Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 12

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

After the split, we have morphic resonance pointing to something that doesn't give the full treatment of morphic resonance. The scientific reaction is awkwardly placed in the later section The Presence of the Past. It's just out of place there. I would move to combine the sections as they were; the Maddox deal may remain in the middle or placed later; that doesn't matter to me. As far as I know, the original 1981 book included little or no experiments, so we can't just move the scientific reaction paragraph to the one-book-only A New Science of Life section. vzaak (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose deleting the split. I think the reaction of Maddox to the first book is important enough to be treated under a separate subheading. It provides much-needed context for both the way it places morphic resonance outside of the mainstream and the way Sheldrake's ability to attract publicity seems to enflame incendiery reaction.
 * The paragraph and heading structure here, I argue, is more important than the anchoring device. Since I agree with Barney and others that creating a separate "Morphic resonance" POVFORK would be a bad idea, I'd suggest "Morphic resonance" be simply made a redirect term to this article, instead of to one article section. Many editors have already opined that, but for Morphic resonance, Sheldrake would not be notable. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm willing to concede the point if we can keep the book for burning subhed and change the anchoring device for Morphic resonance. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * Books
 * Morphic resonance books
 * MR book #1
 * Big flap over MR book #1
 * MR book #2
 * Telepathy, etc. books
 * T book #1
 * T book #2
 * Questioning modern science books
 * Q book #1


 * There are some problems: 1) there is no section anywhere on MR all by itself, either under Books or anywhere else; 2) criticisms of books in various categories have been confounded, e.g., criticism of T books appears under MR book #2. If this were fixed, the article would be much improved. Lou Sander (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree such an arrangement could benefit readers, I have practical concerns that I think -- unfortunately -- torpedo the plan. First,I do not think we can split books into morphic-books and telepathy-books.  Sheldrake's core theory is that, roughly, baby plants grow into a certain adult shape partly because of DNA and partly because of 'unconscious telepathy' with existing adult plants (or maybe with atoms in general or somesuch).  This is not in any way consciousness, as a normal reader would think of it, but it resembles the 'universal consciousness is everywhere' sort of new-age-thinking, right?  But the sheldrake stuff, not the new-age-interpretation, is actually just straightforward:  adult plant X has a specific physical shape, which gives of gravitational attraction, plus speculatively some subquantum stuff, and the baby plant Xprime, being composed of similar components in a similar arrangement, resonates with the adult-shape.  Very hand-wavy of course, but that's the gist of the idea.  Same for insulin, termites, pigeons... and mammals.  I *do* think that questioning-modern-mechanistic-science is a separate category (though I doubt his *books* can be so separated since presumably they all have *some* morphic stuff in them).  Under the questioning-group we have the philosophy-of-science stuff about advocating questioning conservation of energy w.r.t. dark energy, and we also have the (very distinct) books on spirituality e.g. Angels.  Basically, though, at the end of the day, I think we are going to end up with the article organized by book-title, rather than by type-of-concept (with books where that concept was mentioned getting listed on a per-concept basis rather than vice versa).  It is too difficult to flip things around, because WP:RS covers books, not concepts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * David, it's not quite true that "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis, as described in these two books and his subsequent writing and lectures...". Every book mentioned in the Books section covers morphic resonance in one way or another. It's not right to lump just those two books under morphic resonance. I've restored the old headings, moved the criticism paragraph to the ANSL section, and added a note about evidence in the 2009 reissue and other books. With the supportive words from the review Barney just added, I think it works out pretty well. vzaak (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In both case discussed yesterday morning, making sure the Sokal affair was a joke and keeping "A book for burning" under its own heading, my edits were initial reactions to conversation on this page. In both cases, subsequent edits improved on my first stabs. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

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


 * Yet the facts are presented; he had one career in academia, and then went freelance. Btw, Sheldrake has *never* been elected as a Royal Society Fellow, which is one of the highest honours a scientist can receive, as it indicates that other fellows greatly respect your work.  Typical complaining from a Sheldrake fan (who can't be bothered to log in).  Your habit of pasting rambling monologues on this talk page isn't very helpful either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with vzaak on this one: citation needed.  Your opinion is that Sheldrake left science (and your opinion is that 'being in academia' is mandatory for being a scientist).  Cite me a source that says "after 1978, Sheldrake is no longer a scientist".  Cite me some sources from the last couple of years that introduce him as a parapsychologist and author, rather than a biologist and author.  Are you quibbling about the difference between being *in* the Royal Society, and being a Fellow of the Royal Society, or are you claiming that Sheldrake lies through his teeth when he says he was a Royal Society Fellow?    p.s.  I'll continue to ignore your breach of WP:NPA; have some more WP:ROPE.  The sad thing is, we are on the same side, but to you, this is just WP:BATTLEGROUND and time to WP:RGW.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


 * Comment. It is important that there is consensus on Sheldrake's status as a biologist/scientist. Whether he is also a parapsychologist is less important, and unrelated. I have a concern that those responding that he is a biologist will be called names, reported to authorities, accused of being fanbois, etc., and that if there is a consensus it will be ignored. It's not that I mind being the victim of that stuff, but promoting it through honest responses is SO unrewarding. Why support an uncivil discussion that leads nowhere? Lou Sander (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. (Yes, I'm sure that is the case.  Since I am at no risk of being subjected to WP:9STEPS, I am more than willing to stick my neck out, and say Sheldrake is a biologist/biochemist, just like the bulk of the sources say, and insist it *must* be in the first sentence, where currently biologist has been replaced by parapsychologist, for POV reasons, or just by accident during the edit-wars.)
 * However, this WP:POLL is merely and simply and ONLY about whether it is *permissible* to discuss the matter (biologist-vs-parapsychologist) on the talkpage, or not.
 * Barney has attempted to drive off VeryScaryMary, and is now attempting to silence myself, through all sorts of policy-violations. I'm not really interested in how many supportThatDiscussion votes show up, but rather in how many folks will join Barney in crossing the line.  Specifically, this line -- TE.  Nobody should vote supportThatDiscussion, if you fear retribution.  BUT NOBODY SHOULD FEAR THAT, and the fact that people do, and that Barney would dare use the tactics he repeatedly uses, is clear evidence that this article is a basket-case.  I intend to fix it.  Anybody that votes declineThatDiscussion is not being WP:NICE, and I'm one of the Pillar Four Nazis that demands everybody be nice.  Anyways, Lou, please feel no obligation to vote supportThatDiscussion.  Let's just sit back and see who votes declineThatDiscussion.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * In my view, the NPOV tag is justified until and unless the question of whether BLP requires that "biologist" or "scientist" be included in the lede, in the present tense, relying on the sources. The arguments against acknowledging that Sheldrake is a biologist are all in the nature of "he had two careers, the one as a scientist are in the past" or "scientists do science" or "Sheldrake stopped doing science years ago." But those requires WP;SYNTH with a fair dose of a skeptic's POV.
 * In contrast, there are numerous reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist, in the present tense, written long after he started advocating MR. I haven't seen one that says Sheldrake is no longer a biologist. He hasn't been excommunicated from the Church (or Mosque or Synagogue) of Science, he hasn't been defrocked, his degrees have not been declared null and void.
 * Wikipedia should rely on the sources. Sources call him a biologist. Sources that dispute, debunk, disprove or disdain Sheldrake do not say "he's not a scientist" or "he's not a biologist". They say he's egregiously wrong, but that's a different thing. And it's made quite clear in the article (and even in the lede) why it's fair to say he's wrong. There are sources for that. But there are none to support the assertion that he should not be called a biologist and ander both BLP and NPOV, it's against policy to withhold that descriptor. David in DC (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

"Mainstream" is the way out our quandary. You seem comforable with it. If you want to see the skeptical POV (which, according to Guy even comes in an extreme version, lurking in long grass) in action, try putting "mainstream" in the article to describe Sheldrake's debunkers. Hey, User:IRWolfie-, would you care to help us here? If you and I can both agree to the utility of Vzaak's use of "mainstream" on this talk page, maybe we can lead the way toward stabilizing this article.David in DC (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am leaving. I wish you well, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I accept it in the same gracious spirit in which it has been offered, and wish you well, as well. David in DC (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Vzaak, you seem to be having the discussion about biologist-vs-parapsychologist, but you are not contributing a response to my poll. Is your policy to ignore me, and thus implicitly side with Barney?   As to your sources, which are of course WP:RS, what are the dates on them?  Any sources in the 2011/2012/2013 timeframe, such as the ones provided by VeryScaryMary?  We should not take out your sources, or her sources, but wikipedians cannot cherrypick, we must mirror what the sources say, and when they conflict, describe the conflict, never decide the winner and the loser.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Vzaak wrote: ...otherwise involved in biology" That is your key, by the way.  Sheldrake has been 'otherwise' involved in biology/physics/etc, as a theorizer, as a shoe-string experimenter, as a popularizer, and as a lecturer... plus the Trinity-College-bequest-money, plus the LearnDotEdu visiting professorship.  He has *also* simultaneously been involved in parapsychology (various subject-specific journals plus the Noetic thing if I understand it correctly), and most of his talks/books/etc have a strong dose thereof.  Outside his scientific theories, and his pseudoscientific pseudotheories... he has (simultaneously again more or less) published ideas in spirituality slash theology, concepts in the philosophy-of-science and the politics-of-science-funding, concepts related to philosophy-of-mind and consciousness, et cetera.  The only reason anybody in the wider world pays attention to all that stuff, is because sheldrake has such highly respectable mainstream credentials.
 * That is the story of this BLP, as neutral as I can make it. Wikipedia must tell the NPOV story, whether mine, or a variation like David's.  Not the one you (correctly) portray as pro-sheldrake, the genius-scientist shunned by the bad-priests-of-science-who-themselves-are-not-as-qualified-as-sheldrake.  (Only wikipedia's and maybe Wiseman's actions lend credence to that myth btw.)  But also not the misleading story that the article *currently* portrays as 'neutral' but is in fact exactly from the skeptic-POV-consensus with minimal varnish, synthesizing sheldrake as 'no longer fit to be called a biologist' and trying to downplay how many books he has published by glomming/hiding the stuff deep in the middle of the article, plus of course most dangerously from the WP:BLP point of view, attempting to discredit the *ideas* by way of discrediting the *BLP*.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * I'm on record above supporting the removal of "parapsychologist". How about something like: "Sheldrake is an author, lecturer, and former biochemist who writes and talks about his views on science and his research in the field of parapsychology." vzaak (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a source which says "former biochemist", sure, we can add it as a third-minority-view, under the majority view of biologist/biochemist (sourced), and the minority-view of parapsychologist (sourced). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Barney, no, wikipedia does not work that way. We do not drop the WP:RS calling sheldrake a parapsychologist, and we do not drop the far more numerous WP:RS calling him a biologist/biochemist/etc.  We mirror what the sources say.  We cannot decide to pick and choose the sources we wish.  Ian, "qualified as" is the same thing as "former".  If you want to say "qualified as", do you have a WP:RS saying exactly that? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "qualified as" is not quite the same thing. He has qualified as a biochemist. But perhaps you're right, we just need to do a source count. Even those that say he is a parapsychologist do not imply that he is not a biologist, only that he is a biologist working in the field the parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what is more important, is that he calls himself a biologist, and has a doctorate to back it up. He's a biologist. --Iantresman (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose the removal of "parapsychologist". If third-party sources call him a "parapsychologist" or a "biochemist", then that's what Wikipedia should describe him as. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have three perfectly reliable sources for parapsychologist, and cannot ignore them, even though sheldrake personally prefers the slightly-different-term psychical researcher.  But we also cannot ignore the vast and plentiful (and also perfectly reliable) sources calling him biologist/biochemist.  The argument can be made that 'Nature' in 2004 or whatever is More Reliable than some Usa Today quote from 2013, because of the hierarchy-of-reliability documented in WP:FRINGE w.r.t. newspapers, but pillar two NPOV does not permit us to *pick* which sources we want to reflect.  That's bias.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I've suggested the path out of this morass is to go with what the most esteemed and prestigious sources say -- the sources which are the most qualified to assess Sheldrake's status. Under that criteria Nature is hands-down winner, and Nature says he is a parapsychologist and former biochemist, per the sources given in the first sentence of the article. vzaak (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But your suggestion is WP:CHERRYPICKING, and whether you intend it or not, aligns with the Oft-Aggrandized-Sceptic-Conspiracy which true fans of Sheldrake already believe in, without any help from a biased wikipedia article. My suggestion for the lede was to use the grammatically awkward but reasonably illustrative "biochemist-and-now-parapsychologist" which methinks captures the situation.  And yes, I agree that it would be idiosyncratic for a BLP article... but the idiosyncrasy of the prose matches the idiosyncratic nature of the BLP we are discussing.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * V's suggestion is not useful, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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

 It would be far more relevant if in the lead section we describe Mr Sheldrake as is. He was born....then qualified in....he then wrote books....he then stepped into the world of controversy and caused lots of discussion-on-his-wiki-page-about-a- 20-word intro because of his...bla bla bla. There needs to be a time-line in all of this. You're not born a parblinkingdoobrey...and anyway I shouldn't think there is a person in the world who would describe themselves as such if they'd gone to-university-and-got-a-degree-in-something.  Ian's suggestions sound very true and fair to me. We write was he did to get to where he is now and the qualification in a scientific subject was what happened first, then the writing, then the lecturing, then the supposed 'controversy' ....tell me where in wikipedia exactly it says we can't call him a scientist, or a biologist? Veryscarymary (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not how the WP:LEAD section and introduction works.
 * The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) I think sources show that he notable for his writing and lecturer because he is a qualified biologist. I am sure there are others who have written about the same subjects, but they are not notable because they do not have a scientific background. I don't think that Nature or the New Scientist would have given Sheldrake the time of day, if he wasn't so well qualified. (2) I don't think sources show that "mainstream science" rejects Sheldrake. I think sources show that some people in mainstream science rejects some of what Sheldrake writes about. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Iantresman is correct, but the TRPoD is also correct. Here is the basic context, which the lead ought to cover.  Sheldrake is a biochemist with highly respectable credentials, and two decades of mainstream phytomorphology work... when he could no longer get funding from the holders of mainstream-purse-strings to research his telepathy-like theories, to fund his research Sheldrake instead wrote a half-dozen popular books, and co-authored another half-dozen... touching on plantBiology/chemistry/physics/quantumPhysics/psychology ... as well as philosophyOfScience/politicsOfScienceFunding/theology... and thus became Extremely Controversial, Either Loved Or Hated, Both Famous And Infamous.  (TRPoD, if you disagree this is the basics, please point to a specific flaw.  Just saying you like the way the article is written now better than my summary, gets us nowhere.)
 * p.s. Speaking of getting nowhere... this article-n-talkpage WP:BATTLEGROUND, and the dramatic change-over from the slightly-pro-Sheldrake-lean that it had in May 2013 (despite IRWolfie replacing 'theory' with instead 'concept' in places in April), to the leans-anti-Sheldrake status it enjoys now, is not going away.  Mary says that Sheldrake's inherently-idiosyncratic story has "caused lots of discussion-on-his-wiki-page-about-a-20-word intro" ... and although as yet there is no WP:RS which covers the idea that Some People (sorry about the weasel words but Vzaak will not let me post the data showing who is who) use wikipedia as a way to grind their POV axes... but soon enough, if this goes on, the mainstream press will pick it up, and then the Sheldrake BLP will have a paragraph devoted to wikipedia bias, just like the Bogdanov_affair page that User:Guy mentioned (and they had arguably-fake PhD credentials!).  Folks here that are battling to downplay that Sheldrake is a highly-credentialed biologist with 20 years of experience, and author of a double-handful of books published over 30 years to prove notability... are you *sure* you are best advancing the sceptic cause, by making Sheldrake's WP:BLP appear to be (to the untrained eye) victim of the vast sceptic conspiracy?  Be WP:NICE, to other wikipedians, and to Sheldrake the BLP, and get this basket-case article back into line with the bulk of the reliable sources.  Pretty please.  &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Vzaak, I wish that you had made it clearer what you meant by "conflict" earlier in the discussion. I am not familiar with Sheldrake or his work, and I did not know that he shied away from the "parapsychologist" label. It is now clear to me what the conflict is: some sources see his current work as biology, while others consider it to be parapsychology. In light of this, I think that he should be called a "researcher" in the opening sentence, and the following sentences could say what he has been researching throughout his career, preferably without explicitly referring to him as a parapsycholgist or a biologist in the first paragraph; e.g. He researched Foo from 1990 to 1995 at the University of Mayfair, and Bar from 1996 to 2000 at the University of Qux (where Foo is a biology topic and Bar is a parapsychology topic). That should hopefully make the opening paragraph free of controversial material while still capturing why the subject is notable. The conflict itself may be discussed afterwards. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: By "controversial", I mean claims supported by conflicting sources, not something controversial that Sheldrake may have said or done. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stats for the week
Columns: user | contribution | percent of total contribution

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

People are invited to double-check the numbers; start date is 15:58, 24 October 2013‎. vzaak (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, I've heard of strict deletionists, but that Legobot dude is off the charts. Do you think this merits and RfC/U?David in DC (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I think we need more of 74's wisdom. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * i am not naming names, but someone might want to read tl;dr --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (I have a contribution to make on this topic... verbose as usual unfortunately... ... but vzaak and I are discussing some complaints they had, before I post it. TBD.)  74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Vzaak has not responded yet. Very busy, I suppose.  My re-analysis of vzaak's dataset will have to wait a bit longer, kind of like Wiseman and Sheldrake, though not as Notable methinks.)  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * It's scraped from the talk page history. Obviously "contribution" can't be the number of edits; it's the total size of edits; just look at LegoBot (-10850) in the history. vzaak (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, see the very different graph of the article itself, in mainspace. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues; he describes himself as a biologist researching natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists have described him as a former biochemist doing research in the field of parapsychology.

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

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


 * Concur with vzaak's first sentence. It's better than mine.
 * Concur on reverting my bold edits per WP:BRD.
 * Hopeful that my reverted edits can be the basis for a resolution. David in DC (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


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

I don't like 's sentence, so I'd go with:
 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues he describes himself as a biologist researching natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists have described him as a former biochemist doing research in the field of parapsychology. [and then into a sentence on his academic career, and then into a sentence on what he's been doing since 1981.]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...


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


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


 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer, and researcher. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...


 * Or "researcher on science-related issues", but that seems somewhat confusing, as it could mean researching the history of science, etc. vzaak (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ((reply to Barney -- moved down here per WP:TALK etiquette guidelines)) You can't have 'author' as his job title, that's not how he made the controversy anyway, or how he got to where he is now, it's from the scientific work he did, WHEN HE WAS Working as a scientist!!  Veryscarymary (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheldrake (1942+) is an English biochemist, author and lecturer on science-related issues (specify not editorialize) phytomorphology, physics, parapsychology, philosophy, and spirituality who has published N books since 1981; he describes himself as a biologist (*this* is the sceptic POV... *he* describes himself as a psychical researcher) Sheldrake describes his research (as distinct from his Anglican spirituality or his philosophy concepts) as involving only natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists ((specify rather than WP:EDITORIALIZING)) have described him as a "former biochemist", parapsychologist(3 cites), offensive...heretic(Maddox), bizarre...speculative(Sokal), whereas journalists call him a biologist(fifteen cites) due to his UCambridge PhD and his many fellowships. HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Side question -- is the sheldrake phd from clare college, or from uCambridge, or both? Nobody says they have a phd from radcliffe, that I've seen,(WP:OR) do people really say they have a phd from clare?  (heh... back in the 2007/2008 edit-wars over Sheldrake, he and a bunch of others were editorialized out of the 'famous and notable alumni' section of the wikipedia article about Clare.  Sigh.)  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we used it, it would be more correct to say that Shelrake had a Ph.D from Cambridge University (which people have heard of). The college is a detail for the main article. --Iantresman (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ((reply to 74 -- moved down here per WP:TALK etiquette guidelines)) He's NOT a biochemist!!  Veryscarymary (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, his PhD was in biochemistry, and he had that job-title for several years... it just means, a biologist who specializes on the end of biology near chemistry, in Sheldrake's case. I'm not particularly tied to the term, and most sources use biologist, and I'm in favor of mirroring what the souces say.  p.s.  Too! Many! ((exclamation marks))  ((stay calm and keep the focus sharp))  HTH.  :-)      74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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

 It is still incorrect to call Mr Sheldrake 'an author'. I'm an author and I don't have a wikipedia page and people arguing about my credentials and qualifications. He is an author AFTER he got his credentials. And while we're on the subject. IF having qualifications, and degrees are so important, then why are they missed off this article? If having a degree is such a wonderful thing, and I expect a few editors on this page are working for or have one, why would they get it dropped off their wikipedia page just because some 'person' decides they don't like what they're doing with their qualifications. For-the-record, even though some people have disagreed that researching being started at, or dogs and cats knowing you're coming home might not be 'standard science' it was still conducted in a scientific manner....but I'm not here to argue the case about further down the page. I'm here for one reason only (then I can get on with book 15) to have a more correct lead to this article. To have Mr Sheldrake's qualification, and job title recognised and correctly displayed, where it should be, on his wikipedia page. It seems so simple!! Why is there so much argument and nitty picking about it????? i'll send you back to Goldacre's page above, name, date of birth (or not as in his case) qualification, job title.....then all the other stuff. The stats you have above relate to the quantity of WORDS (ie data-space) for each contributor, and I seem to have written quite a few words already..... If we can't agree on something as simple as this 20 word intro, then wikipedia isn't an 'open source' it's a closed shop:( Veryscarymary (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the above proposal violates WP:VALID in giving the misleading impressions of his work and standing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and Wikipedia is NOT "open source" if that means that anyone can write anything. It is an encyclopedia that has a number of policies and guidelines that restrict and determine what information is presented and how it is presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the *second* half of WP:VALID is applicable, to whether we call Sheldrake a biologist, or call him a parapsychologist? But that is conflating how we describe his *work* with how we describe *him*.  Here is the second half of WP:VALID which is a subset of WP:UNDUE.

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."
 * It is not a conspiracy theory that Sheldrake has a PhD, and thus is a biologist. It is not pseudoscience that Sheldrake has a PhD, and thus is a biologist.  Ditto 'speculative history'.  Ditto 'unaccepted theories'.  You can apply WP:VALID to the description of morphic fields and morphogenetics, but not to well-sourced facts.  Sheldrake's job title should not say "renowned author" like his facebook page, but just because we disagree with his theories does not mean we put "alleged author" or maybe "scribbler" into wikipedia as one of his job-titles.  Sheldrake is a biologist/biochemist, and an author/lecturer.  We have reliable sources also calling him a parapsychologist, and methinks those are important to include right up front, so that we don't ignore the elephant in the room, as Guy puts it.  But we cannot "take a stand" on what Sheldrake's title is; we mirror the sources.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:VALID does not apply here. (1) We are writing a biographical page which refers to minority views where WP:DUE is applicable. (2) it is no-one's "viewpoint" that Sheldrake has a Ph.D. doctorate from Cambridge University, but an indisputable fact that is as valid today, as it was when he received his doctorate. Unless you are referring to another statement, in which case, please be more specific. --Iantresman (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * where exactly do you see the exemption in WP:VALID that it does not apply to articles about living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * it is inferred. WP:VALID applies to general articles on mainstream scholarship. It would not be appropriate in an article on, for example, Political party to includes details of the Nazi Party, Monster Raving Loony Party or Australian Sex Party, because they are either unacceptable, minority, legitimate, or nonsense, and we wouldn't want to give any of them undue weight, publicity, legitimacy, or veracity. But it doesn't stop us from having a detailed article on each one, that doesn't violate WP:NPOV per WP:DUE. --Iantresman (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:VALID as part of the POLICY WP:NPOV applies to ALL pages. You dont get to pick and choose which articles policies apply to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are *two* parts to the WP:VALID policy, which is a subset of WP:UNDUE. The first part of WP:VALID does not apply to the Sheldrake article; as Iantresman says, it is talking about whether or not to mention morphogenetic fields in the biology article, not about whether to mention Sheldrake's work in the *Sheldrake* article.  And obviously, the first part of WP:VALID has nothing whatever to do with whether wikipedia calls Sheldrake a biologist, or a parapsychologist.  "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic (('political party')), Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view (('post-WWII Nazi party'))  or extraordinary claim (('Monster Raving Loony Party')) needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship ((about political parties in general... in the political party article))."  The 2nd part of WP:VALID *does* apply here in this BLP, see above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems fair to me. Whatever Sheldrake may have done in the past, these days he's mainly known for pseudoscience. It's completely fair to note that he relies on his former career for credibility, but also it would be a failure of NPOV to ignore the elephant in the room. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being dense, User:JzG, but which formulation or formulations seem fair to you. I ask because your note comes directly below one of TRPoD's cries de coeur, and I want to be sure which formulation or formulations you're referring to. Again, I apologize if I'm asking you to restate something that should be obvious. David in DC (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest numbering them, which we could do manually, or prolly better, relying on the automatic 'datestamping' of comments as a point-of-reference. The 07:59 by Vzaak, the 15:02 by 74, the 14:41 by Barney, the 20:05 by Vzaak, and so on.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think Sheldrake is most well-know for his books and theories, of which a small number of people have voiced their opinion that they think it is pseudoscience, supported by a small number of sources. --Iantresman (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. The morphic stuff is clearly and widely regarded as pseudoscience by people with credentials similar to Sheldrakes; the only supporters of morphic stuff are apparently him and those in his inner circle. His experiments with animals, etc. are in the realm of parapsychology, which, though some call it fringe, some do not. His criticisms of science are answered mildly (compared to morphic) by his qualified critics. Lou Sander (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Iantresman, Lou, try and stay on the first sentence or two of the lead. Sheldrake is mostly Notable for his books, which is why he's in wikipedia.  His scientist-credentials explain why his books took off, and the appeal-slash-infamy of his ideas explain another aspect of why.  But be specific:  what should the first sentence (or two) actually say?  Do we *need* the philosophy-of-science stuff, in the first couple sentences?  They're important to the story, but I think they belong in the fourth paragraph of the intro, not the first couple of sentences, which should say author + telepathyLike + biochemist, or somesuch.  What, exactly?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: Sheldrake is a biologist with a Ph.D from Cambridge university, who is notable for his books based on his research in the fields of parapsychology and the philosophy of science. --Iantresman (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TRPoD v1:
 * Sheldrake is an author an lecturer who received a Ph.D in biology from Cambridge university, who writes and speaks on his research in the fields of parapsychology (including telepathy and what he calls "morphic fields") and the philosophy of science.
 * i dont care much for the two "who"s but heres my toss into the ring.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * or alternatively:


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


 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English biochemist, author and lecturer. He is best known for proposing the hypothesis of morphic resonance, which claims that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". His ideas were developed from his doctorate and subsequent research in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge University.


 * Sheldrake has also conducted experiments in parapsychology and has attracted notoriety for challenging some of the core beliefs of contemporary science, arguing that science has become a series of dogmas rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. His critics claim that his books and public appearances attract popular attention but have a negative impact on the public's understanding of science. Sheldrake's work is regarded as controversial, and although he claims his experiments support his theories, his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists.
 * Tento2 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * fails WP:VALID: it presents fringe ideas without any placing them in the context that all mainstream academics view them as total hoo ha. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "All?" I know many that don't. "Hoo hah?" What academics talk like that? "VALID?" The principle doesn't require that every sentence, word, or paragraph presents both sides in context, does it? Lou Sander (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While it does not mean every sentence must contain the context placement, the LEAD must absolutely be placing the ideas in context. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong on that TRPoD, because the comment "his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists", makes the point quite adequately. Something is either accepted as being part of science or not - saying that his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scientists shows that they are not scientific, and so they have been properly placed according to WP:VALID. It is not scientific, or academic, to try to judge something as being "total hoo ha" - something either meets scientific criteria or fails, and trying to hammer the criticism more forcefully then necessary when it does fail, is one of the negative traits of pseudoskepticism, which WP pages must also seek to avoid. If you can suggest a constructive tweak that allows the content to remain objective and free of negative bias, please do Tento2 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * you are presenting the nonacceptance the the mainstream as if it is an offhand by-the-way non-important factor, when in fact it is what needs to be emphasized. WP:VALID.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't do it in an "off-hand way", but in a "matter of fact" way. Facts merely need to be stated, not exaggerated. Here is a relevant quote from the link I gave, which shows why we don't need to trash Sheldrake's claims (or imply they are "total hoo ha"). We just need to state that they have not been accepted. That is a powerful comment, and you undermine the weight of it when you try to excuse it, or justify it too much.
 * Tento2 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tento2 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"He is best known for proposing the hypothesis of morphic resonance, ..." is a neutral statement. It doesn't give the impression that it is legitimate, credible or true in any way, and nor does it dismiss it. The statement is factual, Sheldrake has made this proposal. Or course it begs the question regarding the veracity of his hypothesis, which we can subsequent discuss with secondary sources. --Iantresman (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True, that. Lou Sander (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * Frag 1 - He is basically a biologist. Scientists and biochemists are something different.
 * Frag 2 - Ph.D. isn't needed in the topic sentence, as long as it isn't papered over later.
 * Frag 3 - Useful, but not extremely necessary in the topic sentence. Don't paper over, though.
 * Frag 4 - Author and lecturer is what he is after a biologist. Maybe a "researcher, author, and lecturer"
 * Frag 5 & 6 - It breaks down here. Somebody called him a P, but P's work in labs and he really isn't one.
 * Frag 7 & 8 - Morphic needs to be mentioned explicitly.
 * Frag 9 - Good. Great, actually, if you can grant that the morphic stuff is also, really, philosophy of science. Lou Sander (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lou, Frag#9 is not the morpho-n-telepathy-like-theories, directly, that is a category-error. The most recent book, science-set-free, is largely concepts from philosophy of science, which means,  Kuhnian musing about dogmas, advocating questioning COE w.r.t. dark energy research, and other stuff *way* more generic thinking *about* the process of science in general, far away from Sheldrake's target-specific experimental work designed to detect morpho, or his reasonably target-specific theories laying out morpho, which were the previous books.  (There is a large dose of morpho-rehash in the most recent book too, of course.)  Contrast with the Sheldrake book about Angels, card-catalogue-subject "spirituality" and thus something mainstream scientists *can* criticize... but they rarely bother... it is outside their field, and better criticized by mainstream theologists&philosophers.  Sheldrake's "philosophy-of-science" also *can* be criticized by mainstream scientists, with more weight since it is *about* their field... but is still outside it, and better criticized by mainstream philosophers(-of-science when possible).  74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get it. Thanks. On further consideration, I think it's best to talk about challenging basic assumptions, rather than philosophy of science. Clear, direct language is better. Lou Sander (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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

I just found this very nice summary of Sheldrake. It is factual and well written and from a third party RS. How about we just paraphrase it to cover Sheldrake's credentials?:
 * A former research fellow of the Royal Society, Sheldrake studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he earned a PhD in biochemistry and was awarded the university’s botany prize. He was a Frank Knox Fellow studying philosophy at Harvard University and became a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology. From 1974 to 1985 he worked as a plant physiologist in Hyderabad, India, and he lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Father Bede Griffiths, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life. For many years he has been a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco.

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

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


 * I'm glad we're finally making progress on a slightly more NPOV lead, though I still argue that it's a little long. Great job, and I look forward to seeing further improvements to make it more concise and cogent. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 Hoorah! Thank you for adding some important extra words. I notice that these vital quotes from Biographies_of_living_persons need to be kept in mind when editing this page "Pages that are.....negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject..."(otherwise they will be deleted)  ...and "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Veryscarymary (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, gratitude to Vzaak. Article neutrality is now greatly improved, and I'm glad to see the NPOV tag go.  One thing that was missed in the many rewrites was that our cites for Sheldrake being called a 'scientist[1][2][3]' are actually the three cites which justify calling him a parapsychologist.  Suggest we move those three refs over to the infoboxen "occupation:biochemist,parapsychologist[1][2][3]" and put in the cites from VeryScaryMary on the word 'scientist' in the first sentence.  p.s.  TRPoD is also unhappy with the current consensus-compromise of 'scientist', but I suggest they open a new talk-page section to discuss their suggested change to 'research in parapsychology' and provide evidence that Sheldrake is *not* a scientist anymore, before changing the article.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Maybe this will help: "The theory of 'morphic resonance posits that..." cheers Blippy (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and this: "Sheldrake is scientific – at least in many respects – but his theory is wrong." cheers Blippy (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Oh dear. Barney, Barney, Barney.  What you need to understand is that this is Wikipedia.  We don't do WP:ORIG on what certain definitions are and pass judgement on whether they apply to other people's work.  We just report what others say.  I've provided three lovely refs above that demonstrate that Sheldrake's theory is referred to as a theory.  What we think is irrelevant.  All we have to do is try to maintain NPOV and report relevant information in the best prose we can manage.  We don't have to save the world :-)  Let's not get all Orwellian.  Incidentally, this is not a science article.  It a biography.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Barney is correct, we have to use terms with care, both because this is WP:BLP, and also because -- very unfortunately in my view since it directly leads to misunderstandings like this one -- this very article *is* the only article for Sheldrake's theories/hypotheses/concepts/ideas/metatheorizing, the former page-split was deleted-n-merged, and more than one person here is adamantly opposed to separation of the BLP concerns from the science-versus-pseudoscience concerns. You are also correct, Blippy, that we must not WP:EDITORIALIZE and should stick firmly to sources... but Barney's definition of theory is WP:The Truth, and also just flat out the truth, and wikipedia ought to reflect the truth.  What are the specific sentences under discussion?  Then we can see what the sources say *about* that specific facet. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) He has a theory of phytomorphology (morphogenetic fields), in his home field of biology/biochemistry
 * 2) he has a hypothesis-which-is-outside-his-credentials of quantum physics ... no math model means *not* a theory yet ... which is the generic morphic field (a subset of the morphic field theory underlies the phytomorphology).
 * 3) he also has a too-controversial-to-dub-a-hypothesis ideas concerning telepathy-like stuff, in sports teams, in the behavior of pets, in the psychic staring effect, and so on.  (Our prose should mirror what reliable sources say, rather than pick the term we editors personally prefer.)
 * 4) he has a philosophy-of-mind concept of consciousness -- some would say theory but many (including me) would only ever say concept -- as embedded *in* things rather than an emergent epiphenomenon,
 * 5) He also has some ideas-slash-concepts related to spirituality, which are definitely not theory-and-hypothesis territory
 * 6) He also has some ideas-slash-concepts related to philosophy of science, which are definitely not theory-and-hypothesis territory, but rather metatheorizing and metahypothesizing
 * Please specify which specific sentences in the article you are most concerned with, and which of the six areas they fall into. Plus, use the talkpage, please.  We have enough trouble without edit-wars in mainspace.  Come on in, sit down and chat awhile, why don't you?  But unfortunately, this article cannot be put to rights with a few quick fixes.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks 74...101!! Yes, I see there's lots of work to be done :-) I do hope it's more cozy than crazy! In answer to your hexpartate approach to Sheldrake, I reiterate that this isn't that complicated. I've provided three RS that refer to his morphic resonance theory as, well, a theory! I think that more than clears the issue up. Should we move to the following section to discuss specific word smithing? My suggested change is already there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can just call me 74, please; section-selection is up to you. We should keep the article as simple as possible, but no simpler.  :-)    And yes, I think you are correct with your sources, but morphic resonance is #1 and #2, with some parts edging into #3, and there are definitely some conflicting sources that will either refuse to call it a scientific theory there, or call it a psuedoscientific theory.  We should mirror the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So we agree? The sources refer to it as a theory, so we mirror the sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not cleared up at all. As 74 has shown you, there is a difference between theory and theory. You should try to understand this, and you will see that your three sources don't mean what you think they mean. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ORIG is pretty clear. It isn't for us to split hairs about whether something is a theory or not.  RS's refer to morphic resonance as a theory.  That's it.  Game over.  Why are you quibbling over such a basic WP practice???  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree we should mirror the sources. Agree that probably most sources call morphic resonance a theory (of biology or of physics or of some branch of science).  However, methinks that folks will step forward with mainstream sources that call morphic resonance a psuedoscience, which means we wikipedians cannot call it simply 'theory' because that would risk misleading the readers.  We have to mirror the sources, and describe any in-the-sources-conflict we may run across, rather than pick winners-n-losers among the sources.  But my main point here is, morphic resonance is not the only thing that Sheldrake has written about.  We cannot use 'theory' here there and everywhere, to describe everything Sheldrake has ever done, because some of his writing is philosophy, or politics-of-science, like the Science Set Free book for instance.  *Those* things are not theories, either in sources or in common parlance, so we should not describe them as such.  Which means, for me to know whether I agree with the wording-changes you are suggesting, I need to know which sentences you are changing, specifically. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Blippy, this is becoming absolutely ridiculous.

When I was in school (for biology) we were taught that a theory was a hypothesis that had survived rigorous scientific testing, and that a hypothesis was an educated guess. However, “educated guess” is not intended to mean “a guess by a person with a formal education” and it certainly isn’t supposed to refer to Sheldrake’s wild bullshitting. An educated guess is supposed to be a proposed explanation for a phenomenon which is based on, and viable within, a framework of established scientific evidence. When the man on the street uses the expressions “theory” or “hypothesis” he often uses them in a far more liberal sense then they are used in biology. To refer to Sheldrake’s fanciful notions as hypotheses or theories inaccurately reflects their standing within biology, and therefore it misleads the reader. It does not matter if a source refers to Sheldrake’s inane ranting as a theory or a hypothesis because we are to reflect Sheldrake in relationship to the mainstream per WP:VALID. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well 76...90, at least we agree on something! You are correct - this is absolutely ridiculous!  Since when do people reject Scientific American and The Guardian as RS's?  Perhaps you might revisit your school notes and find the section about how to edit a WP article  :-)  Unfortunately you are mistaking this article for a high school essay.  Nobody cares what you or I think.  If you disagree with Sheldrake then by all means dust off your PhD in biology and prove him wrong, like others have attempted/done.  That isn't the purpose of WP.  We are simply here to provide a NEUTRAL set of ACCURATE information gleaned from RELIABLE SOURCES.  Your half remembered definitions from school are simply not needed.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am obviously not proposing that we use my stated definition of hypothesis within the article Blippy. I am stating that the biological usage of hypothesis is at odds with the common usage of hypothesis.  Unless you have WP:RS which show that Sheldrake’s hogwash is regarded as a legitimate biological hypothesis then WP:BURDEN disallows you from presenting it as such.  If you are seriously suggesting that an article from Scientific American allows you to present Sheldrake’s ideas as a biological hypothesis then I suggest that you take your case to WP:RSN where you can ask them if your source supports your proposed edits.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don’t have to “prove him wrong”, Sheldrake must prove himself right. If you don’t understand that basic fact of modern biology then your WP:COMPETENCE to edit this article is highly suspect.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh 76...90 you really are on a mission! Sadly not one compatible with editing this article.  Don't confuse your personal views with presenting a balance, accurate, well researched, and well written WP article.  Your so called "biological usage of hypothesis" is utterly irrelevant.  We use WP:RS's to determine how to write about things on WP, and if you look at the RS's I provided above (Scientific American/The Gaurdian) you will find that they refer to MR as a theory.  That is the threshold required for WP - no RSN necessary, these are RS.  Where are your WP:RS that shows Sheldrake does not satisfy your "biological usage of hypothesis" hypothesis??  As for your assertion that Sheldrake has to prove himself right, well obviously.  Presumably that's what he's trying to do, isn't it?  However, you apparently have incontrovertible proof that it is all "hogwash", maybe you should send him your proof so he can retire in peace?  Or is everything hogwash until it's proven?  I wonder how science is to progress further then... oh well, no matter, we've got you to tell us what's true and what isn't.  Thank goodness!!  ;-)  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * - I was kind enough to explain to you above why we don't use the word theory. You then preceded to be rude to me, and then tried to give your own view, completely ignoring what I'd just told you.  Others then broadly agreed with me, even 74, who somehow managed to contain his verbiage to a few lines.  Again when related to this article, this is a basic issue of understanding the stages in the scientific process. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BBB, you were kind enough to explain things to me, yes, and I am grateful. However what you appear to have missed is that your explanation does not justify your actions.  What you also have missed is my request for you to provide your WP:RS's that warrant this singularly bizarre take on the word theory.  74 has had the good grace to bow out of what is increasingly obviously an untenable position.  What RS's are you basing your position on?  How do these override the RS's I have provided (Scientific American/The Guardian)?  Last, what you also are missing is that this is a basic issue of understanding the stages of editing WP.  This article isn't about you or your interpretation of the philosophy of science.  It's about Sheldrake and what WP:RS's have to say about him.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is that fear I smell Blippy? You seem strangely averse to running your sources by WP:RSN, almost as if you lacked confidence in their ability to support what you want them to support. You also seem to lack confidence in your ability to have an honest argument, as you keep on utilizing fallacies, and doing it quite poorly. I could refer you to nearly any college level general biology textbook (the kind that new bio majors use in their first courses), where you will see quite clearly that “theory”, and “hypothesis” have specific meanings within biology which are at odds with the everyday usage of the expressions. And, once again, I don’t need “incontrovertible proof that it is all hogwash”. Sheldrake needs to prove his claims. I don’t know why the whole “burden of proof” thing is giving you such trouble. It’s really not such a difficult concept to grasp. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a horrible feeling that what you are smelling has something to do with where your head seems to be lodged ;-) If you are suggesting that Scientific American and The Guardian are not WP:RS for a biography then I think you should be the one fearing WP:RSN.  I would ask you to point out my poor fallacies, but I'm not sure you can distinguish them from good ones.  This revolves around a very simple matter.  To refer to MR as a theory or not.  Bring forth all the biological text books you can find which talk about how MR is not to be referred to as a theory and I will gladly concede.  At the moment all you are pandering is rather poor WP:OR.  As for the burden of proof twaddle, well, as I said, fortunately there are certain savants amongst us who know a priori whether theories are true or not, and whether they are worthy of investigation or not.  You should offer your services to research funding bodies everywhere and save hapless tax payers an awful lot of money in funding hogwash - unless they're trying to clean pigs more efficiently of course!!  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blippy, do not alter another editors contributions to this talk page.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


 * What’s that? I can’t hear you.
 * All I could hear was: “bock bock bock bock!”
 * Perhaps you should try speaking braver? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You do know what these Talk pages are for, right? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blippy, if you’re not going to take your case to WP:RSN the you clearly don’t respect the process here. You’ve been told multiple times that the word theory has different meanings in different contexts and if you won’t respect consensus then you’re going to have to go to WP:RSN to prove your case.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 76, stop making personal attacks, follow pillar four please. Coooooool dowwwwnnnnn.  There is no need for noticeboards.  Blippy does have a reliable source, and if we editors here agree on what the source says (which at the moment we do not), plus on WP:UNDUE and on WP:FRINGE and on WP:BLP considerations, then we can get that reliably-sourced statement into the mainspace.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling Sheldrakes Resonance concept an Hypothesis? It was odd seeing it referred to as theory but also not an hypothesis. I agree calling it a theory may give undue weight to it's status in the Scientific Community, but calling it properly an Hypothesis not only is accurate but seems like a compromise. I don't think Sheldrakes concepts of 'extended mind' would be either hypothesis or theory, it's a concept in Philosophy so neither should apply. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [[File:Spain traffic signal p4.svg]] been there and done that Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

cheers,

Blippy (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * see WP:VALID and WP:WEASEL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain it to me. Please make sure you explain how my use of the word theory is incompatible with the RS's I cited.  Thanks RtD. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, would like to see an explanation of the reverts. I've been assuming it was nothing more than a bad case of WP:OWN. Lou Sander (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TRiPoD, that was useful. I didn't see any reference to RS's except for one: "we do not discount the sources that talk about the subject that have been published in actual reliable peer reviewed journals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom11:15 am, 13 October 2013, Sunday (21 days ago) (UTC+11)" This is exactly my argument. I have provided numerous RS's that refer to morphic resonance as a theory. What more is there to say??? We don't discount the reliable sources that talk about the subject at WP. No amount of interpretation and WP:ORIG changes that. 74 agreed above, do you? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my own take: "Numerous critics on many grounds" is accurate and polite. It is followed by many citations, eliminating the weaselness of the "manys". Though sources call morphic resonance many things, it seems best to avoid the word "theory", since it maybe gives MR more scientific credibility than it deserves. The same is so for "hypothesis", though to a lesser extent. Best is to call it an "idea" or "notion" or similar. Lou Sander (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * more or less. But you already knew this - you've been on this page long enough - so why the sarcastic WP:OWN in your comment above? (No rush to answer, I've already wasted half of today on this nonsense)  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Numerous...on...many sounds pretty clumsy to my ear - and contains 'many' in any case! "The morphic resonance theory has been criticised for lacking evidence [22][23][24][25] and being incompatible with established scientific theories.[16][26]" seems to take care of both of these problems and turns two clunky sentences into one smoother sentence whilst preserving the refs and meaning. I realise this may sound like I'm being precious, but I really am just after a better flow here. As for the worry about scientific credibility, that is not our problem. All we need to do is mirror the RS's. They use "theory" so it isn't for us to do otherwise. Aren't RS's the touch stone here of what we should do?? Not to mention that the original paragraph already uses "hypothesis" (...and the inconsistency of the hypothesis with established scientific theories.)!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog: I'm just trying to explain things to Blippy, without referring him elsewhere or telling him he should already know the answer to his question. It's too bad that you regard a simple mention of WP:OWN as sarcasm. I regard WP:OWN as a big problem with the article. Sarcasm is a big problem on the talk page, of course. Lou Sander (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blippy: I hear you, and am sympathetic. I disagree with your subjective evaluation of flow, clunkiness, etc. I also disagree that we must just blindly use the wording of sources. In the case of morphic resonance, many sources call it many different things. Skillful editors can look at all of them and come up with appropriate wording for the article. Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

More exposure of the article
There may be another influx of users here. Sheldrake recently appeared on BBC World Service talking about Wikipedia. I haven't heard the interview yet, but judging by the blurb it looks similar to his previous comments. The leader of "Guerrilla Skeptics" has said the group has nothing to do with the Sheldrake article on Wikipedia, but that is evident from the article history anyway. vzaak (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheldrake was on the BBC World Service's programme, "World Update" with Dan Damon, on 1 Nov 2013. Brits can catchup via iPlayer until 7 Nov. The segment begins at 8:02 and ends at 12:58. --Iantresman (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sad to see a former scientist go down the road of the world being a conspiracy to suppress the wonderful ideas about which he's unable to persuade anybody who is not batshit crazy. Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite surprised by your tone. "Former scientist", "conspiracy", "crazy". I think however, we should (as usual) refer to independent sources about what some academics says about scientists "on the fringe"? I am not claiming that any of these people, or scientists mentioned are correct, only that some people have questioned their treatment. See for example:
 * Dr Lena Eriksson, "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004)
 * Michael J. Mahoney, "Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system", (1977)
 * Sophie Petit-Zeman, "Trial by peers comes up short" (2003)
 * Juan Miguel Campanario, "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates"
 * Brian Martin, on scientific dissent
 * Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin, "Challenging dominant physics paradigms" (2004)
 * --Iantresman (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * , you need to understand the sociology of science, because any reasonable sociological analysis isn't good for Sheldrake. The aim for any scientist with any idea is to convince his peers that it is correct.  The way you do that to start with is by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, which are read by your colleagues, who then build upon your work with their own.  The result ultimately is scientific consensus.  Now, if you want a proper sociological analysis of what the scientific community thinks, you have to look at two key things: (1) what Sheldrake is publishing - and (2) who is citing him, who is following up on his work?  With regard to (1) the answer is not much.  Not many papers, and those that are in fringey journals.  But let's have a look at the second point in particular - it seems that some scientists, most notably Brian Josephson, have some sympathy for Sheldrake and his work.  But are they doing experiments to test morphic resonance?  We can look at the PubMed results and please show me them if the answer isn't no. Josephson might create some noise in the press on the basis of what he did earlier in his career, but if he's really convinced, he'd testing dogs and crystals and all sorts of things and getting consistent results from experiments and publishing them.  It is really quite disappointing that an editor of a science related article is not basically familiar with the process by which new ideas are proven and accepted by the scientific community.
 * Science is basically an active process - you do the experiments or you're not doing science. You publish the experiments properly, or you're not doing science.  Your peers accept this and start doing similar themselves, or you're not doing science.
 * Sheldrake has had since 1981 - that's 30+ years in which our understanding of many issues in "orthodox science" has advanced tremendously. On current form, he's not making the team. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * , you've made this comparison between dark matter and morphic resonance before, but let's continue with our sociological analysis, and let's see if your understanding is correct. I used Google Scholar, and searched for "dark matter" and "morphic resonance".  In particular, I was looking for theoretical papers or research papers on both of these.  Firstly, it's quite clear that "dark matter" is an ongoing area of research.  There are 361,000 results in total.  They are by many different scientists. The top paper, "The Structure of cold dark matter halos" has 4075 citations, the second "Dark matter substructure within galactic halos" has 1856 cites, the third "Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints", 1963 cites and so on .  Many of these are research papers which discuss the nature of the observed measurements as to why physcists think dark matter exists.  While it may be that some physicists don't think dark matter exists, there are clearly numerous data that require a theoretical explanation.
 * Now let's have a look at "morphic resonance". 1,550 results in total - i.e. 0.4% of the number of hits for "dark matter".  The top  is Sheldrake's "presence of the past", fair enough.  It has 590 cites, which is quite a few.  Looking down we find Sheldrake, more Sheldrake, even more Sheldrake, then 8. "Morphic resonance, molecular structure, and man: Some metaphysics" by TR Soidla, looks like a philosophy book, cited by 9. 9 - A book "Ancient wisdom and modern science" by "Stanislav Grof" which uncritically accepts Sheldrake's proposal and anecdotal evidence, but doesn't actually test it. More Sheldrake, Sheldrake's 1992 paper with Rose's data, "A quantum explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance", apparently not peer reviewed, "Horse sense and the human heart: What horses can teach us about trust, bonding, creativity and spirituality", a book about spirituality in horses.  "Archetypes, synchronicity and the theory of formative causation" - more vague psychology-philosophy.  A bit more Sheldrake, then Rose's experimental disproval of a morphic resonance hypothesis.
 * Now even with your fantastic ability to creatively interpret sources, is the scientific research programme in morphic resonance really equivalence to the one of dark matter?  0.4% says differently. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


 * 1. Give more weight on the the most informed, highest quality sources; Nature wins on this front. This is what the article currently does:
 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...
 * 2. Describe both sides of the conflict. This was my recent proposal:
 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues; he describes himself as a biologist researching natural phenomena, while mainstream scientists have described him as a former biochemist doing research in the field of parapsychology. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...
 * 3. Elide the conflict. This was Barney's proposal:
 * Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and lecturer on science-related issues. From 1967 to 1973 he was a biochemist and cell biologist at the University of Cambridge, after which...

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

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


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


 * How have you folks managed to twist yourselves into such pretzels over this stuff?? There are undisputed facts here:
 * The man was a Research Fellow for the Royal Society. He has a PhD in biochemistry.  He has been widely published in peer reviewed journals.  He has been mentioned in numerous journals/news articles/TV shows/books etc.  He is actively engaged in research into a theory that has/is being actively investigated by others.  How about forgetting all the partisan nonsense and stick to simple verifiable facts based on RS's instead of all this quibbling over petty things?  If his ideas are crap or genius is not the issue here!!!  We are just providing undisputed information in a clear way.  The man is notable for his work in science (I understand his original work is still in biology text books).  He is also notable for his work in parapsychology.  He is arguably notable for his work in the philosophy of science.  He IS NOT notable for being English or for being a lecturer.  How is this difficult!??!!?!?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of whether Sheldrake is right or wrong, but describes who has said he is right or wrong or other. --Iantresman (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So let's move past all this theory/idea gibberish and start improving this article. Sheldrake is obviously an important figure - regardless of how wrong/right he is/isn't - so it is incumbent on us to provide a fair, accurate, well written biography.  We're not here to WP:RGW or push some WP:FRINGE theory or protect unsuspecting dupes from inadvertently being persuaded to join some cult.  It's just an encyclopaedia providing disinterested information.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I think the template is badly worded and is misleading. The "neutral POV" is not a point of view, and nor does it represent a single point of view that can be determined. The neutral POV is a writing style which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", per WP:NPOV.
 * The neutral point of view is not the scientific point of view, although it might be the most significant and important, in which case we say so. Other points of view are also described without giving the impression that they have any more veracity, legitimacy or credibility than accepted. --Iantresman (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't in good conscience allow the NPOV tag to be removed yet. The more I've been involved here the more I'm amazed at the depth of NPOV violation and breaching of basic WP principles.  Many editors are openly hostile to Sheldrake and actively allowing that bias to be reflected in this article.  It would be helpful if editors could adopt a more professional approach, put aside their pet loves/hates and focus on RS's and good writing.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A tag needs to be justified with examples of what the problem is claimed to be, with reasoning backed by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some of the problems so far:  unwilling to describe the morphic resonance theory as a theory despite RS's that do so, and none mentioned so far that justify this approach;  Diminution of Sheldrake's credentials e.g. unwilling to use the correct title of Research Fellow of the Royal Society and having English and lecturer in the first sentence with no mention of biochemist/biologist all despite numerous RS's that do so; Inclusion of implied defamatory content that does not explicitly name Sheldrake; Inclusion of WP:OR Sokal 'interaction', whilst rejecting the WP:RS and notable encounter with Dawkins.  I think these are sufficient grounds to reinstate the tag while we try to work through them since the article as it stands provides a non-NPOV account of Sheldrake.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * - the issues you rasie have been dealt with. It's not a theory.  Secondly, we must be careful not to conflate a research grant with Fellowship of the Royal Society, recognition which Sheldrake has simply not received. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Regarding "unwilling to describe the morphic resonance theory as a theory", you say it is "not satisfactorily explained", but you explained it to Blippy yourself.
 * The "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" bit is covered in the eponymous section.
 * The biochemist/biologist bit is covered in the "When sources conflict" section.
 * There's no explanation of what "implied defamatory content" means.
 * The Dawkins bit is being discussed. My take is that WP shouldn't report second-hand and third-hand accounts of what living people have said.
 * There's no explanation of why Sokal is WP:OR. That is a well-sourced paragraph.
 * People need to follow policies and procedures. Blippy added the tag saying "we should warn readers much is in dispute still", despite the instructions that state Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. The instructions also say it's for a "last resort". Blippy is brand new, the Dawkins material is brand new; this isn't a "last resort" situation. I ask again that people please read the policies at the top of this page along with any template instructions that may be used. vzaak (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

Blippy, here is another example of problematic shuffling: ''In 1974 Sheldrake left Clare and began working in Hyderabad, India. For a year and a half he lived in the ashram of Bede Griffiths during which time he wrote A New Science of Life. He reports finding himself "drawn back to a Christian path" and currently identifies himself as Anglican.'' Please be more careful; always check that the text is backed by the sources. These problems are persisting. vzaak (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You deleted the source that gives the dates as well as the source for the year-and-a-half time frame.
 * Worse, the date is wrong: he left Clare in 1973.
 * The text is misleading because he spent much more time in India than a year and a half.
 * He didn't start living at the ashram until some time after 1978 when he left the "principal physiologist" position.
 * It also doesn't look like he wrote the book in the ashram; Sheldrake says "I went and livedin his ashram for a year and a half, and then I wrote my first book". [Update: This contradicts his other self-published bio which says "ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book"]
 * Even though the "drawn back" quote is in the India paragraph, there's no reason to remove the explicit attribution. As before, it should say, "During his time in India, he reports..."


 * I have integrated the material into one timeline again. Multiple timelines produced implied inaccuracies; for instance since his whole post-doc career was missing, it seemed like he graduated from Clare and then when to India. One person oddly complained that "consultant physiologist" was not mentioned in both timelines. Correcting this problem and the problems above has been time-consuming. Please don't create two timelines again, or otherwise discuss this change first. vzaak (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work Vzaak! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Research Fellow of the Royal Society"
Please be careful lifting information from Sheldrake's self-published bio. "Research Fellow of the Royal Society" is almost cringeworthy, as it seems likely to mislead by evoking Fellow of the Royal Society. At least one commenter here was fooled. Fellow of the Royal Society is an exceedingly different title which is exceedingly more prestigious. Sheldrake received a fellowship like thousands of other researchers among many fields, and proper term is "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship". vzaak (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This pettiness is unworthy of you Vzaak. The correct terminology is Research Fellow of the Royal Society. e.g. Dr Ian Jones Education Research Fellow of The Royal Societyat Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University and Dr Rim Turkmani is a Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellow of the Royal Society and Professor Katherine Blundell, Professor of Astrophysics and University Research Fellow of the Royal Society etc. etc. Please provide RS's that show otherwise.  This preference for unsourced nonsense over RS's is very troubling and I am astonished experienced editors are allowing this kind of crap to go uncorrected.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, here is a RS that explicitly refers to him as a former Research Fellow of the Royal Society. I'm sure there must be plenty of others - do I need to find more to convince you?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * The argument works the other direction: If Sheldrake received the "Royal Society Rosenheim research fellowship", then that is what we say. That is the formal name used in his papers. One option causes confusion, the other option doesn't. I would like to hear the reason for choosing the option that causes confusion. vzaak (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The formal name, or name used by the Royal Society would be preferred. --Iantresman (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * AGREED!! I don't think there is any reason to choose anything other than what is supported in the RS's.  I'm new to this article, so I'm not as familiar with the sources as you guys.  If that's what the sources say, then that's what we should use.  Can you give a link or two please Vzaak?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I AGREE that Wikipedia should call it exactly what the Royal Society calls it. Do we even know what a Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow IS (or was)? Searching their web site gives no results. Were there 50 of them every year? Was there only ever one? There is a Royal Society thing these days called a University Research Fellow, with a complete description of what it is, and lists of current and past holders. Sheldrake does not show up on these lists, which gives me pause. Assuming good faith on his part (in listing that as one of his accomplishments), we need to know more about what the Rosenheim thing is or was. I'm guessing that in the past they had a bunch of different research fellowships, and collapsed them all into one. That's just a guess, though. Personally, I don't worry about people confusing whatever it is with being a Fellow of the Royal Society, but I'm fine if somebody has a big concern about it. If they do, it seems reasonable to explain it all in a footnote. Lou Sander (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a bit of a mystery! I found this: "Rosenheim Research Fellowship (for research in biological chemistry)"  and on that page is a report of all the spending allocation for 2009-10.  It seems these named fellowships are one offs - maybe annually? - and there were nine of them that year.  So they would seem to be reasonably prestigious.  I also found this but it's purely speculation on my part that maybe the fellowship was named in his honour.  Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society seems to be the common usage and is presumably interchangeable with Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow depending on the sentence structure.  I'm happy with both given these sources. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The award was established under the will or Mrs Mary Christine Rosenheim (neé Tebb) (1868-1953) a British Physiologist. When I contacted the Royal Society, they told me that the Rosenheim Research Fellow is no longer offered. --Iantresman (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * We've already been through this Ian, contrary to your WP:IWONTLISTEN stance. It's a mid-career research grant, otherwise entirely unremarkable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is easily fixed BBB. First, let's just stick to the RS.  If you can provide your WP:RS's that demonstrate it is a mid-career, unremarkable research grant then please do so, but I think you may struggle since it looks like it wasn't granted annually.  This person held it from 1992-2000 and lists it as a Distinction/Award.  This person held it from 2000-2008 and this one from 1979-1982.  So it seems to have been sparsely granted, and was only one of nine RS research fellowships granted in 2009-10. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. When it was awarded Sheldrake was in the middle of his academic career, which he then cut short, and subsequently went freelance.  The Royal Society, as Britain's national academy of science, hands out many grants.  This one is not remarkable.  Attempts to highlight it as something it isn't is simple disingenuity. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it about using the correct term for his credential that makes you think it is highlighting something otherwise unremarkable? Let's just stick to the sources.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things (1) we don't tend to highlight unremarkable things (2) as has been explained to you, it has potential to be misunderstood, so we need to be accurate and give sufficient context. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Using the RS terminology is not highlighting anything beyond what the RS's chose to highlight (2) It is impossible to predict what will/wont be misunderstood, so we need to be accurate and stick to the sources.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) the main source for this are Sheldrake himself who while not unreliable, has a documented habit of self promotion and buffing up his own credentials out of proportion to what they are (2) it is possible to using WP:COMMONSENSE (severely lacking around here) and evidence of previous misunderstandings. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing here BBB, isn't this section about the Research Fellow of the Royal Society bizzo?? What do you mean by Sheldrake is the main source? Have I misunderstood you/missed something, or are you suggesting that's his personal version of the credential? You've stumped me a bit there, which makes me think I've missed something, so I'll apologise in advance and would appreciate some clarification! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave it in. Omitting it would give the impression that editors of this article want to omit anything that lends Sheldrake scientific credibility, such as awards from major scientific institutions. And that's clearly not your motive, Barney the barney barney, because we all know your edits on here are always in good faith. Ben Finn (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, my intention is that the article is balanced and does not mislead. Sheldrake's scientific career was reasonably impressive, but it's not as impressive as some people would think.      He never was a professor.  My intention is to document this accurately and without misleading the reader. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

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

I don't know how much this is helpful or not. Page 309 in the Yearbook of the Royal Society Research Appointments lists Alfred Rupert Sheldrake as the sole recipient of the Rosenheim Research Fellowship in Oct of 1969. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And for the record, here is convenient link to said Year Book.--Iantresman (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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