Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 5 November 2014

Please read before starting Misplaced Pages policy notes for new editors: A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Sheldrake's work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are: Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) Neutral point of view: Due and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs (WP:RGW) Verifiability: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Misplaced Pages deals with fringe views.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rupert Sheldrake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages: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. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Parapsychology (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Referenced in a film

I suggest that it should be mentioned under 'In scientific and popular culture' in Richard Linklater's 2001 movie Waking Life that Sheldrake was indirectly referenced. Here is the text (from subtitle) of the Ethan Hawke character's words: „- I read an article by a biochemist. - Right. - He said when a member of a species is born...it has a billion years of memory to draw on. This is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. Like there's this telepathic thing going on that we're a part of ...whether we're conscious of it or not... That would explain these seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science and art. ...Like the same results popping up everywhere, independent of each other...” It's obvious that the referenced biochemist could only be Rupert Sheldrake, since the words related to drawing memories by a member of a species and the rest are basically Sheldrake's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, though your conclusions are probably correct, I feel that to include this in the article would probably infringe WP:OR. Other editors may not agree with me, let's see shall we? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's a movie review or something like that which confirms that this dialogue is referring to Sheldrake, then that could be used as the source. Otherwise, I agree that it's likely OR. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See (1) The Cinema of Richard Linklater (publ. Columbia University Press, 2013, page 80 (2) apparently Linklater himself confirms this on the film's DVD director's commentary track. --Iantresman (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be really fair to have Waking Life info added to the wikipedia article, under Popular Culture reference. I do think that information is important enough to be mentioned, however, since Richard Linklater is recognized as fairly significant director, and that particular film also has certain artistic and intellectual weight. For respect to Sheldrake, Linklater, and the wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

per WP:IPC we should have third parties commenting upon the appearance and identifying something about the appearance that is encyclopedic in nature and not merely a collection of "looky! looky! I seen it here!". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns with this article via Rupert Sheldrake directly

Hello. I am here to announce a direct relationship with the subject of this article as well as announce that I am representing a number of his concerns with this article, and per WP:BLP, I am here to work with the community to see if we can find a resolution to these concerns. Per Misplaced Pages’s conflict of interest policy, I will not be making any edits to this page.

Dr. Sheldrake’s main concern is that his long history of interacting with detractors in the skeptic movement has lead to a heavy-handed influence in the lead section of his article, specifically with the continued inputting of "pseudoscience" as his main attribute in the lead section. This appears to be a result of agenda based editing and a method to frame his biography from the point of view of his critics, which is out of spirit with Misplaced Pages’s NPOV policy. This amounts to a disproportionate focus on only the controversial positions of Dr. Sheldrake and a misrepresentation of his continuing work (he has presented half a dozen papers to peer-reviewed journals in the last few years alone).

Additionally, Dr Sheldrake is first and foremost a biologist with significant contributions in that field, and is referred to as such in mainstream coverage. Since this is confirmed by both primary and secondary sources, it is proper for an encyclopedia to list this biographical fact, in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s own guidelines, and not interpret his work as being devoid of his biological background. This feature is intrinsic to who Dr Sheldrake is - and without this feature the reader is missing a core aspect of why Dr Sheldrake is even controversial in the first place.

We ask respectfully that the community of editors review these concerns in a fair light, honoring the spirit of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines as well as the spirit of human dignity for a living person.

Below are some issues:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, known for advocating his pseudoscientific "morphic resonance" concept. He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978. Since leaving research biology, he has devoted his time primarily to morphic resonance, in books, articles, and public appearances.

Ref 4: How does this reference support making parapsychology one of the main terms for describing Rupert Sheldrake? The article is not publicly available, and the shown text doesn’t even refer to Sheldrake as parapsychologist.

Ref 5: Pseudoscience/pseudoscientist/pseudoscientific is used nowhere in this citation, and the source simply describes his positions as controversial. It's certainly not grounds for determining what Rupert Sheldrake is "known for".

Citation Needed for the idea that Rupert Sheldrake has left biological research, and for the authoritative declaration of how he prioritizes his time.

His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.

In light of such shaky sources for these statements, the sources supporting his position as a scientist and biologist are highly underrepresented and mitigated.

WP12345 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being so honest and upfront about your mission here. That is good.

I will address some principles about one aspect (of many) of this matter. If Sheldrake wants less coverage of his controversies with mainstream science and Misplaced Pages's editors, he needs to be less talkative. The notability of the controversy only gains traction when both parties are discussing, and the controversy's due weight becomes greater every time he opens his mouth. Every time his views and objections are published in a RS (and his own publications are RS for his own statements), they become fair game for content here. We base our content on what RS say, and if they label his views as pseudoscientific, the article will reflect that fact. There is NOTHING in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline which will change that, so if he keeps beating on that immovable wall, he'll just look foolish, and such attempts will be documented here. If he is acting in good faith, he'll be less vocal, and if he's acting in bad faith (by being more vocal), he will give the lie to his claims of wishing less controversy and notoriety. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the original poster's points. You mention "reliable sources", and ignore for example, that WP12345 has noted that Ref 5 is to a blog post on the TED site, by an anonymous author, which is used as a source for the sentence "known for advocating his pseudoscientific morphic resonance", when the source says no such thing. Using a blog post for such a contentious statement is specifically criticised by WP:QUESTIONABLE and utterly fails WP:BLPSOURCES (it has been challenged by several editors), and fails WP:BLPREMOVE which requires us to "Remove immediately any contentious material".

In this particular case, the article is not basing its content on any reliable source(a), let alone the source given. No-one is suggesting that we exclude the fact that some people have called Sheldrake's work pseudoscience, and I have myself provided the quote from Maddox in Nature, and I know no editors would would wish to exclude this view.

Additionally, neither the original poster, nor to my knowledge Sheldrake, has suggested that he "wants less coverage of his controversies with mainstream science". I suspect that what he wants is a fair representation of his idea, not one or two cherry-picked second-rate sources, pretending to be represent the whole of mainstream science. His views must adhere to WP:NPOV with special reference to WP:BLP. --Iantresman (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that I didn't "really address the original poster's points", because that was not my intention. Read more carefully what I wrote above: "I will address some principles about one aspect (of many) of this matter." That was all. I just wanted to make that plain to WP12345 before they got in too deep here.

BTW, Iantresman, aren't you topic banned from these subjects, or was that topic ban lifted? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I summarise my previous and current ban on my talk page. No, I am not topic banned from editing Rupert Sheldrake, yes, it was lifted. --Iantresman (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

the "blog post" in question is the Official TED Blog Posted by: Tedstaff , not just any random blog or "anonymous" poster. it has the supervisory oversight necessary for our reliable sources, as per WP:NEWSBLOG. Iantresman I believe your untopicban was contingent upon you not misrepresenting sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We're using an "official", anonymous blog post to source pejorative information in a BLP? Good grief. Whenever someone wonders why WP is losing so much credibility with the general public, I point to examples like this one. I support removing that immediately. Also, the other concerns listed above need to be addressed in sequence. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

signing for the entire organization is not "anonymous" - it is stating the entire TED program is behind it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: Please don't threaten me, it's not cool and not civil. (1) I repeat, the TED blog source Ref 5 does not mention ANYTHING about Sheldrake's work being pseudoscience. (2) Perhaps a better TED source is this one they posted a few days earlier where they specifically question that his work "appears to have crossed the line into pseudoscience", though it does not say he is known for it. (3) The same post also retracts (after the video) several paragraphs of comment, presumably because they turned out to be wrong. Do you think this tells us anything about (a) TED's "supervisory oversight necessary for our reliable sources"? (b) Misplaced Pages editors' assessment of reliable sources? --Iantresman (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the TED blog source Ref 5 refers to Shedrake's "theory of morphic resonance". Is this how we should refer to it? --Iantresman (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iantresman: you were here for the NUMEROUS discussions in which the consensus of the description of "morphic resonance" was discussed. Feel free to check the archives. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And I disagreed with them then, as I do now. The source does not support the statement, regardless of any previous discussion. --Iantresman (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: I see you have removed "known for" from your statement added in July, which now reads "who advocates his pseudoscientific 'morphic resonance' concept". Yet Ref 5 used to support the statement, refers to Shedrake's "theory of morphic resonance". Do you think that your interpretation of the source satisfies WP:BLP? --Iantresman (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Iantresman: you were here for the NUMEROUS discussions in which the consensus of the description of "morphic resonance" was discussed. Feel free to check the archives.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the issues identified into separate sections below so individual discussions can take place with less clutter and confusion. I think i got them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue: Nature and parapsychology identification

• Ref 4: How does this reference support making parapsychology one of the main terms for describing Rupert Sheldrake? The article is not publicly available, and the shown text doesn’t even refer to Sheldrake as parapsychologist.
  • This has been explained several times in the archives, most recently here. The Nature article describes Sheldrake as a former biochemist who has taken up parapsychology. Nature is qualified to discern whether or not dog telepathy falls within the field of biology. Please read the archives; I just gave a mini-snippet. vzaak 10:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nature is not the sole arbiter of (1) someone's position as a scientist (2) even if they state that he does work in X, it doesn't imply that he doesn't do work in Y or Z. I think the Society of Biology are in a better position to assess Sheldrake's position. --Iantresman (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue: TED blog

• Ref 5: Pseudoscience/pseudoscientist/pseudoscientific is used nowhere in this citation, and the source simply describes his positions as controversial. It's certainly not grounds for determining what Rupert Sheldrake is "known for".

The "known for" language has been removed. I think this has been addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

i think the question becomes is the source valid for reinserting " controversial" to describe "morphic resonance" which was stripped out some time ago? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• The TED blog is not there to support the pseudoscience designation in the first sentence, which is a recent addition without a ref; see below. vzaak 10:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• But it gives that impression. If we use the TED source provided, it describes Sheldrake's "theory of morphic resonance" suggesting that the current statement is in gross violation of WP:BLP. Since editors consider the TED blog to be a reliable source, I can't see how we can ignore their characterisation, and replace it with what appears to be WP:SYNTH. --Iantresman (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I added a source for "known for" (though it didn't seem to be needed because "known for" is part of a descriptive topic sentence for the lead, and the whole article really). (And I have no idea why this is a concern since the front page of Sheldrake's own website prominently advertises that he's best known for morphic resonance, as do a plethora of pro-Sheldrake books and publications.) vzaak 12:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue: Source for focus of study

• Citation Needed for the idea that Rupert Sheldrake has left biological research, and for the authoritative declaration of how he prioritizes his time.
  • I don't know where the sentence came from, and it doesn't seem to add much. I'm boldly deleting. vzaak 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Issue: Use of The Outline of Parapsychology

• His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Ref 11: Dr. Sheldrake is not mentioned in this book at all, nor is morphic resonance. The other sources support statements about precognition and the staring effect, but remote viewing is not supported.}}

the 2009 edition used in the link doesnt seem to mention Sheldrake, but it does mention "being stared at" and "remote viewing" and precognition . I am wondering if the person who added it was using one of the other editions and if one of them connects Sheldrake? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I commented it out as a source till verification can be made. it appears to have been added in this edit by @Vzaak: who does not appear to have been editing lately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason is in the now-archived thread to which my edit comment linked. An editor wanted to describe remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect as "fringe science". The source was added to show that these things fall under paranormal/parapsychology, not "fringe science". vzaak 09:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I can help here. The Outline of Parapsychology book should be removed. Please replace with Bruce Hood. (2009). Supersense: From Superstition to Religion - The Brain Science of Belief. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-84901-030-6 (or page 232 in the other edition cited on the article already). I have the quote from the page here:

The most prominent and active advocate of the sense of being stared at is Rupert Sheldrake, who proposes that this ability reflects a new scientific theory of disembodied minds extending out beyond the physical body to connect together. I regard this as an idea originating from the dualism of mind and body that we discussed earlier, but such a notion has been rejected by conventional science. Undaunted by “scientific vigilantes,” Sheldrake proposes that the sense of being stared at and other aspects of paranormal ability, such as telepathy and knowing about events in the future before they happen, are all evidence for a new field theory that he calls “morphic resonance.” ... The trouble is that, whereas electric and magnetic fields are easily measurable and obey laws, morphic resonance remains elusive and has no demonstrable laws. No other area of science would accept such lawless, weak evidence as proof, which is why the majority of the scientific community has generally dismissed this theory and the evidence. However, this has had little influence on the general public’s opinion.

This source clarifies that Sheldrake is a proponent of the psychic starring effect, precognition and telepathy and the scientific community have dismissed his claims. As for remote viewing, this should be removed. Goblin Face (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Update - I noticed Hood is already cited on the article, but we can use the source in the lead if needed in regards to Sheldrake's endorsement of psychic starring effect and precognition. Goblin Face (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on what we are saying, on how Hood sources his material. Without any sources, we just have his opinion in a non-peer reviewed popular book. Since we are all striving for the best sources, we should be aiming for at least an academic book or publisher. On the other hand, if we are just characterising without being judgemental, then it may be fine, as would a respectable newspaper. --Iantresman (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just given you a source pal, whether you agree or disagree with the 'opinion' is irrelevant. Bruce Hood is a mainstream psychologist and his book published by a well known publisher. That's the way Misplaced Pages works. We get a reliable source and then we cite it. Hood qualifies as a reliable source. If you want to question Hood's sources that are actually in his book then you would need to take it up with him off-Misplaced Pages. Goblin Face (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just attribute it properly. We may not be able to find "an academic book or publisher", since this is so fringe that they ignore it, hence WP:PARITY comes into play and allows the use of notable skeptic blogs, skeptic websites and magazines, newspapers, and other such sources. When the mainstream ignores a subject, that's a good sign they consider it not worth their time, but skeptics are active at debunking crap and seeking to keep pseudoscientists, quacks, and charlatans (not referring specifically to Sheldrake, but in general) from deceiving the masses, so their sources are good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific" in the first sentence

This was never in the first sentence until last July. When it was added -- without any references -- there was suddenly a push to keep it, and then it stayed.

Either the lead should have no references (an acceptable WP practice, as long as the article body is referenced), or the lead should be fully referenced. Either way is fine with me. But a mix of referenced and unreferenced text leads to confusion.

In any case I would prefer the pre-July state, when "pseudoscientific" was not in the first sentence. It seems to me that we should first describe a fringe view and then report its mainstream reception, as indicated by WP:FRINGE. The lead already covers the pseudoscience angle. vzaak 09:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem now is that "Ref 5" (1) is considered by some editors to be a reliable source, (2) it describes Sheldrake's "theory of morphic resonance". That suggests to me that "pseudoscientific" must be removed from the lead as a violation of WP:BIO and improper use of sources, and it should only be used with attribution elsewhere in the article, as for example, when I included Maddox's quote in Nature. --Iantresman (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

there are plenty of sources already right there in the lead that verify the widely regarded "pseudo scientific" nature. If you want, we can recite the dozen that are already there, but please do not honk the false "blp" claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Having "pseudoscientific" in the first sentence means that someone needs to split the pseudoscience part of the honking big note and then reference it. I could do that, but per above it's not my inclination. So pending a bold edit doing that, I'm removing "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence, at least for now. Note we were fine without it for about a year, until the change in July. vzaak 12:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that was the main concern, as it was unsupported by the source, so thank you for the edit. --Iantresman (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links

I think this section should be expanded. Here's one that could be added Goblin Face (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there are far better links that are more neutral in their tone, and from more reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" in the lead

The the third paragraph begins: "Members of the scientific community who have looked at morphic resonance have characterised Sheldrake's claims as being pseudoscience". To me, this gives the false impression that: "All scientists who read about morphic resonance, characterise it as pseudoscience". This is misleading, and is (a) not supported by sources (b) fails WP:BLP as contentious and disputed.

There is no doubt that some scientists have characterised morphic resonance as pseudoscience, John Maddox is the notable example, and it should be mentioned. But conversely we have some scientists who do not, and have also criticised Maddox. The notable example is Brian Josephson (a Nobel prize winning physicist), who I would argue is comparable to Maddox the science writer.

Per WP:BLP we must (a) attribute material likely to be challenged (this has been challenged on several occasions) (b) must be written conservatively (ie., not give the impression that the whole of mainstream science has decided the matter) (c) include balance in order to meet WP:NPOV. Doing so still meets WP:FRINGE. Not doing so may meet WP:FRINGE, but then fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOV.

I would propose the following start to the third paragraph:

"Some scientists have characterised Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, whereas some other scientists and those outside of the scientific community have been sympathetic." (sources omitted).

In no way am I suggesting parity in the opposing views, nor that Sheldrake's work is in any way correct. --Iantresman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a good idea in my opinion and one that is not supported by any reliable sources. Look again, because we have a tonne of reliable references on the article that claim Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscience. List a single reliable source that claims the opposite? And Brian Josephson is also a proponent of pseudoscience like Sheldrake. Physicist Robert L. Park in his book Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. p. 156 has written "Josephson has a long history of endorsing claims that most scientists would pass off as pseudoscience." I am not objecting if you want to expand on him in the correct section (Josephson is already mentioned), but I see no reason to put his minority opinion in the lead. Goblin Face (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that "we have a tonne of reliable references on the article that claim Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscience". Looking at the Notes section as they appear now, referring to references:

Satisfactory references

• Ref 16: Lewis Wolpert is a genuine biologist, reported in the Guardian (reputable). All looks satisfactory.
• Ref 17: John Maddox, science writer, editor of Nature, reported in Nature. Looks satisfactory.
• Ref 18: Prof Steven Rose in peer reviewed journal, Looks satisfactory.

Possibly Satisfactory references

• Ref 19: Science journalist, but unfortunately I don't know anything more of the context. Perhaps?
• Ref 20: David Jones is a chemist, book review The Times. Unfortunately I know no more. He writes that Sheldrake "gives it a proper pseudo-scientific name, the 'morphogenetic field'" and that "a test would not save the morphogenetic theory from being nonsense". In my opinion, this stops short of calling the theory pseudoscience, even though he alludes to it.
• Ref 21: Jerry Coyne, biologist, personal blog. Perhaps.

Poor or inappropriate references

• Ref 13: Gardner is not a scientist, his book is popular level, and Gardner says "Balderdash" which someone has interpreted as synonymous with "pseudoscience". In my opinion, that fails WP:BLP on three counts.
• Ref 14: Ruchir Sharma is a "portfolio manager", writing a book about his "views on Emerging Markets" in which he provides no sources for his opinion. In my opinion, that fails WP:BLP on three counts.
• Ref 15: Lawrence R Samuel is not a scientist (he has a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Minnesota), writing in a popular level book, who considers Sheldrake "theory of morphic resonance hogwash", which someone has interpretted to mean "pseudoscience". In my opinion, that fails WP:BLP on three counts.

So we have a minimum of three decent references, and perhaps another three, and I think that the poor references should be removed. I'm going to stop here, and not mention references such as the recent TED page (mentioned above), whose board of scientific advisers had described Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, before retracting. --Iantresman (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The refs you list as "inappropriate" were not there support the pseudoscience designation -- they were there for reporting the level of acceptance. However the text about the level of acceptance was removed, leaving the orphaned refs which you now mistakenly attribute to "pseudoscience". Per WP:FRINGE Misplaced Pages should report the level of acceptance; restoring.

The New Republic is not Jerry Coyne's personal blog. vzaak 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The references are clearly in the Notes supporting "pseudoscience" (twice almost), and it seems odd that anyone would add them, even if they were meant to be used elsewhere and for a different purpose.

At the bottom of the post, it reads "A version of this post first appeared on WhyEvolutionIsTrue", the latter I believe is his own personal blog. The New Republic focuses on "politics and the arts". --Iantresman (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What is this Ian? You are going through each of these sources and they have to be written by a biologist with a PhD do they to describe Sheldrake's ideas as pseudoscience or not accepted by the scientific community? Is this a new Misplaced Pages rule? When did this come about? Where does it say this in Misplaced Pages policy? Have you looked at other Misplaced Pages articles on pseudoscience topics? All of the sources on the Sheldrake article are reliable and notable, including the ones you just listed. Don't take my word for it, ask many other editors. They have been on the article for a long time. They wouldn't be up there otherwise, especially as moderators have thoroughly checked this article. It doesn't matter if they were not all written by professional biologists. It matters if the sources are reliable and they are. For example, Martin Gardner was a science writer and his book was published by a mainstream publishing house. Yet you are claiming his book is 'popular level' and fails WP:BLP? This is absurd, Gardner is cited on hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles and I have never seen your objections raised before. I don't understand this at all especially the part about some of these academic books being 'popular level'. I want to assume good faith but your post is the nuttiest thing I have seen on this website in a long time. You are a senior Misplaced Pages editor with some good edits, it is a shame you have stooped to this level. I don't think you are going to get very far here, so instead of going round and round debating this, I will not be further contributing to this discussion. Happy editing to all editors here and whatever the outcome. Goblin Face (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you wouldn't descend into incivility. We are allowed to have a difference of opinion. WP:BIO requires good reliable sources. I don't consider a "portfolio manager" and "Ph.D. in American Studies" to be suitable to comment in this field. I don't consider Gardner a good source mainly because "balderdash" is not synonymous with "pseudoscience", but accept that you, and many others may disagree. --Iantresman (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer Goblin Face's question, AFAIK there is no requirement for sources to be written by someone by a PhD. That appears to be an arbitrary criterion established by Iantresman and as such should be disregarded. The lede as written appears BLP compliant, and the proposed "some scientists" language is too soft. VQuakr (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said there was such a requirement. But there is a requirement that we use reliable sources. The lead is not BLP compliant because it include contentious material that has been challenged by several editors, including statements that are not supported by the sources provided. While "some scientists" may be too soft, what we currently have is equally misleading. Just to be clear, I have no problem indicating that some scientists have described Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience. --Iantresman (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we use reliable sources. Contentious material can be BLP-compliant, it just needs to be sourced. You have not presented any policy-based reasoning for why you view some of the sources to be unreliable. Do you have any issue with the slightly reworded current version, "Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience."? VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have provided more links to policies than most editors (at least half a dozen, above). The current wording is an improvement, but the impression that the "scientific community" speaks (a) as a whole, and (b) has decided unanimously, is a nonsense. We have no inkling (a) who this scientific community is (b) what proportion of them have even heard of Sheldrake and/or his theory (c) what proportion of them are familiar enough with his ideas to make a judgement (d) what proportion of them have done so. How many of them heard about his ideas by word of mouth (hey! did you hear about the guy who believes in psychic pets!).

To repeat, I am in no doubt that there are a proportion of scientists who have said that they do not accept his ideas, and that a proportion of them have said that they think his ideas are pseudoscience.

But there are also other scientists who appear to take a more impartial look at Sheldrake's work, such as Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson, quantum physicist Hans-Peter Duerr, application by computer scientists Germano Resconia and Masoud Nikravesh,, plus dozens of broadsheet newspapers (many already used as sources in the article), plus lots of other scientists some may consider on the fringe, who may be studying conscientious subjects, but who are scientists nevertheless, eg. --Iantresman (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically all of Sheldrake's supporters are known to be proponents of their own pseudoscientific ideas. Birds of a feather and all that. I notice that the people with whom Ian associates himself, the Electric Universe folks, also support him by inviting him to their conferences, for example. The fact that Velikovskians support Sheldrake isn't much of a surprise to me. jps (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: Sigh. I shouldn't have to explain the association fallacy to a science educator, and using it to try and discredit another editor falls short of Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines, and is considered a personal attack, ie. "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem" (per WP:WIAPA). I am reluctant to remind you of but it is not constructive and we can all do without it. I am happy for you to remove this post along with yours. --Iantresman (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that all the supporters of Sheldrake are pseudoscientists or pseudoscience champions (and not solely in their support of Sheldrake) is of relevance to the conversation. I note that your support for the man goes back to 2001 in this pseudoscience newsletter. jps (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) Nowhere did I indicate that I support Sheldrake's ideas. Please do no misrepresent me. (2) I would be grateful that you don't bring aspect of my private life into Misplaced Pages in an attempt to discredit me, per WP:PRIVACY (3) I have already stated on several occasions that I don't know whether Sheldrake's ideas have some validity or are bunkum. --Iantresman (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an extraordinary claim that Sheldrakes proposals have any measurable level of support in the scientific community and would require extraordinary sources for us to present it as such. the "supporters" are less than any rounding error and to present them as otherwise would be breaking BLP because BLP requires us to follow NPOV of which an important component is WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that Sheldrake has been proven, and I too would expect several peer-reviewed secondary sources to even hint at it. That there are other scientists who are as impartial as you would expect scientists to be, is of no surprise, and there are several indisputable sources (examples previously provided). --Iantresman (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the scientists you listed who support Sheldrake are impartial. They're either an advocate of a myriad of pseudoscientific proposals (Josephson) or a proponent of quantum mysticism (Duerr). jps (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable suggesting that any scientist was not impartial, and, an alleged advocate of pseudoscience.

"It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory." per WP:LIBEL

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages." per WP:NPA --Iantresman (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the previous sources I provided of scientists who consider Sheldrake's work objectively, I have just discovered that Hans-Peter Dürr (Nobel prize winning physicist) published in German "Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion" which includes discussion from other scientists, including Janis Roze (Professor of Biology Emeritus), Suitbert Eertel (Prof emeritus Göttingen University), Prof. Arnim Bechmann (land economics?), Hans Werner Ingensiep (Prof. biology, Universität Duisburg-Essen), Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich (Prof. Philosophie, Universität Essen), Friedrich Cramer (German chemist and geneticist), Fritz-Albert Popp (biophysicist), and Amit Goswami (physicist, Professor emeritus University of Oregon). It is notable that besides their qualifications, many are notable enough to have their own entry in Misplaced Pages, none of which suggesting they "promote pseudoscience".

It seems that we have a not too dissimilar number of scientists, who don't characterise Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, as those who do. --Iantresman (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles