Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

TEDx talk

Looking for WP:RS. Google News gives nothing on this. User:Barney the barney barney pointed to the Independent, which is the only news source I know about. The article lacks detail, and it may not be possible to treat the topic appropriately without doing original research.

Previous TEDx talks were removed because they violated the TEDx guidelines on pseudoscience, including TEDxCharlotte, TEDxValencia, and TEDxWestHollywood. The latter even had their TEDx license revoked per the Independent article. It's not at all surprising that Sheldrake's TEDxWhitechapel talk was also removed, given the TEDx guidelines on science which existed before Sheldrake's talk and was explicitly sent to TEDxWhiteChapel prior to the talk. I'm not trying to do WP:OR, just saying that there's no indication that TED has treated Sheldrake specially in this regard. The online response from those who were riled up with a "censorship" framing of the issue doesn't translate to notability for WP, of course. WP:RS have to cover it. Vzaak (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Google News only gives 30 days of reference and the controversy was 6 months ago so it would make sense that is why it would not pull up much. A simple search in Google proper may assist you within correct date frame will provide you with adequate sourcing. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the google link, you'll see 1984, 1983, 2007, etc. Also, earlier I asked you to add new comments below previous ones. This is at least the third time you've added new above old. Vzaak (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth briefly mentioning. It is part of a pattern of behaviour (see what happened with the British Association talk [1]. Also, Sheldrake can be relied upon as a reliable source for what Sheldrake thinks. Similarly, sources such as PZ Myers's and Jerry Coyne's blogs can be relied upon to present viewpoints of sceptics/scientific community. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell there is just one short news article that has ever been written about it. Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards? A TEDx affiliate produced a talk which violated the TED policy on science, something that had happened many times before. I suspect news organizations didn't pick it up because it's not very newsworthy. The blog activity surrounding it seems not far from gossip to me. I think a brief description of the facts of what happened is appropriate, but I'm not so sure WP should be reporting the spin that blogs have put on it. Vzaak (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman argues that the TEDx blog is a news organization and a reliable secondary source

Not sure how 1 scientist and 1 clearly biased blogger would constitute view points that can be relied upon as the voice of the skeptic or scientific community, that seems like a bit of a reach and potentially in violation of Notability. In this article here on Huffington Post [2] 10 scientists lend their support to sheldrake. For the same reason one could not claim that because 10 scientists give him public support as evidence the scientific community supports him, you cannot use simply 1 blogger and 1 scientist to say the same to the contrary. You have no references that would justify giving them that voice. that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Let's try to stay neutral here guys, these kind of arguments are what makes it appear to me to be some bias amongst the editors here and that there may be ideological reasons for them editing this page.The Tumbleman (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) TED's own publication reported on the controversy - and TED obviously is notable. As the TED controversy was also reported on by various other publications, it makes the TED controversy notable by wiki standards. Chris Anderson's own comments on the talk after the controversy also notable. I am still doing diligence on the TEDX issue and have not yet presented my formal edit.The Tumbleman (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC) TED's own publication is a primary source. A primary source can be used for facts, but hardly anything else. That's why I said "the facts of what happened". WP policy is, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" (WP:PRIMARY). Vzaak (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) TED's primary source in this regard is the Youtube Channel for TEDx (because that is where it is sourced that video was been removed) or at best TED.com (which is the hosting brand for TED channel) - Not TED's blog . TED.blog is a notable news outlet that covers events happening with TED events. It is reasonable the promote on the controversy as TED.BLOG reported on the controversy and use TED.BLOG as the source for TED's position editorially. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I don't understand your comment, but if you're suggesting that TED's blog is a secondary source, it's not. The TED blog is also not a news outlet as far as WP is concerned, WP:RS. It is. I believe You are mistaken here. I don't see how blog.ted would not be considered a secondary news source for TED events, nor do I see how how it's not a news outlet is covered in WP:RS - that seems a little extreme and quite a broad interpretation. so if you have a specific interpretation of this you need to be a little more clear. I hope you can make the distinction between TED as a forum for live events that are recorded, and TED as a publisher of news regarding it's own events. Clearly blog.TED is a reliable source to reference in terms of TED events. Your original suggestion was that TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source to define the controversy. I hope you are not confusing comments on the blog.ted site with what I am suggesting. blog.ted published a few articles on the controversy and many of the articles or comments there are directly from TED director Chris Anderson directly on TED's position. This is indeed relevant because TED officially retracted many of the claims it gave towards removing the talk. Many other publishers also picked up on this controversy. The controversy is notable to the bio of Sheldrake since Sheldrake has a long history with such controversy and this is the most recent historical example, so it's relevant to his bio. To suggest that a wiki editor can not use that as a notable reference for the controversy does not seem reasonable to me and I see no violation of wiki rules that you mention.The Tumbleman (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Is this a joke? This is the third time you have split my comment, immediately following my third explanation and my second request to stop. This is common sense. Don't split comments. People need to know who said what. You are confusing a news organization -- as in an organization with professional journalists and an editorial staff that hold themselves to journalistic standards -- with a blog about events of a random organization. The former is (typically) a reliable secondary source. The latter is not a news organization and not a secondary source. I did not say that "TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source". Indeed before you wrote those words I added material to the article using the TED blog as a source. I think you missed my point about the limitations WP places on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). (P.S. Put the Sheldrake page on your Watchlist; you'll be able to see changes to the article and the talk page at the same time.) Vzaak (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I am quite clear on what constitutes a news organization and so is WP. There is nothing in the WP that would disqualify blog.TED from qualifying as a news organization relative to that channel, considering TED is a massive online publisher. Your issue revolved, and correct me if I am mistaken, that reporting the event as a controversy and using blog.ted as a primary source to reference the event as a controversy was against WP and the only source you could find was the independent which also referenced the event as a controversy, which you then questioned as notable. Your exact words "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?". To me your words clearly show you are seeking to limit the notability of the event as a controversy or even referencing it as one. Perhaps you can share your thoughts here regarding this specifically? This does not seem like a complex issue so not sure why you have any issue with simply providing a NPOV on the matter as an unbiased editor. Any organization that reports news in any channel or interest is, in principle, a news organization relative to that channel. WP allows us guidelines to determine the veracity of what any organization reports and gives editors leeway under those guidelines, including (WP:PRIMARY). Again, I have not made my edits yet to this page so I guess we will be visiting this issue once I do. Secondly, on this page you wish to show how the removal of the sheldrake talk was akin to issues regarding Tedx events such as TEDxCharlotte, TEDxValencia, and TEDxWestHollywood. While those events may have faced similar issues related to TED TOS with event organizers, Sheldrake's video was called out specifically by TED on the TED site which later retracted the claims that Sheldrake's talk was removed for gross errors and pseudoscience. Clearly you can see the distinction there. As to the splitting of comments, apologies please do not assume it is a joke or take it personal. wiki TALK is naturally a very sloppy format in principle to handle these discussions and I am sure myself, like most wiki editors, have good intentions and I will make sure not to make this mistake again.The Tumbleman (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Vzaak, my concern is that you use WP a little to strictly to enforce what appears to me to be a loose opinion or interpretation, when in fact WP is clear when it is meant as a guide or heuristic instead of a policy for deletion. From (WP:PRIMARY) "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." As long as we keep a firm commitment to maintain a NPOV, these issues should be easy to resolve since these are quite rational distinctions. I look forward to working with you one this page over time to maintain this standard. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This is getting close to personal attacks again. Focus on article content and arguments, don't comment on people. WP:NPA. No more vacuous accusations of bias directed toward people. Remember that I declined to take that shot despite the easy target you presented in your mistaken first comment on this talk page. You missed that I said "I think a brief description of the facts of what happened is appropriate" in the same comment as "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?". The TED blog is clearly not a news organization and clearly not a secondary source. I'm not going to argue about this. Take it up with WP:RSN, they'll tell you the same thing. You really need to read WP policies and understand them. WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR and more. Vzaak (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC) It is completely appropriate to mention the voice of an editor if that voice is influencing the actual content of the page. For example if an editor has a voice which suggests bias, it is not a personal attack to mention the concern of bias to that editor in TALK. I am merely commenting on your language and your evaluations and how you are using WP to make those evaluations and broad sweeping judgements which so far have been based on what appears to be very loose interpretations of WP. I stand by my comment and in no way is this a violation of WP:NPA. I have concerns of an ideological bias here on this and I have every right as a wiki editor to address that within reason. Please try to maintain a NPOV here. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I may very well take it up with WP:RSN but appeal to an authority as a basis for your argument here is a logical fallacy. If you cannot explain how TED's own organization that reports on TED's news and events would not qualify as a news organization relative to that channel or blur the lines between primary and secondary sources within the WP, then it would be fair for you to no longer comment in the TALK section about this issue. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Comment on content, not on contributors. Warned. Vzaak (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Comment was on "content" specifically and I have addressed my concerns with you on your personal page especially in relationship to WP:AOHA. Please let's be civil and genuine in accordance with WP. If you want to resolve this with me on my personal page please feel free to message me there. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note you can't use "<ref>" here since this page has no "{{reflist}}", i.e. the link you gave doesn't work. Use [] instead. (There's also an extra slash in your URL.) Vzaak (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) My full apologies, I am in between projects now and writing quickly. Have been away from wiki editing for awhile so please be patient with my while I re orientate. Here is the reference in mention [3] The Tumbleman (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I wasn't confused about where the TED blog was; I already cited it myself. I was just letting you know about "ref". (FYI that link is still wrong.) Vzaak (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is my first time on Wikipedia, so if I make any mistakes here, please be patient. Here are a variety of sources for establishing notability for the TED controversy: Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Anderson Huffpo response, and rebuttal, WeHoville, The Independent (UK), The Belfast Telegraph

Notable people commenting on the controversy on their own or lesser known blogs: Ben Goertzel Ray Kurzweil Charles Eisenstein Of Course PZ Myer, Jerry Coyne and Kylie Sturgess, who started it all. Notable people who commented on the TED website include philosopher Bernardo Kastrup and Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson.

Lesser news blogs commenting on or linking to commentary on the controversy: Natural News Reality Sandwich1, Reality Sandwich2 Stargate News Doubtful News Collective Evolution Conscious Life News The Daily Grail Alpha Minds Philosopher's Stone Skeptic Ink Digital Journal Intellihub Circular State of Mind Et Vita The McGill Daily NHNE Pulse Compassionate Action Network International Patheos Newshour 24 The Hollywood Vine

Other: Summarys of the Controversy for reference: The Big TED Controversy Part 1 The Big TED Controversy Part 2

http://www.c4chaos.com/2013/03/rupert-sheldrake-and-graham-hancock-ted-ideas-not-worth-spreading/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/12F-enpa8eUH73m6wS-GDsWa19Lw1a7S2Sla9kxzZtfY/edit

There were also personal blogs commenting on this controversy or reposting that were too numerous to count. You can find a short list about 25 pro Sheldrake, et. al. blog posts here: Craig Weiler (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the Belfast Telegraph too; it's the same article as the Independent with a different opening paragraph. The problem is that we cannot synthesize primary sources together. Especially considering the polarizing nature of the issue, what we can write is greatly constrained without reliable secondary sources, and apparently only one such article exists. The LA Times article is about TEDxWestHollywood and doesn't mention Sheldrake. Wehoville has been used as a source exactly once on WP, but in any case with regard to Sheldrake it doesn't offer much that isn't already covered by the WP article. I'm not arguing for anything here, just stating what the challenges are. Vzaak (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My main goal was to establish the notability of the TED controversy, and that does not appear to be in question now. I'm sure a NPOV can be created from the available sources. The main goal here should be to not slander a living person by misrepresenting the controversy. And on that point the record is very clear. Whatever opinions people had, and they were quite diverse, the fact was simply that at the end of the controversy there was no claim of any kind made against the quality or accuracy of Sheldrake's video. As this is the truth, the editing should reflect this. Craig Weiler (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a little material by citing the Independent article. It's a short article and there's not much to gleam from it about Sheldrake specifically. It looks like you're suggesting original research. I also don't understand "no claim of any kind" because the TED statement is sourced and quoted directly in the WP article. Vzaak (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The section of the article which deals with the controversy contains factual errors. The most glaring of these is this: According to a statement from the TED staff, TED’s scientific advisors "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and believed that "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance". The advisors recommended that the talk "should not be distributed without being framed with caution". The science advisors only provided input once and that was to create a list of complaints about Sheldrake's talk. They later withdrew these complaints and never created any new ones. The area in quotes is mis-attributed. No one at TED or the science board made those claims. (Here are the claims. They are crossed out by TED to demonstrate that they are no longer valid. but even so they are different than what is quoted in the article.) The last statement that the talk "should not be distributed . . ." is Chris Anderson's and it was a general statement directed at no one in particular and it is superseded by his closing statement. Note how vague it is and how it's not directed at anyone in particular.

It's completely understandable that people are confused about this. First there were claims, then there weren't claims, then there were vague not-quite-claims of pseudo science. It's not at all easy to sort out. I only know this because I was right in the middle of the thing at the time following it every tortured step of the way. You might find it helpful to read the two part summary I provided from my blog. Like everyone else I do not have a neutral viewpoint, but it is factually accurate and has the necessary links.

Just as a bit of background for you, I was the one who initially brought the controversy to wider attention when my initial blog post on the controversy started getting spread around and I was the one who broke the TEDxWestHollywood story. I'm focusing on this section because it's something that I know extremely well. Craig Weiler (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I double-checked those three quotes, "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions", "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance", and "should not be distributed without being framed with caution". They exactly match the source cited in the WP article and therefore are not misattributed. Vzaak (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see where this was pulled from. As every single claim by the science board was later retracted, this initial statement on that blog post no longer applies and cannot be in this article. It is part of the original blog post which was very obviously updated at a later date to include the speaker's responses and changed to strike out all of the initial complaints. It is no longer representative of the blog post and is therefore misleading. As this is a biography of a living person, this amounts to slander at this point and should be changed immediately.Craig Weiler (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the WP article is the final blog post by TED on Sheldrake. The post states the action TED took and their reasons for it, and WP cites that. Anderson's closing statement links to that post. It still appears as though you wish to incorporate original research. Vzaak (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing statement has no links, so I don't know what you're referring to there. In any case, this is an incorrect understanding of the timeline of the controversy. This is verified by Sheldrake's response: "I appreciate the fact that TED published my response to the accusations leveled against me by their Scientific Board, and also crossed out the Board’s statement on the “Open for discussion” blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

There are no longer any specific points to answer. I am all in favour of debate, but it is not possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?”" (This response shows up in multiple second sources so it is not primary.)

Vzaak, like many new editors on Wikipedia I am here to lend my expertise in a specific area. It is very important that the article be both accurate and neutral. I would hope that you are glad to have someone around who can sort out the controversy and put it into the proper context.Craig Weiler (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the WP article is right there at the top of Anderson's closing statement. The closing statement capped off the two-week discussion starting March 19 for which the TED blog post -- the source cited in WP -- gave context along with the video itself. Again, this was the the final blog post by TED on Sheldrake, not the initial/original one as you claimed. Vzaak (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why I need to explain this to you, but the closing statement is in gray with black lettering and it is delineated with a border around it. It contains no links. All other information on that web page is irrelevant to the closing statement. As this is a summary of the controversy, it supersedes all other TED statements that came before it. This is very obvious and it demonstrates that the current quote on Rupert's page is taken out of context. Craig Weiler (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Go to the closing statement. This is a TED discussion titled "The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk". The title appears at the top of the page. Directly underneath the title it says, "Please use this space to comment on the debate around Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk, as described here: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/". That link is the source used in the WP article. It provides the context for the discussion. It is the final post by TED on Sheldrake, not the initial one as you previously thought. It's an official, final statement from TED describing the action they took and their reasons for it. The WP article cites this statement with three direct quotes. Anderson's closing statement does not describe the reasons for TED's actions, it only alludes to them by mentioning "curatorial role" and "science board". In order to find the reasons for TED's actions (and to see the talk itself), readers are invited to visit the link at the top of the page, the link that WP cites. The WP article should state the reasons for TED's actions. This cannot be done if we confine ourselves to Anderson's statement as you suggest. Vzaak (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You have this all mixed up. The last update to the blog post was on March 19th. The closing statement (that is specifically referred to as the closing statement) occurred on April 2nd, almost two weeks later. The part that you are missing here, that is of great significance, that I have already pointed out to you, is that there WERE NO REASONS GIVEN for the removal of Sheldrake's video. The statements that you are referring to were part of the initial complaints against Sheldrake's talk. Those were ALL RESCINDED after Sheldrake responded to those complaints. That's why Sheldrake stated that "there are no longer any specific points to answer." Because there weren't any.

This makes the account of the TED controversy in the Sheldrake article grossly misleading. Craig Weiler (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP should cite the reasons TED gave for moving the video. TED did not retract this official statement, which contains the reasons TED gave for moving the video. Therefore, WP cites that statement. It is the final statement TED made on Sheldrake. They made the statement on March 19, opened a planned two-week discussion linking to the statement, the discussion ensued, and then Anderson ended the discussion in his closing statement. Vzaak (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

TED can be assumed to have retracted the statement when all of the complaints by the science board were crossed out. Furthermore, those were not the official reasons for taking down the Sheldrake video. The official reasons, the only ones that count, can be found crossed out below the Sheldrake video. If there were any reasons still outstanding, those would have been dealt with in an update to the blog and/or mentioned in the closing statement or referenced in the closing statement. And they were not. What your are doing is second guessing what the source might have intended after they changed their official position. That's not appropriate for a NPOV. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at this google link. You will see three TED blog posts on Sheldrake. They are different posts, with different contents. The March 19 statement, the source cited in WP, is not retracted. It is not the initial post. The initial post was on March 14. You are saying, I think, that "TED can be assumed to have retracted" the March 19 statement. That doesn't make sense to me, but if you can provide a source that says TED retracted the March 19 statement then that should go into the WP article. Vzaak (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirming TED retracted statements regarding the controversy arising from statements from the science board is found here. [4]. Any summary of this controversy on WP must allow for the statement "TED later retracted statements from the Science Advisory Board" or this article is in violation of NPOV. This is an editorial retraction directly by the TED blog editors and there is absolutely no argument to support that TED's own editorial retraction is not allowed for primary or secondary source causes, as WP gives us flexibility to determine when issues of NPOV arise. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

TED Talks are available under Creative Commons license "Attribution - Noncommercial - Nonderivative" (see THIS). Are there objections to including a Sheldrake TED talk as an external link, provided that the link gives proper attribution to TED? Lou Sander (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The video of the talk has been there in the ref, The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk. That's the source that should be used. Vzaak (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Belfast TEDx coverage gives us a wee bit of additional info, or at least another slightly different take on the matter. Sadly, the most useful sentence is marred by a transcription typo.

"TED reserves the right to take down talks from the web, as with Rupert Sheldrake, author of 'The Science Delusion', who was censored. Are some ideas not worth spreading?" [Interviewer, Maggie Armstrong]

"TED have a healthy approach to this. It is their event, so if a speaker doesn't follow the rules, they aren't obliged to put it up. Any speaker who doesn't get their talk put online – and that's very rare – can always share their viewpoint elsewhere.

In Sheldrake's case, the speaker got more press by accusing TED of sponsorship – and they did eventually post it online with an explanation (see: blog.ted.com/ 2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert- sheldrakes-talk)." [Science Gallery's Ian Brunswick, the organiser of TEDxDublin]

"sponsorship" ARRRRRGH! [David in DC, commenting on Murphy's Law]

Ideas for Everyone, Irish Independent, 14 September 2013. David in DC (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, sponsorship. Thanks for finding that; too bad the article apparently wasn't copy-edited at all. The lack of formatting of the Q and A is confusing. Vzaak (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better in the hard copy version. So in 30 years, we can probably link to a google image version. In the meantime, anyone up for a field trip to a Dublin library? The first pint of lager's on me. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear what this editor is suggesting, David in DC can you clarify the sponsorship issue raised here and how it affects edits to this controversy on WP? The Tumbleman (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a typo on the newspaper's website. In context, the word is almost certainly censorship. If the formatting issue Vzaak identifies in the online version and the typo I've identified in the online version weren't there, arguably this article might be used to further source the controversy. But as it stands, the link would add confusion, rather than clarity. Hence my "ARRRRRGH" and my reference to Murphy's Law. David in DC (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns with article

The user Barney the Barney Barney has 2 concerns that seem to inform the current tone of this article: 1) As inferred by this dialogue with him, he relates Sheldrake's work to telepathy experiments and claim that they are inconsistent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barney_the_barney_barney#Re:_Consistency 2) He sources Lewis Wolpert to claim that Sheldrake's ideas are inconsistent with modern science (there are superior sources refuting Wolpert), and he claims that Sheldrake has no evidence for his theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vzaak#Please_understadn

I will deal with both of these concerns: Concern Number 1: Refutation of this is important, because the general opposition to Sheldrake revolves around misconceptions concerning psi research in general. There was a recent Baysean analysis entitled "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences", published in 2011 in the journal "Frontiers in Psychology": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/ A table from that showed that Baysean analysis of Ganzfeld ESP experiments yielded a Bayes factor of 18,861,051: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114207/table/T1/

A Bayes factor of greater than 100 is considered to be "decisive".

Incidentally, according to an Epoch Times article, "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other.":  http://m.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html

So the classification of this as WP:FRINGE is uncalled for.

Concern Number 2: In this revision of the Sheldrake article I noted replication of his experiments using solid sources (and that Wiseman, while earlier claiming that he had discredited Sheldrake, later admitted that he replicated Sheldrake's results). I also refuted the idea that it is not consistent with current science by noting the support given with the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that Bohm believed that Sheldrake, via a different angle, came to the same realizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=572407570&oldid=572407366 - and the Bohm interpretation leads "to experimental results compliant with quantum mechanics", and has been presented as a useful means of understanding quantum phenomena in top journals like Foundations of Physics: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018861226606

From p. 271 of his biography we find the following praise for David Bohm from Richard Feynman, one of the world's most important physicists: "When he mentioned his own lack of interest in the philosophical issues of science, one of the Ojai group, David Moody, joked, "Dave knows a little bit about both." Feynman became angry, saying "I can tell you one thing. David Bohm knows a lot more than a little about physics." Booth Harris, a teacher at the Ojai school, remembered Feynman saying, "You probably don't know how great he is," and noticed the considerable respect Feynman showed towards Bohm.": [5]

The Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson has also defended Sheldrake: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5833/pdf/293594b0.pdf - you can read the text of the defense here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/293594b0.pdf

And Hans-Peter Dürr, former executive director of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, has shown that Sheldrake's work is indeed consistent with modern science in his article "Sheldrake's ideas from the perspective of modern physics" in the journal "Frontier Perspectives": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-182664602.html - you can read the article here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Sheldrake%C2%B4s%20Id%C3%A9er_07,pdf.pdf

Regarding replication, I sourced Sheldrake's refutation of Rose, published in a quality journal (the same journal Rose's criticism was in), and also sourced Sheldrake's defense of the idea that morphic resonance applies to crystal formation and rat behavior. I have noted Wiseman's admission of replication of Sheldrake's results with dogs knowing that owners are coming home, and also that Wiseman is on record of being skeptical of "normal" evidence for psi claims. As an aside, I recently sent Wiseman the aforementioned Baysean analysis by email, and he replied "how interesting", and thanked me for sharing. I also provided a meta-analysis to a quality journal showing an effect with "sense of being stared at" experiments.

Some replication of Sheldrake's Telephone Telepathy experiments have occurred - an example is this article - this was a paper presented at a parapsychology convention, so I assume that you would be skeptical of it - however, consider the Baysean analysis given above: http://www.metapsychique.org/Who-s-calling-at-this-hour-Local.html

In another replication published in journal "The Open Psychology Journal" entitled "Do You Know Who is Calling? Experiments on Anomalous Cognition in Phone Call Receivers", the abstract concludes "We conclude that we could not find any anomalous cognition effect in self-selected samples. But our data also strongly suggest that there are a few participants who are able to score reliably and repeatedly above chance." - so such telepathic ability varied with individuals. This does not nullify it - it just shows that it is more prevalent in some people than others. The conclusion of the article specifically states that " Based on our findings we suggest that future research in this area should focus more on experiments with few well selected and gifted participants rather than testing the general population on their anomalous cognition ability. This has already be shown in other fields of anomalous cognition research.": http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topsyj/articles/V002/12TOPSYJ.pdf

I have given examples concerning replication of Sheldrake's major theory of morphic resonance, but key evidence for it is in the article "Adaptive state of mammalian cells and its nonseparability suggestive of a quantum system", published in the journal "Scripta Medica", the abstract of which states: "Established mammalian cells were assayed for their resistance to different selection conditions which had not been used against these cells before, including exposure to thioguanine, ethionine, high temperature and a protein-free, chemically defined culture medium. Single assays were negative, showing that the cell lines contained no spontaneous mutants, or that these were present in a number below detectable limits. To obtain such mutants, we designed experiments of mutant isolation by serial assays. The cells were kept growing without selection and, at each passage, cell samples were withdrawn and assayed for resistance in separate cultures. As a result, we found no mutants at the beginning, then a few and, finally, a great number. This was in conflict with the postulate of random occurrence of mutants and, furthermore, with their spontaneousness. On the contrary, the results provided evidence that mutants occurred as an appropriate response to selection pressure. The most amazing feature was that this response could be detected in cells growing without selection and never exposed to selection pressure before. If one tried to explain the adaptive response in terms of signals, the signals would have to travel from the exposed to the unexposed cultures. The results are instead discussed in terms of adaptive states and the nonseparability of cellular states due to quantum entanglement of cells, in particular daughter cells, distributed between the exposed and unexposed cultures. Whatever the mechanism, we concluded that the finding of resistant cells in growing unexposed cultures, as a response to selective pressure on cells in physically separated cultures, tends to render meaningless any theory based on the spontaneous origin of mutants.": http://www.med.muni.cz/biomedjournal/pdf/2000/04/211-222.pdf

Another example of morphic resonance at work occurs in the article "Analyzing ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ Concerning Brand Logos" in the journal "Innovative Marketing", which states: "Based on the assumption that there exists a kind of collective knowledge beyond individual experience, the authors found that in respect to logos humans are more likely to respond to stimuli if many people in other parts of the world do or did know them, even though they personally are not consciously familiar with the logos. An improved favorability of 20% for original symbols versus comparable control symbols can be regarded as a solid competitive advantage. This benefit regarding brand logos was analyzed by means of latent class models. Additionally, the heterogeneity in the participant’s characteristics as well as the heterogeneity in the analyzed symbols were incorporated by means of random and fixed effects models. Furthermore, this effect was shown to be neither culture-specific nor linked to age, gender, level of extraversion, and education of the participants. ": http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/im/2006/im_en_2006_01_Schorn.pdf

Ans also, see the article "Evidence of Collective Memory: a test of Sheldrake's theory", published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3804853 - the article can be read here: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Evidence%20of%20Collective%20Memory.pdf

The conclusion notes that "The presence of collective memory was tested by having three groups of students learn the morse code, which had been previously learned by a large number of people, and a novel code that had never been learned by others and was constructed to be of equal intrinsic difficulty. As predicted, the Morse code was initially easier to learn, and the Novel code itself became easier over the three groups. The results confirm Sheldrake's theory and lend credibility to Jung's concepts of the archetype and the collective unconscious while suggesting that the ladder contains much more than archetypal memories." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.210.61 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Meta-Analyses are useless if the publication bias and/or amount of fraud are unknown. Occam's razor obliges us to assume those two possibilities. The solution are few and big studies and I know only one reason why parapsychologists wouldn't conduct them.

Secondly: A survey in the "Epoch Times" isn't sufficient to label pseudoscience like parapsychology now as real science. Such surveys (if they are representative at all) have been there for decades which clearly doesn't speak in favor of parapsychology - PSI is always just around the corner, science just about to change etc. blah.

Thirdly: The claim that Wiseman admitted that he replicated Sheldrake's findings of telepathic abilities of the dog is an outright lie by Sheldrake which is based on a quotation out of context.

Fourthly: Sheldrake's claim about telephone telepathy is that many people report it and that it's a very widespread phenomenon. This contradicts your "replication" which claims that there are few individuals with the ability to "sense" the caller. You also concealed studies which observed no effect at all.

I haven't even looked at the rest of your - obviously cherry-picked - "scientific" studies after reading ‘Spooky Action at a Distance' - as if there'd be any "action at a distance" involved in quantum entanglement. That's just another example for quantum-woo. Your ridiculous argument from authority (quoting Bohm, Josephson and Dürr) also won't impress anybody. It gets even more pathetic if you consider that most scientists reject Sheldrake's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.174.219 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken about Wiseman's admission, the facts are archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_4#corroborating_examples_and_replication

Chris Carter has explained how Wiseman is erroneous in justifying his position that even though he did indeed (per his own admission) replicate Sheldrake's results, they do not show evidence for telepathy, in this Journal of the Society for Psychical Research article - "Heads I lose, tails you win.": http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Carter2010.pdf

Rupert was specifically replicated with the parapsychology conference paper. The other is corroboration. Further corroboration comes from the following meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychology showing a statistically significant effect in sense of being stared at experiments: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15142304?dopt=Abstract

The wikipedia definition of action at a distance is "the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space", so you are mistaken.

Regarding your more important comment, as Dean Radin noted: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/04/show-me-evidence.html?showComment=1380231376477#c9085961950970675523

"Methods have been developed to estimate the impact of publication bias in meta-analyses (e.g. the funnel plot). Applying those estimates to the known literature does not nullify the results.

There have been two, perhaps three known cases of fraud by investigators in parapsychology, and all of those cases were discovered by parapsychologists. This is far lower than in other areas of science. Fraud cannot plausibly explain the observed results.

The use of Occam's razor in this case is predicated on the assumption that current theories are sufficient to describe everything in the physical world. That is clearly incorrect because every 20 years textbooks have to be rewritten. Will we have a viable theory 20 years from now? I don't know, but the moment one allows theory to trump empirical facts, that's religion, not science.

The reason why large scale studies are not conducted is very simple: lack of funds. Large scale studies can be very expensive and funding for this area is nearly nonexistent."

Scientific community rejects him, not just a few scientists

A good ref is http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

“Science,” according to the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, “is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” It is not the intellectual communism that is so popular here. It is also notable, as shown above, that leading physicists, including the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, have defended Sheldrake. Also, points of concern regarding Rupert Sheldrake have been addressed in the section above. Also, his morphic resonance hypothesis has been corroborated with other research, as shown above. What's left then is the atmosphere of intellectual communism that Sheldrake directly addresses. It is notable, also, the surveys concerning telepathy, related to Sheldrake's inquiry, given above showing that acceptance of it is not as fringe as some might imply, and the above given Baysean analysis of ESP experiments that proves the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.210.61 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The article already says "widely rejected by the scientific community". A better lede would be, "rejected by many in the scientific community, but has been defended by notable physicists like David Bohm, Brian Josephson, and Hans Peter Durr."71.202.210.61 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, our sources say it's widely rejected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To say that the scientific community rejects Sheldrake is misleading and biased no matter the source. It is impossible to define "scientific community." There is no comprehensive list of scientists who reject Sheldrake's work. It is on the level of gossip and not suitable for an article and should be removed. It is also not a NPOV and therefore violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Craig Weiler (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Craig Weiler. Also, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.19.195 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Craig, you're asking us to choose between your personal opinion and our sources. The sources win every time. MilesMoney (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.19.195 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care. We have reliable sources saying that the scientific community rejects his theories. Deal with that. MilesMoney (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The comparison of sources is equivalent to saying that Einstein or Newton defends his theories, but a cadre of purportedly "skeptical" science columnists reject them.

It's pretty clear from the references that there's a lot of skepticism about Sheldrake's work. IMHO, that is fairly stated and strongly backed up by the material in the article. If, indeed, some credible people have defended his work, NPOV requires that that be mentioned and referenced. If somebody will post some verifiable references here, I'll be glad to put these points of view into the article, hopefully in a way that will be acceptable even to skeptics. I'll have to be able to see the references myself, though -- I'm not willing to accept their verifiability on faith. Lou Sander (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no problem with mentioning his supporters. I just don't want to lie by making it sound as if the scientific community as a whole takes him seriously. It doesn't, and that's not just my opinion, it's what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Josephson, Bohm, and Durr are now in the article, with corresponding references. Josephson came up coincidentally after I discovered that the Roszak reference was about the wrong book and subsequently searched for something else to counterbalance to Maddox. Vzaak (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander - the sources you seek are here - scroll down to "concern number 2": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Positive reactions from colleagues can be included but they need to be given sufficient context, i.e. what the person is saying and who it is that is saying it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I will summarize the Durr article, which defends Sheldrake, and shows how his argument is not inconsistent with modern science: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Sheldrake%C2%B4s%20Id%C3%A9er_07,pdf.pdf

Points of interest are the second paragraph of the article, where Durr states that while biology moved away from holism towards reductionism, physics moved towards holism.

In the fourth paragraph, Durr criticizes biology for not keeping up with physics, and states that "For me, it is difficult to understand why biologists do not make more use of the revolutionary ideas of modern physics, seeing that the processes of life, as Sheldrake makes obvious, seem predestined to act as a bridge."

In the fifth paragraph, he notes the misconception that the features of the "microcosm" are irrelevant to the "macrocosm", and states that "Numerous examples show us in what unexpected ways the new laws of the microcosm manage to effect the macrocosm that is directly accessible for us."

He gives examples (pp. 30-32) of macroscopic structures. A note on this - I feel that that this is important to bring out in some detail, because the feeling I got from the Bohm-Sheldrake dialogue was that Sheldrake came to many of the same conclusions Bohm did, but his argument dealt with macro systems, and it is traditionally argued that quantum effects have no application to macro systems. The traditional claim that quantum explanations do not hold in this case is beginning to break down as more and more information is coming in - like this paper by Anton Zeilinger showed the wave-particle duality occurring with buckyballs, large molecules: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html Also, it is now being shown that quantum decoherence is not necessarily a preventor of these effects occuring - a recent paper showed that "One of the major obstacles to realizing quantum computers and simulators is the environment, which disturbs quantum systems. In the ideal regime, information from the system leaks slowly to the environment. Such unidirectional flow of information in which the noise acts the same way at all times characterizes a Markovian process. However, soft- or condensed-matter systems are strongly coupled to the environment and this leads to a regime where information also flows back into the system; a non-Markovian process. Now, writing in Nature Physics1, Bi-Heng Liu and co-workers report an all-optical experiment in which the flow of information between the system and environment is controlled and the system can be steered between these two regimes.": http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~jbar/files/Barreiro-Nature%20Phys.-7-927-928.pdf Consider also the paper "Physics of Life: The Dawn of Quantum Biology", which states, "discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don't: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth's magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis — the process by which plants and bacteria turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, and arguably the most important biochemical reaction on Earth. Biology has a knack for using what works, says Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And if that means "quantum hanky-panky", he says, "then quantum hanky-panky it is". Some researchers have even begun to talk of an emerging discipline called quantum biology, arguing that quantum effects are a vital, if rare, ingredient of the way nature works.": http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html The following article states that "Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.": http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=living-in-a-quantum-world And also, consider a paper by Andreas Albrecht, "Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse", which argued that all probabilistic effects, including macroscopic effects, can be traced to quantum uncertainties: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953 The article "Adaptive state of mammalian cells and its nonseparability suggestive of a quantum system", cited in the above section, would specifically seem to justify these ideas and, as it corroborates Sheldrake's argument, it shows how his thesis is consistent with the framework being described.

Returning to Durr's text - p. 32, the section entitled "The Quantum Interpretation of Life" is interesting. It is also interesting in light of the dialogue between David Bohm and Rupert Sheldrake.

He states on p. 34 that he wants to investigate "if and under what conditions Sheldrake's ideas have a chance of being accepted on the terrain of the present day established modern natural sciences." And that he is "not as pessimistic" as those who completely disregard Sheldrake, accusing one such person of "dumping the baby out with the bathwater". He states also that "considerations should not be restricted to what seems immediately plausible to us from our macroscopic view."

On p. 34 of the text he commends Sheldrake for making practical proposals for how his thesis can be validated and notes, "Since he himself does not have a suitable laboratory and funds at his disposal, he explicitly requests support by others. This book is intended to provide a constructive contribution to this. Sheldrake is familiar enough with the natural sciences to know how a scientifically well-founded set of measurements must be set up, and what the readings must look like, for there to be a significant confirmation."

He states on p. 38 (and this is not some ignoramus with no understanding of the subject, this is Hans Peter-Durr, of the Max Planck Institute), that the "processes of quantum physics might in principle contain a fruitful potential for an explanation of Sheldrake's morphic fields."

I would also like to note that this argument can show how telepathy arguments are not inconsistent with modern science, and why the results from the Baysean analysis given above show an effect that is not as "paranormal" as we might think, but possibly quite normal. For more on this, see the article "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential": http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3029159

The abstract reads: "Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen (EPR) correlations between human brains are studied to verify if the brain has a macroscopic quantum component. Pairs of subjects were allowed to interact and were then separated inside semisilent Faraday chambers 14.5 m apart when their EEG activity was registered. Only one subject of each pair was stimulated by 100 flashes. When the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, the nonstimulated subject showed “transferred potentials” similar to those evoked in the stimulated subject. Control subjects showed no such transferred potentials. The transferred potentials demonstrate brain‐to‐brain nonlocal EPR correlation between brains, supporting the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel."198.189.184.243 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference list

Somehow the references in the list are not numbered. I don't know how this happened, but I do see that the reflist tag is set up in an unusual way, with many paragraphs apparently being inserted before the closing curly brackets. Somebody please fix it. (I'm reluctant to try it myself, for fear of messing up whatever is intended with those many paragraphs.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I bisected the problem to this diff (at bottom). Now fixed. Vzaak (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Misleading lead section

The second paragraph of the article says

"Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis is widely rejected within the scientific community and has been labelled pseudoscience and magical thinking. Concerns include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis and its inconsistency with established scientific theories."

There are lots of inline references that appear to back up these claims (though I haven't checked them all), so I have no problem with what this paragraph says. But other stuff is missing.

The lead paragraphs of WP:LEAD tell what should be in an article's lead, including that it should summarize the material in the article, including important controversies, and be written from a neutral point of view. The latter is especially important in biographies of living persons.

In looking at the article, I see much material that is favorable to Sheldrake, often of the form "X says Sheldrake is a big windbag, but that mightn't be entirely correct." None of this material is mentioned in the lead. Neither is there anything in the lead about Sheldrake's important criticism of the current state of scientific inquiry.

Based on these facts, I believe that the lead fails to summarize important controversies (mentioning only the predominant anti-Sheldrake side of them) and fails to include important material (the fact that Sheldrake attacks the very science that the anti-Sheldrake folks base their careers on, and that therefore might color their opinions). These omissions, IMHO, mean that the lead isn't written from a neutral point of view. The strict requirements of WP:BLP allow this paragraph to be removed immediately. It would be much better, IMHO, to add some material that would create a neutral point of view. A few sentences would probably suffice.

I'm not highly familiar with Sheldrake material myself, so I'm reluctant to try fixing the defective lead. Maybe some of the Sheldrake experts will work on it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:UNDUE, you'll see that it requires us to give weight based on the weight of our sources. We have a few sources supporting Sheldrake, but the majority are starkly critical. The article reflects this fact. MilesMoney (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what Lou Sander is suggesting, reading WP:UNDUE the lead section in Sheldrakes's biography is misleading, written in a voice to demean his biography as a way to disprove a hypothesis of his. This lead section shows clear signs of bias and violations of WP NPOV. WP UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Consider - this is not an article on Sheldrake's hypothesis, it is a biography page and any application of WP must be applied strictly to WP:ALIVE. It appears that editors on this page are confusing mainstream scientific critique of an hypothesis with a critique on Sheldrake on his biography page. I vote for a re - edit of this entire page and will be making suggestions shortly. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:UNDUE, there also appears to be bias as to how Sheldrake's hypothesis is being defined under WP:FRINGE/PS. Because there are sourced quotes claiming his hypothesis to be Pseudoscience, that is not strong enough to apply it as Pseudoscience in editing under WP:NPOV. Consider - WP:FRINGE/PS lays out a framework for editors to determine the application, specifically "Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics". This is why String Theory is allowed a full voice on Wikipedia although technically, it falls under Pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific definition. Additionally, the over all biased voice of the whole page appears to violate. WP:TE The Tumbleman (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" with string theory is a disingenuous false analogy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's actually quite an appropriate analogy. There is no reasonable claim an editor can make regarding Morphic Resonance as Pseudoscience as the term is used and defined in science unless you are claiming it is PS because it is not falsifiable. That appears to me to be the only supportive claim an editor can make to hold Morphic Resonance under WP:FRINGE. That's the exact same issue with String Theory, and under the terms, string theory is pseudoscience. This is a problem in academia regarding this definition, as this article in Scientific American points out.. that is why WP:FRINGE has section four. Editors cannot put an hypothesis in a WP:FRINGE category just because they have a quote from a scientist who says it is PS, and if they do, and it's from inside the scientific community, then it's considered an alternative theory and not PS. Help me understand your thinking here, what reasons do you as an editor support Morphic Resonance being held to WP:FRINGE as pseudo science? I am not seeing a clear case here and want to understand. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying my point: The article itself discusses Sheldrake's (relatively few) supporters. The lead section (which should be a fair summary of the article's content) does not mention them. That is not proper, and needs to be fixed. A neutral point of view can be established by adding something about them to the lead section, or by deleting the offending paragraph. Adding something, IMHO, is the better way. Lou Sander (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As MilesMoney said, the lead reflects the weight of sources. That you got the impression that Sheldrake has much support suggests the article has gone too far in including such support. The article failed to accurately convey the level of acceptance of Sheldrake in the scientific community, and should therefore be more critical. Vzaak (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As I responded to that point the editor made. This appears to violate a number of WP. This article needs to follow WP in the appropriate order. There appears to be 'cherry picking' of WP policy which is making this article appear to be guilty of WP:TE. first the fundamental principle of WP, WP:NPOV, must be followed. Secondly, what needs to be followed on this page are the guidelines for WP:ALIVE. This is a biography page, not a page about Morphic Resonance. Considering Sheldrake has had quite a notable career criticizing mainstream scientific thinking, excluding that from his biography and the context within editors 'sources' here looks suspicious. In the interest of protecting wikipedia, I am requesting for a massive re -edit to this page in a WP:NPOV in accordance with WP:ALIVE. Help me understand your thinking here Vzaak, how does removing the historical, archived context of the debate between sheldrake and his critics improve his biography page according to WP, can you explain? The Tumbleman (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead section does not mention his supporters, but neither does it suggest that he has no supporters at all. Calling his morphic resonance theory "widely rejected" seems if anything a generous summary of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

By omitting the context of the debate of Sheldrake within the scientific community, the entire lead section slants bias against sheldrake. By omitting 'supporters', lead section is omitting context of debate around sheldrake by default.The Tumbleman (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak: The article says that Sheldrake has supporters, and provides some detail. The lead does not mention that he has them. It is therefore not written from a neutral point of view. That is enough to justify deletion of its second paragraph. Also, the article mentions that Sheldrake is critical of the foundations of mainstream science. The lead doesn't mention that, but does quote many mainstream scientists who are bitterly critical of Sheldrake. That is another failure to provide a neutral point of view in the lead. This, also, is enough to justify deletion of the second paragraph. IMHO, editors need to acknowledge the basic correctness of what I just said: that the lead lacks a neutral point of view. (Since this is a BLP, their acknowledgement is not even necessary. It would be best to have it, though. IMHO, it would also be better to improve the second paragraph rather than to delete it.) Lou Sander (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We are going to be suggesting numerous edits to the lead section shortly. We will propose these edits before we make them and editors here can evaluate the edits within NPOV and ALIVE. There are more problems than the one you mention. The lead section is written in a voice which appears to detract from Sheldrake's credentials as a scientist and appears to seek to create a false impression of his academic history.The Tumbleman (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Who's the we?
2. You must achieve consensus before making changes. Your failure to understand this will likely get you a topic ban. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"We" means the community of editors. Specifically, I am going to be submitting changes for the community's consensus and will be doing this strictly according to WP. Any editors failure to understand or abuse any WP Policy, especially WP:GAME, are likely to find themselves removed from the page.The Tumbleman (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you're pretty much in a minority of 1 when it comes to thinking that WP:FRINGE will not apply to this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that's relevant. Remember WP:DEM. WP policy is clear of when and when not to apply WP:FRINGE. If editors can explain their application of WP:FRINGE in relationship to a WP:ALIVEwith me or any other editor, then their edits will stand. If they are unable to support their edits within the framework of WP:DEM by making reasoned unbiased arguments, then edits will be removed or perhaps taken into mediation if WP:TE ensues. I will be making my formal argument on this at a later date after the lead section is cleaned up to support WP:ALIVE and WP:NPOVThe Tumbleman (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the sourcing for the statement that "morphic resonance is widely rejected."  ;891011 [[6]] None of these sources support that statement in any meaningful way. 8 and 12 are book reviews, which can hardly be regarded as sources of scientific opinion. #9 is just a single statement by Martin Gardner, a member of CSICOP, a known radical atheist pressure group. In any case, it's nothing more than an assertion. #10 is taken totally out of context. In any case, it's just another assertion. #11 seems to be an article, but does not appear to have a working link.

This is terrible sourcing. This is just a handful of people, most of whom aren't even qualified to speak on this subject, speaking in broad terms. For the assertion "morphic resonance is widely rejected" to be properly sourced it needs sources that specifically address that assertion in a meaningful way. The source should explain why it is widely rejected and present a scholarly approach to supporting the assertion. Perhaps morphic resonance is widely rejected, but the sources that are there now wouldn't hold up in a high school term paper.Craig Weiler (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This area has been changed, but it is no better. In particular, the whole third paragraph is supported by "[a]" which is a perfect demonstration of the kind of biased editing favored by the Guerrilla Skeptics. It is a cherry picked selection that omits opposing points of view and fails to recognize controversy. It presents these skeptical points of view as a done deal, which they certainly are not. It is very important that skeptics editing this page recognize the existence of controversy. That means that sections such as the third paragraph have to reflect the presence of controversy and not take a particular side. For someone such as Sheldrake, you could potentially pick sources to say whatever you want to. Just because a source says a thing doesn't mean that this reflects the entirety of the situation. There are competing sources and this basic fact cannot be ignored.Craig Weiler (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I came to this concerned about BLP. "Just because a source says a thing doesn't mean that this reflects the entirety of the situation." I agree. "There are competing sources..." Can you offer some on this page? I keep looking for WP:RS and, after discussion on this page, I'd most likely support inserting them. I feel like Garrett Morris here. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember, WP:FRINGE says that the mainstream skepticism, while not necessarily the final word, is still the first word. MilesMoney (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well look at citation [[7]] for example. This is used as a justification for calling morphic resonance pseudo science and impacting public understanding. Look at it carefully because it is a response by Steve Rose to an experiment he did with Rupert Sheldrake testing the supposedly untestable hypothesis of morphic resonance. Where is the experiment and where is the rebuttal? How can you call something pseudoscience when skeptics are invited in to not only examine the work but comment on it? Rose's article in fact, was obviously lifted from Sheldrake's website. So he's not hiding anything. That doesn't fit any definition of pseudoscience that I know of. And how can you claim that a hypothesis is untestable when you're citing the frigging test!

This experiment, response and rebuttal is typical of the back and forth that occurs in Parapsychology. Relying solely on Rose's response as a citation isn't at all neutral.Craig Weiler (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the experiment and the rebuttal aren't in the article because www.sheldrake.org isn't a WP:RS. David in DC (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's site is just archiving the actual papers so should not be confused as the source. The actual source for what Lou Sanders is suggesting is Rivista di Biologia, 'Biology Forum' 85 (3/4), 1992, Rose's critique of the experiment is found on pg 445-453, Sheldrake's rebuttal pg 455-460. Here is another source of the paper referencing it to Rivista di Biologia. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in excluding legitimate sources. My only concern is that we can't leave the reader with a mistaken impression about how Rupert's ideas are seen by the scientific community. His willingness to interact with scientists isn't unusual when you factor in the fact that he used to be one. But his endorsement of standard fringe ideas such as perpetual motion moves him far outside the realm of legitimate science. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific community

The section on A New Science of Life and The Presence of the Past makes the claim that

...the scientific community continues to regard Sheldrake's morphic resonance as pseudoscience.

The references provided seem to say nothing about "the scientific community". That claim seems to be original research through synthesis. WP:ALIVE allows the removal of such material without discussion. I plan to do that later today. Before removing it, I will welcome being shown references that mention "the scientific community" and morphic resonance, but the window for this is short.

On the other hand, two paragraphs below, the article says

Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis is discredited by numerous critics on many grounds. These grounds include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis and the inconsistency of the hypothesis with established scientific theories. Morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibilty for being overly vague and unfalsifiable. Further, Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias, and his analyses of results have also drawn criticism.

IMHO, this is a fair and properly referenced statement, meeting the strict requirements of WP:ALIVE. Lou Sander (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

From a quick skim, although it's attached to a different sentence, reference #9 (Supernatural America: A Cultural History) says "most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash". --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Most biologists" cannot be synthesized into "the scientific community". My gripe is with the loose and unsourced use of "scientific community" in a way that implies universal agreement among scientists. Lou Sander (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable, IMHO, to say the mainstream scientific community rejects his hypothesis as long as it's put into historical context within Sheldrake's bio, considering his career has spanned 30 years criticizing mainstream scientific thinking which he also rejects philosophically. It's more important to consider that even if there is a quote that says "many biologists think his theory is hogwash" this does not mean "biologists think Sheldrake is Hogwash" so the article should not be written in a POV of the mainstream scientific community about sheldrake as a man.The Tumbleman (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point Lou Sander that you clarified in your last edit to your comment. I think the wording of the scientific community can be changed to adjust for that. It's fair to say it has been widely rejected 'within' the *mainstream* scientific community, with notable critics of his work accusing it of PS, as long as the bio reflects Sheldrake's responses and critics back to the community. It's the historical exchange between Sheldrake and quite a number of scientific luminaries that has highlighted his career. Sheldrake himself responds and critics the mainstream scientific *thinking*, so much of the controversy historically has been philosophical between Sheldrake and his opponents, who clearly engage with him in public debate, books, and television documentaries.Thanks for helping to make this page have an unbiased voice. When I do get to making suggestions for an entirely new lead section edit, I would invite you to approve or change if you feel your point was not well served. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources support the fact that he has little to no support within the scientific community, and his work has no standing whatsoever. Trying to weasel out of this isn't going to work, whateve social experiments you're plotting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Page is using biased and incomplete sourcing out of context. I believe that's the issue editors are currently discussing here. Please be respectful to editors and personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL. You will have a voice when edits are suggested.The Tumbleman (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me with "personal attack warnings" that serve only to try to detract from your bizarre opinion that policies, including WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV shouldn't apply to this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure your reasoning here regarding WP:FRINGE is coming through or is doing much to support these edits. There is only a rational and logical application of WP that is consistent, or there isn't. Editors have made a claim to apply WP:FRINGE to an WP:ALIVE page with very vague arguments and now personal attacks. I think if editors can support their edits with reasoned arguments and address reasonable questions, their edits and decisions will have a chance to stay. WP:FRINGE/PS is pretty clear that certain issues need care amongst editors. If you want your edits to maintain WP:FRINGE, then perhaps you can explain your thought process here? It's not coming through to myself and other editors on this page.

1.)Can you please explain how WP:FRINGE applies to a WP:ALIVE biography and what references support it?

2.)Can you explain how Sheldrake's hypothesis does not fit WP:FRINGE/PS as an alternative theoretical formulation from within the scientific community?

The Tumbleman (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The references to support the WP:FRINGE status are in the article. WP:IDONTSEEIT isn't an excuse for this. With regard to WP:FRINGE/PS, some of Sheldrake's work falls into #2 "Generally considered pseudoscience"; although some of the more absurd and bizarre claims are category 1 "obvious pseudoscience". Most of it doesn't even come close to category 3 "Questionable science", yet alone category 4 "Alternative theoretical formulations". Which part of this is difficult for you to grasp? So WP:FRINGE applies, whether you like it or not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent Barney the barney barney you're suggesting that the arguments for applying WP:FRINGE are found solely in the references on the page and do not rest on any other reasoned argument. If this is the case, then we have strong grounds to remove this format from the page. Consider, the sourcing on the page is incomplete, taken from biased sources and out of context and there are plenty of sources and references out there to justify a WP:FRINGE/PS 'alternative theoretical formulation' status that is allowed. Once I finish collecting these sources, both Primary and secondary, I will be removing this WP:FRINGE claim since there is no reasoned argument for it other than the current incomplete references you mention. To answer your question "What part of this is difficult for me to grasp?" it's again, the following unaddressed questions I have. Until I have reasonable answers other than 'this is what our sources say' these edits are unlikely to stand because the sources are incomplete and poorly applied to WP:ALIVE

1.)Can you please explain how WP:FRINGE applies to a WP:ALIVE biography and what references support it?

2.)Can you explain how Sheldrake's hypothesis does not fit WP:FRINGE/PS as an alternative theoretical formulation from within the scientific community?

I assume Barney the barney barney has nothing more to contribute to this issue, but invite any editor on this page to kindly address these questions because it appears there is a mis application of WP for the purposes of WP:TE which is violating WP:NPOV and WP:ALIVE. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have shown considerable patience with your POVPUSHING and ignorance of Wikipedia policy and whining here. I have tried to explain at length the policies on this issue but you continue to ignore my advice and patronise me. I don't see much need to repeat myself; it's quite simple WP:BLP does not mean that fair criticism should be suppressed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney Your POV is valued here and I am performing a reasonable inquiry. You claim you have explained things at length and I accept you have done this to the best of your skills as a valued member of the Wikipedia editors. If you believe I have missed a point, please address. Your other points, as mentioned in this talk section for any admin to read, are not consistent with WP policy for ALIVE and I look forward to hearing your thoughts when I make the first edit. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Lemme jump in here. I read up on WP:FRINGE and I gotta say it applies here in spades. Rupert's ideas are widely rejected by science, and he broadly rejects science. We have to report on them because they're what he believed, but we can't treat them as if they're anything but fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in MilesMoney. We agree that his hypothesis has been rejected within the scientific community, I assume that is what you mean by being rejected by 'science'. However that does not qualify a hypothesis as pseudoscience in WP:FRINGE/PS. You claim that Sheldrake 'broadly rejects science'. There does not seem to be any evidence of that in any sources. That may be a personal interpretation so if that supports a specific edit, please explain your thoughts as to how. It's not coming clear phrased that way.

As for the rest of your commentary, I am not sure I understand the implication. I agree that the article must frame the reactions from the mainstream scientific community. I'm just not seeing anything that qualifies this article which is governed under WP:ALIVE to fall under jurisdiction of WP:FRINGE. Yes, some prominent scientists have said it is pseudoscience, and the article should reflect that, but some prominent scientists have said it is not. Considering it technically is an 'alternative theoretical formulation', that's a discussion for scientists and philosophers of science, not wikipedia editors. In science, technically anything that cannot be falsified is pseudoscience.[edit: this is how I made the comparison with String Theory. By definition, String Theory is 'hard science' but technically falls under pseudoscience as well] I am not seeing any source material state that the hypothesis Morphic Resonance is not falsifiable as a matter of scientific consensus. We just want to show the context on the page so a WP:NPOV is presented. I look forward to hearing your commentary when I make these edits. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The part that's relevant is:

"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

By this definition, Sheldrake's ideas aren't just scientific hypotheses that remained unconvincing, they're pseudoscience. Here's the checklist:

1. Attempt to change the basic laws of nature: Conservation of mass/energy.
2. To allow for phenomena that he wants to believe occurs: morphic resonance, perpetual motion.
3. Attacking mainstream theories: Conservation, again.
4. Attacking mainstream scientific methodology: "modern science has become a series of dogmas"
5. Relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence: the dog stories

I could go on, but the perpetual motion machine alone should be enough to show that Rupert is a pseudoscientist by Wikipedia (and scientific) standards.

Now that we know this, the policy you pointed at says we aren't allowed to present the two sides as if there's any sort of equality. Does that help? MilesMoney (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much MilesMoney for summarizing your concerns with the NPOV of the page. This is quite a list and deserves a thorough deliberation. I will probably initiate a new section of the talk page at some point when this gets addressed in the coming edits so these can have more attention to all the editors here. In the meantime, I am not sure much of list addresses what I mention, there appears to be a lot of conflating and confusion regarding applying WP:FRINGE to much of what your list mentions. I'll list my basic objections now so you can have a think on it, and then we can work it out when it gets addressed in the coming edits and talk.

Much of this list I find unconvincing because

1.) Rupert Sheldrake only has two distinct and notable works in his career to qualify under your claim. His hypothesis of Morphic Resonance and his research into telepathy amongst members of social groups. Most of everything else you mention does not apply because it would be conflating Sheldrake's critiques of the Philosophy of Science as a scientific hypothesis in and of itself, which does not come to follow reason. That he questions 'dogmas of science' and critiques a philosophy is no ground to lump everything he writes philosophically as pseudo science. You may have a definition of pseudo science, but philosophy isn't mentioned in it, and philosophy should never be confused as pseudoscience so most of your list is a misappropriation. Consider, a mainstream academic philosophical idea is Panpsychism, which of course has absolutely no hard scientific evidence which would also question by default many assumptions of scientific thinking if it were true. It would be unfair to hold a philosophical idea under the lens of mainstream science.

2.)Where I give your list an allowance, and this remains to be deliberated on for consensus, is regarding his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance or his research into telepathy. I am not seeing any references of scientific consensus that Morphic Resonance is not falsifiable. And even if it is, it still may not qualify under WP:FRINGE because it is an alternative theoretical formulation which WP allows for. So this is still unaddressed. Now his research into telepathy technically falls under Pseudoscience because telepathy is informed by parapsychology, which WP defines as pseudo science. But this makes the concern more tautological than meaningful and WP gives us room to be considerate. So that's not enough for me to take a WP:ALIVE page, which over rides any WP:FRINGE guidelines, and lump everything about his biography under such restrictions because Sheldrake did scientific experimentation which itself falsifies his ideas, making the pseudoscience claim somewhat up for academic debate and that is not what we are here for. We are just here to show a NPOV and make sure all relevant voices are heard regarding notable events that cover a 30 year history of an individual on a WP:ALIVE page. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: we have to let Rupert's voice be heard, but we can't pretend it carries as much weight as the mainstream view. It's just fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not missing that point MilesMoney, that's the point that is directly being challenged here. If this were a page about Morphic Resonance, then perhaps that argument would apply, but since this is a biography page, to suggest that we should give Sheldrake a lesser voice on significant events in his own notable history does not seem to follow reason or WP:ALIVE. Consider, Sheldrake's career for 30 years has been critiquing mainstream philosophical scientism. You're suggesting Sheldrake's page should be framed by the POV of the very critics Sheldrake himself is critiquing. I'm not saying this is your intention, but taking that approach makes it appear that Wikipedia is suppressing information and taking sides, which is clearly not what WP is about and puts WP in a potential conflict of interest. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like the community of editors here to review this context. Sheldrake's critiques of modern mainstream scientism is a genuine philosophical debate and he is not the only one making it. There is no justification to apply WP:FRINGE to genuine philosophical and academic debates. Just like WP does not frame the page Holism as WP:FRINGE because it provides a strong critique to reductionism in science, which is highly similar to Sheldrake's rebuttals, all of us editors here must be careful not to enter into a philosophical debate about science to justify edits to this page and apply a philosophical viewpoint to a man's biography. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying: Even in his own biography, his beliefs are fringe. We can discuss them in great detail, but we can't pretend they're taken seriously as science. MilesMoney (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying MilesMoney. At least we are both clear on where we have a clear disagreement in application of WP and I look forward addressing this with you when I make the edits and changes. The Tumbleman (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy and motivation

I don't believe anyone would object to someone adding more material on Sheldrake's philosophy and motivation, perhaps in a new section called "Philosophy and motivation" or elsewhere. That certainly sounds like the easiest / most natural / most cooperative next step in the evolutionary process, in contrast to these rumors of quixotic giant changes which would necessarily be disruptive. vzaak (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few statements on the depth of his religious belief in various pieces on him including how he likes to pray lots. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

::"Philosophy and motivation" seems like a terribly cryptic title for a subheading about his philosophy and motivation. I demand an immediate ArbCom case, over this purposely provocative title. David in DC (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

agree with David in DC somewhat here. Opposed to this idea. First off, Sheldrakes personal religion is not relevant to his reviews of the philosophy of science and it could be just as misleading as other issues with this page. Sheldrake first and foremost is a scientist and a scholar, he literally is *one of them*, he comes from the mainstream scientific community, which is why many prominent scientists and philosophers have engaged with him directly in debate or interview. Secondly, the title allows for too much subjective interpretation. The point of what is raised on the talk page does not even need it's own section, the point is that there seems to be some confusion regarding Sheldrake's philosophical works and assuming they are scientific hypothesis and using that to justify the WP:FRINGE in a way that appears to look like WP:WL section 3 and 4. It's not a line or two that needs to be added or removed, it's the entire context of how his notable history is framed on the page WP:TE. This is why I am proposing what I am. I will make an offer, quite soon, that I suggest will address all issues editors are discussing but in a NPOV. Then, each editor can inform the suggestion to make sure their concerns are addressed. I can assure all the editors here that any changes proposed to this page will be done for the purposes of consensus and everyone will have a voice. I only have one agenda, which is proper NPOV and WP:ALIVE. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I will add however that in the 'personal life' section, it is fine to mention his affiliations with a religious belief as a simple biographical note. Personally, after all the diligence I have been doing here on his biography, i find it safe to assume that Sheldrake is neither a conventional scientist nor a conventional Christian - so we must be careful how we frame this on an WP:ALIVE page and with great care. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

More trouble with the lead

The lead formerly had a few words about why Sheldrake questions conservation of energy. An editor removed it, and replaced it with another mention of something that Sheldrake doubts (the impossibility of perpetual motion).

Then, in another paragraph, somebody mentioned that the latter idea is pseudoscience.

This seems to me to be an attempt to marginalize Sheldrake's ideas in the lead. Enough of that has been done in the paragraph about how many people are critical of them.

I intend to restore his justification for doubting conservation of energy, and to delete both of the perpetual motion mentions. I just want people to know my thinking, so edit wars don't result. Lou Sander (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be fair Lou Sander, there is a reasonable justification for having absolutely no mention of COE issue in lead, primarily because Sheldrake is only pondering the issue philosophically, along with 9 other scientific theories or assumptions. I think it's fine to mention these things in the section about the book, but the lead section in my opinion should not contain editors 'picking' one of 10 topics in one of his books because that would require an interpretation of what sheldrake is pondering on philosophically. There is no reason any editor should mistake a philosophical discussion about science as pseudoscience as it's not an hypothesis or theory, sheldrake is just critiquing the principles that guide science to investigate such things. His only point on COE and perpetual motion machines is that science should be more open to testing them, so it's just a rhetorical suggestion on his party and not by any means a focus of his work or POV. It's not notable enough for a lead section if the lead section was written appropriately. Since the lead section here is not written appropriately, I am going to be making a very strong edit to it shortly and seek to reach a new consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual motion is ruled out by... conservation of energy. MilesMoney (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood, but philosophical discussions about COE do not qualify as suggesting otherwise either, so an editor making that inference and using it to justify a WP:FRINGE/PS claim around it or the page is inappropriate. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit comments, the relation of perpetual motion to conservation of energy is simpler and more suited for the lead. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE require the mainstream view to be clearly stated. This was not an attempt to marginalize, but to conform more closely to policy while saving space in an already-long lead. The marginalization was already done by challenging conservation of energy, and there is hardly a more effective route to marginalization than that. vzaak (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not apply to philosophical conversations, ideas, or thought experiments, so it makes the argument for WP:NPOV to remove it, not keep it. No problems with stating the mainstream position, it's sheldrake's position that is being stated outside of a WP:NPOV. The page can't have both. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're simply mistaken. It's not our fault that Rupert says wild stuff that makes scientists snicker, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. MilesMoney (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, You don't have to pretend that you accept such an idea, you just can't pretend that a philosophical idea can qualify as pseudoscience as that would be quite a claim that has no support academically. Making scientists snicker is not enough to qualify an idea as WP:FRINGE/PS, unfalsifiability is. language like that makes it appear that that sort of editing is biased and there is nothing in the definition of pseudoscience which includes philosophical ideas such as Holism, Panpsychism, or a host of other philosophical ideas that are discussed academically and also on Wikipedia and to do so would be WP:WL and not in the spirit of wikipedia. I've heard your opinions, but now I would like to hear your reasoning, specifically, why should WP:FRINGE apply to philosophical ideas specifically in relationship to Sheldrake, can you explain? Perhaps if you could present your case as a reasoned argument editors here would be willing to consider it in the coming request for new consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Conservation of energy is firmly within the domain of science. MilesMoney (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

you are correct MilesMoney . And the domain of philosophy is not within pseudoscience. Other than stating what is common knowledge, I am not seeing anything here in your reasoning to assume a philosophical exploration should fall under WP:FRINGE on an WP:ALIVE page. I'm hoping another editor can make the case as to how that makes this page better but so far I am not seeing much of anything to support it and WP allows for it to be removed under WP:ALIVE which is what is going to happen unless an editor can provide some reasonable and consistent argument for it remaining. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Sheldrake is who he is, and he claims what he claims. One of his important claims is that science has lost its way as an engine of inquiry, and has become a series of dogmas. Another is the morphic resonance hypothesis. The job of the article is to tell about him and his work. Though it can mention his detractors, they are not what the article is about (and if it mentions them, it needs to mention his supporters, giving appropriate weight to each).

The lead needs to summarize what the article is about. If it says something about his work, it should be specific about that work, especially if it is going to mention people who knock it (scientists, of whose field he is strongly critical). If it mentions his criticism of conservation of energy (one of his ten major criticisms), it should provide a few words of background. It is then suitable to mention, briefly, that there are those who criticize that view. But if they are mentioned, those who support him also need to be mentioned. That's what neutral point of view is all about. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's actually the opposite of neutral. Policy says we must give prominence to the mainstream view and a bit of space to minor views, but can't pretend that fringe views are anything but. Rupert's ideas, such as perpetual motion machines, are totally fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney I'm not sure that interpretation or personal research into sheldrake is helpful here, Sheldrake does not promote perpetual motion machines, he promotes scientists testing claims of perpetual motion machines for the purposes of falsification, general scientific curiosity, and the public understanding of science. And who cares? we should not be debating or trying to interpret a philosophy of science, because philosophically, anyone can ponder anything and assuming that's identical to someone proposing a theory or hypothesis doesn't seem to have mainstream academic acceptance. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest Edit in Lead Section very problematic, requesting explanation of editing changes

vzaak Thank you for working on helping make this page have a more NPOV. I have a question regarding your latest edit, and request a reasonable explanation before it gets changed back to it's previous version. "sheldrakes hypothesis has been widely rejected" has been changed to "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis has been dismissed by almost all scientists who have examined it". The only reference you have for that is , These are referenced opinions. That's fine that they are mentioned, however they cannot be stated as facts as a NPOV on the page. They must either be quoted to give attribution to the opinion, or removed. To state an opinion as fact would mean that an editor would be doing WP:OR and that's not what we are here to do. I would like to offer you a chance to explain your thought process here before it gets reverted because there is no consensus on this edit. The Tumbleman (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally - the reason the edit was made is claimed to be that 'widely rejected by the scientific community' is problematic because 'widely' is a weasel word. This I find a very perplexing reason, considering WP:WEASEL suggests that "Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made." I am not sure what 'widely ' means other than to 'cover a large or expansive area' inferring only that a significant number in a majority reject the hypothesis. I see absolutely no use of WP:WEASEL here, there is only one inference and that inference is 'widely' used when large groups, areas, people, or references are referred to as a common journalistic standard without bias. Let's work towards a more NPOV here, we don't want to stretch the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, because it just looks like wikilawyering is happening and it's hard to build consensus that way. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, user:Vzaak strongly wants to paint Sheldrake as a quack, and his hypotheses as pseudoscience. He wikilawyers it pretty strongly. I removed a hugely one-sided paragraph on WP:BLP grounds. He restored it without justification on this page. I don't care for edit wars, but we need to see some sensible justification for user:Vzaak's work. Otherwise the offending paragraph going to be deleted again on WP:BLP grounds -- not that it's badly referenced (though a lot of them are questionable) but that it is not written from a neutral point of view. Example: "almost all" scientists. We need to get real here -- the summary of an article is not the place to hammer on one side of the arguments about its subject's work. Lou Sander (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, earlier you were arguing that "widely" is WP:OR. The consensus on that discussion was that "widely" is bad, either via WP:WEASEL or WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or whatever. An apparently high-profile person said "widely" would prevent GA status. There has been a history of arguing over the wording of how morphic resonance is viewed in the scientific community, with most complaints being that the article doesn't reflect the terminology in the source, e.g. "reject" or "scientific community" or "widely". I thought using the same terminology as in a given source would finally end such concerns -- but apparently not! I suspect at this point that no consensus can be made, because it seems everything has now been tried. I've asked for advice here. vzaak (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Vzaak: Why don't you just ask for advice here on the talk page? There are reasonable people here who have an interest in the article, and who have a lot of experience in Wikipedia. Lou Sander (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander, your edit was unreasonable; removing the criticism paragraph entirely from the lead directly violates WP:PSCI, an important section of WP:NPOV. As I was going to be away, it seemed prudent to notify FTN and ask for advice. Had you restored the old paragraph, I would have just said, "OK, let's try again." vzaak (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Worsening the lead

A recent edit to the last paragraph of the lead has made it worse, IMHO. It formerly had three ideas: 1) Concern about his effect on understanding science, which follows other concerns in the previous paragraph, 2) New Age people favor him, and 3) In spite of that, he is an Anglican.

Now it has only two, and they aren't properly sequenced with the rest of the lead: 1) New Age people favor him, and 2) Concern about his effect on understanding science (now out of sequence). His Anglican religion, which bears directly on the New Age stuff, has been removed without explanation.

I propose to change it back, and I seek rational comments before I do it. I also propose that further edits to this article be aired here for consensus before they are put into the article. Many of the edits recently made are controversial, and many, like the one above, disrupt the flow of the article, or are not as well-written as they could be, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My only motivation here was to ease off the criticism after the harsh 3rd paragraph. Starting the 4th paragraph with more criticism seemed too much, and putting it at the end gave the impression that it was less important, which it is. As I said in the comment, I thought this was a softer approach. If you like the old way then go ahead and change it -- this doesn't matter to me at all. Inserting Anglicanism suggested a conflation between his scientific status and his religion -- maybe diminishing the former. Again this was a softening attempt, and if you think the old way is better then that's fine. This also doesn't matter as I see it. vzaak (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Lou Sander (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the lead

Sheldrake has two big ideas: "morphic resonance" and "science has lost its way". There has been a lot of strong criticism of the first big idea, but not much criticism of the second. The lead has to summarize what is said further down in the article, so we really need to be sure that what we say in it also appears down below. Where criticism of his stuff is concerned, we need to mention it in the lead, but we really shouldn't rag on it. After all, the article is about Sheldrake. If there are contrary opinions to the criticism, they need to be mentioned in the lead. If the negative opinions outweigh the positive ones, which they seem to do, the lead should give the negative more emphasis than the positive. But this is the lead, and the article is about Sheldrake, not his critics or their views, so we shouldn't spend a lot of words on the combined negative/positive stuff. We certainly shouldn't amplify the criticism (in the lead) by saying stuff like "the scientific community", "most scientists", "think it is balderdash", etc. (That stuff is fine down below, as long as it's balanced, etc.)

I propose that the lead should look like this, bearing the above principles in mind:

Paragraph 1, about his life and big idea #1. I'm happy with it as it is.

Paragraph 2, about big idea #2. I'm not happy that it presently includes a little about what his idea is, and a lot about why it isn't good. I didn't check, but I think that the negative stuff isn't covered in the main article. Sheldrake devotes an entire book to big idea #2; thirty pages of it are a rational evaluation of conservation of energy. Surely the article and the lead can present some more about what he is saying. Surely if the article mentions criticism of it, there need to be reliable sources.

Paragraph 3, about the controversies over both big ideas. It needs to give appropriate weight to the pros and cons, and it shouldn't amplify them to the point where they overwhelm the stuff about Sheldrake. Somewhere, maybe in paragraph 3 or 3a, it should mention that some folks are concerned about all the attention he gets.

Paragraph 4, about New Age and any other minor stuff that deserves to be mentioned.

There's nothing magic about this proposal, but I think it could be something good to work from. Lou Sander (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to find a way to fit the sentence "Sheldrakes ideas are regarded as batshit insane by most scientists" into the lede somewhere. All the scientists I know believe this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of commenting from editors shows a biased POV and is not what wikipedia is about and this comment is not being accepted as relevant to the rational consensus of this page. This is an WP:ALIVE page, and thus puts WP in a very sensitive, and very responsible position. This is a place of public media, please do not put WP in a place where libel could be raised. We are not just making sure the page has a NPOV, we are also protecting Wikipedia. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand libel, WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP or WP:WEIGHT. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Roxy the dog, if you believe that to be the case, then I look forward to deliberating a reasoned argument based on common sense with any editors that present them. I think if editors focused more on making a reasoned case, and responding to reasonable questions with proper wiki etiquette, editors will find their voices having more value in the rational consensus for this page. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman, your claims that you are the only one on here with an agenda and everyone else is pov pushing is getting a little tiring, when consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies here. Roxy the dog might have chosen her words better but her POV is at least consistent with Wikipedia policies and consensus on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here Barney the barney barney. I agree, working to make a page better can be very tiring work. There is no consensus on WP:FRINGE claims on this page based on arguments any editor has provided here. It just looks like a bunch of Wikilawyering happening. It looks this way because everytime I request some sort of reasonable answer or question, none seems to be provided other than just a repetition of the claim that it's fringe. I'm trying to help your side of the argument here make a reasoned case. If you would care to make a reasoned case, I would indeed honor it. We can't make a reasoned case based on opinions or original research, it makes it hard to build a rational consensus that way. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is community consensus to implement WP:FRINGE throughout Wikipedia. This isn't a vote - just because you and other supporters of Sheldrake apparently want to whitewash the biography doesn't mean "there is no consensus", it means that you're not following policies. The WP:IDONTHEARYOU over WP:FRINGE is extremely tedious and obfuscates any real contribution that you might otherwise make. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney we are addressing concerns and making reasoned arguments that editors are avoiding by repeating WP:FRINGE over and over in what appears to be highly biased and misinformed argument, preventing any rational exchange from occurring. I guess WP does refer to that as WP:IDONTHEARYOU, that's what I have been experiencing here. It's odd that you would raise this issue with this editor, please address on my talk page if this is personal. If you believe that I have failed to miss a key argument, please supply it with references, common sense, and WP Guidelines. I am sorry if the deliberation is tedious. But you can always take a 'wiki break' and I am not holding you personally responsible for helping to make this page better. But unless someone can make a reasoned argument for WP:FRINGE based on my direct queries, I still find no reason to honor it and it's in violation of WP:NPOV, so it will be removed and a request for new and rational consensus will emerge. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You are incapable of editing this page to the required standard per WP:COMPETENCE because of your inability to comprehend and implement Wikipedia policies. I could ask for a topic ban, but in effect you have this already since all of your ill-advised attempts at editing this page have been reverted. It only takes a posting to WP:FRINGE/N and it will be so. Meanwhile, if I want to discuss editing changes generally, I can't because any discussion gets rudely interrupted with whining about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP from a single editor who clearly doesn't understand those policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't made any edits to the page yet. I am going to be introducing some suggestions for a new consensus and opening invite you to participate in that process. I am willing to have a reasoned exchange with you, I am just unsure how claims that an editor is incompetent have to do with applying WP:FRINGE/PS to a biography of a living person's philosophical ideas and look forward to hearing your explanation. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor takes WP:GAME very seriously, and encourages all editors to be familiar with these guidelines as they advise us what to avoid in seeking a rational consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I shall not be participating in any discussion instigated by Tumbleman as part of his bizarre social media / conflict resolution experimentation. I shall however be maintaining a watch, and look forward to sensible discussion with other editors. Teh internetz is a huge place and many historical traces remain. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, Naturally 'teh internets' leave traces of activity, not only is this common knowledge, using these traces to focus on an editor is directly contradictory to the spirit and guideline of WP. The only thing this editor is engaging in on this talk page in 2013 is creating a more NPOV, and providing reasoned arguments based on references and WP. Avoiding reasonable questions from editors, citing past edits that go over 7 years, doesn't look like a way to build a consensus, it looks like WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND and is a violation of core WP principles. . The Tumbleman (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re paragraph 2

User:Lou Sander, on a scale of 1 to 10 of how readily a person can attract the label of pseudoscientist, challenging conservation of energy is about 11. Such an extraordinary claim is highly notable and deserves to be mentioned. There isn't really a way to make this softer, and moreover, I'm afraid that mentioning "evidence" in the lead would be even more embarrassing, like the old lady who claimed to be violating this law of physics but was deemed credible because of her "sincere religious faith". My view is that mentioning perpetual motion is a quick and merciful route out of that sandpit. vzaak (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak: Please don't include in the article your opinions about Sheldrake's challenge of COE. He makes reasonable arguments to back his challenge. It is not for editors to insert their opinions about his arguments, or to insert material from unrelated sources that says COE is an unchallengable truth. Nobody wants edit wars. Nobody wants unreasonable editing, either. Lou Sander (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak I see you are very diligent here making the page have a more NPOV. There still is no consensus on the lead section. I am going to list the issues I am seeing and request you explain in relationship to my query.

1.)This editor believes the paragraph on COE is misleading, because Sheldrake is not questioning the principle of COE, he is questioning the assumptions the scientific community has about it and his core message is that science should falsify claims of perpetual motion to enrich their case with the general public. He does not endorse Perpetual Motion machines and framing it they way the article does, it makes it appear that way. . The book that is referenced a 'thought' exercise and a philosophical tome, every chapter turns every assumption into a question. Considering it's a philosophical exercise, and no different than what physicists are already doing[[8]]. Using this as a prop to prove he is guilty of PS is disingenuous. I don't believe it makes the page have a better NPOV. The fact that this needs to be clarified is every reason to treat this with care because the lead section is framing Sheldrake out of context to qualify him as a pseudoscientist to justify the WP:FRINGE guideline. Editors are not here to interpret works of authors, and if there is no consensus that such a paragraph is without bias and provides an out of context interpretation by an editor.

2.)It's not just one paragraph on COE that does this, it's the context of what Sheldrake does inside of the mainstream scientific community. The lead section appears to seek to diminish his very real and notable career as a scientist and a scholar and seeks to highlight interpretations of his work to justify the pseudoscience claim, making the page a product of WP:TE. Remember, Sheldrake is FROM the mainstream scientific community, Reactions from the scientific community and the debate around Sheldrake's ideas has often been analyzed in books, documentaries, television programs, public debate, scientific and skeptical journals, and academia. Withholding this from the page does not seem to meet the principle of notability and neutrality. Sheldrake is not even a parapsychologist, has no degree in parapsychology, has made it a public point to note that his research into telepathy falls on natural, not supernatural principles. yet the lead section puts WP:UNDUE on any reference to frame sheldrake outside of his actual, notable career, removes references to his work as a biologist, and focuses solely on the viewpoint of his critics to frame the page. We can't build consensus that way.

3.)Although there are references to a few scientists who hold the opinion that sheldrake's work is pseudoscience, and I would be the first to include them on the page, I am still not seeing any evidence of consensus in the scientific community that is the case yet I am seeing plenty of evidence that Sheldrake provides theory, research, evidence, and scientific experiment for falsification. This just appears that editors are doing WP:OR to come to conclusions without appropriate sourcing. Can you provide sourced evidence of scientific consensus regarding the pseudoscience claim? I am not talking about opinions of scientists, which are not considered facts. I am talking about a consensus that was arrived at through peer review. Until I see this sourced somewhere, there is no consensus on this page especially the lead section.

4.) I look forward to engaging with any editor that can explain this reasonably and I look forward to reaching a new consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the more transparently stupid things Sheldrake has said. However, I'm not sure it's entirely worth discussing in the lead. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudos

Since the recent round of editing this actual began, we've all contributed to making it a better example of how the interplay between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE should be dealt with. (The purposeful gamesmanship exhibited on this talkpage, not so much.)

But this truly impressive, elegant and praiseworthy edit is sui generis. The rigorous sourcing of the debunkery graf in the lede, by way of the far-too-infrequently employed "Notes" device, is retiring my very own, personal supersecret edit-of-the-month award before the first day of October has fled into the past, at least in the U.S. Eastern Time Zone.

Please do not spoil the moment with quibbling. Please do that on other threads. I know some of us cannot fathom a tension between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE when applied to living fringe theorists, rather than fringe theories. I know that others cannot abide any suggestion that one policy, or the other, is anything but absolute. We can talk about that elsewhere, too. Please simply look at what this particular edit accomplishes and nod approvingly in User:Vzaak's general direction. From looking briefly at his talk page, it seems I've been editing here longer than he has. Thus thoroughly debunking the myth that longer is better. I virtually doff my virtual cap to thee, Vzaak. David in DC (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:David in DC has humbly not mentioned that he wrote the paragraph in question, which finally brings pieces together in an elegant and dispassionate manner. I expect the paragraph will be effectively frozen now, as it seems about the best that can be done; and David should really get the credit here. vzaak (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like puking at this sick display of mutual admiration, but instead, I'll say "Bravo". --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 06:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the joining of all the references into the [a] note, and came to the talk page to praise it. I found that others had gotten here first. I endorse the praise that has been showered upon this work. It preserves the reader's ability to see the large number of citations against Morphic Resonance (and to draw their own conclusions), without cluttering the paragraph with a large number of (fully appropriate) references that, by their number alone, suggest the absence of a neutral point of view. VERY good work, IMHO.

And to Roxy the dog, I say that perhaps the reason you feel like puking is that generations of canines before you have ALSO felt like puking at similar material. You can't help it, since all of you are magically connected through (hypothetical?) morphic fields. You can look it up. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman Talk Page

This is a discussion taking place on my talk page and I am reposting it here in the interests of transparency. If any editor wishes to discuss this please do so on my talk page. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Questioning scientific principles

Paragraph 2 as recently edited is not written from a neutral point of view. Barney the barney barney: Please help us understand why you object to including one of the bases on which Sheldrake questions conservation of energy (finding weak evidence of it in living systems, a field in which he is an expert). This section is a summarization of his work, yet you remove key points of that work.

Also please explain why you object to including "...he questions some of its fundamental principles" (a basic statement of his work in this area), but then you gratuitously quote some of those challenged fundamental principles, seemingly as evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about? This reader doesn't see the reason for that, unless someone is trying to demean Sheldrake. Lou Sander (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander, WP policy says that we should state the mainstream view alongside the fringe view. That's why your recent edit went afoul of policy. It's not appropriate to leave it "out there" that Sheldrake found a way around conservation of energy. The scientific consensus has to be prominently stated. That's why perpetual motion is mentioned, because the mainstream view of that is very short and simple to state.

User:Barney the barney barney, I don't know what the alternative would be. He has a list of ten dogmas, and of course we can't just list them. Picking the first one seemed appropriate. Anything we pick has to be countered, and countering conservation of energy is easy. vzaak (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing.

1.Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2.All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

3.The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).

4.The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.

5.Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6.All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7.Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8.Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9.Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10.Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Basically, Rupert is opposed to all of science. He seems to want magic or religion, or magical religion, or maybe religious magic. Whatever it is, it's way over the top! MilesMoney (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please respond to the questions asked above. Yakking about how crazy Sheldrake is is not helpful. It is also very close to violating WP:BLP and therefore being removable without comment. And please, vzaak, try hard not to lecture other editors on policy. And all of you, please try harder to keep your disrespect for Sheldrake out of the article and off of the talk page. It makes it harder for all of us to present Sheldrake from a neutral point of view. Lou Sander (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that you're misrepresenting my views: I didn't call him crazy. I did accurately describe his views as contrary to science. This is important because WP:FRINGE tells us that we have to make the mainstream view more prominent. To do this, we'd need to explain how each of his 10 claims is rejected by the mainstream, and that would take up more space than they deserve. Perhaps you could break them out into an article of their own. MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander, since this is the second time you violated WP:PSCI, I naturally tried to explain the policy a second time. Your penultimate edit was even worse: completely deleting the criticism paragraph from the lead. This is well in the direction of a discretionary sanctions warning, if not already there. vzaak (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, fellows. We are trying to fix a summary section of a BLP here. At least I am. I do not give you gratuitous advice or explanations about policy, and I do not scold or threaten you. I try hard not to "state your views", and I do not respond to simple questions with great walls of text that are only peripherally related to them. Please return the courtesy.

It seems to me that editors are reluctant to include descriptive material about Sheldrake's criticism of science. Please help me understand the objection to including one of the bases on which Sheldrake questions conservation of energy (finding weak evidence of it in living systems, a field in which he is an expert). Lou Sander (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is not an expert. He did some postdoc work, 30 years ago. He massively fails WP:PROF. If you want an expert on living systems (i.e. a real biologist), try Prof. Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS or Prof. Steven Rose or similar. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the objection to including the stuff about weak evidence in living systems? Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't have anything that addresses Sheldrake's claims of weak evidence for conservation of energy. We can say something about conservation of energy generally, but that would mislead the reader ("Hey look, he has the evidence and it can't be refuted!"). We have assessments of his last book as a whole ("woolly credulousness" etc), but that can't be applied to a specific claim. Claims of perpetual motion machines, on the other hand, have been addressed by the scientific community. vzaak (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am all for including some of Sheldrake's more idiotic claims (he makes quite a few), but they need to be put in proper context, which means stating the obvious that such claims cannot be supported by science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page and I find no reason to include this kind of reasoning into any rational consensus. There is no reason to use ONE topic in a book to show evidence of Sheldrake's POV in the LEAD section. That's what the section on the Science delusion is for.

And sheldrakes's POV on COE is NOT NOTABLE in his career, so placing it in the lead section is disingenuous and out of sync with WP:GOODARTICLE and makes it look like editors are trying to justify a 'fringe' claim on the page to meet their own agenda.

This is a page of a living autobiography, there is no argument to make that says 'Rupert is a fringe scientist' so therefore we MUST show the skeptical or mainstream view. Fringe/PS does not apply to people, it applies to research. Editors here are not being transparent, it appears there is only one agenda on this page, to make sure the skeptical POV is represented, above all else, and this POV should frame the context of his autobiography. I absolutely object to include an out of context reference to sheldrake's 'philosophical' idea. Not only is it academically inaccurate (applying a PS claim to a philosophical argument, which flies in the face of reason and common sense), it shows that there is only one agenda amongst a few of the editors, to support a skeptical POV. We are not here to promote ANY viewpoint other than a NPOV. There is NO consensus regarding vzaak edits and I request NO more edits are made to this page until we have a consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's influences

User Vzaak recently added in the section mentioning the work of Henri Bergson. I also recommend adding a mention of Samuel Butler (novelist). It's briefly mentioned on a page in the book "History as an Art of Memory" by Patrick H. Hutton [9]. The foundation of Sheldrake's concept of "resonance" is the idea that there is a memory inherent in nature, he took this idea from Samuel Butler a 19th century novelist who published a series of crank books advocating a pseudoscientific view of evolution.

Sheldrake mentions Butler on his website in an article;

"The most interesting such theorist was English writer Samuel Butler, whose most important books on this theme were Life and Habit (1878) and Unconscious Memory (1881). Butler contended that the whole of life involved inherent unconscious memory; habits, the instincts of animals, the way in which embryos develop, all reflected a basic principle of inherent memory within life. He even proposed that there must be an inherent memory in atoms, molecules, and crystals." [10].

He also mentions Butler in his book "The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature" [11].

Unfortunately those are primary sources so not sure if they can be used. It's clear to me that Sheldrake took his views from other authors. All of his ideas are second-hand. I also found a review of Sheldrake's book that compared his theories to the theistic evolutionary views of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Dan skeptic (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. Various people have commented on Sheldrake's influences, including Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Karl Jung and I think a couple of others that I've forgotten about but will have to go back and reread the sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it if we can source the connections, so nobody can accuse any of us of original research for stating the obvious. MilesMoney (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE

In my view, this talk page displays a lack of sensitivity to the interplay between BLP and FRINGE. The shorthand I've used in the past is that there are differences, based on policy, between the way we treat fringe theory and the way we treat biogrophies of living fringe theorists.

In my view, this article page is exponentially better on this score than it was a couple of weeks ago. The lede is much, much better in describing Sheldrake with the care required by BLP while describing his work with deference to FRINGE. To cite just one example, "is a former X and Y at Z institution" is far superior to "is a former x and y."

The subsequent grafs up until we get to his books and public appearnces are also much better.

Putting the block quote in Sheldrake's mouth in the full article, is totally different (and totally better) than cherry-picking the most derogatory words, putting them in the lede, and relegating the fact that they are Sheldrake's words to a footnote. Self-effacement is entirely different from pointed criticism by others.

In the book sections there's far less of a BLP problem, so long as the language reviews the books and their content, taking care not to review the author. And I think the book sections meet that challenge, mostly. The edits that might improve these grafs, I think, would be matters of nuance and prose style, rather than wholesale reorientation.

The same is true, mostly, of the grafs below the "books" grafs. They might benefit from slightly more robust editing, but not a whole lot of it and not as urgently as the rescue work that's been accomplished in the lede.

In sum, I think there's waaay too much heat in the comments on the talk page - provoked, in part, by some edits here that seem purposely designed to stir the pot on the talk page for reasons that appear to have been less for the purpose of improving the article than for the purpose of observing the interactions on the talk page. But I think the work on the article has been admirable. If one wanted to illustrate the axiom "Focus on the edits, not the editor" one might well point to the article as the end result of the former and the talk page as the end result of the of the latter.

Which, in an imperfect world, is a pretty good result. David in DC (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. MilesMoney (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too. Though I haven't read the article thoroughly lately, it seems like a decent account of Sheldrake, his work, and the controversy surrounding it. But IMHO there is a residual effort to make sure that the lead besmirches him, particularly in paragraph 2, about his challenging of foundational scientific principles. That stuff isn't as controversial or scorned as is the morphic resonance hypothesis, yet editors can't seem to resist introducing words like "pseudoscience", and giving their own opinions about the foundational principles he challenges. I wish they would stop. I've got some pretty good words to put into that paragraph, but I can't do it if I'm fighting that 'residual effort'. Lou Sander (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a residual effort, it's a requirement of WP:FRINGE. His beliefs are contradicted by the mainstream, and we have to make that painfully clear. MilesMoney (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney: I think I understand what you are saying, and I don't think it is correct. Here is the summary of WP:Fringe (there is a lot more, of course):

There is no "requirement" in this or any guideline, and there is no "have to make it painfully clear". There IS a reminder about "common sense".

Also, this article is not "about the idea", but about the living person who advances it. There is an important difference there. As stated, I think morphic resonance and Sheldrake are treated from a NPOV in the article and the summary. I do NOT think that either Sheldrake or his challenges of fundamental scientific principles are handled neutrally in Paragraph 2 of the lead. He thoughtfully challenges widespread beliefs in a serious book from a serious publisher. It is not proper, IMHO, to scorn him for it, or to rebut him. A simple link to the mainstream idea that is being challenged should be enough. Lou Sander (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou, it's confusing when you post new comments above old ones, as you've done here and elsewhere. It's also difficult when the same point is being made in two different threads. I believe this has been answered above -- the issue is WP:PSCI which is also reflected in the WP:FRINGE nutshell you show, "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Is it your contention that WP policies on fringe theories don't apply when the subject of a BLP promotes a fringe theory? vzaak (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You might be amused to know that, right before I saw your reply, my clipboard contained the exact phrase you quoted. That phrase is precisely why Lou is mistaken in his interpretation. MilesMoney (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak: I answered MilesMoney right after he said what he said. Elsewhere might have been confusing. Also, please stop scolding. If you want to know my "contentions", just read what I write. It is simple and straightforward. So are the questions I ask. Lou Sander (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I echo David in DC in saying the lead is much improved; the essential facts haven't changed that much but they're now stated with more precision. The encyclopedic tone's improved as well. Also, kudos to all for conscientiously ignoring the WP:DRAMA-WP:BAIT that shows up here periodically. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David in DC for putting together a more thoughtful response to the issues some of the editors have been raising. I still have however the same issue regarding WP:FRINGE and I am hoping you specifically can address this, as I believe this is a reasoned argument and no one seems to address it. I don't see any reason to apply WP:FRINGE at all. I think it's quite fair to show the skeptical POV where it is relevant - but there is nothing in Sheldrake's career, research, or hypothesis that justifies either a pseudoscience claim or a fringe claim. Below I am going to highlight my arguments as to how I come to this conclusion.

1.)FRINGE cannot apply to 'philosophical' ideas in the Philosophy of Science, so using Sheldrake's philosophical works, such as 'The Science Delusion' and him questioning the assumptions of mainstream science should not qualify him for a FRINGE mark. There is no academic argument to include it this way - there is nothing in academia or science that disqualify philosophical ideas as pseudoscience. Philosophically speaking, Sheldrake is presenting common philosophical ideas, not even of his own creation, into his criticisms. Holism and Panpsychism are actively discussed in academia, yet we do not see those pages on Wikipedia tagged as fringe and wow would it be awkward to start placing quotes from skeptics regarding those theories on the page because they fall outside of the mainstream view of science. So it is hard for this editor to accept any quote from Sheldrake such as his questioning of COE or mechanistic science. A person CANNOT be a 'fringe' person or a pseudoscience person just because they discuss philosophical ideas and criticize the philosophy of mainstream science. Consider, this is what SHeldrake DOES, he is known as a critique of modern science, and he is FROM the mainstream science community. Many of the references used by editors here fail to note that many of these people who critique sheldrake ALSO engage with him publicly to have this debate. This is a debate INSIDE of science and should not be a debate inside of WP.

2.)The only thing that any editor CAN use is Sheldrakes own research or hypothesis and here the choices ARE ONLY his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance or his research into telepathy. Let's look at each of these on it's own merits under the FRINGE claim to see if it is appropriately applied.

• Morphic Resonance is an HYPOTHESIS, not a theory by sheldrakes own claim. I hope the community of editors understand the difference. It is a *proposed* explaination that can be tested. I am not sure if an hypothesis can be 'fringe' on it's own merits, however what qualifies something as Pseudoscience is a theory that has neither any evidence to support the claim AND OR that the theory is not falsifiable. Neither of these things apply to Morphic Resonance. There have been experiments and Sheldrake does seek to falsify his hypothesis through experimentation, which disqualifies it as pseudoscience. SECONDLY, under WP:FRINGE/PS WP is very clear on how to handle this kind of situation, specifically number 4 "Alternative Theoretical Formulations" should not have a PS tag. Just because a number of scientists don't like Sheldrakes ideas or believe his ideas to fall outside of mainstream science, does not disqualify his hypothesis as an Alternative Theoretical Formulation. So this is what editors here need to deliberate on - they have to show how Morphic Resonance is somehow NOT an alternative theoretical formulation. All the references editors have here are quoting OPINIONS of scientists and opinions are not facts. This editor needs to see a reference to a peer reviewed study that shows how Morphic Resonance is not falsifiable. Until then, as you can see, academics are STILL discussing his hypothesis so let's let THEM debate it and not us editors on the page.

• His research into telepathy technically falls under Pseudoscience because 'parapsychology' automatically has a pseudoscience tag. but this makes the argument tautological and almost clerical or administrative. Sheldrake has actually performed experiments and attempts to falsify claims of telepathy, completely removing the pseudoscience claim since he is providing falsification. It doesnt matter if I or any editor believes in telepathy or not, what matters is Sheldrake doing legitimate scientific experimentation, or not. Secondly, Sheldrake researches this as an extension of biology, and does not believe that there is anything paranormal happening, rather it is a phenomenon of biology. Considering Sheldrakes career of almost 50 years in the sciences, that's for Sheldrake to make inside of science, it is not a claim that any editor should be deliberating on one way or another.

• Sheldrake is highly QUALIFIED to play the role of the 'heretic' in science, considering his impressive academic background in both Philosophy and Biology. Daniel Dennet speaks directly to this, although he thinks sheldrake is wrong, he states that "There is a niche for Sheldrake in our Culture....like Voltaire, if he did not exist we would have to invent him. I think he is wrong, but he is wrong is such an ingenious way" (I'm paraphrasing slightly but here is the reference. The point is that mainstream scientists, although many may reject his hypothesis, they do not reject Sheldrake. Reactions from the scientific community and the debate around Sheldrake's ideas has often been analyzed in books, documentaries, television programs, public debate, scientific and skeptical journals, and academia.. We wikipedia editors SHOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE or TAKE sides in the debate. Sheldrake is apart of the scientific process and this debate within the scientific process is NATURAL and follows the guidelines of the philosophy[of Science]

So here are the reasons I find these arguments of applying FRINGE to BLP very very weak and based on some of the direct language regarding Sheldrake on this talk page, it appears that many editors here have a bias so I am genuinely pointing this out to find consensus and make the page have a better NPOV. I understand many editors do not have either a philosophical or scientific background to address some of these points that I raise and perhaps they have no answer to them, but that alone does not disqualify my points, as my points are supported by the mainstream academic point of view. David in DC you appear very reasonable to me and I appreciate your presence on this page, it is definitely needed, and I look forward to reading how each of these points is applied to the relationship between BLP and FRINGE. The community here needs to build a rational consensus, not a consensus based on opinions that cannot maintain consistency with WP or common sense. I directly invite users MilesMoney, LuckyLouie Vzaak, Barney the barney barney, Lou Sander to actively participate to find consensus on these points before any further edit is made to the page. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To this point I also want to add and CLARIFY. There is a lot of effort on this talk page to associate Sheldrake with pseudoscience to maintain this WP:FRINGE/PS claim. Giving him the title of 'parapsychologist' is, I believe, a very sneaky way to do this and I do not think it is appropriate in his title. Rupert Sheldrake has NO credentials as a parapsychologist, has no degree in parapsychology. He is a biologist with a very impressive academic background. He is not a *former* biochemist. The page clearly seeks to diminish his very very real and notable career as a scientists and seeks promote him as a parapsychologist instead. That his research as a biologist qualifies him to study 'claims of unusual abilities in animals and humans' does not qualify him academically as a parapsychologist. And more importantly, it's not a claim Sheldrake makes about himself. His credentials show that he is a biologist with a phd in biochemistry and a fellow of Philosophy through Harvard university. His research and papers show him as a highly credited researcher. Let's be fair here. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1. What's wrong with "morphic resonance" has been explained to you. A hypothesis isn't necessarily unscientific. However, Sheldrake claims that this hypothesis is true, despite evidence to the contrary, and having very poor evidence of it himself. He also is so vague about the whole concept that it might not be testable/falsifiable (which are related), and apparently tests of it by non-believers will fail because of the negativity they introduce.
2. Sheldrake is not "an expert". He fails all 1-8 of the criteria in WP:PROF except the last catch-all that he meets WP:AUTHOR. His early academic career corresponds to that of somebody who will eventually reach the rank of professor, but he took a break from it all, went and did some relatively unimportant work for an Institute in a third world country, and then lost his way.
3. Sheldrake is not partaking in the "scientific process". He isn't doing his experiments properly. He isn't publishing results in peer reviewed journals. He isn't engaging scientists in conferences. Nobody else in science is taking his ideas and working on them. He is doing classic pseudoscience insofar as he is selling books and lectures directly to the general public. The engagement that you see with him by the scientific community is entirely negative.

Your attempts to put a positive gloss on this really are at odds with the facts. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in Barney the barney barney, I am going to address each of your arguments here and request you continue to do the same with me until we reach a rational consensus in line with common sense.

1.)You suggest that 'what's wrong with Morphic Resonance' has been explained to me. I am not aware of any such explanation to me so I request you provide it again, however, I also don't think that is necessary. I am not here to defend Morphic Resonance. Personally i have no idea if it's true or not and for the purposes of this page, I also don't care. The rest of what you write about Morphic Resonance and Rupert Sheldrake reads like an opinion about it. Who cares? We are here to build consensus around referenced FACTS not opinions and then it is our duty to look at these referenced facts within WP.

2.)You state that "He isn't publishing results in peer reviewed journals. He isn't engaging scientists in conferences. " This is patently untrue. There are plenty of references to his publications here. He has directly engaged with some of the most prominent scientists and philosophers in the world and one prominent scientist even wrote a book about 12 prominent scientists directly discussing his ideas. Clearly if a scientist takes time to write a book about Sheldrake it's fair to say the evidence suggests that his ideas are clearly worth discussing within science.

I do not have confidence that some editors are able to view the actual evidence regarding Sheldrake's biography through the bias that they clearly have. Barney the barney barney, you claim Sheldrakes ideas are 'idiotic' directly on this talk page. I am just requesting we all view the evidence and build a rational consensus and keep our opinions out of the process. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak asks in talk Is it your contention that WP policies on fringe theories don't apply when the subject of a BLP promotes a fringe theory? Yes, and specifically, it's that the WP policy on FRINGE simply does not apply on the biography at all since his hypothesis is an alternative theoretical formulation which WP:FRINGE/PS makes it clear that such a formulation should not be graded as PS and all other research Sheldrake has done has included experimentation and falsification. There are nothing in any references on this page which supports otherwise. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop, please...

at least long enough to read this exchange on my talk page. We're collaborating. Let's not edit war. Perhaps I was wrong to start this with my initial make this edit on this score in the first place. I thought it uncontroversial. David in DC (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of events:

1. Since Sheldrake does not describe telepathy as paranormal, User:David in DC restores the older "telepathy-type interconnections" quote.[12] No consensus is required to remove a misrepresentation of an author's own idea.
2. I make a small clean up. As I said in the edit comment: We already have "memory is inherent in nature" and "inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Adding "collective memories within species" seems redundant.[13]
3. User:Lou Sander begins warring on my trivial change, saying "Please stop removing important parts of Sheldrake's ideas". This doesn't make sense. It appears as though he simply missed David's edit.

vzaak (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't expect to have to read somebody's personal Talk page to find a consensus on an article. That should be here, not there. Did the consensus Lou has referred to occur when he banjaxed the running order of comments? I've reread the whole talk twice (except for the troll) and am totally confused. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The personal talk page is not relevant and is not related to Lou's warring. David's edit comment is sufficient explanation -- he removed a misrepresentation. The warring isn't about David's edit. Lou is warring on my trivial clean up that removes needless redundancy. It doesn't make sense. vzaak (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be sorted out. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:David in DC, you should change your initial message on this thread because it misdescribes the situation. The talk page was simply clearing up prior confusion, and lends nothing to illuminate the problem here. Your edit was correct and stands on its own. Lou isn't warring about your edit, he's warring about my edit. vzaak (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re the strikeouts, David there is no way your edit was wrong. It removes a misrepresentation of how Sheldrake describes his own ideas. Asking people to read the user talk page conversation is confusing because this problem here has nothing to do with it. This is about Lou's peculiar warring on something unrelated. vzaak (talk)

Clarifying the issue

Here are the three versions in chronological order. The first sentence is there for context only; it is always the same.

• original: Since 1981, his writings have largely been centred on his hypothesis of "morphic resonance", which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind." He argues that morphic resonance is also responsible for paranormal interconnectedness between organisms.

• David's change: Since 1981, his writings have largely been centred on his hypothesis of "morphic resonance", which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind." He argues that morphic resonance is also responsible for "...telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and ... collective memories within species." (diff)

• my change: Since 1981, his writings have largely been centred on his hypothesis of "morphic resonance", which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind." He argues that morphic resonance is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". (diff)

my change looks completely uncontroversial to me. It removes awkward repetition -- "collective memories within species" is already covered by the previous sentence. The new version is less cumbersome with no information being lost. This was a simple clean up of David's change twelve minutes prior (which was a very good edit for the reasons given above).

However User:Lou Sander very much wants the version at David's change and does two reverts to keep it. He says about my edit: "There is quite a consensus that this paragraph is fine. Please get consensus before changing it. Please stop removing important parts of Sheldrake's ideas."

Considering that the "quite a consensus" had lasted for only twelve minutes, it seemed likely to me that Lou just missed User:David in DC's edit. Maybe I was jumping to conclusions. In any case I find Lou's edit inexplicable and I would like him to explain how my change removes "important parts of Sheldrake's ideas" -- moreover, important enough to edit war for it. vzaak (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on your changes, and I've yet to see one that was unreasonable. I don't agree with all of them, but they're not damaging the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All that talk for this: You removed "collective memory within species". That is an important concept. Removing is isn't "trivial" as you claim. What seems trivial and uncontroversial to you doesn't necessarily seem so to others. You don't own the article. Please stop. Lou Sander (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the points I see:

• The article says "memory is inherent in nature".
• The article says "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."
• David replaced "paranormal interconnectedness" with "...telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and ... collective memories within species."
• This change sat for 12 minutes.
• I notice "collective memories within species" is redundant, as it is covered by those two quotes above, and I shorten the new quote.
• Combining David's edit with mine, the only difference now is that "paranormal interconnectedness" has been replaced with "telepathy-type interconnections".
• However, Lou really wants David's version.
• Lou says there is "quite a consensus" on this version that sat for 12 minutes.
• Lou says I should have gotten consensus before making my change.
• Lou says I am "removing important parts of Sheldrake's ideas".
• Lou wars to keep David's version.

David in DC and anyone else, I would like to get your input on this. I haven't been able to figure this out. vzaak (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got the sequence right. I think you've got an opinion about what Lou was doing. I think I agree. However, the editing behavior you've described accurately has stopped and the stable version is again stable. There are plenty of live horses to flog. I don't think there's a need to continue flogging dead ones. David in DC (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"perpetual motion devices are pseudoscience"

It's usually a good indication that an article is under an edit war when nonsensical phrases such as this are left dangling in the header. A device is not a pseudoscience. The theoretical construct of such a device's existence may be the product of pseudoscientific thought, but a device is psuedoscience about as much as my cat is biology.

I have very little desire to return to Wikipedia editing, so this non-sensical phrase can stay for all I care. At the very least, it is a cue to me and any other intelligent reader to stop paying attention. It tells me that somebody here is more interested in dropping the word "pseudoscience" into the header than actually creating a readable article for the rest of us to enjoy. Clearly you've all lost sight of what you're supposed to be doing. I hope for Wikipedia's sake that you all will review Wikipedia's Five Pillars and try to get back on track. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that they can be built is pseudoscience. It's practically a cliché by now. MilesMoney (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} feels this way, I think we should take it as read that we have the right balance. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MilesMoney - "the idea that they can be built" would be what you are referring to as "pseudoscience" not the device itself. If you haven't noticed I'm criticizing the article's butchering of the English language here - not whether or not investigations into perpetual motion are scientific (I don't know the first thing about perpetual motion). And Roxy, in my day, I helped bring articles like these to featured status, largely by avoiding uncivil behavior and assuming the good faith of my fellow editors - quite unlike you have done in your comment above. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You reap what you sow. Take a look at your opening gambit again Annalisa. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be closer to Annalisa Ventola on this one. Building a perpetual motion device would be pseudoscientific endeavor, but a perpetual motion device itself is -- what? The text was recently changed to "perpetual motion devices are pseudoscientific in nature" -- but wait, we are talking about the empty set, and that satisfies every property. The source says perpetual motion is a characteristic, and the ways to formulate this accurately in the article all seem cumbersome. I think just saying "not possible" is good enough, no? vzaak (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is one of grammar. As Annalisa points out, a device or thing can't be a category of things. The -ific puts the thing in the category of things.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The source says, "Some examples of pseudoscience include the following: ... Perpetual motion". Note the article now says perpetual motion is pseudoscience, not perpetual motion devices. In any case "not possible" might be OK too; I'm not strongly committed to the issue. vzaak (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice the change to remove "devices", much better. Not sure that it's still proper to say "Perpetual motion is pseudoscience". It would be very much like saying "motion is science", which of course it isn't. Motion is an example of something that science explores, certainly. But (again, Annalisa's point), it's not like motion is the all-encompassing-world-of-science. I'm not stuck on anything either. Just making an edit. Removing the word "devices" helps. Carry on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in Annalisa Ventola you are correct we do have issues with edit warring on this page and reaching a consensus. I agree with your position, not only is a device not a pseudoscience, but a person is also not a pseudoscience as well and since this is a BLP, We are having issues with some decisions here and invite you to assist us in reaching a new consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for a New Consensus for Sheldrake lead

Requesting all editors to reach a new consensus for the lead.

MilesMoney , Roxy the dog, Annalisa Ventola, Vzaak, David in DC, Lou Sander, LuckyLouie, Barney the barney barney

After engaging with many editors on this page for the past few weeks and addressing concerns and reading others, I believe we need a new consensus in the lead section.

Please view my sandbox for proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tumbleman/sandbox

The lead section I suggest only needs 3 paragraphs of 1 sentence each, and it reflects the context of not only the entire article but frames the context of sheldrake in a neutral POV.

The first thing that needs a clean up to return the article to a NPOV is how Sheldrake is framed professionally. I am removing 'parapsychologist' because he is not a parapsychologist, has no degree in parapsychology, and does not refer to himself as a parapsychologist. The claim that he is a 'former biochemist', the removal of his title as biologist just seems like it's important to some biased POV that Sheldrake is not taken seriously as a scientist, and there is no consensus there and will not be. Therefore, framing him as a parapsychologist looks like OR and it seeks to diminish is very real career as a scientist and researcher. It is important that the article reflect the context of why sheldrake is notable, he is notable because he is apart of the mainstream scientific community and therefore he is QUALIFIED to critique it. So instead of listing all of his degrees, honors, etc etc, I thought it best that both sides make a compromise here and make it simple. He is an author and biologist noted for his hypothesis of MR, his research into telepathy, and his public critiques of mainstream scientific thinking. There will never be any consensus to the lead if editors are trying to frame sheldrake as something he is not to prop up a WP:FRINGE claim which makes the page looks like it has an ideological POV.

The second sentence/paragraph frames the POV from the skeptics and scientists without editors having to make a point or interpret what sheldrake really means or what a skeptic really means. We do not need any more than this in the lead section. I have many issues with how references previously were being used. This still needs better references.

The last paragraph sentence is necessary to show 'why' sheldrake is notable with proper references.

I see no reason WP:FRINGE needs to be applied as the sole guide to how this page is edited based on any of the references that are currently on this page and personally do not accept the WP:FRINGE guideline to this page, however I understand that the skeptical POV is relevant here - but that should be fleshed out in the body, not the lead. Any references to sheldrake talking about philosophical ideas and using that to lump him in as a pseudoscientist is disingenuous to WP. Sheldrake's arguments include philosophical ideas that are not even unique to his authorship, such as an 'extended mind', Holism, or panpsychism are all acceptable philosophical ideas and WP is not a soapbox for philosophical arguments between skeptics and philosophers.

This is an entirely NPOV devoid of any ideology and in step with WP:GOODARTICLE I think this is something that all sides can accept.

Paragraph 1:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British biologist and author, most notable for his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy, and his public criticism of philosophical materialism in mainstream science

All references checked in sandbox

Paragraph 2:

Sheldrake’s work on morphic resonance and telepathy has been widely criticized by prominent scientists, skeptical organizations, and science journalists, with some claiming it is pseudoscience, unsupported by evidence, and others labeling it as magical thinking and heresy.

References here are incomplete because there are issues with current references to this, so references still an issue in paragraph 2 requesting support here.

Paragraph 3:

Reactions from the scientific community and the debate surrounding Sheldrake's ideas have been analyzed in public debates, books, documentaries, television programs, scientific and skeptical journals, and academia.

All references in sandbox support this

This is an entirely NPOV devoid of any ideology and in step with WP:GOODARTICLE I think this is something that all sides can accept. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead as it now stands is too lengthy. It needs be rewritten, and this is a solid start. It's neutral and concise. KateGompert (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is much better than the current lead. The article suffers from multiple POV issues, and this is a good start toward resolving those. Nat (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review this stab at it. I think WP:FRINGE applies, but only to the extent that it does not overwhelm WP:BLP which I view as the far more important wiki-policy. There's a tension between the two. I've written about that up higher on this page. I welcome the arrival of additional editors. This was beginning to turn into a circle jerk. David in DC (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

David in DC, this is reminiscent of "teach the controversy". It's the kind of thing that WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL were intended to address. This is WP:NPOV, and we needn't even mention WP:FRINGE. You wrote the criticism paragraph in the live article, and the sources therein show overwhelmingly what the scientific reception is. Your new stab runs afoul of NPOV because it obfuscates the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. vzaak (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, I am not seeing your point backed by the references that are provided because the references provided are only expressing opinions, not facts. There is too much undue weight on skeptical authors, including an economist, being used to reference what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Then, when there is a reference to a mainstream scientist and not a skeptic, it's just one scientist Lewis Wolpert. And it's just Wolpert's opinion, It's not a fact. I am not finding any evidence that MR is pseudoscience or that sheldrake is by a matter of scientific consensus in any reference. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are many possible ledes that will satisfy BLP. There are many different ledes that will satisfy FRINGE. The Venn diagram that depicts the lede that satisfies the overlap is smaller. I'm staying off the article page, except for non-controversial edits or, if I see them, BLP violations severe enough to warrant unilateral deletion, while we try to find a lede that better satisfies BLP and FRINGE. I disagree with those who say the current lede is egregious enough to warrant unilateral BLP removal. I also disagree that making the lead on the biography of a loiving person mostly about the living person, with references to crticism of Sheldrake's theories in summary form only, but fleshed out in the body violates NPOV or FRINGE. My sandbox attempt, in my view, is better than the current lede, but a work in progress. And should only replace the current one by consensus. David in DC (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is quite an improvement. I like the how succinct Tumbleman's version is. I also like how David has fleshed it out. My only criticism is that the last statement in David's version should probably be referenced. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, much of David's version requires referencing, but I imagine that this is forthcoming? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Mine would need refs. Many would come from Tumble's first draft. All would come from the current universe of refs. I've written nothing for which we don't already have a ref. I noted this in the prefatory language to my draft, in T's sandbox. David in DC (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice work David in DC, and to your point I think WP:FRINGE applies. How? Nothing seems to support this in the references and all the facts support MR is falsifiable and his telepathy research is falsifiable. The facts support that MR is an 'Alternative Theoretical Formulation'. What specifically are you applying this to? The Tumbleman (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

All should please take a look at WP:LEAD, to see what a lead is supposed to be and to accomplish. The Tumbleman's proposed lead is more a list of topic sentences than is is a lead. It isn't able to stand alone as a concise review of the article.

The first paragraph doesn't even define Morphic Resonance, let alone provide a summary review of it, and there's no meat about his criticism of science. This is an article about Rupert Sheldrake. The summary hardly even mentions him. In fact, all that is said about Sheldrake's life, work, and ideas is shorter than the sentence about the criticisms. It is as though the criticisms are more important than the man and his ideas. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the existing first paragraph.

The second short paragraph, IMHO, fairly and adequately summarizes the criticisms of Sheldrake and his work. All of it is expanded on in the body of the article. IMHO, if the lead says much more than that, it's in danger of being too strong for a BLP. All who reference the various WP:FRINGE stuff should note that it is mainly directed to articles about fringe theories and about the mainstream theories that stand opposed to the fringe ones. This is something different, a BLP about a guy with some fringe theories.

I like the short third paragraph about reactions to Sheldrake. This is a new idea in the lead. I didn't check to see if it summarizes stuff in the article. If it doesn't, the article should be expanded or this paragraph should be dropped. Lou Sander (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander good insight here. I am glad you actually think it needs more, because I stripped it down to basics (like a list as you mention) to reach consensus on at least what the notable 'arc' is in his biography. Look at my earlier version [[14]]. The second paragraph you don't like covers what the GSM here wants to accomplish so I offered that as a consensus if we have paragraph 3, which shows it is a notable debate and controversy - yes the body needs to flesh this out too, but the chicken and egg problem is unavoidable. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to question about whether FRINGE applies at all: any living person whose most well-known hypothesis includes telepathic-type interconnectedness and heritable memories passed down through the generations of a species but not as a part of Darwinian evolution is operating at the fringe. We agree that WP:BLP is the most important wiki-value to guide editing of a BLP. We disagree about whether WP:FRINGE is also a relevant wiki-value in the bio of Sheldrake. David in DC (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

David in DC: I, too, agree that WP:BLP is the most important value here. It is a policy. I believe that the WP:NPOV policy is equally important, and is tied closely to WP:BLP. I, too, agree that Sheldrake is operating at the fringes of accepted science. I believe we need to keep in mind that, as a highly qualified scientist himself, he questions many of the foundational beliefs of that science. I think that the behavioral guideline WP:FRINGE, though it explicitly applies to articles about theories and not about people, is useful for us to keep in mind here, as long as we keep it in perspective and use common sense. Lou Sander (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Materialism

Sheldrake stresses the "ideology of materialism" in his ten dogmas, and it generally seems like an essential point of his, so it seemed appropriate to mention it in the lead. However the lead has to make clear that this is Sheldrake's view of science, not how science sees itself. Sheldrake ascribes the non-acceptance of his ideas in part to philosophical materialism, but scientists need only take the weaker methodological naturalism which is the "ground rule" of science. The Pigliucci book cited does a good job at explaining this, though I could just as well have cited Barbara Forrest[15]. vzaak (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, I am worried there is too much philosophical interpretation happening here, especially because a critique on philosophical materialism is not a critique on methodological naturalism. I am seeing nothing in Barbara's paper that denies philosophical materialism, it's just given another name, philosophical naturalism. Sheldrake critiques the philosophy of materialism and it's influence on the assumptions of modern science, not the process of science or how knowledge is acquired so pitting them against each other here seems a little awkward. I am not sure if the need to show how 'science sees itself' is meaningful because science is just a process and I am not seeing any references that can show how 'science sees itself' to be nothing more than an opinion of someone. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake is a parapsychologist? reference?

Where is the reference that shows that Sheldrake is a parapsychologist? There is no reference on the page for it and I am going to remove it if I can't find the reference first. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

On page 125 in the The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Carroll, Sheldrake is described as a parapsychologist. Also an article in the Irish Examiner newspaper called "Telephone telepathy exists, claims parapsychologist" which describes Sheldrake as a parapsychologist. [16]. Dan skeptic (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake has also lectured his ideas at the Society for Psychical Research (he is a member) and he published papers in that journal. It's clear from available sources that he's a parapsychologist no longer doing science. Dan skeptic (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the word "parapsychologist". I do have a problem with calling him that in the lead if it isn't strongly established in the body of the article. I think that's what Tumble is saying. Saying on a talk page that something is "clear" isn't the same thing as demonstrating it in the article. This is a BLP, where controversial unsourced material can be removed without discussion. Nobody should complain if Tumble removes the offending word. (Lou Sander talk) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, somehow a headline in a minor newspaper from a small country and a one-sided book-of-a-website aren't really strong enough references for a lead section description. If those were sufficient grounds you could describe almost anyone as almost anything. (Justin Bieber is the greatest musician of all time, George Bush is a monkey-faced retard, etc.) 46.64.76.229 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Retard" is an especially offensive word. As a favor, and not based on anything more than doing me a kindness, would you please consider deleting that word and replace it with something like "sloth" or "platypus"? David in DC (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's blatantly clear that Sheldrake identifies himself as a parapsychologist and is a parapsychologist according to countless sources. Most of his research and experiments have been on this topic (psychic pets etc) as seen here [17]. The following are not all reliable sources but I just want to make it clear Sheldrake's association with parapsychology;

• Here are three videos he has done himself defending the subject of parapsychology [18], [19], [20]. In in an interview he admits his research is in parapsychology and paranormal related subjects. [21].

• Even paranormal woo-websites that support parapsychology claim Sheldrake is a parapsychologist and a "psi researcher" [22], [23] [24] etc etc.

• Sheldrake co-runs a parapsychology woo website called "Skeptical Investigations" which is a website that was set-up to promote parapsychology and attack skeptics. [25]

• Sheldrake is a member of the Society for Psychical Research and lectured for them and has published many papers in their journal. In fact most of his papers appear in this journal.

• Sheldrake is mentioned as a parapsychologist and his work is frequently mentioned in parapsychology books such as "New directions in parapsychology" by John Beloff, "Parapsychology in the Twenty-first Century" by Michael A. Thalbourne and "Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal" etc etc.

• Sheldrake is mentioned as a parapsychologist in many other books, including Encyclopedia of occultism & parapsychology (updated edition, 1991), The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks etc.

• As described above, all of Sheldrake's research (at least in the last 30 odd years) has been in parapsychology (allaged psychic powers etc), I suggest checking his papers in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, or other fringe related parapsychology journals such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration. No mainstream science journal has published his stuff. He is not publishing papers on biochemistry in mainstream scientific journals, instead he's publishing material in parapsychology journals.

It's easy to see the agenda why Sheldrake's supporters want "parapsychologist" removed from the lead, but it isn't going to happen. He is a parapsychologist. Dan skeptic (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't at all see the agenda that you do. I see a call for "parapsychologist" to be removed from the lead because it isn't explicit in the article. IMHO it would be suitable for the article to have a (hopefully short) section on Parapsychology. Lou Sander (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need an entire dedicated section for each descriptor about a person. It should be patently obvious from the book section that he is a parapsychologist, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No brainer. We have tons of sources that say Sheldrake is notable as a parapsychological researcher and parapsychologist. Heck, he even represents himself as an "expert" on parapsychology. (PS: shout outs to my old buds Annalisa and Nealparr) LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake is a professional member of the Parapsychological Association (http://www.parapsych.org/section/14/pa_member_index.aspx). That being said, I've only seen him refer to himself as a biologist, and if you have a look at the list of Articles and Papers at his website, you'll find quite a number of mainstream publications on a variety of topics. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes but look more closely, his papers on botany were published over 30 years ago in the late 1970s or early 80s. He abandoned science for parapsychology. All of his papers from the 80s to the present day about psychic stuff are published in fringe parapsychology journals. Dan skeptic (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou you say that "parapsychologist" should be removed from the lead because it isn't explicit in the article but most of the article deals with parapsychological topics, for example there's two sections about Sheldrake's views on psychic pets and alleged paranormal effects and another that mentions his belief in "psychic" phenomena. Dan skeptic (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of when Dr. Sheldrake did the bulk of his mainstream research. He has had a long career and his recent explorations into alternative scientific theories does not nullify his training. I think it would be more accurate to refer to him as a biologist who has done research in parapsychology (or "on parapsychologicial topics"). Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember that if it wasn't for the parapsychology and other craziness, we probably wouldn't find an ordinary run of the mill biologist notable enough to be writing a wiki article about him. This stuff has to be front and centre. The "science" that he used to do is a minor part of his bio. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to David's proposed new lead, the parapsychological topics come up by the second sentence. I think that's pretty much front and center, don't you? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, that's actually the last sentence in the first paragraph of David's proposed lead, but still front and center IMO.Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sheldrake (a) describes himself as a biologist, (b) has a Ph.D in biochemistry.[26] I find no references where he decsribes himself as a parapsychologist, and I am not aware of academic qualifications being revoked.
• Sheldrake may do work into parapsychology, and other people may describe him otherwise, but this is carried out from the perspective of his qualifications in biology/biochemistry. Just because someone does research in physics, doesn't make them a physicist.
• @Dan skeptic. You stated "It's blatantly clear that Sheldrake identifies himself as a parapsychologist", yet I can find nothing in any of your references that does this. I am happy for you to provide a quote and reference that does.
• @LuckyLouie. You stated "he even represents himself as an 'expert' on parapsychology", yet I did not see this on the page you provided. I am happy for you to provide a quote and reference that does.
• The citable facts are that (a) Sheldrake is biologist with a Ph.D from Cambridge University in biochemisty,[27] who is notable for his research into, what many people call, parapyschology.--Iantresman (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To this editor, it looks like claiming Sheldrake is a parapsychologist is OR because it's based on interpretations of Sheldrake's activities. I am not even seeing any references where scientists refer to him as a parapsychologist. Skeptic dictionary is a biased reference because it has an agenda to debunk so can't be trusted. All references to his bio say he is a biologist. All degrees and research papers claim he is a biologist too. I can't get to editing right now so if someone wants to swap that out please feel free to do so because it's OR and needs off the page asap. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, why not call him a "biologist with a notable interest in parapsychology" or something similar? Also, I agree that Skeptic's Dictionary should not be considered a valid source due to its agenda. Nat (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Case in point. Richard Wiseman is a psychologist. He researches paranormal claims all the time. Yet his degree is in psychology, which qualifies him to investigate claims from the POV of his credentials. Should we call Wiseman a parapsychologist too? All the references editors give here that supportedly claim sheldrake is a parapsychologist actually state he is a biologist. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Good analogy. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic, you just reversed Nat edit although clearly you have no consensus and no references to do so, only original research and opinions. I request you and all GSM editors on the page to honor the spirit of WP. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie you suggest that " We have tons of sources that say Sheldrake is notable as a parapsychological researcher and parapsychologist." and you provide two references, one which cites Rupert Sheldrake as a biologist and the other is an opinion piece. These references obviously can't be used since one is contradictory to the claim and the other is an opinion, not a fact. I understand it's important to GSM editors on the page to prop up a FRINGE claim to support the skeptical POV, but it has to be done with consensus and reasoned argument, not sloppy sourcing because it just looks like there is another agenda here other than making the page better. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman your agenda is clear and your trolling is getting boring. You have also been deleting my comments on here on your IP address 76.167.97.23. You have been banned on countless forums for trolling, so I guess it is only a matter of time before you get banned on here. You have no interest in improving the article and I can't be bothered to read your crazy nonsense anymore. Dan skeptic (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic Still not seeing how this original research on me qualifies as anything but WP:HOUND and it certainly doesn't provide any references that shows that Sheldrake is a Parapsychologist. You don't have to read what I write, you just have to show a valid reference on WP otherwise the edit can be removed immediately, even without discussion, on a BLP. I'm very patient though, I still haven't made my edit yet, and am still willing to consider your reference once it is provided.The Tumbleman (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

is WP:FRINGE being applied unnecessarily to Sheldrake's page?

'4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.'

reposting today's comments here to keep this organized, hope no one minds

Reply to question about whether FRINGE applies at all: any living person whose most well-known hypothesis includes telepathic-type interconnectedness and heritable memories passed down through the generations of a species but not as a part of Darwinian evolution is operating at the fringe. We agree that WP:BLP is the most important wiki-value to guide editing of a BLP. We disagree about whether WP:FRINGE is also a relevant wiki-value in the bio of Sheldrake. David in DC (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

David in DC: I, too, agree that WP:BLP is the most important value here. It is a policy. I believe that the WP:NPOV policy is equally important, and is tied closely to WP:BLP. I, too, agree that Sheldrake is operating at the fringes of accepted science. I believe we need to keep in mind that, as a highly qualified scientist himself, he questions many of the foundational beliefs of that science. I think that the behavioral guideline WP:FRINGE, though it explicitly applies to articles about theories and not about people, is useful for us to keep in mind here, as long as we keep it in perspective and use common sense. Lou Sander (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

David in DC. I have a lot of respect for your POV, but I don't see how this applies yet and so far it just seems like either OR or a house of cards built upon years of 'opinions' of sheldrake but I can't find any facts to back it up, and believe me I was expecting to. 'What' a scientist researches is NOT enough to claim Fringe/PS. If it was, even Richard Wiseman would be called a Fringe psychologist or David Chalmers would be called a fringe philosopher. It's HOW it is researched and HOW it is claimed by that scientist. All the evidence suggests Sheldrake does valid testing and falsification, so that alone removes any claim of pseudoscience to justify a WP FRINGE guideline. If you look at the references claiming otherwise, you will see that it's just a house of cards based on opinions of skeptics and 1 or 2 scientists. Morphic Resonance is very clearly an 'alternative theoretical formulation'. It does not claim 'paranormal', it claims Holism over Reductionism philosophically. I think we need more rational deliberation here. Sheldrake is a critic of modern science, that's what puts him on the edges of things. To apply WP FRINGE to the page would mean that the page would be taking sides in the debate between Holism and Reductionism and would suggest that Sheldrake be viewed through the eyes of his critics. We can't cite sheldrake for critiquing the assumptions of science philosophically. It assumed that those Sheldrake criticizes would push back against him. They may 'kick him like a dog', but Sheldrake is THEIR DOG since Sheldrake COMES from the Mainstream scientific community. I agree that we need to have that side represented, but it needs to be represented in context. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Morphic Resonance is very clearly an 'alternative theoretical formulation'. It does not claim 'paranormal', it claims Holism over Reductionism philosophically". Then you have obviously failed to understand what morphic resonance really claims to be. Sheldrake says that if a group of rats learn something in a lab in New York, then rats of the same species will automatically learn such skills in other parts of the world without any kind of contact whatsoever. He's saying information is transmitted miraculously through any amount of space and time without loss of energy, in fact in some cases he's claiming information is transmitted completely outside of time and space. It's been labeled magical thinking and pseudoscience, it's a metaphysical viewpoint. He's advocating the paranormal not science. He may have come from the "mainstream" science community but he is no longer with it and has not been involved with science for over 30 years, he chose parapsychology instead. Dan skeptic (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rupert provides specific evidence for his position on the rats here, showing that new hypotheses need to be formulated (like his) to explain the results: http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/post/45669879746/rat-learning-and-morphic-resonance

That hypothesis is an organic model, with the use of the term "organic" being in the Whiteheadian sense:

“The concrete enduring entities are organisms, so that the plan of the whole influences the very characters of the various subordinate organisms which enter into it.” (Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, p. 98, Penguin 1938)

New Edit

I have edited the lead in accordance with suggestions by Tumbleman, David in DC, and others. Nat (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The text has been reverted yet again, and includes statements (a) for which there are no citations, and (b) that appears to be original research based on the opinion of editors.

• Sheldrake has both trained as, and has a doctorate in the subject, which makes him a biochemist (as defined by Wikipedia). It is not for any editor to decide otherwise.
• Universities that undertake parapsychology research are not staffed by "parapsychologists", but scientists with other qualifications, such as psychologists, engineers, theoretical physics (eg. Princeton's now closed PEAR); psychiatrists and psychologists (U. Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and U. Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit and U.Arizona's Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health). The tone of all these academic websites is quite different from Wikipedia's and certain editors.--Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the new lead reinstalled. However, whomever does it next should remember to insert the appropriate references. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no agreed consensus so you were reverted. Tumbleman has trolled this page and has connections to Sheldrake so really shouldn't be editing per WP:COI. The same applies to Annalisa Ventola who is a well known parapsychologist and pseudoscience promoter that has close connections to Sheldrake. Google her name and then "Sheldrake" and see all the kinds of blogs and articles she has supported the pseudoscience of Sheldrake on, even in interviews. It's hilarious when such editors claim to be "neutral" all over this page. Dan skeptic (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made by background, interests, and my potential biases transparent on this site since 2006. Who are you and what are yours? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because you are biased by conflicts of interests doesn't mean that your opponents are in any way biased. True neutrality is the enemy of all bias. MilesMoney (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, even if Rupert Sheldrake himself was editing the page, exactly the same policies would apply. The current intro is not supported by references, and includes synthesis. It is incontrovertible that Sheldrake has a doctorate in biochemistry, and that by Wikipedia's own definition, that makes him a biochemist. Conversely, I know of no reliable sources that state he is a parapsychologist, though there are many sources (blogs, websites, books, individuals) that describe him as doing research in subjects described as parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know of any reliable sources calling him a parapsychologist, all you have to do is read this talk page and your ignorance will be dispelled. MilesMoney (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I said I couldn't find any reliable sources. There's a popular book (that has to resort to ad hominems, page 23), newspaper, but no academic sources. Either way, he still has his PH.D, and was funded by Cambridge University as recently as 2010 as director of the Perrott-Warrick Project, and was lecturing at Cambridge University in 2011 who acknowledge his doctorate in biochemistry[28] --Iantresman (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic I don't think the original research you are doing on me is very accurate or helpful to build a consensus. I take WP guidelines very seriously. If you have a problem about me as a person, please address it on my talk page. Using past history, fabricated or otherwise, regarding individual editors and then inventing 'charges' is both WP:GAME and WP:HOUND and not in the spirit of what we are trying to do. I understand GSM editors really believe their agenda is of upmost importance to WP, however any GSM editors on this page are advised to simply focus on my reasoned arguments and actual dialouge on this TALK page for reference and nothing more. I think it would be more helpful to the page if instead on focusing on individual editors GSM would work to actually providing accurate sourcing to their claims and be apart of a rational consensus based on facts and references, not personalities and opinions. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman you logged on your IP address 76.167.97.23 to deliberately delete one of my comments (then one minute later you signed in and posted on your account). You also publicly posted your full name so nobody has outed you. Only a click away on the internet is your support for Sheldrake, your pseudoscience promoting and various forums you have been banned on. You keep talking about agendas but your own agenda is clear. Also your constant claim or conspiracy theory that GSM (Guerrilla Skeptic Team) are involved in editing the Sheldrake article is nonsensical. This conspiracy theory started with a "psychic" called Craig Weiler (talk · contribs), and has no basis in fact. According to the edit history the GSM has not been editing this article. I am not involved with the GSM (I only discovered this group existed last week!) and as far as I can see neither is any other current editor on here. The owner of the GSM group is Sgerbic (talk · contribs), as you can see from her edits she has not edited the Sheldrake article. Sorry but I'm not going to waste anymore time replying to you. You are trying to stir up arguments where none exist like claiming there's no evidence Sheldrake is a parapsychologist (even though Sheldrake has spent the last 30 years lecturing and writing on parapsychology in parapsychological fringe journals!). Dan skeptic (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No editors have been directly accused of belonging to the GS. Nor do I expect skeptic editors to admit it since that would probably entail an instant lifetime ban from Wikipedia. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence however.

* The page changed dramatically for the worse after a newsletter calling out the GS was published. The June 14th revision (before the newsletter) is fairly even handed, but the September 28th version was heavily biased towards a skeptical point of view.

* Constant stalwart defense of skeptical edits

* Minimal to no cooperation with opposing editors.

* A ridiculous attempt to intimidate me with WP:IMPERSONATE, combined with a different skeptic trying to get two comments up on my blog to refute my version, sending two creepy emails trying to get me to reconsider and finally getting a screenshot of that comment posted on my "biography" (lol!) on RationalWiki. This suggests a team effort to me. And this was over describing CSICOP as a radical atheist pressure group. CSICOP is a supporter of GS, which relies heavily on this skeptic organization for sources, so they would be upset at having CSICOP questioned.

If you wish to distance yourself from GS, then you should avoid sources that are linked to them, such as CSICOP, JREF, and their members, and certainly avoid obviously the most biased skeptical sites such as the Skeptic's Dictionary.

Also Dan, if you ever attach the word -psychic- to my name you are to never put it into quotations. That is a personal insult, it is bigotry and I will not tolerate it.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dan skeptic, don't worry about threats like this from "psychic" User:Craig Weiler, it isn't a personal insult, nor is it bigotry - he has no right to instruct you on how "you" do "your" punctuation. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 06:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dan Skeptic. (1) "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research"(WP:OUTING) --Iantresman (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(2) A popular book and a newspaper are poor sources. In 2012, Cambridge University was still referring to "Dr Rupert Sheldrake" in recognition of his doctorate in biochemistry (he has no other doctorates).[29] Of all the university departments researching parapsychology, I could find none that refer to any of their staff as parapsychologists. This does not dispute that some minor sources may have used this description. --Iantresman (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney you suggest that If we don't know of any reliable sources calling him a parapsychologist, all we have to do is read this talk page and our ignorance will be dispelled. Well that's the issue, we have been reading and checking and can't find anything reliable, it's all OR and opinions. I assume therefore that you must know of these references and sources that you claim we miss, so it should be easy for you to provide them and we look forward to reviewing them for consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? Why are you erasing other people's comments? That looks like a violation of WP:TPO. MilesMoney (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing comments, have no idea

I have no idea why some comments are being deleted. I have not deleted any comments. If anyone believes I have deleted their comments please let me know, even one of mine is deleted and this is very strange. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am havingwas going to admin chat with a systems administrator friend of mine who manages discussion forums to look into this but realize I was over reacting and am not being hacked and realized that it may even look like I was talking about a WP admin 'friend', which although sorely needed in my life, I do not have. this is very very bizarre and I am concerned I am being hacked right now. doh!The Tumbleman (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not being hacked, you're simply making an error. You're making changes to an outdated version and that edit is conflicting with subsequent edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=prev&oldid=576363168

MilesMoney (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up MilesMoney, I see I over reacted, but when I see a few editors on here talk about how they know who I am and post my IP address on a talk page, it made me a little paranoid. Thanks for keeping this editor straight. anyone else that has noticed a comment deleted, I apologize and will undo immediately if you notice me. sorry all. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

2007 Wikipedia Arbitration on the Paranormal

This article is in need of a major rehaul. I would like to make some suggestions, but first I would appreciate if some of you could bring me up to speed? It's been a while since I've contributed to Wikipedia (since like 2008-9), so could anyone tell me if there have been any relevant Wikipedia arbitration cases since Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Conflation_of_parapsychology_with_unscientific_concepts? Specifically, I am curious about what has happened since Wikipedia Arbitration committee determined that there was a "scientific discipline of parapsychology" and that parapsychology "should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about 'the paranormal'"? I think that these ideas are pertinent to what we are doing here. Thanks in advance for your input. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)