Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

This is not serious...

it's simply a gift to anyone who think it doesn't hurt to lighten things up a bit. It's also the awesomest pseudoref ever. [1] David in DC (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we all post funny links that involve Sheldrake now? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt we all can. Some of us appear to be lacking any discernable sense of humor. And I suspect that the real question is "May we...?" In any event, I'd suggest limiting such postings to this one thread.

Congrats on resisting canine Pavlovian response for a full 7+ hours. David in DC (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer if people didn't post whatever they thought was funny related to Sheldrake here as that could possibly constitute a BLP violation, depending on the specifics, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, methinks your spidey-senses are incorrect, in this particular instance. WP:BLPTALK and also the various exceptions listed in WP:TALK are careful to delineate that you can make you opinion known on talkpages, even if your opinion is extremely unpopular... but that if you say something that might be considered Slanderous or Libelous about a Living Person, either it must be *very* reliably sourced or it must be removed immediately. Technically, all David has done in this section is link to an external site, and they are the ones claiming such-and-such. (Well... presuming that David is not the author of the article to which he linked... if he is, then he'd probably be violating BLPTALK, if the case was taken to a jury trial.) And that *is* what WP:BLPTALK is all about -- avoiding getting the wikimedia foundation, on which all our servers depend, involved in a legal battle with high-powered lawyers claiming defamation. Merely linking to external criticism, without even describing the contents of that external site (beyond calling the site a pseudoref and not-serious), cannot legally be actionable as grounds for libel. Contrast with WP:COPYVIO, where there are some laws that merely linking to a youtube video which violates the RIAA or the MPAA or the Disney Cabal's government-granted monopoly privilege on cartoon mice with round black ears can get the WMF drug into court on conspiracy-to-infringe charges. That said, quite a lot of the discussion *elsewhere* on this talkpage -- not by David anywhere that I noticed but by several others -- definitely crosses the WP:BLPTALK line, and must please be removed immediately, and not put back until and unless a *really* WP:RS can be cited as saying so, in exactly so many words. Hypothetically, for instance, calling some credentialed scientist, say, 'wacky' or the equivalent, could get the wikimedia foundation sued into the ground. Resist the temptation. Gracias for your attention, carry on, thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Update, I redacted a couple words on this talkpage, violating the sanctity of comments made by other folks, which is a breach of WP:TALK etiquette, but fully justified by the exception listed at WP:BLPTALK. Sorry if this puts anyone out. Not able to fix the article, of course, since it is locked to prevent that. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! It's been staring us in the face all this time and none of us have seen it. Dr. Sheldrake's initials conclusively establish that he's right about everything. R.S.. Case closed. I never undershtood the phrazhe in vino veritas before, but now I totally shubshcribe to it. Garcon, keep 'em coming! I'm gonna shtart to work on the Arab-Israeli conflict now. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Parapsychologist? Er NO! He's a Biologist AND a scientist!

I am very puzzled by this wiki page. May I ask why Mr Sheldrake is given the job title parapsychologist in the introduction, when it clearly states he is a biologist and scientist in his CV and on various websites. Even the ones that are critical of his views, don't deny the qualifications and titles that he has. I will change the intro tomorrow unless you can give me some jolly good reasons why not. You might not agree with his thinking, but his qualifications and experience, I would have thought need to be recorded correctly in an on-line encyclopedia, unless of course, there is some weird agenda going on?
here are the references to that effect:
BBC Biologist http://www.nautis.com/2012/09/bbc-belief-interview-with-professor-rupert-sheldrake/
Philosophy Now http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_Science_Delusion_by_Rupert_Sheldrake
The Independent:
"If Rupert Sheldrake was simply a commentator, sniping from a distance, his arguments might be swept aside. But he is a scientist himself, through and through: a botanist with a double first from Cambridge; a Fellowship at Clare College; a Royal Society Fellowship. For some years he was principal physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped to develop new varieties of pulses, key sources of protein."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-science-delusion-freeing-the-spirit-of-enquiry-by-rupert-sheldrake-6285286.html
The Guardian ...note is says on their site he is a BIOLOGIST and author but in case you want to argue here's the link http://www.theguardian.com/profile/rupert-sheldrake
Even the US Science Mag gives him the proper credit http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sciencejournals&y=12&fulltext=rupert%20sheldrake&x=38&journalcode=sci&journalcode=sigtrans&journalcode=scitransmed&submit=yes

Best wishes Veryscarymary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

scientists do not cling to magical proposals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mary. I wonder if you would read this Talk page, and the archives before you start adding stuff. Much of what you propose has already been covered. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientists are quite capable of investigating subjects that others consider pseudoscience, as is evidence by the University of Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit, the University of Arizona's Division of Perceptual Studies Princeton's now closed PEAR. Ridiculing people is uncivil, unscientific, and unbecoming a Wikipedia editor. --Iantresman (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary is correct in expressing her point and concern. "scientists do not cling to magical proposals." is not helpful. We are not editing in a vacuum. Like Mary, other editors will be coming by from time to time and some will ask the same questions, probably leading to edits. That is what I mean by the article not being stable as it is.

I have to agree that it is correct to say he is a biologist. Editors here do not get to decide otherwise just because they don't like his quest for new knowledge. Tom Butler (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

so you think that scientists DO cling to magical to magical proposals? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Should you actually read what I said, you will see that I was complaining about how your sarcasm is unnecessary. If you want to insult the person, then go ahead and say he is thinking magically. I fell confident you can find a reference for that, just as I am sure you will be able to make such a statement a permanent part of the article since skeptics will see that it helps to assure that people will see Sheldrake as they do. Tom Butler (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course scientists cling to magical proposals. Clarke's three laws are all you need know to understand this bedrock truth.

And before you dismiss Clarke as a science fiction writer, please check out who calculated the necesseary measurements to put a sattelite in geosychronus orbit. Or the history of how Robert Heinlein foiled any efort to patent the "water bed". Or Asimov's successful war to retain his tenure as a biochemist at BU.

You also might want to refresh your memory about the magical belief Albert Einstein devoted most of the 20th century to proving, the absolute and fatal flaws in quantum theory.David in DC (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would go for something like this, that covers all the bases:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British biologist[2][3][4] who now researches,[5] writes and lectures[6] in the field of parapsychology[7][8] and the philosphy of science,[9] that have been the subject of controversy.[10][11]

--Iantresman (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that sounds fine enough to me and is much more respectful. There are PLENTY of scientists who have investigated and explored areas outside 'mainstream' thought, but to ignore and blatantly change their job title and qualifications is, to my way of thinking, insulting and demeaning.
Ian, would you please change the entry to read as you've suggested, it sounds a much better proposal. Even Galileo gets a better write up than this, and he was suggesting heliocentrism was the way forward and look how he was treated 'in his day' but was recognised much later. It's a similar issue with Mr Sheldrake's research, which I hasten to add IS research...
List of scientists who have investigated controversial issues:
George de la Warr in 1930
Walter Kilner
Oscar Bagnall
Nikola Tesla
Dr Edwin Babbitt
Dr Dean Radin
William Roentgen
1777 George Christian Lichetenberg
1800+DuBois
John Elliotson, founder of the University College Hospital London
Baron von Reichenbach
Wilhelm Röntgen
Dr Harold Saxton Burr
Dr. Frederick Northrop
Dr Leonard Ravitz
Hans Driesch
Nikolai Kalashchenko
Dr Louis Langman
Dr Victor Adamenko.....and more Veryscarymary (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I am also highly confused why you/someone has described the poor man as a parapsychologist, and given 'new scientist' references from 2004 and 2006, crickey, this is 2013 and the references I have supplied are from current, peer publications, even the Independent doesn't call him a para-anything...and why only one source of reference???? that's terribly biased:( shame:( Veryscarymary (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Veryscarymary: Like you, I am confused why they/someone(s) describe him as a parapsychologist. I think I have some insight into it, though. Lou Sander (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello veryScaryMary... you actually seem quite nice by the way... but your username is quite appropriate for this time of year! You are correct that Sheldrake's credentials are being unfairly left out of this article, but there is also the case to be made that Sheldrakes books and/or experiments in the past several decades can be described as parapsychology. It is not a neutral term, as Lou pointed out elsewhere, but I'm not sure there *is* a neutral term that describes experiments in trying to detect events that most people would describe as telepathy. So, at the end of the day I think it's correct to say that Sheldrake is now a parapsychologist... at least until the English language permits a more descriptive and less loaded term for research that involves action-at-a-distance which is not strictly gravitational. That said, only a very POV editor would disrespect Sheldrake's PhD in biochem, and his other academic credentials. In fact, those high-grade credentials are exactly why Sheldrake is so controversial; if he were a swimsuit model, or a hillbilly, or a politician, or indeed *anything* but a highly-credentialed scientist, his BLP article would be far less painful to all concerned. Anyhoo, I've tried to rewrite the intro in NPOV fashion, see the section above this, using the phrase biochemist-and-now-parapsychologist. I think that captures his fame... or depending on your POV his notoriety :-)    ... decently. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a much better word than "parapsychologist." It's already in the article. It's the title of an actual position he once held, making it BLP-friendly, but includes a form of the word "psychic" that ought to satisfy the editors who seem to think it's important to hammer readers over the head, repeatedly, with words to diminish, malign and generally heap scorn upon the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. I give you the last sentence in the subsection covering Dr. Sheldrake's academic career

From September 2005 until 2010, Sheldrake was a Senior Researcher in psychical research, funded by a bequest (the Perrott-Warrick Fund) administered by Trinity College, Cambridge.[38]

I tried, a while back, to substitute "psychical researcher" for "parapsychologist." I got pretty good feedback that I was on the right track. Which is to say my edit was reverted faster than one can say WP:BATTLEGROUND. David in DC (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does not sound that bad to me... but are there any other psychical researchers? Because if it is just a title that Sheldrake gave himself (equivalent to 'director of special projects') then it will prolly fail on the grounds that readers won't know what the heck we're talking about. At present[12] the word psychical is a redirect to the article on retail-storefront-variety-psychics, and has been since 2008. Before that, it was a redirect to parapsychology for about a year... and prior to that was an unsourced stub of three sentences, explaining that psychical was non-physical, non-measurable, and/or related-to-metaphysics-slash-mind-science, with parapsychology as the primary see-also. Point being, although psychical may exist as a term, it's a pretty weak one, which is basically just a synonym for parapsychology.

   Sheldrake is a type-three parapsychologist, interested in mind-science that could conceivably one day be justified experimentally. Storefront-retail psychics tend to be type-two parapsychologists. Ghostbusters tend to be type-one parapsychologists, as do most categories of mystics although prolly they don't think of themselves in those terms. Anyways, if you think it's worth trying to swap from biochemist-and-now-parapsychologist over to biologist-biochemist-physiologist-and-now-psychical-researcher-which-is-sometimes-dubbed-parapsychology ... then I'll probably be against it.  :-)     Maybe instead, add a short mention of the five-year stint, and the chosen title, a bit further down. I'll edit my suggested rewrite. thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

=I read an article about Wiki editing, and it raised that some editors can blast other people out of the sky. I DO NOT need 'editors' to send me personal messages on my editing page. If you have something to say to me, please keep it here in the open. I do NOT just edit 'fringe' articles. My day job is a writer, and I recently edited the 'self-employment' page, can't see anything 'fringe' in that and WHY WHY WHY WHY is there such an allergy to anything that comes under the banner of 'fringe' anyway, as if investigating and researching morphic resonance is an illegal activity. Look at the paragraphs of comment since I asked a legitimate questions about the ABSENCE of Mr Sheldrake's actual qualifications and legitimate job title, which I have already stated. Crickey, some of you must get ulcers with all this confrontation. I was under the misguided belief that the page would be changed to what Ian had suggested: "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942)[1] is a British biologist[32][33][34] who now researches,[35] writes and lectures[36] in the field of parapsychology[37][38] and the philosphy of science,[39] that have been the subject of controversy.[40][41] --Iantresman (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)"

and all I find when I logged in tonight were rude messages on my personal page and reams of irrelevant discourse on the talk page. I DO NOT want to read what has been already discussed for the simple reason I would lose the will to live. I asked a perfectly, normal polite question and my question not only hasn't been answered but it's been written over in an extremely rude way....sigh....and people wonder why women don't want to edit on wiki. I've been helping, on here for a number of years....I'm not going anywhere. Mr Sheldrake's page is NOT correct and it's those incorrections I would like to address. Now I could have very easily just re-written what was missing but having been in wiki for this long I know that would have caused a riot, so I came to the 'talk page' to talk about how to improve the article and I have given MORE THAN ONE CURRENT REFERENCE to on-line info, which has been ignored. I'm not here, and neither are any of you, to discuss whether we like, or don't like Mr Sheldrake's views or agree with them in any way. As a writer, you have to write what's true, and I hate to point out that it's TRUE that Mr Sheldrake IS a scientist....and any further comments about 'magical thinking' as if magical thinking were illegal will be ignored. This article is NOT correct. The FACTS are Mr Sheldrake is a Scientist, IS a BIOLOGIST and IS a writer. Full Stop or 'period' as you say in the USA.. Veryscarymary (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Veryscarymary (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr Sheldrake, Mary !!!!! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The magical thinking/supernatural criticism is well sourced. Sheldrake thinks the laws of nature are mutable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well-sourced does not imply a good source, or a definitive source. Source #1 is a biased opinion piece by John Maddox who appears to be less qualified than Sheldrake, and, Source #2 is a non-peer reviewed website blog which WP:RS considers "questionable". Conversely, all the other references provided that support Sheldrake's description a a bilologist/biochemist, are independent academic or journalistic sources. I doubt "Sheldrake thinks the laws of nature are mutable", any more than all the other scientists who questioned the then-current orthodoxy. --Iantresman (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

=Mr Sheldrake is still a Biologist and Scientist, we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this do we???
I have now read the whole history of this page, and it makes for very sorry reading. I have also checked ALL of your wikipedia listings, just to see who actually edits pages, and who just likes to get into fights on talk pages.
If, tomorrow, there is no reply to this message, I will change Mr Sheldrake's listing myself. I have already 'talked' about this here. User:Iantresman has already edited a number of pages, and has made a sensible suggestion to this page, which I would like first to get agreement for.
I think we should keep in mind this:
The method of principled negotiation is based on five propositions:
"Separate the people from the problem."
"Focus on interests, not positions."
"Invent options for mutual gain."
"Insist on using objective criteria."
"Know your BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)" Getting_to_YES I also don't need anyone's 'permission' to correct an inaccuracy on wikipedia. Wikipedia is a volunteer sourced encyclopedia. It is not a slanging match and from what I have read (and it gave me nightmares) this page has become an open warfare zone. I repeat, the page is inaccurate. It does a LIVING person a dis-service. There is also the question of Libel [[13]] as it stands in UK law at the moment, this page could be referenced as libellous which has a key point of : "lowering someone in the estimation of right-thinking people generally. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-law-defamation/
it doesn't matter a jot what your views are, the qualifications and training and experience of Mr (Dr) Sheldrake are not in doubt, this has been argued about enough already. What needs to happen now, to correct his page is a total of about 20 words or so. The PAGES of comment I've already read have gone NO further to add those 20 words.....which as I say, will be changed tomorrow, by the civilised people that we are:) Veryscarymary (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mary, I bet reading all that stuff about peoples contributions and their talk pages was tiring, just to find out if people like to get into fights. Seems a bit pointless and antagonistic. I'm glad that you appear to have read my small comment above referring to Sheldrake, correctly addressed as Dr. It is incorrect to call him Mr (Dr.) Sheldrake though. As a writer such as you should know. Anyway, now that there has been a reply to your message as requested, there is now no need to edit Sheldrake's page tomorrow. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your list is pretty decent, Mary, although seems more suited to business negotiations. Currently folks here are stuck on step one, which is to separate Sheldrake the BLP from his (distinct) theories in the fields of phytomorphology, biochemistry, mammalian biology, physics, psychical research aka parapsychology, philosophy-of-science, philosophy-of-mind, theology, and probably a few more I forgot... each field deserving criticism by mainstream thinkers *of* that particular field, obviously. No conflating field_A with field_B, and no synthesis, and no conflating criticism of the theories with criticism of the BLP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I really don't understand how someone can go from 'being' a scientist, to a parapsychologist in less than 4 hours....can we have a decent reason why that edit was removed? It really looks as if there is a determined factor intent on portraying Mr Sheldrake in a unscientific manner, as if scientists 'only' work on blood cells or the material world....I've already given a number of links to prove his science background and Vzaak kindly added in the word scientist, and someone-who-should-remain-nameless has taken it out again!!!Madness!!! There are also now 189 people watching this page, 478 people have 'contributed' to the article, in the past 30 days there have been 554 'edits' and of the 478 people who have contributed to the article 42 people are 'fighting' to have 'their' edits remain. Doesn't sound like there's much in the way of consensus here, does there? May I remind you once again, that the person you are writing about is a living, breathing human being, who can easily read whatever you're writing here and every time you make a disparaging comment about Mr Sheldrake...you are adding to the article being at risk of libel. Please keep that firmly in mind with this whirl of edits and counter-edits. This is not World War Three, this is (supposed) to be 'discussion' about editing an on-line article, not a theory of theories....we're talking facts here: Mr Sheldrake IS a Scientist....End Of......sigh... Veryscarymary (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

throwing around claims of "libel", particularly to claims that are specifically made in reliably published sources by experts will not get you anywhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Academic credentials

There seems to be a long-running low level battle over Sheldrake's academic credentials. It's all about wording, but it would be good to get agreement at some basic level. Sheldrake gained a PhD in biochemistry, did post-doctoral research at Cambridge and was a research fellow at Clare College. That is a respectable, but not brilliant academic career. He wasn't a university lecturer, or in American terms an assistant professor, and wasn't tenured or on a tenure track. So he isn't in the same league as Roger Penrose, David Bohm or Hans-Peter Dürr for example. There have been attempts to cherry-pick quotes about "outstanding scientist" or down-play his credentials because he dropped out of academia. So Respectable but not Brilliant. Try to keep a balance. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. As an engineer, I interfaced with research and industrial scientists that were brilliant. There is much to the saying that those who can, do, and the rest teach, so being academic is not a valid measure of notability in my view. In fact, Sheldrake is one of the most respected scientists in the study of frontier subjects. Few in the study of subtle energy phenomena have been able to think so far beyond the current wisdoms of academia.

If editors here are both offended by his hypotheses and unimpressed by his credentials, then it is no wonder the article is biased. Do not think of him as an academic ... to most of us, the measure of a scientist is what he or she does and not what they teach in some university.

It is also a good idea to note my comment about how well he is respected. This article can be a catalyst for a very strong anti-Wikipedia pushback. So please, if it cannot be respectful, at least make the article a little more neutral.Tom Butler (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dingo1729 (talk · contribs) makes a very good point; and then it's blown totally out of the water by Tom Butler (talk · contribs)'s inanity. Please let's not get into an argument about credentials because everyone apart from Sheldrake's fans can see that he had an academic career that didn't last long enough for him to get to professor level. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Be careful Barney! Measuring his worth by his academic standing is part of the bias we are talking about. I am sorry you are so focused on making him look like a fool to see that. I am going to restore the tag. My nest stop is an admin complain. Tom Butler (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was merely echoing Dingo1729 (talk · contribs)'s point. Sheldrake's career while it lasted was OK. He doesn't meet the criteria in WP:PROF, and cannot therefore be compared to those who do, because he didn't gain enough seniority. He went freelance, as it were. The only bias, btw, is calling him "the most respected frontier scientist". There is in the article several sources from academics that indicate specific problems with Sheldrake's proposals. You are also reminded of WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dingo1729, I agree his academic career is Respectable not Brilliant... albeit for a post-doc at a top-ten-in-the-world university! That is a very small set of people. But yes, he is way outclassed by Penrose, of course. The reason I bring up Penrose is because both are from U.Cambridge, both are PhD, both have published popular books about their own personal subquantum theories which are admittedly controversial, and yet the BLP of Penrose is quite fair to my eyes, whereas the BLP of Sheldrake is blatantly unfair, labelling him a parapsychologist and incorrectly therefore stripping him of his credentials, which belong in the first sentence, per my reasoning in the section above. As for the he-was-not-a-professor thing, was Sheldrake the equivalent of the american's Research Assistant, i.e. the focus was all on lab work and writing papers? Then the relevant criteria is not whether he taught undergrads, but how many peer-reviewed papers he published. Does somebody have a count? However, at one point I gained the impression that Sheldrake did perform teaching-duties, and was some kind of professor, at least some of his time in grad-school or post-grad-school or whatever... did he never act as a Teaching Assistant, in charge of classroom tutorials for some section of a larger class (taught by a full tenured prof), and grade papers and tests and such? I'm not really familiar with U.Cambridge procedures, and nobody seemed to have the answers to my earlier question about when exactly Sheldrake was a post-doc, and so on. Thanks. p.s. was he fellow at Clare, too? or was that a typo and you meant Harvard? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's bio [[14]] says he was a fellow of Clare College, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, though he would probably be a junior research fellow at that stage of his career. He might have been like a research assistant some of the time he was doing his PhD, but he would choose his own research post-doctorate. Cambridge does small-group tutorials (which they call supervisions). 1,2,3 or 4 students to a supervisor. Supervisors may be anyone from junior graduate students to distinguished professors. This is all organized by "directors of studies" and Sheldrake was a director of studies; almost certainly he was also a supervisor (T.A. equivalent?), but I haven't seen any mention of it. There's no grading of papers or tests; everything depends on final exams. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The link you mention might be valid for some WP:ABOUTSELF stuff, but anything related to academic-credentials would need an independent WP:RS of course, so everything after this point is . Below are the claims, numbered for ease of discussion. Thanks for the explanation of UCambridge, appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Revised the list with some dates and sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1. became an atheist at age 13 circa 1955-or-1956 via boarding school[15]
2. got a job at 17 circa 1959-or-1960 in the pharmacology research lab of Parke-Davis in London, just before UCambridge
3. Cambridge University student at 17-or-maybe-18 in 1959-or-1960 , undergrad science scholarship
4. Frank Knox Fellow at Harvard in 1963, taking a year off from UCambridge, read Kuhn [16]
5. UCambridge PhD in biochem began 1964 and awarded YYYY, started a teaching-position in 1967 which officially lasted through 1974 (six years more in the teaching-job to achieve lectureship)[17]
6. UMalaya BotanyDept 1968-1969, as a Rosenheim Research Fellow (scholarship-slash-grant) of the Royal Society (still officially in UCambridge Biochem), spent two months in India enroute[18]
7. started practicing meditation in 1969 [19]
8. Principal Plant Physiologist slash Consulting Physiologist at ICRISAT in Hyderabad, 1974-1985, which contradicts the wiki-article's claim of 1978...
9. prolly 1974-1978 principal
10. and 1979-1985 consulting, the change in title due to taking the 18 months to write the 1981 book.
11. Dir. of Perrott-Warrick Project, funded from Trinity College in Cambridge, 2005-2010. (David-in-DC wrote a sentence about this which sounds NPOV to me, pointing out the cash was money from an earmarked bequest.)

1. 80 scientific papers (does not say how many in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals),
2. "where [as a student at Cambridge U methinks?] he was a Scholar of Clare College",
3. awarded the [Cambridge] University Botany Prize,
4. Fellow of Clare and Dir.Studies in biochem & cellbio,
5. There is also something about "took a double first class honours degree" which is inscrutable to my ears... hs degree, undergrad, grad, phd, something else entirely, care to translate?
6. Also mentions these, which I've never heard of before: Fellow of Inst. of Noetic Sciences in CA,
7. Visiting Prof & Academic Dir. of Holistic Thinking Program at the Graduate Inst. in CT aka LearnDotEdu. (Maybe the 'professor' that I was remembering reading here somewhere on the talkpage is from that CT position -- which although I've never heard of it does have .edu indicating *some* level of reasonable respectability -- rather than from his days as a TA-slash-SupervisorWhileDirectorOfStudies.)

Any way you slice it, the man had a 20-year career as a mainstream scientist/biologist/physiologist/biochemist/cellbiologist/etc, enough to retire if he was a marine, and all those war-medals, err sorry, fellowships (if confirmed by WP:RS) would cause me to upgrade him from Respectable to something like Highly Respectable, depending on how many of the 80 papers that he says he published were between 1960 and 1980. That's not even counting his five-year Trinity College grant, his LearnDotEdu professorship, his invited lectures at a couple dozen major universities since 2008, and the rest of his post-1980 academic credentials. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom, do not threaten editors you will complain to an admin. Work it out civilly. Be WP:NICE, this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now, on the article, if you want to say that Sheldrake is one of the most respected scientists in the study of frontier subjects, you have to cite a reliable source. That is exactly the sort of thing that Dingo1729 is cautioning us about. Getting a biochem Phd from U.Cambridge is very impressive, but that does not automatically translate into "Best.Scientist.Evah." Citation needed. As for your meta-reasoning, that in your opinion academic-creds shouldn't matter... in some things they do, in some things they don't. The morph theory is a theory of physics, and academic-creds are what separates the galileo-with-a-blog from the Roger Penrose. Sheldrake is nowhere near Penrose in physics credentials, and Penrose is not as good as Sheldrake in biochem credentials, but both of them are wayyyy beyond the random blogger handwaving about quantum electrodynamics. Which, as I keep pointing out, is fundamentally why Sheldrake is here on wikipedia. His academic career was not breathtakingly brilliant... if he had solved the mechanism of plant morphology, then believe me, he would be a *very* famous biologist, on the tier right below Darwin probably. Instead, Sheldrake failed to be breathtakingly brilliant using traditional biochem, and instead hypothesized that there must be some not-yet-experimentally-detected mechanism which will someday explain plant morphology, and gained notability (and not a little notoriety) by publishing popular books about such ideas. Penrose by contrast *was* a brilliant mathematical physicist, on the tier right below Einstein and Hawking and so on, in my book... but if Penrose had managed the uber-breathtaking brilliance to discover the mechanism of consciousness, he would be considerably more famous than Einstein, and you and I would not need to be spending time improving wikipedia -- because wikipedia would be sentient, and improving herself, at computer speeds. In some ways I'm sorry Penrose failed, but in other ways, not so sorry.  :-) Be that as it may, you may need a cold shower, so that you can look on Sheldrake with some objectivity, or at least, provide some reliable sources saying that he really is Best.Scientist.Evah. Wikipedia does not care about popularity, unless that popularity is documented in reliable sources, as you know. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you are making a personal attack when you call somebody else "inane". Stop. Just disagree civilly, and point out flaws in the argument. May I also sweetly and innocently inquire as to what you intended by your stern reminder of ArbCom? Surely you would not be threatening to ban someone you disagree with; even if they did it first, two wrongs do not make three lefts. As for your claim that Sheldrake 'had' an academic career (implying it is now over and he is no longer a scientist), and your later comment that "while it lasted" his career was okay... by which I assume you mean, okay-for-a-UCambridge-PhD-biochemist-with-a-harvard-fellowship ... perhaps like Tom you also need a nice cold shower? I agree that Sheldrake does not meet WP:PROF, but as has been pointed out to you several times before, that is a notability-criteria for article creation. Sheldrake is *both* someone with okay-for-a-UCambridge-PhD-biochemist-with-a-harvard-fellowship scientific credentials, and simultaneously someone who is WP:N as a controversial author/lecturer. Do you disagree, and if so, please paste in the specific policy-sentence which says we must not call Sheldrake a scientist in the first sentence, merely because his current notability does not derive solely from his scientific career. We also mention that Sheldrake has a wife, but surely *that* is not why he has an article in wikipedia, see WP:MARRIEDTOSOMEONENOTSUFFICIENT. Do you suggest we delete the wife, as not WP:NOTEWORTHY, and delete the scientist portion of the first sentence, as not WP:NOTEWORTHY? That is not what WP:PROF says. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good advice 74.192.84.101. Even so, at some point, it might be helpful for a more formal settlement on the interpretation of the WP:ARB/PS line: "18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." [20]. When I was around that discussion and the Fringe Science and Paranormal arbitrations, my sense was that the admins had were trying to find a way to deal with this kind of article in a more neutral way. There was also a more "conditional" allowance acceptable for what are acceptable sources while here, it is mainstream or nothing. We can settle that here if the contentious sniping is set aside and people stop stonewalling efforts to build a consensus. Tom Butler (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom, BE WP:NICE.  :-)     If you really want to encourage people to work together, accusing Vague Other Parties of being guilty of stonewalling/sniping/etc is Not The Way To Do It.... the cold shower *is* the way, I swear, I have a reliable source proving cold showers increase objectivity, I will post it RealSoonNow. Plus, please call me 74, which is a lot easier to type, not to mention read. The line#18 from arbcom is talking about alternative-mainstream-formulations, not about Sheldrake's work. Like the Penrose stuff about subquantum consciousness, which Penrose fully admits is speculative, the Sheldrake stuff about subquantum morphological-signalling is speculative. Neither one has evidence, accepted by mainstream scientists... heck, the reason that both Sheldrake and Penrose went for the subquantum is that they *tried* using mainstream science, but failed. No, no, Sheldrake and Penrose (at least their subquantum work as opposed to Penrose's mainstream 4-D mathematics work and Sheldrake's mainstream bio-uptake work) are 100% positively WP:FRINGE. I'm willing to bet even Sheldrake does not claim morphogenetics is fully proven cold hard fact -- that is why he wants to loosen up the dogmatic-folks-in-science, so that he can shake loose funding to investigate the subquantum, right? We simply cannot know whether Sheldrake is right or wrong, until we have *discovered* the actual mechanism of plant morphology, which is billions or trillions of dollars of R&D from now. Anyways, maybe there is evidence from top-notch sources, but in my mind Sheldrake's speculative science requires those top-notch sources, for good reason. The Institute Of Parapsychology (made up name... maybe there is a real one... no offense intended if so) is inherently not a reliable source, on whether Sheldrake's ideas hold promise, and deserve more funding... because a big chunk of the funding would go to them! That is the reason that wikipedia policy demands *extremely* high-quality sources, for justification of positive evidence that speculative claims might be true. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Sheldrake is *both* someone with okay-for-a-UCambridge-PhD-biochemist-with-a-harvard-fellowship scientific credentials, and simultaneously someone who is WP:N as a controversial author/lecturer." if I understand your statement correctly, I agree that a simple statement of education and then a focus on his non-academic activities is appropriate. If it can be left that way, I think that part of the article would be fair and stable. Tom Butler (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, see the section above, which is discussing exactly what I propose the first sentence should say, namely this -- Sheldrake (1942-) is an English biochemist^[1]-and-now-parapsychologist^[2], notable as a controversial^[3] author/lecturer. How do you like them apples, to use the old saying? Right now the first sentence implies he has *no* academic credentials, which is flat wrong, and misleading. David suggested that psychical researcher might be more NPOV that parapsychologist, but I think the former term is too esoteric and readers won't know what it means, so I'm more in favor of the latter, which is sourced, and is reasonably clear even if still a bit misleading. We can clear up exactly what *sort* of parapsychology Sheldrake does in the second paragraph of the lead, where morpho stuff is NPOV-described. Third paragraph is criticism of morpho stuff, necessary per WP:FRINGE, and more fairly, per WP:SUPERCONTROVERSIAL. I'm suggesting a brief fourth paragraph about wife & kids, which right now are in their own single-sentence-section. Anyhoo, see above, and reply above please... TheRedPenOfDoom is trying to keep sanity, by keeping to one topic per section, which is a very good idea. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

74.192.84.101, your hot shower comments are not helpful either. You also make assumptions about a field you clearly know nothing about. Editing based on those assumptions only confounds the problem. I think the fact that this article has been in contention for so long supports my view that consensus has not been achieved. I have seen editors try, but always there are a few, such as the one you just praised, who is quick with a deflecting wisecrack. I expect that, looking at it from either the skeptical or the proponent perspective, the other side appears to be WP:STONEWALL; however, I feel that there has been more effort to compromise from the proponent side. Tom Butler (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please call me 74, it's easier for all concerned. Sorry about the cold-shower-brings-objectivity commentary not being helpful; it was intended to be helpful, by trying to lessen the adversarial who-can-call-the-admin-first back and forth between you and Barney, and definitely not intended as an attempt to drive one or both of you away. Your contention that the pro-Sheldrake folks have been more compromising than the anti-Sheldrake folks is quite true: the current basket-case state of the article is heavily skewed towards the anti-Sheldrake POV, no doubt about it, definitely a biased BLP article. But the larger problem is the *idea* that the article should be used as a political football, and that unsatisfying-to-both-sides compromises are the only way, and in general that Sheldrake-related content should be treated as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and as a place to WP:RGW.

   That confrontational environment was clear the moment I came to this talkpage, and Barney told me to take my frivolous moaning and leave. He did the same thing the VeryScaryMary, but secretly, on her talkpage, threatening her with ArbCom and implying she was a pro-fringe, when all she really was doing was pointing out the blatantly obvious non-neutrality of this article, backed up by perfectly reliable sources. But the pro-Sheldrake folks like yourself do not have the high moral ground, because you let Barney bait you, and then threaten to sic an admin on him... that is stooping to the battleground level. Give him enough WP:ROPE. As for RedPen, I do praise them, they have not stooped to personal attacks. They do seem prone to making wisecracks, but so am I. Sarcasm and humor are tricky to get right on the talkpage, which is mere text, but sometimes a little poking-fun can go a long way. Other times it can backfire, especially in a battleground-assume-bad-faith-environment. I do not believe at all that the RedPenOfDoom was trying to drive VeryScaryMary away... they were just trying to lighten up a serious discussion, and put their opinion in, and it turned out badly, but that was not really their fault. People make mistakes; don't be too hard on them. And don't hold battleground grudges -- the RedPen's idea that we should stop making new sections to rehash the same old thing is a good one (as long as folks will follow through and answer questions... I made the new section for my first-sentence-proposal because nobody was answering me at all... albeit prolly because unable to penetrate my previous wall-of-text verbosity).

   As for VeryScaryMary, seeing immediate sarcasm from the RedPenOfDoom, then the innocent request by Roxy that she read this talkpage and all the talkpage archives, then my volumnious WP:WALLOFTEXT including somewhat-tangential responses, but most hurtful first of all reading Barney's WP:CRUSH on her talkpage, she fled in terror, saying she would rather die than stick around on this twenty-five-page-long battlepage, and that everyone here was acting terribly. That is undoubtedly true, no citation needed. This talkpage is awful. And, although I'm attempting to improve the situation, you are correct when you say that I'm not being helpful either, in actual practice: I did not manage to keep VeryScaryMary from being driven away, and I while I did manage to extract some helpful comments from yourself (thanks!) and also some helpful comments and a well-done rewrite from Ringo1729, you both are now pretty convinced that this talkpage is an utter waste of time, and not helpful, and that you have better things to do, elsewhere, just as VeryScaryMary decided. Which is perfectly true! We all have better, more productive editing we could be doing.

   But if we all give up and leave, then the article will stay just the basket-case is is now, totally skewed in a great many places to the Barney-approved Consensus-Despite-Being-POV. That's not acceptable by wikipedia policies, and not acceptable to me personally. All that being said -- verbosity is my weakness as some here have gently pointed out -- there is nothing wrong with Barney's desire to keep wikipedia a reliable source of truth, and to make sure that we describe Sheldrake's theories as speculative, and demand extremely reliable sources according to WP:FRINGE. I want them to keep doing just that. But tendentious editing, refusing to answer simple questions, and trying to drive new arrivals away is not WP:NICE, and while we can debate the relative merits of WP:BLP versus WP:FRINGE in terms of their applicability to the article, Barney has crossed the pillars, both four and two, in pursuit of the eeevvviillll Doktor Sheldrakenstein who must never be recognized as having impeccable academic scientific credentials by *any* reasonable standard. The bulk of the NPOV sources uniformly call Sheldrake a biologist and an author, or more rarely, an author and a biochemist. Of course, Sheldrake's facebook page uses WP:PEACOCK and says he is a renowned author/scientist, but that's not going to fly in wikipedia unless reliable third-party sources also so say. Still, refusal to say 'scientist' or 'biochemist' or somesuch thing in the opening sentence is not just unfair, and untrue, it's a POV violation. Fortunately, the latter of those three things *is* a policy-violation here in the wikiverse.

   Thus, at the end of the day (to the extent that wikipedia has such a thing), in the reasonably near future... albeit it looks like we are still many days away, if not weeks... I can confidently predict that the Sheldrake article will become considerably more NPOV... and maybe get some copy-editing and some grammar cleanup and some of the other simpler stuff it is definitely needing. But to get there, we have to break the back of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

   For my part, I do not want you to leave, and ... although my reply to you is of course a wall-of-text like always ... I am doing my best not to drive you away, by wasting your time. If you do decide to come back, take heart, policy is largely on your side -- in most cases the lopsided battleground-compromises that the pro-Sheldrake folks have offered, earlier chronologically, will soon be repaid by the majority of the upcoming changes (which I'm going to see implemented) all being decidedly pro-Sheldrake! That's what happens when the other side does not play fair. Thanks for reading, and thanks for improving wikipedia. With that, I have to go take a cold shower.  :-)   Be back later. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead is too long. Here's a better one. It covers the bases and is fair to Sheldrake. Put the pseudoscience criticism in later sections. Don't hype the biologist title. Read the Parapsychology Association definition of parapsychology and admit that morphic resonance isn't parapsychology. Type less and think more. I've got better things to do with my time. Goodbye.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer and proponent of an alternative scientific world-view{cite Roszac review in NS} which he has named morphic resonance. His ideas were developed from his research in biochemistry at Cambridge University{cite something mentioning credentials}. He has conducted several experiments, the results of which he believes support his theories but his conclusions are not accepted by mainstream scientists. However he has support among parapsychologists {cite supporting references} and the lay public, balanced by vociferous opposition from skeptics{cite skeptics}.

Dingo1729 (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

100% support this proposal, but fear that many editors here don't really care about whether the reader has to crawl through crap to get to the relevant information they are looking for, so wouldn't be surprised if this is seen as far too impartial and objective. So I like it - what do others think? Tento2 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Dingo1729's proposal. Do not be too hard on editors who make readers crawl through crap--not everyone is skilled in exposition of complicated subjects. Do not be at all hard on 74--he is verbose but clear, helpful, and always on-topic. Lou Sander (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Support with two modification. First, insertion of biochemist (or biologist -- don't care which) into the first sentence. Leaving it out is non-neutral, a lie of omission, and we have plenty of reliable sources showing it to be the case, from last year and from decades ago. Do not much care if the ordering is "biochemist and author/lecturer" or instead the flipped version "author/lecturer and biochemist" but think that the fragment about 'proponent of alternative scientific worldview' is more connected to his second career as a popular/infamous/renowned/controversial/whateverPOVadjectiveYouPrefer author, therefore lean towards "biochemist and author/lecturer" as being more chronological and also more clear. Second, insertion of "published N books about his theories and" just in front of the 'conducted several experiments' part in third sentence, because Sheldrake's primary claim to wikipedia Notability is his books, not his papers/experiments/teaching/lectures/etc, all of which stem from the money made selling books. p.s. Value of N depends on whether we count co-authoring and/or new editions. If it turns out exact N is controversial, then I drop my second modification entirely for now, so as not to let the ever-so-slightly-more-perfect be the enemy of the already-very-good. p.p.s. Excellent rewrite, thank you very kindly. Will work on terseness.  :-)   Hope you return, sorry for my part in your leaving, you will be missed. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think description as an author on [suitable wording for fringe subjects [thus indicating his primary reason for notability]] who formerly worked in academia (i.e. was employed by academic institutions) as biochemist, plant physiologist is entirely correct [giving additional background information]. This is essentially what we have at the moment. Dingo1729 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion isn't too unreasonable but it (a) fails to summarise the article and (b) it flip-flops too much between "pro" and "anti" sources, and (c) it gives far too much attribution to WP:FRINGE sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We could use the phrase that Sheldrake is an author who "qualified as a biochemist", the past tense leaving the reader to make their own assumptions. --Iantresman (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree -- you do not say the marine with the grey hair and the chest covered with medals *used* to be a marine. You do not say that Sinatra *used* to be a singer, to swipe somebody else's quote. The guy is a scientist, and calling him something POV like parapsychologist (which I was under the false impression that normal/typical sources *besides* wikipedia and the few cites wikipedia gives) is flat incorrect and misleading. VeryScaryMary has provided plenty of sources for this usage, and even the simplest googling proves her point. Plus, the whole key to why Sheldrake is seen as a threat to science is that he is a scientist. Leaving that out is cheating the reader, and the truth, not to mention violating pillar two (let alone four). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He is NOT a "proponent of an alternative scientific world-view" and mis-labeling him as such in the lead sentence is a non-starter.WP:NPOV / WP:VALID his is a pseudo-scientific world view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, TRPOD, We shouldn't be using the word "scientific" - (or for that matter "pseudoscientific", anti-scientific, etc) without qualification because that would imply endorsement of a particular view of his activities. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, we agree using the bare-word use of 'scientific' to describe Sheldrake's phytomorphology/physics/consciousness/similar theories *would* be incorrect. (And of course, ditto for his theology, or his philosophy of science, or his philosophy of mind, or his other 'humanties' stuff.) But this is distinct from whether he the person is a scientist; do not conflate the two things. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A proposed amendment, in the hope of simplifying the lede and addressing the concerns expressed above (haven't built in refs here, but they are already available on the main page):

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer and proponent of morphic resonance: the notion that "memory is inherent in nature" and 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.". His ideas were developed from his doctorate and subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University.

Sheldrake has questioned several of the foundations of modern science, arguing that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. His critics express concern that his books and public appearances attract popular attention in a way that has a negative impact on the public's understanding of science. He has conducted several experiments, the results of which he believes support his theories although his conclusions are not accepted by mainstream scientists. He is seen as a controversial figure, who has gained support among parapsychologists and the lay public, balanced by vociferous opposition from skeptics.

Everything else, as far as I can see, is adding little except meat for arguments. Tento2 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually that isn't bad. It works for me if you get rid of the phrase "and the lay public, balanced by vociferous opposition from skeptics." and just put a full stop after parapsychologists. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)}

The last part of the last sentence is a little wordy. How about we turn it around a little so that the final paragraph reads:

Although Sheldrake has gained support among parapsychologists, he is seen as a controversial figure for having questioned several of the foundations of modern science and arguing that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. His critics express concern that his books and public appearances attract popular attention in a way that has a negative impact on the public's understanding of science. Although he has conducted several experiments, the results of which he believes support his theories, his conclusions have been disputed and rejected by mainstream scientists.

In regard to refs for these comments, lede remarks shouldn't actually be supported by refs, because the lede is supposed to highlight information that is already explained and referenced within the main body of the article. This is another reason why the lede needs to be brief and build its content on points that are well established, free of dispute, and supported by reliable references. It should be our own, agreed-upon, editorial summary, and anything that opens up controversy needs to come out.Tento2 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is getting close. I think the first paragraph should somehow say that Sheldrake is (pretty much) the only proponent of Morphic Resonance, and that it has been examined and refuted by mainstream people. The experiments are a different matter, as is his questioning of some foundational principles of science. I think that the "controversial figure" stuff belongs right up front in the first paragraph--an important aspect of his notability is the controversy that surrounds him. Lou Sander (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How about this for the first paragraph:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a controversial English author, lecturer and proponent of morphic resonance: the notion that "memory is inherent in nature" and 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." This idea originated during his doctoral studies and subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University, and has been developed over many years since. The concept of Morphic Resonance has been examined and forcefully rejected by numerous mainstream scientists; it has received little support outside Sheldrake's immediate circle.

In accordance with the ideas expressed by Tento2 above, I probably wouldn't include citations. Neither would I object to leaving them in. Lou Sander (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there are problem with the introduction that Ian suggested up-the-page? If there is, would you please tell me why? The first references to Mr Sheldrakes job title and qualifications are all from the same website, (new scientist) and are all very old:( I really would like to understand why there is such a problem with getting to change less than 20 words? Why does there need to be the word 'controversial' in the intro? Tento, do you view him as that controversial? How many of the editors here have actually read his books, or seen him talk or know much about the man himself? And what's so wrong about what he writes about/researches? PLUS why are people discussing the page on here, when they're banned from editing? Surely if you get an editing ban, then your views are null-and-void? According to Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Conduct_towards_banned_editors banned editors aren't supposed to have anything more to do with an article. I would like to help edit this page/subject. I would like Mr Sheldrake's job title and description to be correct. I would like when members of the public visit this page, that they find not only correct information but also more NPOV Mr Sheldrake is NOT the only person to investigate morphic resonance (i quoted other scientists who have above) and where are all these people that are in dispute with what he's written/researched? MOST people (that's ordinary people not scientists) are intrigued with his research...and are you aware that this talk page is now being written about http://www.realitysandwich.com/wikipedia_battle_rupert_sheldrakes_biography Veryscarymary (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so rude to Sheldrake, Mary? I've asked you politely a couple of times to refer to him not as 'Mr' if you have to use a title, but as 'Dr'. You will note that none of us here use Mr, we either call him Dr. or just 'Sheldrake'. Neither are disrespectful.

About 'banned' editors. There are no banned editors still writing here, the ones who have been banned can't write here. If you are referring to IP editors, they aren't banned, they just choose not to create accounts here, and so are disadvantaged when there are restrictions imposed, due normally to vandalism by, well by vandals. Before making wild statements about things you should get to understand what is going on first.

I find it interesting that you pointed out Craig Weiller's post as an example of people writing about this page off-wiki. That seems to be a copy of his poorly researched blog post. Very inaccurate, as you know, having read this talk page. What amuses me that as a 'Psychic' he ought to know how this whole thing ends anyway.

I also wanted to try to explain to you what we are here for as wikipedians, trying to produce an encyclopaedia. We are charged to tell it like it is, within the rules as set out for us by the community. It is pretty clear that you don't understand what this means when it comes to fringe ideas, such as Dr. Sheldrakes. It's like homeopathy or astrology - our articles describe them for the nonsense that they are, with no basis in reality, without being unduly rude or disparaging. (Not an easy task) It is right that they are described as such, because they are fringe topics, whose tenets and beliefs are nonsensical. Sheldrakes ideas are like the sugar pills of homeopathy or the star charts of astrology - they have no basis in fact. We have a duty to describe that. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, you are not being very WP:NICE, now settle down, do you want your biscuit? There are a billion words here, Mary has no need to read them all, especially since most are not worth reading, mine included. She has her facts perfectly clear: nearly every single source calls sheldrake a scientist/biologist/biochemist/cellBiologist/phytologist/plantPhysiologist ... because that is what he is after all ... only wikipedia strips him of that credential, and clearly it is for a very POV purpose... to make his theories discredited, by discrediting him. But he is a scientist, with highly respectable credentials, and wikipedians cannot cherrypick to suit POV. You ar wrong when you say Wikipedians Are Charged To Tell It Like It Is, quite wrong. We are charged to tell it like *sources* say it is, to maintain NPOV, and not to mis-use wikipedia to WP:RGW. As for the astrology star-charts, they are reasonably accurate, as long as you don't mind adjusting manually for a couple thousand years of precession. You think astrology-Jupiter is plotted incorrectly compared to real-Jupiter? Astrology, like alchemy, or for that matter like the early use of opiates in medicine, is a type of largely-discredited form of proto-science precursors, mixing some good with some bad. Saying they have no basis in fact is POV, and historically incorrect. Which, since this talkpage is already filled beyond the brim, I'll be happy to discuss further on my user-talkpage, if you care to, but not here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Mary, glad to see you were not driven away.  :-)   Using the word 'controversial' is WP:EDITORIALIZING unless we have a source... the best I could come up with was UsaToday, which is *not* a very convincing one (since yellow journalism sells newspapers). Even *they* called him a biologist, however. Pretty much all the sources do, except one or two. Anyhoo, we'll get this non-neutrality fixed up at some point. Barney wants sheldrake to be a non-scientist, which is wrong, but TRPoD just wants morphic-fields to be (properly) pointed out as speculative/etc, and is just confusing that goal with the goal of describing sheldrake-the-person (as distinct from morphic-fields-the-view). Mary, can I please suggest that you create a section, and offer us what you would have the lede say, exactly? That might help.

Amended proposal

OK, I see us getting close, I'd like to open up a new sub thread with this conflation of Tento's two versions and some tweaks of my own. My tweaks are noted with strikethroughs or in bold. While I understand Mary's question about why it's necessary to amend Tento's first proposal, I think it loses gravity with Tento having put forward an alternative in response to others' comments, including at least one quacked with harmonious resonance from the other side of the great skeptic/BLP divide.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer and proponent of morphic resonance: the notion that "memory is inherent in nature" and 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.". His ideas were He developed the idea of morphic resonance during his doctoral studies and, after receiving his Ph.D., from his doctorate and, subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University.

Although Sheldrake has gained support among parapsychologists, he is seen by most of his scientific peers as a controversial figure of controversy for having questioned several of the foundations of modern science and arguing that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. His critics express concern that his books and public appearances attract popular attention in a way that has a negative impact on the public's understanding of science. Although he has conducted several experiments, the results of which he believes support his theories, his conclusions have been disputed and rejected by mainstream scientists in the scientific literature.

Also, I think we'd do better to leave the refs in. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to include "controversial" in the first sentence. He IS controversial--look at all the stuff about him here and in the references.

I also think that "The concept of Morphic Resonance has been examined and forcefully rejected by numerous mainstream scientists; it has received little support outside Sheldrake's immediate circle." is an accurate description, and might satisfy those who demand that his work be placed in its proper relationship to the mainstream.

The parapsychology stuff mainly pertains to Dogs that Know and Sense of Being Stared at, not to Morphic Resonance. The challenging dogmas stuff sort of stands on its own. Lou Sander (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

He got the idea of morphic resonance in Cambridge, but he didn't develop it until after he left for India, as the "Origin and philosophy" section explains. Questioning the foundations of modern science is largely from his 2012 book -- that's not the point around which Sheldrake has drawn controversy for 32 years. It's a disservice to remove all indication of why Sheldrake's ideas are not accepted by the scientific community. That makes scientists actually seem dogmatic, as Sheldrake claims.

The current lead in the article is substantially muted from weeks past; David did the first round of muting and I did a bit more a couple weeks ago. Really, I see little problem with it. I wish the physics part was smoother, or that there was some alternative for addressing the "series of dogmas", other than citing Lawton's "woolly credulousness" of course.

The above proposal does have one idea worth considering: removing the parapsychologist title. I would agree to that. vzaak (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  David, same objection#1 as usual. Needs to say 'biochemist' or if you prefer 'biologist' in the first sentence. ...an English biochemist, author/lecturer, and proponent of... or ...an English author/lecturer, biologist, and proponent of... Do you disagree 'scientist' is correct? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  David, same objection#2 as usual. Sheldrake is most famous as an author. Needs to insert "...that his N books since 1981..." to give an indication of how long & successful his authoring-career has been. Disagree? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  David, new&interesting objection :-) ...you mention his phd, and his U.Cambridge research, but cut out all the fellowships (including the stint at Harvard which was the key to his later Kuhnian attacks on the way science's funding-infrastructure works). We can leave that stuff until later, if you think it does not belong in the lede, but I agree with Lou that the dogma-stuff slash science-funding-stuff slash question-advocacy stuff stands alone, and prolly ought be mentioned alone. Maybe also the books on spirituality. Maybe add a sentence somewhere? "Besides his proposals in biochemistry and physics, Sheldrake has long advocated that the way science is conducted, funded, and questioned should be changed, and became a Ksomething Fellow at Harvard for a year to study the history of science; FamousScientist has accused Sheldrake of improperly questioning the foundations of science." Can likely be slimmed-n-trimmed. In your current version, you say that the dogma-stuff is why sheldrake is controversial, but that's just recent, and thus not the whole truth: the telepathy-like nature of morphic resonance is the original (and still main... TEDx notwithstanding) source of controversy among mainstream scientists. p.s. Minor slim: ...has conducted several experiments, but the results have been disputed and rejected... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He is controversial mostly because of Morphic. The other stuff gets much less criticism. It consists of 1) writing parapsychology books (Pets, Staring), 2) thoughtfully challenging some dogmas of science (Set Free). That Morphic is controversial is an important aspect of his notability. Lou Sander (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm basically OK with that but not sure about the last sentence - preferred it as it was - but could live with this. We don't need to say 'biochemist' or 'biologist' in the first sentence - it is covered by the fact that we've mentioned his "doctorate and subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University"; (credit the reader with the intelligence to realise that means he has credentials in those subjects, and build more info in the main body if necessary - don't strive to push any point beyond the briefest account necessary in the lede). It is patently clear that Sheldrake is a controversial figure but we don't need to put the word 'controversial' into the first sentence or first part of the lede. Anything that gets mentioned within a brief lede is sufficiently highlighted. We also don't need to imply that his ideas are nonsense or garbage - we should impartially report the reasons for his notability, not build in any assumptions of our own. We will have a much better chance of reaching sensible consensus on many points if all editors avoid expecting content that represents their own ideal, and agree to content that is based on verifiable information and eliminates the worst points of contention. Tento2 (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TLDR_version. ~1956-1970ish, Sheldrake=atheist. 1960-1985, Sheldrake=mainstreamScientist. ~1971-2013, Sheldrake=hasManyIdeasSomeAboutAngelsOrTelepathyLikeOrWhatever. ~1970ish-1978, Sheldrake=meditationSufiHindiEasternismEtc. ~1977-2013, Sheldrake=generallyChristianAndAtSomePointSpecificallyAnglican. 1988-2012, Sheldrake=authorWithMultipleBooks. Article not complete without all these. But the keys are sheldrake=scientist, sheldrake=author, and sheldrake=controversialIdeas. Scientist-cred is *why* books sell like hotcakes. Author-revenue *funds* continuing experiments/talks/papers/etc. Controversy *promotes* the man & ideas ("no news is bad news"). Controversy over ideas does not, cannot, and ought not obliterate The Facts... even if many wikipedia editors, and many mainstream scientists, dislike the ideas, and therefore -- whether consciously or unconsciously -- want to discredit the man, as a way of discrediting his controversial ideas. (Obvious thing is to split the article in twain... but the same people that conflate contextualizing sheldrake's ideas as minority views, with using wikipedia to synthesize a debunking of sheldrake's ideas via cherrypicking, with using wikipedia to defame the man, are also against splitting the article to have one about the author who is a biologist and author with controversial ideas, and one about the controversial ideas... so we continue our WP:BATTLEGROUND.

TooLongButPleaseReadAnyhooIfMyTldrDidNotGiveYouClearUnderstandingOfTheFacts

Agree with tento that 'controversial' is WP:EDITORIALIZING and we should use actual quotes, like Sokal's, to describe the controversy, not label the controversy. Agree with Lou that morph-stuff is much of it, hence my expansion of David's prose, which said controversy was about dogma-stuff... but Sheldrake is controversial because of both (the TEDx stuff is aaallll about dogma-stuff for instance). The morph-stuff was controversial since before 1973, when he went to commercial R&D (because all his peers in academia began shunning him if we believe what Sheldrake says). After 1981, that was more controversy. But after the 2nd book is when controversy really got cooking over morph-stuff, because it became apparent sheldrake was a Seruiz Threht: he had the ideas in the early seventies, but not the funding, and his academic career was torpedoed *by* the ideas, and by the lockdown of the funding-infrastructure. But by 1988, Sheldrake had his *own* funding, popular books.    *That* is the real reason mainstream scientists criticize him for 'mis-educating the public about true-scotsman-science'... they do not want his ideas funded, by the NSF, or by the book-buying public, or by ANYBODY. Along the same lines, I posit that is why several editors here think it is okay to pretend Sheldrake is a former/trainedAs/whileItLasted biochemist... because it is hard to admit the guy did not merely take a night-course in biology from some junior college... but spent 21 years in post-undergrad work at top schools with fellowships galore... mainly since his ideas nowadays, The Famous Notable Ideas that give him his spot on wikipedia, are so difficult to swallow. Hint: he had all those same ideas since he read Goethe-the-botanist back in 1971-or-whatever! He was a scientist then, and publishing a book of speculations about science does not somehow make him not-a-scientist now. Scientist is the truth, no doubt about it, with highly respectable credentials; if he weren't, there would be no article. The book-buying public *respects* scientists, even if they do not understand science, and Sheldrake's ideas are speculative/frontier/fuzzy enough that they can be interpreted to say all kinds of stuff.    The article must say scientist right up front, if we want to satisfy NPOV, not to mention WP:The_Truth. That's why sheldrake's ideas gained traction, because the book-buying public wants ideas that are backed up by highly respectable scientific credentials. It needs to say sold N books starting in 1981 and the latest in 2012, because that says he didn't just publish a book or two, but in fact made a whole second career (21 in science thru 1985 and 32 as an author since 1981). The author-revenues continued the funding for his ideas cooked up when he was in mainstream academia, so this career#2 is *also* key for this BLP article to actually explain the subject thereof.    Tento2, if you made it this far, I am certainly not "striv[ing] to push any point beyond the briefest account necessary in the lede". The briefest account is to call the man a biologist and an author of N books. (Compare those seven words to the tortured alternatives on offer... or in the 'real' article right now.) Those seven words are also the true account. As well as the NPOV account.    We must not confuse idea#1 with idea#2, namely that morpho-stuff is speculative questionable science at best (maybe with the exception of phytomorphology but methinks not since the phyto-portion depends on the subquantum portion), and at least *some* parts of the morph-stuff are pseudo/fringe/bizarre. Idea#1 is that sheldrake is a biologist with highly respectable credentials, with a double-decade just-another-working-scientist career... and also three decades as an author, using that money to fund his own continuing experiments/lectures/papers/etc. Just because some morph-stuff is Not Mainstream Science... does not obliterate the facts, including the fact sheldrake is flat-out a scientist. All the sources say so, across *four decades*, except two or three cherrypicked sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

keep it simple

why can't the lede contain all the basics? date of birth? job title and qualification...and leave all the other stuff for the next sentences? Veryscarymary (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mary... the answer is, unfortunately, that this article is a basket-case, and the lede omits facts or uses misleading facts (see the 'NPOV tag again' section at the bottom for the current attempt to fix the first sentence), because the article -- and of course the associated talkpage along with it -- has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND since the TEDx talk. If you read enough of this horrendously long talkpage (apologies for my significant role in creating that length!), you will see there are some pro-factions, some anti-factions, and some folks that are striving to achieve NPOV, and end the WP:BATTLEGROUND in favor of WP:NICE. You are very welcome to stick around and assist, but I must advise you that I expect this will take several days, if not weeks, of high-volume talkpage effort. Furthermore, tempers are still hot, and many people have been blocked/banned/topic'd with little warning due to Discretionary Admin Powers, so if you do decide to stick, please DO NOT get dragged down into the mud; take a break if you need a breather, and WP:AGF. But hey, on the other hand, maybe I'm a pessimist, and we'll get it all wrapped up into a clean NPOV package by the weekend. Hope springs eternal! Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

the WP:LEAD must cover a summary of the contents of the article, representing all major aspects of the subject in appropriate proportion as they are covered in the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes? We're just discussing the first sentence here. Second sentence respectable academic credentials, third sentence N books since 1981. Paragraph two, morpho-in-a-nutshell. Paragraph three, mainstream criticism of morpho. Paragraph four, sheldrake on philosophy-of-science, spirituality, and miscellaneous topics. I have my own suggestion along these lines. But as Mary is pointing out, and as I am pointing out, we cannot get out of the first sentence, because people are conflating sheldrake-has-some-idea-that-maddox-dubbed-pseudosci, with the completely distinct idea that sheldrake-must-no-longer-be-called-biologist. p.s. And speaking of getting stuck... how about my quote on Sufism getting into the personal life section, since I'm restricted from doing so myself? Or if you disagree with it, please say why. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

suggestion

I like Ian's suggestion, but my editing skills won't let me do the referencing thing properly Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942)[1] is a British biologist[25][26][27] who now researches,[28] writes and lectures[29] in the field of parapsychology[30][31] and the philosphy of science,[32] that have been the subject of controversy.[33][34] --Iantresman (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
so I've just copied and pasted it again.
What seriously are the objections to the above? Why can't we have a lede that is 20 words, short and sweet like "Ben Michael Goldacre, MRCPsych (born 1974) is a British physician, academic and science writer. As of 2012 he is a Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.[2] "
It's 20 words long, has year of birth, qualification, job title....etc....and that controversial stuff can happen later down the article as I still maintain this man is living and the present lede is running into libel.. Veryscarymary (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the cut-n-paste of what Iantresman wrote ... Mary, if you want to preserve ref-stuff, instead of copying the text straight from the browser, click the edit-button on the section, and then copy the wikitext. (You can click edit on *this* section, to see the difference when pasted... I also used the blockquote trick to keep Iantresman's stuff separated from my own sentences. HTH.)

Thank you:) xx Veryscarymary (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British biologist[21][22][23] who now researches,[24] writes and lectures[25] in the field of parapsychology[26][27] and the philosphy of science,[28] that have been the subject of controversy.[29][30]

I would prefer to say "biologist and author" right at the start, since that formulation is more common than 'writer' in the bulk of sources, and since most of Sheldrake's WP:N is due to his books. Also, per WP:EDITORIALIZING, I would rather use brief quotes from Sokal ('bizarre... speculative... no evidence') and Maddox ('an exercise in pseudo-science') which indicate Sheldrake's popularity with mainstream scientists, from harsh-but-fair all the way to the-pope-would-burn-his-books. Agree with TRPoD on the correct way to handle the Roszak review, but doubt it needs to be in the lead, since the Sokal-when-serious and Maddox-when-offended quotes are mainstream, and Roszak's initial enthusiasm was later recanted. p.s. For some reason that is unclear to me, English-not-British. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but he's STILL A SCIENTIST, even if other scientists don't like/understand or want to be friends with him...!! but that's beginning to sound better...we DO need to have the first line correct before anyone does anything else with any other part of his biog!! xx Veryscarymary (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because I want another section to rehash content that is being rehashed in four or more other sections on this page.

There are not enough sections on this page where people can rehash the same comments being discussed in four other sections.

So if your issue is only being talked about in 3 or few other sections, you should bring it here as well because that will obviously help to use up all the remaining pixels in the universe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As you wish.... ctrl+a ctrl+c ctrl+v .... there, a complete copy of everything, mirrored here... wait, what's this? Oh, there's a section at the bottom asking for a rehash... well, okay... ctrl+a ctrl+c ctrl+v .... there, a complete copy of everything, mirrored here... wait, what's ________ERROR_83_MAX_RECURSION_DEPTH_EXCEEDED_STACK_OVERFLOW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, or somebody interested in fleshing out the spirituality-section slash new-age-connection, can you please search for 'sufi' on this talkpage. I can always open up a new section, but there *was* a discussion of sheldrake's religious views already, so I put it there. But nobody has responded, and the page is still locked-down so I cannot fix the problem myself. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Example of unbalanced writing

In a book section, six lines are devoted to the BLP subject's book, while eleven lines are devoted to a single critical article about it. Lou Sander (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou, this is not a specific enough example of non-neutrality. Line-count is irrelevant. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Wikipedia is not about giving equal time to all viewpoints, it is about giving proper WP:WEIGHT where deserved, as demonstrated by the bulk of the WP:RS. Here is the key snippet, relevant to discussion of Sheldrake's books: "...even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison [as if equal] to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely... describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." From WP:GEVAL. Clearly *some* anti-morphic sentences are required, because morphic theory is speculative until a preponderance of experimental evidence in WP:RS says otherwise.

   Maintaining WP:NPOV means we have to describe morphic stuff "in proper context... of the greater world". That said, of course, this is an article about Sheldrake, and about Sheldrake's views (unless and until the article is split), so there should be no WP:COATRACK garbage, of going off on a tangent which has little to do with Sheldrake, his book, the views in his book, the wider field of related theories, a professor I once had, their bicycle, bicycles in general, the invention of the wheel....

   We ought to describe the contents of the book, neutrally, mention that some things the book says do not jive with the current mainstream beliefs of the greater world, and briefly and neutrally specify exactly how, then go on to the next book.

   Are some of the 6 pro-lines misleading, sans context, badly sourced, repetitive, unclear, vague, or otherwise flawed? Point out exactly how.

   Are some of the 9 antilines misleading, sans context, badly sourced, repetitive, unclear, vague, or otherwise flawed? Point out exactly how.

Better yet, do what Ringo1729 did, and suggest a rewrite that cuts out the fat, and sticks to the essentials which are neutral in tone and fully-sourced. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your whole premise of "unbalanced" is wrong to begin with WP:VALID He is presenting ideas that the mainstream academic world treats as FRINGE and therefore, in proper balance, we present as FRINGE . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE is the appropriate policy section we are obliged to adhere to: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint".

WP:VALID is for general articles (on what it calls "mainstream scholarship"), where we don't give minority views undue weight or validity in such an article. Otherwise every article specifically about a minority view, would improperly devote much of its space to a majority view, when WP:DUE correctly tells us that we need only "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". --Iantresman (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

you must be reading a different VALID than me. Mine says: " we merely omit (Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories) where including them would unduly legitimize them," well, no in this case the article is about "the Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories" but we " describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, insofar as WP:VALID applies to general articles on mainstream scholarship. It would not be appropriate in an article on, for example, Political party to includes details of the Nazi Party, Monster Raving Loony Party or Australian Sex Party, because they are either unacceptable, minority, legitimate, or nonsense, and we wouldn't want to give any of them undue weight, publicity, legitimacy, or veracity. But it doesn't stop us from having a detailed article on each one, that doesn't violate WP:NPOV. --Iantresman (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the book section should cover the book, and there is no obvious problem with the single reference in that part of the section, or with the way it is written. Certainly the book section can and should say that morphic is seen as pseudoscience or whatever. There is no obvious problem with the 10-12 references in the part that says that, or with the way that part is written. But about twice as much space is devoted to the 3/4-page review as is devoted to the 200-page book. Maybe I'm the only one here who sees something wrong, or unbalanced, or overdone, or out of whack with that. Maybe I'm the only one who has taken a course in English composition. Lou Sander (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So why not make your composition teacher proud -- pick a particular sentence, and suggest a particular rewrite. Or if you feel frisky, suggest a rewrite for the whole section, maintaining NPOV. But it sounds like you're saying the sentences there are *fine* but that you'd like more sentences about the contents of the book... if so, *write* an additional sentence, or split-and-expand and existing sentence, and offer it to us. Line counts are not helping me here. The motto of the state of Missouri is 'show me'. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apart from anything this one review was (1) written by a prominent figure (Sir John Maddox FRS), (2) was quite controversial at the time, leading to several letters to Nature including one from Brian Josephson, (3) has had commentary written about it [31], and fourthly Maddox makes several insights into the nature of Sheldrake's work, including the pseudoscience, magical thinking, unfalsifiability and impracticality and uselessness of experiments that Sheldrake proposed. Even Sheldrake's publishers repeat part of the review on their cover. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Insights", not in my opinion, Maddox's opinion, certainly, and I think it is sufficiently notable to include. --Iantresman (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting a specific edit, Iantresman? What exactly? Please elaborate. (And yes, just one review is fine, as long as it is a reliable source, which presents the mainstream-view, as opposed to the minority-view held by Sheldrake.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, having reviewed the WP:FRINGE stuff Yet Again, plenty of times I'm still drawing a blank here. Sheldrake's got a bunch of theories, some in phytomorphology, some in physics, some in philosophy of mind, some in philosophy of science, some in spirituality, and probably some I've never heard of. In the first case, he's in his primary field, and his credentials carry plenty of weight. In the last case, he's in a totally non-scientific field, and his opinions carry as much weight as anybody's opinions. The middle areas, where he delves into physics and consciousness and such, are the most sticky. The way the WP:FRINGE guidelines are written, I get contradictory info, but it seems like Sheldrake's phyto-theories have to be QuestionableScience (not good enough to be AlternateMinorityViewScience), and his spirituality-stuff like the Angels-book with Fox have to be WP:ABOUTSELF which can be commented on w.r.t. whether the Anglican theologists agree, but not whether *science* agrees, since they aren't scientific views at all. So there is a mainstream-science-view-of-phytomorphology which is contrasted with Sheldrake's QueSci, and a mainstream-christian-view-of-Episcopalianism, which can be constrasted with Sheldrake's AltMinorityTheology. As for his philosophy-of-mind stuff, I'd be tempted to put that into QuestionableScience but WP:RS might convince me otherwise, and *some* of his physics-views should be categorized as WP:FRINGE which is to say GenerallyPseudoscience... but even there, Sokal was pretty guarded, talking about no-evidence-whatsoever, which is different from total-quack-obviously-pseudoscience. When you say we have to apply WP:FRINGE to Sheldrake, please be more specific... his personal life is clearly not WP:FRINGE, and that includes his spirituality-stuff as AltMinorityView one would think. His views on scientific fields are not mainstream, or even alt-minority prolly, but seem to be more in the questionable-science-group than in the generally-pseudo-sci-group, or the obvious-pseudo-sci-group. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimate reversals

An editor who calls himself TheRedPenofDoom has reversed two of my edits and rationalized both with false information. The first edit was an addition to the section on Seven Experiments and Dogs That Know. I wrote, "In a subsequent interview, after noting that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's, Wiseman conceded that 'there may well be something going on' and that more experiments were needed to settle the matter." RPD deleted the passage with the claim that it was an "absolute misrepresentation of the statement and context it was made in." Here's the original statement, which can be accessed at http://www.skeptiko.com/11-dr-richard-wiseman-on-rupert-sheldrakes-dogsthatknow/:

Alex Tsakiris: You know, I wonder if there’s any way to go back and re-analyze some of the work that you and Rupert did with the J.T. experiments? I mean, there’s still the videos, there’s still the data. He’s still out there suggesting that when you take your data and you plot it with his criteria, it’s a replication of his work. Is there some way to take that data and take a fresh look at it and see if it really is robust in that way? And it really can be – and it’s one experiment, I mean, let’s get that clear, too…

Dr. Richard Wiseman: Yes.

Alex Tsakiris: …it’s not going to overturn the foundations of science. It’s just one experiment, but…

Dr. Richard Wiseman: Well, yeah, I mean, I suspect it’s quite problematic because it depends how the data is collected, so I don’t think there’s any debate, but the patterning in my studies are the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies. That’s not up for grabs. That’s fine. It’s how it’s interpreted.

So without sort of boring your listeners too much, if you’re going to do an experiment with a psychic dog, you want to know that the return times of your owner are random, because if they’re non-random, then the dog may be picking up on the patterning that when the owner goes out at a certain time of day, they tend to be gone for an hour, another time two hours, it may be the clothing the owner’s wearing or the signals the owner unconsciously gives off. All that’s information to the animal, so you want random return times.

Then the other problem is, that as the owner stays away from home for longer and longer, the dog will naturally go to the window for longer and longer. And so you need to have trials where you have short, medium and long return times. Now Rupert has that sort of data, but as far as I know, I haven’t got enough random trials that are long, medium, and short to make an absolute certain case that yes, indeed, the dog was picking up something. So I say by looking at his data, that yeah there may well be something going on.

They don’t look to me quite as methodology [sic] rigorous as you would need in order to be able to make that decision firmly in one direction or another. I would sort of tick the “more experiments needed” box, under slightly more rigorous conditions.

I've placed in bold the three relevant statements made by Wiseman. Clearly there's no misrepresentation.

The second edit was an addition to the section on The Sense of Being Stared At. I wrote, "A meta-analysis of 60 related experiments concluded that there was statistical evidence of 'a genuine, independently repeatable effect.'" The source was an article in the peer reviewed Journal of Consciousness Studies. RPD reversed the edit with the claim that JCS is not a reliable source. Since when is an internationally known and respected peer reviewed journal not reliable? Is any source reliable? Before reversing my edit, RPD should have cited a reliable source for his outlandish claim.

If RPD fails to justify his reversals here, the edits will be reinstated.

I should add that both edits originated with Blacksqr. Unlike RPD, whose purpose here seems to be to bias the article to the negative, Blacksqr is making an honest attempt to restore neutral POV. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the quotes you supplied, taking what you have highlighted out of context, cherry picking, to support your edit, is not cricket. Wiseman didn't conclude what you said he concluded. Clearly. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiseman concedes nothing. In the context of the conversation, he is still firmly adamant that he found zero evidence of psychic dogs and his scientific review of Sheldrakes does not find the evidence of psychic dogs that Sheldrake claims. What he is saying is that when you look at the information without knowing all of the background details and in a non-rigorous non-scientific view, yes there are things that might look like patterns, but you cannot make any actual scientific claims from that perspective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. What he's saying is that when he replicated Sheldrake's experiment, he generated the same pattern of data. He got exactly the same results Sheldrake got, but he's interpreting those results differently. This is why he calls for more experiments. By generating more data "in slightly more rigorous conditions," he hopes to rule out faulty interpretations. He says nothing whatever about getting the wrong idea from looking at the data in a non-rigorous or unscientific way. This is pure confabulation on your part and evidence of anti-Sheldrake bias. It's this sort of bias that has placed the article in violation of neutral POV. That said, I agree the "concedes" can be replaced with a less loaded term. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

you can shout all you want but you conveniently stopped quoting before "I think as is so much of his work, it’s very easy to look at it and go, yeah, a priori, that looks like there’s a cased something there, but things need to be done with a little bit more rigor and in this instance, that hasn’t happened." and you started quoting after "So I think we were actually looking at two different questions, which is where some of the confusion is. Now we could have been, I guess, trying to work together to look at that large body of data that Rupert had collected and sort of picked that apart and said, well, is that really strong evidence and so on. I have done that many, many times over the years with many different claims. In this particular instance, I’m not that impressed with the data that Rupert’s collected. I think it’s really interesting, I think there are some methodological problems with it," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiseman does emphasize that subsequent experimentation needs to be more rigorous, and this should be included in the article. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiseman does emphasize that SHELDRAKE's subsequent experimentation needs to be more rigorous. "I think as is so much of his work, it’s very easy to look at it and go, yeah, a priori, that looks like there’s a cased something there, but things need to be done with a little bit more rigor". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the reliableness to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_-_Journal_of_Consciousness_Studies, linked back to your comments here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, please explain how my summary distorts Wiseman's statement. Without specifics, you're wasting our time. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear case of WP:COMPETENCE issues leading to WP:POV pushing. This is fairly typical of Sheldrake's fans who want to whitewash the article as much as possible. I would say the only one wasting time is Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) but Sheldrake's other fans here are as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo, I have nothing to add to the comments I have already made, and those further comments in this section made since. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake doesn't have any fans that I see here. There are people who want to see a good article written from a neutral point of view. There are others who see this group as Sheldrake "fans," and call them names, waste their time, and on and on. These folks also seem to see themselves as Righteous Defenders of Science. None of it is good for Wikipedia. Lou Sander (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

no, there are people who refuse to acknowledge that WP:NPOV does NOT mean that all point of view are treated as equally WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney Please WP:AGF, and don't accuse other editors of POV pushing without providing diffs per WP:WIAPA "Serious accusations require serious evidence". Labelling editors as "Sheldrake fans" is speculative and not constructive.

@TRPoD No-one is suggesting that we treat sources as equal, but WP:VALID is not valid here, it applies to general articles. WP:DUE is the appropriate policy for articles devoted to minority views. Only someone with a poor grasp of the English language would need to exclude sources, rather than "weight" them appropriately with the simply use of the appropriate adjective and context.--Iantresman (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian: Seriously? The real problem here is that Sheldrake's theories are WP:BALLS. The fact that he uses obscure academic language in the process makes it hard for anybody who is not a specialist in the area to spot the nonsense. It's a Bogdanov situation. TRPoD is basically right, the question is how to ensure that Wikipedia is right without heading off into the long grass of extreme skepticism (Sheldrake is a crank blah blah) or the fanboi edits that have bedevilled the page for a while. Nobody needs this to end up at ArbCom, so how about using your experience of Wikipedia to ensure that the article reflects Sheldrake's views accurately, and leave others to work on the mainstream opinion which I guess you don't entirely share. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that one problem here is that Sheldrake's theories are indeed bollocks, another is "the long grass of extreme skepticism." (Brilliant phrase that.) But to give you an idea of how far into that long grass we've gone on this article, it might help to review the long, long bit of contention we've had in the editing of this page over whether it's permissible to call Sheldrake's conceptions "theories" at all. At various times in the article's recent history, "theory/theories" and "hypothesis/hypotheses" have been banished, with straight-faced arguments advanced that they must be called notion(s), idea(s) or "concepts".

Even now, if anyone dares to edit in a mention that Sheldrake is a biologist, they are summarily reverted with edit summaries and talk page comments ridiculing the notion. We're told he's an ex-biologist. Or he left science years ago. Or biologists do science and that Sheldrake hasn't done science for 20 years. That's the reson for the peculiar compromise in the first paragraph in the lead. "Parapsychologist" belongs in the initial sentence of this BLP, it's been successfully argued, based pretty much on WP:BALLS. The second sentence is permitted to say where he worked in the past as a biologist, but not that he's still a biologist, in the present tense or the present tense. Pretty shabby treatment for a living person, even if he's a living fringe theorist.

Please use your BLP glasses as well as your FRINGE-fighting ones. If you see fit, please help with that lead, getting biologist into the first sentence for a living person whose Ph.D. has not been revoked. Please also see if you think hypotheses and or theories can be permitted to be called by that names, even if these theories or hypotheses are clearly erroneous or even disproven. Honest-to-goodness, some of the folks here trying to keep us out of the "long grass" are not fanbois or believers in morphic resonance. Surely I'm not. But I am very much invested in BLP. I think it's paramount. That doesn't mean whatewashing anyones balls. But it does mean treating Sheldrake, as a living person, more gently than his theories. David in DC (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Guy (1) There is no excuse for incivility, nor admins turning a blind eye. (2) I am not aware of any editor here, who wants to exclude criticism of Sheldrake's work. My net contributions to the article include quotes supporting the mainstream view that Sheldrake's work is considered pseudoscience. Indeed, I don't think that any of my edits have been removed. However, we complete fail WP:BLP and fall into what your call "extreme skepticism" when we don't even mention, for example, that Sheldrake has a double first from Cambridge,[32][33] that he has a doctorate in biochemistry from Cambridge,[34] These are incontrovertible facts which you would expect to find in a biography of person. --Iantresman (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman: I agree with you on all the above points. Lou Sander (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Guy No way does WP:BALLS or Bogdanov situation apply. Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance originated as a way of explaining development from the egg, i.e. ontogeny. The idea is that developmental information, rather than being encoded in genes, is accessed by the embryo as a result of its similarity to previous embryos. Implicit in this view is that memory is not limited to stored information as in a book or a hard drive but reflects a general property of nature applicable to any organic process. Thus crystallization of a particular chemical compound, for instance, is likely to follow the pattern laid down by previous crystallizations of the same compound. Like Newton's theory of gravity, which Leibniz erroneously interpreted as a kind of magic, Sheldrake denies the exclusive role of contact mechanics and posits, in addition, a role for action at a distance. The difference is that natural memory via morphic resonance entails action at a distance over time, whereas gravity (particularly in Einstein's reformulation) entails action at a distance over space. Despite the response of the biological community, there's nothing inherently unscientific in any of this. Nor does Sheldrake use obscure academic language to cloak weakness in this hypothesis. This accusation seems to have been plucked from thin air. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BALLS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeating an already refuted point does not advance the discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not repeating Guys calling out Sheldrakes hokum. I was calling Complete Bullocks on the so called refutation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a WP:BALLSWITHKNOBSON? Oh. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute, if you have reliable sources stating that Sheldrake's work is balls, then we say so. I myself added the Maddox quote regarding Sheldrake's work being pseudo-science.[35] Likewise, if we scientists who are sympathetic or supportive of Sheldrake's work, we say so, and we can do so without given them undue weight, legitimacy and veracity, with the simple tool available to all editors, the English language. --Iantresman (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is such a non-issue -- Wiseman thinks, with many scientists, that Sheldrake's experiments are flawed. The quote is just out of context: "there may well be something going on" means that Wiseman believes something's going on with the experiment itself. I explained this earlier, and gave the same quote Rpod did. vzaak (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation is so obviously wrong as to constitute evidence of anti-Sheldrake bias. Look again at Wiseman's quote: "Then the other problem is, that as the owner stays away from home for longer and longer, the dog will naturally go to the window for longer and longer. And so you need to have trials where you have short, medium and long return times. Now Rupert has that sort of data, but as far as I know, I haven’t got enough random trials that are long, medium, and short to make an absolute certain case that yes, indeed, the dog was picking up something. So I say by looking at his data, that yeah there may well be something going on." He's saying his own data was insufficient to show that the "the dog was picking up something" but that Sheldrake's data indicates "there may well be something going on." There is no ambiguity whatsoever in Wiseman's statement. So far no editor has provided any reason why the material should not be reinstated. The only useful suggestion I've received so far is to change "conceded" with a less loaded term such as "stated." Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, removing the context makes it appear as though Wiseman may suspect that dogs are telepathic. That is essentially what your edit does. In context, however, among the disconfirmatory clues are: "I think as is so much of his work, it’s very easy to look at it and go, yeah, a priori, that looks like there’s a cased something there, but things need to be done with a little bit more rigor and in this instance, that hasn’t happened." vzaak (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Alfonzo -- I tend to agree with folks here who say Wiseman does *not* support Sheldrake's conclusions, and in particular, that the something-going-on quote is talking about methodological *flaws* in the Sheldrake trials. So the quote you are citing cannot be used to say that Wiseman supports Sheldrake's conclusions, or even, supports additional research into the matter, cause that's not what Wiseman meant. Having never heard of the Wiseman stuff, I had to look it up, and ran across this master's thesis from Imperial College London, re-published by permission over here,[36] which studied the sociological and philosophy-of-science aspects of Sheldrake's trials and tribulations, taking a neutral stance on the truth or falsity of Sheldrake's theories about science.

    In particular, it says the data-patterns from both the 200 Sheldrake trials in 1994/1995 and the 4 Wiseman trials in 1995 matched, but Wiseman never acknowledged that publically, either when Wiseman first published (he analyzed one way which did not show the match at the time), or later, when Sheldrake performed a re-analysis of Wiseman's dataset that showed the match. Finally in 2007, Wiseman *did* admit the patterns matched, according to the dissertation on some radio show if memory serves (maybe your bolded quotes above), but even now Wiseman still maintains that the underlying factor is a methodological problem, and that interpretation of the data-sets need not invoke any morphic stuff whatsoever.

    While we see that Wiseman says 'more experiments needed' what he means is more experiments to overcome the methodological errors and prove more rigorously that Nothing Is Going On. That is all Wiseman's saying. As for the article at the moment, it just says that "Wiseman concluded" which is true flat-out in his original paper... if we can find a suitably WP:RS quote where Wiseman admits the re-analyzed patterns match, NPOV would suggest that a new sentence-or-fragment should be added, stating that based on later meta-analysis, Wiseman stood by his negative-confirmation conclusion, but on methodological grounds now, rather than flat-out. HTH.

    p.s. Sorry about the high-stress high-volume talkpage! We're working on making it WP:NICE again soon, but right now it is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stick around, if you have the time; but nobody will blame you if you do not. Anyways, thanks for the focus on clear sources, it is helpful. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the Stevens paper. I've seen it before but lost track of it.

You note that you agree with the folks who say Wiseman does *not* support Sheldrake's conclusions. That's great. I happen to be one of those folks myself. I'm pretty sure everybody here understands that Wiseman disagrees with Sheldrake. The disputed quote in no way implies support for Sheldrake's conclusions. Wiseman does, however, support additional research into the matter. We know this because that's exactly what he says, and he says it because he wants additional research to refute Sheldrake's claim that the dog in question, Jaytee, can sense when his owner is returning home. The trouble is that Sheldrake's data, as Wiseman states, seems to indicate that "something was going on," i.e. that "the dog was picking up something."

I think we've gone around on this long enough to see that there are no serious objections to restoring the quote, though modified so as to be perfectly clear that Wiseman believes further research will refute Sheldrake's central claim. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay, then we're basically on the same page. Some of your language was confusing to me above; prolly just a grammar-parsing-error on my end. However, you're still phrasing some things in this paragraph, that led me above (and ditto for TRPoD as well) that still don't sound quite right. We cannot really say that Wiseman 'supports' additional research... Wiseman is saying that his 4 trials, which had the same pattern as Sheldrake's 200 trials, are subject to interpretation. Wiseman says confounding factors aka methodological errors are the interpretation. Sheldrake says telepathy-slash-morphic is the interpretation. Wiseman believes a priori that Sheldrake is dead wrong, so when Wiseman says 'additional research' what he means is: Not Convinced. (Do we have a better source than skepticoDotWhatever where Wiseman goes on record that the re-analyzed patterns do statistically match?)

    Wiseman's position is that, if the hypothesis of telepathy *is* to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, there would have to be more research performed, with more rigor, with stricter control of confounding variables, and with many many short/medium/long trials. Wiseman, a priori, expects that such research would be a total fail... i.e. would prove zero telepathy actually happened. In other words, Wiseman admits the statistical pattern matches, but still insists Sheldrake interprets it Dead Wrong, and that it still gives Zero Support For Telepathy -- and wikipedia cannot imply Wiseman says differently, even though (if we have a reliable source) we can point out that Wiseman suffers from severe WP:COI, and give the facts of how it was a decade before finally Wiseman fessed up about the patterns. But it is wrong to say this.

"Wiseman supports more experiments... [because] the dog was picking up something [telepathicaly]".

Which, even if you intended otherwise, is exactly what your quotes imply, which is why people are saying you're cherrypicking... just like Wiseman vs Sheldrake, it is all in the interpretation!  :-)   Here is what Wiseman is actually saying, methinks:

"Wiseman insists *Sheldrake* has the whole burden to perform many many many many more experiments with far greater depth and breadth and rigor and expense before Wiseman will ever be convinced of anything... despite finally admitting the data-patterns match Wiseman still insists Sheldrake is dead wrong, shifting from asserting pure pseudoscience to asserting somewhat-non-specific methodological errors, mainly that 'the dog [during the methodologically-flawed experiments by Wiseman and also the methodologically-flawed experiments by Sheldrake] was picking up something [non-telepathically which caused the patterns to be misleadingly interpreted]'. Wiseman thus says Sheldrake is interpreting the data-patterns incorrectly, to wishfully see 'something [telepathic] was going on' ... when in fact Wiseman interprets the data-patterns to say 'something [methodologically-flawed] was going on'.

End-quoth. That entire sentence above is very POV, plus horrid grammar, and no good for the article, which should have just the facts, and even more strictly, only those facts we can reliably source. We have an WP:RS-fact that Wiseman said, in 1995 or so, that Wiseman's 4 trials disproved Sheldrake's 200. If we want to add another sentence we need sources, and a neutral tone with just the facts.

"As of 2007, Wiseman said the data-patterns of his 4 trials actually match the data-patterns of Sheldrake's 200 trials, but Wiseman still says this proves nothing, and says methodological flaws in the 4 trials and the 200 trials are responsible for the data-patterns, remaining firmly unconvinced that any telepathy-like phenomena was detected in any way, and further insisting such a strong claim requires vastly more research than 204 flawed trials of the mid-1990s, for mainstream scientists to be convinced Sheldrake has shown anything beyond ability to reliably generated flawed data via flawed experimental techniques."

Well, okay *that* sentence is no good either, but we're getting closer. Putting this one into terse form will prolly not be my job.  :-)     Hope this helps clarify what is going on, however. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the following sentence to Dogs That Know: "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." Before reverting this edit, please explain here why you think this misrepresents Wiseman. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for Barney the barney barney to reverse my edit. In his reversal he states, "you have been previously warned about misrepresenting sources, and you're probably breaking 3RR now as well." Okay, Barney the barney barney, why don't you explain how my edit misrepresents Wiseman's position? Keep in mind that NPOV requires "complete information." Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite failing to explain how my edit misrepresents Wiseman, Barney the barney barney went to the Administrators Noticeboard and filed a bogus edit warring complaint, which is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Alfonzo_Green_reported_by_User:Barney_the_barney_barney_.28Result:_Warned.29. Though my edit in no way misrepresents Wiseman, perhaps it could be improved, along the lines suggested by 74.192.84.101, by noting that Wiseman wanted subsequent testing to be more rigorous. Here's my proposed edit as of now: "Later, in a 2007 interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that subsequent more rigorous experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." Without indicating that Wiseman's experiment replicated Sheldrake's data, we fail to provide complete information and therefore violate NPOV. Please discuss this change here. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit still selectively quotes Wiseman in a way that it is contrary to his position in the interview. He says that he and Sheldrake were "addressing two different questions" and "testing two different claims". And among other things Wiseman says: "I'm not that impressed with the data that Rupert's collected", "I think there are some methodological problems with it", "don't look to me quite as methodology rigorous as you would need", "things need to be done with a little bit more rigor and in this instance, that hasn't happened".

The edit also contains editorializing. There's nothing to overturn, much less "definitively overturn". Wiseman doesn't think highly of Sheldrake's experiments, nor does the scientific community in general.

This discussion is needless because the source is a self-published blog, which would disqualify it in any case. (In your citation you first gave a link to an unrelated Radin article, then changed it to a Wikipedia link; I don't know what's going on there.) The blog promotes energy healing, talking with spirits, alien contact, the whole bit. And there have been accusations of tampering, e.g.[37]. It is quite far from the WP standard for reliable sources. vzaak (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Wiseman appears to be trying to fudge the issue with his statement that he and Sheldrake were testing different claims. The fact is, he tried to refute Sheldrake's claim that the dog Jaytee was aware of its owner's intent to return home, and he failed in that endeavor. That Wiseman claims not to be impressed with Sheldrake's data doesn't change the fact that he replicated it in his own experiment, a fact he conveniently omitted from his published paper, only admitting to it after Sheldrake called him out on it. Wiseman made his concession - - and that's exactly what it was - - in a public interview with the owner of a website. Other topics covered in that website are irrelevant. There's no editorializing here. Wiseman sought to overturn Sheldrake's conclusion of a telepathic bond between pet and owner. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have drawn all sorts of inferences here, which frankly seem conspiratorial to me. Wiseman's response paper should provide sufficient context. The blog is not a reliable source anyway (WP:USERG), sorry. vzaak (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiseman's paper failed to mention that he replicated Sheldrake's results. He only admitted to it later in an interview. The words quoted in that interview are Wiseman's own, so the general reliability of the blog is not at issue. As it stands now, the section on Dogs That Know provides incomplete information resulting in bias against Sheldrake. The reader is told only that Wiseman repeated the experiment and found that the evidence did not support telepathy. This gives the impression that Wiseman generated different data than Sheldrake. Left out is the crucial fact that Wiseman generated the same data as Sheldrake and only interpreted it differently. Unlike in his disingenuous paper, in the interview Wiseman is absolutely clear that it's a question of differing interpretations, not differing data. That needs to be in the section. Otherwise it violates NPOV. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo, it *is* correct (per WP:The_Truth) that Wiseman admitted in 2007 that the re-analyzed data-patterns of the four Wiseman trials, match the 200 Sheldrake trials. It's not too significant, in the long run, for science, nor for morphogenetics; the significance of the Wiseman phenomena is more relevant to Sheldrake's 2012 book on philosophy of science... the process of science, on the bleeding edges, tends to be poisonous. What is significant -- to me personally rather than to wikipedia -- is that Wiseman's original paper, which claimed that Sheldrake had proven nothing, because Wiseman's work refuted Sheldrake, and turned out to be wrong-headed. Eventually, a decade later, even Wiseman admitted that his work did not refute Sheldrake, but still stuck to his *second* conclusion, namely, that Sheldrake had proven nothing. Which *can* be written in a neutral tone, and you did. But what about WP:PROVEIT?

the sentence on wiseman's change-of-mind sans change-of-heart, and the four sources that could justify getting it into mainspace

Here is your quote: "Later, in a 2007 interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that subsequent more rigorous experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee dogs can have a psychic link with their owners." That is fine, but we would have to add, "As of the 2007 interview Wiseman still says the 204 trials in the 1990s prove nothing, citing methodological concerns (rather than the outright refutation of his 1990s paper)." I struck out Jaytee, because the earlier sentence assumes *that* dog was still alive, as of 2007. Which I think everybody agrees is pretty neutral, and does not misrepresent Wiseman. But I'm against putting the sentences in the article. The problem boils down to WP:RS. Wikipedia has to reflect the sources, and I don't think the skeptico interview is independent enough; they have a lot of pro-COI. But... there are only a couple ways that we can get those factual sentences into wikipedia: either a reliable source, or an official quote from Wiseman *about* himself. the master's thesis from Imperial College. WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Would have to be either published in a printed-on-paper non-vanity-press book, or, would have to be cited multiple times in mainstream academic literature. In this case the cites would be sociological journals or maybe philosophy-of-science journals ... but I don't think the cites exist. the podcast and interview with skeptico ... which I'm under the impression is not reliable enough to satisfy WP:RS. Is that wrong? You cannot say that *they* might not be reliable, and then turn around and say that their quote of *Wiseman* is reliable. See #4, we need Wiseman publishing something in his own words, or see #3, we need a non-blog as the source. Some other source, newspaper or somesuch, stating the fact -- not necessarily as quoted by Wiseman but as mentioned factually by *somebody* that is a journalist or mainstream scientist, then verified by the fact-checking-process of the reliable source in question. Don't think such a thing exists (yet), but if it did, would definitely be good enough. An official quote from Wiseman, in an official blog of his own, or a self-published paper of his own; under WP:ABOUTSELF, since this is about Wiseman's re-interpretation of his own work, it *would* be good enough as a WP:RS for this particular quote. I just don't think we have any of those. Someday, there will probably be a quote, that Wiseman's four trials show the same pattern. But, frankly speaking, it's just four trials. It won't sway the critics of morphic fields. Anybody that looks into the subject can see Wiseman did the four trials as a cheap-n-easy way to overturn Sheldrake's work, and per the 2007 interview, failed.

So at the end of the day, we're stuck waiting for some WP:RS to fact-check the Wiseman interview-quote is correct. Plus... on balance I think the facts, while they might make *Wiseman* look not-so-good (proving he has a lot of anti-COI), adding those 4 measly trials is not gonna sway the balance of the *article* much. But hey, remember WP:DEADLINE; sooner or later, a usable WP:RS will show up... or more likely, somebody else will do the ten-thousand-super-rigorous trials, and cite the old Wiseman vs Sheldrake controversy, in *their* bibliography.

p.s. You *can* always ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard whether skeptico's interview-quotes with Wiseman are reliable *as* quotes, untampered with, which has *some* shot because it was a recorded-audio-interview, if memory serves. But it seems like a long shot to me; rumor has it that links to youtube videos are routinely disallowed, especially when BLP policy is involved, and the audio is from skeptico and the text is from skeptico (those primary sources are entirely what the master's thesis rests on... and even that thesis is *also* webhosted at skeptico). It seems too borderline-COI, at the moment. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of Skeptiko is not at issue because the words in the Skeptiko interview are Wiseman's own. We have Wiseman both in transcript and on tape making the statements I attribute to him. Therefore the accuracy of the attribution cannot reasonably be questioned. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you:) I'm actually not going anywhere, I said that up above somewhere, I just would prefer the lede to be correct, with his correct job title then you can argue all you like further down his page:) Veryscarymary (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What is his job, Mary? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

She likes the way Iantresman worded it -- biologist/researcher/writer/lecturer/parapsychologist/philospher/figureOfControversy. See here. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#suggestion 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Conservation of energy/perpetual motion

Please review this edit. The previous sentence says he's for questioning what he calls dogma. COE and perpetual motion are among the dogmas he advocates questioning. The change from "advocates questioning" to "also questions" is an example of what Guy, in the section just above this one, calls "the long grass of extreme skepticism" . It's enough to recount what his critics say accurately. It's too much to go beyond that. Please consider reverting. David in DC (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The material in question talks about the "fact" of conservation of energy. It is more usual to refer to it as a "law" or a "principle". The material formerly included a few words about why Sheldrake questions it, but they were removed without explanation. I don't have a big problem with saying that S. "questions" rather than "advocates questioning", but the latter seems more correct. I do have a problem with characterizing COE as something it is not. Lou Sander (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite, no scientist would talk about physics "facts" in this context. I am reminded of radioactivity being considered in violation of the conservation of energy, because mass-energy wasn't fully understood at the time, and perhaps the original proponents were mercilessly criticised for "violating" COE "facts". --Iantresman (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is talking about Dark Energy and Dark Matter. His question is whether the conservation-of-energy law (which only includes non-dark-energy) applies at the scale of the universe, and is one of those speculations-about-things-which-science-may-someday-answer. See also Sheldrake's speculation about the subquantum nature of consciousness. Now, as a biochemist, his speculations about dark energy is reaching outside the area of his expertise... but not outside the realm of science. His speculation about consciousness is more in the biology-chemistry field, obviously, but his use of the subquantum as the meat of his speculation does push it into the physics field once again. Can somebody provide a ref-cite where Sheldrake is talking about perpetual motion, rather than just a brief mention of it?

   My understanding is that his ideas (or maybe just brief aside) about perpetual motion are not really related to his ideas about *energy* (which would prolly more truthfully be called his *questions* about energy), but rather are related to his ideas about how-science-funding-infrastructure-ought-to-be-revolutionized. From what I can grok, Sheldrake's suggestion is that instead of banning papers about perpetual motion -- or of course telepathy-like stuff -- that instead it is more productive to 'fund' them as X Prize-type challenges. In other words, whoever discovers a perpetual motion machine, which outputs more energy than it takes in, as proven by a board of 100 mainstream scientists selected by the NSF who study said research for a year, the NSF will award the inventor one billion dollars. Short of that, no funding. So, if it turns out perpetual motion is possible, and mainstream science has been wrong however many decades-or-centuries-or-whatever, then the NSF is out a billion, but hey, we get infinite energy, so good deal. On the other hand, it costs the NSF nothing, if it really is impossible, and might help channel voluntary private funds into supercolliders and dark energy research and such, so it's either a draw or a minor win.

   Anyways, at least for COE, think I agree with David that Sheldrake advocates questioning it, and in particular, advocates questioning whether COE applies to dark energy or not. He's not personally interested in pursuing that research, is this correct? He's just trying to loosen up the funding-infrastructure, so that he (and others in the future) can pursue the stuff he does want to research. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion are facts. That's all there is to it. They are just about as factual as almost anything you care to say. They are also foundational principles, but when Sheldrake questions them he is questioning facts. He even owns up to this. The arguments being made above are trying to give an out for this uncomfortable situation, but I don't see how this is possible. jps (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, mainstream science views them as unassailable facts, and thus wikipedia (being a mirror of what mainstream reliable sources say) must reflect them as such; we don't even say "the impossibility of perpetual motion is a fact" because we can say more tersely "perpetual motion... is impossible in practice", right? Right. (I was surprised to see the 'in practice' qualifier... but then, I thought about computer simulations of perpetual motion in a frictionless universe, or theoretical models, or whatnot.) So nobody here disagrees about what wikipedia ought say, scientifically speaking.

    My contention here is that Sheldrake is holding a minority-view-position in the philosophy-of-science, which says that treating *anything* as unassailable, is a mistake. He suggests that experiments in dark energy are hindered (theoretically/philosophically speaking) by an inability to question the law of COE, and suggests further that funding for ideas (including unassailably unscientific ones... as long as dark energy turns out identical to known energy that is... things like perpetual motion) is better done on a winner-take-all X prize basis, rather than the current basis where bureaucratic gatekeepers in university politics (deans) or in federal politics (NSF) are the ones holding the purse-strings, and the ones deciding what is and what is not science. Anyhoo, as for giving Sheldrake 'an out' to say something without getting hammered to a pulp... I guess I am arguing for that... because mainstream-scientists are the wrong hammer, to be using on a philosophy-position that Sheldrake holds.

    He's got a book about Angels, and spirituality, and such. Should we hold his theology to the same scientific standard we hold his physics theory? Methinks clearly the answer is no-friggin-way. The philosophical stance, and political stance, that Sheldrake has on how research ought to be funded is *not* the same thing as him doing such research. He is interested in phytomorphology, and interested in consciousness, and does research in such areas. He's not claiming to have built a perpetual motion machine, or that anybody ever may... he's just saying, we'll get better ROI from our science-funding infrastructure, if we stop relying on gatekeepers, who hold the purse-strings and define what is unassailable and what is not, and instead try something else.

    Probably, Sheldrake has views on politics, too... and should they ever become notable, I would hope that we wikipedians don't insist *those* ideas about politics be mainstream-scientific in the same way we would insist some new theory about co-evolution, for instance.

    Anyhoo, I don't disagree we should present the facts, and point out where Sheldrake is disagreeing with the facts... if he *is*. In this specific case, he is clearly not, rather, he's philosophizing about them, and whether there *should* be things we treat as facts. Mainstream scientists disagree... as do *some* but not all mainstream philosophers (Ayn Rand fans would probably put Sheldrake on their blacklist... but many postmodernists would count him as the allied forces, right?). Point being, the mainstream *philosophers* are the ones we should be citing here, so that readers don't get confused about the clear distinction between Sheldrake's theories about science and Sheldrake's theories about philosophy-n-politics-of-science ... although of course it also behooves us to point out that COE is generally considered unassailable among mainstream scientists, once again, so that readers do not get confused. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake questions several of the foundations of modern science, arguing that science has become a series of dogmas	Outside of his theories about physics and biochemistry, Sheldrake has put forth philosophical arguments about how science ought to be funded and pursued, calling mainstream science "a series of dogmas".
rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena.	These investigations first began when Sheldrake was a Knox Fellow at Harvard in 197x studying Template:Thomas Kuhn, and most recently were continued in his 2012 book Science Set Free.
He questions foundations of physics such as such facts as conservation of energy	Sheldrake advocates that to investigate phenomena such as dark energy, scientists need to be able to question such foundational facts as the Law of conservation of energy. (For contrast, see also various baryogenesis theories which predict a temporary violation of the experimentally observed conservation of baryon number, shortly after the big bang, to explain the rarity of antimatter now.)
and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices.[1]	Furthermore, Sheldrake argues that funding any such hypothetical investigations into dark energy ought not be controlled by political gatekeepers who define what is and what is not science, suggesting that instead of mainstream scientists asserting the unassailable impossibility of practical perpetual motion devices based on theoretical grounds, a better method would be to offer an X prize for creation of such a device.
(omit any mention of other philosophers)	FamousPhilosopherFoo has criticized Sheldrake's position as being "$baz". According to mainstream science, in practice perpetual motion is impossible, because conservation of energy has never been experimentally violated, and is theoretically shown to be inviolable.
(insert quote about how some WP:RS criticize Sheldrake's position as self-serving and/or Bad 4 De Childrens)	(insert same quote about how some WP:RS criticize Sheldrake's position as self-serving and/or Bad 4 De Childrens)

Not actually sure inviolable is a word? Anyhoo, obviously this is not a suggested rewrite, because it needs slimming and cites, and prolly a grammar-check. But I hope it gets across the point I'm trying to make: Sheldrake does not question conservation of energy, but he *wants* people to be able to. Of course, the subtext being, if some research on perpetual motion is funded, then the decision as to whether or not telepathy-and-morphogenetic-research will be funded is a no-brainer.  :-) &nbsp HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree that his motivation for wanting to "allow" the questioning of the conservation of energy is his desire to increase his own visibility, but the essential thrust, then, is that Sheldrake sees nothing wrong with contradicting certain facts, and so that's basically what we ought to write. To say he does not "question" these facts is, I think, splitting hairs. If Sheldrake doesn't question these facts then it should be easy to find a source where he says so unequivocally because the sources I'm reading are easily supporting the opposite contention. jps (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, before we get to what we want to write, please first enlighten me then -- which sources are you reading, that say Sheldrake really does question COE as part of his science-theory-role, rather than as advocate such thing as part of his philosopher-about-stuff role? I've seen him say something like 'COE is not as well-supported in biological creatures as in conventional mechanical physics experiments' or something along those lines... but it's a far cry from saying 'COE is more full of holes than swiss cheese', right? If we can get quotes, that show us what Sheldrake *does* think, especially if he says so unequivocally, then all the better. But the only stuff I've seen is him philosophizing. The stuff in the TEDx talk was related to this, right? The whole new book thing. What source, and what page, gives you the impression you have? Thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no sources that distinguish between different roles for Sheldrake. If Sheldrake really said, "COE is not as well-supported in biological creatures as in conventional mechanical physics experiments", then I would be interested to read that as well. I'm not sure how to tell the difference between when Sheldrake is philosophizing and he is reporting his interpretations of empirical evidence. If you know of a source that can explain how do to this, please show it to me too. jps (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

((I'm trying to find where I remembered the energy-experiments-in-bio-systems thing from... no luck yet.)) As to your other questions, well, we agree there are plenty of sources that say he does work in biology, in physics-like-areas, in parapsychology, in philosophy of science, in philosophy of mind, and so on, right? Some of them are posted here on this talkpage, in the endless is-sheldrake-a-true-scotsman-scientist-or-not threads. As for distinguishing which field sheldrake is talking about, it's not hard. Here is a 1999 interview-snippet.[38]

one-paragraph example where Sheldrake is all over the map, three-paragraph example swapping between science-theories and philosophy-of-science-metatheories

"Interviewer: Does that mean that the causal arrow is only in one direction, from the larger to the lower parts and levels? Or would the causal relationship be in both directions?" Sheldrake: It’s in both directions. The whole contains these parts and is obviously influenced by them. So it’s a two-way causal relationship. ((the prior sentences are pure philosophy)) In some ways, this theory of mine fits with a variety of holistic views, like Arthur Koestler’s notion of holons. ((pure spirituality)) In some ways it fits with quantum physics. It’s closer to quantum physics than anything else. ((speaking as a scientist maybe... but I'd lean more towards speaking about philosophy of science)) When I discussed these fields with David Bohm, ((*now* definitely speaking as a scientist)) he had very little problem in seeing that there was a need for a concept such as this in biology. He would then tackle them in terms of implicate orders or quantum potentials. ((scientist)) He had two or three different approaches to these fields. ((scientist)) But I would think that these fields are closer in respect to quantum field theory than anything else in physics. ((fuzzy again... scientist or maybe philosophy-of-science)) "Interviewer: What is the nature of the reality of morphic fields? What really constitutes a morphic field as such?" Sheldrake: Well, it’s a difficult question even for the known fields of physics. If you say, "What constitutes a gravitational field as such? Or an electromagnetic field as such? Or a quantum field as such?" you run into big problems. Because we have our descriptions of fields, and in the case of those fields we have mathematical models of the fields which enable you to make predictions. But what is the field in itself? Well, this is something physics hasn’t answered, because the attempt to find a unified field theory, for example, super-string theory, is an attempt to find a yet more fundamental field in terms of which these other fields can be explained by the rolling up of spatial dimensions. ((analysis: this paragraph is a mix of philosophy-of-science metatheorizing and physics-commentary-by-rupert-the-biologist. In particular, there is no spirituality-stuff here, and no biology-stuff here, right? notes will be terse shorthand for other paragraphs.)) Then you could say, well, what does the super-string field consist of in itself? The closest one could come is to some kind of pattern in space or space-time. When Einstein was asked, "What do the fields consist of? Are they made of matter?" He answered no, matter is made of fields and energy. Maxwell’s attempt to say what the fields consist of was to make a mechanical model of them in terms of subtle matter, the ether. But Einstein regarded ether as superfluous. That left the fields as a free-floating ontological status. The fields just are. They have their own kind of reality. But what is it? That’s an unsolved question. ((pure philosophy-of-science slash history-of-science... sheldrake is *not* taking any position on the ether here as a scientist -- he's just talking about metatheories)) When we come to the nature of morphic fields, it’s not going to be easier to answer what they consist of. The question is in the known field of physics, what decades of research and thousands of skilled and highly intelligent people have worked in this area, and they still don’t know what they are in themselves. So I would say that regarding morphic fields, one can say something about their properties. They’re probabilistic in the way they work, they’re within and around the systems they organize. They have attractors in them. You can model many of their properties in terms of attractors, things which draw the system towards a particular form or goal or end state or end cycle or end structure. The morphic resonance is non-local in the sense that I’m suggesting that some of their systems come in from another one’s cross-space or turn. The fields organize systems in a nested hierarchical way, the field of molecules into the fields of the atoms. The fields of the atoms include those of subatomic particles, and so on. The field of the society includes the organisms, those include organs, those include tissues. It’s a nested hierarchy of organization of nature, which all holistic world views recognize. Insofar as each whole is more than the sum of the parts and is organized, I’d suggest, by morphic field, then the fields themselves have this hierarchical organization. ((there is a whiff of philosophy-of-science here, but this is Sheldrake speaking as a biologist-and-crossover-physicist, about his own scientific theories))

I've never heard of "Koestler’s notion of holons" but it seems pretty clear that to describe the *mainstream* views of that field we'd ask a philosopher/theologian, not a scientist. As for "morphic fields" which are a generalization aka superset of biology-specific-morphogenetic-fields, we would describe the *mainstream* views of that field by quoting physicsts/biologists, not spirtuality-experts. In terms of the Sheldrake article right now, the perpetual-motion stuff seems to be pretty clearly taking quotes out of context, and pretending Sheldrake does perpetual motion experiments, and Sheldrake advocates perpetual motion machines, and Sheldrake disbelieves in conservation of non-dark energy, *as* a scientist. Which I think is wrong and misleading, and needs to be fixed. On the other hand, maybe I just haven't seen the Sheldrake-quotes where he says exactly those things: "In my perpetual motion machine..." Do we have a quote like that? If we don't then the article is bogus right now.

Look at the example-paragraph where Sheldrake is talking about Maxwellian ether, in the snippets above. We don't take that paragraph, and write up a sentence for mainspace like this: "In a 1999 interview, Sheldrake advocated that physicists should reconsider Maxwellian ether, pointing out that Einstein disagreed the ether was necessary, and reading between the lines, strongly implying Sheldrake thinks that Einstein was a total moron." Misleading crap, right? Sheldrake could care less about the ether, he was using it as a historical example for philosophizing about the process of science.

Methinks we're making the same sort of category-error with the perpetual-motion-stuff... Sheldrake sees it as a pointed comment on how to fund the process of science, aka it is pure philosophy-of-science (or maybe politics-of-science). But the article is pretending Sheldrake sees perpetual motion as a scientific field, whereas the facts are that Sheldrake just wants budding young scientists to be able to investigate dark energy... and of course, old scientists to get funding for telepathy-like research. HTH, and I'll see where I stuck my COE notes, they're lost in the ether at the moment. :-)    — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I grok your commentary, but I don't think we can make these points in the article because, frankly, it requires a level of interpretation beyond what is permitted by WP:NOR. As far as I can tell, Sheldrake takes no issue with contradicting basic facts of science. That he does this for rhetorical (or, as you put it, philosophical) reasons rather than having some alternative empirical claim is not a judgment that can be made on the basis of a plain reading of the sources, as you seem to admit yourself. Though reading between the lines does give some insight into Sheldrake's rationale for being provocative with regards to these two fundamental facts relating to reality, I don't think we can allow extra interpretive work to be included here.

jps (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We can easily provide a description of Sheldrake's point of view, if we don't provide subjective interpretation. For example, Sheldrake never refers to "facts of science", so the issue regarding their contradiction is moot. He does question whether "the laws of nature are fixed"[39], and even you can think of some that have been violated for whatever reasons. He questions whether "The so-called physical constants are supposed to be changeless"[40] and again, Sheldrake is not the only person to consider this.[41][42][43] For the record, I have no idea whether Sheldrake is right or wrong, but I do know that he has brought up the subject. --Iantresman (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've said on my talkpage, I understand the perspective that one might not want to mention his rhetorical disputes with the conservation of energy or impossibility of perpetual motion, but if we are going to mention them we have to describe those points for the facts that they are. jps (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sokal

The Sokal sentence has morphed into something weird.

1. The Sokal hoax revolves around a joke paper. The article must unambiguously specify that this is a joke paper. Sokal didn't write a paper that some claim to be a joke while others dispute its jokiness. The Wikipedia article Sokal hoax does not put "hoax" in quotes. It is a hoax. Placing "preposterous essay" in quotes falsely implies that it is just someone's opinion that the thing was fake, giving an aura of possible legitimacy to it.
2. The phrase "preposterous essay" is not even in the source.
3. Why does the google link give a search for "pepperoni"? This is either a meta-joke on top of the Sokal joke, or a sign that one shouldn't edit Wikipedia on an empty stomach!
4. Of what use are the two additional references? I don't understand this. We need but one reference to establish the context of the hoax.
5. Please use the {{cite}} templates when adding references.
6. The sentence in question introduces the term "morphic field", which is undefined in the article. The article could define it, but until it does, saying "ideas are cited prominently" or some such should be sufficient, no? "Cited prominently" doesn't mean literal citations, which are never prominent.
7. The Sokal article doesn't mention "morphic field"; the term is "morphogenetic field". Using this term in the article would carry even more complexity because the article would necessarily have to distinguish it from morphogenetic field, a term biologists use for something different. Again, maybe that could be explained somewhere in the article, but not in the Sokal sentence. At least in the short term, avoiding "morphogenetic field" is the simplest path.

vzaak (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, the phrase "preposterous essay" is in the George Will column republished in the book I've linked to. He also calls it "hilarious" and, in general, does a great job of explaining just how much of a joke it was.

Pepperoni is in the search string because the word appears on the page we want. It appears only once in the book, on exactly the right page. It's not a meta joke. It's a precision citation device. Sorry for the confusion. I'd have no objection to changing the graf entirely. But I was aiming only for one small thing. If the word preposterous was to remain, I firmly believed (and believe) it should not be in wikipedia's voice. So I went looking for who called it preposterous. I found out it was George Will. So I cited it to him. David in DC (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia calls it a hoax without quotes. This is not a point of contention. Wikipedia can say hoaxes are hoaxes, and doesn't need to attribute its hoaxiness to a particular author's words. The source given establishes the hoax beyond doubt. It's a fact that it's a hoax, and WP should assert facts. Would "joke paper" be better? Is it just the tone?

The phrase "preposterous essay" is not in the source.

To cite a particular page, use the link icon in Google Books. I usually remove the cruft before and after &pg=PA123, except for '?id=...' of course, like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkcuQFBXLFQC&pg=PA86 . vzaak (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a Bacon-Erdos number, but I claim a Sokal number of 2 !!--Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nothin'. Hammerin' Hank Aaron had an Erdos number of 1. See Paul_Erdős#Erd.C5.91s_numberDavid in DC (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How's this? I've used the words "hilarious hoax", "preposterous" and parody, taken directly from the source. I've changed the wikilink to Sokol affair, avoiding a redirect. I've used the phrase "faux scientific paper" instead of "joke paper". I've used a google search string that omits pepporoni and substitutes "hilarious hoax" and "preposterous". If you like your way better, I won't be offended, either one takes us to exactly the same place. Mine just puts the yellow highlighting on the words actually being quoted.

I've also rearranged things. The order is no longer chronological, but it's not far off; sticking Sokol beiween Bohm and Durr had me humming the old Sesame Street tune "One of these things is not like the other.David in DC (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That's really I wanted -- to designate it as being in a different category than the others. Now, can we remove those two extra references? Why were they added? vzaak (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. I didn't add them. If you think they provide nothing, go ahead and delete. However, I'm chary of leaving a George Will editorial, even one that includes significant reportage, as a sole source. I'd suggest sorting through the others (I count three, rather than two) and deleting the least helpful. David in DC (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD is the one who added the 'morphic field' language recently, attempting to appease my complaints. They were not appeased, but nobody else managed to penetrate my wall-of-text. The extra two refs were also added. Page nums were *not* added, at any point. Actual quotes from Sokal being *serious* about his take on Sheldrake's work are also missing. This is the key point: merely being in the sokal hoax-paper is not sufficient to indicate the person cited or their work mentioned is bogus. Wikipedia implies the opposite, which is POV, and misleading, and flat untrue. The section-title is also POV, since it implies Sheldrake is not a scientist.

SubSectionTitle: Academic Career. BodyText: (same as what is already in that section now -- up through the 1990s where this is inserted.) In 1996,[1][2][3] Sheldrake's 1981 and 1991 works on his morphic field theory, along with a preposterous admixture of famous scientists like Einstein with famous post-modernists like Derrida, was prominently featured in the third section of Alan Sokal's purposely-falsified hoax-paper. The hoax-paper was written explicitly[citation needed] as an experiment to criticize sloppy science, in particular post-modernist sans-peer-review social science. Years later, in a book detailing the hoax, Sokal gave the following serious explanation of his actual position as a physicist: "Sheldrake's theory of 'morphogenetic fields', though popular in New Age circles, hardly qualifies as 'in general sound'."

For contrast:

SubSectionTitle: Interactions with notable scientists (unlike sheldrake the we-refuse-to-call-a-scientist-nyah-nyah). In a different vein, Sheldrake's work featured prominently in a faux scientific paper written by Alan Sokal, submitted to Social Text and published there in 1996 as if it represented true scientific research.[73] Writing about what has come to be known as the Sokal affair, George Will called the parody a "hilarious hoax" and "preposterous".[74]

If somebody wishes to have a sentence, or a sentence fragment, about *why* Sheldrake was picked for the hoax-article, that 'why' must be sourced, with page-num. Simply saying, Sheldrake's in there, is meaningless... because you can replace Sheldrake with Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Kuhn, Durr, Derrida, Irgavay, and so on. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have an appetite for endless scanning of references, try THIS, which is one from the Sokal hoax article. In it, Sokal says "Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the "morphogenetic field" -- a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake -- constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim." The guy was spoofing the stupid journal editors, and used S. and many others as part of his spoof. Of course, the "bizarre New Age idea" stuff can be used by Wikipedia editors to demean S., bring the New Age stuff up, etc. Maybe people could just concentrate on writing a fair BLP, rather than mining the Internet for negative references and schlepping them into the article. Lou Sander (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou, we can use the part that says "bizarre New Age idea" as something that Sokal actually seriously thinks about morpho-stuff. But we cannot say "Sheldrake in Sokal-hoax-paper therefore Sheldrake is pure invention" because that is not what Sokal said. The sentences you quote, except for the four words I mention, are Sokal describing how the hoax-paper mixes up and screws up concepts everywhere, including specifically the claim MorphoGenetic==QuantumGravity. Sokal does not believe it. Sheldrake does not believe it. Your own quote says Sokal knows Sheldrake does not believe it. If we want to mention Sokal's opinion on Sheldrake's morphogenetics, which is valid because Sokal is a famous physicist and morph-stuff spans physics+biochem, fine. But it has to be Sokal's serious opinion! By definition, the contents of the hoax-paper ARE NOT serious, and merely being cited therein is meaningless (Einstein/Irgavay/etc). Am I making sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you make perfect sense. One wonders why the Sokal stuff is in the article at all, let alone in its present misleading format. And how many references, both distorted and not, do we need to show that "The concept of Morphic Resonance has been examined and forcefully rejected by numerous mainstream scientists; it has received little support outside Sheldrake's immediate circle"? Lou Sander (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally wondered why the Sokal sentence was in the article at all (hence my "pov screw-up" section), but after plenty of discussion, there *are* sources that explain Sokal's serious position on morph-stuff, and because Sokal is a famous physicist, and because morpho-stuff delves into physics, Sokal's serious view on morpho-stuff belongs in the article. And his serious view is, that sheldrake's ideas are bizarre, new-age (later qualified to popular among new-age-folks ... which *is* an important correction that e.g. User:SqueakBox was confused about coming in to the talkpage). Sokal's other views on the physics-related ideas used in the morpho-stuff is that there is no evidence for it (as of 2001 or whenever Sokal wrote that), and that the morpho-stuff is nowhere near being generally sound, and that it is very speculative. This is harsh, but fair. Nobody has evidence for subquantum. Sheldrake's stuff *is* very speculative. But nowhere does Sokal say that Sheldrake is not a scientist (he always calls him a biologist or biochemist or similar). Nowhere does Sokal say that Sheldrake's work is fringe, or pseudoscience... although calling it bizarre comes pretty close.  :-) Anyways, as the article is written now, just like when I complained, it uses the *hoax*-paper to explain Sokal's views on morpho-stuff, which is just totally broken. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the article is now much more neutral, but my core complaint remains.

The subsection title is 'interactions with other scientists' now, which is much better. Here is the Sokal stuff, also much better:

"Although he did not contribute to it, Sheldrake's work featured in a hoax article written by Alan Sokal. The paper was submitted to Social Text and published there in 1996 as if it represented true scientific research, an event which became known as the Sokal hoax.[86]"

My core complaint is, simply being in the Sokal paper implies nothing. We can replace "Sheldrake" in the sentence above with "Einstein" and it stays true. Being in the hoax-paper, by itself, is not important.

  What *is* important is *why* you are in the hoax-paper. Einstein was in there to give camoflage to the crazy-talk. We know exactly what Sokal's *serious* position on Sheldrake's work, which is relevant to the mainspace article. But instead of giving some serious quotes from Sokal, about why he picked Sheldrake (we may not have this?), and especially about what Sokal's position as a physicist is on the status of morphic stuff as a theory (we *have* this stuff)... instead we only talk about the hoax-paper, which is totally misleading, because most readers will assume that simply being *in* the hoax-paper is inherently bad... which is just not true. I have a suggested rewrite, with Sokal-being-serious-quotes, but before we go that far, I'd like to make sure folks understand my beef here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Book section split

The section A New Science of Life and The Presence of the Past has been split into two. As the anchor indicates, this is where morphic resonance was given full treatment: definition, the Maddox deal, and scientific reaction. The link morphic resonance went to that place.

After the split, we have morphic resonance pointing to something that doesn't give the full treatment of morphic resonance. The scientific reaction is awkwardly placed in the later section The Presence of the Past. It's just out of place there. I would move to combine the sections as they were; the Maddox deal may remain in the middle or placed later; that doesn't matter to me. As far as I know, the original 1981 book included little or no experiments, so we can't just move the scientific reaction paragraph to the one-book-only A New Science of Life section. vzaak (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose deleting the split. I think the reaction of Maddox to the first book is important enough to be treated under a separate subheading. It provides much-needed context for both the way it places morphic resonance outside of the mainstream and the way Sheldrake's ability to attract publicity seems to enflame incendiery reaction.

The paragraph and heading structure here, I argue, is more important than the anchoring device. Since I agree with Barney and others that creating a separate "Morphic resonance" POVFORK would be a bad idea, I'd suggest "Morphic resonance" be simply made a redirect term to this article, instead of to one article section. Many editors have already opined that, but for Morphic resonance, Sheldrake would not be notable. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm willing to concede the point if we can keep the book for burning subhed and change the anchoring device for Morphic resonance. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's put aside the Maddox part; that's not where I have issue. The problem is the criticism paragraph being shoved into the Presence of the Past section. It's just weird there. It suggests the criticism perhaps applies only to that book, not morphic resonance generally. A section covering its definition as well as its criticism is more appropriate (and incidentally what WP policies state about scientific reaction being prominent). vzaak (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been a recent addition of headings in the books section. This arrangement is very straightforward and easily understood by readers and editors. We now have:

Books

Morphic resonance books

MR book #1

Big flap over MR book #1

MR book #2

Telepathy, etc. books

T book #1

T book #2

Questioning modern science books

Q book #1

There are some problems: 1) there is no section anywhere on MR all by itself, either under Books or anywhere else; 2) criticisms of books in various categories have been confounded, e.g., criticism of T books appears under MR book #2. If this were fixed, the article would be much improved. Lou Sander (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree such an arrangement could benefit readers, I have practical concerns that I think -- unfortunately -- torpedo the plan. First,I do not think we can split books into morphic-books and telepathy-books. Sheldrake's core theory is that, roughly, baby plants grow into a certain adult shape partly because of DNA and partly because of 'unconscious telepathy' with existing adult plants (or maybe with atoms in general or somesuch). This is not in any way consciousness, as a normal reader would think of it, but it resembles the 'universal consciousness is everywhere' sort of new-age-thinking, right? But the sheldrake stuff, not the new-age-interpretation, is actually just straightforward: adult plant X has a specific physical shape, which gives of gravitational attraction, plus speculatively some subquantum stuff, and the baby plant Xprime, being composed of similar components in a similar arrangement, resonates with the adult-shape. Very hand-wavy of course, but that's the gist of the idea. Same for insulin, termites, pigeons... and mammals. I *do* think that questioning-modern-mechanistic-science is a separate category (though I doubt his *books* can be so separated since presumably they all have *some* morphic stuff in them). Under the questioning-group we have the philosophy-of-science stuff about advocating questioning conservation of energy w.r.t. dark energy, and we also have the (very distinct) books on spirituality e.g. Angels. Basically, though, at the end of the day, I think we are going to end up with the article organized by book-title, rather than by type-of-concept (with books where that concept was mentioned getting listed on a per-concept basis rather than vice versa). It is too difficult to flip things around, because WP:RS covers books, not concepts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

David, it's not quite true that "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis, as described in these two books and his subsequent writing and lectures...". Every book mentioned in the Books section covers morphic resonance in one way or another. It's not right to lump just those two books under morphic resonance. I've restored the old headings, moved the criticism paragraph to the ANSL section, and added a note about evidence in the 2009 reissue and other books. With the supportive words from the review Barney just added, I think it works out pretty well. vzaak (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In both case discussed yesterday morning, making sure the Sokal affair was a joke and keeping "A book for burning" under its own heading, my edits were initial reactions to conversation on this page. In both cases, subsequent edits improved on my first stabs. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag again

Please read this one more time. Adding the tag involves following the steps therein. In particular note the last point (bold added), "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." What are the "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"? This should be stated concisely and should include sources. If your response requires 16,000 characters then it is almost certainly on the wrong track. vzaak (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I've added several sources that are supportive of Sheldrake, and have a few more as well. Even Sheldrake's fans should admit that the criticism of him has been harsh (of course they think it's unfair, but that's not for us to judge). There's nothing in the article that is incorrect, nothing that is unsourced, nothing that is unfair per WP:FRINGE. The NPOV tag seems to be a way in which Sheldrake's fans can try to warn people that the article is unreliable, and therefore not to be trusted. And they edit warred it to the top of the page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to remove it. It shouldn't be there anyway. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, vzaak, we agree that the article must obey the bulk of the sources. Two specific actionable issues are below, in their own comments, so they can have subcomments specific to the points inline. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

1. "Sheldrake is an author, lecturer and parapsychologist.[3][4][5] From 1967 to 1973 he was a UCambridge biochemist, was ICRISAT plant physiologist 1974-1978." This sentence fails NPOV. The bulk of the sources call Sheldrake a biologist & author, or a biochemist & author. The three sources that call him a parapsychologist are, from what I can tell, the *only* three. Cherrypicking. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Same foundational sentence. Besides obliterating his scientific title ("is" author but "was" biochemist), it also omits NPOV mention of his highly respectable scientific accolades. PhD, postdoc, Harvard fellow, Royal Society fellow, Botany Prize. His mainstream-scientific career is trimmed on both ends: he became a grad-student circa 1964, and was a consulting physiologist until 1985. Plus, of course, there are his *recent* experiments, and his recent academic activities in CT and Trinity. This is non-neutral, and especially serious in BLP-world. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet the facts are presented; he had one career in academia, and then went freelance. Btw, Sheldrake has *never* been elected as a Royal Society Fellow, which is one of the highest honours a scientist can receive, as it indicates that other fellows greatly respect your work. Typical complaining from a Sheldrake fan (who can't be bothered to log in). Your habit of pasting rambling monologues on this talk page isn't very helpful either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with vzaak on this one: citation needed. Your opinion is that Sheldrake left science (and your opinion is that 'being in academia' is mandatory for being a scientist). Cite me a source that says "after 1978, Sheldrake is no longer a scientist". Cite me some sources from the last couple of years that introduce him as a parapsychologist and author, rather than a biologist and author. Are you quibbling about the difference between being *in* the Royal Society, and being a Fellow of the Royal Society, or are you claiming that Sheldrake lies through his teeth when he says he was a Royal Society Fellow? p.s. I'll continue to ignore your breach of WP:NPA; have some more WP:ROPE. The sad thing is, we are on the same side, but to you, this is just WP:BATTLEGROUND and time to WP:RGW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is customary in an NPOV dispute to refer to distribution of opinions - not to dispute clear facts. However, you are disputing facts. Quite clearly he worked for academic institutions, and then he didn't. This is documented, disputing it is extremely foolish. Vzaak (talk · contribs) has got much more of a clue than you do. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's customary to be tolerant of rambling monologues, if they are polite, sensible, and lead to a better Wikipedia. It's customary to be intolerant of personal attacks. Lou Sander (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou, don't stoop to the same level. WP:NICE please; my skin is plenty thick enough. :-)     Barney, I notice you ignored every single question I asked. Consider them to be re-asked. Do you have a citation, or do you not? There is such a thing as a lie of omission. Either the bulk of reliable sources refer to Sheldrake as a biologist (or sometimes biochemist), or they do not. Either only a few reliable sources refer to Sheldrake as a parapsychologist, or I am wrong. You can prove me wrong by providing some sources in the 2011/2012/2013 timeframe which prove me wrong. WP:NPA does not prove a thing, relevant to the article, at least. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander (talk · contribs) I entirely agree. The endless whining on this page by Sheldrake's fans, including Tumbleman (talk · contribs) and others, is incessant, it is tiring, it is extremely childish, and it is against policy. The points 74 raises are extremely ridiculous and he needs to be ignored, as your userpage suggests. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for admitting that you are ignoring my straightforward, good faith questions on purpose. I also note that you are once again engaging in WP:NPA, and making a subtle threat to ban me for endless rambling. Rather than continue further, I suggest we have a brief WP:POLL, as a means to guide us toward consensus. Those in favor of discussion on Sheldrake's proper title, as being biologist/biochemist as I say the bulk of sources use, or parapsychologist as Barney prefers (and as the article is currently written), please comment with supportThatDiscussion, and those who believe the question is extremely ridiculous and should be ignored, please comment with declineThatDiscussion. To avoid votestacking, only folks who have edited this talkpage or the article in the past month ... regardless of whether they were insta-reverted or not ... should vote in the poll, please. I think this is a pretty stark choice, but anybody that feels the need to justify, can also add a non-poll comment here. Newcomers (or 'oldcomers') may comment, if they wish, of course. Once we've gotten a majority out of a quorum of ten, I'll consider the matter settled. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is important that there is consensus on Sheldrake's status as a biologist/scientist. Whether he is also a parapsychologist is less important, and unrelated. I have a concern that those responding that he is a biologist will be called names, reported to authorities, accused of being fanbois, etc., and that if there is a consensus it will be ignored. It's not that I mind being the victim of that stuff, but promoting it through honest responses is SO unrewarding. Why support an uncivil discussion that leads nowhere? Lou Sander (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. (Yes, I'm sure that is the case. Since I am at no risk of being subjected to WP:9STEPS, I am more than willing to stick my neck out, and say Sheldrake is a biologist/biochemist, just like the bulk of the sources say, and insist it *must* be in the first sentence, where currently biologist has been replaced by parapsychologist, for POV reasons, or just by accident during the edit-wars.)

    However, this WP:POLL is merely and simply and ONLY about whether it is *permissible* to discuss the matter (biologist-vs-parapsychologist) on the talkpage, or not.

Barney has attempted to drive off VeryScaryMary, and is now attempting to silence myself, through all sorts of policy-violations. I'm not really interested in how many supportThatDiscussion votes show up, but rather in how many folks will join Barney in crossing the line. Specifically, this line -- Wikipedia:TE#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors. Nobody should vote supportThatDiscussion, if you fear retribution. BUT NOBODY SHOULD FEAR THAT, and the fact that people do, and that Barney would dare use the tactics he repeatedly uses, is clear evidence that this article is a basket-case. I intend to fix it. Anybody that votes declineThatDiscussion is not being WP:NICE, and I'm one of the Pillar Four Nazis that demands everybody be nice. Anyways, Lou, please feel no obligation to vote supportThatDiscussion. Let's just sit back and see who votes declineThatDiscussion. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• supportThatDiscussion Lou Sander (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

discussion related to section immediately above

(I have split some portions that are not part of the WP:POLL, into their own new section here. If somebody objects, please say so here in this section, and I'll try to fix it up to satisfy. Danke.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the NPOV tag is justified until and unless the question of whether BLP requires that "biologist" or "scientist" be included in the lede, in the present tense, relying on the sources. The arguments against acknowledging that Sheldrake is a biologist are all in the nature of "he had two careers, the one as a scientist are in the past" or "scientists do science" or "Sheldrake stopped doing science years ago." But those requires WP;SYNTH with a fair dose of a skeptic's POV.

In contrast, there are numerous reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist, in the present tense, written long after he started advocating MR. I haven't seen one that says Sheldrake is no longer a biologist. He hasn't been excommunicated from the Church (or Mosque or Synagogue) of Science, he hasn't been defrocked, his degrees have not been declared null and void.

Wikipedia should rely on the sources. Sources call him a biologist. Sources that dispute, debunk, disprove or disdain Sheldrake do not say "he's not a scientist" or "he's not a biologist". They say he's egregiously wrong, but that's a different thing. And it's made quite clear in the article (and even in the lede) why it's fair to say he's wrong. There are sources for that. But there are none to support the assertion that he should not be called a biologist and ander both BLP and NPOV, it's against policy to withhold that descriptor. David in DC (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree:) xx Veryscarymary (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

David,

• WP:SYNTH refers to statements expressing logical implication in the article. Weighing sources and making judgments are a necessary part of editing Wikipedia; this is not WP:SYNTH, otherwise no work could get done.

• I can counter many of your assertions by cutting & pasting what I wrote before: Under the parapsychologist refs: the first ref is from Nature and says "parapsychologist" without mentioning biologist/biochemist/etc; the second ref is from New Scientist and says "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist"; the third ref is from Nature and says "former biochemist".

• The argument I made earlier has still not been addressed (cut&paste again): The question is: What do we do when faced with conflicting sources? Discussing the "controversy" in the opening sentence is not feasible, of course, so we must decide. The problem of "picking the sources you like" cuts both ways. One criteria would be to use the strongest, most respected sources, and on that criteria Nature is the winner.

• Calling Sheldrake a biologist would be misleading since biologists are understood to be WP:PROFs or otherwise involved in biology. Sheldrake is neither. For five years he was funded by a grant through Trinity, but as the first Nature reference[3] makes painfully clear, it's inappropriate to affiliate him with Trinity even for those years.

• There is no such thing as the "skeptical POV" as far as editing WP is concerned. There is only the mainstream view and the fringe view. The important thing is to clearly distinguish between them; this means editors must make reasonable judgments. The fringe view is that Sheldrake is a regular biologist who is unfairly treated, who causes anger in mainstream scientists because of their dogmatism, who has proof of morphic resonance that is not recognized because of a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality", etc. The mainstream view is exceedingly different. WP is a mainstream encyclopedia; it reflects the mainstream view and does not confer equal validity to fringe views.

vzaak (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, you use the word mainstream science several times above. If we could the phrase mainstream science and/or mainstream biology in the article, to differentiate Sheldrake's views from the mainstream, I think almost everything else would be easily resolved. But whever I've tried I've been swatted down, told there's no such thing as mainstream science. There's just science. And differentiating Sheldrake's stuff from science by calling the latter mainstream science elevates FRINGE or woo or hogwash or bollocks to an impersibble level.

"Mainstream" is the way out our quandary. You seem comforable with it. If you want to see the skeptical POV (which, according to Guy even comes in an extreme version, lurking in long grass) in action, try putting "mainstream" in the article to describe Sheldrake's debunkers. Hey, User:IRWolfie-, would you care to help us here? If you and I can both agree to the utility of Vzaak's use of "mainstream" on this talk page, maybe we can lead the way toward stabilizing this article.David in DC (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am leaving. I wish you well, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I accept it in the same gracious spirit in which it has been offered, and wish you well, as well. David in DC (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, you seem to be having the discussion about biologist-vs-parapsychologist, but you are not contributing a response to my poll. Is your policy to ignore me, and thus implicitly side with Barney? As to your sources, which are of course WP:RS, what are the dates on them? Any sources in the 2011/2012/2013 timeframe, such as the ones provided by VeryScaryMary? We should not take out your sources, or her sources, but wikipedians cannot cherrypick, we must mirror what the sources say, and when they conflict, describe the conflict, never decide the winner and the loser. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Vzaak wrote: ...otherwise involved in biology" That is your key, by the way. Sheldrake has been 'otherwise' involved in biology/physics/etc, as a theorizer, as a shoe-string experimenter, as a popularizer, and as a lecturer... plus the Trinity-College-bequest-money, plus the LearnDotEdu visiting professorship. He has *also* simultaneously been involved in parapsychology (various subject-specific journals plus the Noetic thing if I understand it correctly), and most of his talks/books/etc have a strong dose thereof. Outside his scientific theories, and his pseudoscientific pseudotheories... he has (simultaneously again more or less) published ideas in spirituality slash theology, concepts in the philosophy-of-science and the politics-of-science-funding, concepts related to philosophy-of-mind and consciousness, et cetera. The only reason anybody in the wider world pays attention to all that stuff, is because sheldrake has such highly respectable mainstream credentials.

    That is the story of this BLP, as neutral as I can make it. Wikipedia must tell the NPOV story, whether mine, or a variation like David's. Not the one you (correctly) portray as pro-sheldrake, the genius-scientist shunned by the bad-priests-of-science-who-themselves-are-not-as-qualified-as-sheldrake. (Only wikipedia's and maybe Wiseman's actions lend credence to that myth btw.) But also not the misleading story that the article *currently* portrays as 'neutral' but is in fact exactly from the skeptic-POV-consensus with minimal varnish, synthesizing sheldrake as 'no longer fit to be called a biologist' and trying to downplay how many books he has published by glomming/hiding the stuff deep in the middle of the article, plus of course most dangerously from the WP:BLP point of view, attempting to discredit the *ideas* by way of discrediting the *BLP*. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney, why should 74's points be ignored? What is your rationale for cherry-picking sources that describe Sheldrake as a parapsychologist, while excluding those that call him a biochemist? --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks Joshua Isaac (talk · contribs) - Actually, on reflection,I don't think we should be "calling him" anything; thinking about it my preferred wording would be to drop parapsychologist as any sort of primary designation, and describe him as an author on "science-related issues" (we shouldn't endorse what he writes as scientific but nor should we categorically label it as pseudoscience as his critics do). The next bit then goes into briefly explain the extent of his career while employed in academia, the second part into his claims about "morphic resonance" and the consequences of that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet my suggestion above that we adopt "mainstream" from vzaak's post above will be roundly hooted down or just plain ignored. If I'm wrong, swell. But if I'm right, I think Barney has just pointed another way out of the long grass. It answers vzaak's question about what we do when the sources conflict just as well as "mainstream" would. David in DC (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best to say that: "Sheldrake is an author and lecturer who qualified as a biochemist, but now writes and talks about his research in the field of parapsychology, and his views on the philosophy of science." --Iantresman (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm on record above supporting the removal of "parapsychologist". How about something like: "Sheldrake is an author, lecturer, and former biochemist who writes and talks about his views on science and his research in the field of parapsychology." vzaak (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source which says "former biochemist", sure, we can add it as a third-minority-view, under the majority view of biologist/biochemist (sourced), and the minority-view of parapsychologist (sourced). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney, no, wikipedia does not work that way. We do not drop the WP:RS calling sheldrake a parapsychologist, and we do not drop the far more numerous WP:RS calling him a biologist/biochemist/etc. We mirror what the sources say. We cannot decide to pick and choose the sources we wish. Ian, "qualified as" is the same thing as "former". If you want to say "qualified as", do you have a WP:RS saying exactly that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would argue that "qualified as" is not quite the same thing. He has qualified as a biochemist. But perhaps you're right, we just need to do a source count. Even those that say he is a parapsychologist do not imply that he is not a biologist, only that he is a biologist working in the field the parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps what is more important, is that he calls himself a biologist, and has a doctorate to back it up. He's a biologist. --Iantresman (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of "parapsychologist". If third-party sources call him a "parapsychologist" or a "biochemist", then that's what Wikipedia should describe him as. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. We have three perfectly reliable sources for parapsychologist, and cannot ignore them, even though sheldrake personally prefers the slightly-different-term psychical researcher. But we also cannot ignore the vast and plentiful (and also perfectly reliable) sources calling him biologist/biochemist. The argument can be made that 'Nature' in 2004 or whatever is More Reliable than some Usa Today quote from 2013, because of the hierarchy-of-reliability documented in WP:FRINGE w.r.t. newspapers, but pillar two NPOV does not permit us to *pick* which sources we want to reflect. That's bias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Issac and Iantresman, but the problem is that sources conflict. We can't launch into describing the "controversy" over what he is called in the first sentence (well possibly we could, but that would be extremely idiosyncratic for a WP article). It's a peculiar situation because mainstream science and even some of his supporters view him as a parapsychologist or a researcher of paranormal phenomena, while he insists that he's not a parapsychologist and does not research paranormal phenomena. He calls himself a biologist who researches natural phenomena. In interviews and public appearances he describes himself as a biologist, and popular media often reports it that way.

I've suggested the path out of this morass is to go with what the most esteemed and prestigious sources say -- the sources which are the most qualified to assess Sheldrake's status. Under that criteria Nature is hands-down winner, and Nature says he is a parapsychologist and former biochemist, per the sources given in the first sentence of the article. vzaak (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But your suggestion is WP:CHERRYPICKING, and whether you intend it or not, aligns with the Oft-Aggrandized-Sceptic-Conspiracy which true fans of Sheldrake already believe in, without any help from a biased wikipedia article. My suggestion for the lede was to use the grammatically awkward but reasonably illustrative "biochemist-and-now-parapsychologist" which methinks captures the situation. And yes, I agree that it would be idiosyncratic for a BLP article... but the idiosyncrasy of the prose matches the idiosyncratic nature of the BLP we are discussing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

V's suggestion is not useful, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The unattributed Nature news item describes him as "a parapsychologist at Trinity College", but this is contradicted in the same piece by Rees who says that the affiliation is "inappropriate", ie. it is wrong, and the reliability that Nature's description of "parapsychologist" is also put in doubt. There is no dispute that he has carried out research in the field of parapsychology, but academia does not recognise the position of "parapsychologist". Sheldrake is a biologist with a doctorate to prove it, that is confirmed by many reliable sources (already mentioned).--Iantresman (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The text is correcting the affiliation; it says nothing about correcting "parapsychologist". In any case, as I've said, I think "researcher in the field of parapsychology" is better than "parapsychologist". vzaak (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you propose that we handle conflicting sources? Describe the conflict in the first sentence? vzaak (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be far more relevant if in the lead section we describe Mr Sheldrake as is. He was born....then qualified in....he then wrote books....he then stepped into the world of controversy and caused lots of discussion-on-his-wiki-page-about-a- 20-word intro because of his...bla bla bla. There needs to be a time-line in all of this. You're not born a parblinkingdoobrey...and anyway I shouldn't think there is a person in the world who would describe themselves as such if they'd gone to-university-and-got-a-degree-in-something.
Ian's suggestions sound very true and fair to me. We write was he did to get to where he is now and the qualification in a scientific subject was what happened first, then the writing, then the lecturing, then the supposed 'controversy' ....tell me where in wikipedia exactly it says we can't call him a scientist, or a biologist? Veryscarymary (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not how the WP:LEAD section and introduction works.

The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) I think sources show that he notable for his writing and lecturer because he is a qualified biologist. I am sure there are others who have written about the same subjects, but they are not notable because they do not have a scientific background. I don't think that Nature or the New Scientist would have given Sheldrake the time of day, if he wasn't so well qualified. (2) I don't think sources show that "mainstream science" rejects Sheldrake. I think sources show that some people in mainstream science rejects some of what Sheldrake writes about. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman is correct, but the TRPoD is also correct. Here is the basic context, which the lead ought to cover. Sheldrake is a biochemist with highly respectable credentials, and two decades of mainstream phytomorphology work... when he could no longer get funding from the holders of mainstream-purse-strings to research his telepathy-like theories, to fund his research Sheldrake instead wrote a half-dozen popular books, and co-authored another half-dozen... touching on plantBiology/chemistry/physics/quantumPhysics/psychology ... as well as philosophyOfScience/politicsOfScienceFunding/theology... and thus became Extremely Controversial, Either Loved Or Hated, Both Famous And Infamous. (TRPoD , if you disagree this is the basics, please point to a specific flaw. Just saying you like the way the article is written now better than my summary, gets us nowhere.)

    p.s. Speaking of getting nowhere... this article-n-talkpage WP:BATTLEGROUND, and the dramatic change-over from the slightly-pro-Sheldrake-lean that it had in May 2013 (despite IRWolfie replacing 'theory' with instead 'concept' in places in April), to the leans-anti-Sheldrake status it enjoys now, is not going away. Mary says that Sheldrake's inherently-idiosyncratic story has "caused lots of discussion-on-his-wiki-page-about-a-20-word intro" ... and although as yet there is no WP:RS which covers the idea that Some People (sorry about the weasel words but Vzaak will not let me post the data showing who is who) use wikipedia as a way to grind their POV axes... but soon enough, if this goes on, the mainstream press will pick it up, and then the Sheldrake BLP will have a paragraph devoted to wikipedia bias, just like the Bogdanov_affair page that User:Guy mentioned (and they had arguably-fake PhD credentials!). Folks here that are battling to downplay that Sheldrake is a highly-credentialed biologist with 20 years of experience, and author of a double-handful of books published over 30 years to prove notability... are you *sure* you are best advancing the sceptic cause, by making Sheldrake's WP:BLP appear to be (to the untrained eye) victim of the vast sceptic conspiracy? Be WP:NICE, to other wikipedians, and to Sheldrake the BLP, and get this basket-case article back into line with the bulk of the reliable sources. Pretty please. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, I wish that you had made it clearer what you meant by "conflict" earlier in the discussion. I am not familiar with Sheldrake or his work, and I did not know that he shied away from the "parapsychologist" label. It is now clear to me what the conflict is: some sources see his current work as biology, while others consider it to be parapsychology. In light of this, I think that he should be called a "researcher" in the opening sentence, and the following sentences could say what he has been researching throughout his career, preferably without explicitly referring to him as a parapsycholgist or a biologist in the first paragraph; e.g. He researched Foo from 1990 to 1995 at the University of Mayfair, and Bar from 1996 to 2000 at the University of Qux (where Foo is a biology topic and Bar is a parapsychology topic). That should hopefully make the opening paragraph free of controversial material while still capturing why the subject is notable. The conflict itself may be discussed afterwards. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: By "controversial", I mean claims supported by conflicting sources, not something controversial that Sheldrake may have said or done. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stats for the week

Columns: user | contribution | percent of total contribution

                74.192.84.101   133507    62.8%
                   Lou Sander    10329     4.9%
                  David in DC     9457     4.4%
                Alfonzo Green     9264     4.4%
                        Vzaak     9172     4.3%
                Veryscarymary     8185     3.9%
     Barney the barney barney     7195     3.4%
              TheRedPenOfDoom     6883     3.2%
                       Tento2     6417     3.0%
                   Iantresman     5664     2.7%
                 Roxy the dog     4878     2.3%
                   Tom Butler     3774     1.8%
                    Dingo1729     3393     1.6%
                    SqueakBox     2031     1.0%
                     Blacksqr     1327     0.6%
                          JzG      870     0.4%
         QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV      532     0.3%
                      SineBot      307     0.1%
                    IRWolfie-      189     0.1%
                      Legobot   -10850    -5.1%

People are invited to double-check the numbers; start date is 15:58, 24 October 2013‎. vzaak (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Man, I've heard of strict deletionists, but that Legobot dude is off the charts. Do you think this merits and RfC/U?David in DC (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So is this a good-faith disruption, performance art, or what? vzaak (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need more of 74's wisdom. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

i am not naming names, but someone might want to read tl;dr -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(I have a contribution to make on this topic... verbose as usual unfortunately... <grin> ... but vzaak and I are discussing some complaints they had, before I post it. TBD.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(Vzaak has not responded yet. Very busy, I suppose. My re-analysis of vzaak's dataset will have to wait a bit longer, kind of like Wiseman and Sheldrake, though not as Notable methinks.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• What does the "contribution" number represent? Size of all edits? Number of edits? What's the source?--Iantresman (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Here's a link to the number of talk page edits by contributor over all time. --Iantresman (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's scraped from the talk page history. Obviously "contribution" can't be the number of edits; it's the total size of edits; just look at LegoBot (-10850) in the history. vzaak (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, see the very different graph of the article itself, in mainspace.[44] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS issue

WP:LINKSTYLE says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." I've never beem nuts about this part of the MOS and take solace in the word "generally." But the recent wiki-linking of Occam's Razor reminded me about it. If we're going to IAR something, which I favor here, we should at least know what the "R" is that we're "I"ing. David in DC (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, LINKSTYLE has that curious rule. Linking to Occam's razor is the perfect example of an appropriate wikilink, but it would strange trying to finesse it into the text outside the quote. And "See also" is of course not an adequate substitute. As long as we keep paying protection money to the MOS goons we'll probably be OK. vzaak (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a risk of putting-words-into-the-mouth-of-the-source that they did not intend. Using the inline hyperlink in the Occam-quote is perfectly reasonable, and is helpful without being POV at all. Ditto for most of the other examples in the article, but not all. In cases where consensus says we keep the inline-links, might be smart to give a short explanation as a hidden HTML comment in mainspace, so nobody delinks it thinking they are obeying the manual of style... and in cases where we get rid of non-neutral inline-links, prolly need to have hidden HTML comments warning future editors to see the talkpage before they controversially restore the disputed inline-links into the midst of a quote. Hidden HTML comments do not help with bots, or editors in a rush, but they are in the wikipedia FAQ, so they're kosher if used with care. I found five naughty Manual Of Style violations, and one potential future violation that might deserve a hidden-warning-comment:

1. Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was not testable or "falsifiable in Popper's sense"...
2. David Sharp writing in The Lancet, noted that experiments were related to the paranormal, with "risk of positive publication bias"...
3. Jones argued that without confirmatory experimental evidence, "the whole unweildy and redundant structure of [Sheldrake's] theory falls to Occam's Razor".
4. In 2003 Sheldrake published The Sense of Being Stared At which explored telepathy, precognition, and the "psychic staring effect".
5. In a mixed review, Bryan Appleyard writing in The Sunday Times said that Sheldrake was "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "scientism"...
6. He reports that during his time in India he found himself "being drawn back to a Christian path", and currently identifies as Anglican.[1]

Number one links to Popper uncontroversially, but the link to the generic article on falsifiable is not good, because the linked-to-article does not explain *only* the Popper-sense-of-falsifiable, but the more generic concept. In fact, Popper apparently had two flavors of falsifiability, so my suggestion is to delink falsifiable, and replace the link to Karl Popper with a more specific subsection-link.

1. Maddox argued that Sheldrake's hypothesis was not testable or " falsifiable in Popper's sense"...

Truth be told, though, rather than asking readers to slog through *that* huge explication, I'd rather we pick a better quote, that says what Maddox was complaining about in plain-jane-terms, without needing to hedge about being a specific subtype of falsifiability, and without needing to read the vast literature on Popper to find out what Maddox 'really meant'. Having no idea what Maddox meant, I delegate that rewrite task to David.  :-)

Sharp-quote #2 seems fine to me. Jones-quote #3 ditto. Sheldrake-quote in #4 is definitely POV, though, because the generic article on psychic staring is almost certainly not descriptive of what *Sheldrake* means by the phrase (see also the related discussion about whether sheldrake is doing parapsychology or psychical research or biochemistry or whatever). Still need to link to the generic article, but must not pretend Sheldrake meant to reference the contents of that generic article, since almost certainly he did not, so pull it out into the surrounding text, something like this: ...There is a long history of other investigations into such phenomena. Not sure on #5... is Appleyard using the term in the generic-wikipedia-article-is-just-the-ticket sense? As for #6, it is *not* currently linked to the generic-article-on-Christianity-the-mainstream-view, and MUST NOT be so linked, because clearly Sheldrake is many things, but he is not mainstream-Christian or mainstream-anything-else. p.s. Please grammar-fix: ...who Sheldrake claimed had a dogs mentioned in the book... p.p.s. Why is there no telepathy in the see also section? That seems like a no-brainer. Ideally with a disclaimer that Sheldrake's work is telepathy-like. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please fix the misleading hyperlinks in the Maddox quote; we cannot put words into his mouth, by linking to a generic article on falsifiability. This is correct: ...not testable or " falsifiable in Popper's sense"... Same problem for putting words into Sheldrake's mouth by linking to a generic article in "psychic staring effect", which should be pulled outside the quote-marks (I'd suggest it belongs as a see-also). Danke. p.s. unwieldy is the correct spelling in the Jones quote... does wikipedia insist that we retain spelling mistakes, if they were made in the original quotation, or can we fix that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reformulating the lead

David in DC, I appreciate the bold attempt in formulating this lead, though some issues need to be ironed out first.

Re "mainstream" in your earlier comments, the term "mainstream" plays a key role in the two sections of WP:NPOV relevant here: WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Also, WP:FRINGE is littered with the term (but as I've argued before, FRINGE is often a red herring where the NPOV policy already provides sufficient direction).

First to address some confusions about NPOV reflected generally on the talk page: it's a policy about articles, not about people. Nobody is an NPOV person, and the most disruptive/unconstructive editors have historically been the ones calling themselves NPOV while labeling others non-NPOV and/or taking similar kinds of battleground tactics and/or adopting similar labeling mentalities.

NPOV does not seek a midpoint between the mainstream view and the fringe view, as Annalisa and others have argued. That is a (perhaps common) misunderstanding. Rather, the mainstream view should be clearly described in relationship to the fringe view, without watering down either or shoving them into a blender and drinking the homogenized result.

The quandary in the Sheldrake article is that we run into the difference between mainstream and fringe in the very first sentence. What a person calls himself is hardly ever contested, but in this case it is. Earlier I said describing the "controversy" in the first sentence was infeasible and that we had to choose. On second thought, some variant of the following might possibly work:

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.

This does justice to Sheldrake's own beliefs, as he rejects the idea that he investigates the paranormal or that he is a parapsychologist (despite the fact that even some of his supporters describe him as such). While conflict in the opening sentence is perhaps unprecedented, it is not as bad as I imagined.

We could launch into issues surrounding David's new lead, but before doing so I'd like to see reactions on whether a "hybrid" intro like the above is feasible. vzaak (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur with vzaak's first sentence. It's better than mine.

Concur on reverting my bold edits per WP:BRD.

Hopeful that my reverted edits can be the basis for a resolution. David in DC (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

((reply to Vzaak -- moved down here per WP:TALK etiquette guidelines)) he doesn't 'describe himself as a biologist he IS a biologist!! Veryscarymary (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like vzaak (talk · contribs)'s sentence, so I'd go with:

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. [and then into a sentence on his academic career, and then into a sentence on what he's been doing since 1981.]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

At first was first skeptical of this idea, but in context it looks OK because the very next thing is biochemist etc:

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...

This is another way to sidestep the peculiar and possibly unique situation. Sheldrake does what he does, and attempting to label it as such-and-such may not be the best route. I could go either way: either a "hybrid" clause or omission per above. vzaak (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Isaac's suggestion above of using "researcher" may work, too.

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...

Or "researcher on science-related issues", but that seems somewhat confusing, as it could mean researching the history of science, etc. vzaak (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

((reply to Barney -- moved down here per WP:TALK etiquette guidelines)) You can't have 'author' as his job title, that's not how he made the controversy anyway, or how he got to where he is now, it's from the scientific work he did, WHEN HE WAS Working as a scientist!! Veryscarymary (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake (1942+) is an English biochemist, author and lecturer on science-related issues (specify not editorialize) phytomorphology, physics, parapsychology, philosophy, and spirituality who has published N books since 1981; he describes himself as a biologist (*this* is the sceptic POV... *he* describes himself as a psychical researcher) Sheldrake describes his research (as distinct from his Anglican spirituality or his philosophy concepts) as involving only natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists((specify rather than WP:EDITORIALIZING)) have described him as a "former biochemist", parapsychologist(3 cites), offensive...heretic(Maddox), bizarre...speculative(Sokal), whereas journalists call him a biologist(fifteen cites) due to his UCambridge PhD and his many fellowships. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Side question -- is the sheldrake phd from clare college, or from uCambridge, or both? Nobody says they have a phd from radcliffe, that I've seen,(WP:OR) do people really say they have a phd from clare? (heh... back in the 2007/2008 edit-wars over Sheldrake, he and a bunch of others were editorialized out of the 'famous and notable alumni' section of the wikipedia article about Clare.[45] Sigh.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If we used it, it would be more correct to say that Shelrake had a Ph.D from Cambridge University (which people have heard of). The college is a detail for the main article. --Iantresman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

((reply to 74 -- moved down here per WP:TALK etiquette guidelines)) He's NOT a biochemist!! Veryscarymary (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, his PhD was in biochemistry, and he had that job-title for several years... it just means, a biologist who specializes on the end of biology near chemistry, in Sheldrake's case. I'm not particularly tied to the term, and most sources use biologist, and I'm in favor of mirroring what the souces say. p.s. Too! Many! ((exclamation marks)) ((stay calm and keep the focus sharp)) HTH.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Current article, sans expanded-acronym. "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942)[2] is an English author, lecturer and parapsychologist.[3][4][5] From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which he was principal plant physiologist at ICRISAT until 1978.[6] Since then, his work has largely centred on what he calls 'morphic resonance'...." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the sentence that David recently tried out, for ease of comparison. "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942)[2] is an English author and lecturer who holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Clare College, Cambridge for his work in plant development and plant hormones.[3] His more recent work has largely centred on what he calls 'morphic resonance'...." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is still incorrect to call Mr Sheldrake 'an author'. I'm an author and I don't have a wikipedia page and people arguing about my credentials and qualifications. He is an author AFTER he got his credentials. And while we're on the subject. IF having qualifications, and degrees are so important, then why are they missed off this article? If having a degree is such a wonderful thing, and I expect a few editors on this page are working for or have one, why would they get it dropped off their wikipedia page just because some 'person' decides they don't like what they're doing with their qualifications. For-the-record, even though some people have disagreed that researching being started at, or dogs and cats knowing you're coming home might not be 'standard science' it was still conducted in a scientific manner....but I'm not here to argue the case about further down the page. I'm here for one reason only (then I can get on with book 15) to have a more correct lead to this article. To have Mr Sheldrake's qualification, and job title recognised and correctly displayed, where it should be, on his wikipedia page. It seems so simple!! Why is there so much argument and nitty picking about it????? i'll send you back to Goldacre's page above, name, date of birth (or not as in his case) qualification, job title.....then all the other stuff. The stats you have above relate to the quantity of WORDS (ie data-space) for each contributor, and I seem to have written quite a few words already..... If we can't agree on something as simple as this 20 word intro, then wikipedia isn't an 'open source' it's a closed shop:( Veryscarymary (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

the above proposal violates WP:VALID in giving the misleading impressions of his work and standing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

and Wikipedia is NOT "open source" if that means that anyone can write anything. It is an encyclopedia that has a number of policies and guidelines that restrict and determine what information is presented and how it is presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that the *second* half of WP:VALID is applicable, to whether we call Sheldrake a biologist, or call him a parapsychologist? But that is conflating how we describe his *work* with how we describe *him*. Here is the second half of WP:VALID which is a subset of WP:UNDUE.

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or 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."

It is not a conspiracy theory that Sheldrake has a PhD, and thus is a biologist. It is not pseudoscience that Sheldrake has a PhD, and thus is a biologist. Ditto 'speculative history'. Ditto 'unaccepted theories'. You can apply WP:VALID to the description of morphic fields and morphogenetics, but not to well-sourced facts. Sheldrake's job title should not say "renowned author" like his facebook page, but just because we disagree with his theories does not mean we put "alleged author" or maybe "scribbler" into wikipedia as one of his job-titles. Sheldrake is a biologist/biochemist, and an author/lecturer. We have reliable sources also calling him a parapsychologist, and methinks those are important to include right up front, so that we don't ignore the elephant in the room, as Guy puts it. But we cannot "take a stand" on what Sheldrake's title is; we mirror the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID does not apply here. (1) We are writing a biographical page which refers to minority views where WP:DUE is applicable. (2) it is no-one's "viewpoint" that Sheldrake has a Ph.D. doctorate from Cambridge University, but an indisputable fact that is as valid today, as it was when he received his doctorate. Unless you are referring to another statement, in which case, please be more specific. --Iantresman (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

where exactly do you see the exemption in WP:VALID that it does not apply to articles about living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

it is inferred. WP:VALID applies to general articles on mainstream scholarship. It would not be appropriate in an article on, for example, Political party to includes details of the Nazi Party, Monster Raving Loony Party or Australian Sex Party, because they are either unacceptable, minority, legitimate, or nonsense, and we wouldn't want to give any of them undue weight, publicity, legitimacy, or veracity. But it doesn't stop us from having a detailed article on each one, that doesn't violate WP:NPOV per WP:DUE. --Iantresman (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:VALID as part of the POLICY WP:NPOV applies to ALL pages. You dont get to pick and choose which articles policies apply to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There are *two* parts to the WP:VALID policy, which is a subset of WP:UNDUE. The first part of WP:VALID does not apply to the Sheldrake article; as Iantresman says, it is talking about whether or not to mention morphogenetic fields in the biology article, not about whether to mention Sheldrake's work in the *Sheldrake* article. And obviously, the first part of WP:VALID has nothing whatever to do with whether wikipedia calls Sheldrake a biologist, or a parapsychologist. "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic (('political party')), Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view (('post-WWII Nazi party')) or extraordinary claim (('Monster Raving Loony Party')) needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship ((about political parties in general... in the political party article))." The 2nd part of WP:VALID *does* apply here in this BLP, see above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Whatever Sheldrake may have done in the past, these days he's mainly known for pseudoscience. It's completely fair to note that he relies on his former career for credibility, but also it would be a failure of NPOV to ignore the elephant in the room. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being dense, User:JzG, but which formulation or formulations seem fair to you. I ask because your note comes directly below one of TRPoD's cries de coeur, and I want to be sure which formulation or formulations you're referring to. Again, I apologize if I'm asking you to restate something that should be obvious. David in DC (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest numbering them, which we could do manually, or prolly better, relying on the automatic 'datestamping' of comments as a point-of-reference. The 07:59 by Vzaak, the 15:02 by 74, the 14:41 by Barney, the 20:05 by Vzaak, and so on. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Sheldrake is most well-know for his books and theories, of which a small number of people have voiced their opinion that they think it is pseudoscience, supported by a small number of sources. --Iantresman (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. The morphic stuff is clearly and widely regarded as pseudoscience by people with credentials similar to Sheldrakes; the only supporters of morphic stuff are apparently him and those in his inner circle. His experiments with animals, etc. are in the realm of parapsychology, which, though some call it fringe, some do not. His criticisms of science are answered mildly (compared to morphic) by his qualified critics. Lou Sander (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman, Lou, try and stay on the first sentence or two of the lead. Sheldrake is mostly Notable for his books, which is why he's in wikipedia. His scientist-credentials explain why his books took off, and the appeal-slash-infamy of his ideas explain another aspect of why. But be specific: what should the first sentence (or two) actually say? Do we *need* the philosophy-of-science stuff, in the first couple sentences? They're important to the story, but I think they belong in the fourth paragraph of the intro, not the first couple of sentences, which should say author + telepathyLike + biochemist, or somesuch. What, exactly? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: Sheldrake is a biologist with a Ph.D from Cambridge university, who is notable for his books based on his research in the fields of parapsychology and the philosophy of science. --Iantresman (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD v1:

• Sheldrake is an author an lecturer who received a Ph.D in biology from Cambridge university, who writes and speaks on his research in the fields of parapsychology (including telepathy and what he calls "morphic fields") and the philosophy of science.

i dont care much for the two "who"s but heres my toss into the ring.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sticking to the first sentence (often called a "topic sentence"):

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer, best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance, his experiments in parapsychology, and his challenges to core beliefs of contemporary science.

or alternatively:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a controversial English author and lecturer, best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance, his experiments in parapsychology, and his challenges to core beliefs of contemporary science. Lou Sander (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English biochemist, author and lecturer. He is best known for proposing the hypothesis of morphic resonance, which claims that "memory is inherent in nature" and 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". His ideas were developed from his doctorate and subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University.

Sheldrake has also conducted experiments in parapsychology and has attracted notoriety for challenging some of the core beliefs of contemporary science, arguing that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. His critics claim that his books and public appearances attract popular attention but have a negative impact on the public's understanding of science. Sheldrake's work is regarded as controversial, and although he claims his experiments support his theories, his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists.

Tento2 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

fails WP:VALID: it presents fringe ideas without any placing them in the context that all mainstream academics view them as total hoo ha. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"All?" I know many that don't. "Hoo hah?" What academics talk like that? "VALID?" The principle doesn't require that every sentence, word, or paragraph presents both sides in context, does it? Lou Sander (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

While it does not mean every sentence must contain the context placement, the LEAD must absolutely be placing the ideas in context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on that TRPoD, because the comment "his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists", makes the point quite adequately. Something is either accepted as being part of science or not - saying that his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists shows that they are not scientific, and so they have been properly placed according to WP:VALID. It is not scientific, or academic, to try to judge something as being "total hoo ha" - something either meets scientific criteria or fails, and trying to hammer the criticism more forcefully then necessary when it does fail, is one of the negative traits of pseudoskepticism, which WP pages must also seek to avoid. If you can suggest a constructive tweak that allows the content to remain objective and free of negative bias, please do Tento2 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

you are presenting the nonacceptance the the mainstream as if it is an offhand by-the-way non-important factor, when in fact it is what needs to be emphasized. WP:VALID.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do it in an "off-hand way", but in a "matter of fact" way. Facts merely need to be stated, not exaggerated. Here is a relevant quote from the link I gave, which shows why we don't need to trash Sheldrake's claims (or imply they are "total hoo ha"). We just need to state that they have not been accepted. That is a powerful comment, and you undermine the weight of it when you try to excuse it, or justify it too much.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Tento2 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"He is best known for proposing the hypothesis of morphic resonance, ..." is a neutral statement. It doesn't give the impression that it is legitimate, credible or true in any way, and nor does it dismiss it. The statement is factual, Sheldrake has made this proposal. Or course it begs the question regarding the veracity of his hypothesis, which we can subsequent discuss with secondary sources. --Iantresman (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

True, that. Lou Sander (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is very close to a first-draft version with much-improved-neutrality. Does anybody object to getting something like this into mainspace, as the first sentence, ASAP? If so please specify what fragment-number you dislike, and your suggested replacement. The ordering is not *that* crucial, and the grammar can be cleaned up uncontroversially. Either of these is a very big improvement over what we have now methinks. We can always come back later, to incrementally improve. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

fragment	Iantresman @ 01:03	TRPoD v1 @ 01:30	differences
0	Sheldrake is	Sheldrake is
1	a biologist	in biology	past-vs-present-tense
2	with a Ph.D	who received a Ph.D	past-vs-present-tense
3	from Cambridge university,	from Cambridge university,
4	who is notable for his books	an author and lecturer	should say author of N books methinks
5	based on his research	who writes and speaks on his research	close enough?
6	in the fields of parapsychology	in the fields of parapsychology
7		(including telepathy	books 3,4,5
8	(later)...best known for proposing the hypothesis of morphic resonance,...	and what he calls "morphic fields")	books 1,2,etc
9	and the philosophy of science.	and the philosophy of science.	(main gist of book 6)

Don't know whether this is a suitable compromise: "Sheldrake received a Ph.D from Cambridge University in biochemistry. As an author and lecturer, he writes and speaks on his research in the field of parapsychology (notable his hypothesis of "morphic fields" and telepathy in animals), and on the philosophy of science." --Iantresman (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Frag 1 - He is basically a biologist. Scientists and biochemists are something different.
• Frag 2 - Ph.D. isn't needed in the topic sentence, as long as it isn't papered over later.
• Frag 3 - Useful, but not extremely necessary in the topic sentence. Don't paper over, though.
• Frag 4 - Author and lecturer is what he is after a biologist. Maybe a "researcher, author, and lecturer"
• Frag 5 & 6 - It breaks down here. Somebody called him a P, but P's work in labs and he really isn't one.
• Frag 7 & 8 - Morphic needs to be mentioned explicitly.
• Frag 9 - Good. Great, actually, if you can grant that the morphic stuff is also, really, philosophy of science. Lou Sander (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lou, Frag#9 is not the morpho-n-telepathy-like-theories, directly, that is a category-error. The most recent book, science-set-free, is largely concepts from philosophy of science, which means, Kuhnian musing about dogmas, advocating questioning COE w.r.t. dark energy research, and other stuff *way* more generic thinking *about* the process of science in general, far away from Sheldrake's target-specific experimental work designed to detect morpho, or his reasonably target-specific theories laying out morpho, which were the previous books. (There is a large dose of morpho-rehash in the most recent book too, of course.) Contrast with the Sheldrake book about Angels, card-catalogue-subject "spirituality" and thus something mainstream scientists *can* criticize... but they rarely bother... it is outside their field, and better criticized by mainstream theologists&philosophers. Sheldrake's "philosophy-of-science" also *can* be criticized by mainstream scientists, with more weight since it is *about* their field... but is still outside it, and better criticized by mainstream philosophers(-of-science when possible). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. Thanks. On further consideration, I think it's best to talk about challenging basic assumptions, rather than philosophy of science. Clear, direct language is better. Lou Sander (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoping not to draw attention away from the fragments, how about "RS is a Cambridge-trained biologist, author and lecturer, most notable for his ideas on what he calls morphic resonance, his researches into telepathy and related subjects, and his criticisms of many foundations of contemporary science." Now go on to say that his stuff, especially morphic stuff, has been strongly criticized by mainstream scientists (or whatever. It is acceptable to mention the strength, breadth and depth of the criticism, but this must be done non-harshly and in the spirit of BLP) Lou Sander (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I just found this very nice summary of Sheldrake. It is factual and well written and from a third party RS. How about we just paraphrase it to cover Sheldrake's credentials?:

A former research fellow of the Royal Society, Sheldrake studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he earned a PhD in biochemistry and was awarded the university’s botany prize. He was a Frank Knox Fellow studying philosophy at Harvard University and became a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology. From 1974 to 1985 he worked as a plant physiologist in Hyderabad, India, and he lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Father Bede Griffiths, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life. For many years he has been a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco.

I'm not fussed if we cropped it after the Hyderabad bit to stick with credentials - the ashram bit is probably more relevant to his personal life? Not sure - probably happy either way. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I went away for the weekend. We don't seem to be any further with a correct, respectful lead do we? Veryscarymary (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we're finally making progress on a slightly more NPOV lead, though I still argue that it's a little long. Great job, and I look forward to seeing further improvements to make it more concise and cogent. The Cap'n (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoorah! Thank you for adding some important extra words. I notice that these vital quotes from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons need to be kept in mind when editing this page "Pages that are.....negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject..."(otherwise they will be deleted)
...and "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Veryscarymary (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, gratitude to Vzaak. Article neutrality is now greatly improved, and I'm glad to see the NPOV tag go. One thing that was missed in the many rewrites was that our cites for Sheldrake being called a 'scientist[1][2][3]' are actually the three cites which justify calling him a parapsychologist. Suggest we move those three refs over to the infoboxen "occupation:biochemist,parapsychologist[1][2][3]" and put in the cites from VeryScaryMary on the word 'scientist' in the first sentence. p.s. TRPoD is also unhappy with the current consensus-compromise of 'scientist' , but I suggest they open a new talk-page section to discuss their suggested change to 'research in parapsychology' and provide evidence that Sheldrake is *not* a scientist anymore, before changing the article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Snowstorm of drive by edits by Blippy

... has introduced some words that were controversial, and ruled out by this page in the context used by Blippy, like 'theory' and 'hypothesis' - and changed crafted words in controversial sections such that the whole tone of the page has altered. I have made a couple of small changes, and considered reverting to before Blippy arrived. I decided that more experienced heads might like to discuss. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How is the word theory controversial when referring to Sheldrake's theory? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: "The theory of 'morphic resonance posits that..." cheers Blippy (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

...and this: "Sheldrake is scientific – at least in many respects – but his theory is wrong." cheers Blippy (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs), you need to understand that a "scientific theory" is specifically defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." To use the word "theory" in the context of a science-related article implies "scientific theory". Yet, as the numerous references show, Sheldrake's proposals do not meet these criteria. Note that some sources are more sloppy in their use of language than we are - we are trying our best to use as accurate language as possible. I hope that helps. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Barney, Barney, Barney. What you need to understand is that this is Wikipedia. We don't do WP:ORIG on what certain definitions are and pass judgement on whether they apply to other people's work. We just report what others say. I've provided three lovely refs above that demonstrate that Sheldrake's theory is referred to as a theory. What we think is irrelevant. All we have to do is try to maintain NPOV and report relevant information in the best prose we can manage. We don't have to save the world :-) Let's not get all Orwellian. Incidentally, this is not a science article. It a biography. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney is correct, we have to use terms with care, both because this is WP:BLP, and also because -- very unfortunately in my view since it directly leads to misunderstandings like this one -- this very article *is* the only article for Sheldrake's theories/hypotheses/concepts/ideas/metatheorizing, the former page-split was deleted-n-merged, and more than one person here is adamantly opposed to separation of the BLP concerns from the science-versus-pseudoscience concerns. You are also correct, Blippy, that we must not WP:EDITORIALIZE and should stick firmly to sources... but Barney's definition of theory is WP:The Truth, and also just flat out the truth, and wikipedia ought to reflect the truth. What are the specific sentences under discussion? Then we can see what the sources say *about* that specific facet. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Blippy, welcome to our cozy talkpage. The answer to your question is... sorry, that question -- as phrased -- is unanswerable, because your term 'theory' means singular/solo/once. Sheldrake is, fortunately or unfortunately, *extremely* broad as an author. There are at least six vastly separated facets to Sheldrake's work.

1. He has a theory of phytomorphology (morphogenetic fields), in his home field of biology/biochemistry
2. he has a hypothesis-which-is-outside-his-credentials of quantum physics ... no math model means *not* a theory yet ... which is the generic morphic field (a subset of the morphic field theory underlies the phytomorphology).
3. he also has a too-controversial-to-dub-a-hypothesis ideas concerning telepathy-like stuff, in sports teams, in the behavior of pets, in the psychic staring effect, and so on. (Our prose should mirror what reliable sources say, rather than pick the term we editors personally prefer.)
4. he has a philosophy-of-mind concept of consciousness -- some would say theory but many (including me) would only ever say concept -- as embedded *in* things rather than an emergent epiphenomenon,
5. He also has some ideas-slash-concepts related to spirituality, which are definitely not theory-and-hypothesis territory
6. He also has some ideas-slash-concepts related to philosophy of science, which are definitely not theory-and-hypothesis territory, but rather metatheorizing and metahypothesizing

Please specify which specific sentences in the article you are most concerned with, and which of the six areas they fall into. Plus, use the talkpage, please. We have enough trouble without edit-wars in mainspace. Come on in, sit down and chat awhile, why don't you? But unfortunately, this article cannot be put to rights with a few quick fixes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 74...101!! Yes, I see there's lots of work to be done :-) I do hope it's more cozy than crazy! In answer to your hexpartate approach to Sheldrake, I reiterate that this isn't that complicated. I've provided three RS that refer to his morphic resonance theory as, well, a theory! I think that more than clears the issue up. Should we move to the following section to discuss specific word smithing? My suggested change is already there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You can just call me 74, please; section-selection is up to you. We should keep the article as simple as possible, but no simpler.  :-)   And yes, I think you are correct with your sources, but morphic resonance is #1 and #2, with some parts edging into #3, and there are definitely some conflicting sources that will either refuse to call it a scientific theory there, or call it a psuedoscientific theory. We should mirror the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So we agree? The sources refer to it as a theory, so we mirror the sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not cleared up at all. As 74 has shown you, there is a difference between theory and theory. You should try to understand this, and you will see that your three sources don't mean what you think they mean. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ORIG is pretty clear. It isn't for us to split hairs about whether something is a theory or not. RS's refer to morphic resonance as a theory. That's it. Game over. Why are you quibbling over such a basic WP practice??? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree we should mirror the sources. Agree that probably most sources call morphic resonance a theory (of biology or of physics or of some branch of science). However, methinks that folks will step forward with mainstream sources that call morphic resonance a psuedoscience, which means we wikipedians cannot call it simply 'theory' because that would risk misleading the readers. We have to mirror the sources, and describe any in-the-sources-conflict we may run across, rather than pick winners-n-losers among the sources. But my main point here is, morphic resonance is not the only thing that Sheldrake has written about. We cannot use 'theory' here there and everywhere, to describe everything Sheldrake has ever done, because some of his writing is philosophy, or politics-of-science, like the Science Set Free book for instance. *Those* things are not theories, either in sources or in common parlance, so we should not describe them as such. Which means, for me to know whether I agree with the wording-changes you are suggesting, I need to know which sentences you are changing, specifically. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, this is becoming absolutely ridiculous.

When I was in school (for biology) we were taught that a theory was a hypothesis that had survived rigorous scientific testing, and that a hypothesis was an educated guess. However, “educated guess” is not intended to mean “a guess by a person with a formal education” and it certainly isn’t supposed to refer to Sheldrake’s wild bullshitting. An educated guess is supposed to be a proposed explanation for a phenomenon which is based on, and viable within, a framework of established scientific evidence. When the man on the street uses the expressions “theory” or “hypothesis” he often uses them in a far more liberal sense then they are used in biology. To refer to Sheldrake’s fanciful notions as hypotheses or theories inaccurately reflects their standing within biology, and therefore it misleads the reader. It does not matter if a source refers to Sheldrake’s inane ranting as a theory or a hypothesis because we are to reflect Sheldrake in relationship to the mainstream per WP:VALID. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well 76...90, at least we agree on something! You are correct - this is absolutely ridiculous! Since when do people reject Scientific American and The Guardian as RS's? Perhaps you might revisit your school notes and find the section about how to edit a WP article  :-) Unfortunately you are mistaking this article for a high school essay. Nobody cares what you or I think. If you disagree with Sheldrake then by all means dust off your PhD in biology and prove him wrong, like others have attempted/done. That isn't the purpose of WP. We are simply here to provide a NEUTRAL set of ACCURATE information gleaned from RELIABLE SOURCES. Your half remembered definitions from school are simply not needed. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am obviously not proposing that we use my stated definition of hypothesis within the article Blippy. I am stating that the biological usage of hypothesis is at odds with the common usage of hypothesis. Unless you have WP:RS which show that Sheldrake’s hogwash is regarded as a legitimate biological hypothesis then WP:BURDEN disallows you from presenting it as such. If you are seriously suggesting that an article from Scientific American allows you to present Sheldrake’s ideas as a biological hypothesis then I suggest that you take your case to WP:RSN where you can ask them if your source supports your proposed edits. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I don’t have to “prove him wrong”, Sheldrake must prove himself right. If you don’t understand that basic fact of modern biology then your WP:COMPETENCE to edit this article is highly suspect. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh 76...90 you really are on a mission! Sadly not one compatible with editing this article. Don't confuse your personal views with presenting a balance, accurate, well researched, and well written WP article. Your so called "biological usage of hypothesis" is utterly irrelevant. We use WP:RS's to determine how to write about things on WP, and if you look at the RS's I provided above (Scientific American/The Gaurdian) you will find that they refer to MR as a theory. That is the threshold required for WP - no RSN necessary, these are RS. Where are your WP:RS that shows Sheldrake does not satisfy your "biological usage of hypothesis" hypothesis?? As for your assertion that Sheldrake has to prove himself right, well obviously. Presumably that's what he's trying to do, isn't it? However, you apparently have incontrovertible proof that it is all "hogwash", maybe you should send him your proof so he can retire in peace? Or is everything hogwash until it's proven? I wonder how science is to progress further then... oh well, no matter, we've got you to tell us what's true and what isn't. Thank goodness!!  ;-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) - I was kind enough to explain to you above why we don't use the word theory. You then preceded to be rude to me, and then tried to give your own view, completely ignoring what I'd just told you. Others then broadly agreed with me, even 74, who somehow managed to contain his verbiage to a few lines. Again when related to this article, this is a basic issue of understanding the stages in the scientific process. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

BBB, you were kind enough to explain things to me, yes, and I am grateful. However what you appear to have missed is that your explanation does not justify your actions. What you also have missed is my request for you to provide your WP:RS's that warrant this singularly bizarre take on the word theory. 74 has had the good grace to bow out of what is increasingly obviously an untenable position. What RS's are you basing your position on? How do these override the RS's I have provided (Scientific American/The Guardian)? Last, what you also are missing is that this is a basic issue of understanding the stages of editing WP. This article isn't about you or your interpretation of the philosophy of science. It's about Sheldrake and what WP:RS's have to say about him. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is that fear I smell Blippy? You seem strangely averse to running your sources by WP:RSN, almost as if you lacked confidence in their ability to support what you want them to support. You also seem to lack confidence in your ability to have an honest argument, as you keep on utilizing fallacies, and doing it quite poorly. I could refer you to nearly any college level general biology textbook (the kind that new bio majors use in their first courses), where you will see quite clearly that “theory”, and “hypothesis” have specific meanings within biology which are at odds with the everyday usage of the expressions. And, once again, I don’t need “incontrovertible proof that it is all hogwash”. Sheldrake needs to prove his claims. I don’t know why the whole “burden of proof” thing is giving you such trouble. It’s really not such a difficult concept to grasp. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling that what you are smelling has something to do with where your head seems to be lodged ;-) If you are suggesting that Scientific American and The Guardian are not WP:RS for a biography then I think you should be the one fearing WP:RSN. I would ask you to point out my poor fallacies, but I'm not sure you can distinguish them from good ones. This revolves around a very simple matter. To refer to MR as a theory or not. Bring forth all the biological text books you can find which talk about how MR is not to be referred to as a theory and I will gladly concede. At the moment all you are pandering is rather poor WP:OR. As for the burden of proof twaddle, well, as I said, fortunately there are certain savants amongst us who know a priori whether theories are true or not, and whether they are worthy of investigation or not. You should offer your services to research funding bodies everywhere and save hapless tax payers an awful lot of money in funding hogwash - unless they're trying to clean pigs more efficiently of course!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, do not alter another editors contributions to this talk page.

Your seem to be misrepresenting Wikipedia’s policy on WP:RS. Scientific American, while a reliable source for many things, does not (to my knowledge) have the power to declare that Sheldrake’s idiocy constitutes a legitimate biological theory. To be a WP:RS a source must have the authority the support what it’s saying.

I’ve already told you which textbooks to examine. It’s not my job to mail one to you. Furthermore it’s not my burden to show that you’re wrong, it is your burden to show that Sheldrake’s notions are theories, as you are the one arguing that they need to be described as such. If you’re so overwhelming confident in your sources then please take them to WP:RSN.

I don’t know what the hell you think precognitive savants have to do with the burden of proof. It sounds to me like all the Sheldrake you’ve been reading has rotted your brain. Even a simpleton is capable of understanding such remedial concepts as “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and “biology has its own definition of theory” yet you remain ineducable. Remember, WP:COMPETENCE is required, lest you be accused of being a WP:RANDY 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

76...90 I'm finding it harder to understand you, and I don't know if it's because I'm incorrigible, you're making less sense, or because your voice is getting even more muffled!! Not wanting to waste too much time on your claims, but which RS decides which other RS's have authority to say what they're saying? And where is your RS for such an infinitely regressive notion?  ;-) You haven't told me which text book to examine - you might just as well have said look in a book!! If you are making a claim, by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you. Where are the refs? I have provided WP:RS's for MR being described as a theory. Where are your WP:RS's? Oh, and in case you didn't know, your old memories of school aren't WP:RS. My savant quip was simply poking a bit of fun at your absolute certainty that MR is hogwash and idiocy. And so, as an olive branch to stop this degenerating further, I readily concede that it may well be hogwash etc. But surely you agree that this article isn't supposed to be ideological? That we should simply report what others have said, not what we think? I know for one that I'm not qualified to judge whether it's bunk or not. That's why I'm editing WP instead of out there attempting to falsify his claims. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You talk much, but I’ve noticed that you still haven’t gone to WP:RSN. Why is that? Are you not feeling well? Have you come down with apprehension related jaundice? Has it rendered you….yellow?

Assuredly someone with such reliable sources as yours wouldn’t fear the WP:RSN. No, that would be impossible for you to be stricken with cowardice when the WP:RSN poses absolutely no danger to you and your agenda. Why, I’m sure that the folks over at the WP:RSN will gawk in awe at the overwhelming reliability of your sources.

And yet, you still procrastinate. It make one wonder if you haven’t, perhaps, gone chicken. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll take back my olive branch and wait until you have something sensible to say. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What’s that? I can’t hear you.

All I could hear was: “bock bock bock bock!”

Perhaps you should try speaking braver? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You do know what these Talk pages are for, right? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, if you’re not going to take your case to WP:RSN the you clearly don’t respect the process here. You’ve been told multiple times that the word theory has different meanings in different contexts and if you won’t respect consensus then you’re going to have to go to WP:RSN to prove your case. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

76, stop making personal attacks, follow pillar four please. Coooooool dowwwwnnnnn. There is no need for noticeboards. Blippy does have a reliable source, and if we editors here agree on what the source says (which at the moment we do not), plus on WP:UNDUE and on WP:FRINGE and on WP:BLP considerations, then we can get that reliably-sourced statement into the mainspace. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling Sheldrakes Resonance concept an Hypothesis? It was odd seeing it referred to as theory but also not an hypothesis. I agree calling it a theory may give undue weight to it's status in the Scientific Community, but calling it properly an Hypothesis not only is accurate but seems like a compromise. I don't think Sheldrakes concepts of 'extended mind' would be either hypothesis or theory, it's a concept in Philosophy so neither should apply. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

been there and done that Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

New Science of Life expression

Hi, I adjusted this:

Morphic resonance is discredited by numerous critics on many grounds. These grounds include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis[22][23][24][25] and the inconsistency of the hypothesis with establishedscientific theories.[16][26] Morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility for being overly vague[17][18] and unfalsifiable.[17][24] Further, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias,[26][43][44] and his analyses of results have also drawn criticism.[18][45]

to this:

The morphic resonance theory has been criticised for lacking evidence [22][23][24][25] and being incompatible with established scientific theories.[16][26] Morphic resonance has also been described as being overly vague[17][18] and unfalsifiable.[17][24] Further, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been characterised by some as being poorly designed, subject to experimenter bias,[26][43][44] and flawed analyses of results.[18][45]

I suggest that the changes improve the flow and expression of this short paragraph. I'm not sure what is controversial here, but very happy to discuss.

cheers,

Blippy (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

see WP:VALID and WP:WEASEL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I see them. Now what?  ;-) Blippy (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

See the section above this one. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather just discuss it here given the versions are available for comment. You'll notice that I've tackled the use of the word "theory" comprehensively above, so I don't see that as being a problem. I'm really happy to improve my version further - I really think we should be aiming for clarity of expression. Suggestions? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion, if it hasn't already been done by somebody, is that you revert the change yourself. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was more after editing suggestions RtD! You may be shocked to know my changes were reverted within minutes!!! Anyway, let's get a bit specific here. I think we first need to be clear about the theory nonsense. It is pointless to argue about whether MR is a theory or not, the RS's deal with that issue - unless you are suggesting that Scientific American, The Guardian etc. aren't RS. Are you? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand why your changes in this regard were reverted? Unless you do, there is no point in any further discussion. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain it to me. Please make sure you explain how my use of the word theory is incompatible with the RS's I cited. Thanks RtD. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_concept -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see an explanation of the reverts. I've been assuming it was nothing more than a bad case of WP:OWN. Lou Sander (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TRiPoD, that was useful. I didn't see any reference to RS's except for one: "we do not discount the sources that talk about the subject that have been published in actual reliable peer reviewed journals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom11:15 am, 13 October 2013, Sunday (21 days ago) (UTC+11)" This is exactly my argument. I have provided numerous RS's that refer to morphic resonance as a theory. What more is there to say??? We don't discount the reliable sources that talk about the subject at WP. No amount of interpretation and WP:ORIG changes that. 74 agreed above, do you? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's my own take: "Numerous critics on many grounds" is accurate and polite. It is followed by many citations, eliminating the weaselness of the "manys". Though sources call morphic resonance many things, it seems best to avoid the word "theory", since it maybe gives MR more scientific credibility than it deserves. The same is so for "hypothesis", though to a lesser extent. Best is to call it an "idea" or "notion" or similar. Lou Sander (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

more or less. But you already knew this - you've been on this page long enough - so why the sarcastic WP:OWN in your comment above? (No rush to answer, I've already wasted half of today on this nonsense) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Numerous...on...many sounds pretty clumsy to my ear - and contains 'many' in any case! "The morphic resonance theory has been criticised for lacking evidence [22][23][24][25] and being incompatible with established scientific theories.[16][26]" seems to take care of both of these problems and turns two clunky sentences into one smoother sentence whilst preserving the refs and meaning. I realise this may sound like I'm being precious, but I really am just after a better flow here. As for the worry about scientific credibility, that is not our problem. All we need to do is mirror the RS's. They use "theory" so it isn't for us to do otherwise. Aren't RS's the touch stone here of what we should do?? Not to mention that the original paragraph already uses "hypothesis" (...and the inconsistency of the hypothesis with established scientific theories.)!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Roxy the dog: I'm just trying to explain things to Blippy, without referring him elsewhere or telling him he should already know the answer to his question. It's too bad that you regard a simple mention of WP:OWN as sarcasm. I regard WP:OWN as a big problem with the article. Sarcasm is a big problem on the talk page, of course. Lou Sander (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy: I hear you, and am sympathetic. I disagree with your subjective evaluation of flow, clunkiness, etc. I also disagree that we must just blindly use the wording of sources. In the case of morphic resonance, many sources call it many different things. Skillful editors can look at all of them and come up with appropriate wording for the article. Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this Lou. However, skilful editors do not make stuff up, they use the sources, and write well. None of those things are happening in this teeny tiny paragraph. You seem to have a higher threshold for poor expression than I do, that's something I'll need to keep persuading you on - not least because of the self-contradiction inherent in your position (as I've pointed out already). As for the theory stuff, I confess to being a bit shocked that this is such a contentious issue here!! This isn't a case of blindly using wording from a source, it's a case of blatant disregard for WP policy. If you are suggesting the use of "theory" is inappropriate then you need to provide the RS's. Where are they? So far I've just heard some nonsense about "some people" and "some sites". That does not trump Scientific American or The Guardian on WP. Let's be a bit intellectually honest here and not accept such a shabby level of editing. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

More exposure of the article

There may be another influx of users here. Sheldrake recently appeared on BBC World Service talking about Wikipedia[46]. I haven't heard the interview yet, but judging by the blurb it looks similar to his previous comments. The leader of "Guerrilla Skeptics" has said the group has nothing to do with the Sheldrake article on Wikipedia, but that is evident from the article history anyway.[47] vzaak (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake was on the BBC World Service's programme, "World Update" with Dan Damon, on 1 Nov 2013. Brits can catchup via iPlayer until 7 Nov.[48] The segment begins at 8:02 and ends at 12:58. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see a former scientist go down the road of the world being a conspiracy to suppress the wonderful ideas about which he's unable to persuade anybody who is not batshit crazy. Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by your tone. "Former scientist", "conspiracy", "crazy". I think however, we should (as usual) refer to independent sources about what some academics says about scientists "on the fringe"? I am not claiming that any of these people, or scientists mentioned are correct, only that some people have questioned their treatment. See for example:

• Dr Lena Eriksson, "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) [49][50]
• Michael J. Mahoney, "Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system", (1977)
• Sophie Petit-Zeman, "Trial by peers comes up short" (2003)
• Juan Miguel Campanario, "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates"
• Brian Martin, on scientific dissent
• Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin, "Challenging dominant physics paradigms" (2004)

--Iantresman (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All very interesting but none of it actually mentions Sheldrake. Our duty is to document that Sheldrake's ideas are rejected by the scientific community, which I don't think even you are disputing. Science is imperfect but history shows it usually ends up going in the right direction. If Sheldrake is right, the evidence for his case will build and eventually he will be vindicated. If he is wrong, which is what most of his peers seem to believe, then this won't happen. What has happened since 1981 is that evidence for Sheldrake's ideas are if anything less than they were, since knowledge based on orthodox scientific theories has advanced a great deal, particularly in genetics and developmental biology, while "tests" for Sheldrake's ideas, as far as they are possible, are at best and at worst negative. This from a sociological perspective doesn't look good, as far as future trends tend to follow the line of past precedents. The criticisms have been fairly extensive, and do tend to focus down on particular issues, such as vagueness, testability, falsifiability. I'm not aware of any criticism that he's a fraud (which is pretty common for those claiming positive results in parasychology). More of the subtle ad hominem attacks I've left out - there is at least one questioning his mental health, and at least one other claiming that he's an idiot. Sheldrake does genuinely seem to believe that science owes him one, and he's not being recognise due to a conspiracy surrounding science funding, and the dogmatic beliefs of scientists. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I utterly dispute that some scientists represents what you call the "scientific community". It is a complete nonsense to give them impression that the "scientific community" has decided the issue. That there are scientists that reject Sheldrake's work, there is no dispute. That there are also scientists who are sympathetic to his work, should also be of no dispute. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that any of these people lend any credibility or veracity whatsoever to Sheldrake's work, and if they do so, then it is their opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs), you need to understand the sociology of science, because any reasonable sociological analysis isn't good for Sheldrake. The aim for any scientist with any idea is to convince his peers that it is correct. The way you do that to start with is by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, which are read by your colleagues, who then build upon your work with their own. The result ultimately is scientific consensus. Now, if you want a proper sociological analysis of what the scientific community thinks, you have to look at two key things: (1) what Sheldrake is publishing - and (2) who is citing him, who is following up on his work? With regard to (1) the answer is not much. Not many papers, and those that are in fringey journals. But let's have a look at the second point in particular - it seems that some scientists, most notably Brian Josephson, have some sympathy for Sheldrake and his work. But are they doing experiments to test morphic resonance? We can look at the PubMed results and please show me them if the answer isn't no. Josephson might create some noise in the press on the basis of what he did earlier in his career, but if he's really convinced, he'd testing dogs and crystals and all sorts of things and getting consistent results from experiments and publishing them. It is really quite disappointing that an editor of a science related article is not basically familiar with the process by which new ideas are proven and accepted by the scientific community.

Science is basically an active process - you do the experiments or you're not doing science. You publish the experiments properly, or you're not doing science. Your peers accept this and start doing similar themselves, or you're not doing science.

Sheldrake has had since 1981 - that's 30+ years in which our understanding of many issues in "orthodox science" has advanced tremendously. On current form, he's not making the team. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand the sociology of science, but it's very sweet of you to be concerned. I have never claimed, suggested, or even hinted that I think, or anybody else thinks, that Sheldrake's work is correct. But just because a scientists doesn't prove his hypothesis in a year, five years, or even a century, doesn't make it any less right or wrong, and certainly doesn't mean that "mainstream science" defaults to being correct. I've seen comments such as the one from Maddox in Nature, but this is an opinion piece, there is not one shred of science in it, or even attempt at analysing Sheldrake's work to highlight errors. But I'm happy to include Maddox's opinion, or at a stretch Robert Todd Carroll's opinion on his blog website, but they are not the voice of "mainstream science". I have also never suggested that Brian Josephson has done any science to support Sheldrake's work either, but all these views need to be placed in the appropriate context, and not pretend that they are conclusive. --Iantresman (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs) if you have any understanding, you haven't demonstrated it so far. Maddox, highlights specific problems with both Sheldrake's reasoning that "science - you're doing it wrong", and with Sheldrake's proposed hypothesis. Try reading the source instead of focusing on the journalistic device in its title. I'm not sure if you meant to acknowledge that Sheldrake hasn't proven his hypothesis (for you this would be rather insightful). The timeline however that Wikipedia relies on is that you get your ideas accepted before they can be added to the wiki as fact or the majority viewpoint. If you fail to show your idea in 30 years of research, the assumption is made that you are barking up the wrong tree. Maddox's opinion is widely shared by amongst others - it is a simple application of scientific scpeticism which is inherent part of the scientific process. Amongst others, Lewis Wolpert, Adam Rutherford, Steven Rose, David E. H. Jones, Susan Blackmore, David Leader, Richard Wiseman, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, share broadly similar views. The current editors of Nature do as well, as do the editors of New Scientist. These people are the voice of mainstream science, they have the academic positions to go with it. Those include but are not limited to professorships, Fellowships of the Royal Society, and impressive publication records. Moreoever, as I have just said, we can infer the views of the rest of the scientific community by looking at citation counts - who is working on morphic resonance, and coming to similar conclusions? This isn't science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No one is suggestion we describe Sheldrake;s work "as fact or the majority viewpoint", this would be misleading. 30 years of research have failed to shed any light (no pun intended) on the nature of "dark matter" (we're up to 80 years), but we don't dismiss it as "barking up the wrong tree". The scientists you mention are not the voice of mainstream science, but are voices from mainstream science. It is the difference between writing something as "truth" and writing something a verifiable. The former is a POV, the latter is NPOV style that recognises that POV. --Iantresman (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman (talk · contribs), you've made this comparison between dark matter and morphic resonance before, but let's continue with our sociological analysis, and let's see if your understanding is correct. I used Google Scholar, and searched for "dark matter" and "morphic resonance". In particular, I was looking for theoretical papers or research papers on both of these. Firstly, it's quite clear that "dark matter" is an ongoing area of research. There are 361,000 results in total. They are by many different scientists. The top paper, "The Structure of cold dark matter halos" has 4075 citations, the second "Dark matter substructure within galactic halos" has 1856 cites, the third "Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints", 1963 cites and so on [51]. Many of these are research papers which discuss the nature of the observed measurements as to why physcists think dark matter exists. While it may be that some physicists don't think dark matter exists, there are clearly numerous data that require a theoretical explanation.

Now let's have a look at "morphic resonance". 1,550 results in total - i.e. 0.4% of the number of hits for "dark matter". The top [52] is Sheldrake's "presence of the past", fair enough. It has 590 cites, which is quite a few. Looking down we find Sheldrake, more Sheldrake, even more Sheldrake, then 8. "Morphic resonance, molecular structure, and man: Some metaphysics" by TR Soidla, looks like a philosophy book, cited by 9. 9 - A book "Ancient wisdom and modern science" by "Stanislav Grof" which uncritically accepts Sheldrake's proposal and anecdotal evidence, but doesn't actually test it. More Sheldrake, Sheldrake's 1992 paper with Rose's data, "A quantum explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance", apparently not peer reviewed, "Horse sense and the human heart: What horses can teach us about trust, bonding, creativity and spirituality", a book about spirituality in horses. "Archetypes, synchronicity and the theory of formative causation" - more vague psychology-philosophy. A bit more Sheldrake, then Rose's experimental disproval of a morphic resonance hypothesis.

Now Iantresman (talk · contribs) even with your fantastic ability to creatively interpret sources, is the scientific research programme in morphic resonance really equivalence to the one of dark matter? 0.4% says differently. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the scientific research programme in to dark matter is more extensive than that into morphic resonance. I just disputed that "some" scientists are equivalent to "the scientific community". Clearly they are voices from the scientific community. --Iantresman (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography Suggestion

@VzaaK - thanks for the note in your edit summary. I won't revert your edit, and I'm going to be dropping this page off my watchlist for a while. Sorry, I wish you all well, but in my opinion editors are doing too much talking at each other and not enough listening to each other, refusing to shift their views in any way, not engaging in collaborative efforts to improve the content, and so not finding ways to satisfy all interested parties. Discussions on the talk-page tend to lead nowhere (whilst some editors just edit however they wish in the article and routinely revert the edits of others without good reason or proper explanation), and some contributions are most definitely far too long, and therefore disruptive to the consensus building process. The article page would be improved if you got more interest from non-involved editors, but I think that those who are not aiming to swing an axe here can only do so much before they realise that it's all too much of a time sink. Sorry if I sound critical, but you ought to have noticed that I'm not the first to make this kind of observation or express the desire to "hot foot" out of here.

Before I sign off for a while, I thought I'd leave a note about my reservations on the bibliography. I would normally expect the bibliography at the end of the page to be the list of main sources that were used to compile the article. That was my assumption before Vzaak pointed out that it's actually a list of Sheldrake's books. I think this is very confusing and that the bibliography section should go, and that list of books should be included at the end of the "Books" section (minus the ones that have already been detailed), fronted with a comment along the lines of "Sheldrake's other published works include ..." 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tento2 (talk • contribs)

When sources conflict

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.

---

There have been many new proposals to the lead, but few address the root problem of conflicting sources. I currently see three options:

1. Give more weight on the the most informed, highest quality sources; Nature wins on this front. This is what the article currently does:

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...

vzaak (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you mean by "conflicting sources"? Lou Sander (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the article say he's a parapsychologist, biochemist-turned-parapsychologist, and former biochemist. People have pointed out that we can find sources that say he's a biologist. vzaak (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How have you folks managed to twist yourselves into such pretzels over this stuff?? There are undisputed facts here:

The man was a Research Fellow for the Royal Society. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He has been widely published in peer reviewed journals. He has been mentioned in numerous journals/news articles/TV shows/books etc. He is actively engaged in research into a theory that has/is being actively investigated by others. How about forgetting all the partisan nonsense and stick to simple verifiable facts based on RS's instead of all this quibbling over petty things? If his ideas are crap or genius is not the issue here!!! We are just providing undisputed information in a clear way. The man is notable for his work in science (I understand his original work is still in biology text books). He is also notable for his work in parapsychology. He is arguably notable for his work in the philosophy of science. He IS NOT notable for being English or for being a lecturer. How is this difficult!??!!?!? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of whether Sheldrake is right or wrong, but describes who has said he is right or wrong or other. --Iantresman (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

So let's move past all this theory/idea gibberish and start improving this article. Sheldrake is obviously an important figure - regardless of how wrong/right he is/isn't - so it is incumbent on us to provide a fair, accurate, well written biography. We're not here to WP:RGW or push some WP:FRINGE theory or protect unsuspecting dupes from inadvertently being persuaded to join some cult. It's just an encyclopaedia providing disinterested information. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:00, 3 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.

NPOV tag yet again

I had explained the NPOV tag earlier. Arguments must involve sources. There was one argument about sources for the biologist title, which is addressed in the section immediately above this one. The article is well-sourced, including the lead, and I would like to see the instructions for the NPOV tag being followed. The tag isn't used to indicate "controversy" or "I disagree". Debate will still continue, of course, as it always does for controversial subjects, but this doesn't appear to be something that rises to the requirements of the NPOV tag. vzaak (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it said that arguments must involve sources? Lou Sander (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the instructions, "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." vzaak (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the template is badly worded and is misleading. The "neutral POV" is not a point of view, and nor does it represent a single point of view that can be determined. The neutral POV is a writing style which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", per WP:NPOV.

The neutral point of view is not the scientific point of view, although it might be the most significant and important, in which case we say so. Other points of view are also described without giving the impression that they have any more veracity, legitimacy or credibility than accepted. --Iantresman (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't in good conscience allow the NPOV tag to be removed yet. The more I've been involved here the more I'm amazed at the depth of NPOV violation and breaching of basic WP principles. Many editors are openly hostile to Sheldrake and actively allowing that bias to be reflected in this article. It would be helpful if editors could adopt a more professional approach, put aside their pet loves/hates and focus on RS's and good writing. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag needs to be justified with examples of what the problem is claimed to be, with reasoning backed by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the problems so far: unwilling to describe the morphic resonance theory as a theory despite RS's that do so, and none mentioned so far that justify this approach; Diminution of Sheldrake's credentials e.g. unwilling to use the correct title of Research Fellow of the Royal Society and having English and lecturer in the first sentence with no mention of biochemist/biologist all despite numerous RS's that do so; Inclusion of implied defamatory content that does not explicitly name Sheldrake; Inclusion of WP:OR Sokal 'interaction', whilst rejecting the WP:RS and notable encounter with Dawkins. I think these are sufficient grounds to reinstate the tag while we try to work through them since the article as it stands provides a non-NPOV account of Sheldrake. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) - the issues you rasie have been dealt with. It's not a theory. Secondly, we must be careful not to conflate a research grant with Fellowship of the Royal Society, recognition which Sheldrake has simply not received. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well BBB, perhaps you would like to inform Scientific American and The Guardian that they are wrong. And perhaps you might like to change the fundamental principle of WP that uses RS's to back up what is written? Or maybe you could simply provide your extensive list of WP:RS that are of sufficient WP:WEIGHT as to override how Scientific American and The Guardian have deemed to describe MR? On your second point, any conflation - if it exists - is in the RS, and what WE must be careful to do is to mirror the RS, not invent reasons to circumvent them. If the RS's are confused, once again bring forth your WP:RS's that make this clear. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, please read the instructions, as asked in the beginning of this section. The instructions say: Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.. Yet you added the template with the comment: we should warn readers much is in dispute still. vzaak (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, also, per your comments above, a common problem with editors in WP but especially in this article is focusing on people rather than content. You might be surprised to learn that Barney has added the overwhelming majority of positive material in the article. It would be best to completely drop your attention to individuals and focus on making concise, policy-based arguments. Don't make personal attacks, and ignore personal attacks made toward you. vzaak (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone has again removed the tag. Per the instructions on "when to remove": "You may remove this template whenever: 1) There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved; 2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and 3) no satisfactory explanation has been given; 4) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

The neutrality issues are (from above): ...unwilling to describe the morphic resonance theory as a theory despite RS's that do so, and none mentioned so far that justify this approach; Diminution of Sheldrake's credentials e.g. unwilling to use the correct title of Research Fellow of the Royal Society and having English and lecturer in the first sentence with no mention of biochemist/biologist all despite numerous RS's that do so; Inclusion of implied defamatory content that does not explicitly name Sheldrake; Inclusion of WP:OR Sokal 'interaction', whilst rejecting the WP:RS and notable encounter with Dawkins. I think these are sufficient grounds to reinstate the tag while we try to work through them since the article as it stands provides a non-NPOV account of Sheldrake."

Asserting that there is consensus, or asserting that the issues are resolved is different from consensus and resolution. The neutrality issues have been clearly stated and not satisfactorily explained, except in the minds of the explainers. The discussion is not absent or dormant. The tag should not have been removed. Lou Sander (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "unwilling to describe the morphic resonance theory as a theory", you say it is "not satisfactorily explained", but you explained it to Blippy yourself.[53][54]
• The "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" bit is covered in the eponymous section.
• The biochemist/biologist bit is covered in the "When sources conflict" section.
• There's no explanation of what "implied defamatory content" means.
• The Dawkins bit is being discussed. My take is that WP shouldn't report second-hand and third-hand accounts of what living people have said.
• There's no explanation of why Sokal is WP:OR. That is a well-sourced paragraph.

People need to follow policies and procedures. Blippy added the tag saying "we should warn readers much is in dispute still", despite the instructions that state Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. The instructions also say it's for a "last resort". Blippy is brand new, the Dawkins material is brand new; this isn't a "last resort" situation. I ask again that people please read the policies at the top of this page along with any template instructions that may be used. vzaak (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By your own analysis the tag should still be in place. You have mentioned numerous active discussions about the content in question. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The tag does not simply mean "someone disagrees" or "something is disputed". If that were so then practically every article would have it. Please read the instructions. You said you added the tag to warn readers, but the instructions explicitly say not to do so. vzaak (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The tag alerts readers to the existence of NPOV issues in an article. There are NPOV issues here, you listed them as still being discussed. You are mistakenly fixated on the fact that I said that I felt readers needed to be warned about this, but that was not my justification for the tag. I provided the list you cited as my justification. WP provides the NPOV tag as a way to warn readers that such a list exists. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Recently the 'Personal life' section was moved to 'Background': Sheldrake reports that during his time in India he found himself "being drawn back to a Christian path", and currently identifies himself as Anglican.[1] He is married to Jill Purce, and they have two sons.

Since India isn't mentioned yet, "during his time in India" is confusing in this context. The timeline is also confusing: he didn't get married and then work at Clare. I'm not fond of the small 'Personal section' either, but it's better than this confusion, isn't it? Having a narrative structure in the early sections seems better than jumping around in time. vzaak (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Now the timeline is worse. ‎Blippy, would you please read the origin section. He got the idea of morphic resonance at Clare, then went to India. That's already clear in the "Of morphic resonance" quote as well. vzaak (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think it's that hard to fix. Just add a short link that he left Clare and worked in India. Then the personal section follows seamlessly. Much better than two short sections separated by the entire article!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I had to fix the same mistake again. The Guardian quote applies to his time at Clare -- "the Cambridge biochemistry don". Please don't move this to the India part again. Please study the references before switching things around like this. vzaak (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, here is another example of problematic shuffling: In 1974 Sheldrake left Clare and began working in Hyderabad, India. For a year and a half he lived in the ashram of Bede Griffiths during which time he wrote A New Science of Life. He reports finding himself "drawn back to a Christian path" and currently identifies himself as Anglican.

• You deleted the source that gives the dates as well as the source for the year-and-a-half time frame.
• Worse, the date is wrong: he left Clare in 1973.
• The text is misleading because he spent much more time in India than a year and a half.
• He didn't start living at the ashram until some time after 1978 when he left the "principal physiologist" position.
• It also doesn't look like he wrote the book in the ashram; Sheldrake says "I went and livedin his ashram for a year and a half, and then I wrote my first book". [Update: This contradicts his other self-published bio which says "ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book"]
• Even though the "drawn back" quote is in the India paragraph, there's no reason to remove the explicit attribution. As before, it should say, "During his time in India, he reports..."

Please be more careful; always check that the text is backed by the sources. These problems are persisting. vzaak (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have integrated the material into one timeline again. Multiple timelines produced implied inaccuracies; for instance since his whole post-doc career was missing, it seemed like he graduated from Clare and then when to India. One person oddly complained that "consultant physiologist" was not mentioned in both timelines. Correcting this problem and the problems above has been time-consuming. Please don't create two timelines again, or otherwise discuss this change first. vzaak (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Vzaak! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Research Fellow of the Royal Society"

Please be careful lifting information from Sheldrake's self-published bio. "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" is almost cringeworthy, as it seems likely to mislead by evoking Fellow of the Royal Society. At least one commenter here was fooled. Fellow of the Royal Society is an exceedingly different title which is exceedingly more prestigious. Sheldrake received a fellowship like thousands of other researchers among many fields, and proper term is "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship".[55] vzaak (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This pettiness is unworthy of you Vzaak. The correct terminology is Research Fellow of the Royal Society. e.g. Dr Ian Jones Education Research Fellow of The Royal Societyat Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University and Dr Rim Turkmani is a Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellow of the Royal Society and Professor Katherine Blundell, Professor of Astrophysics and University Research Fellow of the Royal Society etc. etc. Please provide RS's that show otherwise. This preference for unsourced nonsense over RS's is very troubling and I am astonished experienced editors are allowing this kind of crap to go uncorrected. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is a RS that explicitly refers to him as a former Research Fellow of the Royal Society. I'm sure there must be plenty of others - do I need to find more to convince you? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Because, Blippy (talk · contribs) a Fellow of the Royal Society is pretty much the highest honour a British or Commonwealth scientist can receive. A research grant isn't. Some of the sources are confused about this. It's not a unique issue to Sheldrake either - see this Guardian article which makes the same mistake about Brian Cox. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so maybe we should also protect against people who think this article is about Rupert the Bear? What a ridiculous argument BBB!! The RS's use Research Fellow of the Royal Society. It isn't for us to make judgements about what confusion that may or may not cause. Stick the the WP:RS and all will be well, you wont need to stay up nights worrying you have misled people!  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The examples you provided rather demonstrate my point. Those people aren't saying "Research Fellow" without the prefix description. "Rosenheim Research Fellow" would be tremendously more accurate, but it would be better to avoid the confusion in the first place. Please don't use misleading language in the article. vzaak (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no confusion, and it would be better to provide the modifier. Find a source. Lou Sander (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is confusion even right here on this page, with one person claiming more than once that he's a Royal Society Fellow. In bare technical terms there's no reason to prefer "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" over "Royal Society research fellowship". However there's good reason to prevent confusion with Fellow of the Royal Society and no reason to encourage confusion. vzaak (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, I gave a link to scientific papers stating the full name "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship". It is very concerning that you would call this "unsourced nonsense". vzaak (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If Sheldrake is the "Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society", then that is what we say. We don't exclude the fact on the grounds that some readers may misinterpret it, otherwise we could say that of any fact. If we really had to, a note can mention that this is not the same as "Fellow of the Royal Society". I think the Royal Society itself described it as just the "Rosenheim Research Fellow", and like all the Royal Society's Research Fellows, is for "outstanding scientists", notable because the Royal Society is the UK’s national academy of science.[56] --Iantresman (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The argument works the other direction: If Sheldrake received the "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship", then that is what we say. That is the formal name used in his papers.[57] One option causes confusion, the other option doesn't. I would like to hear the reason for choosing the option that causes confusion. vzaak (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The formal name, or name used by the Royal Society would be preferred. --Iantresman (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

AGREED!! I don't think there is any reason to choose anything other than what is supported in the RS's. I'm new to this article, so I'm not as familiar with the sources as you guys. If that's what the sources say, then that's what we should use. Can you give a link or two please Vzaak? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I AGREE that Wikipedia should call it exactly what the Royal Society calls it. Do we even know what a Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow IS (or was)? Searching their web site gives no results. Were there 50 of them every year? Was there only ever one? There is a Royal Society thing these days called a University Research Fellow, with a complete description of what it is, and lists of current and past holders. Sheldrake does not show up on these lists, which gives me pause. Assuming good faith on his part (in listing that as one of his accomplishments), we need to know more about what the Rosenheim thing is or was. I'm guessing that in the past they had a bunch of different research fellowships, and collapsed them all into one. That's just a guess, though. Personally, I don't worry about people confusing whatever it is with being a Fellow of the Royal Society, but I'm fine if somebody has a big concern about it. If they do, it seems reasonable to explain it all in a footnote. Lou Sander (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit of a mystery! I found this: "Rosenheim Research Fellowship (for research in biological chemistry)" and on that page is a report of all the spending allocation for 2009-10. It seems these named fellowships are one offs - maybe annually? - and there were nine of them that year. So they would seem to be reasonably prestigious. I also found this but it's purely speculation on my part that maybe the fellowship was named in his honour. Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society seems to be the common usage and is presumably interchangeable with Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow depending on the sentence structure. I'm happy with both given these sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The award was established under the will or Mrs Mary Christine Rosenheim [58] (neé Tebb)[59] (1868-1953) a British Physiologist.[60] When I contacted the Royal Society, they told me that the Rosenheim Research Fellow is no longer offered. --Iantresman (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I question really the value of whether to include it at all. After all, for articles on any other scientist, I'd bet we'd probably not give too many details on the research grants they received throughout their careers, let alone the low level ones at the beginning. So why is Sheldrake special? Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's notable and significant, not so much because of Sheldrake, but because it comes from the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, who say it is for "outstanding scientists". Of course we may disagree, but if that's what the Royal Society say, that's what we should report. The value of the information, is because we are writing a biography, and people want to find out about Sheldrake and his background. --Iantresman (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We've already been through this Ian, contrary to your WP:IWONTLISTEN stance. It's a mid-career research grant, otherwise entirely unremarkable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is easily fixed BBB. First, let's just stick to the RS. If you can provide your WP:RS's that demonstrate it is a mid-career, unremarkable research grant then please do so, but I think you may struggle since it looks like it wasn't granted annually. This person held it from 1992-2000 and lists it as a Distinction/Award. This person held it from 2000-2008 and this one from 1979-1982. So it seems to have been sparsely granted, and was only one of nine RS research fellowships granted in 2009-10. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. When it was awarded Sheldrake was in the middle of his academic career, which he then cut short, and subsequently went freelance. The Royal Society, as Britain's national academy of science, hands out many grants. This one is not remarkable. Attempts to highlight it as something it isn't is simple disingenuity. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is it about using the correct term for his credential that makes you think it is highlighting something otherwise unremarkable? Let's just stick to the sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Two things (1) we don't tend to highlight unremarkable things (2) as has been explained to you, it has potential to be misunderstood, so we need to be accurate and give sufficient context. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Using the RS terminology is not highlighting anything beyond what the RS's chose to highlight (2) It is impossible to predict what will/wont be misunderstood, so we need to be accurate and stick to the sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) the main source for this are Sheldrake himself who while not unreliable, has a documented habit of self promotion and buffing up his own credentials out of proportion to what they are (2) it is possible to using WP:COMMONSENSE (severely lacking around here) and evidence of previous misunderstandings. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing here BBB, isn't this section about the Research Fellow of the Royal Society bizzo?? What do you mean by Sheldrake is the main source? Have I misunderstood you/missed something, or are you suggesting that's his personal version of the credential? You've stumped me a bit there, which makes me think I've missed something, so I'll apologise in advance and would appreciate some clarification! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave it in. Omitting it would give the impression that editors of this article want to omit anything that lends Sheldrake scientific credibility, such as awards from major scientific institutions. And that's clearly not your motive, Barney the barney barney, because we all know your edits on here are always in good faith. Ben Finn (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, my intention is that the article is balanced and does not mislead. Sheldrake's scientific career was reasonably impressive, but it's not as impressive as some people would think. He never was a professor. My intention is to document this accurately and without misleading the reader. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Barney we don't include material that is just "remarkable". The criteria is "notable" to a biography. "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects" (per WP:BLPSTYLE). Are there any reliable secondary sources that consider the award to be notable? Yes. New Scientist,[61][62], Academic books,[63][64][65], 1975 Year Book of the Royal Society to cite but half a dozen.--Iantresman (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Above I pointed out that there were two options, the confusing option and the non-confusing option.[66] I asked the reason for the choosing the confusing option. None was offered. However the confusing option has been added to the article. I am asking again. vzaak (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how much this is helpful or not. Page 309 in the Yearbook of the Royal Society Research Appointments lists Alfred Rupert Sheldrake as the sole recipient of the Rosenheim Research Fellowship in Oct of 1969. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, here is convenient link to said Year Book.[67]--Iantresman (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) - I don't think there were any objections over it being factual or not. Sheldrake unfortunately does have a habit of overegging his qualifications, but I don't think anyone thinks he lies about them. The questions rather are (1) do we present it? i.e. is it remarkable enough to be included? And (2) how do we present it, i.e. do we try to give the false impression that he's a Fellow of the Royal Society (=seriously recognised), or do we give it enough context to prevent this misunderstanding and give appropriate recognition to it being only a research grant? What would be interesting as an aside, is to see how other many named "research fellowships" the Royal has because I strongly suspect there are quite a few. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that we should ever give a false impression, however it's hard to make a case that we would be giving a false impression simply by listing a prominent research grant from the Royal Society which does not give out that many. I don't think anyone post doc would ever refer to any grant as 'just a research grant', be it from the Royal Society or anywhere. That it is from the Royal Society is what makes it distinguished and notable. Philosophyfellow (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Interactions section

The Sokal bit is quite simply not an interaction the way it is currently worded. Please provide the WP:RS's showing Sheldrake involved himself in this article. Similarly, one of the most notable interactions I have come across is ignored:

Sheldrake has reported an encounter with 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."

I suggest we replace this irrelevant Sokal non-interaction with the Dawkins one. Cheers,Blippy (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You are proposing the above text for the article? Why? What does it mean? It seems to be more about Dawkins that the subject of this article, although a secondary source would be needed to throw some light on what the reader is supposed to infer about Dawkins from the inconsequential exchange. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am proposing it. Perhaps you can point out where the other incidents in this section satisfy your criteria of having a secondary source throwing light on what the reader is supposed to infer? In any case, how about we modify along these lines:

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."

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, am I to understand that the source for this claim is Sheldrake himself? Or were there other witnesses to his alleged interaction with Dawkins? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of suggesting what you understand 76...90!! ;-) I'm simply reporting what's in a WP:RS. Do you have WP:RS's to the contrary, or are you simply speculating? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

“Simply speculating?” Speculating on what? I asked you if the source for your claim was Sheldrake himself. That is not speculation, it is a question. Are you going to answer it? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We needn't rely on Blippy -- it's easy enough to check the RS oneself. Interestingly, it unequivocally says (in its conclusion) about Sheldrake, "But he is surely right, with Heisenberg, in insisting that the materialist world view must go." Lou Sander (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

the source of the interaction is an editorial in which someone is quoting from Sheldrakes book in which Sheldrake is recounting his interaction with Dawkins. Its a third hand report of a second hand accounting of an exchange that says ....Dawkins doesnt think Sheldrake is worth giving the time of day to? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch Lou, I don’t know why I didn’t do that sooner. I found the quote in Sheldrake’s book on telepathic dogs. As the source is Sheldrake himself I would argue that it’s not a WP:RS as Sheldrake is only a reliable sources for his own fringe views, and his own sexuality. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can include the Dawkins paragraph, as we have only a primary source (Sheldrake's website). On the other hand, the story is recounted in The Guardian,[68] and in The Skeptic.[69] --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get into second or third hand anecdotes. An actual quote from Dawkins might be relevant if it can be properly attributed to him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with both of you if Sheldrake's site was the only source, however - by definition - the independent RS's make it both noteworthy and includable. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. --Iantresman (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is an anti-science author with an anti-science agenda. Why would his personal account of an encounter with Dawkins be regarded as reliable? This whole “there isn't time. It's too complicated” bit is a very feeble attempt to suggest that that Dawkins knows that there’s evidence for telepathy, but doesn’t want do discuss it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really matter if the Dawkins/Sheldrake exchange was intended to suggest something sneaky, it only matters that it's a relevant bit of data that is supported by both primary and secondary sources. If there are reliable secondary sources and there's a meaningful context for the interaction, then it's relevant and should be included. The Cap'n (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

“Supported by both primary and secondary sources”? Sheldrake said it happened, it was corroborated by no witnesses (that we know of), and then others parroted Sheldrake’s claim. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding “secondary sources”, but I don’t see how repeating Sheldrake’s claim verbatim makes it more reliable. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Who are we to question how reliable sources vet what they print? They are reliable sources. We are mere encyclopedia editors who rely on them for the facts that underlie what we say in the encyclopedia. We can't say something without material from a reliable source. Neither are we bound to say everything that every or any reliable source says. But if we are talking about interactions with scientists, this one has a lot more going for it than the Sokal one does (it doesn't seem to involve any interaction). To hell with both of them, but if somebody keeps Sokal, they can't really complain about keeping this one. It is in a reliable source. Repeating: to hell with both of them. Clarifying: Delete the Sokal stuff. Don't replace it with this. Both are from reliable sources, but neither is worthy of being in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your 'to hell with both of them' sentiment Lou! But I think the Sokal and Dawkins things are qualitatively different. A controversial(?) interaction with a major figure in the field is important - for instance, if there was report that Dr Mundane Notverynotable sexually harrassed Sheldrake I'd say that was trivia, but if it was Einstein it would be a notable interaction. The Sokal business - as far as I understand it - is a) not an interaction (Sheldrake wasn't personally involved) and b) WP:OR based on the fact that Sheldrake has been cited in the Sokal article (I haven't seen any WP:RS secondary refs cited that link Sheldrake to Sokal in this way). So that's why I think Sokal should go and Dawkins should come in. Incidentally, just to be clear, if the report had been Dawkins wanted to discuss evidence and Sheldrake didn't want to it would still be both notable and includable... does anyone know if there's something like that? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That comment shows why I referred to the need for secondary sources earlier—an editor (Blippy) thinks the reported exchange with Dawkins shows something that warrants recording in an encyclopedic article—but why not take the claimed words at face value: "There isn't time" [perhaps there was not sufficient time]; "It's too complicated" [perhaps the issues are too complex for a brief off-the-cuff exchange in the available time]; "that's not what the programme is about" [perhaps the program was focused on another issue and discussing telepathy would avoid the topic]. What reason is there to believe that what was said is significant? Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a WP:ANECDOTE is needed. The sexual harassment metaphor is entirely asinine but ironically, "Dr Mundane Notverynotable" is a pretty good description of Sheldrake's early career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we offer any interpretation of the event beyond the one provided by the secondary WP:RS above. How I personally read it is irrelevant, just as your personal interpretation is irrelevant, so it doesn't matter how we take the claimed words. As long as we stick to the RS the reader can infer whatever they like. As for BBB's characterisation of Sheldrake's early career I can only conclude you haven't read the article you're editing. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lou, you stated three times that it’s from a reliable source as if though the repeated proclamation of that untruth could somehow make it factual reality. Please try to remember that we are talking about Sheldrake here. We are discussing a man who is notorious for asserting that phenotype is determined by magic, and not by gene expression. He can only be considered to be a reliable source for a very limited number of things.

From WP:V:

“Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.”

Sheldrake has totally divorced himself from factual reality, has no oversight, and is functionally the leader of an anti-science hate group. Therefore he is not a suitable source for “contentious claims about others”. And “others” includes Richard Dawkins. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a questionable source for reporting Sheldrake's story on Dawkins,[70] especially as we have used the paper as a source in the article over half a dozen times without complaint. I don't consider a story about him meeting Dawkins to be contentious in any way. Your personal comments on Sheldrake I do find contentious, and I don't think they have any place here. --Iantresman (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDONTHEARYOU, WP:ANECDOTE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In a battle between Sokal and Dawkins for relevance in the tale of Sheldrake, Dawkins wins hands down - the Sokal thing, though funny of itself doesn't really belong in a bio of Shelly. It was just a convenient happenstance for Sokal to use in his joke against poor science - whereas the "Dawkins incident" happened, and is funny, and illustrates the regard in which a mainstream scientist holds Shelly's ideas. Include Dawkins, drop Sokal - that's my opinion. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a “questionable source” per WP:RS. The guardian repeats what a questionable source says. Therefore the guardian is questionable for purposes of Sheldrake’s anecdote. When the guardian decided to publish Sheldrake’s story they fell into the category of “publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional” and therefore are also questionable (in that instance). 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus is to drop the Dawkins tale too, then OK, but it would be a shame to lose an easily understood take on the whole thing. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to include Dawkins - he has the ability to be highly quotable - fantastically insightful and succinct at the same time, but unless we get anything from the horse's mouth, I don' think we can unfortunately use it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Barney please don't accuse me of disruptive editing, it is exceedingly uncivil and not constructive. I gave my opinion and my reasons. We don't have to agree with each other. WP:AGF
• @76.107.171.90 Sheldrake is a primary source, hence the attribution. I have no reason to doubt his anecdote, just as The Guardian had no reason either. But I would agree that Sheldrake is not an independent secondary source. --Iantresman (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

76...90 you really shouldn't selectively quote from WP:RS. Here is the quote complete with it's preceding sentence that you chose to inadvertently omitted:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

Are you seriously suggesting that The Guardian has a poor reputation for fact checking, has no editorial oversight, or relies heavily rumours? Do you also seriously think that their legal department would let them print something potentially libellous about Dawkins? The tendency to favour personal analysis and WP:OR over WP:RS is common enough, but simply not acceptable. The two simple questions are: Is the Dawkins incident notable? Is it reliably sourced? If it's yes and yes, it goes in. All I see amongst those disagreeing here is a lot of smoke and fury about invented criteria that have nothing to do with WP policies. Is it notable? Is it WP:RSed? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, after sorting through a little confusion, I have discovered the source of the problem. The text I quoted is actually from WP:V, and not from WP:RS. Sorry about that. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries 76...90 - an easy mistake to make. I've adjusted my text above. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, I’m not suggesting anything about the guardian other than that they fall within the scope of “publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional” as described by WP:V when the published Sheldrake’s anecdote. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you're making 76...90, but that's not how WP:RS works. If it's a RS, it's a RS - particularly something as prominent as The Guardian. We don't get to choose the bits we think are reliable and which bit aren't. That's why the quote you're using has the preceding line, and the heading Questionable Sources. If it was something on The Guardian forum then you'd be right, of course, but even their blog is probably good enough for our purposes, and this is an article. Sources like The Guardian can't afford to print things that can get them sued, so this article (as with all of their articles) will have been rigorously fact checked. That means we don't have to do it for them. If you can find a retraction or a correction in a subsequent part of the paper/site then you may be on firmer ground, but as things stand this ref is solid. And here is another that chooses to repeat the incident. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may make an analogy: If Paris Hilton says that Brittany Spears is a fat whore, and The Guardian says that Paris Hilton says that Brittany Spears is a fat whore, we would not use The Guardian as a reliable source to add Brittany Spears to a list of “21st Century Prostitutes”.

The “there isn’t time, it’s too complicated” line is Sheldrake putting words into Dawkins mouth. It could be interpreted as an admission that evidence for psi exists by Dawkins. If Dawkins knew that credible evidence for psi exists, yet denied it anyway it could be potentiality disastrous to his credibility. I see little harm in playing it safe, and excluding Sheldrake’s anecdote. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

76, in your somewhat uncivil post about "repeating untruths", you seem to be confused about Sheldrake as a source vs. newspapers as sources. As far as I can tell, all the sources referenced in the material in question are reliable sources. Other editors seem to regard them as so. If these sources are not reliable, it would be interesting to see your take on that. Many reliable sources do, indeed, regard Sheldrake as something more than you describe him as. Lou Sander (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@76.107.171.90 We're not doing that. We're stating that in The Guardian, Rupert Sheldrake says that Dawkins made a comment. We're not inferring, analysing, or judging anything by those comments. To do so would fail WP:SYNTHESIS. --Iantresman (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Sheldrake through the Guardian would not be a contentious issue if he weren’t talking about Dawkins. If we only said that “The Guardian says that Sheldrake says that dogs are psychic” there would be no problem. However, since questionable sources are not suitable for contentious claims about others (see above) then we shouldn’t let Sheldrake or The Guardian (as it is publishing his claim) make a potentially damaging claim about Dawkins.

I really don’t see how the whole “The Guardian is parroting him directly so it’s no more reliable” thing is not making sense to people. Technically a secondary sources is supposed to contain “an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources” so I’m not sure why the proposed edits are even being considered secondary to begin with. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's precisely because he's talking about Dawkins that makes it notable and worth including. If he was talking about Mr Nobody Inparticularfilmmaker then it would be trivial and not noteworthy. Remember, it's not Sheldrake publishing his comments, it's The Guardian. If it was just Sheldrake, then we couldn't and shouldn't use it. But because it involves a notable person (Dawkins) and is published by a RS (The Guardian isn't a Questionable Source), then it should be included. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Its the Guardian publishing excerpts of what Sheldrake published stating that Dawkins said something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, a source is not simply reliable or not reliable; it is reliable in certain contexts. The Fanny Farmer Cook Book might be a good source for how to make meringues, but it’s not a good source for the history of meringues, or for the war of the roses. Because the Guardian is giving Sheldrake a platform from which to attack Dawkins the guardian falls into the category of “publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional” for these purposes. Please argue from policy Blippy. WP:V is there for you to read. Simply asserting that The Guardian is reliable over and over again is not an effective argument. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And in addition to the being third hand, the content itself is extremely trivial. Sheldrake wanted to get onto Dawkins show and Dawkins said "No". Big whoop.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Given it's not an interaction, that you've not refuted the WP:OR nature of Sokal TRiPoD, and since the consensus above seems to be in favour of removal I have done so. Note that the big whoop is that Dawkins wanted Sheldrake on his show and Sheldrake said "No" - as an aside, and as I understand it, they had already been filming when Sheldrake asked when he was going to get to the evidence. I also recall that Sheldrake had only agreed to be involved at all if the evidence would be covered and that he'd been given assurances it would be. The Guardian and Huffington Post saw fit to report the incident, so should we. Oh, and 76...90 you sound a bit like any criticism of Dawkins renders the messenger worthy of shooting... he's not the messiah you know  :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the sources Blippy: "In the new book, [Sheldrake] records an encounter with Richard Dawkins, when the eminent atheist was making his 2007 TV series Enemies of Reason. Sheldrake suggested they discuss the actual evidence for telepathy." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, you’ve been asked to make a policy based argument, and you absolutely refuse to do so. At this point you’ve reached a level of WP:ICANTHEARYOU that makes your comments indistinguishable from trolling.

Your comment about me and Dawkins is both moronic and unfounded. I’m not a Dawkins fan Blippy. Dawkins has a rather unfortunate tendency to use a royal we when he really shouldn’t. As a consequence I’ve met untold bozos who think that because I’m also an atheist with a biology degree that I must share all of Dawkins’ philosophical and political views. No one has worked harder to politicize atheism and turn it into a “movement” than Dawkins, and not all atheists view him favorably because of that. Next time you attack another editor’s neutrality you’d better have a lot more evidence. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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.[71] (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.[72][73] 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)

Chopra on skepticism in Wikipedia

And he is not amused As you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.

(C/P: WP:FTN#Chopra on skepticism in Wikipedia)

jps (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The same essay has been repeated, at least in part, at Huffington Post. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

consulting physiologist omission

Vzaak just changed the dates for Sheldrake's time in academia, from ~1959 through 1973 for his university career, and 1974 through 1978 for his industrial research, when he was Principal Physiologist. However, when he resigned in 1979 or whatever, and began writing his first book (published 1981 after the 18 months writing it in the Christian-oriented ashram), I don't think he was resigning from ICRASTI... or whatever that acronym is... he was just resigning from his position as Principal Physiologist, not from the project. Sheldrake worked as a Consulting Physiologist through 1985, which is not in the article at the moment. ...which is not in THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article at the moment, apologies about my fixation with the very first paragraph of mainspace, which caused the poor phrasing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(( Correction inline, above. The explanation for my poor phrasing is simple... I've given up on getting anything fixed, until we can fix the first paragraph, which says "principal plant physiologist at ICRISAT until 1978.[5] Since then, his work has largely centred [on pseudoscience]" which is very misleading if Sheldrake actually was a commercial research scientist through 1985... and of course the same lead-paragraph says only "[f]rom 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist ... U.Cambridge" when in fact he became a post-undergrad fellowship-winning academian around 1963-or-so, going on to get a PhD and a Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow(ship) for rainforest research. (See how I sayzd 'research fellowship'? even moi can learn, sometimes. :-)   Coupled with the non-reliable-source-based insistence that 'biologist' must never appear in the first sentence, perhaps you can see my frustration, that you went in and deleted scientist, and N books, and all the rest that TRPoD had added, plus left the cut-down utterly-downplayed version of his 21 years of mainstream-scientist-with-highly-respectable-credentials, in the whittled-down to 11 years form, with all special credentials elided. )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am working hard to correct the inaccuracies introduced by Blippy, only some of which are described here. What I wrote was absolutely correct, he resigned from ICRISAT and went to the ashram, as his self-published bio says. Some time after the ashram he became a consultant.

The real problem here is that Blippy has introduced two timelines, something I had strongly advised against. We now have a career path described in both Academic career and Background. Now we have a complaint that a certain part of his career -- but not other parts -- described in Academic career is not also mentioned in Background. Following this argument we must copy still other parts of Academic career into Background until we have two full copies of his career in the article. vzaak (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Like your revamp, much improved. However, wiki-diff software sucks, if I may be so bold. I kept seeing you delete entire paragraphs, and everything getting screwed up... but then I would look a bit longer, and see you were moving things around, not actually deleting, the diff just rendered it as 'add-n-subtract' rather than 'rearrange'. Good work, even though my arteries did not like my review-process.  :-)

   Agree strongly that a single-timeline is better. It makes no sense that he went to India, unless we say why, or that he returned to Christianity *and* wrote the first book simultaneously. Disagree with the wording about leaving ICRISAT to go live at the ashram; from what I understand, he just resigned his principal-plant-physiologist title, swapping it out for instead the consulting-physiologist title (article says "consultant" right now which is wrong if memory serves). Did he publish any biology papers in the 1980-1985 timeframe? Also, when did he return to the UK, in 1981, or a bit later? It was before 1985, methinks. p.s. Well, Barney and Blippy are currently warring to see who can hit 3RR with the re-insertion of the NPOV tag... and I agree with Blippy unfortunately... see next section. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You earlier accused me of what I consider to be high crimes: changing dates for Sheldrake's time in academia and deleting parts of his career.[74]

• From the time of your accusation[75] until the present,[76] the job of consultant plant physiologist has continued to be in the article.
• Blippy introduced a date error[77] and removed sources, along with a host of other problems mentioned above. Blippy wrote that Sheldrake left Clare in 1974, when the source says 1973.[78] I fixed the error add added back the sources.[79]
• Regarding Sheldrake's resignation from ICRISAT, I told you that "What I wrote was absolutely correct, he resigned from ICRISAT and went to the ashram, as his self-published bio says. Some time after the ashram he became a consultant."[80]
• Incredibly, you are still accusing me of misrepresenting Sheldrake's career. I told you what I wrote was correct. I told you which source it was. The source is right there in the article, in the correct place. Sheldrake says in his self-published bio, "I had to leave my job because I was working very long hours and didn’t have time to write the book."[81]

You have indeed found a way to get my attention: make serious accusations which are seriously false. vzaak (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering this user's aversion to reading sources, I anticipate having to explain this even more, so here is additional context: "I had to leave my job because I was working very long hours and didn’t have time to write the book... I went and lived in [Bede's] ashram for a year and a half ... Then I went on working part-time in my old job...".[82] It's a 12.5-hour commute from ICRISAT to Bede's ashram.[83] vzaak (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk content first, and address battleground concerns at the end. Content: your intuition that I have an aversion to reading *Sheldrake* sources is 100% correct. Your insinuation, that it is because I'm a bloody moron, is not correct. I just consider it a waste of time for *me* to read them, when clearly *you* have already done so, multiple times, during your vast and comprehensive updates to mainspace. The stuff you call "additional context", is in fact the relevant quote aka the money-quote. I thank you for providing it, and, always keeping WP:REQUIRED and WP:BURDEN in mind, suggest it is a good practice that keeps discussions from going round-n-round.

in which I counter vzaak's quote saying had-to-leave-my-job, with a quote of my own saying from-1974-to-1985, and hypothesize how they can both be true

Given your money-quote, in which Sheldrake says "leave", I have to provide a money-quote of my own, or discuss the context (surrounding paragraphs) that show your money-quote is wrong somehow (cf TRPoD explaining how "something going on" was not what it seemed). In this case, I have an alternative quote which sheds some doubt on your money-quote. In the past, my own skim of the same sources (this is WP:ABOUTSELF territory here but has not yet become challenged-and-thus-controversial) provides me with a different way Sheldrake describes his time as a commercial researcher: "From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life, published in 1981 (new edition 2009)."[84] So, we have two parts, of the same source, which claim different things, on first glance. Maybe we can resolve the difference. The *best* way to resolve the difference is by using additional sources, which clarify what Sheldrake meant, such as the ICRISAT website, or the publication-list of Sheldrake's mainstream-biology-stuff in 1974 to 1985. However, we can also possibly reconcile what the sources mean, using logic... which is *always* risky for editors to do, we are better off just quoting the sources, but sometimes it can be done, justified as a way to prevent reader-confusion. Now, you have a quote where Sheldrake says "I had to leave my job [circa 1979]" but from the same damn place I have a quote which says "From 1974 to 1985 he [Sheldrake] was... Plant Physiologist".     My hypothesis -- based on logic only and I am happy to see it corrected by better more convincing logic or by independent external non-self-pub reliable sources -- is that in the first quote, when Sheldrake says leave, he means both depart the premises in terms of working on-site (twelve hours to ashram), and also giving up his job-title. However, he does *not* mean that he stopped being an ICRISAT employee, or halted his employment as a plant physiologist for that matter. In particular my argument is that, circa 1979 Sheldrake moved to the ashram and 'left' his job as Principal plant physiologist. However, he did not 'quit' being employed by ICRISAT, nor 'quit' being a plant physiologist... he merely changed from Principal-to-Consulting in terms of his job-title, and from onsite-to-offsite in terms of his work-location.     That logic makes both our quotes jive. Maybe you think I'm wrong, or even just think I might not be 100% right, in which case we should not *guess* and stick something maybe-wrong into mainspace. If you disagree with my logic, and have other sources, either from Sheldrake or from ICRISAT or whatever, that resolve the conundrum, that is cool with me, please say so (and paste the money-quote to save all the readers time). Alternatively, if you disagree for whatever reason, but don't have additional sources, then we fall back to the safest procedure: we quote *both* statements in the article, close to each other, so that readers can see that Sheldrake said "1974 to 1985" and within a very few also see "had to leave my job".

    As long as we cite both quotes from WP:RS, we are covered, and neutral. In fact, even if there *are* other sources, in which we discover that Sheldrake in fact left the employ of ICRISAT during the entire year of 1980, we are still safest if we put "Sheldrake says '1974 to 1985'" right into the article. We should describe what the conflicting sources say, not pick the winner and the loser.

in which I discuss *why* this article is a battleground basket-case, and hypothesize how we can fix that, before PhilosophyFellow presses the Big Red Arbitration Button

Finally, done with content, we can discuss battleground mentality. Did I accuse you of misrepresenting sources? Yup. Was I correct? That depends -- did you read the part where Sheldrake says he was a physiologist from 1974 to 1985,[85] and then later on read the part where he said he had to leave his job,[86] and then decide to IGNORE the first quote, since you preferred the second? If you knew about the first quote, and ignored it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then you did a bad thing: you let the sceptic point-of-view color your editing-decision, and instead of improving the lead paragraph, left it misleading. Is there any possibility I was incorrect to accuse you? Well, certainly. There is every possibility.     I accused you in the first place, because when I skimmed both sources, I only noticed the 1974-1985 quote. I know I've been through both URLs, but if I ever read the had-to-leave-my-job quote, it didn't stick with me. I'm sure you also have prolly read both pages at some point... but that does not mean you necessarily saw (and remembered) both seemingly-conflicting quotes. Therefore, I must really really assume good faith, and therefore assume that you only saw the had-to-leave-my-job quote, which is why you continued to leave out the period from 1981 through 1985 in the first couple sentences, when you were doing your latest revamp. (Hint: if you want to leave the battleground behind, then you also need to WP:AGF in return, and assume I'm telling the truth here: either I never saw, or just failed to remember, the quote from Sheldrake saying he left his job when he moved to the ashram. Or possibly, just interpreted it as physically-left, no more no less.)     Similarly, when the 'scientist' in the first sentence is cited using the three 'parapsychologist' refs, assuming good faith -- on my part -- requires that I assume you are just using the wrong cites by mistake. Those three cites *used* to be there when the sentence said parapsychologist, so if you were in a hurry, and rushing to achieve some level of talkpage-consensus, you might easily have put 'scientist' in the place where 'parapsychologist' used to be, and figure that somebody else would fix up the cites later. However, in your most recent change, you have made the same mistake again. Please stop making the mistake. We just had somebody named Ken swoop in, who flat-out deleted scientist (and all three refs! ... which seems like a *very* trout-worthy move for somebody who has been here since 2002... back when Jimbo Wales rode around on his dinosaur... and Larry whats-his-face was not yet whining about his crucial crucial role in the days of yore).     Someday, though, mainspace *will* say biologist, or biochemist, or maybe even the WP:EDITORIALIZING 'compromise' that you invented, which is to generalize and say 'scientist' ... but make sure, if you re-insert 'scientist' ... or even decide to reflect what the reliable sources say and use 'biologist' like the bulk of them do ... please do be careful to make sure that you do NOT attach the three parapsychologist-cites (again) to whatever term you pick. Eliding sources you disagree with is very bad; misquoting sources is what got Bob Raynor in trouble. It is an easy mistake to make, and a very hard mistake to fix, later on down the road.

    Now, if you still insist on seeing this article and this article-talkpage as a battleground, you're free to say how I'm accusing you of this, and accusing you of that, and gather up all your diffs, and take me to the noticeboards, and try to get me banned, again. But I'm trying to tell you, as loudly and clearly as I can, the goddamn *reason* this page is a battleground, is because you and Barney are still insisting on making it one. I bribed Roxy with a dog-biscuit, and TRPoD even put my request for author-of-N-books into the lead, may they live a thousand years. If you want no more battleground, mirror the sources. Don't engage in soft but insistent attempts to drive away those you disagree with about content, and don't stand silently by when 76 is rude to David, or when Barney is rude to Mary. I'm very intransigent on one thing: WP:NICE, which is pillar four.

    David's implacable on pillar two, WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP. You are being intransigent about "getting the facts right" ... and while I appreciate that is a good stance in real life ... the ruby compiler does not care about *anything* but you getting the code right after all ... wikipedia simply cannot function thataway. Wikipedia has to mirror the reliable sources, no more and no less. Even when those sources fail to get the facts right, we *still* have to reflect what the sources say! You're doing a ton of good editing, and you're trying to keep the readers from having wikipedia feed them something you know is incorrect. I deeply and fully support that goal... but not if we have to cherrypick sources, and drive away editors who think otherwise, to achieve it. Maybe we can have NICE and also NPOV and also WP:The_Truth simultaneously... but only the first two are listed in the five pillars. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

heavy and stilted... but complied with fragile consensus

Vzaak, during a ton of otherwise excellent work, has reverted[87] these from the intro:

1. co-author ^{(semi-anti) (fact)}
2. of fourteen books, ^{(pro) (fact)}
3. who started his career as ^(semi-anti)
4. scientist and ^{(semi-pro && semi-anti) (compromiseFact)}
5. originally ^(semi-anti)
6. in biology ^{(pro) (fact)}
7. and since the 1980s in the area of parapsychology, ^{(anti) (fact)}
8. a subject on which he also lectures ^{(pro) (fact)}

...replacing it all with 'lecturer & [parapsychology]researcher' which is going to re-open the can of worms that ought to be firmly closed by now. TRPoD added the N books (I agree... this is one of the big reasons *why* sheldrake is Notable), re-added the scientist (a key to the fragile consensus is that sheldrake be called a biologist or biochemist in the first sentence... "researcher" is not good enough), and is pretty insistent that parapsychology also be in the first sentence (whereas I'd be satisfied with anywhere in the first paragraph... or even the second paragraph where we explain telepathy-like morphic resonance).

Please put the intro-paragraph back the way it was, or at least, put back the 'scientist'... or preferably actually use 'biologist' since that is what the bulk of the sources say... into the first sentence. Then, let's try and hash out a non-stilted exposition paragraph here on the talkpage, and leave the NPOV tag off in the meantime. p.s. Additionally we need to get the sourcing fixed. There are three cites which all say 'parapsychologist' that are being improperly applied to justify the terms 'scientist' and 'researcher' and similar. We have proper cites, and need to use them methinks, so deleting barewords is less tempting. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would Sheldrake not be given his biologist title is beyond me, but to not even reference him as a scientist? Can someone please explain to me how not referencing Sheldrake as either a scientist or a biologist makes this page more neutral or even accurate? 23.241.74.200 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The problem is basically twofold. Firstly, he's only notable for being an author. Secondly, he's not doing science i.e. actively participating in the scientific process, which is what real scientists actively do. Are you 74 in disguise? Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Sheldrake is not notable for being born in 1942, yet that is the first thing we say: this is a biography. (2) Scientists do more than "participate in the scientific process". Are we going to strip everyone of their title after they have submitted their last paper? As far as I know, Sheldrake is still qualified as a biochemist with a doctorate,[88] and is still actively carrying out scientific research.[89] --Iantresman (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

if you want to change the manual of style to remove birth and death from the lead sentence, please make your proposal at WP:LEAD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

and he may still be carrying out "research" but as has been shown multiple times, to call it "scientific" research is to put a false label on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

His doctorate says otherwise, as do his peer-reviewed paper published in the last few year (2013)[90] (2012)[91](2009)[92] --Iantresman (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed something. How does having a doctorate mean that everything that you do (even if what you are doing does not follow scientific standards) is qualified as scientific research? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This *is* a key point. If the papers Ian cites, and the Trinity-Perrick grant, and the professorship at LearnDotEdu, and so on, are *not* published in mainstream scientific journals, are *not* mentioned by mainstream scientists (in their papers as cites ... or in their debates with Sheldrake face to face), then it is misleading to call them "scientific research" in the article, unless we have a Reliable Source that calls them that. However, just because some scientist writes a book about Angels, does not mean their PhD is revoked, their fellowships stripped, and their epistemological status *as* a scientist destroyed. They are a special breed: the mainstream scientist, who is now doing borderline-or-across-the-line-pseudoscientific research, and authoring popular books. See professor Hapgood, who got an intro from Einstein, once upon a time.

  p.s. Note that the WP:BURDEN does not fall upon Iantresman, to prove that the recent 2013/2012/2009 papers are scientific research. WP:FRINGE requires that the *challenger* show the journal is actually unreliable entirely, or the particular paper was not peer-reviewed by mainstream scientists, or somesuch argument. TRPoD, can you point me to the talkpage archives, where these three cites were judged non-scientific per WP:FRINGE? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, I've commented on your fantastic ability to creatively interpret sources before. They're not research papers, just antiscientific muddled diatribes; Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing looks like an altmed bucket pretending to be a journal (putting the pseudo into pseudoscience) see [93]. Psychological Reports admits to publishing "controversial material of scientific merit" [94] has an impact factor of 0.3 (ouch), but the key test of any idea is not whether it is published but whether it is accepted as valid by the scientific community, and for that it's going to have to be replicated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made no interpretation. I have taken peer reviewed papers available from academic publishers. Period. Surely your not suggesting that you can't be a scientist if your publish in certain journals, research certain "controversial" subjects, or your ideas have not been validated. Editors and a handful of scientists are not the arbiters on whether Sheldrake can call himself a scientist. Peer-reviewed papers and his doctorate do this for us. I have NEVER, EVER seen the suggestion that impact factor affects whether we can call someone a scientist. For the record, I don't know whether Sheldrake's idea are valid or bunkum, but I do know that any scientist can help test them. --Iantresman (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, there are certain titles that one might hold as a result as an accomplishment or award such as: medical doctor, registered nurse, Nobel laureate, or registered dietician. There are other titles which are actually just job titles such as: cook, janitor, or chief executive officer. In the same way that Henry Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Rupert Sheldrake is a former biologist. Biology is the scientific study of the nature of living things, and a biologist is one who practices biology. While Sheldrake might have a formal education in HOW to practice biology, he has not practiced it in quite some time. Unless you have a reliable source that states that anyone who has ever practiced biology is a biologist for the rest of forever then I suggest that Sheldrake is best described as an author. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's doctorate in biochemistry says that he is a biochemist, What he practices today is what every scientists does in order to submit papers to peer-reviewed academic journals. Whether he reaches the standard that you and others want, we can argue until the cows come home. Until then, we based it on reliable sources: his doctorate, and his research papers. --Iantresman (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@76 We have to look how others describe him as well as how Sheldrake describes himself. Most sources, even contemporary ones, describe him as a biologist. Sheldrake describes himself as a biologist. The Perrot-Warrick fund describes him as a biologist. Cambridge University lists him as a biologist. Why should Wikipedia hold a unique standard that reliable sources and academic institutions themselves do not? Philosophyfellow (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The University of Binghamton refers to him as a biochemist.[95] He is also referred to as a biologist by the University of London,[96] the University of Arizona,[97] the Open University,[98] Institute of Noetic Sciences, [99] the University of Reading,[100] the BBC,[101][102][103][104] the Daily Telegraph,[105][106][107] National Geographic,[108] Discover magazine,[109] The Independent newspaper,[110] to name but a dozen or so across a variety of reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, if you’re so convinced that Sheldrake is a scientist, then I’m a little confused as to why you would be editing his talk page? I had assumed you were here under cover of WP:BLP, but if you, yourself are calling him a scientist then that would seem to suggest that this talk page would fall under the category of “talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined”. Is there something I’m missing? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your user page is outdated, and links to an old revision of your talk page. I would advise you to change that, as it’s a bit misleading. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We’ve got reliable sources that characterize Sheldrake’s work as pseudoscience. That would make him a pseudoscientist. If Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist then he is not a scientist (because pseudoscience is not a kind of science) unless he is also practicing legitimate science alongside his pseudoscience. He hasn’t practiced legitimate science in quite a while, so Sheldrake is not a scientist. And because a biologist is a kind of scientist, Sheldrake is necessarily not a biologist. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We've got reliable sources that characterize Sheldrake as a biologist. On wikipedia, which relies on reliable sources that would make him a biologist. If Sheldrake is a biologist, according to multiple, independent, recent reliable sources we should call him a biologist, with footnotes to the sources, in the lede, in the infobox, and in the biographical portions of the biography of this living person.

"He hasn’t practiced legitimate science in quite a while, so Sheldrake is not a scientist. And because a biologist is a kind of scientist, Sheldrake is necessarily not a biologist." ---> 76: get yourself quoted saying this in an article in a reliable source and I'll put it in the article, right in the lead paragraph to the "Books" section. But until then, an infinite number of IP's and an infinite number of tripods can keep typing such things on infinite iterations of this talk page without their ever amounting to something that belongs in a wikipedia biography of a living person.David in DC (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

David is correct. We cannot eliminate the sources that call Sheldrake a pseudoscientist/formerBiochemist/etc... but wikipedia does not pick and choose the winner, we *describe* the conflict. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@76.107.171.90 Are you sure? You call someone a pejorative name, and that automatically revokes their qualifications as a scientist! This reminds me of the Monty Python Life of Brian sketch on Blasphemy[111]. So by the same logic, since we have reliable sources of people call parapsychology "pseudoscience", that makes all the scientists in all the universities who research the subject, no longer scientists? I wonder how you practice pseudoscience? How do you know Sheldrake "hasn’t practiced legitimate science in quite a while"? Are you keeping an eye on him? --Iantresman (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point David. Characterizing his recent work as science AND pseudoscience is inappropriate because those two categorizations are mutually exclusive in this instance. If we call him a biologist, then we call his work science which contradicts our sources which say that his work is pseudoscience.

It’s been pretty well established at this point that the mainstream view of Sheldrake is that he’s not a legitimate scientist. We shouldn’t use words which could mislead the reader into thinking otherwise. Phrases like “his followers contend that he practices real science” are debatable, but to state that he’s a biologist as if though it were fact is inappropriately legitimizing his work. Unless you’re seriously trying to argue that Sheldrake’s ideas have received mainstream acceptance because some sources offhandedly call him a biologist, then I suggest that you try to remember that fringe is to be presented as fringe. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, no I think David has got it pretty much spot on. How many scientists do I need to say that something is pseudoscience, will make it pseudoscience? One? Ten? 10%? Do we just take a vote? None of the editors here want to omit that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work non-scientific or pseudoscience (I added Maddox's opinion to the article myself). No editor here would suggest that we claim that Sheldrake's work has "received mainstream acceptance". It is a fact that some scientists have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, and some that have not. WP:DUE requires us to put a description of Sheldrake's work in context to the mainstream view. It doesn't require us to decided for ourselves which view is the correct view, which would fail WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. --Iantresman (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No sane reader of the article, as it stands, could possibly believe Sheldrake's current work is anything but fringe. The biggest problem here is hubris. The phrase "legitimizing his work" is the giveaway. We have no power or authority to legitimize anything. This article satisfies WP:FRINGE and would still do so if the lead listed Sheldrake as a biologist.

I've changed the lead sentence to include the fact that he holds a Ph.D. in biology from Cambridge. That's undisputed in our sources and comes from a review of a later Sheldrake book, written by Maddox, years after his essay with the incendiery headline. I think that circumlocution is unnecessary, but it seems far harder to justify reverting. Anyone edit-warring against that compromise bears a steep burden that cannot, in my view, rest on WP:FRINGE. I think the militant skepticism that fights claw-tooth-and-nail against any effort to treat this living person more gently than we treat his fringe theories and hypotheses bespeaks editorial judgment that is, in the long run, very bad for Wikipedia, a project that we all hold dear. David in DC (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be both satisfactory and indisputable. --Iantresman (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be reasonable what you suggest, David in DC (talk). However, can we clean up the sentence thereafter? It reads a little awkward, do you agree? "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer and researcher who holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge ,[4] after which he was principal plant physiologist at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978." I would support a change to read something like "From 1967 to 1973 he was a researcher in cell biology at Cambridge" or something similar. Philosophyfellow (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would remove the dates, and the repetition about Cambridge which can be detailed later in the "History" section. --Iantresman (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration is good. I'd suggest taking special care that edits to the subsequent sentences implicate prose style only, and do not afford a scintilla of opportunity to be characterized as "tilting" things one way or the other. If the opportunity is there, I'm confident someone will take advantage of it. David in DC (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A few editors here are making arguments that there are sources that pretty much establish x, y, and z about Rupert Sheldrake, but they do not list the sources they are referring to. 76.107.171.90 mentions that sources pretty much clarify that Sheldrake is not a legitimate scientist. Which sources are these specifically? Thanks in advance. Philosophyfellow (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the first things that WP:BLP says is that we must "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." So over to 76.107.171.90, what sources are you using so that editors can help choose the right words to describe them? --Iantresman (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, the sources which support the “pseudoscience” descriptor are already available on the page. Towards the bottom of the page there is a section called “notes” were you can find the sources that support the claim that Sheldrake’s ideas are regarded as hogwash. Alternately, there’s a superscript [a] in the lead which will take you down to the “notes” section. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading through Ian, David, and Philosophyfellow’s tag team text wall I would like to remind you all that this is not create-your-own-novel-definition-of-biologist-to-suit-your-POVpedia. This is not an essay contest on “what does biologist mean to me”. This is not a forum were you can wax philosophical about who can declare Sheldrake a pseudoscientist.

If you don’t like my explanation of what a biologist is, then you can look at biologist which supports my position. Phrases like “Sheldrake's doctorate in biochemistry says that he is a biochemist” are glaring examples of WP:OR. I understand that Wikipedia does not require one to be an expert to edit Wikipedia, but a persistent failure to use relevant terminology in an appropriate manor is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation is a fair view. Phrases like "Sheldrake's doctorate in biochemistry says that he is a biochemist" is not my opinion (hence no WP:OR), but is partly derived from a source you have used yourself, Wikipedia, see Biochemist. In addition to Wikipedia, I have offered over a dozen independent reliable sources from the BBC to universities to also support the use of "biologist", again not my opinion, so no glaring examples of WP:OR or WP:COMPETENCE. I just find it hard to accept that the BBC, universities, National Geographic, and various broad-sheet newspapers, would also get it so wrong. You'll also note that I am not questioning anyone's competence per WP:CIVIL --Iantresman (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, biochemist’s definition of biochemist does appear to be somewhat at odds with biologist’s explanation of what qualifies one to be considered a biologist. However you’ll note that biochemist still specifies that a biochemist is a kind of scientist. That Sheldrake is a scientist is very much a matter of contention. I would remind you that all biochemists are biologists and that all biologists are scientists and that all scientists follow the scientific method. I suggest to you that your beef is not with me or Red Pen, but with the conventional definition of biologist. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This does all seem to be open to subjective interpretation, which is why I offered the BBC, universities, National Geographic, and various broad-sheet newspapers as reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I decided to look at generally accepted descriptions of "biologist (see below) Oddly, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, did not list "Biologist" as an occupation, and none of the sources lists "parapsychologist" (except OED). The emphasis seems to be more on the "study of", rather than "research" or "publishing papers", or "adhering to the scientific method". --Iantresman (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• UK National Careers Service: "Biologists study living things like animals or plants, and the world around them"
• dictionary.com: "a specialist in biology."
• askdefine.com: "A biologist is a scientist devoted to and producing results in biology through the study of organisms. Typically biologists study organisms and their relationship to their environment."
• OED: "An expert or specialist in biology; a student of biology"

All these seem consistent with the description of Sheldrake being a biologist. --Iantresman (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, I’m somewhat confused. You’ve listed four sources here, but what exactly are you proposing that a biologist is? Remember, you’re the one arguing for inclusion. I’ve told you how I’ve heard the word used in academia and in the industry, and shown that my explanation is squarely in line with biologist. If you disagree with my explanation then please explain to me what “definition” of biologist you are arguing for. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

How you and I have heard the term "biologist" used is immaterial, we are not reliable sources. On the other hand, the sources that I gave are independent sources. By all means, offer your own sources that describe "biologist" and we'll see which are more consistent. --Iantresman (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, do you not see the spectacular disjoint in your comment that basically says that "scientists (such as biologists) do not need to follow the scientific method in order to be scientists". This is plainly ridiculous. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said any such thing, and that's not what I said about the sources I gave. --Iantresman (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, just because something is "plainly ridiculous" is no reason to keep it out of wikipedia. The rules are, NPOV is defined by reliable sources, *all* reliable sources count, *none* are excluded because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia editors cannot decide whether Sheldrake is a biologist, as some say, or Sheldrake is a parapsychologist, as others say. We have to describe the conflicting-sources. No more. No less. The mainspace article *will* say that Sheldrake is a biologist. The mainspace article will *also* say that Sheldrake is a parapsychologist. It will say (quoting Coyne) that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist. It will say (quoting whatever sources Ian has mentioned) that Sheldrake is a phytomorphologist, cell biologist, plant physiologist, biochemist, philosopher, author, lecturer, researcher, etc. Does this mean the reader will be confused? No. Does this mean the reader will be told what Reliable Sources say, even though other Maybe Even More Reliable-er-er Sources say otherwise? Yup. Does this mean wikipedia mainspace will contain a description of a conflict, and only one side can logically be correct? Yup. Isn't that plainly ridiculous? Nope -- that is pillar two. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:42, 11 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,[112] 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.[113] 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)

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)[114] Financial Times (2012)[115] (2013),[116] Skeptical Inquirer (2000),[117] Times Higher Education (2012)[118] Discover Magazine (2002)[119] The Guardian (2012)[120] BBC (2012)[121]. --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,"[122]
• 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"[123]
• Financial Times (2013) "Sheldrake, 69, has written more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books and is known for his controversial theories"[124]
• Skeptical Inquirer (2000) "Sheldrake’s hypothetical .. Sheldrake has conducted new experiments"[125]
• Times Higher Education (2012) "Sheldrake is not sceptical enough. He's against scientific "laws" but convinced of the permanence of scientific "facts" "[126]
• 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"[127]
• 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."[128]
• BBC (2012) "Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake"[129]

--Iantresman (talk) 23:09, 13 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)

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)

Barney objections

For the record, and contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing, Barney the barney barney has indicated that he is considering reporting me for violating an old ban, related to this article. Post --Iantresman (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical problems and warring the Books section intro

Blippy, please look at the paragraph you wrote:[130]. Half the paragraph is in italics, there's a wikilink saying "Natureaccused" [sic], a reference is added which is already in the article, the new redundant ref is just a raw link, and a quote is added which is already in the next section. Worse, you had introduced these same problems earlier and I had fixed them[131][132][133] but now you've reverted my fixes.

I have worked hard to fix many technical problems in your changes (for example here), and warring to put back broken stuff is extremely inappropriate. vzaak (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure reverting to the previous version counts as working hard to fix many technical problems :-) But apologies for the problems I introduced inadvertently. I think the book intro needs more context, hence:

Sheldrake's books have received both positive and negative reviews, often accompanied by controversy. Some reviewers are critical of the scientific content of his works with his first book being famously the subject of a critical editorial in the journal 'Nature. Sheldrake described this experience as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."[49] More recently the deputy editor of Nature accused Sheldrake of publishing books to avoid the peer-review process, and suggested that his books were best "ignored" by scientific journals.[25]

I believe this sets the scene more clearly for anyone who is unfamiliar with the issues - currently there is no mention of controversy and the sub-editor is given prominence for some reason instead of allowing text that helps to provide some of the background within which the books were written. I welcome improvements, not reversions. Blippy (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, putting aside all POV issues, there are ongoing technical problems with your edits; competence issues. I've been fixing a lot of your mistakes, only some of which are outlined in this section and above, and it's time-consuming. When you revert my fixes, I have to say something.

Now putting aside the POV issues and technical issues, there is also a social problem. Earlier I had moved the quote in question with comment: Moving "A book for burning?"-related material the section "A book for burning?".[134] I don't understand why a quote related to the book-burning section should be in the preceding section. I believe my change is eminently reasonable. When you revert my change without comment -- while actually duplicating the quote in the article -- that is a social problem. You're behaving in a way that makes no sense to me.

Now with all that aside, let's discuss actual content. The quote in question nicely captures the result of the book-burning affair to Sheldrake personally. I believe it makes the most sense to give the quote after the affair has been described, and in the same section which describes the affair. vzaak (talk) 18:20, 10 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)

Section names

I think the Rupert Sheldrake#Background section could be changed to Rupert Sheldrake#Early life and eduction and then the section Rupert Sheldrake#Life and career be changed to Rupert Sheldrake#Career and the text about his personal life would go into a Rupert Sheldrake#Personal life section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

the organizing principal has been chronology. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 11 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. [135]. 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 [136] 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"[137], 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[138] (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 [139] 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 [140] - 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 [141] "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)

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,"[142]
• 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"[143]
• Financial Times (2013) "Sheldrake, 69, has written more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books and is known for his controversial theories"[144]
• Skeptical Inquirer (2000) "Sheldrake’s hypothetical .. Sheldrake has conducted new experiments"[145]
• Times Higher Education (2012) "Sheldrake is not sceptical enough. He's against scientific "laws" but convinced of the permanence of scientific "facts" "[146]
• 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"[147]
• 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."[148]
• BBC (2012) "Joan Bakewell explores areas of belief with biologist Professor Rupert Sheldrake"[149]

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

A few more secondary sources:

• BBC (2002) "modern maverick Rupert Sheldrake"[150] (2005): "Biologist Dr Rupert Sheldrake"[151] (2005): "Dr Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author"[152] (2012) "scientist Dr Rupert Sheldrake"[153]
• New Scientist (2004) "biochemist-turned-parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake"[154]
• 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"[155] (2004) "Dr Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author"[156] (2005) "psychic scientist Rupert Sheldrake"[157]
• The Independent (2013) "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist"[158]
• Nature (2004) "Rupert Sheldrake, a former biochemist and plant physiologist at the University of Cambridge who has taken up parapsychology"[159] (2006) "a parapsychologist .. the researcher, Rupert Sheldrake"[160]

Academic

• Open University "Rupert Seldrake is a biologist and writer"[161]
• Binghamton University, Ask a Scientist "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist"[162]

--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.[163] 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.[164]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)