Talk:Paul Stamets

Should dead links be removed?

IamthatIam 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a dead link that is given as a reference in an article should never be removed, as someone looking it up can, armed with the original URL, look it up with the Internet Wayback machine or something similar. Crypticfirefly 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Martial Arts Awards?

To me it seems that Paul Stamets' martial arts awards are superfluous and unrelated to the article. Maybe if the article mentioned his martial arts achievements it would be appropriate to include these awards; but as it is, I believe they should be removed. Any objections? Wowbobwow12 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the above edits. Wowbobwow12 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a biography. Verifiable information about the subject which provides information about the life of the subject should not be removed just because one editor views it as unrelated to the subject's profession. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Large edit

I've just finished making a large edit, which I hope everyone is OK with. I noticed a couple things that I thought were a problem with the article. First, I thought the setion about his website was too detailed about what it sold and offered as services, and I felt it bordered on advertizing. So I removed the section and cut the material about the website down to one general sentence. Second, I saw no need for an awards section with two awards in it in a bulleted list, so I removed that section too and merged the list into the header in sentence form. Mr Stamets, if you're working on Wikipedia, that's great; we're always excited to get more experts on the project. But please be aware of our conflict of interest guideline and the very serious need for all articles to be written with a neutral point of view. All in all I think it's a good article with no serious problems. Let me know if there's any problem with my edit. Thanks, delldot | talk 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased Writing

It seems to me that the style of the writing is very promotional and biased. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pompay (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sasata (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mycoremediation of Sarin

In 1999 Whole Earth published an article on the mycoremediaiton of Sarin written by Paul Stamets; I've been told this is not an acceptable source to many on wikipedia due to it's age. Much of the research is classified; however can anyone else find any articles that even mention that the research is classified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

See also

I took out the "See also" section - there was no explanation as to why any of those people were topically related to Stamets, and frankly most of them didn't seem worthy of inclusion (IMHO). Brianyoumans (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Education

There is a passive-voice issue with the phrase decided to study botany. The sentence does not say that he studied botany, or started to study botany and it does not say that he completed a degree, etc. It would be okay to say that he is (or mostly) self-taught (if that is the case), etc. but, as written, looks a little like obfuscation. Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Added education information citing his LinkedIn page. I don't know if this is appropriate as a citation but the details of his education is (was) a glaring omission from the article. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Early Life

This section, as written, is inconsistent with other bios of living persons. This section is only an explanation of how the subject became involved with mushrooms. If no other changes are made, the section heading itself should be changed to match the content of the section.

Also, what does this mean?: ...tree succumbed to the stress of a skyline...

Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has stepped up with copy for a proper Early Life section I am removing it from the article. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

author abbreviation

Where is a better place/section for this "author abbreviation" tag? It currently hangs out in its own section without a title. Does it belong under "Books"? Can this tag be shown without the horizontal rules above and below it? Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927092111/http://www.linktv.org/programs/bioneers06_ps to http://www.linktv.org/programs/bioneers06_ps

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Mycologist

The description of Stamets in the lede was recently edited to remove the descriptor 'Mycologist'. Multiple RS sources describe Stamets as a mycologist. These include the Seattle Times, the NY Times and Nature Magazine. He has also coauthored peer reviewed papers in the field including Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32194-8) . Dialectric (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dialectric: Respectfully, the sources you provided and those public news reports in the article do not rigorously address Stamets' credentials, and probably heard it from Stamets himself upon introduction or from his reputation as a "mushroom expert", which he may be, but not by academic or scientific achievement, which would be earned by the rigorous achievement of a PhD. He is a hobbyist focused on a subject, similar to a folk medicine herbalist who would have no academic credentials to be called a "doctor". For Stamets and his supplement business, Fungi Perfecti, calling himself a mycologist (here) is good for marketing and misleading the consumer public that he is an accomplished, respected scientist who can be trusted to sell anyone mushroom supplements, which have no scientifically proven benefits for health, i.e., a scam. The evidence for him as a mycologist does not meet WP:V. Stamets has only a Bachelor's degree (at a liberal arts college, and with unknown major) which does not entitle him to academic recognition as a mycology specialist within a scientific discipline, and is not recognized as a mycologist by any university or government body. Mycology is a formal academic discipline and subdivision of biology (or botany), typically taught and researched among expert colleagues at a university (which would be credible evidence for a "mycologist" title if Stamets was affiliated with a university, which he is not). Under WP:ONUS, the encyclopedic responsibility for objectivity (and for Wikipedia to not falsely promote an unearned designation) would be to not call him a mycologist unless or until a reputable academic, professional, or government source says he is. --Zefr (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:BRD support the status quo for referenced content, which is here is inclusion of the descriptor 'mycologist'. This has been included in the article for years. You provide no evidence for your claim that multiple reliable sources 'probably heard it from stamets himself.' Are you of the opinion that James Trimarco and Yes! Magazine 'rigorously [addressed Stamets' credentals]'? Are these somehow more rigorous than the New York Times and Nature Magazine? Dialectric (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is part of the guideline on verifiability, stating "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." So that returns the responsibility to you or others to provide academic proof that he is a mycologist. Some credible source of his scientific standing - beyond public media (by what scientific standards do those publications use to verify him as a mycologist?) - is needed to verify that he has the standing of "mycologist". A credible source is a university bestowing a PhD in Biology, subspecialty Mycology (or government position, such as in the USDA) and with a verifiable research background in the academic field of mycology would qualify him. He's more of a shaman and supplement marketer than he is a mycologist. WP:CON is needed with proof that he has science-verified credentials to be called a mycologist. --Zefr (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede

Should the first paragraph of the intro describe Stamets as a mycologist? Dialectric (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The article on Paul Stamets has described Stamets as a mycologist in the lede since the article was created in November 2004‎. The talk page shows no concern about the word prior to September 2019, WP:RS references use the descriptor, and the notable work he has done involves mushrooms.

An editor recently removed 'mycologist', arguing that Stamets' lack of academic credentials or affiliation is justification for removing the description. Stamets does not have an advanced degree, but he has (1)coauthored peer reviewed papers in the field of mycology including Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees published in Nature Scientific Reports (2) discovered and named several mushroom species including Psilocybe azurescens (Michael Pollen for the Atlantic). (3)written widely read technical books on mushroom cultivation (4)participated in a “diverse array of experiments — often in tandem with researchers at universities or nonprofit outfits” (from Discover Magazine).

Stamets and his work with mushrooms have been covered by numerous articles, which describe him as a mycologist. These include the Seattle Times, the NY Times2Discover Magazine and Nature Magazine. Stamets does promote mushroom supplements, and definitely has unorthodox views, some of which fall into WP:FRINGE, but this is also true of some more credentialed scientists, and concerns about this aspect of his work would be better addressed by addition of WP:RS criticism than removal of well referenced content.Dialectric (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support - While I understand while some would consider the use of the term wrong, since he doesn't have a degree, I think the word can be used due to his extensive work in the field. His lack of credential could be, should be and actually is mentioned in the article, however. Describing him as a "self-taught mycologist" sounds pretty good and immediately gives the general idea. On the other hand "self-taught botanist on mushroom topics" sound horrible and just makes it seem that whoever wrote that paragraph doesn't know the word "mycologist" and had to improvise. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Mycology is one of a few fields with heavy support from amateurs (another being astronomy). He does not have the typical academic credentials, but that is a separate issue. His whole career is mycology. --Nessie (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Better to just remove the term and focus on what he does as an advocate of bioremediation and medicinal use of fungi. The rather short section above, Talk:Paul_Stamets#Mycologist addressing this (this looks like a premature RfC with so little discussion), sums up my views already. The sources given like the Seattle Times, NYT, etc. really aren't that great for this content when a more self-stylized description without credentials runs into problems, not to mention that WP:ONUS policy is clear that the existence of sources doesn't guarantee inclusion. Being a coauthor on academic papers doesn't make you a biologist if you're a chemist, etc and don't have higher-level training as a biologist. You really need to pull from academic sources in such a situation when dealing with someone involved with WP:FRINGE topics where a person's description matters too. If it weren't for the fringe aspect, then the titles wouldn't matter as much, and comments like NessieVL's would carry more weight.

In short, there's no compelling reason to call him a mycologist given his background, and there are easy fixes to get around that which I just took a stab at. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - (I was asked by Zefr to comment here. I don't know why as I don't seem to have been involved with the article in any way. In any case, I disagree with Zefr so I don't see a foul here.) The Seattle Times, New York Times and Nature directly, without equivocation of any kind and in their own voices say Stamets is a mycologist. If your opinion runs counter to those of Nature and NYT, that's fine, but Stamets is verifiably a mycologist. While I understand the various arguments about whether or not it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. But if Nature says it's a duck, its a duck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that doesn't address the main policy issue. WP:ONUS policy is very clear that being sourced isn't enough. Not to mention that Nature itself doesn't say what you claim. Barbara Kiser writing for them was reviewing a book that just namedrops Stamets. That's barely a tangential look at his credentials, so we can't really be making a statement that Nature says so. The question this RfC really should have boiled down to if it wasn't started prematurely is whether there's any legitimate reason to include calling him a mycologist in the article itself. So far, there isn't anything that tries to justify that other than saying sources exist, which violates WP:V policy, and we already have solutions that negate the need for this RfC anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

While I understand that verifiability does not mean it will be included, the three sources I mentioned (Seatle Times, New York Times, Nature) don't merely mention it is passing, it's their primary -- their only -- identification of him. Yes, a source might mention that Meryl Streep was once a waitress (I'm making this up), but I'm sure multiple sources identify her as an actress. So, Nature gives no other identity to Stamets than "mycologist Paul Stamets". Similarly, Discover has "crusading mycologist Paul Stamet" in the secondary headline, and by the second sentence he has become "the mycologist". "Seattle Times labels him as "Paul Stamets, mycologist and Fungi Perfecti owner." For the New York Times, he is "Paul Stamets, a mycologist in Olympia, Wash." Against all of that, we've decided that he is an "author, blogger, and an advocate". I'm sure he's all of those things, but that large, flap-eared, tusked, land animal in the room is pretty clearly -- and verifiably -- an elephant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons given in my edit above under Mycologist and for the reasons presented in these RfC comments by Kingofaces43. The edits to the lede and other article sections yesterday and today leave the article in better shape. SummerPhDv2.0 said Stamets is verifiably a mycologist, but my point in the discussion above is that there is no academic verification of Stamets as a degree-holding mycologist, an academic title and discipline that would require earning a PhD. There is no WP:V for him as a mycologist (he apparently has a liberal arts degree with no major). WP:ONUS requires those wishing to call him a mycologist to verify his academic credentials. Stamets is a hobbyist with enthusiasm for mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) has enthusiasm for flowers. --Zefr (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Stamets is a professional and is widely recognized. It's hard for me to understand statements like the above from Zefr that say "Stamets is a hobbyist with enthusiasm for mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) has enthusiasm for flowers." Utterly ridiculous. Stamets is clearly not a hobbyist, as he is published, engaged in scientific peer-reviewed research, and has been running a succesful mushroom business as well as educational courses for many years now. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep a healthy skeptical view here, and challenge the IP user to look closer behind Stamets' marketing strategy of his mycologist reputation. The title mycologist implies a scientist's adherence to rigorous principles and practices, as expected for people who have actually earned an advanced degree for the title, mycologist. Breaking the code of scientist conduct just once - such as by teaching or publishing false information - can stigmatize and negatively isolate a career forever in the science community. Stamets' and his company advertise mushroom products as having diverse health benefits, such as here for several elaborate, unproven brain benefits (see diverse other false health claims under the tab, Benefits, for each of some 45 other "Host Defense®" mushroom products), none of which is proven by science or approved by the FDA. It's just a scam of made up nonsense sales-speak to impress upon unwary consumers that the self-described "mycologist" - whom consumers visiting his business site are asked to trust before surrendering their money - has discovered and proven all these countless health benefits of mushroom extracts or powders. He has not, and no one has. A true degree-holding mycologist wouldn't engage in reckless lying to scam consumers. Reviewing his business website and seeing the scam is why I came to this article and challenged his title of "mycologist". --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support of course. The article's subject is clearly an amateur mycologist, having no formal, academic credentials for it. It beggars credulity to see an RfC about such a trivially obvious issue or rather a non-issue. -The Gnome (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I find it strange that there's a push to call him a mycologist when there's no mention of his running a fungi farm. This change to the lede seems a good step toward identifying what he does for a living. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a 'push'. It was the established consensus for years on this article. The push appears to be in the direction of actively removing the term. There are certainly other aspects of Stamets work that could be better covered. That is outside the scope of this rfc.Dialectric (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE, (namely this), does not translate to well established consensus. This is something that could have been fixed without a sudden RfC too given how little discussion occurred in the above section. Normally it's better to wait at least more than 24 hours before an RfC while others watching can comment with other ideas tackling the issue. Usually that negates the need for an RfC in the first place, or else it gives developed ideas for people to comment on for a good RfC comparison if it's actually needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Past consensus means little in the best of circumstances. There are clear FRINGE, COI, and SOAP issues here.

I've looked over the editing for COI problems. In addition to the three accounts I declared as connected contributors, there are edits from SPAs and ips that are likely. Given the amount of attention the article has received since, I'm not seeing anything that needs follow-up. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Entrepreneurial mycologist", from the TED profile, is a concise description that isn't as promotional or potentially misleading as simply mycologist. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)