocks. TRPoD has a solid point: the first sentence must explain why the BLP is in fact Notable. Sheldrake's fundamental notability is that he is a scientist with highly respectable mainstream academic credentials, who authored or co-authored a dozen books, and promotes telepathy-like ideas. Right now, the first sentence skimps on the last part, and that should be corrected, because otherwise we are not giving the readership a clear picture of *why* Sheldrake is such a famous author (telepathy-like) and *why* Sheldrake is such a black-sheep-scientist (telepathy-like). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should say why RS is notable in the introductory sentence. My point is that there are other things that may also be included, and that why he is notable is itself a function of various things, each of which, in and of itself, is not necessarily notable. The date of birth point was merely to show that there was clearly a place for basic biographical details too. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Useless strawman. If you think the DoB should be removed from the lead, go change the MOS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're the one arguing that anything for which RS is not notable should form no part of the introductory sentence. I was simply pointing out, with an example, that you are wrong. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Though amusing to watch Seventy Four trying to be puppet master, pulling the various strings, and accepting responsibility for the Machiavellian machinations currently going on, I would like to point out that Shelly was a scientist, whose credentials were ordinary for a scientist - contrary to what Seventy Four asserts. These facts should not get lost in the morass of exaggeration to make a point. I know the point has been oft made, but I think it should be made every time a statement like 74's is made, just for, you know, balance. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well damn. Just read an article in Psychology Review by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only referenced Sheldrake as a biologist, but a well known biologist. Just when I thought this might start to get easier. Research into claims of telepathy, or telepathy like claims in animals, appears to have a square footing with *some* biologists. I'm not sure how to deal with these conflicting sources now. How deeply should we involve ourselves in this issue? Is this a tit for tat between scientists as well as wikipedia editors? Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG to claim the "some" is a measurable percentage would take an extraordinary source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it goes both ways. To claim ALL scientists find his work to be pseudoscience or to suggest that Sheldrake has NO mainstream support would also require such extraordinary sourcing. So far I see less than 10 sources from less than 10 scientists who are all vocal members of Skeptical organizations that back your claim and Lantresmen pointed out a few reasonable issues with them. Because a handful of scientists claim that Sheldrake has no support seems more like opinion of a small handful of scientists. That those sources are vocal and hold opinions does not the entire mainstream make. Sheesh. Back to the BLP noticeboards again. I guess this Thanksgiving I'll be grateful for HBO instead of Wikipedia. Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. It is not an extraordinary claim in the least to say that the scientific mainstream doesn't believe in magic and telepathy. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Bring us any indication that there is any measurable level of support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom You're weaseling your way out of this argument and trying to start a new one. It's not a question of what scientists believe, it's a question of what scientists research. Please stop using weasel words like magic. Are you actually suggesting that science by definition *must not* research claims of telepathy in animals or humans and any attempt to do so disqualifies it as science? Not only does that sound like Orwellian science, it also sounds like a very biased POV of what scientists can and cannot research and your argument now rests on a tautology and circular reasoning. Stop that. Please at least make a sophisticated argument, I'm not a college student nor a promoter of the paranormal. *Some* scientists support Sheldrake's research, and while I assume most do not you only have under 10 sources that claim NO one accepts his research and there are other sources that contradict it. You're asking us to take a leap of faith. What does WP suggest we do when we have conflicting sources again? Philosophyfellow (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not Pseudoscience??? Has anybody got evidence that Shelly's ideations are anything but Pseudoscientific?

Currently, woolly thinkers on this page are trying to suggest that Shelly isn't doing pseudoscience. Is there any evidence for such assertions? Could it be outlined by anybody here? Lets see links to all this science that Rupe is engaged in? Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Popperian concept of pseudoscience involves proposing theories that have high explanatory power and which are not falsifiable. So far I haven't come across any serious analysis that suggests Sheldrake is proposing such a theory. MR is falsifiable in that it makes predictions that can be tested - you will find many such tests cited already. This, arguably, is the crux of the scientific endeavour. Obviously there is a vast political dimension to science, but by any serious measure Sheldrake is proposing a theory he aspires to test - he isn't making the kind of claims Popper tagged as pseudoscientific viz. Marxism, or Adlerian psychotherapy that can accommodate every conceivable outcome from a test as confirming the theory. And while there are obvious disputes over interpretation of data, there is data that may/may not show MR to be false. This is not the case with pseudoscience. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of what Sheldrake does isn't pseudoscience. For example some pieces on the likes of science funding, using the first person in descriptions of experiments, are not pseudoscience. Also, some of the criticisms of the scientific community as set out in Science Set Free are known to sociologists of science (e.g. the file draw effect).

Contrary to what Blippy (talk · contribs) tries to suggest, we're not allowed to do original research. The biggest prediction of MR is that fields of embryology, developmental biology, genetics and animal behaviour should be getting very confusing results. That we know a lot more about about all of these areas 2013 than we did in 1981, and our basic scientific theories in these areas haven't changed, implies that science is on the right track, after all, and Kuhnian paradigm shifts are overrated (as Maddox alluded to way back in '81). The truth is that MR hasn't been tested in depth largely because it's contradicted by existing evidence. But we're not allowed to say the obvious because it's "OR"

Meanwhile, we have numerous scientific sources saying that MR is not falsifiable, which is what we have to rely on. That some people have tried to test MR only implies that versions of the hypothesis are testable. The Rose experiments are a case in point in which Sheldrake changed his prediction about what MR would do when he saw the results.

You've got it exactly backwards. Sheldrake never changed his prediction. It was Rose who had to figure out a way around the finding that day-old chicks seemed to be influenced by the experience of previous day-old chicks. Sheldrake was happy to publish the results, but Rose reneged on his agreement to publish them jointly. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to find a scientific source, other than Brian Josephson, as an actual scientist in favour of Sheldrake's work. I'd really like to include such source if possible. Chopra has his own credibility problems. If not "real" scientists then sociologists and philosophers are the next best thing, e.g. Mary Midgley, we got her. Anyone else at all? Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder

Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics and the Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University

Stuart Hameroff, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital

Neil Theise, MD, Professor, Pathology and Medicine, (Division of Digestive Diseases) Beth Israel Medical Center - Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York Barleybannocks (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

An article on Sheldrake by Bekoff can be found here

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201311/why-dogs-hump-and-rupert-sheldrakes-morphogenic-fieldsQuotes

And a letter from the others can be found here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dear-ted-is-it-bad-scienc_b_3104049.html

In the letter I note the following

"Sheldrake's talk was on "The Science Delusion" and covered ten dogmas in mainstream science that need to be examined; there wasn't a hint of bad science in it." And,

"Quantum entanglement could account for Rupert Sheldrake's findings"

Now, whatever one thinks of this, it seems clear that there is at least some support for Sheldrake within the scientific community, and there are scientists who do not regard his work as pseudoscience. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly did I suggest we should violate WP:OR? If you read RTD's question and my response you will see I was answering that question. I did not deny there are scientists who have characterised MR as pseudoscience, however I pointed out that these aren't any serious analyses (as far as I'm aware), Maddox's editorial and subsequent interview are clearly nothing of the sort. Rose and Wiseman are critical of the theory based on their attempts to falsify it - by definition the antithesis of characterising it as pseudoscience. If a theory is testable, and if the results of those tests can demonstrate the theory to be wrong, then that theory is falsifiable. MR is such a theory, and there are many attempts to test it by Sheldrake and other scientists - not least Rose & Wiseman. Disagreements over the results is standard scientific dialogue, not pseudoscience. And just to be clear for those unwilling to see, all of this is my analysis in response to RTD's original question, I'm not making edits, merely attempting to move the conversation beyond the superficial name calling that seems to have dominated proceedings to date. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blippy (talk · contribs) - Maddox was entirely serious, and if you read the piece, he does identify several features that are characteristic of pseudoscience. So not only does he make the allegation, he explains why as well (it is vague, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not testable, it doesn't sit with existing theories). If this isn't "serious", I don't know what is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A serious analysis isn't just a sequence of claims but explanations of those claims. How is a theory that's been put to the test in a variety of ways not really testable after all? This has to be explained. How is it vague? Without an explanation, the charge itself is vague. Doesn't sit with existing theories? Science is a competition of theories. To banish a theory because it conflicts with a pre-existent theory, such as genetic reductionism, is to stop all theoretical progress in science. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy. Indeed, the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance but that mainstream scientific view is being excluded almost entirely in favour of a hodge-podge of criticism of Sheldrake and/or his ideas from a small number of people who may or may not speak for anyone other than themselves. One would expect the mainstream view to be supportable by literally hundreds of very solid peer-reviewed articles and biology textbooks. That's what makes it the mainstream scientific view after all. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand " the mainstream scientific view of morphogenesis is what is supposed to be set against and above Sheldrake's theory for balance" ? What are you trying to say there?

I'm saying that the mainstream scientific view (ie, the view found in countless peer-reviewed journals and textbooks) is what policy/guidelines say should be presented so that Sheldrake's views are not mistaken for a/the accepted theory. What we have at the moment, by contrast, are a few criticisms of Sheldrake and his theories from sundry individuals speaking on behalf of themselves.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blippy here. First, this section is really inviting OR to the article - which is a big tsk tsk on Wikipedia. Secondly, if a notable author claims Sheldrake's work in MR is pseudo science, is that evidence that it is? hardly - it just makes for a notable critique of Sheldrake's theories. I think the more reasonable question is 'What quality of sources do we use to adopt a PS claim to a BLP page?' If Sheldrake is testing and publishing his research, which resources show he is doing, that seems like disqualify the PS claim. If editors are suggesting that Sheldrake is doing pseudoscience for the sole reason that he is researching telepathy which automatically defaults to PS because of the subject matter and not the quality of research Sheldrake is doing, then Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman and James Randi are also pseudoscientists. Roxy the dog (resonate) - why so angry at Sheldrake? I'm concerned that editors here have to many personal feelings about Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Angry? Astonished that people are trying to make a case that he's doing "Good Science". If that case gets made, then his notability goes out of the window, with this article, and we wont be discussing AfC but AfD instead. If he's a "scientist and Author" then he is as notable as Trulyscarymary, and deserves a wiki article just as much. If he's doing science, where are his fellow scientists citing his work alongside him in decent journals? If he's doing science, he isn't notable for it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me to check that Mary doesn't have a mainspace page about her, after all she is a published author. She doesn't. Phew. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with an angry editor, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Not one person here is suggesting or arguing that he is doing *good* science. The argument is simply that he is doing scientific research and is a scientist. Philosophyfellow (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney sources: kudos

• Well done Barney for summarising a list of sources on Sheldrake in your Sandbox3 that you mentioned elsewhere.[107]
• It would also be interesting to know how they refer to Sheldrake: biologist? biochemist? scientist? Former scientist? etc.
• I note that out of the list of 77 sources, only one specifically mentions Sheldrake works as pseudoscience (Guardian, 11 Jan 84, Wolpert). This would suggest that he is not widely known for "pseudoscience", as it is unlikely he would be included so frequently if his work were totally discredited.

Through which service are you gaining access? --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that I also have access via my local library's online eResource, via NewsBank to The Guardian, Independent, Times, Sunday Times. Very useful. --Iantresman (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Library access is restricted from around 10-20 years ago, depending on the publication. --Iantresman (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian and Observer have an archive that contains the full runs 1821 and 1791 respectively. The Times and Sunday Times similarly have a full archive that runs from 1785 to 1986. After that, you have to use other databases. These are very useful for Wikipedia articles generally. If your library doesn't offer access to these, you can join another one that does. Guardian is here: http://search.proquest.com/hnpguardianobserver/ your number is usually three letters followed by your library number. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it's not just having access to these sources, it's being able to summarise and use them correctly without creative interpretations. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Without any kind of interpretation, analysis, judgement or synthesis :-) --Iantresman (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Ian you have persistently tried to deny that sources say what they say, while maintaining that they say what they don't say. You've been doing this for years. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've happily provided and acknowledged sources that specifically say that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, and added relevant quotes to the article, eg. Maddox,[108] Coyne[109] and Meyers[110][111] above, and you've also mentioned Wolpert,[112] No cover ups or denials there. And for example, Prof, Steven Rose did no such thing, and even collaborated with Sheldrake.[113] "philosophical implausibility" does not mean or imply "pseudoscience", any more than "dog-like" means dog. --Iantresman (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How many sources do you really want? Just because Rose doesn't use the word pseudoscience doesn't mean he doesn't provide an excellent summary of why it isn't science, despite superficial appearances, criticism which is entirely consistent with other criticism, so 2+2=4, and this is, er, work it out. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I describe something as being like a dog, does not mean it is a dog, even if you say it is. --Iantresman (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

proposals that the article present Sheldrakes morphic resonance as being held as anything other than pure nonsense by any measurable segment of the mainstream community is WP:REDFLAG an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We are getting very close to a working relationship here. How about this? Barney agrees that all Reliable Sources deserve their place in the article, with placement/emphasis -- but not inclusion -- subject to WP:UNDUE, until and unless a particular source can be particularly excluded as Not Reliable At All per the Journal-of-Sasquatch-Believers exception of WP:FRINGE.

  Iantresman agrees that, per WP:FRINGE, specific parts of Sheldrake's work are in fact considered pseudo by mainstream science/scientists, to include the pseudophysics of subquantum morphic fields. Sheldrake fully admits he does not have a mathematical model, which is a prereq for any theory of physics; Sheldrake is approaching the field as an experimental biologist, looking for experimental evidence, not as a theoretical physicist trying to integrate with the existing unified theory of everything.

  But the key is this: can everybody agree, that just because *some* things Sheldrake does are WP:FRINGE, and *some* sources may individually on a case-by-case basis be excluded per WP:FRINGE against Sasquatch-Journals, that this does not somehow invalidate the BBC, the Guardian, and so on... which still satisfy WP:RS even if what they say is literally logically untrue? Nor does Sheldrake's ideas that fall into pseudophysics territory, have any impact at all on his spirituality, his philosophy-of-science-funding, or his mainstream-research work/credentials? If my statements here put your position incorrectly, please correct your position specifically, on which fields-of-inquiry WP:FRINGE applies unto (or whatever you disagree with). Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always said that I have no problems mentioning that some scientists consider Sheldrake's work to be pseudoscience, as long as (a) the source says this specifically (b) it is attributed. But since none of the sources are peer reviewed secondary sources, I have said that we do not over-generalise, and give the impression that all/most of mainstream science considers Shreldrake's work to be pseudoscience. I will happily agree that most sources reject' Sheldrake's work. --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@74 the BBC, the Guardian, etc. are fine mainstream press some of the best mainstream press infact, but they are not academic journals. And editorials in the mainstream press are merely editorials and need to be treated as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And of the comment on pseudoscience, Maddox[114] is not peer reviewed, Coyne,[115] Meyer[116][117] and Carroll[118] appear on their blogs, Wolpert is also in the Guardian, as is Blackmore,[119] and Rutherford[120] and I guess we'd have to overlook Barney's list of 70+ newspaper articles[121]. But I'm find about sticking with peer reviewed reliable secondary sources, which is bit of shame as Sheldrake's works have reached a wider audience.--Iantresman (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) - if we relied on sources that were peer reviewed we'd have Wiseman et al.'s paper - and that's it. There are however plenty of sources that are opinion, many from senior science academics, and should be presented as such. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but they shouldn't be misrepresented as the view of mainstream science (ie, the stuff that's in peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and is taught at school/university), rather than the views of some mainstream scientists, parapsychologists, journalists (which appear in newspapers, opinion pieces and blogs etc.). The scientific community does have a mainstream view of morphogenesis, but at present that view is almost entirely excluded from the article in favour of the views of a few scientists speaking on behalf of themselves. That is, as regards my first sentence, we are excluding the former, including only the latter, and misrepresenting the latter as the former. Barleybannocks (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We are also relying on the view of Economist Ruchir Sharma in his book on Foreign Policy.[122] I also have no problem with the view of scientists quoted in the broadsheets, including Sheldrake. We can easily state Sheldrake's view (response) without giving him undue veracity and credibility by our use of English. --Iantresman (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know about Ruchir Sharma, but the idea that commentary from numerous senior scientists (plus various less detailed comments from other scientists), which are consistent with each other is not "mainstream" viewpoint is preposterous. Clear WP:REDFLAG as has been explained to you. Even Sheldrake recognises this with his comments against "the dogmatic establishment". Meanwhile, the view of mainstream science is in the textboooks - and it doesn't mention Sheldrake, only the mainstream materialistic theories he misrepresents. Sheldrake's work is also not in peer reviewed journals. So we can conclude his ideas are scientifically irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not preposterous. The mainstream scientific view is what is found in textbooks and the like, not newspaper articles. And while the two may overlap in many cases, the acid test is the textbook. As things stand, though, we have a few newspaper articles and the like with scientists dismissing and criticising Sheldrake and some other newspaper articles and the like with a few scientists supporting him, and nothing at all from textbook. Thus the mainstream textbook view is excluded entirely, in favour of some personal views of some scientists - views which are notably absent from the textbook.Barleybannocks (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to stay WP:ONTOPIC, and can't use a biography of Rupert Sheldrake as a WP:COATRACK for a general article on developmental biology, behaviour (including learning), genetics, and whatever else that Sheldrake's theory of everything purports to explain. We have to therefore include sources that generally mention Sheldrake directly (there might be occasionally room for WP:IAR exceptions but I see no reason to make any here). Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea that morphic resonance influences whatever, and is credible and proved, is an extraordinary claim that would indeed require very reliable sources. But we are not saying that, and I would not support it. The idea that Sheldrake has a hypothesis called morphic resonance, that he has carried out tests, and published his results in several journals, is not extraordinary, as they are demonstrable facts, that in no way suggests undue credibility and veracity. --Iantresman (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines seems quite clear on this. Where a fringe theory (Sheldrake's) conflicts with the mainstream view, the mainstream view should be stated in such a way as to ensure people know what it is and know that it is the mainstream view. So, specifically, Sheldrake has offered a fringe theory of morphogenesis, and thus we should present the mainstream view of morphogenesis so that people may know what it is and that it is the mainstream view. At the moment, however, the mainstream view (the textbook view) of morphogenesis is excluded entirely in favour of the views of a few scientists and others writing in newspapers and the like. Worse still, these newspaper views are being misrepresented as the mainstream/textbook view when they are, as noted, completely absent from said textbook.Barleybannocks (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not talking morphogenesis, he is talking morphic fields and morphic resonance something that mainstream science just laughs at. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course Sheldrake is talking about morphogenesis, that's what his theory of morphic resonance attempts to explain. The mainstream view being that morphic fields are unnecessary because it is expected that the form organisms take will be fully accounted for by reference to genetics once our understanding of genetics develops sufficiently. Thus, eg, his wager with Wolpert. That's the mainstream view that policy/guidelines say should be presented so that people don't think Sheldrake's theory has more support than it does. Barleybannocks (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be some comments in some textbooks (academic/university/textbook presses):

• 2010, "Jung in the 21st Century Volume Two: Synchronicity and Science", Routledge, 2010.[123]
• 2010, "Ubiquitous Computing and Multimedia Applications", Springer.[124]
• 2008, "The Living Classroom: Teaching and Collective Consciousness", SUNY Press, 2008.[125]
• 2007, "Theoretical Advances and Applications of Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing", Springer. [126]
• 2003, "Conscious And Unconscious", McGraw-Hill International.[127]
• 2003, "Perilous Planet Earth", Cambridge University Press.[128]
• 2001, "The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology", SAGE.[129]
• 1999, "Encyclopedia of Creativity", Academic Press.[130]
• 1997, "The Meaning of Consciousness", University of Michigan Press.[131]
• 1997, "Mapping Reality", SUNY Press.[132]

--Iantresman (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC - withdrawn

an RfC request which has been withdrawn

The editors of the Rupert Sheldrake article need assistance from previously uninvolved editors savvy about WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. The article currently caries an NPOV tag, but even the tag's presence is in dispute. The current editors are focused on the WP:LEAD, right now. It's reproduced below, minus refs. Please read it here, as a typical reader might. Please then go to the page to evaluate the refs, with the eyes of a wikipedia editor. Please then comment under the appropriate heading below. Please save back-and-forth for the threaded discussion. David in DC (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Inappropriate RfC The attempt to railroad through this brand new lead is highly inappropriate. Instead of boiling down the essential conflict into simple questions, David has presented a freshly constructed lead which inserts his POV as if it had implicit consensus for any length of time. This is decidedly not the case. The message being suggested is that one side is against the consensus, which is false. Further, the RfC assumes David's own framing of the issue, which he characterizes as WP:FRINGE versus WP:BLP. I do not hold this viewpoint, but the RfC aims to direct all responses through that lens. I have said many times that WP:NPOV is sufficient because it contains e.g. WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Further, here is the ArbCom decision, Wikipedia aims to be a serious and respected encyclopedia with a scientific focus. This conversation should not be hijacked by a predetermined viewpoint or a falsely suggested consensus. Please withdraw this RfC and submit another one that frames the issue neutrally and fairly, and in a simple manner. This means asking short, simple questions which capture the root conflict. vzaak (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Support vzaak's analysis and request. The RfC as initially proposed is worse than useless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Current lede Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a biochemist and author, best known for ideas propounded in his 1981 book, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. In this book, and in later writing, lectures, debates and public appearances, Sheldrake has asserted that "memory is inherent in nature", that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind" and that morphic resonance could explain "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". These ideas are widely rejected by the scientific community, with scientists who have investigated morphic resonance offering reasons ranging from a lack of evidence to inconsistency with established scientific theories and categorising Sheldrake's work as psuedoscience or magical thinking. Sheldrake also argues that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He advocates questioning facts such as conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices, bedrock foundational principles that undergird modern science. Critics express concern that Sheldrake's books, appearances and advocacy attract popular attention in a way that undermines the public's understanding of science. The Guardian, to which Sheldrake contributed a series of pieces which ran in the paper's "Body and Soul" column in the late 1980's, described him in 2012 as having to continually defend himself. A 2013 interview with Sheldrake in The Sun magazine opened with a similar observation. Despite the response to his work from the scientific community, Sheldrake attracts some public support. Among his proponents is Deepak Chopra who sees Sheldrake as a "peacemaker" who "wants to end the breach between science and religion". Sheldrake has also acknowledged criticism, suggesting in response that scientists are susceptible to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". Per WP:FRINGE Please comment here on how the lead does or does not comply with WP:FRINGE and how it might be improved. This RfC is wrongly configured and should be shut down. The OP should offer two or more possible wordings, not probe for impressions. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Per WP:BLP Please comment here on how the lead does or does not comply with WP:BLP and how it might be improved. This RfC is wrongly configured and should be shut down. The OP should offer two or more possible wordings, not probe for impressions. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Threaded discussion about the viability (or lack thereof) of an RfC in this format providing any actionable consensus Please discuss here. A supremely poorly thought out attempt at an RfC. This page and subject do NOT need more people making general comments about policies and the RfC in this format is almost absolutely guaranteed to not bring the article forward at all and merely generate more circular discussions. It also reeks of the submitter attempting to have not only a 24 hour "hold" on their preferred version of the lead, but to lock significant editing until the 30 day comment period of the RfC is over. BAD IDEA all around. I urge the submitter to withdraw this debacle in the making now. While an RfC may be needed THIS is not it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC) We disagree, but thanks for sharing. David in DC (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - introducing more bureaucracy is not what we need. We need to take the German approach. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) (e/c)this isnt even bureaucracy - its just more hot air with no actual determinants that are going to come out of it other than "BLP applies: we cannot make unsubstantiated attacks at a living individual and all critiques must be properly sourced and represent significant portion of the mainstream view" And we have that already. So all that is going to come of this is another 6 archive pages. Bad idea. right up there with New Coke. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC) e/c Rather dodgy behaviour by David in DC urging editors to stop editing for a while, and at the same time not telling us of his RfC proposal. Difficult to assume good faith of an editor I previously held in high esteem when compared to some of the woolly thinkers in evidence here up to now. TRiPOD is, I believe, correct in suggesting that all we will see are more of the same circular discussions, but the next few days will prove or disprove that. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) I made the plea for restraint in earnest. Then I got the notice we all did about discretionary sanctions. That's a far stronger signal for restraint than I could ever present. It was only after that that I conceived of the RfC. The circularity of the arguments here, and the proliferation of Noticeboard battlegrounds make it imperitive, for the good of the project, and not just this single bio, that the editors with feet fixed in concrete take a breater, while others who hold the project equally dear offer fressh insight. None of us hold a monopoly on wisdom, least of all me. There are three criticisms above. I've replied to the first, in what I think is the appropriate manner. My response to the other two follows: I regret disappointing you and hope the events of the next few days offer you either some reassurance or offer me an appropriate basket of trout, said trout being deposited in the basket after being used in the maner for which G-d intended trout to be used. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot know which outcome is more likely. But I'l make every good faith effort to discern which it is, and act in accordance with the message we get from uninvolved editors. In my view, this part of the thread ought to be collapsed, with a heading like "Criticism of this RfC and of its originator." I would not view the second clause as a WP:NPA personal attack, but rather as an accurate reflection of what's inside. But I think having all this stuff at the top could either poison the well boomering. Again, per WP:CRYSTAL, I cannot say which. But either effect should be unwelcome. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Ohfergodsake, OF COURSE we know what is going to happen in an open discussion on this page. A gazillion pixels will give up their life and the "consensus" will be "BLP applies: we cannot make unsubstantiated attacks at a living individual and all critiques must be properly sourced and represent significant portion of the mainstream view". There is no other possible outcome, and even if some other outcome might have a "consensus" here, it would be immediately overturned as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Threaded discussion (for those who wish to waste their time in an RfC that will lead to no actionable consensus) Please discuss here. refuse to participate in this nonsense -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC) WITHDRAW. Would an admin please shut this down. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC work in progress

This needs some filling-in and other editing before being proposed for real. David or someone should fill in the "TO DO" parts. Anyone is free to edit any section below, provided that care is taken to be concise as possible. After this is hashed out, it may turn out that an RfC isn't needed. vzaak (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

David won't be filling in anything. David in DC (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

can we cover both Pt 1) AND Pt 2) in the same (or even concurrent) RfC, or does that just get too messy? Take one and weigh the community consensus on that and then address the other (if needed)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes looking at this again it seems messy. The biochemist question seems the most important. Trimming. vzaak (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the controversy has been over calling him a biochemist (or any sort of scientist) in the lead, not whether he should be called one at all. Calling him one in the lead implies that the work for which he is best known is his biochemistry work, which is obviously false.

The question of whether to call him one in the middle of the article raises different issues, about exactly what it means to be one. Is "non-practicing biochemist" a type of biochemist, or a type of non-biochemist? Does biochemist status stick around even if you no longer act as one? Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the main point of contention about the "biochemist" appellation is the use in the lead, particularly in the lead sentence. (at least that is MY major concern.)

I am now wondering however, if it might be a better first step to get the community to address whether WP:FRINGE/PS "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Proposals which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." applies to morphic resonance. If that is settled once and for all, I think that shapes the other discussions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article doesn't pause to comment on how Sheldrake is contemporaneously viewed by others. Sheldrake is called "Sheldrake" in the article, not "the biochemist" or "the former biochemist". I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I just don't see this being an issue.

I can't imagine "2. Generally considered pseudoscience" being in contention. The question is how that informs other issues. vzaak (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

see Iantresman et al contesting of the descriptor "widely considered pseudoscience", but, i was just throwing it out there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are arguing about a phrase that is no longer in the article, but que sera, sera. vzaak (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

• Should Sheldrake be called a biochemist, or should his status be that of a former biochemist (which may be stated implicitly, e.g., "until 1978 he was a biochemist at Cambridge...")?

Findings of fact

1. Scientists and scientific journals have referred to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist, a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology, a biochemist-turned-parapsychologist, and a pseudoscientist.
2. Sheldrake is often called a biochemist or biologist in popular media.
3. From a raw tally of sources, it is likely that Sheldrake is more often called a biochemist or a biologist.
4. The ArbCom decision on pseudoscience grants editors discretion in identifying pseudoscience and characterizing it as such.

Argument: former biochemist

This position is based upon the policy Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience as well as the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience,

click here to read the standard ArbCom Pseudoscience notice

Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus. Scientific opinion and expertise found in high-quality scientific journals are afforded special importance. The article on Evolution was not informed by counting the number of reliable sources, in scorecard fashion, that either support or deny evolution. The degree to which dog-human telepathy relates to the field of biology is a scientific question.

The (arguably most) prestigous scientific journal Nature says that Sheldrake is a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. And the characterization of pseudoscientist by Coyne is obviously at odds with the biochemist characterization. Remember that this is only about what Sheldrake is presently called; no effort has been or will be made to erase Sheldrake's position as a Cambridge biochemist until 1978.

Further, the lead is about describing why Sheldrake is notable. Overwhelmingly, he is notable for being the proponent of "morphic resonance".

Argument: biochemist

Sheldrake's Ph.D. has not been revoked, so he should be called a biochemist. The higher raw count of sources calling him a biologist or biochemist means that Wikipedia should call him that.

Not calling him a biochemist is a BLP violation. (TO DO: explain why.)

Strange new lead

• The mention of the book title in the first sentence is peculiar. Such a situation might be appropriate for Moses, but not for Sheldrake. Moreover, it's not just the title A New Science of Life, but A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. It appears that the full title is only there to introduce "hypothesis" into the first sentence.

• "...morphic resonance could explain 'telepathy-type interconnections between organisms'". The wording suggests that telepathy already exists, with morphic resonance simply explaining it.

• "widely rejected...". This was in an old version of the lead, but was removed due to WP:WEASEL. "Widely rejected" also gives undue status to morphic resonance, suggesting that the scientific community has "widely" paid attention to it, which is not the case.

• "magical thinking" was also in an old version of the lead, but was removed because it seemed gratuitous next to "pseudoscience". I think just "pseudoscience" is sufficient for the lead.

• "bedrock", "foundational", "undergird" -- just one of these is sufficient; using all three next to each other is definitely too wordy.

• "Body and Soul" column -- why is this random info in the lead? When people think of Sheldrake, they don't say "Oh that's the guy that did the 'Body and Soul' stuff in the 1980s!". It also doesn't summarize the article in any way. The same applies to The Sun.

• "Sheldrake has also acknowledged criticism, suggesting in response that scientists are susceptible to 'the recurrent fantasy of omniscience'." He didn't say that in response to criticism; the quote is out of context. He's contrasting the confidence of scientists with unknowns like dark matter.

• The pattern of statement / criticism / statement / criticism / etc is idiosyncratic and seems counter to Evaulating claims, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas".

If nobody minds, I would like to restore a more stable version of the lead. With regard to the high-conflict biochemist-or-former-biochemist issue, the split-the-baby option of "researcher" had some stability. vzaak (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• support this analysis and suggested changes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Science set free

Barney, any particular reason for removing the accurate description of what Sheldrake's book is about?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Materialism here: "Besides making a strong argument for the reinvigoration of science through relaxing the firm grip materialism has on scientific practice" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/ Barleybannocks (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mechanism here: "Sheldrake offers an alternative to the mechanistic dogma" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/book-review-science-set-free/

And a lot more here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rupert-sheldrake/why-bad-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.htmlBarleybannocks (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And here from the Guardian source already in the article - the quote is Sheldrake, quoted in the article. "I think if people in the realm of science and medicine came out and talked about the limitations of purely mechanistic and reductive approaches it would be much more fun" Barleybannocks (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

‎:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, I agree that simple statements are simply better, but the sense of Sheldrake's point is currently lost. His point is that it is the certainty with which materialism and mechanism are believed that leads to and is a symptom of "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". These are the general principles that Sheldrake feels are taken to be known without question and these then dictate what kind of answers science looks for. Thus, he thinks, by relinquishing these centuries old metaphysical "certainties" science can be free to look at problems with fresh eyes. Not saying any of this correct, but this is Sheldrake's view. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks, statements in the article must be sourced (WP:NOR). The source given for the quote "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience"[133] does not explicitly connect it to the material you added. The quote "fantasy of omniscience" (without "recurrent") does appear in Science Set Free, however adding that source would still not be sufficient to support the "Citing ..." clause.

There is also another problem with launching into Sheldrake's characterization of science as philosophical materialism; if that is done then the mainstream view must be stated (WP:PSCI). See the Science Delusion section for how that is accomplished.

Until the matter is worked out, removing unsourced material in a BLP is a typical action and I support Barney (and anyone else) doing so. vzaak (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not connected to dark matter either. That's from the previous paragraph. I have, however, cited various sources which support this reading of what Sheldrake is saying so while neither version is actually supported by the one source offered in terms of leading into the "omniscience" stuff, my version has the advantage of being correct.Barleybannocks (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The source says: Despite this, he suggests, scientists are prone to "the recurrent fantasy of omniscience". The "this" in "Despite this" is referring to the point about dark matter.

Correct, unsourced statements in the article should be removed. Correct, sourced statements which violate policy should be removed. There is no easy fix to your edit. It's not clear how to include your material in the lead yet, if it should be done. vzaak (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what the source says, you're butchering it, and Sheldrake's view.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First five minutes should help clarify what Sheldrake is saying so we can try to provide sources that support that rather than the peculiar readings currently on offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE Barleybannocks (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happier with QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV's edit. Leave the discussion of the finer points for the appropriate section.Barleybannocks (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see there has been a further change back to the old misleading version. This is simply not what Sheldrake is saying, The article is a bit misleading that it is sourced to, but Sheldrake absolutely does not use dark matter in that way. His discussions of dark matter are on a completely different point. The myth of omniscience is about the understanding the basics and is not attacked by a "what about dark matter" argument. It's just not what he's saying. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Adams article is foolish in other ways, like taking Maddox's 1994 quote and falsely stating that it's from the 1981 book-burning editorial. It's wrong, but it makes for a nice narrative when combined with Sheldrake's quote of being "excommunicated". Journalists sometimes string unrelated/wrong things together for "flow". I would guess the same is going on with the dark matter thing, too. vzaak (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if people watched the banned talk posted above. This is because there is a lot of mischaracterisation of Sheldrake going on (TED's first stab at a complaint had to be completely crossed out!). And while I know we can't use it as a source, we could at least use it to be alive to what he is saying so that when we summarise sources etc. we can try to bear in mind what his points actually are and try to capture that from the sources we have. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you have gotten the wrong impression. It's not that I lack understanding of Sheldrake's position. Wikipedia is the wrong place for original research or synthesis. You inserted material which you "knew" was right, but which lacked sources to support it. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sheldrake may well have made the dark matter connection in his interview with Adams -- in fact Sheldrake makes such a connection in his conspiracy blog post. The point is that we report what the source says. When the source seems foolish or when an editor objects, it can't hurt to pull less from the source while still maintaining fidelity to it. vzaak (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I inserted material and provided several sources above for my change and even the one in the article supported it. It's also a very widely known fact about Sheldrake's book and it could no doubt be sourced to dozens of sources had the need arisen. It would therefore only appear as original research to someone who had no idea what Sheldrake was talking about. Thus the standing offer to watch the video above.Barleybannocks (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has to be sourced. Sources have to be in the article. Sources on the talk page count for nothing. And as I pointed out above, even putting the sources in the article would not work in this case. as it would result in original research because of the direct quote. Even if we "know" that Sheldrake would probably not object to the quote being co-opted to refer to something else, that's not how Wikipedia works. And lastly, there is the WP:PSCI issue explained above. Normally one would try to fix up a change, but it was not clear how to fix this one.

I've been involved with the Sheldrake article for a while; I have a good memory of each source in the article, and I have watched the TEDx video several times. I remembered Sheldrake's conspiracy blog post that made the same point about dark matter, so adding the reference via the Adams article made sense. I don't care that it's removed now, I'm just saying that its inclusion in the article was not a sign that people need to watch videos. vzaak (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And I'm pointing out that the source in the article already supported my version about as much as it did yours and so sourcing was never really an issue. That's the first point. The second is that it's clear from comments here and above that people editing the article have very little knowledge of the subject matter. For example, there was the stuff you, and others, were trying to insert about dark matter which missed the real point of what Sheldrake was saying (an essential feature in a one sentence summary); some don't appear to know that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is primarily a theory of morphogenesis; and there are various other sections of the article that are likewise wide of the mark on fairly basic matters). Thus I thought this lack of knowledge of the subject matter would make editing difficult and so suggested the above video as at least a starter (possibly leading to reading his books), and in this way we could then try to ensure that Sheldrake's views were accurately reported in the first instance rather than just inserting stuff loosely based on sources which may or may not accurately represent Sheldrake. Attaining such an understanding of the basic subject matter being written about being less original research and more simply good solid editorial best practice without which it is hard to pick which stuff from sources should be included and which should not (as the example currently under discussion clearly shows).Barleybannocks (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

as for reading his books, no thank you. I have a feeling that they would only make me sick or dumber. What we do need to know is what the reliable sources have said about the subject. See WP:OR and WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not the least bit surprised. As an aside, my last topic ban came about because two editors claimed a book I had used as a source was about one thing, when all the reviews about the book disagreed, and the book itself specifically said otherwise. They hadn't even read the book, and claimed that having to provide a source to back up their claim was Wikilawyering. --Iantresman (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Putsch

The following discussion 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.

---

Mangoe and Barney the barney barney are attempting a putsch against editors who do not share their anti-Sheldrake bias, starting with me. Once I've been disposed of, they plan to proceed to other non-biased editors one by one. I assume they sincerely believe that they themselves are the unbiased editors and that they merely wish to perform a service to Wikipedia.

The attempted putsch began when Mangoe filed an incident report on the administrators' noticeboard singling me out as the most offensive editor. Mangoe claims that Sheldrake supporters are attempting to arrive at consensus by exhausting other editors. Obviously those of us seeking to restore a neutral POV to the Sheldrake biography see it the other way around. The report is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus_by_exhaustion_at_Rupert_Sheldrake

I wish to draw the attention of my fellow editors to the final two comments:

There is a WP:AE motion against Alfonzo Green currently, but I think the other pro-Sheldrake, anti-WP:FRINGE (and therefore anti Wikipedia) editors, particularly WP:SPAs need to be considered there as well. Maybe one at a time though. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on that, but the format there seems to dictate a one-by-one belaboring of each editor. I think we're done here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:AE motion Barney refers to is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alfonzo_Green

Mangoe seems to have initiated the complaint in order to banish me not only from editing the Sheldrake biography but even participating on the talk page, claiming that I'm "belaboring discussion of Rupert Sheldrake in order to push undue claims for Sheldrake's eccentric ideas." Note the use of the word "eccentric," as if proposing a theory that fails to conform to the current standard viewpoint means his approach must be unscientific. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of science, which is not based on dogma but (at least in theory) welcomes alternative viewpoints and evolves as a result.

Following Mangoe's opening statement and vzaak's comments, Barney helpfully chimed in: "I think that Alfonzo Green is the tip of the iceberg and that others will have to follow." Not content with banning me from the Sheldrake biography, he added, "I think that the best thing for Alfonzo Green is that he is placed on a sanction preventing him from editing fringe articles, broadly construed, including talk pages. Violations of this should result in enforcement." Needless to say, I have no interest in fringe issues. My interest in Sheldrake is strictly a function of my interest in science.

There's no surer indication of weakness in one's own position than trying to silence opponents.

All the points in the WP:AE complaint made by Mangoe, vzaak and Barney are either flat-out wrong or irrelevant. The complaint is so flimsy I haven't even bothered to respond. However, I thought my fellow editors here should be apprised of this development. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

my attention was indirectly called to this. The disputes above show why I dislike working with pseudoscience, and especially with AE. But since I have now looked at the recents edits to the article, the substance of Vzaak's recent edits to this article have, in my opinion, been consistently in the spirit of the pseudoscience policy, wholly constructive, and exceptionally helpful. I am quite impressed by his solution to the dispute over the lede paragraph, which is always a tricky matter in this subject. The edits of the other editors are also imo consistent with policy. As I do not get involved in AE if I can help it, I have deliberately refrained from comment on AG' DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 20 November 2013 (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.

Concerning Misconceptions of WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE

One of the biggest justifications for limiting input on this page (and for countless reverts) has been WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, largely by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. The standard argument has been that WP:REDFLAG requires extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, while WP:FRINGE says that WP should not make a fringe theory seem notable . Therefore, since Rupert Sheldrake is a fringe theorist discussing extraordinary concepts, any source that legitimizes him is subject to nearly insurmountable scrutiny and even if it is a valid source, violates the WP:FRINGE policy by... wait for it... legitimizing his fringe theory.

Does that seem a little ridiculous to you? That's because this is NOT how WP:REDFLAG or WP:FRINGE actually works.

The section on WP:REDFLAG is in Verifiability, which is about sourcing the content going into articles, not the subject of the article. Therefore WP:REDFLAG's clause on an extraordinary burden of proof applies only to EDITORS making extraordinary claims, not to BLP's about people who have made extraordinary claims.

EXAMPLE

• If I were editing the page on Earth and cited a statement in the lead that said "Many people state the Earth is flat," that would require extraordinary evidence, because it's a new claim.
• If I were editing the page of Flat Earth Society and cited the statement "This organization states the Earth is flat," that would require ordinary evidence, because the article is reporting on the statements of another entity, not a statement of fact. (side note: the Flat Earth Society article doesn't have a disclaimer in the lead about the organization being scientifically disreptuble, so why does this one?)

In other words, WP:REDFLAG does not apply to the Sheldrake page because we're discussing the fact that a man has views that are fringe, not fringe views about a man. This can be understood by the fact that every single clause on Verifiability relates to editors being in line with general community conceptions, not to whether the subject of an article is popular in their respective community.

WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, does not state that fringe theories should be repressed out of some bizaare threat to the public's grasp of science, but simply that fringe theories should not be presented as more notable than they are. It also says:

 "...all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately..."

There's nothing about extraordinary sources, just reliable ones for both sides. In the Sheldrake article it's clear that the proportionately larger perspective would be the scientific community's dismissal of Morphic Resonance. Fine, great. Almost no version of this article has disputed that. But as WP:FRINGE references, minority opinions still have to be represented, especially when they're proposed by the actual subject of the BLP, and they can be presented without including perjorative disclaimers every other sentence.

This post has gone on a while, I know, but the consistent misuse of these terms has been bothering me. Virtually no editors here are making fringe statements about Rupert Sheldrake, but rather trying to accurately report on a figure who himself makes fringe statements. It's unreasonable and detrimental to place a higher burden of proof on editors who are trying to cite legitimate sources on an aspect of the subject one happens to dislike.

Long story short; whether you agree with what Rupert Sheldrake says or not, you can't deny the fact that he's said it. Therefore objectivly writing about what he's said is citing facts, not extraordinary claims. Please read WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE and correct me if you think I'm out of line. I don't think I am. The Cap'n (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)