Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Biologist, lead and background

Further to our discussion above, and the suggestion to add "biologist" to the lead in order to reflect the consensus of reliable sources, plus a sentence or two to put this into some context, I offer the following:

In the lead (my addition in bold):

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] public speaker,[4] biologist,[1][2] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[5] known for his "morphic resonance" concept.[6]

In the section "Life and Career", before the paragraph that starts "After writing A New Science of Life...", add:

Although some critics have described some of his work as "not scientific",[3], Sheldrake notes that "although some of these areas overlap the field of parapsychology", he says that "he approaches them as a biologist, and bases his research on natural history and experiments under natural conditions, as opposed to laboratory studies".[4]

--Iantresman (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So I don't see how your new addition to the background really justifies your desire to change the lede. Your sourcing for the lede is not very good, to be honest. I also am not convinced that your desired addition to the background is really worth including. The sourcing is somewhat weak. jps (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"some critics"? and no, his "biology" is not what he is noted for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct TRPoD, I always think of him as being notable for his interesting speculations about reality. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is worth considering that we don't really describe how much Sheldrake has rejected the scientific method as shown by the quote Ian highlights where he seems to balk at proper laboratory controls. Of course, I'm not sure people have paid that close attention to his particular choice in how he has chosen to pursue his research. We do, of course have a lot of good sources on how essentially no one agrees (save perhaps for other people who believe that paranormal phenomena exist) with his critique of the scientific method. jps (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My new addition is not the justification for changing the lead. A preponderance of reliable sources that describes Sheldrake as a biologist, is the justification. The extra material is not necessary, but just adds some context. If you feel this Sheldrake is no longer considered a biologist, then all you need to do is provide some reliable sources so we can assess this view.

Likewise, if you have sources that suggest that Sheldrake has rejected scientific method, please bring them to the table so they can be assessed. We need to strive for WP:NPOV, and meet WP:BURDEN, and I've seen absolutely nothing on this page that supports these views. --Iantresman (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your proposed changes deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I respect your personal opinion, but Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Despite having requested source for some time supporting your views, I note that none have been forthcoming. --Iantresman (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, editorial decisions like which sources to use when to reference which content and how are made by consensus. That's what you're coming up against. You haven't been convincing. jps (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is enough to support a reference to his degree and initial work, but not to support it as a designation in the lede. There is a clear consensus on that from all who have contributed so unless other editors get involved to support you I think this one is over. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying, is that although there are a preponderance of sources that described Sheldrake as a biologist (I think 20+ sources from the BBC, to university websites, to peer reviewed journals, which have been provided), that these are all overruled by a consensus of editors, who have provided not a single source to support their view, and do not need to, despite WP:BURDEN? --Iantresman (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So, we have the subject of a BLP who trained as a biologist who did a little biology in his early years, which is covered in sentence two of the article, and the body. He hasn't been a biologist since he stopped doing biology; when was that? Thirty years ago? Where are his peer reviewed papers in prestigious, or even not quite so prestigious journals. What has he been doing since then? Where should I find out? I know, lets take a look at Wikipedia. Ah. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about proposed inclusion of content. If you can't convince others, then your next step is to go look for dispute resolution. jps (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy. I have only your word that (a) Sheldrake has stopped doing biology (b) that a published peer reviewed paper is required in a journal of your choice to deserve the label. That others describe him as a biologist, as been amply demonstrated in a preponderance of reliable sources (20+), all of which you have rejected, again, based only on your whim, your criteria, your opinion. --Iantresman (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See sentence 2. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, your opinion, your assessment, your criteria, and not a single source in sight. --Iantresman (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

... and yet you haven't proposed removing that unsourced sentence. Why not? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My focus is elsewhere, one word at a time. I also do not know which sentence you are referring to, so I don't know whether I would propose removing it, or trying to source it better. Either way, one sentence does influence our decision to source other material. --Iantresman (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one agrees with your suggestion, it would be better if you tried something else. jps (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I shall not continue further, despite the addition of "biologist" being consistent with a preponderance of reliable sources, and the idea that he is no longer a biologist has not been supported by a single source. --Iantresman (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you've made your position heard loud and clear. We all could faithfully reproduce it. Yet none of us are convinced, so maybe try another technique? jps (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

None of you are "convinced" - you don't have to be convinced, just follow the facts, which is obviously not what you have been doing so far.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rupert Sheldrake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121521210900/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727181657/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf to http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212093259/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/19/the-science-behind-%E2%80%98torchwood%E2%80%99-morphic-fields/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/19/the-science-behind-%E2%80%98torchwood%E2%80%99-morphic-fields/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

Add to the debate section of public appearances:

Rupert Sheldrake has appeared at the Institute of Art and Ideas' annual music and philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn to debate his ideas on morphic resonance and with leading philosophers and scientists on related topics.

Reference: https://iai.tv/home/speaker/rupert-sheldrake

2A00:9400:0:800:0:0:8:2 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Which scientists are you referring to? At HowTheLightGetsIn I only found politicians, musicians, philosophers and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This user has added a dozen or so links to IAI/HTLGI events in biographies. It is has the appearance of being an account used solely for adding spam. The addition should not be made. Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception of morphic resonance theory

Could this article not give more information about how Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance has been received by the scientific community by naming individuals, both critics of morphic resonance such as Steven Rose, and supporters of the theory?Carltonio (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it could. It will as soon as someone does it. I am not aware of any positive reception from the scientific community though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do, but take care! Include inline cited well chosen reliable sources for what you add. This article has historically been the site of edit warring and other bad behavior, and morphic resonance is one of those topics that tends to provoke it. Being meticulous about your wording and sourcing can help avoid that. --Krelnik (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Heretic or Heretics of Science?

This article says that Sheldrake was the subject of a 1994 BBC series called "Heretics of Science" but I thought that the programme was just called "Heretic". 81.140.1.129 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct, it was just called "Heretic" (reference). --Iantresman (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No sources?

"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience[citation needed]. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology[citation needed]"

Um. LOL. "Critics cite" ... [citation needed]. Come on Wikipedia. Someone must find this as amusing as I do. When will the world wake up? Come on boys and girls... Sheldrake HAS proved it. How much longer can you hide the truth that actually he can not be debunked? -M 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please show us the citations. GangofOne (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone added those citation needed templates last week, and when they did they apparently missed the extensive citations in the note at the end of the paragraph. Thanks for mentioning it, I have removed the erroneously placed tags. - MrOllie

(talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A Book for Burning

I think that sections on John Maddox could mention that Maddox went as far as to say that in the editorial to Nature, Maddox said that Sheldrake's "A New Science of Life" was the best candidate for burning in years. I know that the Guardian online claims that Maddox did not actually say that Sheldrake's A New Science of Life was a book for burning - but I hardly think that one could call the Guardian a reliable source! Vorbee (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Um ... OK, ... I'll bite ... what is wrong with the graun as a source? -Roxy the dog. bark 20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel that Sheldrake is doing something important by expanding science to include the spiritual. It is not "magical thinking" but the inclusion of the centuries-old almost universal belief that the spriritual is part of nature and not something separate from it. This belief was enshrined in Aristotle's hylomorphism, the world soul of Plotinus, and the pan-psychism of William James. The view that the world is only composed of matter is not scientific, and, as Sheldrake argues, it has been disastrous for mandkind and the planet. Bdubay (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

And this counts as "discussing improvements to the Rupert Sheldrake article" how? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just learned that 'The view that the world is only composed of matter is not scientific' and 'it has been disastrous for mandkind [sic] and the planet.' Gosh. Who knew. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017

There is a phrase "Although there are similarities between morphic resonance and Hinduism's akashic records,[125] " The reference is factually incorrect, because "akashic records" were invented by Theosophy in the 19th Century and do not appear in any prior Hindu scriptures. (Note that due to the British Raj, some religious groups in India were affected by Theosophy, so it is necessary to look at prior scriptures in order to verify this.)

Note that Wikipedia's page on akashic records will verify this, and has no reference to Hinduism.

Also note that a reference cannot be used to prove a false statement. For example, if a web page has an article that has the sentence "The sky is green", it is not appropriate to state on the Wikipedia page for "sky" that it is green, using that article as a reference.

SO, please remove the word "Hinduism's" and replace with "Theosophy's".

Also note that in the same section is found "He recounts his Indian colleagues saying, "There's nothing new in this, it was all known millennia ago to the ancient rishis." " This is what I am referring to when I said above "Note that due to the British Raj, some religious groups in India were affected by Theosophy". This Talk section is not the place for a long discussion of the effect of the British Raj on upper middle class South Asians, but even reading the appropriate Wikipedia entries should be sufficient to verify that.

So, the section currently implies things about Hinduism and its scriptures, that are not true, despite Sheldrake's claims. Those who read the page may thus get false impressions about Hinduism which are only unsubstantiated claims by Sheldrake. Thus it would be helpful to modify the rest of the paragraph in some way to indicate that Sheldrake's claim about Hinduism is unsubstantiated.

Thanks ! 162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The reason "Hinduism's" is used in this context is because it was used as such in the reference. If you can provide a similar reliable source that supports your change, please reopen your request including that source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 03:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I move the "Sheldrake says" to the front, with the effect that the false connection between Hinduism and Akasha is attributed to him instead of being in Wikipedia's voice. This should be better in any case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Coming to this new, I agree that the current wording still suggests that "akashic records" are Hindu. How about putting the three words "Hinduism's akashic records" in quotes, which makes the attribution to Sheldrake much more obvious? However, in my opinion, nothing is lost to the encyclopedic nature by omitting "Hinduism's" altogether, which would seem to me the best solution. Readers can click through to akashic records. Simon Grant (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

British male novelists

Why is Sheldrake categorised as a British male novelist? I did not know that he had had any novels published, and he is surely more well -known for his non-fiction work.Vorbee (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I take that as a sly comment that his books are works of fiction. GangofOne (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the novelist category tag. This is a BLP article and people should save their schoolboy humour for elsewhere. --Nigelj (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why not also give the man the credit he deserves, and call him what he is, a biologist (or biochemist) first, and then an author of several quite popular, but also quite speculative books. Furthermore he is not a researcher in the field of parapsychology, although some parts of his, admittedly wild, but also not completely unfounded, ideas, has touched upon the subject. I wonder how many of the editors, who keep defaming him here, have a PhD from Cambridge, like he has?2.108.111.228 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Not completely unfounded"? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is "not completely unfounded", if you want to use that line of reasoning. And the "how many of the editors" question is just a silly attempt at argumentum ad verecundiam. Using that line of reasoning, only Obama, the Bushes, and Clinton should be allowed to edit the Trump article.

The reason Sheldrake is not called a biologist first is that he is not famous for being that. See Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_21. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You are both using circular argumentation, and please keep your flying monsters to yourself - that is itself not a serious argument, that is just spreading ridicule, and thus plainly silly. Sheldrake is proposing what should rightfully be called protoscientific speculation, and he is not doing this without a thorough scientific background, he has the education. Whether or not the editors here possess scientific knowledge on the same level as a person with a PhD in the area discussed, is a genuinely relevant question about editor qualifications - not an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the fact that he is a genuine biologist is the reason why he and his books became so famous, not the other way around.2.108.111.228 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "circular argumentation"??? What gives you that idea? Did you just pick a fallacy at random and accuse us of it?
• "that is itself not a serious argument" - Wrong. You used bad reasoning, and I showed it was bad reasoning by applying the same reasoning to the defense of something you probably know to be false (the Flying Spaghetti Monster). That is a common technique, and there is nothing wrong with it.
• "should rightfully be called protoscientific speculation" - We do not decide what things "should be called", we quote reliable sources as to what they "are actually called".
• "he has the education" - To anybody who has seen the interior of a university, this is the most worthless reasoning ever. Scientific discussions are not won by people who say "I have the education", but by those who have the best objective reasons.
• "genuinely relevant question" - Bullshit. Reasoning does not suddenly become good or bad by looking at the reasoner. If what you use is "not an appeal to authority", then what is?
• "the fact that he is a genuine biologist is the reason" - Wrong. The vast majority of "genuine biologists" is far less famous than Sheldrake. Even if you were right, and somehow his biologist-ness had caused his fame, maybe because he is more "genuine" than other biologists, you would have to find a source that says that is the reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to make a lot of claims, that are just that. You showed absolutely nothing by pulling a flying monster out of your pocket - what is it you think you did demonstrate? The article from Nature, which is used as a source for the claim that he should be a parapsychological researcher, is itself not correct. He is a researcher in biology, while other researchers (often psychologists) are in fact doing official research in parapsychic phenomena. Here is a link to the mans own webpage where he specifically maintains the officially acclaimed fact that he as an educated biologist is doing biological research, not parapsychology. And before you jump on that, no his own claim is no proof, but his university grades and his Phd are, and I don't know who gave you the idea, that just any wannabe wiki-editor should be qualified to downplay those achievements. And by the way here is a link to the wiki-page on protoscience, which I maintain would be the proper term to use. Furthermore concerning your prolonged verbal, Erasmus Montanus-like nitpicking and confusion of category, what I said was, that he became famous as a popular writer on biology, because he is a biologist, which to normal people tend to make his speculations seem potentially more qualified, than if he was not a biologist. I do not know what your motif is for all the rather troll-like confusion you spread, but please be advised that you are only fooling people with the same lack of general understanding of logic (as well as non-logic) as yourself. You will probably answer with more pseudo-objective mumbo-jumbo, but I will not waste more time on you.2.108.111.228 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you failed to get it after two explanations, so here is the third. Your claim that Sheldrake's nonsense is "not completely unfounded" is not relevant, because no crazy idea ever proposed, including the FSM, is ever "completely unfounded". There is always some wordage that looks like a justification to laymen, making them "founded".

Nobody is interested in what you "maintain would be the proper term to use". Read the rules: WP:OR.

"he became famous as a popular writer on biology" - How do you justify that? His first book, "A New Science of Life" was already murky New Age hocus pocus, including morphic resonance. He never wrote a bona fide biology book. He may be calling it that, but what counts is what reliable sources call it.

I will gloss over your meek attempt at a bluff in the last few sentences, pretending you understand logic better than I do. Don't do that, you are bad at it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK I lied, I will give you one last chance, LOL.

As far as I can see from the rules you refer to, it is about what is in the wikipage itself, not what can be argued in a talk page. Are you sure you are not over-interpreting the rules to suit your needs?

Any way, whether or not that might be the case, you proceed to do the same yourself (express an opinion) in your very next paragraph, judging Sheldrake's work to be "already murky New Age hocus pocus" - which goes straight to the heart of what I have been attempting to clearly imply in various ways previously: What are your scientific qualifications (compared to Sheldrake's) to make this kind of judgment?

I do not know, what a wiki-prohibition against editors making scientific judgements might be called, but I am sure it must exist.

Next, I didn't claim that his books was scientific textbooks, on the contrary, I specifically wrote "popular writer" - maybe not clear enough, what about writer of popular science "speculation" - another word I also very intentionally (in hope of avoiding this kind of time-waste) used in my first entry. Additionally, it is misguiding when you say that he never did any "bona fide biology book", since he published about a dozen scientific papers.

Finally, please let me underline the simple fact that it is commonplace, in wiki-articles, as well as all other publications, about scientists to have their correct academic title mentioned in relation to their name, usually already in the very introduction. Just like any decent researcher of any kind would always do without question. This is an absolute minimum requirement if you want to be considered fair and objective.

Over and out.2.108.111.228 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I had gotten the impression that you wanted to put the protoscience stuff into the article. There is nothing to indicate that, so my OR argument was baseless. Still, I am not interested in whether you consider Sheldrake's fantasies protoscience. Using the word "Protoscience" is actually a prophecy: it claims that the thing will turn into science one day.

"I didn't claim that his books was scientific textbooks" I never said you did. I said the subject of his books was never within the scope of biology. It was always about some sort of magic Sheldrake believes in.

"he published about a dozen scientific papers" - Red herring. We are talking about the question of what he is famous for, remember? He is not famous for those. I am sure Angela Merkel wrote scientific papers, but she is described as what she is famous for, not as what she isn't.

"scientists to have their correct academic title mentioned in relation to their name, usually already in the very introduction" - This is an altogether different question. See MOS:CREDENTIALS. So, if you have good sources about which titles he earned, add them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This conversation seems very confused. What you now call an entirely different question, was in fact the main and only direct suggestion in my first entry. And labeling something as protoscience, is not a claim (or prophecy as you put it) that it will undoubtedly lead to good science; only that that is a possibility.2.108.111.228 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

From your first contribution: "call him what he is, a biologist (or biochemist) first, and then an author"

My response: "The reason Sheldrake is not called a biologist first is that he is not famous for being that."

That is my point, and you failed to refute it. Can we drop this now, and leave the first sentence as it is?

The article already says "He worked as a biochemist [etc.]" in the second sentence. Adding titles was never the subject of this discussion, and nobody has a problem with that. If you tried to suggest adding titles to the second sentence in your first entry, you failed miserably. You only mentioned academic titles when asking whether any editors have them.

I did not say "good science". It does not look like it will ever be any type of science. But no matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"The reason Sheldrake is not called a biologist first is that he is not famous for being that." Problem is that you make an unsourced claim like this, and use it as an excuse to ignore a persons credentials. There is no way you can objectively separate his notability from him being a biologist. When you claim to be able to do that, that is just an undocumented claim, an untestable assumption. And the consequence of you and a bunch of others practicing this kind of irrational behavior, is that it lowers wikipedias general credibility on any issue with a strong subjective content; politics, religion, or in this case metaphysics.

"It does not look like it will ever be any type of science." - there you do it again; what are your formal qualification to make such an assessment? Cambridge gave him a 5 year grant to develop the ideas you claim are not science, and can never be - are you better qualified than them?

I maintain that the current omission of biologist in the intro is simply not a formally correct treatment. My claim that he became more famous as an author because he was already a biologist, is also not documentable, it is just my assessment - which is absolutely as good or bad as yours, which again mean that we have a deadlock situation - and the most normal way to solve such a thing is usually sticking with formalia, not throwing formalia away, like you have done. Thus, biologist should be mentioned, before both author and parapsychic researcher (if the latter absolutely has to stay, which I find peculiar, but ok, lets leave that at that...)87.116.36.174 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No reliable source says he is famous for biology. All reliable sources that mention him talk about his morphic resonance/psi/spooky abilities thing. If they mention his being a biologist, it is as an aside, except a few pretty obscure ones, like "Odyssey of Auxin", which has a few hundred Google hits [5]. Your or my "assessment" just do not come into it, and postmodern "some say this, others say this" relativism does not help. Reliable sources are what WP is built on, and what you call my "assessment" is actually what the reliable sources say.

"what are your formal qualification to make such an assessment" - This is probably the main obstacle to you ever understanding Wikipedia, or science. Wikipedia, as well as science, is about good reasoning, not about weak substitutes and formalities like licences, authorizations, or titles. Read what Feynman writes about cargo-cult science.

It is a very common occurrence on Wikipedia that the fans of all sorts of crackpots want to puff up the articles about those crackpots and make their idols appear greater by inflating their accomplishments. This does not usually work because they are caught. It will not work here.

If you are finished repeating yourself, can we stop this? You failed to supply any good reasons for the change, and you probably will not start doing that in your next edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I will not comment on your crackpot-fan stuff, being aware that I did imply a few things myself. Instead let me underline that I also did not use the word "irrational" to insult you, but because I believe, I see you doing something irrational, that you seem to think is rational. You write: "No reliable source says he is famous for biology. All reliable sources that mention him talk about his morphic resonance/psi/spooky abilities thing." But the point is, that morphic resonance IS a biological theory, developed by a biologist, applying his biology research methods, and NOT parapsychological (or "psi" or "spooky") ones. He then wrote a popular science book about it, which made him famous as a biologist who wrote a book challenging the limits of biology. In other words: The division biology/morphic resonance is not in the subject matter, it's a false assumption, and it is therefore absurd to argue what you are arguing. If you will not accept such simple logic, you can stop whenever you like. No-one is forcing you to participate.

I guess the bottom line is: Can you supply a source with documented proof, that it didn't add to his popularity as a writer on fringe biology, that he is in fact a biologist?

Another point would be, that his scientific credentials was off course used as a crucial part of marketing him as an author, so to claim that you can separate the two (successfully being a biologist vs successfully writing on biology) is a no-go.2.108.111.228 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Na, wont wash, he hasn't done biology since 1974. read the Talk page archives. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's something of a claim, what's the source for that. I'm not reading 21 pages to try to guess what you mean.2.108.111.228 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"morphic resonance IS a biological theory" Please find a reliable source for that claim. I would not even call it a theory.

"Can you supply a source with documented proof, that it didn't add to his popularity as a writer on fringe biology, that he is in fact a biologist?" I don't need to because I never claimed it didn't. Of course there are a lot of fools out there who are easily impressed by some guy having credentials in something. Of course his academic titles helped selling his ideas. But any other discipline would have helped the same way.

Look, I am a skeptic. I have a lot of experience with people using bad reasoning such as the straw man. Saying "he is not famous for being a biologist" is clearly different from "his being a biologist didn't add to his popularity". If you continue arguing, you will have to continue using such bad reasoning, because there are no good reasons for your position. But then I will continue refuting it. You should just give up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A theory theorizing from a biological perspective developed by a biologist is per definition a biological theory. Why should anybody care what you would call it?87.116.36.174 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So you have no reliable source. Good bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Bye, bye - if you have to go, you have to go. Although here is a reliable source (Cambridge University) defining Sheldrake as one of "two world-renowned scientists." It doesn't say author, but scientist i.e. in Sheldrake's case meaning that he is a world famous biologist. Subsequently, I intend to add his title as biologist in the introduction and link to that source.87.116.36.174 (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just more non sequitur. Somebody calling him a "world-renowned scientist" when advertising a debate is not the same as saying "he is famous for being a biologist". We are not allowed to draw our own conclusions as you are doing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you want to discuss if a biologist is a scientist? That is not a definition I am making. And it is not just "somebody" but Cambridge Uni. Please stop nitpicking.87.116.36.174 (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No I don't. Stop lying and go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of lying?2.108.111.228 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Now you want to discuss if a biologist is a scientist?" This is such a stupid question that it must be obvious to you that this is not what I meant. You do not even try to understand what I say, you just try to score points by misrepresenting it, painting me as some sort of fool. If this discussion had ever had a point, it would have stopped having one a while ago. So, EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you really feel that, I am genuinely sorry - and please believe me, when I say, that's also how I feel about quite a few of the ways you've been answering me. We seem to be completely talking past each other.

Please note that I do not belong to any of the categories of believers mentioned or unmentioned, I am in fact completely sincere in my request, which is basically an ethical-aesthetical concern, ensuring that all formally qualified scientists receive equal treatment when it comes to naming conventions and typography/layout of the introductory line - a sequence:

NAME (date) is an/a Nationality main titles ... etc.

That is how it is normally done in an old fashioned encyclopedia, and I see no reason not to maintain the same high standard in Wikipedia (also typographically.)

And in fact it already does seem to uphold this, I sampled a few (20, but check it out yourself):

"Robert Hilary Kane (born 1938, Boston) is an American philosopher. He is Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, and is currently on phased retirement."

"Richard Langton Gregory CBE FRS FRSE (24 July 1923 – 17 May 2010) was a British psychologist and Emeritus Professor of Neuropsychology at the University of Bristol."

"Holger Bech Nielsen (born 25 August 1941, Copenhagen) is a Danish theoretical physicist, Professor emeritus at the Niels Bohr Institute, at the University of Copenhagen, where he started studying physics in 1961."

And it also extends to other kinds of famousness:

"John Felix Anthony Cena (/ˈsiːnə/; born April 23, 1977) is an American professional wrestler, rapper, actor, and reality television show host ... etc."

"Arnon Yasha Yves Grunberg (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɑrnɔn ˈjɑʃaː iːv ˈɣrʏnbɛrx]; born 22 February 1971) is a Dutch writer of novels, essays, and columns, as well as a journalist ... etc."

But as I said, check it out yourself: Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Bohm, Mozart (even though in Mozarts case they seem to have forgotten the nationality, unless he didn't have one?)

I just do not think it is, neither ethically, nor typographically correct, not to use the same setup for everyone, without exception; it has been normal procedure in publishing in ages.

You seemed ok with that (?) previously, when you, quoting me having said "scientists to have their correct academic title mentioned in relation to their name, usually already in the very introduction" said: "- This is an altogether different question. See MOS:CREDENTIALS. So, if you have good sources about which titles he earned, add them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)" - which I understand as you being ok with adding biologist for this reason (standardization of the introductory line) but that I'd have to get a quote. But if you look in all the above examples their main titles have no quotes, so it doesn't seem to be a requirement.

So I suggest:

"Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, biologist and researcher in the field of parapsychology ... etc."

MTFBWY2.108.111.228 (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No, for the reasons already explained to you by Hab. -Roxy the dog. bark 06:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You still did not supply any source for your previous statement.87.116.36.174 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please let me add, that I consider the above discussion as a strong indication of a failed attempt to reach consensus, for my suggestion, that the correct procedure for an NPOV biography like this would be to mention his status as biologist up-front, or second like suggested above: "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, biologist and researcher in the field of parapsychology ... etc."

I would also suggest changing the next sentence about him having "worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973" - its a strangely misleading formulation, "worked as" is what you would say if the individual in question didn't have the (usually mandatory) formal qualifications for a position - and to "work" at Cambridge" would normally mean in a non-academic position, like administrative, tech, or maintenance. You only conduct biochemistry there as part of the academic system and thus have a specific academic status (status, meant neutrally as in level of certified competence) and thus an academic rank.

A more normal (neutral) wording would be something like: "He was a..." for instance "teaching fellow", "PhDude" or whatever his rank was.

Again, this is just how it's normally done, a formalization put in place by the academic system itself - according to which, scientific suggestions from a Cambridge-PhD are off course just qualified speculation - but qualified they are, per definition of his academic rank, that's the whole idea of having ranks - and to point to that, like I am doing here (and like I have done previously), has nothing to do with an argument to authority. I am (and was) simply referring to normal procedure (in the academic world, and in Wikipedia) to formalia - which should normally be followed, unless there are special reasons to consider deviation. And I haven't been presented with any such reasons. A biologist don't stop being a biologist, just because other scientists disagree with his ideas for developing the discipline, and certainly not because of some of these, however influential, antagonists wanting to burn his books.2.108.111.228 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sheldrake's response to Wikipedia

I think Sheldrake's intervention with regard to the edit war documented on this page should be included here for reference purposes, particularly his claim that an organised group of Wikipedia 'guerilla skeptics' operate strategically across the encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.75.37 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge Draft:Morphogenetic Field

• Draft:Morphogenetic Field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Morphic resonance and morphic field are themselves redirects here. Any relevant information from this draft probably also should be merged... —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Science and spiritual practices

According to an online potted biography of Sheldrake, Sheldrake's most recent book is called "Science and Spiritual Practices". This book does not appear to be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct names

Please change

his father graduated from Nottingham University with a degree in pharmacy

to

his father graduated from the University of Nottingham with a degree in pharmacy

This may affect other places too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4132:BC00:3623:87FF:FE57:6027 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I made this correction. No other instances found in article. RobP (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheldrake's sons

This article says that Sheldrake has two sons. According to the article on Jill Purce, they are called Merlin and Cosmo. Do you think their names could be added to the article to here, or do you think that that would just be replicating information from the article on Jill Purce?Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Third and fourth paragraphs of article

The third paragraph says that Sheldrake's ideas have not been accepted by the scientific community. This is then followed by a fourth paragrpah that is only one sentence long, saying "Sheldrake's ideas have found support from individuals in the New Age movement such as Deepak Chopra". I am wondering whether the continuity would be improved if the two paragraphs were merged into one, and the paragraph stating that Sheldrake's ideas have found support in the New Age movement began with the word "However". Vorbee (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's only an essay, but this reminds me of WP:HOWEVER (I'm sure I've used that word myself though). —PaleoNeonate – 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"Laws" of Nature, and Deepak Chopra

I just watched the TedX talk ("The Science Delusion") mentioned here in the comments, and it totally mischaracterizes exactly what Sheldrake said. Sheldrake reminds us that the "Laws" of Nature (such as the "Law" of Gravity) were originally developed as metaphors, and that "Scientists" make the mistake of failing to remember that while the word "Law" is used, it' was, and still is, a metaphor. If one refuses to accept this, then who "wrote" the "Law", which then leads to the acceptance of the existance of God, which no scientist would accept as a matter of science (vs. faith). This is a semantics issue, addressing the weakness of the use of common language, and a reminder that there is a difference between the usefulness of a particular word ("law"), and the implementation of the metaphor as a scientifically determined conclusion (that the universe operates on laws, in the same sense that human society operates on laws).

It's a simple and obvious truth, once one takes the time and puts the effort into differentiating between the two ("Law", as a metaphoric descriptor vs. "Law" as an absolute). Human laws are subject to change, maybe universal, scientific laws are too. That's not "pseudo-science", it's a scientific question.

In an article that generally describes Sheldrake's scientific questions (inquiry) and hypothesis as "pseudoscience" is bad enough, but the inclusion of Deepak Chopra takes this fundamental bias of "not getting the point" and attempts to cement the bias by including the non-scientist Chopra's opinions and malign Sheldrake by association. But Chopra associates himself with Sheldrake, and Sheldrake does not associate his ideas with Chopra. Chopra is not qualified to determine the scientific merit of Sheldrake, and his opinions have no place in this article, which seems to offer the opinion that Sheldrake advocates pseudo-science. But that's CHOPRA, and not Sheldrake, doing the pseudo-sciencing. Guilt by association. What's next? Should some additional mention of the opinions of actor Tom Cruise be added, with his purported beliefs in Scientology, in order to further denigrate Sheldrake's opinions? Perhaps Joy Behar from the American morning Talk Show "The View" should also be mentioned, in order to round-out the non-scientific communities condemnation of Sheldrake as a "Pseudo-Scientist".

As a reader of Wikipedia, I expect more than this. If the Encyclopedia intends to make this article's focus centered on the question of whether or not Sheldrake's opinions are either "scientific" or "pseudo-science" then that should be the overt thesis, and the opinions of unqualified non-scientists are completely irrelevant. THAT'S the point of "pseudoscience" anyways, and this article falls directly into it's trap, by including the opinions of non-scientists in a debate on what is or is not scientific, as if those uninformed and unqualified opinions are meaningful. They are not. And because of their inclusion in this article, the article's "opinion" of Sheldrake's "science" is also irrelevant.

Sheldrake's opinions may or may not be pseudo-science. That is up for debate. What is not up for debate is that this article is clearly pseudo-science, using non-scientists opinions to denigrate and diminish the opinions of a scientist who is clearly qualified to have them.

As a Reader I expect more from Wikipedia than this kind of crap. Lazy, indulgent and superficial. As a Reader, if the focus of the article is to be on whether or not Sheldrake is considered "science-worthy", I expect the article to include SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS, from SCIENTISTS, not the opinion of "...Indian-born American author, public speaker, alternative medicine advocate, and a prominent figure in the New Age movement." Deepak Chopra. I expect a SCIENTIST to say Sheldrake is this, and then another SCIENTIST to say that Sheldrake is that. One way or the other, and then let the Reader make a decision. The opinions of politicians, actors, authors, talk-show hosts, reality show contestants, and some man-on-the-street who works at the Quickie Mart have no place in the article. Please do better, or go find some other activity to occupy your time.2605:6000:6947:AB00:3466:94E8:8A8C:A1D2 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

CarlosXing (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a bit new at this. I wish to change this line:

to this line:

There are two changes under cite book. The first name is changed from "M." to "Martin" and an authorlink is added to point to Martin Gardner's WP page. Thank you for your patience with me. How could I better communicate these changes?CarlosXing (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Unfortunatly it still isn't at all clear what you want. I think you want to change a name within a ref, and then wikilink the changed name to the authors wiki article. We don't do that. If I have misinterpreted what you want, please try again. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Life and Career

From the fourth paragraph of this section: "A 2012 profile in The Guardian described the Sheldrake of that era as 'one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation'" I trust that no one will deny that the words "of that era" are redundant. The inclusion of this phrase suggests the opinion that Sheldrake only enjoyed this esteem for a limited time. Skepticism is laudable, but the prejudice throughout this article threatens Wikipedia's credibility.

Since he stopped being a Darwinian pretty quickly, your suggested edit would make the article misleading. The Guardian specifically say "he seems more like the Cambridge biochemistry don he once was, one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation". Which means: he was that; he is not any more.

We follow the reliable sources. If the reliable sources make Sheldrake look bad, that is not something Wikipedia can change. And if your yardstick for measuring Wikipedia's credibility is your own opinions, you are doing it wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Psychic Staring Effect

This article says that Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance encompasses paranormal phenomena such as the psychic staring effect. Surely the sense of being stared at is something quite apart from Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance. Vorbee (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add information

Please add a subsection to the article about Rupert Shedrake's new book, due to be published on 24th January 2019 by Coronet. Suggested text about the book follows:

Ways to Go Beyond (2019)

(Redacted)

Moominlvr (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Not done: Copying and pasting text from another source is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please write your request in your own words. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New edits introduce too much negative bias into the lede

Hi, the recent edits by User:JzG result in too much (and repetitious) negative bias into the first, third and fourth paragraphs of the lede, imo. Esowteric+Talk 14:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Para #1: "a theory which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience."

Para #3: "proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience."

Para #4: "while lacking scientific acceptance" This is undue and repetitive. Esowteric+Talk 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they put Sheldrake's work into context. You have to work quite hard to get the editor of Nature to call your work pseudoscience in print. Previously you could read practically the entire article without realising that "morphic resonance" is a one man theory accepted only by the woo brigade. The lede is now much closer to its version after the last POV-push by Sheldrake fanbois, back in 2015. And incidentally I read The Science Delusion, it was as blatant a piece of special pleading as I have ever encountered. If your thesis is that science is biased because it pretty much universally finds your ideas to be wrong, the scientific conclusion is that you're wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly, Esowteric. Right now the article reads like its primary purpose is to debunk Sheldrake’s idea of morphic resonance. Even biographical details about his scientific career that I added were reverted. Of course, his ideas about morphic resonance are widely considered pseudoscience and that should be noted and referenced prominently in the lede. But Sheldrake’s previous notability as a scientist - specifically his work on auxin - should absolutely be noted. Per WP:BLP, we should be writing in a dispassionate tone and letting the facts speak for themselves. As of now, the article reads like an attack on the individual. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, since you did a fair bit of the whitewashing and also appear to be a fan of Chopra. However, as I pointed out, you have to work at it to be called a pseudoscience by the editor if Nature, in print. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is noted that you haven’t responded to any of my points but instead have accused me of “whitewashing” and speculated on who I am a fan of. It’s pretty clear to me that you are NOT a fan of Sheldrake, which is equally concerning from a neutrality perspective. Anyone who wants to can feel free to look back on my edits. All they did was summarize biographical information that is already in the article, using the same sources that are already cited. I left the paragraph about morphic resonance just it is. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing might not be the best description, I said, "substantial change in POV of lede that shifts attention from notability". What I wrote about the similar changes at Deepak Chopra is a bit more descriptive, "substantially changes pov without demonstrating support from sources while ignoring FRINGE". --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Two mentions of "have been characterised as pseudoscience" is probably too much for the lede, but otherwise the original science is a very long time in the past and his notability is not there - its all the new age (and he now seems to be adopting an odd form of religion) and almost cult like love of his supporters for morphic resonance.-----Snowded ^TALK 07:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

After the last outing by the woo-mongers the article was fixed to this: [6]. That lede was fine. We could restore that. There are several problems of special pleading in recent and past edits. If you can read almost the entire article without immediately recognising that "morphic resonance" is bollocks, we are not adhering to WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

TBH, looking at the article, I'm far more concerned about the general puffery than I am the lead. It also relies really heavily on his books and website. Guettarda (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Conjecture": The particular use of the word "conjecture" in the lede ("... who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.") may well be an opinion held by the scientists, but it should not be used to reflect the editor's own opinion, surely. As a noun, it means (1) A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); (2) A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; (3) Reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

A more neutral term would be "hypothesis" or "theory". Esowteric+Talk 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

In common useage, "conjecture" is pejorative, dismissive and synonymous with "mere conjecture", and it is not up to us as editors to voice such opinions. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Theory" wouldn't work for something that's claimed to be scientific. "Hypothesis" similarly has a formal meaning that we shouldn't insert without very solid sourcing (given the restrictions around pseudoscience). Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

While "conjecture" is an appropriate technical term, if you're concerned that can be interpreted as dismissive, I'm open to other terms that manage to thread the needle. Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

”concept” and “idea” are much more neutral sounding words. Regarding Ronz’s comment that I “substantially changed the POV,” I simply summarized the biographical information on the individual contained in the article. I did not even change the word “conjecture” in doing so, though Esowteric is quite right that it is often used as a pejorative and is inappropriate to use in the lede. Whether people in the scientific community like him or not, Sheldrake is a notable public figure and the lede of his biography should cover more than just scientific opinion on morphic resonance. Specifically, it should cover his educational background, years as a conventional scientist, his move to India and interest in spirituality, and his eventual publishing of “The New Science of Life,” at which point he could no longer be considered a mainstream scientist. Then, a brief summary of his career since as a writer public speaker and parapsychology researcher - noting, of course his lack of acceptance in the scientific community ever since. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, conjecture is the correct term. It's a non-scientific idea (to quote Sheldrake, "[P]hilosophers, linguists, and classicists were quite open-minded. But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs." He dreamed it up, as he says. It's a wild-assed guess, not a conclusion from evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus that “conjecture” is the appropriate term, as can be seen above. So we need to agree on an alternative. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that it follows that just because some people object to the term "conjecture" that there is "no consensus" OR, even granting that there might be no consensus, that this necessitates finding an alternative. Sheldrake insists that morphic resonance should be considered an idea that has scientific merit in spite of the way he was inspired to develop it and, as such, we need to describe it appropriately so as to not mislead the reader. If Sheldrake had just opined that morphic resonance was his spiritual epiphany about reality without empirical consequence, we could consider whether the word "conjecture", which is fairly technical a term, might be inappropriate, but as it is, JzG is correct that he is making a bold claim about observable events with this conjecture. Incidentally, the claimed negative connotations of the word are ones that I think are perhaps due to people not knowing how the word gets used in technical settings. The most famous conjectures are some that people are almost convinced are true! For example, the twin primes conjecture. jps (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Failed hypothesis would be accurate -----Snowded ^TALK 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of true work towards consensus here, I've started a discussion about the article at the neutral point of view noticeboard. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing capitulation for consensus. There is rough consensus above that the current wording is accurate and not a problem. The fact that Sheldrake fanbois want morphic resonance to be treated as a genuine product of scientific inquiry is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I have never suggested that morphic resonance should be characterized as an accepted scientific idea. Nor am I a Sheldrake “fanboi.” Please be civil, and make your case without resorting to straw men and ad hominems. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the repeated use of words like "bollocks" across at the noticeboard, Guy, when you edit on wiki, especially if you are an "involved editor", you need to take off your own hat and don your wiki hat. Esowteric+Talk 13:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just bollocks. Great work on this article recently Guy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I'm outvoted here. I bow to the new religion. Esowteric+Talk 14:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you may find a better home over at PSI Encyclopedia. (PSI being an acronym for Pseudoscientific Skunk-for-brains International). WikiSpooks also looks like it might be up your alley. But if you're ever interested in actually reflecting the consensus of bona fide scholars that are actual experts on these topics, and not portraying POV and puffery, then Wikipedia will be here for you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you not just scold me for supposedly having a WP:BATTLE? Be civil. Not everybody who disagrees with you disagrees for the reasons you imagine. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready, fire, aim

User:JzG, your reversion leads to "Cite error: The named reference ansl-reissue was invoked [re-used three times] but never defined (see the help page)." If you won't allow me to fix this, will you please? Esowteric+Talk 13:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

All I did was copy the citation definition from a previous revision and change an EXISTING re-use of the citation to a full definition, so now we have citation re-use but again no definition. Esowteric+Talk 13:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how the deletion of the interview on BBC Radio 3 comes under "rm primary and fringe sources", however, though granted this was in External links and not in an Interviews section. This is like a slow, painful Death by a Thousand Cuts. Esowteric+Talk 14:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this version [7] of the EL-section, while some falls under "that's what his official website is for", I wouldn't mind keeping the BBC thing and the Society for Psychical Research entry. Perhaps some of the awards they mention would fit in this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the BBC is not a primary or fringe source. There is a clear effort here to only allow sources with a particular ideological bent, with opinion pieces like this being cited in the lede. User:JzG has shown himself to be far from impartial in his assessment of sources in his many angry tirades against the subject of the article. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And all you are doing by replying like this is continuing a WP:BATTLE. Maybe it's time to step away from the console and go take a walk in the park...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DISSENT. It is not a battle to disagree or point out bias, and to characterize it as such is a straw man. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, Dissent is not battle. But I would, even if I'm AGF, think that you aren't looking for consensus if you haven't yet made a RfC. This could have been solved ages ago with one. If you want to prove that you're in it for the good of the wiki, that's what you should do. Let's get actual firm consensus on this. But my suggestion is to keep it concise and clear what you're proposing. Perhaps put your proposed version of the lead in the RfC and just ask everyone to say what they think about that version.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I need a bit of time to get that together, but plan to do so. My purpose in taking this to the NPOV noticeboard is what you describe - getting firm consensus. Unfortunately we have not got there yet. But yes, I agree, let's assume good faith. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

An interview with Sheldrake on the BBC (or anywwhere else) is both primary and fringe. Primary because it's an interview, so his words without the context of third-party assessment of their accuracy,and fringe, because it's Sheldrake, and he is known only for the bullshit that is morphic resonance, and for his relentless attacks on science for failing to accept morphic resonance on the flimsy grounds that there's no reason to think it should work, no way it can work, and no good evidence it does work. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Sheldrake's "relentless attacks on science for failing to accept morphic resonance". Where has Sheldrake said this? He has criticised science for other reasons. I'm not implying that he is right. Iantresman (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He has a whole website devoted to it. As an active fringe proponent yourself you may not be best qualified to judge, though. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, guys, let's not go there. I'm grateful for the discussion, clarification and progress, but perhaps we can dispense with emotional and subjective reactions such as "As an active fringe proponent yourself you may not be best qualified to judge, though." (JzG) and "Perhaps you may find a better home over at PSI Encyclopedia. (PSI being an acronym for Pseudoscientific Skunk-for-brains International). WikiSpooks also looks like it might be up your alley." (Shibbolethink). I think you'd take offence if I were to suggest the same about self-declared and avowed skeptics such as JzG and Roxy the dog ("This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans."), and Shibbolethink (WikiProject Skepticism) whose actions here are perfecty laudable based on their own work, experience and point of view. Esowteric+Talk 11:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a fan of Deepak Chopra or things New Age, and let's remember that this is Wikipedia not RationalWiki. Esowteric+Talk 11:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, if e were RationalWiki we would simply say that Sheldrake is a loon with a persecution complex. We don't say that. We do, however, reflect the reality-based consensus that the thing for which he is best known, morphic resonance, is bollocks. Exactly as we do for telekinesis, psi and all other claimed parapsychological phenomena. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

New lede proposal

Taken from the above linked discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks User:Esowteric Abd User:Imaginatorium for your productive contributions to the discussion thus far. I hope we can come to a consensus on this.

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,. He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978. During his time at Cambridge, Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the chemiosmotic hypothesis of polar auxin transport.

In his 1981 book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake proposed the idea of morphic resonance, which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". He proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience.. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.

While morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance, it has found support in New Age circles from individuals such as Deepak Chopra. Sheldrake's ideas regarding the philosophy of science, especially his critique of scientism, have been praised by Mary Midgely.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not per discussions above. This comes across as IDHT. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What an absurd claim. Any editor who disagrees with you is disruptive? Give me a break! HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said, and such a misrepresentation is WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I note once again that you have failed to address the substance of anything I have suggested. What are your objections to what has been proposed? Other editors have found it perfectly reasonable. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for at least partially turning the discussion to content and policy.

[8] Basically, it promotes other aspects of his life over his main areas of notability, and confuses his notability. It's all been explained. You've started a NPOVN discussion. I suggest you wait for responses there. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It may have been "explained," but it turns out I don't agree with you. Sheldrake is a scientist by training with a respectable background at a prestigious university. This is quite relevant to his notability. He continues to have speaking engagements and debates at venues such as the Oxford Union and his ideas on the philosophy of science have been supported by notable figures such as Midgely. As User:Imaginatorium said at the NPOV noticeboard, he is not a YouTuber just throwing stuff out there. Morhpic resonance may be considered pseudoscience, but that does not mean that Sheldrake himself has no notability beyond the idea. As for waiting for responses at NPOVN, I've been told repeatedly there that it is "not the venue" to discuss changes to the lede. But I intend to discuss the changes in all venues, thanks. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you agree with. What matters is the consensus available in WP:RS as to the credibility of Sheldrake. and as has been shown in the sources in the current lead, that consensus is that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who repeatedly makes unsubstantiated claims with no factual basis in science. His theories are pseudoscience, he repeatedly makes false or misleading claims, and many multiple WP:RS substantiate this. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it ain't a goose.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Further, the Mary Midgley praise is not notable enough for the lead. It is notable enough for inclusion in the article, but the lead should reflect proportionally the consensus in WP:RS. She's notable enough to be in the article, because The Guardian is a WP:RS. But her opinion is drowned out by literally every other reputable scientist in any adjacent field. Midgley is a drop of oil in the ocean, and the lead isn't intended to take a microscope to every positive and negative criticism available. It's a broad view of consensus. And what the lead currently reflects is arguably the consensus.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, there are reliable sources that show that he is not simply a crank who is universally reviled. He has his supporters in academia, if not in science. See the reference to Midgely above, as well as Martin Cohen here. "Rupert Sheldrake" is not synonymous with "morphic resonance." He has other ideas beyond it, which have been found relevant enough to be given a forum at universities, and which have received support from people outside of the New Age world. The current lede fails to recognize that. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, there are reliable sources that show he is principally known as a crank who is universally reviled, and none at all that show "morphic resonance" to be anything other than bollocks. But the fundamental problem is that Sheldrake and his acolytes want our article to reflect the world as he fondly believes it to be, not as it actually is, and that means he will always hate any article that is neutral and not misleading. Guy (Help!) 04:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

References

8 March 2019: Ongoing deliberation at NPOV noticeboard

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

Avoid blurring different issues in the lede

The lede previously read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Sheldrake is a biologist

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

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

Sheldrake is no Newton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people) to start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to change first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Having now read the article and the extensive discussions, especially the one immediately above, I wonder if there's an issue about sources and what constitutes a reliable source. Presumably secondary sources to back the various assertions are required, but many of these so-called secondary sources are opinion pieces from newspapers such as The Telegraph, the Observer and even The Church Times. Are these three sources, for example, acceptable as being 'reputable'? Arcturus (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources - but how they are used is open to challenge - you need to be more specific -----Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My concerns are WP:Due weight, especially in areas of notability. To address such problems, we not only need reliable (and independent) sources, the sources must cover the topic in depth. Breadth in coverage as well as depth is also very helpful. Brief mentions of him being a biologist are of little, if any, help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This article - its scope is too big

Okay folks, let's take a different perspective, based on the article as a whole, rather than just parts of it. Apologies if this has already been debated, or suggested, but I just can't be bothered trawling through the archives. This article covers Sheldrake, the man, but it also covers, at varying lengths, the theories he espouses and the books he's written. Within the article, the theories are debunked, as for the most part are the books (maybe 'rubbished' would be a better description than 'debunked' for the books). This all results in the strong implication that Sheldrake himself is being debunked and unfairly criticised, since a lot of it rubs off on him. Such 'debunking' of a living person is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. This is, after all, a biography. A solution would be to strip out morphic resonance and the books into separate articles. These would be referenced, maybe with very brief summaries, in this article. Any thoughts on this idea? Arcturus (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT. Many editors have already commented on this, pointing out the need to follow NOT, POV, FRINGE. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please point to the discussions. Arcturus (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There's plenty on this page now. If you are unable to make a policy-based argument for changes, don't waste our time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is loads of stuff in the archive. I feel like I'm at the bottom of a big hill with demons, and a rock. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 22:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, there is a Venn diagram: Sheldrake and morphic resonance. The overlap is about 95%. Without morphic resonance, Sheldrake fails GNG. Morphic resonance on its own is just a crank theory that no relevant scientist accepts. So we only have one article. Guy (help!) 23:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What Guy said. The diagram is nearly circular. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I notice that WP:IDHT is invoked by the same few editors (JzG, Ronz, Roxy) when other editors come along and attempt to make even minor edits to the article, or try to discuss Wikipedia policies beyond WP:FRINGE such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The goal seems to be to simply make them go away, while keeping the article in "the family" of those who support its current state. I have never experienced this editing anywhere else on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is because those articles don't have owners. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps, HappyWanderer15, just perhaps, when three extraordinarily experienced editors are telling you that the attempt to water down direct statements is not actually BLP compliance it is not ownership but good advice? Neither NPOV nor BLP are excuses to present a confirmed charlatan such as Sheldrake in terms that they might prefer. NPOV does not mean "present both sides" or "try to not take a position", after all: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Neither does BLP mean we don't say what the best sources say, even if it is a living person: Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved.Emphasis added The material that is critical of Sheldrake is relevant (Sheldrake has no notability outside of his fringe ideas), reliably sourced (see the article and there's been no serious challenge to this) and the only question is appropriate weight. Every editor but you and Arcturus who has ventured an opinion on this has agreed it is. In other words, there is a current and long-standing WP:CONSENSUS that the criticism is appropriate. Complaining of ownership reads like sour grapes that your opinion has failed to be accepted but that's not how consensus-building works, either in the real world or in Wikipedia terms. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Morphic resonance is a redirect to Rupert Sheldrake because it's not independently notable enough, it lacks a scientific following and has no significant independent coverage. If it was created it would likely be merged back. —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And you need to stop the consipracy theories you've been opposed by far more than those three -----Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that even if Sheldrake and morphic resonance are distinct & notable topics (and I have no opinion on that), per policy - WP:NOPAGE - it is desirable for notable topics to appear in the same article when the context helps to afford better coverage. It is a common misconception on Wikipedia that there is a 1:1 relationship between articles and notable topics. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP

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.

---

@Eggishorn: Please remember that WP:BLP applies to Talk pages as well as the article itself. Referring to Sheldrake as a confirmed charlatan is almost certainly violating the policy. Arcturus (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, well, yes, technically, but he is the poster child for motivated reasoning and bad faith attacks on science. Guy (help!) 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG Irrelevant. Arcturus (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, "Scientists angry after platform is given to 'charlatan's fantasy'". "He remains at best a contentious figure, and to some an irredeemable charlatan". But pseudoscientist is the most accurate characterisation, if one must use any characterisation at all. Guy (help!) 14:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Even Jimbo uses words like "lunatic charlatan" -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As Guy's references demonstrate, "charlatan" is well-supported in reliable sources and therefore certainly not violating BLP. Arcturus, Please remember that WP:SEALIONING is still bad-faith editing even if it is civil. BLP is not an excuse or justification to avoid stating directly that bad-faith real-world actors are demonstrating bad faith in their POV. My thanks to Guy for so quickly finding those refs while I was AfK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

YOU referred to him as a "confirmed charlatan". It matters not that other publications have done the same. They don't have to adhere to Wikipedia policy; you do. Arcturus (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, please take your behavioral concerns to a proper dispute resolution location. Continuing this line of discussion is disruptive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No thanks. Arcturus (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Arcturus, if you would actually read the policy you are attempting to club me and other editors over the head with instead of just trotting it out as a debate weapon, you would see I am in compliance: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.Emphasis added. As already demonstrated, "charlatan" is well-sourced and making note of Sheldrake's status is related to making content choices. Furthermore, when an experienced third party invites you to take behavioral concerns to a proper venue and you respond "no thanks", that is first-class evidence that you are intending to disrupt the process to push your POV and my earlier link to WP:SEALIONING is justified. I advise you to stop disrupting this talk page to make your point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For info, Arcturus is plotting a BLP noticeboard appearance. diff -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:05, 22 May 2020 (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.

Sheldrake, further sources

At the moment there's no agreement at this article as to whether Sheldrake should be described in the lead as a biologist. Some editors are concerned about the quality of sources being suggested, so I've identified a number of other sources, all of which make the assertion that Sheldrake is a biologist. Since Wikipedia "follows and doesn't lead", it seems reasonable that these sources can be used to make the assertion on Wikipedia. Here are the sources:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

I would be grateful for comments on all of these sources. In addition, at the WP:BLP Noticeboard [16], User:Esowteric suggested an examination of Google Scholar returns - [17]. Discounting Sheldrake's own publications, and those, say, more than 10 years old, there remains a significant number of sources to support the notion under discussion. Again I would be grateful for a continuation of the discussion here. Prior to archiving the BLP Noticeboard entry for Sheldrake, I'll point interested users to the continuing discussion here. Arcturus (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting all those potential references. It would greatly help if you proposed a specific change to the article, perhaps with some alternatives. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As a first stab at it, my preference would be a single mention in the lead (no need to labour the point elsewhere in the article). A minor adjustment to the first sentence would do it, thus Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, biologist and researcher in the field of parapsychology ..... Arcturus (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, current version is "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,... Note that though not in the first sentence the second sentence reads "He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978 which which covers his biology career to date, and complies with P&G. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Just a comment on the list of interviews etc that the OP asks for comment on, none are supporting the supposition that Ruprt is a biologist. They support that he was a biologist, and interviews with him support what he thinks, not what he is. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A change to the first sentence would be difficult without sources that demonstrate clear notability for being a biologist - a similar level of notability to his work in parapsychology. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Support proposed changed of wording. All references besides Amazon.com above are reliable sources. The BBC is a particularly reputable source. However, in the event that consensus is not forthcoming, I suggest adding "science writer" as a opposed to "biologist" per this source. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you continue with this? He is and never was notable as a biologist, he is only notable in respect of discredited work in parapsychology. His earlier work is there but its not an appropriate label. This has been done to death and its time to move on -----Snowded ^TALK 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: Please stop trying to close down the discussion. Yes, this has been "done to death" as you put it, or "discussed at length" as I would put it. However, nothing is set in stone on Wikipedia. New editors are constantly reviewing articles, and new ideas and suggestions are always welcome. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "stable article". Do you wish to constructively discuss this matter or not? Arcturus (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been made clear what you need to do by several editors and until you can provide references that support the idea that he is (or even was) notable as a biologist then this matter is closed -----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: I explain in the paragraph below why it's not necessary to be notable in a field to be acknowledged as being in that field. You, Dave Snowden, are notable in the field of knowledge management, but are you a notable management consultant? Arcturus (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We already acknowledge it, just not in the lede. You have not convinced anybody it should also be in the lede, and you will continue to not convince anybody. Can we please stop this pointless tilting at windmills? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Science writer. In order for us to put something in the encyclopaedia, it must be accurate. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 05:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Sheldrake is a notable biologist; I don't think anyone is. However, he completed a PhD in the subject, which would have involved peer-reviewed research. As such, his profession from that point on was, and is, 'biologist'. It matters not that he hasn't been active in the field for decades. I work in IT project management and one of my colleagues is a chemical engineer. He completed his PhD in the early 1990s, but has been in IT since the mid 1990s. Nevertheless, he is still referred to as a 'chemical engineer'; it's his profession. Should a job arise in chemical engineering in which he was interested, he would be eligible to apply as a result of his profession. That's how it is with my colleague, with Buzz Aldrin, with Brian May, and with lots of others. Some people, such as Angela Merkel, don't have their profession mentioned in the lead of their article. This appears to be the case generally with politicians, but there's no reason why it should be like that: it would be entirely acceptable to include their profession in the lead, it's just that no one has done so. To summarise, I believe Sheldrake should be identified as a biologist, not because he's notable as one - which he isn't - but because it's his profession. Arcturus (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Sheldrake is a notable biologist Then don't propose changes that suggest otherwise. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you not read what I've just said? Arcturus (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, indeed. You are not making much sense, but I agree with you that he isn't notable as a biologist, which is what this is about. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand what's meant by someone's profession? Arcturus (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake's profession is "wooster". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a reputable source for that? Arcturus (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

... and his work as a biologist is covered prominently, as required, in sentence two, as I have already said. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, the problem is that his claim to be a biologist is a Trojan horse for the implied claim that his "morphic resonance" conjecture is something other than bollocks. It always has been. And it really doesn't matter how many additional editors get pulled in here from wherever, Sheldrake is known only for morphic resonance and his attacks on science for not believing it. You returned in March after 13 years of effective hiatus. In the intervening period we have established much more robust policies around pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 22:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A profession is an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain. The lead of the article is worth a look, and quite relavent. it doesn't support Arcturus' point. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This has to stop. This six-month crusade to weaken the article on Sheldrake has not gone anywhere and is not going to go anywhere. Since January, there's been a long thread on this talk page, two still-open RfC's, a spurious complaint, a BLPN thread, and multiple other conversations all with the intent to somehow justify describing Sheldrake in terms of supposed academic qualifications. Describing these efforts as having "petered out" because they didn't reach a preferred outcome is just plain deceptive. These discussions have included very prominent areas of the project. This page alone has 358 watchers and the BLP Noticeboard is watched by 3,413 editors. BLPN is also included in the Centralized Discussion template, which a further ~500 editors have on their pages. That this well-publicized effort has not attracted support is not evidence that it has "petered out", it is evidence that this is editing against consensus. The Behavioral guideline on Disruptive Editing states: sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. No outside voice has supported the contention that the sources presented to weaken this article are verifiable through reliable sources. Attempts to argue them into policy compliance are not going to work. This is special pleading for a favored celebrity and nothing more. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Some sort of WP:Moratorium? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:DR is now in order. This would use the services of uninvolved editors; an important issue as far as this article is concerned. I'll draft a proposal over the next few days and post it here. Arcturus (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DR would be a further waste of time, and initiating it would taking us more firmly into WP:DE territory; the views of participants in this "dispute" are already known and I hope they would decline to participate and spare more volunteer time being wasted. I am thinking a surer solution would be some WP:TBANs, but this is not the forum for discussing that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement should be the next step if editors continue the disruption. Have all the editors been formally notified of the sanctions? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution would be a waste for time and I for one would refuse it. Eggishorn is correct in arguing that is "special pleading for a favored celebrity" and I would add to that, an attempt to provide credibility to a discredited theory. If Arbitration enforcement is possible - what would be enforced? - then that would be a next route if we can't get agreement that these attempts will cease -----Snowded ^TALK 05:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I should have also mentioned that this section starts with yet another misconception. "At the moment there's no agreement at this article..." is a statement that has absolutely no effect, bearing, etc. on the article, the talk page, or disputes. This project does not run on agreement, it runs on consensus. this may seem like nit-picking over semantics but there is a clear and important difference. Consensus does not require every party, or even a majority of parties, to accede to the position. Consensus is not universal agreement and having some number of editors disagreeing with the consensus is not an indication that discussions must continue. While consensus can change and discussions are the best way to achieve such change, there have now been six solid months of trying to change this article's consensus. This is a failed proposal. Continuing to bounce around the website to find the one forum that will give the "right" result is disruptive editing and sanctionable. Rupert Sheldrake's qualifications and notability have already gone through each and every step outlined in Achieving Consensus and Dispute Resolution. As Hipal/Ronz points out, this includes the a prior decision by the Arbitration Committee, which is binding on all editors, even those that never participated in the original case. As far as I am aware, every editor who has recently participated here is already aware or has recently been made aware of this decision and the existence of Discretionary Sanctions in place on this page (and if you weren't, you are now). In other words: Your agreement is not necessary nor even necessarily desired but your compliance is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"In other words: Your agreement is not necessary nor even necessarily desired but your compliance is." Never has the cult of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans made its aims more nakedly visible in a sentence. When the notion of consensus can somehow be twisted to mean that not even a majority is required, thus contradicting the dictionary definition of the word, it is clear that system is broken and that dissent is no longer tolerated. How sad for Wikipedia and the billions who read it. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15: WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I'm done here. I admire your valiant efforts, Arcturus, but I have better things to do than continue with this. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To paraphrase a better man than I: You keep on using that link. I do not think it means what you think it means. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)