Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 7

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


 * THE ABOVE COMMENT MAY HAVE HAD AN ATTACHMENT AND SIG DELETED mistakenly, it is not part of my response or my comment which begins here: Dan skeptic I'm not here to defend Morphic Resonance, and also not interested in applying editors interpretations or original research as to what it is or isn't. Personally I do not care. I am only interested in sourced references and reasoned arguments. I created this section so GSM editors or anyone else can list the sources or facts that support the fringe claim. That's a reasonable request, right? Sources that are opinions do not count. Personal opinions of editors do not count. Philosophical discussions do not count. Original research does not count. What counts are facts to this editor and to the policy of WP. Since I am still not seeing any editor, GSM or otherwise list either a source, fact or a reasoned argument, I will assume this house of cards has fallen and we can begin a new rational consensus.  If you or any other editor believes I am mistaken, please list the references along with a reasoned argument below. The Tumbleman (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No. As has been explained to you before, Sheldrake's work meets criteria 1 (obvious pseudoscience) and 2 (generally considered pseudoscience). Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a break from this article. You have been told many times Tumbleman the GSM have not been editing this page. But I will contact about this and perhaps she can clear the issue up as you are not listening to anyone else. You keep mentioning the GSM like it is a bad thing. They have improved countless articles so perhaps the GSM should get involved in improving the Sheldrake article. I will contact Sgerbic and perhaps her team can help improve the article! Thanks. Dan skeptic (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dan skeptic It would not be appropriate to invite an outside group to edit a Wikipedia article per WP:MEAT --Iantresman (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Barney. If Sheldrake's work was related to pseudoscience, then Cambridge University would not have (a) invited him to speak in 2011, nor (b) funded the Perrott-Warrick Project of which Sheldrake was director between 2005–2010. There is no doubt that some people have described Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, and this should be mentioned with suitable reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources have been provided already, and the arguments you've just made do not trump these. I'm afraid with regard to the Perrott-Warrick project, even the great Trinity College will do silly things if money is involved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but WP:BLP says otherwise. Sheldrake's actual qualifications (a doctorate in biochemistry), trumps the more contentious opinion of a couple of writers in Nature and a popular science magazine. As far as I am aware, there is no formal qualification in parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice appeal to authority Ian. You of course mean the same talk series that Brian Josephson also invited a homeopath to ? Yes its clearly pseudoscience and no the talk organised by Josephson doesn't mean anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheldrake has a doctorate from Cambridge, period. That is not an appeal to authority. If I claimed veracity of the subject he talks about because the talk was at Cambridge, that would be an appeal to authority. Scientists are quite capable of investigating subjects that others consider pseudoscience, as is evidence by the University of Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit, and the University of Arizona's Division of Perceptual Studies. For all I know, they have found evidence that such subjects are bunkum, but that doesn't imply that the scientists concerned are acting improperly. To assume that they are would be "guilt by association" which I am sure you would agree is no better than an appeal to authority.--Iantresman (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we get into the argument "who has the best academic career", then post-doc Sheldrake is walloped by many of Sheldrake's critics who have progressed to full professor rank, including Lewis Wolpert, Lord Winston, Steven Rose, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Peter Atkins and Richard Wiseman. And there's Sir John Maddox, who wasn't a professor but was FRS and knighted.  Please let's get into this argument about academic credentials, because ex-post doc Sheldrake's career massively falls apart when compared to his critics.  He doesn't even meet the inclusion criteria for WP:PROF.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, I have no interest in "who has the best academic career". I'm merely stating that he has a doctorate from Cambridge that makes him a biochemist, period. This has not been revoked, and he is not an ex-post doctorate. You need only find a reliable source to contradict this. The description of "parapsychologist" is contentious (clearly) and would be flagged by WP:BLP. I am not suggesting that his connection to parapsychoogy should be omitted from the article. Sheldrakes meets WP:PROF having been the former Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society. --Iantresman (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheldrake is a former biochemist and plant physiologist insofar as he isn't currently doing scientific research in these areas, he certainly holds no relevant academic post (although he is of retirement age). If we look at his publication record, he hasn't been been doing biochemical research since the late 1970s, and on plant physiology since at least the mid 1980s.  That's why he's a current author and former biochemist and plant physiologist.  Hope that clarifies that little misunderstanding of yours. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Biochemists are scientists trained in biochemistry". "A chemist is a scientist trained in the study of chemistry". Nobel Winner Peter Higgs retired 17 years ago, but is still described as a "theoretical physicist". --Iantresman (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Barney the barney barney You keep repeating that As has been explained to you before, Sheldrake's work meets criteria 1 (obvious pseudoscience) and 2 (generally considered pseudoscience). -  I am not sure if was ever explained. The only thing that keeps getting repeated to this editor is that it was already explained, yet I fail to find a consistent explanation anywhere that is backed by legitimate sources, which is why I keep asking. I am open to review proper sources, please provide them OR, simply provide reasoned exchange to my very specific questions, which I believe, as well as other editors,  have already refuted this claim multiple times. Let's address this my query directly at the top of this section. I want to work with you here Barney. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources are in the article. It is a particularly egregious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU if you continue to deny the existence of these. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I know your sources are in the article, but your sources either contradict what you are saying or they are opinions not facts. Apparently you are unable to address those very clear and concise issues with your sources. It doesn't make sense for me to question your sources validity and explain the problem and have you just repeat to me again that those are your sources. Understood. Those sources are not valid sources to support the language on the page, NPOV, BLP and provide only opinion and interpretation, not facts. Find better sources and this problem goes away. Keep using the same sources and the edit goes away. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

THIS IS THE PROBLEM: Barney the barney barney says"  If we get into the argument "who has the best academic career", then post-doc Sheldrake is walloped by many of Sheldrake's critics who have progressed to full professor rank, including Lewis Wolpert, Lord Winston, Steven Rose, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Peter Atkins and Richard Wiseman.  NO WE SHOULD NOT BE GETTING INTO A DEBATE about who has the best academic career, because this is OPINION and probably original research. Much better just to have proper sourcing and proper reasoned arguments. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the WP:IDONTHEARYOU, it's getting rather tiresome. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh I hear you Barney the barney barney. I hear you are debating who has a more impressive academic career to determine which POV should be allowed. I hear you sourcing things with highly questionable problems including opinions and biased sources to support that POV as well. I'm not running from what you are saying, I am questioning it. the best way to find consensus is to address my arguments within reason, not finding some WP policy that you suggest exempts you from finding a consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is consensus, which is creatively trying to ignore.  Let's talk about credentials because in the real world that's one of the best ways to assess sources (well it would be if you didn't choose to just ignore all of them).  If your car is broken and you take it to the garage, do you listen to the qualified mechanical engineer or do you listen to the work experience boy who's making the tea?  There is consensus on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable Barney the barney barney, if there was consensus, we would not be having this discussion, especially since I specifically requested to build a new consensus, with support from a number of editors here. Folksy anecdotes and analogies are great to pass on to your kids and can be great personal motivators in personal situations, but they do nothing to strengthen your references or argument so i am going to pass on applying it to support your claims. If I want a cup of tea, I'll look at qualified sources for tea, if I look into cars, I want qualifies sources for cars. If I look at your edits, I want qualified sources for those too. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And what about Sheldrake ? Who do you go to to find about him?  Well, I'll tell you what we do on Wikipedia.  The consensus is that we go to the sources from the experts in the scientific community.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney, we agree that scientists are experts to turn to in reference to facts about science and sources that show scientific facts rule on WP, however an opinion written in a skeptic book that quotes a scientist that has an opinion about what all other scientists think of sheldrake is not really what I would call a fact. If every opinion that came out of every expert scientists mouth was deemed fact simply because of the authority of the profession, we would still be in the dark ages. Let's use common sense.

No skeptic source is accepted when it comes to claims about sheldrake as a living person, since clearly they have a bias against him as a person and it's simply not reliable as a NPOV about a living person. No journalist in the world at any respectable mainstream publication would ever source facts that way. WP guides us not to source facts that way. If the opinion of a skeptic is notable, then quote the skeptic saying so, don't make the voice of WP the voice of the skeptic movement and change sheldrakes very real academic titles because some skeptic calls him a parapsychologist.

One scientist calls sheldrake a pseudoscientist. Another scientist says he is not a pseudoscientist. Their both prominent mainstream scientists. Which one is right? I dunno. That's a debate for science and academia, not WP. What does common sense suggest? In WP, what makes something pseudoscience is lack of evidence or a lack of falsification. None of those apply to his research in telepathy, according to sourced facts, and none of those apply to his hypothesis of morphic resonance, also according to sourced facts. As for the expert I am consulting here, his name is Karl Popper and as for the guideline I am consulting here, it's called WP:YESPOV


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

In addition, WP allows for 'alternative theoretical formulations' and clearly says those are not to be considered pseudoscience. I've asked numerous times for *any* editor here to kindly explain how Morphic Resonance does not fall under this category. Only explanation I get is that I clearly don't understand what Morphic Resonance is. I don't need to. I just need to compare sourced facts, use common sense, keep a NPOV, and make a reasoned argument inside of WP guidelines.

what's the next thing that is being argued that supports the fringe claim? Oh, now that he is a parapsychologist, that alone qualifies him but we see that is built on a house of cards with only sourced opinions. take away the parapsychologist title and what's left the support the Fringe claim?

That sheldrake denies COE and thinks we should build Perpetual Motion Machines. Really? Is that what sheldrake really thinks? Not what his book says. This assumption that a few editors have been arguing for is based on Sheldrakes latest book, 'The Science Delusion' which is positing absolutely nothing actually, it's not a theory, a hypothesis, or even research, it's a summary of a Philosophy of Science that draws upon Philosophical Holism and Philosophical Panpsychism, completely valid academically. and no academic in the world would accept that a philosophical thought experiment be labeled pseudoscience. Sheldrake has a degree in Philosophy from Harvard, was director of research at cambridge university, and was a distinguished research for 20 years. I dont get that from reading the bio, I only get what a few skeptics think of him in their books. So now we have biased editors quoting opinions as facts, stating publically on the board very rude things regarding a living person, and then think that they can redefine the man's POV and academic career to fit their ideology. Well that house of cards is knocked down. You've simply not the sources to back the claim that this page requires a FRINGE application and most adhere to a Skeptical POV.

There, the above is my argument. If I missed something, tell me and I will provide. If I made an error that is inconsistent with what I write, then show me, refute me, please, anything just be rational and reasoned. Only way we can get a consensus, we all gotta work this out together. The Tumbleman (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of Sir Karl Popper commenting on Sheldrake, although if you can find sources, he is of sufficient standing that his viewpoint may be included. If we did find anything, I doubt it would have been positive.  However, in the meantime, you cannot make up stuff, that's WP:OR.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no commenting on sheldrake by Popper, Karl Popper is the person who coined the word 'falsification' in the Philosophy of Science. I use Karl Popper's methodology to determine what 'falsification' means, not some opinion of what it means by a skeptic dictionary. As to the rest of your comment, There is NOTHING that I have fabricated. If you cannot refute or participate in an editors reasoned arguments, then you should refrain from commenting at all. If an editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias of a living person, and cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, then perhaps that editor should excuse themselves from participating in a consensus due to the conflict of interest and lack of appropriate sourcing. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the 2007 Arbcom's findings of fact suggest that we should not be treating Rupert Sheldrake (or the field of parapsychology) as a pseudoscience. However Sheldrake's ideas have not been accepted by the scientific mainstream and so there are some aspects of WP:FRINGE that do apply. If followed, some of these guidelines could help us reach consensus and make this a good article.

Currently, I find that this article abuses quotations, and reports on research outcomes that are self-published and do not come from peer reviewed sources. If we would put aside references from fringe and skeptical publications and instead rely on independent sources we would be sure to summarize only those things that are notable (from a popular point of view) and we would have an easier time maintaining a neutral tone. Annalisa Ventola (Talk 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The text has been reverted yet again, and includes statements (a) for which there are no citations, and (b) that appears to be original research based on the opinion of editors.
 * Sheldrake has both trained as, and has a doctorate in the subject, which makes him a biochemist (as defined by Wikipedia). It is not for any editor to decide otherwise.
 * Universities that undertake parapsychology research are not staffed by "parapsychologists", but scientists with other qualifications, such as psychologists, engineers, theoretical physics (eg. Princeton's now closed PEAR); psychiatrists and psychologists (U. Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and U. Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit and U.Arizona's Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health). The tone of all these academic websites is quite different from Wikipedia's and certain editors.--Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * I have made by background, interests, and my potential biases transparent on this site since 2006. Who are you and what are yours? Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 18:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you are biased by conflicts of interests doesn't mean that your opponents are in any way biased. True neutrality is the enemy of all bias. MilesMoney (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, even if Rupert Sheldrake himself was editing the page, exactly the same policies would apply. The current intro is not supported by references, and includes synthesis. It is incontrovertible that Sheldrake has a doctorate in biochemistry, and that by Wikipedia's own definition, that makes him a biochemist. Conversely, I know of no reliable sources that state he is a parapsychologist, though there are many sources (blogs, websites, books, individuals) that describe him as doing research in subjects described as parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't know of any reliable sources calling him a parapsychologist, all you have to do is read this talk page and your ignorance will be dispelled. MilesMoney (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I said I couldn't find any reliable sources. There's a popular book (that has to resort to ad hominems, page 23), newspaper, but no academic sources. Either way, he still has his PH.D, and was funded by Cambridge University as recently as 2010 as director of the Perrott-Warrick Project, and was lecturing at Cambridge University in 2011 who acknowledge his doctorate in biochemistry --Iantresman (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * No editors have been directly accused of belonging to the GS. Nor do I expect skeptic editors to admit it since that would probably entail an instant lifetime ban from Wikipedia.  There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence however.
 * * The page changed dramatically for the worse after a newsletter calling out the GS was published. The June 14th revision (before the newsletter) is fairly even handed, but the September 28th version was heavily biased towards a skeptical point of view.
 * * Constant stalwart defense of skeptical edits
 * * Minimal to no cooperation with opposing editors.
 * * A ridiculous attempt to intimidate me with WP:IMPERSONATE, combined with a different skeptic trying to get two comments up on my blog to refute my version, sending two creepy emails trying to get me to reconsider and finally getting a screenshot of that comment posted on my "biography" (lol!) on RationalWiki. This suggests a team effort to me.  And this was over describing CSICOP as a radical atheist pressure group.  CSICOP is a supporter of GS, which relies heavily on this skeptic organization for sources, so they would be upset at having CSICOP questioned.


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


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


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


 * @Dan Skeptic. (1) "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research"(WP:OUTING) --Iantresman (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (2) A popular book and a newspaper are poor sources. In 2012, Cambridge University was still referring to "Dr Rupert Sheldrake" in recognition of his doctorate in biochemistry (he has no other doctorates). Of all the university departments researching parapsychology, I could find none that refer to any of their staff as parapsychologists. This does not dispute that some minor sources may have used this description. --Iantresman (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney you suggest that If we don't know of any reliable sources calling him a parapsychologist, all we have to do is read this talk page and our ignorance will be dispelled. Well that's the issue, we have been reading and checking and can't find anything reliable, it's all OR and opinions. I assume therefore that you must know of these references and sources that you claim we miss, so it should be easy for you to provide them and we look forward to reviewing them for consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? Why are you erasing other people's comments? That looks like a violation of WP:TPO. MilesMoney (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I am having was going to admin chat with a systems administrator friend of mine who manages discussion forums to look into this but realize I was over reacting  and am not being hacked and realized that it may even look like I was talking about a WP admin 'friend', which although sorely needed in my life, I do not have. this is very very bizarre and I am concerned I am being hacked right now. doh!The Tumbleman (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not being hacked, you're simply making an error. You're making changes to an outdated version and that edit is conflicting with subsequent edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=prev&oldid=576363168
 * MilesMoney (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


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

2007 Wikipedia Arbitration on the Paranormal
This article is in need of a major rehaul. I would like to make some suggestions, but first I would appreciate if some of you could bring me up to speed? It's been a while since I've contributed to Wikipedia (since like 2008-9), so could anyone tell me if there have been any relevant Wikipedia arbitration cases since Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal? Specifically, I am curious about what has happened since Wikipedia Arbitration committee determined that there was a "scientific discipline of parapsychology" and that parapsychology "should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about 'the paranormal'"? I think that these ideas are pertinent to what we are doing here. Thanks in advance for your input. Annalisa Ventola (Talk 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to that post the "Parapsychological Association" have said that parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This is complete madness. Parapsychology is a pseudoscience and known for its unscientific beliefs and stories about the paranormal. The parapsychological association is a pseudoscience woo organization that says people can move objects with their minds or that people can levitate. Science does not take them seriously. Why are you mentioning this, it has nothing to with Sheldrake's article. Similar to Craig Weiler it seems you are just on this talk-page in an attempt to stir up trouble. Dan skeptic (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing the scientific study of "extraordinary" claims, with the claims themselves. Scientists can and do study the what might be called the "paranormal". See for example, the University of Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit, and the University of Arizona's Division of Perceptual Studies. --Iantresman (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an Arbcom case that is entirely applicable and relevant and an excellent precedent. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Barney the barney barney.
 * Dan skeptic: I understand your outrage, but it's misplaced. What you refer to as "complete madness" is nonetheless an ArbCom decision and therefore very relevant (nearly dispositive) as to how we deal with parapsychology here. There are ways for you to challenge this. But the ways to do saw do not include ignoring or dismissing it on one BLP.
 * On a different topic, thank you for the tomato/tomato edit summary. Smiles at 6:30 am EST are hard to come by. You gave me one. David in DC (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey - that was me. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iantresman I understand that scientists study alleged paranormal phenomena but only from a psychological perspective or as a debunking exercise. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena and there are three articles which explain that abnormal psychology, anomalistic psychology and the article on the paranormal. Unfortunately parapsychologists start with the assumption that the paranormal exists and publish nonsense based on a pre-conceived bias claiming it does exist. All their exeriments are flawed and it's well known that parapsychologists are not trained in psychology, don't know anything about conjuring and much less of the scientific method. There are still woo-woo parapsychologists claiming Uri Geller had genuine psychic powers. It's well known that parapsychology is a pseudoscience and it's proponents are mislead by wishful thinking and incompetence in setting up controlled experiments (that is discussed in detail on the parapsychology article and countless other articles which are highly referenced). David in DC I apologize for my outrage and comment about ArbCom. I won't be editing this article anymore. Going to spend a lot of time at the Gym on the punching bags this evening :) Dan skeptic (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your understanding is contradicted by the University of Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit which states that (a) they take "an interdisciplinary approach to parapsychology" (ie. not "only from a psychological perspective") (b) they investigate "the possible existence of psychic ability" (ie. not "as a debunking exercise"). Just to be clear, I am not supporting or advocating any paranormal phenomena.--Iantresman (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is bad scientific practice to start any experiment with solid a priori expectations. Understanding history is crucial - the Society for Psychical Research has been going since Victorian times. Initially their evidence would have been equivocal, because no-one had properly done the experiments. Then they would have done some experiments, but they wouldn't have had the required level of understanding of experimental design, experimenter bias or statistics until later. But since at least the 1960s we now have a pretty good understanding of these. The experiments have been done. There is now a body of evidence which is consistent with the conclusion that psy does not exist. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbitration committee on wikipedia is unable to make content decisions as it is outside their remit, their opinions from 6 years ago are also mostly irrelevant except where they discuss behaviour. Arbs have no power in making content decisions. They do not decide the status of parapsychology. Still, what they have said is "Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor". You are also selectively quoting ARBCOM Anna. What they said is " According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal"." Emphasis mine. They have an opinion, that's nice, but of no relevance to any discussion related to article content here which we decide by our content guidelines such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Note that all or nearly all of those Bauder-era ArbCom members have been replaced, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Arbom also very specifically says "there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way". Their words.  The Committee's findings from 6 years ago are relevant because the circumstances were pretty much the same (they were dealing with the BLP of Dean Radin and some rather aggressive editors). We can either waste time repeating history or we can get to work on making this a Wikipedia:Good article. The findings are linked for your own interpretation and guidance. I do not disagree them, including their parapsychology's "ambiguous" status or the fact that it is "strongly criticized". These aspects should inform the article as well.   Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom does not make content decisions and this particular ruling is no more than the opinion of the arbitrators and is not binding on any content in Wikipedia. In fact, when I talked to User:Newyorkbrad in person a few years ago, he specifically made fun of this very ruling. Editors in this area are free to ignore it completely and will continue to ignore it. If you disagree with this standard operating procedure, feel free to file a request for clarification. jps (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbitration. "However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so." They might make some assumptions from which to operate but they are in no way decisions (which they lack the power to make), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So back to my original question, could anyone tell me if there have been any relevant Wikipedia arbitration cases since Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal? Annalisa Ventola (Talk 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an article talk page for discussion of edits to the article. If you wish to know about arbitration cases, please go elsewhere to find that information. e.g Arbitration/Index or Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee. Questions about conduct, or questions related to arbcom cases about conduct are irrelevant here. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And as I stated above, I plan to make some suggestions for the article but would like to be brought up to speed - not dragged into rhetorical circles - thanks. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been explained, arbcom do not make content decisions. If you wish to be brought up to speed read the guidelines I posted on your talk page. If you want to know about expectations around conduct read WP:CIVIL and related policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was reading the Arbcom stuff linked by the first post in this section, and noticed something particularly relevant to our situation on this page. At Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal, it says -


 * Dradin and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with.


 * This means you, User:Annalisa_Ventola, and though your constructive suggestions for discussion are welcome on this Talk page, you really ought to restrict yourself to minor grammar and spelling if you edit the article at all. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Having been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, I am well aware of the issues surrounding WP:COI as well as the value of Expert editors. My editing has not been disruptive in the past, so there is no reason to assume that it would be in the future.  I kindly ask you to Assume good faith and refrain from admonishing me for behavior that has not taken place.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 17:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivia Section?
Does anyone else feel that the Personal life section reads like a trivia section and should either be deleted or worked into the rest of the text? Annalisa Ventola (Talk 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There isn't much there, I agree. I don't think it could be sexed up much either.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue that is unique to this article, nor is it one that is necessarily elegantly resolved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the interest of meeting good article criteria, would you say that the details in this section are necessary or not? I would be inclined to delete the whole thing (except for maybe linking to his wife somewhere), but if you feel that these details are crucial to a good encyclopedia article, I'd like to see how we can work them into the text.  Having a "Personal Life" section in a BLP seems like an invitation for trouble to me.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 01:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Barney the barney barney, since you are so keen on keeping the material, would you mind proposing a way to work it into the body of the article? Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

a 'former' biochemist; reasoned common sense arguments provided and ignored
Why are editors putting UNDUE weight on the Skeptical POV in the lead section again? How does it make the page more neutral, but also reflect a properly sourced summary of a living person?

Barney the barney barney suggest that the best way to obtain a NPOV on the page is to frame Sheldrake as a * former biochemist* insofar as he isn't currently doing scientific research in these areas.  Source? Reference? Is this original research Barney? I'm not seeing this cited anywhere and you claim you're the one interpreting how to apply Sheldrakes credentials. Please. Stop. Doing. That.

Barney the barney barney then suggest that ''*If we look at his publication record, he hasn't been been doing biochemical research since the late 1970s, and on plant physiology since at least the mid 1980s. That's why he's a current author and former biochemist and plant physiologist. Hope that clarifies that little misunderstanding of yours*''

Clearly if someone was doing research for 20 years, then they were a former researcher and that's fair to say in context. I've never heard of a doctorate automatically being revoked if a scientist leaves a research position to focus on private study and research in his actual field of study as a biologist.

Not understanding at all how diminishing a living person's real academic record which includes an actual doctorate in biochemistry is NOT recognized - but a title of parapsychology IS recognized without any degree whatsoever, any proper sourcing whatsoever. To me this just appears that editors are applying a Skeptical POV to be the primary position of WP. that's not the WP i signed up for. Let's find a rational consensus here, I believe this line of questioning is a reasonable one. The Tumbleman (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mis-describing someone doctorate in biochemistry is designed to discredit them and contradicts WP:BIO. Likewise trying to described them as a "parapsychologist", a label with no formal qualification, and attributed by a tiny number of critics. --Iantresman (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This was explained above. It's yet another case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU, isn't it ? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Barney, but it is not for any editor to "explain" something and stick their fingers in their ears, as it comes across as dictatorial and rude (see WP:CIVIL). You should be prepared to listen to other editors as much as you would expect them to list to you. --Iantresman (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, but I think you'll find I've been extremely patient and understanding of 's problems of apparently being able to read information but not process it properly. Having faced his problems at some length, I can only conclude that basic WP:COMPETENCE issues are at play because my WP:CIVIL explanations to him are ignored and he repeats the same unsubstantiated assertions, unbacked by reasoning or evidence, over and over again.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I also think that biologist/biochemist is the better term. Parapsychology is an interdisciplinary field and there are no Ph.D.'s awarded in the area. Academics working in the field generally first get their start in a mainstream field (i.e. physics, psychology, philosophy, anthropology) and then start applying the methods of their field to parapsychological topics. Sheldrake's approach to parapsychology is inherently biological - from his interest in the animal kingdom to employing statistical methods that prominent in biology.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that Anna agrees that Sheldrake does parapsychology. Yet more evidence that he's a parapsychologist.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm quite flattered that you think my comments are 'evidence', but I think you're missing the point. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Aha - pot kettle black. Not going to wikilink though --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm rather confused as to why Sheldrake is listed as a parapsychologist... He doesn't seem to be making the basic "Ancient Aliens" type of psychic argument.  If I understand it correctly it seems like his positions are more neurological than psychological, as they're based on hardware rather than software, if you'll excuse the stretched metaphor.  I'm seeing some argumentation that seems a bit personal, but does anyone have a clear example of how morphic resonance is based on parapsychology rather than, say, neurology, biochemistry or even paraneurology?  If that's not a supported term, perhaps we should reword the lead to reference the complicated terminology.  I'm open to clarification. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheldrake thinks that dogs can tell when their owners are coming home and go and sit in the porch in anticipation. His explanation for this apparent phenomenon is that the dog and owner are communicating via a "morphic field".  He believes that this phenomenon is both normal (i.e. not paranormal) - in other words repeatable, and therefore experimentally determinable.  Parapsychology is not by definition pseudoscience, it becomes pseudoscience when people make extraordinary claims that are not backed up by the required evidence, i.e. they don't pass the scientific scepticism part of the scientific process.  So e.g. Sue Blackmore could be described as a parapsychologist even though she's a sceptic and not conducting pseudoscience.  I don't see what the problem is with this term.  It is one Sheldrake uses himself . Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake does NOT refer to himself as a parapsychologist, can you provide your source for that? he refers to himself as a biologist, which is consistent with his degree and research. It's common knowledge that he is a biologist, and when he is referenced in journals, speaking events, they refer to him as his title, biologist. It's a common knowledge argument that he is a biologist. His research into telepathy is from the POV of his degree in biochemistry and his career as a researcher and his research is into 'claims' that people make regarding their pets. Sheldrake states that he believes claims of 'telepathy' in social groups is an extension of biology and evolution. He has an hypothesis for it, and experimentation that is actually still on going. He does not claim that Morphic Resonance is a fact, he claims it is an open question. He performs tests. He tries to falsify the claim. That sounds like standard scientific procedure to this editor. I'm not seeing anything 'fringe' other than it's the title of the subject matter he is researching rather than a reflection of HOW is is researching it. Susan Blackmore IS a parapsychologist, she has a degree in Parapsychology so of course we will refer to her as a parapsychologist. It just looks like it is important to call him a parapsychologist so the FRINGE claim can be maintained to support a Skeptical POV. Well I am sorry, this is Wikipedia, and we follow the Neutral Point of View policy. The skeptical POV is NOT a MAINSTREAM view. It might be a relevant POV in context to certain situations, but it's on the fringes of society just like astrology and yoga. Wikipedia is for the middle, the center, the neutral POV. We are here to insure a rational consensus, not support some groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics, individual ones or otherwise. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Barney the barney barney, I'm not contesting here the lack of scientific support for Sheldrake's theories or his status on the fringe, but rather the title of parapsychologist. He may have posited that dogs have some (unsupported?) comprehension of their owner's proximity, but from my understanding of his argument he's claiming that's due to indeterminate biological causes, not paranormal mental abilities.  The fact that those biological causes are unsupported by scientific evidence is irrelevent to this discussion, since the issue is whether it's a (para)psychological claim or a biochemical one.
 * I think it's reasonable to say there is a difference between studying the hardware of how the mind works (neurology) and the software of what it does (psychology). I think it's equally clear that Sheldrake has no credentials whatsoever in any branch of psychology, but does in biochemistry, which his morphic resonance hypothesis is supposedly based on.  I'm not saying that some of his claims don't have similarities with those of parapsychologists, but it doesn't appear to be such an identifying trait of his theories or qualifications that it should be in the lead.  There are many terms that could be used, but parapsychologist seems particularly ill-suited.  If you could provide the source where Sheldrake identifies himself as one, that would be very helpful.The Cap&#39;n (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I just followed the sources linked to his being listed as a parapsychologist. One stated that someone had described him as a parapsychologist but the university he supposedly worked for said there was no such position there, while the other links this term to his work in biochemistry in a way that addresses my concerns above.  My main concern remains that whether or not there are sources that use the word about him, that does not mean it is a fitting lead descriptor.  Also, my apologies for not being signed in earlier. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Barney the barney barney Thank you for your explanation, by the by. My original issue of identification remains, however.  Especially since Sheldrake himself identifies his work as normal (NOT paranormal, in your words), the appellation of "para" anything seems inappropriate.  If I put forth a hypothesis that my head could be scientifically proven to be a watermelon, that's not paranormal, it's just bad science that is falsifiable (I hope).  I think there's plenty to be said about the fact that scientists have serious issues with his hypotheses, but the very fact Sheldrake claims they can be proven excludes them from paranormal categorization, if not fringe/disputed science.  Sorry to reply to myself.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

DiDC Alternative Lead
Could we return to a discussion of David in DC's proposal for an alternate lead. I think it's much cleaner and more NPOV than what's currently in the header and worthy of additional discussion. Annalisa Ventola (Talk 14:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The assertion that criticism is "unsupported by evidence" is absolutely shocking case of WP:POVPUSHing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the language you, Barney the barney barney, are proposing for the article is much better supported by reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Barney, but I'm really not sure what you are talking about. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Anna could explain what she thinks is wrong with the lede, bearing in mind all the previous recent discussion on this page, rather than making bland statements for improvement? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This talk page is already widely populated with discussions of the lead (i.e here and here. We have an editor requesting consensus and I think it should be considered. A diatribe from me is unnecessary. And please try to be civil when characterizing my contributions here (i.e. 'bland' statements).   Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This: "Sheldrake’s work on morphic resonance and telepathy has been widely criticized by prominent scientists, skeptical (sic) organizations, and science journalists, with some claiming it is pseudoscience, unsupported by evidence...". We can't make judgement decisions on the validity of the criticism and conclude such criticism is "unsupported by evidence" - that's plainly ridiculous. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC).  PS - The Royal Society is classified as a "skeptical organization" now is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing the semantics, the wording is suggesting that sheldrakes ideas are not supported by the evidence, not that the idea that it IS pseudoscience that is not supported by the evidence. However, now that you mention it, it's certainly not supported by the sources. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just updated my sandbox which is now a synthesis of Dave in DC's and I's edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tumbleman/sandbox

good work here David in DC, thanks for giving this a go. Sorry i have not had time yet to augment. I agree that it would be proper to have his academic titles and positions in academia in the lead, but I am keeping it out of mine in the spirit of consensus, I assume many of the editors dont want his scientific credentials listed as much and there is flak around the parapsychology issue - so i though just keeping it simple would be helpful, but all for your suggestion if it was up to me.

Paragraph two of your edit that defines MR uses this quote ""telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" - that's a quote way out of context. Editors are using it on the page because it has the word telepathy in it and it makes Sheldrake look 'fringy' in doing so. That is not how Sheldrake argues for morphic resonance, that is a quote from his book, and it's actually in the page. it says


 * "The idea came to me in a moment of insight and was extremely exciting. It interested some of my colleagues at Clare College - philosophers, linguists, and classicists were quite open-minded. But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn’t go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs. Not that they were aggressively hostile; they just made fun of it. Whenever I said something like, "I’ve just got to go and make a telephone call," they said, "Ha, ha, why bother? Do it by morphic resonance!"[6]

Sheldrake is 'quoting' his idea that way because he is showing how it would be received at an institution. It's an anecdotal story, it's not even an explanation of his theory, it's a caricature of an explanation of his theory. I am sure you can see how this is not the best way to neutrally explain what MR is from Sheldrake's POV.

Paragraph 3, I dont see any sources that justify the "Critics express concern that his books and public appearances attract popular attention in a way that has a negative impact on the public's understanding of science." there is a source on his page, but it's one opinion of one person, certainly not a consensus. I think it's relevant though, so I am putting it in the second paragraph where it's context is properly served. It seems awkward to state in the third paragraph, considering the sources for the third paragraph reference Sheldrake at round tables with some of the most prominent scientists in the world. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing weasel words
This edit removes from problematic weasel words including "hypothesis" (there are no reliable sources that identify morphic reasonance as a legitimate scientific hypothesis) and "principle" describing the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is a fact, not just a principle.

Also, "scientific consensus" about the fact of the conservation of energy is selling this fact short. It's simply a fact, not something that is decided upon by the vote of luminaries.

Please justify any desires to change this wording back.

Thanks,

jps (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a criticism of your edit, but it is worth comparing the tone of contentious articles between Wikipedia and encyclopaedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and articles on parapsychology and ESP. The difference is dramatic. Even the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (publ. 2000), has a more encyclopedic tone, even in its article on Sheldrake. --Iantresman (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * jps, leaving Sheldrake's positions aside, that's just not the way scientific terms work. A hypothesis is just an educated guess, it does not need to be confirmed by proof, if it is then it is no longer a hypothesis but a supported theory.  Hypotheses do not need corroboration, they're just conjectures.  Second, conservation of energy IS a principle as determined by the consensus of the overwhelming number of scientists, there is nothing in science that is an irrefutable fact.  Even gravity is technically a theory.  Again, not arguing for or against Sheldrake, but for the accurate use of scientific terms.  I propose we set the wording back. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Claiming a "hypothesis" is to claim the guess was "educated", but there are no reliable sources which actually contend this. jps (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and since Sheldrake has a doctorate from Cambridge, has studied the history of science at Harvard, and had papers published in peer-reviewed journals, I think we have to acknowledge the likelihood that Sheldrake knows the difference between an idea, a hypothesis and a theory (and you are at liberty to disagree). Sheldrake himself uses the term "hypothesis" as does the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience article on him, and the Nature article "A Book for Burning". I know of no references that question whether he has made a "hypothesis" or something else. Of course this does not imply that his hypotheses are correct, but I know of no scientists who advocates that wrong hypotheses become merely "ideas". --Iantresman (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with hypothesis. It's clearly not a scientific theory (which by definition is generally accepted).  A hypothesis is a hypothesis even if it's discredited and unfalsifiable/untestable.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree with hypothesis, and there are references to scientific journals which refer to Sheldrake's MR as an hypothesis. Also, It's actually the title of his book "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation, so referring to his hypothesis of MR is also how it is referenced in a published title. What i am not seeing however is any sources that say it is  unfalsifiable/untestable, especially since there are journals and back and forths between sheldrake and rose actually testing it. Sourced evidence shows that the claim of unfalsifiable/untestable is opinion and original research.  The Tumbleman (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maddox 1981 accuses Sheldrake of providing a hypothesis that is untestable/unfalsifiable (the two are closely related). It would help if you were familiar with the sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct, Maddox does share *his* opinion that is the case. And it's fair to state that opinion on the page. What is not NPOV however is stating that opinion as a fact, and then use that fact to hold a WPFRINGE guideline to anything that mentions sheldrake on WP. Even if thousands of people believe Maddox is right, and even if WP editors believe he is right, it's still an opinion. It's an educated opinion, and a notable opinion, but an opinion none the less. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see a consensus forming that hypothesis is used correctly. But the editor has twice reverted me when I restored it, and the other formulations he identifies as weasel words. I've asked him to self-revert, per WP:BRD, on his talk page. IRWolfie- provided some helpful context there as well. But I don't see a self-revert coming. Once there's enough comment here to be sure that hypothesis is not, as asserted in the edit summary, a weasel word, I'd appeciate someone implementing that consensus. David in DC (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The use of the word hypothesis lends the idea undue credibility and cloaks it in scientific sounding language, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * huh? the use of the word hypothesis lends the idea as an hypothesis and I am seeing absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise. Who are you accusing of practicing this deception? This sort of statement rests on the assumption that the idea is *not* scientific and would therefore need to be *cloaked* to make it appear scientific. Sources that show that? Reasoned argument?


 * Let's use common sense before we start suspending the Law of Identity. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tumbleman is quite correct. By the same logic, we have to go through the history of science, and revert all "hypotheses" and "theories" that have been shown to be incorrect, and now refer to them as only "ideas". Phlogiston theory should now be called the "Phlogiston idea", because suggesting it was better than a mere hypotheses would be to give it undue credibility. --Iantresman (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please believe me when I say that I had not intended for this edit to turn into a demonstration of Pavlovian response. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just made the edit - I changed it to his 'hypothesis of formative causation' which is the actual title of his paper with a reference of that title being published in a biology journal regarding a test of morphic resonance. Now that it's established that it's an hypothesis both it title with a source, an hypothesis as a proper scientific reference, with a source that also shows testing, the whole cloaking and masquerading as a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable claim that editors are suggesting is proven to be - wrong. and sourced. with facts. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only that, some science papers even refer to it as a "theory". My usual disclaimer: this is not to imply that Sheldrake's ideas are correct, nor that I support them. --Iantresman (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with This edit. I find the process on this page particularly hard, and am reminded of a quote from Voltaire ... “You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favoured the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason.”  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)It is imperitive that, before reaching a consensus, someone must say: "!voting is evil." Therefore: !voting is evil. Based, instead, on the quality and persuasiveness of everything above, I see only the editor who started the thread and one other explicitly opposed to the word hypothesis. The thread-starter makes a reasoned argument, with which I disagree. The other: "hypothesis lends undue credibility" seems at odds with the meaning of "hypothesis", as most of us have pointed out. Calling something a hypothesis lends it no credibility whatsoever. That's why we test hypotheses. Some prove true, some prove false. As time unfolds, some failed hypotheses are proven true by better instruments or better-designed tests. As time unfolds, some "proven" hypotheses fail, for similar reasons. Everyone else seems to explicitly favor it, except Roxy, who approves of the always-reliable sanity of vzaak, without explicitly opining either way on whether hypothesis would also get the seal (oops, no, seals bark, too) ummmm, quack of approval. No matter how you slice it, it looks like a consensus in favor of hypothesis to me. David in DC (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted due to several serious errors, as explained in the edit comment [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=576665072&oldid=576658237]. I haven't looked into whatever the issue is, I just saw the source for a quote being removed, etc. vzaak (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are reminded that this is wikipedia and not Reddit. Edits are not supported by an upvote, and likes to a page do not reason an edit like facebook. The proper edit and choice is not a 'feeling based' transaction, like on Tumblr. Quotes and opinions of editors do not hold weight, even if they love them and hold them dear. Editing to a NPOV is serious business, and requires work. This article is in contention, if editors cannot make reasoned arguments in this deliberation, it may be best to move on to the social network of their choice. The Tumbleman (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WHY ARE REVERTS HAPPENING TO AN EDIT WITH NO CONSENSUS AND OF A MINORITY OPINION?
vzaak Can you explain your revert when consensus, reasoned argument, common sense, and sources support using the appropriate, academic, scientific, and proper title? If you have a problem with grammar, change the grammar. If there is a problem with the source, ask in TALK. As you can see in the section above, rational consensus shows the change in the word 'proposal' did not have consensus, so it was reverted back. I even changed the reference to Morphic Resonance to it's proper academic reference which is listed in the title of the paper and in the title of author's work, "An Hypothesis of Formative Causation" to avoid any issues around clarity. Are you suggesting that the change to 'proposal' has consensus and therefore needs to stay? Please explain your reasoning to the community. The Tumbleman (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not observed any consensus on the talk page for the edits that have recently been reverted. There is no Wikipedia policy that requires an article that is a biography of a living person to be a hagiography that takes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence at face value. Rather, all Wikipedia articles are first and foremost to be based on reliable sources. What the sources say about Sheldrake is what belongs in an article about Sheldrake. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you provided diffs for the revert, so we know which edits you are referring to, and the editors responsible can provide the requested sources if available. --Iantresman (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji, actually if you look at the TALK section right above this section, called "Removing Weasel Words" - you will see that editor jps removed the long standing 'hypothesis' from the lead and replaced it with 'proposal', making the claim that to use the word hypothesis would be inaccurate because there was no source to show that MR was a scientific hypothesis. He then asked the community of editors to justify the revert. A number of very active editors on this page, myself included, objected - each providing their own unique reasoned argument that suggested such a change was unwarranted. So the change from hypothesis to 'proposal' has no consensus, clearly. We want to understand the decision and build a rational consensus, not engage in an edit war. Would you like to read the section that directly addresses this revert and share your reasoned argument with the community? The Tumbleman (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BECAUSE THERE IS CONSENSUS AND YOUR OPINION IS THE MINORITY ONE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Barney the barney barney it's clear that is your position as a welcomed voice on this page, however we are not seeing any evidence of that in the talk section around the change. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can count me in on The Tumbleman's side of this. I don't post much, but part of that is simply that The Tumbleman is striking the right neutral tone and covering the issues more objectively than I would.  I think that his objections are entirely valid.  Certainly skeptical sourcing is not sufficient for the claims being made.  I've already pointed that out.  There also seems to be a skeptical reliance on Wikipedia guidelines as a substitute for basic scholarship.  It's my opinion that no amount of discussion over fringe or undue can possibly override the need to properly support statements.Craig Weiler (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to work toward consensus on this page, but there are several editors here who clearly have no interest in such things, nor do they recognize when someone is arguing their side. These folks are far more interesting in craftily lodging ad hominom attacks and dragging us all around in rhetorical circles than improving this article. I suggest that we stop feeding the trolls, and if they don't get bored and go away, seek arbitration.  Nothing is going to get accomplished in this environment.  In the meantime, there are lots of parapsychology articles that need improving.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Iantresman (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are several editors here who seem to have no interest in building consensus. Maybe they just don't know how to do it. Among other things, requests for agreement on simple points are not responded to, or are responded to with great walls of meandering text. I like the concept of not feeding the trolls, and I agree that nothing good is going to be accomplished in this environment. Lou Sander (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm also getting very frustrated with the obstinate reverts without discussion. I spent a lot of time gathering feedback and carefully working on a compromise lead, only to see it all reverted without any justification other than the fact it wasn't suitably hostile to Sheldrake.  We're here to cooperate in making an informative biography, not to senselessly revert honest efforts to improve the page.  I'm not trying to promote the man's ideas, but I'm also not willing to tolerate weasel words that violate WP:BLP.  I don't want to initiate an edit war so I'm not reverting back, but I'm putting it forth that this is getting aggressive and intolerable.  Can I get a consensus of people who support justification on the talk page before reverting???  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If by "wasn't suitably hostile to Sheldrake" you mean that is "didn't appropriately situate Sheldrake's thinking as fringe magical thinking rather than as science", it is because policies don't allow that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (and where exactly is this consensus for your version of the lead that you claim?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would not appear sensible to attempt to edit the most controversial area of the article without getting consensus here first. I see that others feel the same way.  It might work on a less controversial page without woolly thinkers, but not here. What say you  Cap&#39;n?  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Change in Lead Section from parapsychologist to 'Fringe Scientist', request for consensus
Neither of the two references provided support the pejorative and contentious epithet "fringe scientist". contrary to WP:BLP, and that we should "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" per WP:GRAPEVINE. Consensus, if it exists, does not provide an exception, even if it is SHOUTED. --Iantresman (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I share the issue on the sources and have two questions for the editor.
 * Opinion pieces as references to define a living person's life work and career?
 * What's a 'fringe scientist'?
 * The Tumbleman (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Perrott-Warrick Fund gave Sheldrake a research grant for several years and the terms of the bequest were "absolutely for the purpose of psychical research". So instead of parapsychologist or fringe scientist how about "psychical researcher"? It seems a clear, accurate and referenced descriptor. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've found anecdotal evidence for this on Susan Blackmore's website and Rupert Sheldrake's website here. Although I have no reason to doubt this, it would be nice to find a more reliable source. Sheldrake's involvement is shown as "Director", and while I don't doubt that he did research during this time, just because, for example, a scientist does some research on "coffee", they don't become a "coffee scientist", but a scientist who has done research on coffee (and perhaps many other subjects). Sheldrake is a biochemist (Ph.D Cambridge), as defined by Wikipedia, and as acknowledged by Cambridge University. --Iantresman (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike a biochemist who researches coffee; once a former scientist begins pushing psuedo-science, they are no longer a "scientist", they are a "pseudoscientist". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheldrake was a biochemist. He is (or maybe was) a psychical researcher, which is not mainstream science. He is a writer on paranormal topics. I agree that it would be good to have more reliable sources, but I think the sources posted by Iantresman are sufficient. Does anybody else agree with these descriptors? Dingo1729 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually said that he is a biochemist, for the reasons, and sources I provided. --Iantresman (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources in recent academic journals at last as 2011 list him as a biologist, as well as the Perrot Warrick Fund in mention, which if anyone checks the source used to support the 'parapsychologist' claim, actually reference him as a biologist as well. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  I am not seeing any proper sources that sheldrake pushes pseudoscience other than a few referenced opinions. Opinions are not facts so I dont see any support for your claim from the sources provided here. If you have a source that shows this as a fact, such as a peer reviewed journal where there is consensus amongst the scientists in question, please provide. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT "fringe scientist" is a neologism with no meaning. The high value link is to parapsychology, the definition in which closely resembles Sheldrake's "experiments". Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked the University of Cambridge website, and they don't seem to agree with your characterisation. I then checked the Nature article where the editor gave his opinion that Sheldrake's presented an "an exercise in pseudo-science", but still acknowledged that he was "trained as a biochemist". I was not able to find one source that suggest that (a) Sheldrake pushes pseudoscience, and therefore (b) he is no longer a scientist, but (c) a pseudoscientist. WP:BLP requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". I quite accept that there may be many editors may share this opinion, but editors are not reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney we understand that is your position, that parapsychology should hold weight and his legitimate scientific credentials, such as biologist or biochemist are somehow suspended from the record. Problem is, we can't find any sources that support that other than an opinion, a reference to a skeptic dictionary which is not valid as a reference in a BLP, and personal research or interpretation. We are willing to consider your POV here but we need to see some sources for that for a rational consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , please stop with the strawmen. There are two issues here.  Issue 1 is that Sheldrake hasn't been doing any biology or biochemistry since the mid 1980s. Sheldrake supporters nevertheless want to describe him as a biochemist.  This is simply not supported by facts.  Issue 2 is that Sheldrake is attempting, (or at least has more recently attempted) studies on parapsychology.  The ideas that he are either (1) a current scientist or (2) not involved in parapsychology are quite frankly abut as ridiculous as your other attempts to subvert NPOV and FRINGE on this page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strawman is Odd choice to use in a debate, you may want to be careful about giving away your strategy so easily, as you once again are continually avoiding the direct conflict of our ideas here. My argument is based on references, sources, common sense, WP Policy. All you keep telling me is that you have an opinion of why parapsychology should be used based on original research your doing. You do understand how wikipedia works, right? This isn't like commenting on a blog. We are only here to make reasoned arguments and use common sense based on sourced references towards a more NPOV. Your opinion in a TALK section is not a sourced reference. Please provide a sourced reference and explain why the community should suspend WP policy to support the skeptical POV. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I will settle of just one proper source. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia defines someone as a biochemist if they have been trained as a biochemist. Sheldrake has a Ph.D. If you have any sources whatsoever, that even hints that (a) he is not continuing to use his experience as a biochemist in his work, and (b) that even if he is not, then he is should no longer call himself a biochemistry, then please present it.
 * The University of Binghamton refers to him as a biochemist, and the University of Cambridge also acknowledges his Ph.D as does the University of Edinburgh,. He is also referred to as a biologist by the University of London, the University of Arizona, and the Open University, What you your sources? --Iantresman (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisions in the page by .... an editor
I find it rather difficult to deal with discussion here when an "editor" messes about with the page, particularly with other editors posts without some sort of agreement first. Changing the order of posts, and even creating new sections to put them in. Of course, if this is considered acceptable behaviour, then OK. Am I being too sensitive? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sensitivity is a result of morphic resonance and altogether reasonable. Through the generations, one attribute that has been passed down in homo sapiens is an aversion to sanctimonious, humorless zealotry. Sadly, while we all carry this attribute, it does not manifest itself in all of us. An early developmental marker for the manifestation of this attribute, in the technical term favored by pre-school and kindergarten educational scholars and practitioners, is the ability to "play well with others."
 * There's a doctoral dissertation to be written some day comparing the correlation between single-minded, joyless zealotry and the presence or absence of this term on grade school report cards. My hypothesis is that a correlation can be found between the presence (or absence) of this term in the grade school records of long-time wikipedia editors and their relative incorrigibility in matters requiring a balancing of core values. A correlation such that those who "played well with others" score lower on an incorrigibility scale and those whose grade school records display little or no proficiency in this critical skill score exponentially higher.
 * I further hypothesize that other markers for the failure of this species-wide attribute to manifest itself in a given member of the species homo sapiens would prove to be an inability to walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time and an inability to disagree without being disagreeable.
 * Please note: my use of the word hypothesis here is purposeful. It's connected with a discussion further up the page. It's meant to demonstrate the utter ridiculousness of banishing the word "hypothesis" as a descriptor for morphic resonance. Morphic resonance may be no more likely to prove true than the hypotheses I provide for my proposed doctoral dissertation. Nonetheless, they are all hypotheses. Contending otherwise provides a reliable source for a verifiable characterization of notably poor editorial judgment.
 * Please note further: I wrote this without having a single editor in mind. I had two. One on each side. David in DC (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is seriously biased toward the prevailing skeptical view
I have placed a NPOV tag on the article. it is clear that the majority of text here is negative with no pretense of presenting the man as his work. In all, it is being used to attack his views, rather than simply discussing his views.

For instance, under Books, we have: ''...Sheldrake's book is a splendid illustration of the widespread public misconception of what science is about. In reality, Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science... Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion – and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book.[13]''

And more. There are many comments supporting the book, but of course, they are published in unacceptable publications. The solution is to just say what and not editorialize! Tom Butler (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * see all the talk above. When all of the mainstream science calls the work pseudoscience, then the NPOV view of the article MUST call the work pseudoscience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This. It would be a blatant POV to NOT mention that some of his views are far off the majority viewpoint and have been discredited.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , I understand you're new here so I've recommended you read the stuff at the top of this page. Do not be surprised if a low level scientist (as Sheldrake was), starts making extraordinary claims without required evidence, that members of the scientific community call him out.  That's part of the scientific process.  Sheldrake's article is "biased" against him not because the editors are biased but because several prominent members of the scientific community are biased against nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Barney, This is not about whether or not Sheldrake has been called out. See if you can stand back and take a look at the article as a whole. It is clearly an attack piece. Now consider what many of us have been working toward for Wikipedia for many years. The Wiki is too important to allow a few zealous editors to use it as a way of proving a person is wrong. That make any of us wanting to use Wikipedia as a reference look like idiots.


 * Either make the article neutral or I will put it up for deletion. Tom Butler (talk)


 * A neutral article on a heavily disparaged subject is going to look like an "attack piece". Please stop edit warring. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you review: in the Pseudoscience arbitration of 2006. Unless you can find a newer decision, I think you will see that the admins agreed to the need for more balanced than is represented here. You are being overly aggressive! Tom Butler (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your 2006 arb ruling: " Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."  In this case, there is NO legitimate scientific disagreement, its pseudoscience through and through.
 * I would not recommend taking this to deletion, as you have threatened, as the subject is clearly notable and such a move is disrupting the project merely to make a point and as such could result in moves to prevent you from creating future disruptions. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @TRPoD "all of the mainstream science" does not call his work pseudoscience. In this context, "mainstream science" is a weasel word (unsupported attribution). There is no dispute that several individuals have called his work pseudoscience. There are also examples of academia who do not chacterise Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, such as the University of Cambridge, the University of Edinburgh's Koestler Parapsychology Unit, the University of London's Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, the University of Arizona's Center for Consciousness Center, the University of Northampton's Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes, the UK's Open University, Binghamton University, NY,.


 * And then we have the peer-reviweed papers that examine Sheldrake's without prejudice, eg. in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (2011),, and, peer-reviewed papers by Sheldrake himself, eg. in The Journal of Science and Healing, And mentions in academic books such as the Encyclopedia of Creativity (Elsevier), --Iantresman (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * uhhh, like I said, all of the mainstream academics. that pseudo-scientists see him as one of their own, well that sells it right there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there you have it; the reason this article is not balanced: the position some editors are taking is that scientists do think it is pseudoscience are writing in acceptable publications and the scientists who do not think it is pseudoscience are also pseudoscientists and therefore their opinion does not count.
 * Is that about right?Tom Butler (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It must be upsetting to those who are on the losing side of the argument, but essentially, Wikipedia's rules on reliable sourcing demand that we pay deference to those who are actually mainstream. Sorry. jps (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the only thing that is being lost here is the spirit of WP. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that all the academic institutions I listed above, are not mainstream, and if so, how you came to that conclusion? There seems to be a suggestion that anyone who investigates parapsychology without prejudice is by definition non-mainstream, and anyone who investigates parapsychology in order to disprove it, is mainstream? --Iantresman (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We're discussing publications and scientists, not institutions. jps (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A word about "hypotheses"
Like many terms in the English language, "hypothesis" means different things. One thing it means is "educated guess". In the context of science, such guesses need to be made in an informed way. Many of those who argue against Sheldrake's claims specifically dispute whether he is informed or not on the matters that he is proposing. For example, resonance is an idea from physics, and it is not at all clear that Sheldrake is educated enough to identify a resonant phenomenon -- even a hypothetical one.

But beyond this, if we are going to call Sheldrake's idea "a hypothesis", we ought to have a independent source that specifically does this. I have not seen any sources that are properly independent from Sheldrake's advocacy do this. However, if someone would like to identify some, I'd be happy to look carefully as to whether they actually make plain statements (and not just attributed claims) that Sheldrake's morphic resonance is "a hypothesis" (that is, his guess is actually educated).

jps (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Would love to assist you here. These are valid references and sources but here for common sense purposes only.


 * Educated guess in biology and chemistry


 * Sources that reference it in clear context to being an 'educated' idea. These are Scientific Journals that reference SHeldrake, both as a biologist, and to his 'hypothesis', also stating that his hypothesis explores formative causation within biology and chemistry, not physics, and mentions that sheldrake only steps outside of biology and chemistry to extend his hypothesis in relationship to culture and society.


 * ^ Watts, Fraser. "Morphic Fields and Extended Mind An Examination of the Theoretical Concepts of Rupert Sheldrake". 2011. Journal of Consciousness Studies. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
 * ^The Sense of Being Glared At' Journal of Consciousness Studies. Vol 12, No 6, June 2005 - here is a link for an editor to view the actual pages in the journal where it states


 * So what do real physicists think? Does Sheldrake make an uneducated 'guess'?


 * 12 scientists refer to it as an hypothesis in this book by Hans-Peter Durr, the entire book is dedicated to this specific scientific discussion and peer review of morphic resonance. One would assume that if a highly prominent scientist took the time to write the book and find 11 other scientists to sit around and discuss it, that they would only do so with an educated idea and not waste time with just a mere 'guess'.


 * ^ ^ Durr, Hans-Peter;, Gottwald, Franz-Leo (1999). Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion. Das Wagnis einer neuen Wissenschaft des Lebens [Gebundene Ausgabe]. Berlin: Fischer Scherz. ISBN 9783502191698.
 * here is a link on sheldrake's page where you can find a translation.


 * Here is a PDF of an article by Hans Durr written for The Center for Frontier Sciences called "Sheldrake's ideas from the perspective of modern physics."


 * I hope this is ample for your immediate purposes. Would you mind doing the same? Do you have any sourced references that support the claim that the mainstream scientific community rejects the hypothesis claim to formative causation and refers to it as the Proposal of Formative Causation or Proposal of Morphic Resonance? I can't seem to find anything there and worried that the claim that it is a proposal rather than hypothesis is based on original research. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Journal of Consciousness Studies" is a terrible source that is certainly not independent of the fantastical claims.


 * Hans-Peter Durr is normally described as "wacky" when it comes to his proposals on consciousness (similar to Roger Penrose). As such, we can safely dismiss his credulity as pseudoscientific.


 * So, no, you haven't actually been able to satisfy my request. Again, we need an independent source, not a fellow believer in magical quantum consciousness.


 * Are you honestly suggesting that morphic resonance is not a proposal by Sheldrake? That is, do you really want me to provide a source that Sheldrake suggested this idea himself? Because according to my dictionary, that's what "proposal" actually means. If you think it's not a "proposal", do you think it is an "idea" at least?


 * jps (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry jps,but I can only satisfy sourcing that work within WP: VERIFY. I can't satisfy sourcing to appeal to a personal POV. I don't see the facts in your argument, just an opinion. There is more out there, but I can't do the work for you and I have no idea of which personality you will like or not, but I can show you where to look.

Google Scholar lists Rupert's journal articles with the number of citations per article and links to the journals that cite Rupert. For example, one of the articles from the Journal of Consciousness Studies is cited 27 times. One of the citations is in the journal Anthropology of Consciousness in a paper called The Electrophysiological Basis of Evil Eye Belief. The most citations that have been overwhelmingly positive have been Rupert's journal articles on experimenter effect where he's cited in respected mainstream journals: Journal of Experimental Biology, Science & Justice, Journal of Investigative Psychology, etc so you will probably want to avoid those and probably will just want to focus on the ones that support the skeptical POV.

See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=rupert+sheldrake.

Also, I requested you provide your sourcing for the word 'proposal' or references that Sheldrake's Hypothesis is not educated. Were you able to find any? You do not have any consensus on using proposal and still have not provided much to support reverting. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. All I see is deprecation language, which is no cool, or necessary. According to Wikipedia the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" article has not one critical word to be said against it, and not one source was provide to support the claims that it is either "terrible" or non-independent. Likewise the Hans-Peter Dürr article has not one bad word against him, a list of honour to make most scientists weep, and no sources offered to support the pejorative viewpoint. A previous ArbCom ruling has criticised "Using strong negative language, [that] has deprecated a number of persons and their theories" --Iantresman (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even those that support this particular approach to an academic journal admit that it is "unconventional": . jps (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are game-playing now. It's not becoming. Google scholar is not a metric by which quality is measured and the low-impact or self-referencing citation churning that gets done in obscure journals that are taken over by editorial boards either out to make a fast buck or intellectually predisposed to accommodate pseudoscientific ideas is not evidence that these proposals are anything more than chicanery. If you can't understand my request for an independent source, that's okay, but your attempt to shift the goalposts will not be successful, ultimately. jps (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm just helping you do the research, I'm not saying google scholar is a SOURCE, i am saying google is a place where you can find sources that you are looking for. I already provided relevant independent sourcing to you, I can't help it if you don't like reading the journal or that you think hans durr is whacky. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your task was not to "help me do the research". Your task was to point me to a source that is independent that identified Sheldrake's work as being worthy of consideration as a scientific hypothesis. I have looked through the sources in the normal ways and find nothing. jps (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, jps I missed this question "Are you honestly suggesting that morphic resonance is not a proposal by Sheldrake? That is, do you really want me to provide a source that Sheldrake suggested this idea himself? Because according to my dictionary, that's what "proposal" actually means. If you think it's not a "proposal", do you think it is an "idea" at least?" Oh we can agree that it is an idea, but specifically it is an hypothesis. I refer to it as an hypothesis because it puts forth an idea for testing and prediction. Not all proposals put forth ideas for testing and prediction. I propose we meet for lunch, for example. So the word hypothesis seems like a reasonable way to signify an hypothesis. I am suggesting that referring to a valid scientific hypothesis as a proposal is diminishing to the very real academic and scientific career of a BLP and is in violation of NPOV. I am still not seeing any sources that suggest SHeldrake's idea is an uneducated idea. His Hypothesis of formative causation is in chemistry and biology. [http://I%20find%20the%20claim%20that%20a%20biochemist%20would%20have%20no%20knowledge%20of%20resonance%20to%20be%20a%20deeply%20misleading%20contradiction. I find the claim that a biochemist would have no knowledge of resonance to be a deeply problematic contradiction.] The Tumbleman (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since we both agree it's an "idea", at least we can use that word, right? If you don't like "proposal", that's fine. I don't like "hypothesis" because I don't see there any evidence that this is a properly formulated scientific hypothesis in the same way that, say, the question of the existence of Santa Claus is not a properly formulated hypothesis (and, please, don't go on about how that's a strawman... the point is that I see the similarity and others do as well even if you don't). The problem is that there are sources that indicate that it is not a real, valid hypothesis (and many are cited in this very article). Rather than perpetuate the argument, let's just use a word that everyone can agree to. "Idea" is fine. "Concept", "claim", "suggestion", "novel interpretation", "submission", etc.... jps (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been provided with ample evidence that 'hypothesis' is the appropriate word as well as numerous reasoned arguments and common sense applications from a number of editors. I am sorry you personally do not like it, but WP is not a Democracy and edits are based on sources, reasoned arguments and common sense. There are no sources for your claim that Sheldrake provided an uneducated idea in physics outside of his field of expertise. Your claim that 'resonance' is solely restricted to physics is not supported by the evidence as resonance in biochemistry is an often referenced phenomenon. Also, according to sourced references, Sheldrake extends his hypothesis inside of biology and chemistry, and reaches only in applying it to culture and society, which seems reasonable since biochemists study life at the and people are life too. I'm just not seeing much of an argument here and most importantly, I am here to make the page better under BLP, and edit suggestions such as this appear to diminish a valid scientific career of a living person. Remember WP:NOT The Tumbleman (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources in the article that indicate that Sheldrake's proposal is rather quaint if not downright ignorant. In fact, they're cited in note a in this very article. jps (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues with a NPOV around Sheldrake the scientist
I'm not sure if editors here understand the distinction between opinion and fact, and how science works. What makes something pseudoscience is not the word 'pseudoscience' being mouthed by a prominent scientist. Science is an empirical process. So if something is pseudoscience, then it is pseudoscience by virtue of empiricism, not an opinion, even if hundreds or thousands of scientists share it. I am not sure why this issue is even still being debated, it's flying in the face of facts and references. Something becomes pseudoscience when it cannot be tested or if the data is proven to be factually incorrect by such testing. That's it. There is nothing more to pseudoscience than that. If I just had one reference to prove his hypothesis was tested, it would be enough if that reference verified an actual bonafide test of the hypothesis. Case closed. I'm sorry but Maddox's opinion that sheldrake's hypothesis was un testable was clearly mistaken. That's how science works.

This is what I do not simply understand about the value of the skeptical POV on this page, skeptics are constantly crying pseudoscience and how things need to be tested scientifically, but when Sheldrake tests things scientifically, he then becomes a pseudoscientist because of what he is testing (such as telepathy). When that card gets knocked down, then editors take philosophical ideas of sheldrake and then apply them as if they were an hypothesis or a theory, and claim pseudoscience again.

This is where the NPOV of the whole page is threatened, the skeptical POV has an agenda to diminish the very real academic and scientific credentials of a man to support a POV about a man's ideas from their POV. So yes, taking the word 'hypothesis' is just another attempt to separate Sheldrake from 50 years of scientific research and academic accomplishment. The Tumbleman (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we're going to talk about this issue in this way, I hope you understand that characterizations of Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience comes on the basis of his proposal being untestable. When he tries to "test" for "telepathy", the experiments he outlines seem to fail close scrutiny. This is part of what Richard Wiseman gets on about. Anyway, the point is not to "diminish" Sheldrake but to make clear where his work stands in the context of scientific investigation (which is where he has been placing himself over the years, so the enhanced scrutiny should be expected). jps (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Crikey you started off making a good point and then got everything totally backwards, which is a splendid illustration of your incessant POV Pushing (and now edit warring) here.    Your objections to the sources just plainly contradict what the sources say to the point where Hanlon's razor has to be a serious consideration. Barney the barney barney (talk)


 * This characterisation fails WP:BLP which requires articles to be written "in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement"WP:BLPSTYLE.
 * @Barney the barney barney, please don't accuse other editors POV pusing and edit warring, especially without diffs,(per WP:WIAPA) when they have taken the time and trouble to work with you. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to 'Origins and Philosophy of Morphic Resonance'
I removed a lot of the undue weight placed on the page tying eastern philosophy or religious ideas to the development of the hypothesis of formative causation. there is no reference to support that Morphic Resonance is a philosophy. References were not supporting this weight, and previous version appeared to take liberty with living person's own ideas and framing things out of historical context. I added a quote from sheldrake directly for clarification. references to religion informing the hypothesis are not accurate based on sources, and any similarity is anecdotal. MR is a scientific hypothesis, not a proposal for a philosophical link between east and west by the author so previous section title was misleading. We have to separate Sheldrake the Scientist (where is scientific ideas or research should be held in that weight) and Sheldrake the Philosopher (where his philosophical ideas are referenced as such and should not be confused as his scientific research or hypothesis). If someone wants to add a section called 'The Philosophy of Rupert Sheldrake' then I find such inclusions acceptable as long as they are sourced. I find a lot of mixing of the two on the whole page. It's important for both BLP and NPOV that we make the distinction, especially when WP policies such as 'fringe' are thrown around forcing editors to make compromising edits to a page of a living person that are inaccurate. Please make any arguments for any reverts, thank you. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, please do not revert without bringing into discussion. I found problems with your sources that is why i removed them. Instead of reverting, please help me make it better and bring your concerns here. Same applies to any other editor. Please no edit wars. Please no voting. Reasoned arguments, sources in relationship to BLP and NPOV. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk) Why are you continually reverting without coming to talk??? You have done this TWICE so far. your edit notes do not make sense and my sources are referenced, they are virtually the same as yours, just in proper context. Help me make the page better here, explain your position. no edit warring please. let's build a consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Theory"
We used to have a little guideline called WP:WTA that is now deprecated, but we need to consider carefully when it is appropriate to use this loaded term. When skeptics talk about morphic resonance as a "theory", they are clearly using the word in a casual sense, as in "I have a theory that every time I'm late for a meeting, I will misplace my keys." This is a fine way to use the word, but in the context of contested ideas, it becomes problematic. That said, it seems strange to me that certain users are replacing words like "proposal" or "notion" with theory.

Incidentally, saying that skeptics use the word to describe Sheldrake's claims is not a reasonable argument for why we should use the particular word. Skeptics also use words like "hogwash" and "balderdash", but we obviously don't use those words.

I suggest avoiding using the word "theory" to describe morphic resonance, especially because there are perfectly good words that do not suffer from the problems associated with this term.

jps (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with this, any quote needs to be taken in context. I'm fine with 'hypothesis' which is both scientifically valid and sourced as such. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hypothesis is also a loaded term (see above). "Proposal", "idea", "notion", etc. all work, though. jps (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's deprecated for a reason. Please read each of the five sources I've cited. None use it in the sense sugested above. As for hogwash or balderdash, making that argument with a straight face, after substituting "notion" for "theory" just an hour or two before is a feat worth remarking upon, if not exactly respecting.


 * Proposal, idea and especially notion are the loaded terms here. The deprecate this living fringe theorist. What he's got are theories. That's what the reviewers call them, far more frequently than "notion" or "idea".David in DC (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, you think "proposal", "notion", and "idea" are loaded terms? You are way out on a limb. If we can't use those words to describe morphic resonance and can only use the term "theory" which has an equivocal set of definitions, one of which is clearly not supported by the sources, then I'm afraid I have no way of having this conversation with you. You'll have to show me that there is a consensus in favor of your peculiar interpretation. jps (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My own quoted in another place by Tumblefish suggestion to describe Sheldrake's ideas doesn't seem quite so funny now does it? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * David, I don't think avoiding "hypothesis" and "theory" deprecates Sheldrake. I didn't even notice the change when I first saw it. I don't see why views on the matter are so strongly held here. Maddox explicitly says it is not a scientific theory. Rose calls it "an entirely empty hypothesis" and "an hypothesis of such astounding generality as to be virtually vacuous". Shermer says it's unfalsifiable. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash" should merit some consideration here. These are experts who dispute its status as a viable scientific hypothesis. That something can be tested does not imply it is necessarily a scientific hypothesis, e.g. dowsing can be tested as well. I'm just clarifying the issue here; I could maybe accept either direction. vzaak (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing sources, evidence, or the argument that 'hypothesis' is loaded and being used as a weasel word. For it to be used as a weasel word, it means there must be a 'weasel' doing the wording. Who is practicing this deception? To make this claim infers by sheer logic that sheldrake is performing a deception or manipulation. Sources? The Tumbleman (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the term is "wikijargon". It was not meant to be offensive. See WP:WEASEL. jps (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheldrake's proposals haven't been developed and accepted to the level that they might be called a scientific theory. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And until they do or if they do not, it shall remain as an hypothesis for all of history, especially on Wikipedia. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus that it's a proper hypothesis. jps (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already put this on jps' talk page and the BLP/N: '''I'm a dolt. Looking at a cached page led me to think I'd been reverted a second time. Then I compounded the error with careless review of diffs. I haven't been reverted a second time. My second edit stands. I apologize. I won't be back on wikipedia editing for at least a week.''' David in DC (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed wording that avoids the use of "(scientific) theory", "hypothesis" or "idea", "proposal" or similar. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is why they invented weasel words. it is a proper hypothesis in the strong sense, but not a proper theory in the usual sense. It is a proposal in the sense of "Rupert Sheldrake has proposed they Hypothesis of Formative Causation." "Notion" and "idea" have no meaning in this context.
 * Whether or not one agrees with the usefulness of the hypothesis, it is, nonetheless, a hypothesis and should be referred to as such. Tom Butler (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a proper hypothesis in the strong sense at all. A proper hypothesis in the strong sense would be something like, "Use of low-dose asprin during a heart attack reduces the risk of death caused by the heart attack." "Morphic resonance" is not in any way similar to how that "strong hypothesis" works. jps (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * jps, please refer to hypothesis. From that: "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." Sheldrake has proposed the hypothesis, provided conditions under which it would apply and has proposed ways of testing it. Again, I do not care if you like it. If you are going to mention it in this article, then you must treat it factually and not color it with what you wish is true. Tom Butler (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The definition you cite is the weak sense of what a "hypothesis" is. Here's another weak hypothesis which is "a proposed explanation of all phenomenon": "Aliens did it!" A "hypothesis" in the strong sense has to be testable. "Morphic resonance" cannot be tested. jps (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Avoiding the words is an interesting strategy, but I think the result is less clear. Looking at the article now, "morphic resonance" could be a car (or as the Brits say, a vroomy-zoomy) endowed with magical properties, no? vzaak (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me that you have the expertise to know if it is testable or not. Can you give me evidence of that? It is a moot point as long as the article is not full of weasel words. Tom Butler (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really take an "expert" to know when a claim is testable. Just a decent education. A testable claim is one that can be subject to actual tests. One can design an experiment that answers the question, "Does taking asprin lower the risk of death from a heart attack?" All you need to do to test this hypothesis is collect relevant data and then do an analysis. "Morphic resonance" is too vague to act as such a hypothesis. This actually isn't a criticism of the idea, it's just a plain fact of the way the idea is presented. If one made some claim about the properties of morphic resonance, one could conceivably test those hypotheses (c.f. questions about whether people know they're being watched or not). But such hypotheses are not properly morphic resonance which is a proposal that is meant to explain certain phenomenon that may or may not actually exist. A proper hypothesis in the strong sense would be one that asked the question whether the phenomena that parapsychologists say point to psi actually exist. When those questions are properly asked, as they are by the likes of Richard Wiseman, we can say that a hypothesis in the "strong sense" has been proposed. jps (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will take that as a no, then. I gather you have not familiarized yourself with the hypothesis or proposals for testing it. Can you spell "a priori"? Tom Butler (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You gather quite incorrectly. The proposals (there's that word again) for testing morphic resonance do not attempt to evaluate the fundamental features that Sheldrake imputes to the morphic field. In fact, Sheldrake explicitly claims that the morphic field is not subject to such testing unlike, say, electric or magnetic fields. jps (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not for any editor to define the word "hypothesis" or "theory" let alone make the decision as to whether it applies to any of Sheldrake's work. That contravenes both WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The use of any word should be based only on what is generally in suitable academic reliable sources, or what other scientists use.

As The Tumbleman notes, 12 scientists refer to aspects of Sheldrake's work as a hypothesis in Hans-Peter Durr's book. What Wiki editors may think of the editor of the book is irrelevant; if there reliability of the 12 scientists is questioned, by all means provide reliable sources.

The following journals meet the necessary standards and use the word "hypothesis" or "theory" (if you question them, please provide your own sources supporting your viewpoint): (a) The Journal of Consciousness Studies, (uses theory), (b) Steven Rose, di Biologia - Biology Forum 85 (3/4), 1992, 445-453, "So-called "formative causation" - A hypothesis disconfirmed" (c) Several articles by Rupert Sheldrake, in Taylor & Francis academic journal, Psychological Perspectives,   which also includes articles that call it theory, (d) Elsevier's academic journal, [ The Journal of Science and Healing], which uses "theory"[ as well as "hypotheses"[ (e) Sheldrake and Smart, "Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy", Journal of Parapsychology (2003) 67, 147-166. (f) Brown and Sheldrake, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research; "The Anticipation of Telephone Calls: A Survey in California", Journal of Parapsychology (2001) 65 145-156.

It is clear that published academic journals refer to Sheldrake's works as hypotheses (and to a lesser extent as theories). I recognise that there may be a small number of sources that question Sheldrake's works specifically as a "theory" or "hypothesis", and am happy to see these academic sources. --Iantresman (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * None of these qualify as WP:FRINGE. They are published in low-quality or fringe journals. jps (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, while I respect your right to an opinion, I see no evidence of that. They are all largely academic journals associated with universities, published by reputable academic publishers, and run by qualified people, nearly all with a Ph.D. None of them hint at any of the concerns you bring up. If I had presented a list of magazines self-published by non-academic people, then you'd have a valid point. --Iantresman (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't decide reliability based on people having PhD's or not. We decide on the basis of whether they have a reputation for fact checking or not. In this case that would mean meaningful peer review. For example this is the homepage of one of the "journals" you regard as reliable: . It is clearly based on the premise that all the claims are true about parapsychology, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with IRWolfie-. From WP:PARITY: "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." jps (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But a couple of editors are not the people who decide that, and you've provided zero evidence to support your opinions. The fact is that outside in the real world, there are many satisfactory academic peer-reviewed journals which you have dismissed based on your own personal opinions. --Iantresman (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, all we have to go on is our own literacy. When a journal is of poor quality, we identify it through looking at whether the peer review is meaningful, whether the journal is highly cited by the broader community, whether the editorial board adopts the fringe position as the assumptive position of the journal, etc. In this case, the journals you cite all fail these criteria that are part-and-parcel to the point made in the guidelines that they should be considered unreliable. If you dispute this, there is a WP:RSN. jps (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunately that so many notable academic institutions, qualified academics and experienced journal editors have wasted their time perusing the scientific method, when they should have looked outside their field of expertise, and deferred to jps. --Iantresman (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't right great wrongs here. :) jps (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI that the Journal of Parapsychology and Psychological Perspectives are both fully indexed in PsycINFO. The APA might take issue with your wholesale dismissal of these publications. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a "wholesale dismissal" as it is an acknowledgment that there is not publishing happening in the rather higher impact journals where one would expect to see the "extraordinary evidence" that would be necessary to support the extraordinary claims. It's not like we're saying that these papers are useless, only that they can only be used as evidence for what the believers in psi have to say, and owing to the rather dim view that the wider scientific community takes towards parapsychological claims, we are not equipped to "stoop to conquer", as it were. We must look for good papers, not poor ones.
 * Every five to ten years or so, a paper actually manages to be published in something that isn't the "usual suspect" journals. Daryl Bem's precognition stuff comes to mind as a relevant example. When that sort of thing shows up in the more prestigious journals, then you start to get notice by both the science press and the outside community. That's when things like rejoinders, failures to replicate, and withdraws of papers invariably occur. But when they happen in out-of-the-way publications that act as little fiefdoms of parapsychology believers, there isn't much that anyone really pays attention, and so Wikipedia ought to follow that lead. Indexing, incidentally, is a de minimus requirement for taking a journal seriously. It does not give a journal imprimatur to escape scrutiny per the sentence I outline.
 * jps (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for your statement "publications that act as little fiefdoms of parapsychology believers" - the Journal of Parapsychology has a policy of publishing non-significant results and papers that refute psi - I'm on board here re: Wikipedia notability, but only because these journals have small circulation rates and seldom receive the attention of the broader academic community...not because they lack rigor or promote a particular point of view. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 17:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a case of poh-tay-toes/poh-tah-toes to me. I'm pleased that the Journal of Parapsychology has a stated policy of "accept all comers", and I believe that Richard Wiseman, for example, has praised them for this. However, they do promote a point-of-view: that parapsychology is worth studying as though there may be evidence for psi. In this case, not taking a side is positioning themselves in a way that is not preferring the null hypothesis, which is the standard operating procedure in scientific investigations. If the null hypothesis has not been ruled out, in most other scenarios such work is rejected. This stands in stark contrast to parapsychology (and other parts of psychology too, which is why the subject often gets tarred with the "pseudoscience" badge of shame). This is most certainly why the journal has a small circulation rate and doesn't receive the attention of the broader scientific community of which many parapsychologists aspire to be a part: their purported topic is one that doesn't have anything that unassailably distinguishes it from null results. A journal dedicated to something that everybody agreed existed would not suffer from this problem. As such, there is a particular point of view being advocated by this and the other journals mentioned, and we must take that into consideration when using anything published by those sources since the perspective that there is enough body of evidence for the existence of psi to warrant further investigation is a WP:FRINGE position. jps (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The journal does not promote a point of view - it a specialist journal for research done on a particular set of topics. It has a small circulation rate because there are only a small number of academics engaged in the research.  The journal passes muster for the American Psychological Association as a legitimate scientific journal, and indeed the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has accepted the broader field of parapsychology as a legitimate science.  I am not sure why a discussion on notability has devolved into another debate on the scientific merit of these publications, but the APA, the AAAS, and indeed Wikipedia itself says that you're wrong.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from your defensiveness that you are not interested in trying to understand why parapsychology writ large is dismissed as a pseudoscience by most people outside of the field. You state that the journal doesn't have a point of view, but then none of the next statements support that position or even make an attempt to deal with the substance of what I'm saying. This does not bode well for collaboration when WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT becomes the primary means of discussion. jps (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 02:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Physician, heal thyself! jps (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory
Morphic resonance doesn't even come close to qualifying as a scientific theory. We have an article scientific theory that explains this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would rather not conflate the colloquial "theory" with "scientific theory" as well. Creationists continue to call evolution "just a theory", including various governors of Texas. However we can't deny that the colloquial "theory" is used even by skeptics. Blackmore says "theory of morphic resonance" and Shermer, writing in Scientific American, says it as well. An argument could still be made to avoid "theory" in the article, but it would have to address this objection. vzaak (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The potential confusion in the sentence "...citing a lack of evidence supporting the theory and its inconsistency with established scientific theories" is a good argument to avoid "theory". vzaak (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Better sources build better articles
I see that the article today has a few different sources, rather a lot from the subject of the article and rather fewer than I would expect from sources other than the subject. My observation of every Wikipedia article that I have ever seen go through an edit war is that better sources build better articles. So what sources do each of you suggest that fit Wikipedia reliable source policy and pertain to the person who is the subject of this article, a biography of a living person? Note that if the person is known through reliable sources to make particular factual claims (about himself or about external reality) it may be helpful to point to sources of high reliability on the factual basis for those claims. What sources have you consulted that provide guidance on how to write a high-quality article on Sheldrake? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Iantresman offer a few? "I concur. All I see is deprecation language, which is no cool, or necessary. According to Wikipedia the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" article has not one critical word to be said against it, and not one source was provide to support the claims that it is either "terrible" or non-independent. Likewise the Hans-Peter Dürr article has not one bad word against him, a list of honour to make most scientists weep, and no sources offered to support the pejorative viewpoint. A previous ArbCom ruling has criticised "Using strong negative language, [that] has deprecated a number of persons and their theories"[62] --Iantresman (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)" Tom Butler (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that if the editors here could come to an agreement on what is considered an independent source, then a neutral article is going to write itself. Our article would satisfy notability guidelines if we stopped relying on both parapsychology journals and skeptical publications for source material, stopped wielding quotations for point-counterpoint arguments and simply described Rupert Sheldrake's career using the most general, widely distributed sources available to build this article.  As sympathetic as I am to parapsychological theories and hypotheses, this article is currently using self-published sources (instead of peer-reviewed sources) to describe research outcomes, and that doesn't sit well with me.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 00:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The only self-published sources I know about are the ones that describe his own thoughts (on which he is an authority) and non-contentious tidbits of his history (for lack of a better source). For instance I couldn't find third-party sources that say when he began at the Graduate Institute, so I took it from his website. vzaak (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By self published research outcomes, I mean something like what we find here. The source linked here is from his book and not a peer-reviewed source. I think it's dangerous in any circumstance to reference research outcomes if they have not been peer-reviewed - and it's certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 02:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very little of Sheldrake's work has been peer-reviewed, and that which has been peer-reviewed is not particularly high-quality or in respectable journals. I could see an argument for removing much of the discussion of his ideas except to refer to the public understanding of them which, indeed, is what he is most notable for. jps (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see no evidence of that, and you've provided not a single source to back up that claim. --Iantresman (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Annalisa pointed out what I was getting at above. jps (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the article should cover his books, shouldn't it? We certainly agree that self-published books are not the place to present research, but this is what Sheldrake has done. Adam Rutherford criticised him on that very point, "The majority of Sheldrake's work is also not subjected to peer review, as it appears mostly in books." vzaak (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While I think it fine to mention that he has written books, evaluation of the content may be unduly weighted in the light of the fact that his ideas are basically dismissed out-of-hand by relevant experts. It may be better to keep the discussion short and sweet with just a list of books rather than an in-depth exploration of them. jps (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 15:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I think the common ground here between "skeptics and promoters" (as it were, not trying to label anybody as anything here) is that we should not be engaging in any analysis whatsoever. Point the reader in the direction of the debates, describe them with a light touch, and get the hell out of the kitchen. jps (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merely being an author or scientist is not the threshold for having an article. What is the threshold is that your works have been noted by others. When the notice by others has been to proclaim your work hogwash and is thus the primary aspect of your notability, that fact cannot be whitewashed down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The books have received accolades as well, but when a list of books turns into a point-counterpoint argument, it might be time to dial it down for the sake of consensus and stability. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 16:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly many experts dismiss these things out of hand, but critical examinations are still done by some. We have three such examinations of the staring affect, for example. His books target the general public, but we are not to address the claims in those books? That would seem like an incomplete article. vzaak (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, summarize - but details of research outcomes should be reserved for peer-reviewed sources, and might be more detail than is needed for a biography. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 16:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you just saying that that section should be stated more generally, i.e. without the numbers 60 and 50? Sure, that sounds reasonable to me. vzaak (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a good start. Annalisa Ventola  (Talk 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We have sources from a number of scientists going over a period of 30+ years. They are in the article. If anyone can find any additional sources, particularly those supporting him, that'd be great. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)