Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Request for comment (opening sentence)

Should the opening sentence of the lede be split into two sentences, like this?:

• Current version: Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.
• Proposed edit: Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He is known for proposing the concept of morphic resonance, which is regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot provide any rationale for doing so based upon sources, it looks like blanking from the lede, which is a POV violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

How has the substance of what is being said changed in any way? I see no change in POV. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If it isn't broken, dont fix it. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The current version is awkwardly written. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• No thanks. You have removed the important fact that morphic resonance, asserted to be a theory, is in fact a conjecture. Guy (help!) 21:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agree that the current version is awkwardly written with poor sentence structure. Furthermore, the article is about Sheldrake, not about morphic resonance. Accordingly, there's no need to elaborate on that subject in the very first sentence. Arcturus (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Arcturus, the words "by the scientific community" need to come out though - Chopra fanbois love to pretend that everyone other than scientists accepts it therefore it'sd real. Guy (help!) 11:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG Does that mean you'd also support removing this bit from the current third paragraph of the lede - "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community..."? If not, how does the meaning of that wording differ in your eyes from what is proposed above? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  HappyWanderer15, I think simpler would be fine: "morphic resonance, which is regarded as pseudoscience" or similar. Guy (help!) 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG the question is, who is it that regards the theory as pseudoscience? Elsewhere in these discussions, I've seen you make the argument that Sheldrake's notability is for having proposed a theory that is thought to be bollocks by the relevant professional community. If we don't state that it is the scientific community that rejects morphic resonance, then are we not getting into weasel words? That said XOR'easter's point below is well taken. Rather than putting it in the passive voice, we can phrase it actively as "He is known for proposing the concept of morphic resonance, which the scientific community regards as pseudoscience." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose change per Roxy the effin dog 's "if it isn't broken" comment above. The proposed alteration has worse flow and changes active voice to passive in a situation where the active works better. XOR'easter (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The grammar issue is not fixed by the proposed edit. The result is less direct and the use passive voice is not helpful to reading clarity. The actual flow issue is the oddly parenthetical break-up of the sentence which can be fixed by removing the commas from around "...and researcher in the field of parapsychology..." There is no good reason for those to be there. This can be addressed as part of the normal editing cycle but I will refrain from doing so myself while there is a concurrent RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons: omission; when possible, the first sentence, like the short description of an article, should include important details; WP:YESPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; Per PaleoNeonate Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -----Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. You have to keep in mind that, while we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, a lot of our readers are not native English speakers. The existing text is a run-on sentence with like three separate comma-separated clauses the last of which has a conjunction. That's effort for anyone to parse, even a native speaker. Lede sentences should be clear and punchy. When you get down into the details you can use more complex sentences. As to how the person is characterized... ledes want to be a neutral as possible. "Adolph Hitler was a central European politician of the mid 20th century." If the reader wants to drill down in the article, she can figure out her own opinion of this guy. Let the reader decided if he's a montebank or not. Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment (reducing repetition)

Since it is already clearly stated from the outset of the article that Sheldrake's work is regarded as pseudoscience, should we make the following edits to the lede to reduce repetition?:

• Current version: Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.
• Proposed edit: Scientists have widely criticised Sheldrake's proposals relating to morphic resonance, citing lack of evidence and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.

• Current version: Sheldrake's ideas, while lacking scientific acceptance, have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra.
• Proposed edit: His ideas have found support in New Age circles, notably from Deepak Chopra.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

POV changes based upon apparently nothing at best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how these changes are POV in nature? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Guess what? If it isn't broken, dont fix it. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Current one seems fine. Can you point us to the forum that's driving this relentless whitewashing effort please? We can go there and explain Wikipedia to them. Guy (help!) 21:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support.. Again, the article is about Sheldrake, not about morphic resonance. The current version places too much emphasis on the subject of morphic resonance. Arcturus (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Arcturus, Sheldrake is known only for morphic resonance, and attacking the world of science for rejecting it. The continuous attempts to pretend otherwise are the subject of endless debate here. Guy (help!) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

First sentence; "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology". So he isn't only known for morphic resonance. If it ever came to pass that he was, it would be mainly as a result of this article. Arcturus (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, as an author, what does he write about? Two things: Morphic resonance, and how science is evil and wrong because it does not accept morphioc resonance. Guy (help!) 12:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, perhaps the "endless debate" has more to do with the POV nature of the editor's voice throughout the article? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  HappyWanderer15, and perhaps it has more to do the endless Chopralalia and the "different ways of knowing" crowd. Guy (help!) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG Though I'm not sure exactly what "Chopralalia" refers to, I don't doubt that some fans of Chopra or others who support the morphic resonance idea would like to use the editor's voice on Wikipedia to promote their point of view. Plenty of editors making good faith comments here, however, have expressed concerns about the neutrality, BLP guidelines, poor sentence structure, and a variety of other issues. Maybe we can come to a consensus around those concerns. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  HappyWanderer15, that's contingent on how you view good faith in the field of fringe advocacy. I have no doubt that Chopra acts in good faith when he promotes his highly lucrative bullshit, but we still won't reflect it as fact on WIkipedia. Guy (help!) 13:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• The current version seems fine. "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community" is a more accurate summary than the weaker "Scientists have widely criticised Sheldrake's proposals". XOR'easter (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  XOR'easter Please see above. I did not remove language about the scientific community's rejection of morphic resonance. It is clearly stated in my proposed second sentence in the article. It is simply not repeated here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• oppose -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Frequent repetition is generally avoided but in cases of WP:FRINGE topics absolutely necessary to avoid stating or implying in Wikipedia's voice that the views described are accepted by anything beyond a tiny minority. Oftentimes, the minority is as small as one. If we leave out the "repeated" qualification of his views as not accepted by the scientific community we violate WP:NPOV and do a disservice to our readers. The original should be retained. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So to avoid NPOV we should repeatedly push one point-of-view? "[A] disservice to our readers"; because they are incapable of making up their own minds, I suppose. Arcturus (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Some points of view are given priority because we're writing an encyclopedia. FRINGE, NOT, and POV are rather clear. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between giving a priority and repeated/frequent repetition. If a point-of-view is valid it only needs saying once. Incidentally, the majority of editors with an interest in maintaining the status quo at this article aren't "writing an encyclopedia" at all - check it out. Arcturus (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how your comments align with FRINGE, NOT, and POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting at the issue raised by User:Eggishorn, who suggests, at least I think he does, that to counteract the FRINGE stuff we need to hammer home the alternative message by repetition; a kind of 'brute force' to get the message across, if you like. I disagree with this idea. As I mentioned, valid arguments to counter such ideas as morphic resonance should only need to be advocated once - if they are, themselves, valid. Don't get me wrong, I don't go along with morphic resonance or other fringe theories (and I've read The Science Delusion), but this article currently has serious issues, mainly around WP:OWN. Arcturus (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying at all, Arcturus. Wikipedia is a trusted source of information on the internet. People read our articles and take what we say at face value. Our articles talk about everything from definite facts to theories to hypotheses to half-baked conspiracy theories to complete and total cases of lunacy. We can't depend on the readers to do their own research and decide where along that spectrum an idea belongs. If an idea is, according to the best sources we can find, definitively on the latter side of that spectrum, then we have to clearly state this fact. Some articles state multiple such poorly-supported ideas or state multiple variations of such ideas or state such ideas multiple times, as this one does. Each such description needs to be clearly labeled. We can't depend on the reader to read the whole article and carryover a conclusion from one idea to another or one part of an article to another. We need the repetition not for "brute force" purposes but because people don't always read an entire article from start to finish. We have good evidence to the contrary, as a matter of fact. The proposed edit ignores this reality of reader behavior and waters down necessary and policy-compliant descriptions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's just be patient; this is a long game. As philosopher, linguist and poet Jean Gebser stated, we are now in the late-stage [left-brain], deficient mode of the mental-rational structure of consciousness, and there is no guarantee that we'll successfully evolve to the next predicted stage, that of the integral, and the withering of latter-day militant scientism and its supporters in the paramilitary wing of the Magistirium. Until then, as they say, "resistance is futile." Esowteric+Talk 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Esowteric, the term "scientism" is much beloved of woo-mongers, but is, to use the technical term, bullshit. Science is not a religion or dogma. Guy (help!) 23:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unnecessary - I don't find the proposed changes particularly bad but consider the existing text to include more precisions or to be more accurate. For instance, the proposed change may suggest that the New Age movement at large embraces it. —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... the proposed ", notably from Deepak Chopra" (comma included) is actually better than the current from individuals such as Deepak Chopra which is vague and less factual. The rest of the proposed edits all bring the idea that "scientists" are people having an opinion among others, rather than the fact that there is no science or physics other than what can be criticized by scientists. Place Clichy (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Section: In popular culture

I've trimmed it back to remove the portions not clearly about Seldrake. The rest should be incorporated into other sections of the article, if due any mention at all.

As for the Y: The Last Man mention: This is a WP:BLP article about Sheldrake, and MOS:POPCULT applies as well. Even if we had an article about morphic resonance, such sections are questionable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Correcting bias

I was personally informed by Sheldrake that this article is biassed, so I have added reference to Nicholas Humphrey's more positive reception of morphic resonance theory to make this article more balanced. I have also added a quote from New Scientist to which Sheldrake drew my attention. Vorbee (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

1. @Vorbee:, if you have been 'personally informed" by the article subject and asked to edit, you have a WP:COI and need to disclose it properly.
2. I have already reverted the addition because you did not properly source it. A vague handwave towards a source is not a citation.

I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Vorbee, I suggest refraining from editing the article directly, but rather use edit requests on this talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening claim re pseudoscience

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.

---

Hi - this article makes an opening claim that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is pseudoscience, and cites an article from 1981 by John Maddox in validation of this point.

I assume this is the John Maddox who according to Wikipedia wrote in 1983 that there was "No Need for Panic about AIDS", stating that "for strictly prophylactic purposes, male homosexuals should be persuaded to change their ways ... The pathetic promiscuity of male homosexuals is the most obvious threat to public health, but is probably no more serious now than it was before homosexuality ceased to be illegal." He described AIDS as a "perhaps non-existent condition."

Do the editors who cite John Maddox as a scientific authority here also endorse his views on AIDS and homosexuals above? Interested to hear more as I am new to the wikipedia community. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Quest (talk • contribs) 12:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to discuss editors' beliefs. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response Alexbrn. I'm so sorry, I'm still not clear of the logic here.

The claim that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience is justified by two footnotes. Footnote 5 cites a remark made by John Maddox 40 years ago, who himself sponsored what I'm sure we agree was a pseudoscientifc claim that AIDS was caused by 'pathetic' homosexuals being promiscuous. Footnote (6) refers to a book called 'The Quest' published by the Theosophical Society in America which does not accuse Sheldrake of pseudoscience.

Is there any more scientific and neutral citation that the editors might use here?

Also you mention that Talk is not the place to talk about editors' beliefs - is there another area of wikipedia where we can talk about such questions? Please let me know and I will also have a look there too.

Many thanks again for your reply - cheers, Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Quest (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place to discuss editors' beliefs, as it is not a social media site. As to Maddox, that cherry-picked quotation from an early paper isn't very useful. He is remembered today more for his later role in defending science against AIDS pseudoscience.[1] Notably, he opposed Peter Duesberg ... you see, Rupert Sheldrake's wasn't the only pseudoscience he sniffed out. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Miles Quest, scientists are allowed to be wrong. What they are not allowed to do is to remain stubbornly wrong in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Maddox is now known for his work in opposing pseudoscience around AIDS. Sheldrake has reacted to refutation and failure to replicate by doubling down and accusing science of doing it all wrong. That is why morphic resonance is pseudoscience. That's pretty much the canonical definition of pseudoscience, in fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Alex for taking the time to reply again. I totally agree about cherry picking quotations from early sources not being useful. But I'm still confused. Is a cherry-picked quotation from 1983 re: AIDS less useful than a cherry-picked quotation from 1981 re: pseudoscience? Also footnote (6) cites a book that doesn't accuse Sheldrake of pseudoscience at all, so isn't even cherry-picked, just redundant. It strikes me as important that articles debunking pseudoscience should be scientific themselves, otherwise they become part of the problem not the solution. Thanks again for debating this with me Miles Quest (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Miles Quest, now would be a great time to list some high level peer-reviewed publications that have validated the claim of morphic resonance. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guy - thanks so much for your responses and for engaging with me on this subject. I totally agree about the importance of high-level citations, that was really my point. At the moment the claim about pseudoscience is footnoted to one cherry-picked quotation (which Alex has mentioned are not useful and I agree) and one book which doesn't even mention pseudoscience. It would be a very good idea to replace footnotes (5) and (6) with reference to some high level peer-reviewed publications. Credible footnotes would make the opening para more scientific. Thanks again for taking the time to respond Miles Quest (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Maddox quotation on Sheldrake isn't cherry picked (i.e. lifted out of context to misrepresent); it represents his consistent position on Shledrake and is representative of mainstream thinking which is not opposed in reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Thanks for your reply. I'm undoubtedly being new but I still don't understand why the pseudoscience charge can only footnote a journalistic editorial of 40 years ago and a random book that has nothing to do with pseudoscience at all?! What about, as you say, reliable sources or as Guy says high-level peer-reviewed sources? If none can be found then this should be stated for the sake of neutrality.

Also (with apologies also for being new) I don't quite understand why there isn't a bit more discussion of the cultural assumptions intrinsic to this article - especially in a global commons like Wikipedia. For example, we might not believe in telepathy in the secular West but the argument that any enquiry into telepathy is ergo pseudoscience suggests that we only countenance scientific enquiry that reinforces narrow cultural assumptions. Which is not very scientific. But I'm sure that's enough for today! With thanks again for your time and all best Miles Quest (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Start at WP:5P to start learning about how Wikipedia works. The essence here is that we reflect accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources. Source are all. If you think anything has changed in the last 40 year a source would be necessary to support that, similarly for "cultural assumptions". Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. With the greatest respect I think quite a lot has changed in 40 years - including that we now understand that the paternalistic European worldview is just one of a plurality of cultural assumptions. You'll know of course that the archetypal profile of wikipedia editors is older, white and male, and it's interesting to consider why the profile is so homogenous. If queries about homophobia are instantly dismissed as 'not very useful' then will queer people, for example, feel welcome in the wikipedia community? Meanwhile 'accepted knowledge' is a vexed term as I'm sure we agree - and the accepted knowledge of one era may be the obsolete prejudice of the next. But doubtless this term and others are constantly debated on this site, so wikipedia doesn't merely memorialise the worldview of the constituency that edits it. Cheers, and thanks for the link - I'll take a look Miles Quest (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your twisting of words is noted, and makes me begin to suspect you are WP:NOTHERE. As I say, sources are all. If there are none in play, there is nothing to be done. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex, your threat is noted, as well as your consistently bullying and aggressive tone. (Not to mention Guy's!) Do stop these attempts at intimidation. Encyclopaedias are not built by aggressive people threatening to censor those who ask mild and deferential questions - I assume. Vade in pace, and do stop attacking me - cheers Miles Quest (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

I agree that this seems to be a NOTHERE situation.

Miles Quest: I suggest making an edit request if you decide to proceed further here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hipal Thanks so much for this. It's really interesting to see how wikipedia works. But you've all jumped to conclusions - I have lots of plans to edit elsewhere but Alex and Guy kept sending me intimidating replies, so I felt bound to debate with them to try to get things on a more civilised basis. (Failed alas.) Do I have to request your approval to edit anything or just Sheldrake? (No intention btw the way to edit Sheldrake - that is clearly a world of pain!) Would you like to see a prior version of any edits I intend to make? Then you could let me know if they are approved. Do let me know - thanks so much again and cheers Miles Quest (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, WP:NOTHERE. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No edit request was offered, so that should be the end of this discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:15, 19 October 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.

Good faith editors deserve respect

Nothing to see here. See WP:NOTFORUM. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to see the continuing pattern of short and nasty interactions with new editors who come here in good faith (See discussion above with Miles Quest). I don't think there is any reason to make baseless accusations that people are sockpuppets or jump to the conclusion that they aren't interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia just because they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines yet. It certainly doesn't appear that it was necessary to close down the previous discussion, as the editor was simply doing their best to have a constructive conversation and hadn't even made any edits to the main page. I'm not the first to notice a pattern that those who are not members of a particular small group of editors of this article (i.e., the owners) consistently have their edits rolled back, are treated with disdain and disrespect, and are met with a "suggestion" that they use edit requests on the talk page before even attempting to edit the article. I have not seen this type of environment on any other article on Wikipedia. I wonder if anyone would be interested in trying to change the tone around here so that it is more welcoming to good faith editors. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, I certainly agree that new editor Miles Quest's discussion thread should not have been closed down with the snide and unfounded note, "Obvious sock is obvious Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)". And WP:FRINGE or not, I also have concerns about the militant page ownership. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ArbEnf applies. While I'm sure the situation could have been handled better, behavioral policies deserve respect. This is not the forum to address any problems that you see, or are apparently unable to see as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Without wishing to prolong this thread, I would just note that what HappyWanderer15 is pointing to are – as he or she rightly or wrongly perceives them – the root causes or exacerbating factors in the many past problematic content disputes both in this article and on its talk page. To answer your point about Wikipedia not being a forum for this kind of thing, content disputes such as this actually are about "getting a job done", talk page discussion being, as laid out in WP:DISPUTE, "a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake seems to be portrayed too sympathetically

Title of the section. The most egregious offenders seem to be the sections on his last two books, e.g. where his claim on the "dogma" of conservation of energy went unrefuted.Vampyricon (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On a related point, the "Career" section mentions a project "funded from Trinity College, Cambridge" but the reliable source says "it is inappropriate to describe Sheldrake's affiliation as Trinity College". There will always be conflicts between Sheldrake fans versus reliable sources, but wikipedia should always favour the latter. Sadly I can't fix this defect because I'm an IP and the article's semiprotected. We can't just make stuff up. 2A02:C7D:250C:8A00:6C03:6CFD:29FB:F3A2 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into these issues. Make a clear request for exactly what needs changing and why, and others will likely make the changes. --Hipal (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup about the penultimate book and an Oxford Union lecture where absolutely wild claims were reported on and, not surprisingly, ignored because, well, they're wild. It is interesting that THE and The Guardian did not get any, y'know, actual scientists to review Sheldrake's book. jps (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, Mary the old town witch. She is interesting, don't you think? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

May she rest in peace. jps (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

The section of the article dealing with Rupert Sheldrake#Sheldrake and Steven Rose currently includes the sentence:

They[who?] subsequently agreed to[clarification needed] and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks.

Please change this to read:

In 1990, Sheldrake and Rose agreed to and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks. They were unable to agree on the intended joint research paper reporting their results, instead publishing separate and conflicting interpretations.

The references confirm that the "they" refers to Sheldrake and Rose and the subsequent sentences make clear that they disagreed on the interpretation of the results of the experiments and reported them separately. Rose's book confirms the original intention was a joint publication. There is no suggestion from either person that the experiment was undertaken, though Rose does express some regret for undertaking the collaborative work. I see no reason for this change to be controversial, it simply addresses the tags that have been added. I recognise that the book in the first reference here is already "ref name=presencepast" but that links to the book at google books and the above links to the appropriate part of a specific chapter, hence treating it as a separate reference. 2001:8004:14A0:37C5:742A:4A62:C143:9E4C (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Hello editors. I would like to suggest the opening line of the Rupert Sheldrake article is changed from "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6]" to ""Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English natural scientist, public speaker, and researcher in the field of parapsychology[4]. Among his notable ideas, Sheldrake has proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which has failed to gaine mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6]".

Thank you. CatoTheElder45 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience" ... I don't think this is good encyclopedic voice. It is passive voice. Specifically, it is "has been characterized as pseudoscience", which sort of refers outward as if the decree kind of just is there. Even if there are groups that have moved to prove the conjecture sufficiently unfounded in the face of empirical evidence, to phrase the entry into the question of whether Rupert Sheldrake's work is empirically false, to phrase "has been characterized as pseudoscience" does not as text string contribute any meaningful content to learning about the figure in the sense of an encyclopedia entry. Garrett.stephens (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. Could do with a "who" is calling it pseudoscience. But it is adding detail to the entry, it educates the reader, and it is compliant with WP:FRINGE. As FRINGE is a mainstream guideline of this wikipedia, it is pretty essential that we keep the phrasing here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

His theory is the main driving plot point of game Zero Escape: 999, and is likely to be a major point of relevance for people finding information as years pass. As this page is semi protected does anyone feel up to mentioning it and linking the Wikipedia article for the game in this section? 107.77.232.66 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

We'd need a decent source. What's the best you know of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the person above (as far as I remember!), but I did add the listed game to the article and sourced "The Gamer"(the only article I could find that mentioned morpic fields in reference to the game. The edit was reverted.

The issue I have sourcing it is that an academic or news article really wouldn't mention morphic fields, as the game is rather niche and the reveal of morphic fields as a central theme only occurs towards the very end of the game. Would it be possible to use a game screenshot or footage as a source? It feels quite wrong to me to not have a game that uses Morphic fields as its central plot and was published on major video game systems to not be on the morphic fields article. Robotortoise (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a sourcing/WP:PROPORTION thing. Existing is not good enough, someone must have noticed and bothered to write something about it (the connection between Sheldrake and the game), and my reading is that The Gamer [2] writes about an in-universe "morphogenetic field", quote "Sigma has the ability to travel through the morphogenetic field to himself at a different time" (I may be wrong, but I doubt Sheldrake says MF:s work like that). Sadly, for WP-purposes, it doesn't bother to mention Sheldrake.

How about if we use this [3] (Siliconera), to state "The 2009 videogame Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field ideas." Similar to how Fascination was inspired by A Midsummer Night's Dream. @Roxy the dog, care to comment? Come to think of it, there may be better sources in Japanese, but in context, I think this one is acceptable-ish, the game seems to be a bit of a deal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this connection is blown up out of all proportion. It's fine noting connections to acknowledged great literature (Trek references are used everywhere in modern SF, and Trek references imbibes our culture more than people realise.) Sheldrake culture, not so much. SF has had paralells of Sheldomorphism for a long time, way before the sheldopedia was envisioned. As to games culture, I'm 66 yrs old. I have been a devotee of the Polyphonic series of Gran Turismo for more than twenty five years. Other than that, I do not play video games. Perhaps this explains my edit of a few weeks ago. Perhaps some young people who have heard of shelly, and play games, might help us find a consensus. - Roxy the dog with opposable thumbs 17:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to lure some this way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Would be a bit of a poor section with just one mention (although all of the Zero Escape games have a similar approximation to the morphic field theory). I feel like we are searching for a ref to make a point, rather than taking points out of a reference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy that this is out of proportion. It's a fun reference/homage but does not rise to the level of mention. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If I was unclear, I didn't suggest a section, I suggested a sentence in the Rupert_Sheldrake#In_popular_culture section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I would absolutely argue that it rises to the level of mention. Sheldrake is explicitly mentioned by name numerous times in the game as the creator of the morphogenetic field theory, and the theory is discussed in-game by the characters. This is a central plot point of the game. Below, I have posted screenshots from the game. I trust this is sufficient to reference the game on the article? Robotortoise (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Per comments above, these screenshots do not help the argument for inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, note that WP and Commons are both very strict about copyright. You stating that these screenshots are "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" doesn't make it so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A screenshot of a puzzle in Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors.

A screenshot of a puzzle in Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors.

Character from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors discussing Rupert Sheldrake by name.

Character from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors discussing Rupert Sheldrake by name.

I think these references are probably sufficient for the mention described above (The 2009 videogame Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field ideas). The sources below are not high quality, but they are independent of the subject and at least moderate-traffic. Reliable enough for a factual mention like what is described, but not much more:

Scholarly source in a multimedia criticism journal, a paper about video games talking specifically about 999: Morphic resonance is a concept experimented with and explored by biochemist Rupert Sheldrake, who proposes that what is essentially a telepathy-like collective unconsciousness links the natural universe through morphogenetic fields. Unconsciously, organisms constantly inherit memories, which can then be used to explain epiphanies, or moments in which one just simply “knows” something despite never having experienced it. For example, Harvard University’s William McDougall had rats escape from a tank, and each generation of rats made fewer and fewer mistakes in the process. When scientists in Australia tried duplicating the experiment, their rats made fewer mistakes from the start. Presumably, the collective unconsciousness of Sheldrake’s morphic resonance was at work here, and the rats in Australia “inherited” the memories of those at Harvard (“More on Morphogenetic Fields”). Zero Escape takes this concept several steps further by connecting it to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics

Game guide/review site article on 999:The person referred to in the game as Sheldrake really exists, and, in fact, was still alive as of the release of the game. Rupert Sheldrake is a real parapsychologist, and he really did come up with the concepts of morphic field, morphic resonance, and the morphogenetic field. (Game guide/review site)

Game blog article about 999: How are these games able to trap their players? The key idea is that of morphic resonance. If that term sounds to you like a highly fascinating but scientifically unproven theory of biological communication, then you are spot on. Rupert Sheldrake first coined the term in his 1981 book A New Science of Life. It is a pseudoscience concept describing, in Sheldrake’s word’s, “the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species.” [1] According to this view, memories and experiences are stored in so-called morphic fields that surround us all the time, which can then transmit this information to other organisms of the same type. (note, this references wikipedia so there is some circularity. But the fact that Sheldrake is referenced in the game is not a circular part.)

Interview with 999's creator on Game news site: “Where do mankind’s inspirations come from?” That question alone was the root inspiration to this title. It all started from there and I started to read up on all sorts of documents. That’s when I came across an English biochemist named Rupert Sheldrake and I found out about his theory on the “Morphogenetic Field”. “Why did glycerin start crystallizing all of a sudden?”, “When you make rats clear a maze, why is that with each new generation, the clear time gets shorter?”, “Why is it that as more people know an answer to a specific question, the chance of people knowing the answer goes up?” “Why is it when you were talking about a friend, you happen to get a phone call from that exact friend?”, “Why is it that if you’re at a café talking about Paris Hilton, the person next to you happened to be talking about her as well?”… Rupert Sheldrake’s theory gives us hints in order to answer these phenomena and this theme became the main theme behind 999.

With all these sources, I think it's definitely enough to justify a mention. As far as WP:RSUW, it would be one sentence, and in the "in popular culture" section. It's clearly DUE by weighing media sources, and there's a lot worse content in the article. I want to caution users here to not let their feelings about Sheldrake get in the way. I think this guy is a crack pot as much as anyone else, I really really do. But I also think it's important to call balls and strikes correctly. This is one such instance.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Siliconera is the strongest of these, and I think that one + The Oswald Review is good enough for including the sentence in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Another source, but it's pretty blog-ish:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And if you have 3h, there's "Zero Escape: 999, The Sheldrake Cut" on Youtube. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think from my !vote surveying and just overall looking at what is said here, we do have consensus for your sentence. I'm gonna go ahead and add it. I made only extremely minor copy editing changes — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Unreasonable revert

On 08:10, 19 November 2022, User:Roxy the dog unreasonably reverted the edits I made to the lead, work that took me a couple of hours of analysis and reading the sources. The user made the following edit summary regarding the revert, "POV edits and changes to lead reverted."

I made detailed edit summaries to each one of my edits, stating the changes made and the rationale to make them. If anything, I think it would have been good ettiquette if Roxy the dog at least explained in a detailed manner why they think it is POV edits and refuted each one of them. I was not only trying to make the lead more neutral, but also, more concise, including more notable elements, and improve it overall. As it is, it comes just as an arbitrary and unreasonable revert. Thinker78 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagree and endorse the revert. The edits water down criticism against Sheldrake and cite non-RSes such as Project Reason. It also overemphasizes Sheldrake's credentials to further promote his acceptance as a mainstream figure, when in fact our RSes demonstrate he was not accepted as such. See also: WP:CHARLATAN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That is an excellent edsum and a perfectly reasonable correction to the faulty text. -Roxy the dog 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thinker78, because you didn't indicate even a single reference, it all looks like OR to change the POV. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal I don't understand your point. Thinker78 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a huge problem. Sanctions apply to this article, which require a good understanding of our content policies. See the the information under "Please read before starting" at the very top of this page. --Hipal (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal, my understanding of policies is good. Although of course neither I nor any other editor knows it all. Please explain what did you mean with "because you didn't indicate even a single reference". You mean in the edit summaries, in the text, where? Thinker78 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We disagree, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. All the content changes you have attempted appear to be just your personal opinions because you didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes. --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Why are you saying this if the references are in inline citations next to the relevant sentence or paragraph and I got the info from a couple of those? Thinker78 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid your misunderstanding of policy runs too deep to be resolved here. I feel my time is being wasted. --Hipal (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal try to focus on content and if you have concerns about me you are welcome to post on my talk page. Meanwhile if you don't bail from this discussion kindly point out why you said that I "didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes". If you made an error stating that, don't worry, but don't try to distract from that by attacking me. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to refactor anything I wrote. Please FOC and remove your claim that I'm attacking you. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of red herrings, why don't you simply explain why you said that I "didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes"? Because actually the citations are right there next to the text.

Feel free to write in my talk page instead of keep attacking my character. No one knows all policies, but you appear to talk about policy in general, without any seeming connection to the question I made. My knowledge about policy in general is not perfect, but I do not have a deep misunderstanding of policy. If you have any policy in specific in mind, feel free to tell me. Thinker78 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, you stated, "The edits water down criticism against Sheldrake". Wikipedia's objective is not criticism, but rather to objectively and neutrally reflect what reliable sources state. I found out about Sheldrake the same day I made the edits that got reverted. It looks like you have a POV about the subject and wants to criticize him. I don't know his work, but you appear to believe he is a charlatan.

Per the neutral point of view policy, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

If the subject had a background in notable institutions, specially if for many years, then said information has strong basis to be included in the lead. It is part of his notable background.

Regarding Project Reason, I checked and don't know which source are you talking about, because I mainly worked with The Guardian and the Nature ones. Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's objective is not criticism, but rather to objectively and neutrally reflect what reliable sources state
Yep, and our sources tell us there is criticism and to represent that criticism. Wikipedia reflects the sources. See also: WP:FRINGE.

If the subject had a background in notable institutions, specially if for many years, then said information has strong basis to be included in the lead.Yep, and we still cover it in the lead, but we should not overemphasize it as your edits have.

You should also check out WP:RSUW. The most notable things about Sheldrake involve his pseudoscience. So it is particularly inappropriate to say "a few of his theories..." as fundamentally this makes it seem like only few of the things he's done are characterized as pseudoscience. When, in reality, most of the things he's famous for are his pseudoscience!

Regarding Project Reason, I checked and don't know which source are you talking about, because I mainly worked with The Guardian and the Nature ones See: [5] You added a link to the project reason page which hosts a Maddox pdf. When we already have a maddox source. This was not great wiki-ing, as it duplicates a source. We should primarily link to the nature url, and the PDF should be only as an archive. As well, the sources do not reflect your wording "a few of his theories".

I'm going to ignore your unsubstantiated accusation of WP:POV, even though it probably runs afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

My final bit of unsolicited advice would be to check out this essay: WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, Project Reason was already linked in the previous source before my edits. It is actually the link I used to update the citation. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I found out about Sheldrake the same day I made the edits that got reverted And I have read two of his stupid books which are full of bad science and bad logic. Maybe you should fit the amount of your stubbornness to to amount of your knowledge? It's what I usually do, and it seems to work pretty well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Hob Gadling: "And I have read two of his stupid books which are full of bad science and bad logic." How exactly this comment contributes to this discussion? Well, I would say it establishes evidence for your editorial bias and lack of objectivity. Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)~

The quote above is not the whole truth: WP:PSCI requires us to have editorial bias. I wish WP:RULES were simple... tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thinker78, you are miss-attributing that quote about his "stupid books" to me. Please be more careful, and focus on content and policy instead. --Hipal (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Sorry, my bad! I apologize! Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it establishes that compared to the other users here, you know zilch about the subject. Please read WP:CIR. It is extremely naive to assume that you, who has just heard about this guy (and has edited Wikipedia for five years), has a better grasp of the situation than five far more experienced editors who focus on fringe topics and have known about him for decades. Please read the guidelines and policies we linked, and also WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling sometimes it is the case that there is a local status quo in a page that doesn't accurately reflect Wikipedia guidance. Even when there are very experienced editors involved. I am not stating this is necessarily the case here but it has happened in other pages.

I have to say that sometimes the status quo is successfully overturned. This is specially true when editors who don't have too much editorial bias get involved and more neutrally assess the situation. Sometimes extensive experience in the subject is good but other times is not. Thinker78 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And the one who decides when it is good is you and you alone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More of the same:

• Replacing the clear statement that morphic resonance lacks mainstream acceptance by the weasely "A few of his theories lacks mainstream acceptance" is not an improvement.
• Nobody has "criticized" any of his ideas "as heresy". The Guardian source uses the word to express sympathy with him, not to criticize him. It would be stupid and pointless to actually accuse anybody of heresy.

Independent of all that, why are we using "The Quest" as a source here? It comes form the Theosophical Society in America, a pretty wacky outfit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed we need a better source there. I have replaced it with some better ones. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Hob Gadling,

1. I explained my rationale about adding "a few of his theories" in an edit summary, "replaced 'his theories' with 'a few of' because not all of his work lacks mainstream acceptance".
2. You stated, "Nobody has "criticized" any of his ideas "as heresy"." The Guardian said, It is not often, in liberal north London, that you come face to face with a heretic, but Rupert Sheldrake has worn that mantle, pretty cheerfully, for 30 years now.

   Evidently, the Guardian was referring to how Sheldrake has been considered a heretic for 30 years. And a heretic is someone criticized due to their ideas. There are no heretics who were not criticized for their ideas. That's the purpose of the term in the first place.

   And The Guardian was actually reflecting how he has been characterized as heretic. See for example the articles,

   1. "Facing biology's open questions: Rupert Sheldrake's "heretical" hypothesis turns 40"
   2. Heresy. "Rupert Sheldrake earned the righteous scorn of his fellow biologists[...]"
   3. "Maddox advocated literally burning Sheldrake's books as heresy, yelling, "He deserves to be condemned for the exact same reasons the pope condemned Galileo."
3. I also raised my eyebrows when I saw the Theosophical Society as a source. It was already there and I didn't delve into it but focused my attention in the Guardian and Nature.

Thinker78 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:STOPDIGGING and WP:1AM. You are using a small set of fluff pieces to source the term "heretic" for Sheldrake. It does not reflect the accuracy of the overall source landscape and absolutely does not reflect the view of mainstream scholars. Just because a few poor quality fluff pieces describe him as a "heretic" does not mean that we will. You then link to a Bioessays piece, another extremely low quality non-peer-reviewed crackpot source. And an extremely low quality fluff piece in Discover magazine, again not a scientific publication and again an inflationary "point of interest" piece in a popular magazine. These do not tell us how scholars view Sheldrake. Scholars set the tone on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, are you referring to the article by Alex Gomez-Marin in the publication BioEssays that Thinker78 linked to above? The wikipedia page for that publisher states that it is peer-reviewed. What is the source to support your description of it as an "extremely low quality non-peer-reviewed crackpot source"? Cedar777 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

BioEssays also publishes non-peer reviewed opinion pieces, such as that one. MrOllie (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You can tell that particular source is not peer-reviewed from the fact that it has no date other than a publication date. No acceptance or revision date. Of course it also says: After initial acclaim, his project was quickly met with dogmatic skepticism, dismissed as scientific heresy, and ultimately ignored. Forty years later, the experimental implications of his ideas remain largely untested. And yet, fails to point out, as many of our best quality sources do, that Sheldrake's ideas are largely untest-able. Hence, pseudoscience.

A note on BioEssays:

• The same journal whose editor wrote: "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one" [6]
• The same journal that published this absolute gobbledygook pro-lab leak conspiracy papers from a fungus scientist and a "life extension" entrepreneur: [7] [8] and another one [9] from a noted ex-con and his retired statistician dad, neither of whom have expertise in this.
• The same journal that published this crackpot stuff about miRNAs during the Cambrian explosion at a point in history from which no miRNAs would have ever survived. [10]
• And I could go on and on. Bioessays loves to publish controversial stuff about climate change denial, UFOs, pseudoarcheology, etc.

And that's what makes it such an interesting journal to read. But also what makes it a terrible journal to cite. For anything. On wikipedia. With extremely few exceptions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink I linked to the "Bioessays" piece as a source of the info that Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis have been criticized as heresy. I am not familiar with Bioessays, first time I hear of it. I used it as source because it is published in the US National Library of Medicine website. I have the impression that this latter website is a reliable source. Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think that a journal is reliable only because it is indexed at Pubmed or Medline, then you are demonstrating that you know very little about medical and scientific sources.

• Finding a Paper on PubMed Does Not Mean the Paper Is Any Good. [11]
• In a blog post, Michelle Kraft, AHIP, former president of the Medical Library Association, compared PMC manuscripts appearing in PubMed to medical advice from Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop site being published on WebMD [12]
• Academics Raise Concerns About Predatory Journals on Pubmed [13]
• Wikipedia:RS § Predatory journals and Wikipedia:MEDRS § Predatory journals

As an aside, saying Pubmed or MEDLINE are reliable sources is like saying Google is a reliable source. It's just an index. Are MEDLINE-indexed journals generally of higher quality than non-MEDLINE-indexed sources? Yes. But that does not mean any individual source or publication is reliable just because it is indexed there. Journals often go out of their wheelhouse and publish stuff they have no expertise in. Happens literally all the time. Each journal (and indeed each article from those journals) must be examined on a case-by-case basis based on the principles set out in the articles I linked above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt the reliability of even peer-reviewed studies in major scientific journals like The Lancet. In addition, many times there is a lot of money, millions, even billions, in play. But if you ask to determine the reliability of a source by conducting a detailed analysis of data that took months or more than a year to a scientist or a team of scientists to finalize... is a bit too much. Thinker78 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Did you read WP:MEDRS? We do not trust WP:PRIMARY medical studies in general, we only trust systematic reviews published in respectable journals. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, except that MEDRS is for biomedical information, not about sourcing what people think of someone. What I was sourcing is that he was being criticized as heretic. That's general information, because it doesn't focus on the details of his conjectures. It simply establishes that he was criticized as a heretic. And the source is not the only one that backs up the information. I shared other sources previously that also do.

Per MEDRS, Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not. Thinker78 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: My reply was about billions. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned billions in a talk page comment, not in the article. I don't understand why you bring up MEDRS. Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know what any of that has to do with why you used Bioessays as an RS here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's the usual "what? Flying carpet do not exist? Well, planes crash sometimes, so there." Less colorful: the tu quoque fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

1. The guideline WP:WEASEL is stronger than your rationale.
2. This does not add up to "been criticized for heresy". His ideas have been criticized for not being supported by enough evidence to justify them, and some journalists have chosen the inappropriate word "heresy" to describe that.

Please check the archives of this Talk page. You are just the last in a long line of people who think they know better than scientists what is science and what is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling you got it wrong regarding the "know better" part. I am not a scientist nor I am claiming to know science better. I am simply trying to discuss changes to the lead, how to present the lead in a more neutral way without excessive editorial bias. Maybe not being a scientist provides me with a more neutral perspective than scientists that have a strong opinion about the subject.

@Shibbolethink, regarding STOPDIGGING, you cannot seriously expect to stop a discussion three hours after the thread was started (check the time you made such a demand). That's unreasonable. There are many edits I made and several issues, therefore, the discussion is not simple or short. Thinker78 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

not being a scientist provides me with a more neutral perspective This demonstrates that I was exactly right: You really believe that you know better. Somehow ignorance is supposed to magically turn into competence, and competence into a hindrance. You also obviously do not understand what "neutral" means on Wikipedia, in spite of people linking the relevant policies for you. I am done here. Even if I were not, do not ping me. I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have to mention that I have a particular interest in leads of articles in general and have focused to a degree and analyzed relevant guidance for some time (specially MOS:LEAD). When I stumble on an article where I notice issues, then I proceed to edit them. I understand you may feel strongly about the subject of this article and may have faced some people who had a certain point of view. Bear with me because I try to be more neutral than the average editor and try to do a quality work. And doing a quality work requires more work and discussion. I aim to the top of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the particularities of each lead relate to the content of the body and the overall landscape of sources, this is an extremely inadvisable endeavor. Each one is a microcosm likely to be full of disagreement. Please do not edit against consensus. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What you don't get: website policy demands that we are biased against pseudoscience and quackery. Being more pro-pseudoscience or more pro-quackery isn't what WP:NPOV is about. Read it from top to bottom, then read it again. We don't follow the midway between mainstream science and pseudoscience. That would not be neutral in the meaning of NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand you may feel strongly about the subject Yeah, the problem is the feelings of the people who want to adhere to policy, so, go on and patronize them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Goodness, by the severity of the reactions here, one might think the subject had made a career of murdering children rather than as an author of controversial books.

Review the recent edits again to verify that the word pseudoscience was not removed in any of the edits under discussion in this talk page thread. The arguments within this section are being unnecessarily framed as though this were a case of either/or, i.e., either the subject's concept has been criticized as pseudoscience . . . or . . . as heresy. (The heresy being discussed here is that of the broader sense: an "opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted" per New Oxford American Dictionary). The terminology as applied to Sheldrake's case isn't either/or. He has clearly been described using both terms by multiple reliable sources and there is adequate sourcing to use both the terms pseudoscience and heresy in the article. Editors seem to be unaware that the severity of their reaction here at talk to the recent good faith edits inadvertently add support for the term directly used by the four sources cited above. It futher illustrates that individuals critical of Sheldrake do indeed find morphic resonance to be an "opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted", a.k.a., heresy. Cedar777 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, from physics and chemistry to biology, every science would have to be rewritten if morphic resonance were true. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue with "heresy" is that it is a descriptor extremely weighted in favor of Sheldrake's own narrative. If you examine the sources brought up here and elsewhere, those which use the word tend to be more flattering of Sheldrake -- as an "innovator" or a "persecuted genius" or someone who "dares" to disagree with scientists. It's exactly the narrative he has built for himself. On wikipedia, we use scientists and scholars to determine how to frame controversial science figures. Not journalists writing bio pic flattery pieces about scientists who "dare" to contradict the "dogma" of science and become "heretics." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is why we should avoid the word "heresy" in Wikipedia voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:NPOV and Sheldrake's religious views

Re: "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions" [14]

@Esowteric: NPOV is about slightly more than just reporting the sources. It's also about fairly weighting content based upon the preponderance of that content in the overall landscape of best available sources. Hence WP:DUE. This is a fawning book review which also describes Sheldrake as "famous for his radical theory" and as "distinguished by his qualifications as a brilliant biochemist and cell biologist, coupled with a strong and generous sense of aesthetics, especially music."

Why do we consider this source (and especially this quotation) to be the best representation of the overall landscape of our best available sources re: Sheldrake? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, you reverted another editor's edit (diff) with the edit summary "1) WP:NPOV, 2) This is an exact quote, and thus a plagiarism concern, and 3) WP:DUE issues, as this is true of most anglicans." (plus ref)

All @Cedar777 did was change Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican to

Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican that is favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions. (plus ref)

I then changed it to

Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican and "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions.", with the edit summary "Not NPOV if directly reporting the source. Plagiarism? Then put this SHORT phrase in quotes. Disagree that this is undue. Let's not wikilawyer."

We're talking about just six words from one source here, and it's not our job to dismiss simple facts because we personally consider the review to be "fawning". We can't cherry-pick. And how many words in your opinion may be legitimately used from a source, if six are too many? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, was not aware that Anglicans are mostly "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions". Referring to Sheldrake, I'd consider this useful information. Otherwise, he might also be dismissed as a religionist as well as a pseudoscientist. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the favourably disposed comment is undue as not the sort of thing we put in a BLP, and do not support its inclusion. - Roxy the dog 19:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

What you mean is that you are not "favourably disposed" to including anything "favourably disposed" to Sheldrake. In my opinion, the reviewer had good reason to include this rider. I fully understand the need to monitor and moderate fringe issues, but I am somewhat concerned by the possibility of genuine consensus-building degenerating into vigilantism. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be an indictment of Roxy as a user and a great example of failing to assume good faith in other editors. Please refrain from this sort of behavior, and if you are inclined to engage in it, please restrict yourself to user talk or noticeboards like ANI, where such criticisms are on-topic, as opposed to here, where they are not. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I've never seen commentary like that in other BLPs of Anglicans, who are favourably disposed to other traditions by the very nature of Anglicanism. - Roxy the dog 19:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at the BLP of Michael Shermer and see if there is any undue material in there. It gets into a lot of detail on his particular beliefs and preferences - even in the lede where it states "Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer ceased to believe in the existence of God during graduate school. He accepts the labels agnostic, nontheist, and atheist but prefers to be called a skeptic. He also describes himself as an advocate for humanist philosophy as well as the science of morality." It also worth noting that the current version is almost entirely sourced to Shermer himself.

An earlier version, prior to clean up, elaborated things even further here to an almost absurd degree.

The subject of this BLP, Sheldrake, states he was an atheist in his youth. Secondary sources report that he shifted back towards Christianity yet he does not exclusively subscribe to it, i.e., he remains "favorably disposed" towards other spiritual traditions more broadly. It is a distinction worth recognizing. Adding a secondary source clarifying the subject's beliefs in the personal life section is entirely due and it is an improvement on using the subject only as is done at length in the Shermer BLP. Cedar777 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. That part of the Shermer article should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely WP:UNDUE in Shermer's case too. Some shorter less emphasized version of that content may be appropriate, but a long pp like that probably is not. The self-citation is not optimal but it doesn't break any particular policies, especially since Shermer is not peddling fringe theories. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically not a good argument in these situations since local consensus will mostly dictate this sort of thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick review of results from google, Scholar, The Wikipedia Library, JSTOR, Google Books, and Google News shows this characterization appears basically only in Benthall's review of Sheldrake's book. We have no truly independent sources verifying this information. That is why I characterize it as "undue".

Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, I would also categorize this book review as "opinion" and thus subject to WP:RSOPINION. If we are to include it at all, it would probably have to be attributed. But I think DUE would tell us that the fact that nobody else says this, that benthall is not particularly regarded as an expert on Sheldrake, and the Times Literary Supplement is not exactly authoritative when it comes to biochemistry, history of science, or physics, all mean we should probably not include it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Any decent Anglican will be "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions" by the very nature of their tradition. We dont need to say it cos it's undue. I'm sure Rupe is a nice chap in that regard, its just his suppositions that are batshit insane. - Roxy the dog 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, it is a mistake to assume readers will come to the article with the same assumptions regarding Anglicans and their general trends. The BLP for Sheldrake doesn't need to get into what Anglecanism/Mormonism/Unitarianism is or is not . . . and the source doesn't get into it either. It does however clarify that he is not exclusively practicing/supporting/evangelizing one given spiritual tradition. It is a distinction worth making. Cedar777 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction between actively practicing a particular type/sect of a spiritual tradition and being open to, i.e., supportive of, i.e., "favorably disposed towards" other spiritual traditions. Many Wikipedia bios detail the environment in which one was raised (Jewish, atheist, Christian, agnostic, Mormon, Buddhist, etc. while also addressing the position(s) the subject arrived at on their own as an adult. Again, see Michael Shermer. For another example: see Andy Ngo who was raised Buddhist, shifted to Christianity, and then became an atheist.

This is pretty routine territory for Early life and Personal life sections in biographies and The Times Literary Supplement is more than adequate for this content. Cedar777 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree that a short paragraph on Sheldrake's involvement in various religions and his path to his current religion could be WP:DUE, but as written it was a NPOV issue. It would need to be short, succinct, and sourced to a better RS. As it was, that section was overly fawning, and written almost entirely in sheldrake's preferred language or that of his admirers. A short, neutral description would be appropriate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is about Sheldrake's OWN view: "Sheldrake is a practising Anglican but favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions ..." if you read the source. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I don't know why that would change anything I said above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. - Roxy the dog 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The book review in The Times Literary Supplement is from Jonathan Benthall, the founding editor and director emeritus of Anthropology Today, a peer-reviewed journal. According to the University College London website, Benthall has been with the Department of Anthropology at UCL from 1994-2003 as an honorary research fellow and from 2004-present as an honorary research associate.[15] His review on Sheldrake's book published in 2019 is suitable for inclusion with attribution. Cedar777 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say. If the author of a source has founded a journal and is an emeritus, then whatever he said needs to be included, no matter whether it makes sense and whether it adds value? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cedar777 is rebutting the notion that the book review in The Times Literary Supplement is unworthy (see talk above). In any case, that phrase has been removed with the edit summary "per talk consensus" -- even though consensus has not been established. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This religious stuff is WP:UNDUE, even if true, it is unimportant for a BLP, especially as he is in a minority position in this country. - Roxy the dog 14:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the belief systems of any given biography subject on Wikipedia is routine. It can't be based on one's relative majority or minority position within their culture or social group. Children are often submerged in belief systems they do not choose, and as adults, they may or may not embrace or reject the given systems. We can't exclude christianity, SBNR,[16] or atheism [17] from biography subjects just because, by some classifications, it is the minority view. Cedar777 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This comment runs directly against WP:FRINGE, an accepted WP:PAG. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The article's lede sentence and the entire third paragraph are already devoted to statements that the scientific community does not accept Sheldrake's conjecture of morphic resonance - there isn't a problem with FRINGE non-compliance.

WP:BLP, also an accepted WP:PAG remains in effect. Look at the way belief systems are covered in the BLPs of figures such as Barak Obama and Angela Merkel. This sort of basic coverage of a person's religious/agnostic/atheistic beliefs in a Wikipedia biography is ordinary. It's WP:WL to suggest otherwise. Cedar777 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Important points from that guideline:

• majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately
• Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources
• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community
• If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources
• Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight

Nowhere does it say: FRINGE applies only to the LEAD section — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning in favor of including that part that have been suggested are:

• Not including it is "vigilantism". (Weak.)
• The Michael Shermer article contains similar fluff. (Weak.)
• The author of the source has a big peer review penis. (Weak.)

Reasoning against:

• Using the exacty same wording is plagiarism. (Weak.)
• That is normal for Anglicans and not worth mentioning. (Strong if true.)
• As a book review, it's an opinion piece. (Strong.)
• That judgment appears only in one source. (Strong.)

In any case, you need consensus for including it, not for excluding it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. We revert to stable while consensus is established. As it is, with a poor source like this, and DUE/copyright concerns, it should be excluded. If we were to craft a more neutral few sentences backed up by multiple better quality sources, I would be very amenable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How does WP:FRINGE apply to Sheldrake's religious and spiritual beliefs and practice, which clearly form a substantial backdrop to his life? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It clearly deserves inclusion, but must be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. That is the essence of WP:FRINGE: Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. But even more so, WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since when were "religious and spiritual beliefs and practice" fringe? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In totality, the category is not. But specific ones are, yes. No one can reasonably argue that Mormon fundamentalism is as mainstream as the LDS church. Nor that the Branch Davidians are as mainstream as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)