Talk:Paul Stamets

Mycologist
The description of Stamets in the lede was recently edited to remove the descriptor 'Mycologist'. Multiple RS sources describe Stamets as a mycologist. These include the Seattle Times, the NY Times and Nature Magazine. He has also coauthored peer reviewed papers in the field including Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32194-8). Dialectric (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the sources you provided and those public news reports in the article do not rigorously address Stamets' credentials, and probably heard it from Stamets himself upon introduction or from his reputation as a "mushroom expert", which he may be, but not by academic or scientific achievement, which would be earned by the rigorous achievement of a PhD. He is a hobbyist focused on a subject, similar to a folk medicine herbalist who would have no academic credentials to be called a "doctor". For Stamets and his supplement business, Fungi Perfecti, calling himself a mycologist (here) is good for marketing and misleading the consumer public that he is an accomplished, respected scientist who can be trusted to sell anyone mushroom supplements, which have no scientifically proven benefits for health, i.e., a scam. The evidence for him as a mycologist does not meet WP:V. Stamets has only a Bachelor's degree (at a liberal arts college, and with unknown major) which does not entitle him to academic recognition as a mycology specialist within a scientific discipline, and is not recognized as a mycologist by any university or government body. Mycology is a formal academic discipline and subdivision of biology (or botany), typically taught and researched among expert colleagues at a university (which would be credible evidence for a "mycologist" title if Stamets was affiliated with a university, which he is not). Under WP:ONUS, the encyclopedic responsibility for objectivity (and for Wikipedia to not falsely promote an unearned designation) would be to not call him a mycologist unless or until a reputable academic, professional, or government source says he is. --Zefr (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS and WP:BRD support the status quo for referenced content, which is here is inclusion of the descriptor 'mycologist'. This has been included in the article for years. You provide no evidence for your claim that multiple reliable sources 'probably heard it from stamets himself.' Are you of the opinion that James Trimarco and Yes! Magazine 'rigorously [addressed Stamets' credentals]'? Are these somehow more rigorous than the New York Times and Nature Magazine? Dialectric (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is part of the guideline on verifiability, stating "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." So that returns the responsibility to you or others to provide academic proof that he is a mycologist. Some credible source of his scientific standing - beyond public media (by what scientific standards do those publications use to verify him as a mycologist?) - is needed to verify that he has the standing of "mycologist". A credible source is a university bestowing a PhD in Biology, subspecialty Mycology (or government position, such as in the USDA) and with a verifiable research background in the academic field of mycology would qualify him. He's more of a shaman and supplement marketer than he is a mycologist. WP:CON is needed with proof that he has science-verified credentials to be called a mycologist. --Zefr (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, do any reliable sources refer to Stamets as primarily a shaman?
 * From a quick search about credentials, this is what I found: Stamets was honored with the 2013 Contributions to Amateur Mycology award from the North American Mycological Association. The Huffington Post has a bio page for Stamets:
 * He is the author of many scholarly papers in peer-reviewed journals (The International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms; Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM, Oxford University Press); Herbalgram, and others).
 * Paul is an advisor to the Program of Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona Medical School, Tucson, on the editorial board of The International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms. Stamets helped author and supply the first two NIH-funded clinical studies using medicinal mushrooms in the United States. His strain collection is extensive and unique, with many of the strains coming from old growth forests. He worked with the NIH-governed BioShield BioDefense Program since 2005 to develop new defenses against bioterrorism.
 * In February of 2010, Paul received the President’s Award from the Society of Ecological Restoration.
 * In June of 2012, Paul Stamets received an honorary, accredited Doctorate of Science degree (D.Sc.) from the National College for Natural Medicine for his academic achievements and for expanding the field of science.
 * So, Stamets is clearly a part of the academic and scientific mycology communities. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Mycologist is not an honorific title. Mycologist comes from the root 'myco' which relates to fungi an 'ologist' which means expert or student. Under your theory Darwin would not be a botanist or a biologist since he did not obtain an advanced degree. Moreover, Washington University and Evergreen State College both recognize him as a mycologist on their websites. So, he is a scientist even under your made up standard of who gets to be a scientist. Keithdyer101 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to add the description mycologist. Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals refers to Paul Stamets as a mycologist. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32194-8. Do I just link to the Nature article as a source? Keithdyer101 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A journal doesn't refer to an author's professional practice, but rather her/his affiliation, as displayed in the Nature article by clicking on the author name: Paul E. Stamets, Fungi Perfecti, LLC. Olympia, Washington, USA. And that article is only peripherally related to mycology; it is about supposed antiviral activity in bees, if it exists, as there is no confirmation of this primary research in current peer-reviewed literature. --Zefr (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't we settle this dispute by merely looking to the plain meaning of the term mycology and mycologist? Please provide me with your definition of a mycologist. Keithdyer101 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are countless articles where various editors dispute whether a person is a white nationalist, white supremacist, white separatist, racial realist or some other variation. The apologists tend to favor some mealy-mouthed, term dreamed up for the occasion and drag out individual quotes/actions/beliefs and definitions. By combining the quotes/actions/beliefs ("A") with the definitions ("B") they synthesize the claim the person is "really" a swell person ("C"). A + B = C. We explain that that is synthesis and restore the label used by independent reliable sources.
 * In this case, Nature, the New York Times and other gold standard reliable sources call Stamets a mycologist in no uncertain terms. It's how they identify him. Meryl Streep is an actress, ______ is a white supremacist, Paul Stamets is a mycologist. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * SummerPhDv2.0, I agree with you. I should have been more thorough in my original post. The Nature paper, NYT article and countless other sources establish consensus outside of this Wikipedia thread that Paul Stamets is a mycologist. My point is even if we look at the plain meaning of the definition of a mycologist, "a person who studies mycology (=the science of fungi)", set forth in the Cambridge University Dictionary, it is apparent that Stamets falls within the category of mycologist. But, again, I do agree with your point about the gold standard sources who also consider him a mycologist. Keithdyer101 (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * SummerPhDv2.0, I agree with you. I should have been more thorough in my original post. The Nature paper, NYT article and countless other sources establish consensus outside of this Wikipedia thread that Paul Stamets is a mycologist. My point is even if we look at the plain meaning of the definition of a mycologist, "a person who studies mycology (=the science of fungi)", set forth in the Cambridge University Dictionary, it is apparent that Stamets falls within the category of mycologist. But, again, I do agree with your point about the gold standard sources who also consider him a mycologist. Keithdyer101 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Support - (I was asked by Zefr to comment here. I don't know why as I don't seem to have been involved with the article in any way. In any case, I disagree with Zefr so I don't see a foul here.) The Seattle Times, New York Times and Nature directly, without equivocation of any kind and in their own voices say Stamets is a mycologist. If your opinion runs counter to those of Nature and NYT, that's fine, but Stamets is verifiably a mycologist. While I understand the various arguments about whether or not it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. But if Nature says it's a duck, its a duck. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that doesn't address the main policy issue. WP:ONUS policy is very clear that being sourced isn't enough. Not to mention that Nature itself doesn't say what you claim. Barbara Kiser writing for them was reviewing a book that just namedrops Stamets. That's barely a tangential look at his credentials, so we can't really be making a statement that Nature says so. The question this RfC really should have boiled down to if it wasn't started prematurely is whether there's any legitimate reason to include calling him a mycologist in the article itself. So far, there isn't anything that tries to justify that other than saying sources exist, which violates WP:V policy, and we already have solutions that negate the need for this RfC anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I understand that verifiability does not mean it will be included, the three sources I mentioned (Seatle Times, New York Times, Nature) don't merely mention it in passing, it's their primary -- their only -- identification of him. Yes, a source might mention that Meryl Streep was once a waitress (I'm making this up), but I'm sure multiple sources identify her as an actress. So, Nature gives no other identity to Stamets than "mycologist Paul Stamets". Similarly, Discover has "crusading mycologist Paul Stamet" in the secondary headline, and by the second sentence he has become "the mycologist". Seattle Times labels him as "Paul Stamets, mycologist and Fungi Perfecti owner." For the New York Times, he is "Paul Stamets, a mycologist in Olympia, Wash." Against all of that, we've decided that he is an "author, blogger, and an advocate". I'm sure he's all of those things, but that large, flap-eared, tusked, land animal in the room is pretty clearly -- and verifiably -- an elephant. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Support - Stamets is a professional and is widely recognized. It's hard for me to understand statements like the above from Zefr that say "Stamets is a hobbyist with enthusiasm for mushrooms the way a gardener (with no botany degree) has enthusiasm for flowers." Utterly ridiculous. Stamets is clearly not a hobbyist, as he is published, engaged in scientific peer-reviewed research, and has been running a succesful mushroom business as well as educational courses for many years now. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's keep a healthy skeptical view here, and challenge the IP user to look closer behind Stamets' marketing strategy of his mycologist reputation. The title mycologist implies a scientist's adherence to rigorous principles and practices, as expected for people who have actually earned an advanced degree for the title, mycologist. Breaking the code of scientist conduct just once - such as by teaching or publishing false information - can stigmatize and negatively isolate a career forever in the science community. Stamets' and his company advertise mushroom products as having diverse health benefits, such as here for several elaborate, unproven brain benefits (see diverse other false health claims under the tab, Benefits, for each of some 45 other "Host Defense®" mushroom products), none of which is proven by science or approved by the FDA. It's just a scam of made up nonsense sales-speak to impress upon unwary consumers that the self-described "mycologist" - whom consumers visiting his business site are asked to trust before surrendering their money - has discovered and proven all these countless health benefits of mushroom extracts or powders. He has not, and no one has. A true degree-holding mycologist wouldn't engage in reckless lying to scam consumers. Reviewing his business website and seeing the scam is why I came to this article and challenged his title of "mycologist". --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mushrooms have been used in traditional healing practices for quite a long time. And while all of the benefits may not be scientifically proven, Chinese medicine has, for example, made use of a variety of mushrooms for different purposes. Regardless, it is undeniable that in order to run a successful mushroom grow operation, a lot of science is definitely involved. To propagate mushroom spawn, maintain a sterile environment to prevent contamination, etc., some of these aspects literally require a laboratory environment, and repeatable refined practices are necessary. I would say that if there are concerns about some of the health claims that Stamets makes, then that deserves some space in the article. But while some perspectives may be fringe or controversial, that doesn't make him any less of a mycologist ... that may make him a somewhat controversial mycologist, but a mycologist all the same. For an analogy: I would argue that most farmers do not hold advanced degrees, yet we still consider them farmers ... a lot of them hold very different views, but at the end of the day, they are growing and producing food. If The New York Times considers Stamets a mycologist then perhaps we should take pause. Controversial, somewhat fringe, outspoken and kinda weird, etc.? Maybe so. But Paul Stamets is still a mycologist. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, you seem concerned about the reputation of Stamets more than anything. Please don't overlook the recently published peer-reviewed actual scientific work that he has participated in: Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees [Nature]. The research study shows significant immunological benefits derived from mushrooms that aids bees and helps them to resist viral loads. Some real science there. I have read that report! Cheers. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, I would like to ask if there are any reliable sources that challenge the credentials of Stamets, the viability of his work, or refute his published materials? We cannot rely on our own original research here at Wikipedia. Please provide references to any reliable sources that back your position that Stamets is somehow not a mycologist. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Support. He may not have an advanced degree in mycology, but the current wording of the article goes way too far the other way. I wouldn't characterize somebody who has written 19 blog posts in 24 years as a blogger. The article is now using a source that calls him a mycologist to support the statement that he "has a layman's interest in mushrooms". I don't think that anybody who makes a living with mushrooms whether by farming them, or foraging them to sell, is accurately described as a mycological "layman"; although I would not call all such persons "mycologists" (and a professional gardener isn't a layman with an enthusiasm for flowers). Stamets was the recipient of the Mycological Society of America's inaugral Gordon and Tina Wasson award (for nontraditional mycologists). While a PhD is now the usual route to expertise in a scientific field, it is not the only route. Christiaan Hendrik Persoon mycological expertise was self-taught. And having a PhD doesn't mean that somebody necessarily continues to work in the field of their degree (I have no objection to Mayim Bialik being called a neuroscientist, but she hasn't contributed to the field since receiving her degree). And having an advanced degree is not incompatible with making fringy claims or recklessly lying to scam consumers (cf. Mehmet Oz). Stamets is described as a mycologist in many sources (which often mention his lack of formal training), and he has been recognized by a major scholarly society for academically trained mycologists. "Self taught mycologist" is a fair way to describe him. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support "Mycologist" is a title without professional or legal regulation. We have reasons to restrict use of the terms "physician", "lawyer", "professor", and similar to those people who get the institutional recognition which those titles imply. In contrast, all sorts of people are mycologists, so we do not need to restrict use of the term. Even if there were restricts, Stamets has an unusually prominent public image as a mycologist. I lived in Seattle in the 2000s and Stamets was a regular at all sorts of events in that region in that era where he spoke on the topic of mycology. The region has a culture of presenting pop science conferences and he was a regular presenter at those. There are many mycological societies in the region, and for example everyone at the Puget Sound Mycological Society where I was a member knew of him and his works and the fact that he lived close and so frequently spoke on mycology. To the extent that there is a culture of mycology, Stamets has been the biggest contemporary name in the field for the longest amount of time, especially in the popular perception and public visibility. I would expect that no one has presented on the topic of mycology at more conferences and public scheduled events than Stamets. Most of this was in the era just before online documentation. If all this happened now the online media record would be easier to find.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perspective:, your description of Stamets' reputation in the Pacific Northwest is well-known from public media, and convinces that he loves mushrooms with diverse knowledge about them. But such background is unrigorous for an encyclopedia to define a "mycologist". It is more consistent with a Woozle effect, i.e., a "rural legend". While the majority of this RfC sides (as of 10 Sep 19) with calling him an "amateur mycologist", let's consider the bios of professional mycologists, such as USDA's Lodge or university biologist, Hibbett, both of whom would have spent 10+ years earning degrees in biology/mycology and scientific careers over 2-3 decades of peer-reviewed publishing to be recognized among professional peers as mycologists. In contrast to Stamets' undergraduate degree, hobby, and supplement business with mushrooms, the examples of Lodge and Hibbett are benchmarks for defining a mycologist. : in the pseudoscience of Stamets' speeches and business, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a quack (WP:QUACKS). (Paraphrasing from Jimmy Wales in QUACKS) "If science rejects your favoured mushroom therapy, Wikipedia is not the place to fix it. Instead, come up with robust, replicable scientific evidence, published in reputable journals, and then we will tell the world all about it." This RfC will support calling Stamets an amateur mycologist, but there is no rigorous peer-review to call him that (WP:ONUS). --Zefr (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You raise various issues which I do not immediately see as relevant to this discussion. I think that your primary argument is that "mycologist" is a title which requires a credential to claim. Do you have any source to back up the idea that there is any formal or informal regulation on the use of titles like "mycologist", "biologist", "scientist"?. If any sources call a person "mycologist", then why challenge them when the term does not have a deep or formal meaning? You seem to be framing this as a discussion about the regulation of a title. If this is not about regulating the use of the title, then what are the important issues here?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:RS source defining that a mycologist is an informal title for hobbyists equal in WP:WEIGHT to the formal professional mycologist title. In science and medicine, having an "ist" at the end of a professional title means something. Biologist, chemist, pharmacologist, cardiologist. Titles earned by more than a decade of higher education, achievement of advanced degrees, appointment to a reputable institution, peer-reviewed publishing in quality journals, competitive grants with concrete outcomes, promotion to higher ranks, international respect from peers in the same discipline. Do we know if the international community of professional mycologists sees Stamets as a peer mycologist? There's no evidence that they do, especially if having reviewed the blatant fraud of false health claims on his business website and bizarre delusions in his speeches, both of which disaffirm his credibility and title as a scientist or mycologist. WP:ONUS is about consensus on reliable sources, but no article source has critically assessed Stamets as a mycologist . WP:REDFLAG applies: "claims (of his being a professional mycologist) that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" (of professional mycologists). --Zefr (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking that reliable source cite sources and provide backup for their statements and respond to your definition of terms. (This, of course, would demand that the sources' sources cite their sources and so on, down the rabbit hole.) Essentially, you seem to be saying that your opinion that he is not a mycologist should replace the judgements of Nature, Seattle Times, New York Times and Discover (among others) that he is a mycologist. Are you really saying Nature and the New York Times determinations should be superseded by yours?
 * Your borderline WP:BLP-violations in this discussion could easily be applied to deny the credentials of numerous credentialed media personalities. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, Nature, Seattle Times, New York Times and Discover (among others) do not merely mention at some point that Stamets is a mycologist, they define him as a mycologist. Milla Kunis is an actress, Stamets is a mycologist, the large animal with a trunk in the room is an elephant. Whatever the quality of her work, we aren't going to avoid calling Kunis an actress because she doesn't have a PhD, her work is weak and you want more than Nature and the New York Times calling her an actress. The sources say Kunis is an actress, she is verifiably an actress. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - On paper he may not have the qualifications but his extensive work in the field certainly qualifies him as one. It is not our position to decide whether he is or isn't qualified. Let's report what reliable sources have to say. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:No original research is a basic and important principle to how Wikipedia functions. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as lower-case "mycologist" but not "Mycologist." As mentioned above, some professions are licensed and some self-proclaimed. Stamets can be a mycologist even though he has a dietary supplement business that rests on dubious science. In the U.S., the entire dietary supplement industry is only lightly regulated. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support, with some caveats It's a tough call, I have to say.  As a general matter, I think its problematic to include a title which imparts to the reader an implication of a certain degree of formal training in an empirical biological field where no such formal education and traditional credentials exist.  On the other hand, as others have noted already, at the end of the day this is a WP:WEIGHT matter, not one to be determined primarily by our own idiosyncratic breakdown / original research as to what qualifies the article's subject to hold this or that position.  Now, one might argue that meeting WP:V is not in itself sufficient to justify inclusion of particular claim or label (see WP:ONUS) and that the label might be omitted, even if arising out of WP:RS, if we feel that it would be misleading to the reader in some way. So I did go back and forth on the matter as a consequence of that legitimate concern.  However, when considering the full context of the label and the quality of the sources, I have to lean towards inclusion.


 * However, its worth pointing out that we should probably be considering the question of whether to include it in full context, so we know exactly what is being said regarding the main's professional and academic status, rather than !voting the inclusion of the word itself up or down. I'm concerned that a number of editors, even when supporting using this title for the man, have alluded to the WP:fringe status of the man's views on the field, and yet I see no mention of any of this in the article, and thus (as someone unfamiliar with his work, claims, or business ventures) would be completely unaware of these facets of the man's notability from reading the article alone. Using a formal title typically restrained to trained academics possessing advanced degrees in a scientific field and doing empirical work at an independent research institution does run the risk of bootstrapping the credibility of the subject some.  So either further discussion of any controversial statements the man may have made in his relationship to the field might be necessary if we are to label him with said formal title.


 * However, again, even better would be to look at specific wording relating to how the title is applied. If it's a matter of sticking it (unqualified) into the lead sentence, extra care will need to be taken to make sure the information noting that he holds no degree related tot he field (currently in the awkwardly titled "Mushroom interest" section) is not thereafter removed, and also to keep an eye on any claims relating to scientific topics which may arise in the article in the future. Context is important here, and while I appreciate the straightforward RfC prompt here, I think we need to be careful of not losing site of the forest for the trees. Snow let's rap 01:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You partly summarize why this RfC is moot. It doesn't address specific content, and it was launched before a content-specific question could be crafted in normal discussion to fine-tune language. Even with that in mind, we've already moved beyond the question of whether to call him a mycologist with content like this or this. The focus should indeed be more on what he does rather than title, but that's better left for normal editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, we haven't moved beyond the question of whether or not to call Stamets a mycologist ... though it would seem there is a fair amount of support for referring to Stamets as a "self-trained mycologist" as specific academic credentials are not required for such a designation. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "We are biased towards science." There's something more at stake here than just deciding whether Stamets can be called a mycologist. Reviewing several videos of his speeches reveals a brilliant mind and memory, extensive knowledge of mushroom species, charisma, arrogance, fast talking, and evangelist-like persuasion of the audience to applaud his discoveries, showing outrageously how "mushrooms can save the world" (reminds of WP:FLAT). The videos also display him as a lunatic (lunatic as in WP:QUACKS). He says mycelia are "sentient", comprise a "neurological network" that can communicate with humans, have "intelligence", and are a "defense against smallpox" (globally eradicated in 1980), among other bizarre delusions presented in the 2013 Discover article and elsewhere, and mentioned in this RfC comment (mycelia are related to dark matter, his mushroom hat is medicinal, mushrooms cure cancer). Stamets himself admits his ideas are weird, and Pollan sensed the implausible grandiose theories.
 * inferred a caveat that we are obligated to identify negative attributes if we concede to calling Stamets a mycologist. Like those of a snake oil salesman, Stamets' public speeches are laced with technical terms that fly fast and high over the heads of his lay audiences, while making leaps of interpretation to impossible conclusions intended to impress and create agreement, and probably, new customers for his falsely-advertised mushroom supplements. The caveat is needed for context of how Wikipedia should present an amateur mycologist (or any supposed scientist) who is also a huckster peddling unproven natural products advertised as disease preventatives, example here under "Benefits".
 * On Wikipedia, we don't give light to charlatans without using prominent caveats, such as in the articles of the con artists, Joseph Mercola as a "radiologist", Luigi di Bella as an "oncologist", or Mehmet Oz (Dr. Oz), as a trusted "internist". wrote: Yes, we are biased. Paraphrasing, Wikipedia is 1) biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience scams and mushroom products advertised with outlandish, unproven health properties; 2) biased towards evidence-based medicine, and biased against homeopathy using mushrooms to cure cancer, smallpox, or other diseases; and 3) biased towards medical treatments proven to be effective by high-quality clinical research, and biased against supplements advertised to prey on vulnerable and gullible consumers persuaded by a "mycologist" to use his mushroom products and ignore physician-prescribed medicines. Mushrooms and Stamets don't have the category visibility to attract critical attention as Oz or Mercola have, so WP:RS sources are absent to uncover his delusions and deceit. This RfC will democratically identify him as a mycologist, but a caveat is needed to show that this title enhances his credibility and opportunity to deceive consumers of his company's products. --Zefr (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - first paragraph of the intro describing Stamets as a mycologist. Actually, it's difficult finding any source that doesn't describe him as a mycologist. A couple found through Google Scholar (out of many) - Paul Stamets...has been a mycologist and mushroom enthusiast for more than 30 years. and  Paul E. Stamets, DSc (Hon) mycologist, author and advocate of bioremediation and medicinal mushrooms. Isaidnoway  (talk)  09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is far out of proportion. Forget it and get real. It's not as though we were saying "THE mycologist". Walls of text on a matter that hardly demands a discussion at all! JonRichfield (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with qualifications. I think it would be better to write "self-taught mycologist" rather than leaving the impression that he is an academically trained mycologist. ("Amateur mycologist" appears incorrect as he has a related business.) But he has clearly published on mushrooms; that is enough to make him a mycologist, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. A person who heads a company dealing with mushrom and who has written several books on the subject by definition deals with Mycology, which makes him a mycologist regardless of an official degree. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Sorry I am new to Wiki edits, and posted my response in the wrong section of Talk. I was searching for Paul Stamet, and was a bit shocked to see him listed as just an American Businessman in his introduction, when his life's work has been in the field of Mycology. The Cambridge Dictionary definition of a mycologist is; "a person who studies mycology (=the science of fungi). For over 40 years Paul Stamets has indeed studied fungi, cultivated mushrooms ( and patented new cultivation techniques), worked with numerous reputable institutions researching fungi, holds several mycological based patents, has discovered and named several mushrooms, is referenced in many distinguished journals and articles as a mycologist, and has been referenced by many current academically and amateurly trained mycologist as their inspiration in the field. I would not simply leave this argument claiming Paul Staments is in fact a practicing mycologist, I would argue that he is the preeminent mycologist in the United States. If you are going to contend that Paul Staments is not a mycologist, please edit Jane Goodall's wiki page as well. By the logic of those opposing Staments as a mycologist,  Goodall is not a primatologist or anthropologist as stated in her wiki. Who arbitrates this dispute? I also think whomever changed my edit has something against Mr Stamets. Listing him as a businessman instead of an author, entrepreneur, speaker, and Mycologist seems to have a negative connotation the way it is written. I think a review is in order and call for a resolution. Clearly, the vast majority of people on this thread list Mr Stamets as a Mycologist. --Yousavvy (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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


 * It is not a 'push'. It was the established consensus for years on this article. The push appears to be in the direction of actively removing the term. There are certainly other aspects of Stamets work that could be better covered. That is outside the scope of this rfc.Dialectric (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE, (namely this), does not translate to well established consensus. This is something that could have been fixed without a sudden RfC too given how little discussion occurred in the above section. Normally it's better to wait at least more than 24 hours before an RfC while others watching can comment with other ideas tackling the issue. Usually that negates the need for an RfC in the first place, or else it gives developed ideas for people to comment on for a good RfC comparison if it's actually needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Past consensus means little in the best of circumstances. There are clear FRINGE, COI, and SOAP issues here.
 * I've looked over the editing for COI problems. In addition to the three accounts I declared as connected contributors, there are edits from SPAs and ips that are likely. Given the amount of attention the article has received since, I'm not seeing anything that needs follow-up. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Entrepreneurial mycologist", from the TED profile, is a concise description that isn't as promotional or potentially misleading as simply mycologist. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * closure requested at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Support: The inclusion of the descriptor “mycologist” is obvious:

- Stamats is an editor for the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms.

- Stamets has published a mycological related paper in Nature

- Stamets' Nature article Extracts of Polypore Mushroom Mycelia Reduce Viruses in Honey Bees is ranked in the 99th percentile of over 260,000 tracked articles of a similar age in all journals tracked by Scientific Reports.

- Stamets is involved in multiple NIH-funded clinical studies on HIV treatments using fungi as adjunct therapies.

- Stamets has obtained fungi-related patents.

- Stamets received an honorary Doctorate of Science (D.Sc.) degree from the College of Natural Medicine

- Stamets became the first-ever recipient of the Mycology Society of America's Gordon and Tina Wasson Award. Named after the late preeminent ethnomycologists, the award is intended “to recognize people with non-traditional academic backgrounds who have made outstanding contributions to the field of mycology, or who have widely transmitted significant scientific or aesthetic knowledge about fungi to the general public.

- Stamets received an award for "Contributions to Amateur Mycology" from the North American Mycological Association.

- Stamets was invited to deliver the Ted talk "Paul Stamets on 6 Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World"

- TEDMED talk invited Stamets to deliver "Is the world ready for a Medical Mushroom Mystery Tour?"

- Stamets received the President's Award from the Society for Ecological Restoration: Northwest Chapter, in recognition of his contributions to Ecological Restoration.

- Stamets authored six mycology books

There is nothing misleading by stating the fact that Paul Stamets is a mycologist. I state that this is a fact because as was stated above, the Cambridge Dictionary definition of a mycologist is; "a person who studies mycology (=the science of fungi).” To contend that Paul Stamets does not at a minimum study mycology is curious. There is no need to describe him as an amaturer mycologist. Clearly, Paul Stamets is a professional in the area of mycology. The education section speaks for itself. It is absolutely incredible that someone like Paul Stamets has risen to his stature in the field of mycology without an advanced degree. Let us not forget the other great scientists who lacked an advanced degree such as Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison (who only had 3 months of high school), Jane Goodall (which was mentioned above), and countless more. This is silly now. I agree with the above post that this needs resolved.

I also respectfully disagree with the "entrepreneurial mycologist" descriptor. I think anyone who reads the page understands that Stamets did not seek an advanced degree. Moreover, the term itself is confusing in my opinion. Keithdyer101 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm just curious, on the Administrator's notice board you refrenced that this RfC has COI and is FRINDGE. How do you justify that? Where is the conflict of interest? The issue before the editors is whether or not Paul Stamets constitutes a mycologist. Keithdyer101 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not what I wrote. This article has a history of COI and SOAP problems, and Stamets has made many FRINGE claims. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Describing Stamets as a mycologist is not misleading. It is following numerous reliable sources. 'Entrepreneurial mycologist' is not used by any source that I have seen except for the TED profile, and adds a vague qualifier. Anyone who uses scientific research for financial ends could be called entrepreneurial, and it is clear from the rest of the article that Stamets runs a business focused on mushroom products. 'Largely self-taught mycologist' is more focused, and that wording is close to what Michael Pollan wrote, but in my opinion no qualifiers are necessary as the nature of his study and business are made clear in the article and we can reasonably expect our readers to read more than a single sentence.Dialectric (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add this to the list:

https://exponential.singularityu.org/medicine/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/11/Exponential-Medicine-2019-Agenda-v9.pdf

Described as "the world's leading mycologist" Keithdyer101 (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not remotely independent, but simple publicity. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You are correct. However, it is Singularity U who is simply promoting him as "the world's leading mycologist". An organization made that determination based on his body of work and reputation. Just like countless other publications which are cited above. This is getting tiresome. Keithdyer101 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This source is a non-starter. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

To repeat the overwhelming majority of the editors of this thread: What about the Seattle Times, the NY Times,Discover Magazine and Nature? What about the fact that he has discovered multiple species of fungi previously unknown to science? Keithdyer101 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd expect the result of this RfC will be to include it. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

information about patents unnecessarily deleted
I read through the edit history for this page, and noticed that information about patents had been removed. The editor in question stated in the edit summary:
 * "(→‎Patents: SOAP - if there are independent sources that support any mention of any of his patents, please bring them up on the talk page)"

As it turns out, there are mentions of his patents in reliable sources. So I included this on the page:


 * Stamets has filed 22 patent applications, and has been awarded at least four patents related to non-toxic fungal pest control.

And it was quickly reverted by another editor that stated: "(Undid revision 914084314 by 65.60.163.223 WP:PEA; WP:NOTCV)" '''So two different editors have removed information about patents using different reasoning. I don't want to make any accusations, but it seems ironic that the same editors who believe Stamets is not a mycologist are also engaged in a very intentional removal of information about his scientific work.''' Coincidence? Or bias? Any other thoughts? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying two sources. The second is just relaying Stamets own announcement, so I don't think it is helpful.
 * The Mother Jones source mentions the numbers in passing, in context of Stamets discoveries and concerns about "big bad pharma". I'm not sure it deserves even a footnote without better sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Another source: How mushrooms will save the world (Salon. 25 November 2002)
 * "A former logger turned scanning-electron microscopist, Stamets is not your typical scientist -- a role he obviously relishes ... 'He's the most creative thinker I know,' says Dr. Donald Abrams, the assistant director of the AIDS program at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. Abrams says he became interested in the medicinal properties of mushrooms after hearing one of Stamets' lectures. Stamets is now a co-investigator on a grant proposal Abrams is authoring on the anti-HIV properties of oyster mushrooms. Jack Word, former manager of the marine science lab at Battelle Laboratories in Sequim, Wash., calls Stamets 'a visionary.' Stamets takes bigger, faster leaps than institutional science, acknowledges Word, who, along with Stamets and several other Battelle researchers, is an applicant on a pending mycoremediation patent. 'But most of what Paul sees has eventually been accepted by outside groups. He definitely points us in the right direction' ... A couple of years ago Stamets partnered with Battelle, a major player in the bioremediation industry, on an experiment conducted on a site owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation in Bellingham. Diesel oil had contaminated the site, which the mycoremediation team inoculated with strains of oyster mycelia that Stamets had collected from old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Two other bioremediation teams, one using bacteria, the other using engineered bacteria, were also given sections of the contaminated soil to test. Lo and behold. After four weeks, oyster mushrooms up to 12 inches in diameter had formed on the mycoremediated soil. After eight weeks, 95 percent of the hydrocarbons had broken down, and the soil was deemed nontoxic and suitable for use in WSDOT highway landscaping."

So again, some mention about patents, as well as research projects. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And another source: Meet Washington’s spirited mushroom man (Seattle Times. 4 December 2010)
 * "Stamets, 55, neither works for a university nor has an advanced degree, but he holds three U.S. patents ... He has supplied cultures to Bastyr University for a study of one strain’s immunological effects on breast-cancer patients. He has supplied cultures to the University of Mississippi for testing against smallpox and E. coli. He holds a patent with celebrity doctor Andrew Weil for a mushroom extract used in an anti-inflammatory skin cream ... When he had carpenter ants in his house, he figured he’d try mycelium on them. He got a patent for a pesticide that attracts the bugs to a natural poison."

More mentions of patents here. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So if we ever have a section on his research, that section might footnote that he has a few patents. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Thanks for your input. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who is a co-inventor on more than a dozen U.S. patents, I do not support patents as citations. 'Evidence' described in patent applications need not be from actual, conducted science experiments. Rather, can be just thought experiments. If there is ever to be a section on his research, it should rest on content published in peer-reviewed journals, not patents. David notMD (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think at a minimum we should include the patent that the Nature paper is based upon. Keithdyer101 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How do the detailed biographies describe him?
Looking through the sources and potential ones mentioned in discussions, where are the detailed biographies, and how do they describe Stamets? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this the only detailed biography we have on him? I notice it doesn't call him a "mycologist" outright, but does call him "a renowned expert on mushrooms" and "mushroom expert". --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources in the article are heavily focused on Stamets. The 2009 Mother Jones article and the 2013 Discover Magazine article currently used as references have as much biographical content as the Seattle Times article, and both refer to him as a mycologist multiple times.Dialectric (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources in the article are heavily focused on Stamets. The 2009 Mother Jones article and the 2013 Discover Magazine article currently used as references have as much biographical content as the Seattle Times article, and both refer to him as a mycologist multiple times.Dialectric (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Multiple NPR segments cite Paul Stamets as a Mycologist. A recent example from the segment "Here and Now" with Robin Young discussing some of his work with Washington State University and the Department of Agriculture, January 2019. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/01/28/mushrooms-fungi-disease-bees. Here is a longer segment produced by American Public Media and North Carolina Public Radio. Cited from their segment The Story August, 2010. http://www.thestory.org/stories/2010-08/mushroom-man This is just another example of many public radio segments establishing redundant evidence that Paul Stamets is indeed a Mycologist. To contend that Stamets does not at the very least study fungi in the field of mycology is curious and I question the motivations behind such faulty logic. --Yousavvy (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I specifically asked for detailed biographies. The "mycologist" discussion is above. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned the "mycologist" discussion should be closed. There are only three in opposition (principle active opposition from Ronz and Zefr) and ~sixteen with support. We have citations from Nature, Discover, NY Times, NPR, etc. supporting the term "mycologist" which is merely somebody who studies fungi. Stamets clearly fits into this category, regardless if he has a fungi company, regardless if he has an advanced degree. You brought up this biography question, and then proceeded to answer it yourself, again bringing up the term "mycologist." That is why I replied with two more sources covering an interview with some of Stamets background and current mycological research. It is my opinion that  has some undisclosed bias and is far from neutral in this conversation. There have been unnecessary deletions and I am reading a lot of contrarian nonconstructive statements from  . Please keep your editing neutral and avoid non-consensual deletions against the strong majority of editors on this page.  if you do plan on remaining an editor on this page, you might want to familiarize yourself with the differences between mushrooms, mycelium, and fungi. From your edits and comments, it seems dubious at best that you are familiar with the meanings. Then again,  , you are not a Mycologist, are you? Yousavvy (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * Your assumptions about other editors, especially with no evidence, is inappropriate. Please review WP:TALK and WP:REDACT your comments about other editors.
 * This discussion is to determine how to present the information. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about recent attempts at expansion
I recently did an edit on this article, where I translated the one from the Greek Wiki and complemented the English article with missing information, or what I thought was "non-contentious, acceptable, and relevant information". Here is a list of edits I made:
 * changed Stamets' birthplace in the infobox, as per existing English article
 * added website of organization/company founded by Stamets, both in infobox and in External links
 * added paragraph about Stamets' passion for preserving, cloning, and protecting mushrooms (with reference)
 * created Career section and mentioned Stamets' work, such as his editorial position, consulting position at the University of Arizona, and research activity, including his participation in clinical studies (referenced); mentioned patents (referenced), discovery of new mushroom species, etc.
 * added Recognition section, mentioning the awards Stamets has received throughout his career (referenced), mentions of and interviews with him in documentary films (referenced), TED and TEDMED talks he has done, etc.
 * Updated Stamets' bibliography, which was missing several titles

Within a very short time, a senior editor (Zefr) came along and scrubbed my entire edit session, as if none of it had any validity or value to the article (even his bibliography being more accurate as a result, really?!). The revert was poorly explained, in my opinion, but more importantly, such wholesale deletion of another editor's work is harsh, callous, and disrespectful, not to mention lazy. The senior editor in question gives the impression that their seniority, and perhaps their long-term interest in the topic at hand, gives them overarching authority over what can and cannot be included in this article, which of course is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. The editor also mentioned more than once (a discussion took place on both our user talk pages) that Stamets' credentials as a mycologist were questionable, and generally made their distaste for the individual known. Stamets' credibility aside, this is an instance of non-impartial editorial activity, in my opinion, as if disputed or contentious content had no place on Wikipedia as long as enough editors agreed it was such, and it gives the impression that since Stamets may not conform to mainstream scientific or research protocols in the field of mycology, perhaps even verging on deception, his profile should be as brief as possible so as not to seem to be promotional (should we then also transform the pages of Deepak Chopra and Dr. Oz into stubs for fear that a lengthy and unnecessarily detail-heavy article lends them undue credibility?!). Lastly, I would like to point out that this type of callous and lazy editorial oversight has a discouraging effect on other editors, certainly less experienced or perhaps less dedicated ones, and when a "senior editor" behaves in this manner, how is one to feel as if the "little guy" has any chance to improve an article that is so closely guarded by mean and inflexible guardians? werewolf (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that removals have been excessive on this page. If some aspect of Stamets' work has been covered by 2+ reliable sources, it is reasonable to include it in the article unless clear objections based on policy are detailed on this talk page. WP:NOTCV may apply to article content based solely on a single source, particularly one connected with the article subject, but reads more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT when applied to content sourced to multiple WP:RS sources. I suggest focusing on content rather than editors; if the content is sound, supported by multiple reliable sources, and gets repeatedly removed, there are ways to escalate, including Dispute resolution noticeboard, and, if talk page discussion is stuck, a WP:RFC.Dialectric (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to focusing on content rather than editors, it's always helpful to work in small edits with clear and descriptive edit summaries. Please be sure that any new content is clearly verified by independent and reliable sources that meet BLP-quality. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And the many policy-based concerns presented earlier on your talk page (User_talk:Revirvlkodlaku) appear to have merit. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing everything in the second, much smaller attempt at expansion, the only thing that I'm unsure of is birthplace. I've tagged it, assuming that it's verified already. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The name of Stamets' company, Fungi Perfecti, should appear in the lede. It is covered by multiple RS sources including a number of refs used in this article. A brief mention of the company name is not advertising.Dialectric (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we don't mention his business anywhere else, I suppose it's ok in the lede. I've restored it to the lede. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADNO states that notability is required in the lead. His company is not notable in the general public, does not have content in the article body (nor should it), and is a conspicuous scam that the encyclopedia should not enable for advertising per WP:PROMO. If it must be mentioned, it can be in the external link. --Zefr (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fungi Perfecti is mentioned in multiple RS sources that discuss Stamets. The company name appears in 3+ NYTimes articles, and in several other publications used as refs here. Including a company or organization name that has been discussed in reliable sources is neither endorsement nor advertising. Your view that his company is a scam is a separate issue that has no bearing on inclusion or exclusion of content. If you have RS refs that describe the company as such, please add them. Dialectric (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mention of his company by credible sources that didn't rigorously assess him or his company does not make the company notable or scientifically valid. The company itself has not been critically reviewed by peers in mycology, so this is a matter of WP:PROVEIT on Stamets and his company (and on editors who are misled to believe him) to prove acceptance by professional mycologists or more broadly the scientific community. They are not. See WP:FLAT and WP:LUNATICS. Paraphrasing Jimbo Wales: "Every single person who believes a lunatic like Stamets needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful." The company doesn't meet this burden of proof, and should not be highlighted in the lead. --Zefr (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not need to assess the company's merits to mention it. The 'burden of proof' is that company exists. This is easily proven and sourced. While I do not agree that Fungi Perfecti is fraudulent, even if it is, that is also not a reason for exclusion from the article. Wikipedia includes the names of pyramid schemes, cults, hate groups, and various other objectionable structures in the articles of people involved. Naming the company does not have anything to do with professional mycologists or scientists, or their approval or acceptance. The company sells, among other things, home mushroom growing kits and hats with mushroom graphics on them. WP:PROVEIT is inapplicable as there are multiple citations which prove that this is the company name. WP:FLAT and WP:LUNATICS are essays and do not in any way dictate content.Dialectric (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is becoming quite ridiculous. @Zefr, you are acting like an absolute bully, reverting any edit that doesn't suit your prejudiced view of Stamets, whom you are calling a scammer on no basis that I can see supported anywhere. You are not the gatekeeper for this article and what does and doesn't get included in it should not come down to your diktat. Now I'm being accused of edit warring because I made a second edit?! This is nonsense, and @Ronz I believe you have not been impartial. Why not accuse Zefr of edit warring as well? I'm leaving this article alone because it's not worth my time and frustration, but savvy readers can see this nonsense conflict if they look at the edit history and talk page, and as I mentioned before, not only does this demonstrate a highly unprofessional precedent to Wikipedia readers and editors, but it discourages editors from going against "senior editors" because clearly there is a hierarchy of power at work here. werewolf (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you're going to focus on editors rather than content, you're going to find attempts to edit Wikipedia to be frustrating.
 * Meanwhile, can someone find a reference verifying his birthplace? --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

== The unsubstantiated claim that Paul Statements is "mycologist" - a scientist in the field of mycology - is not up to Wiki standards and may create false perceptions in the general public (both about Stamets and about science) ==

In the first lines of the first section it says without any references or factual substantiation that Paul Stamets is "mycologist", which is a scientist engaged in, in this case, in a branch of natural science of biology, namely mycology). Nor does it follows from all the subsequent sections of the article that Mr Stamets is a scientist. There are also no indirect references to any credentials and attributes, such as education and academically recognized works in the field of mycology etc, that would give any objective ground to state that Stamets is a scientist. Yet, there may, perhaps, be enough enough evidence to claim that Mr Stamets is a popularizer, publicist and, perhaps, and activist dedicating his time and works to drawing public attention to the subject of fungi, its potential for the society and economics, and to the importance of advancing scientific research in the field of mycology (all those are good activities, but they have little to do with being a scientist in mycology, that is "MYCOLOGIST" as the first section of the Wiki article claims altogether unsubstantiatedly)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipp Mirzoev (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not establish credentials necessary to qualify as a mycologist then dig into the subject's background to identify his credentials then have a vote to see if those credentials meet the requirements.
 * As with EVERYTHING else (the height of a building, whether someone is a white supremacist, what the capital of a country is, how many copies of an album were sold, etc.), Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If multiple independent reliable sources said that Stamets is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich, then argue about whether to link it to cheese sandwich or cheese and sandwich.
 * Multiple independent reliable sources identify Stamets as a mycologist so Wikipedia neutrally and verifiably states Stamets is a mycologist. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of the wikipedia editors circle at all and am just perusing, but I noticed that Stamets is not listed as a mycologist in the fungi wikiprojects list of mycologists. Should this be changed? DouglasGlizzard24 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your ideology that the words "scientist" and "mycologist" describe a narrow band of institutionally-granted titles has really no bearing on Wikipedia. He's a scientist and a mycologist because (a) he engages in those activities and (b) because sources call him a mycologist and a scientist. No institution or ideology gets to gatekeep "doing science" with its own credential system. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ad a "Controversies" section
I came to understand the subject after a video and found an article short to the point of confusion. Came to the talk page and what I've read here is so absurd to be hilarious. The very reason I came was that I wanted to understand the context of his more weird statements, but the article is deceptively void of information.

What I found here is that we should just swap the article for the talk page. The guy is pretty much, and verifiable by numerous sources, relevant for Wikipedia, mycologist, successful entrepreneur, researcher, all that WHILE being biased, self-taught, kinda nuts and with COI, not DESPITE that.

The current state of the article merely harms its purpose. Relevant information is being withheld out of personal disagreement. This doesn't damages Stamets' business as he already advocates for himself pretty damn well, this damages Wikipedia and the reader's access to relevant knowledge to make a judgement if it is needed.Monteparnas (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC and suggest specific changes to the article. Controversy sections are to be avoided per WP:CSECTION. --Hipal (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated marriage history was reverted, labeled "Trivial" by Senior Editor
I updated the section "Personal Life", which had a single sentence that was factually incorrect: "Stamets is married to Carolyn "Dusty" Yao." With referenced sources I updated the year they were married and the year they were divorced. I also added information about Stamets' first marriage, from an interview article about him, published in Discovery Magazine in 2013.

Zefr reverted my edits and deleted the entire "Personal Life" section, with comment "trivial content". I believe this reversion is unwarranted, capricious, and a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Labeling it as "trivial content" is a weak justification. "Trivial content" about a person might include -- which toe is longest, freckle configuration on the face or birthmark, their favorite color, or the most famous person they ever met.

Stamets is a public person and personality, by his own choice and by social and media engagement with him. Many living public people, including actors and politicians, have their marital history and status on their Wikipedia page. I know of no rule against it. (If there is such a rule or norm, please let me know.)

Since Stamets himself has talked about his marriages and, especially, the impact they had on his professional and business career, his marriage history and status are not purely private information, hidden from public view, nor are they irrelevant to his professional and public persona.

Furthermore, other Internet Services (such as Google) pick up information from Wikipedia and provide answers to questions like "Is Paul Stamets married?". Currently they provide incorrect information because the Wikipedia information is incorrect. Deleting the entire "Personal Life" section will not solve this problem, because "scraping" services like Google will just retain and use the previous information.

Finally, Zefr has a history of unwarrented and capricious reversions on this page. See this section, above. He/she/they never replied to the complaints of the original poster nor justified the reversion action.

I hope that Zefr will reply to this section and explain & justify the reversion action.

I hope other Wikipedia editors will help me restore the "Personal Life" section with the corrections I added. Russell Thomas (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If this information is widely known and published by WP:RS sources, then provide one or more for both marriages. Zefr (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You will notice that my updated information did provide information on both marriages from reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. Namely, the Discovery Magazine article from 2013, which was based on interviews of Stamets himself.  If it helps, I can find other published information about his second marriage.  Not sure about the first.
 * Yes, this information has been widely known and made public by Stamets himself.
 * Question: Why did you delete all information about his marriage(s), when public people regularly have such information in their Wikipedia pages, under "Personal Life" or similar sections? Russell Thomas (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There was an adequate statement and source (reference #1) before your edit. You added a source from the Discover author's personal website, trivial information about Weil, and an unverifiable statement from the California Courts about a divorce. If the 2021 divorce is a fact, then there appears to be no useful and current personal information, justifying the deletion. Your edit also introduced 3 format errors in the sentence; observe WP:REFPUNCT. Zefr (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to submit this to Dispute_resolution_requests Russell Thomas (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(Responding to WP:3O request) Mentions in secondary sources are normally how we determine if something is WP:DUE. Discover (magazine) looks like a good secondary source (it's a magazine with its own Wikipedia article, and this article on Stamets was written by Kenneth Miller), so I think it'd be reasonable to include some info on Stamets' marriages and personal life. The URL probably links to a personal website because someone took the original magazine PDF and cropped it to only include this one article. The URL could be deleted from the citation template if it's an issue. There is no guidance or prohibition in MOS:BIO about mentioning marriages that I can see. Just be careful not to mention any wives or childrens' names unless they are already famous (have Wikipedia articles) per WP:BLPNAME. The divorce court record reference is problematic since that is original research. What if you looked up a record by someone with the same name as Paul Stamets by mistake? An expert from a secondary source should be doing this kind of research, not Wikipedians. I think mention of the divorce should be sourced to something else or removed. Hope this helps. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Novem Linguae for your analysis and recommendations.
 * I found a link to the original Discovery Magazine website, but it might be pay-walled. I will double check.  Yes, link was to the author's personal website, which had the complete, original article with no paywall or advertising.  Maybe I will include both (like Internet Archive links are often included).
 * I am still searching for WP:RS sources for the marriages divorces. I found Ancestry.com sources for the first marriage and divorce, and also for the section marriage, but no WP:RS sources yet for the second divorce.  (The second divorce is too recent to be included in Ancestry.com data sources).
 * I take to heart your caution about using names of people who are not yet public persona. Of the two marriages, only Carolyn "Dusty" Yao is mentioned because her name appears in several published media (magazines, blogs, video) as his wife and was a co-owner and partner in Stamets' businesses.
 * I also understand the rules about no original research. The court record can be found through websites that offer that service, but I understand these sources do not qualify as WP:RS sources.  I view this court as a placeholder until better source(s) can be found.
 * I will go ahead and revert back to my edit version and make changes and corrections you and Zefr recommended.
 * Hopefully, this resolves the editorial dispute. Russell Thomas (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With this edit, I used the 2013 Discover article to state his marriage to Yao. That is the only source available for his personal life. Zefr (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have found additional WP:RS sources and will add them. Russell Thomas (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)