Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rupert Sheldrake: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:14, 1 October 2013 editRoxy the dog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,207 edits →Proposal for the lead: srsly← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:31, 21 August 2024 edit undoImaginatorium (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,438 edits Undid revision 1241446101 by 213.142.96.80 (talk)Tag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptoTOC}} {{tph}}
{{Talk fringe|Sheldrake's work}} {{talk fringe|Sheldrake's work}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp}}
{{Talk header}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |blp=yes |class=B |listas=Sheldrake, Rupert |1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=C|listas=Sheldrake, Rupert}} {{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Parapsychology |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d) | algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 5 | counter = 23
| maxarchivesize = 100K | maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}

}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{Clear}}

== Comment by Tumbleman ==

Wiki policy is pretty clear on this issue - when dealing with subject matter that may be considered fringe both sides of the story must be presented without bias and with a neutral POV. There is absolutely no reason for wiki editors to determine the value one way or another to any hypothesis in the TALK section. Whether his hypothesis is BS or not, it's not our place to say. Since Sheldrake's ideas have made a notable controversy for over the past 20 years, it is reasonable that this controversy is presented without bias and with notable references that summarize the environment.The Tumbleman 23:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Sheldrake is a notable figure in science for the notable controversy he has caused over the years with numerous articles, conferences, debates and even television specials and documentaries detailing on the matter and this goes back over 30 years. TEDx is the most recent historical example and caused a degree of controversy for TED, prompting TED’s Chris Anderson to later retract many of the claims against Sheldrake’s talk by TED Scientific Advisory Board, stating publicly “Some of his questions in the talk I found genuinely interesting. And I do think there’s a place on TED to challenge the orthodox. Maybe I’m expecting too much for this forum, but I was hoping scientists who don’t buy his ideas could indicate why they find them so implausible.” As this is notable in the history of sheldrake's career, I will be resubmitting shortly within the neutrality guidelines of wikipedia. The Tumbleman 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)§ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The Tumbleman 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

article is plagued with bias either for or against both ways. just as many proponents of sheldrake as their are those with negative bias here. we can do better guys. the whole point is to be neutral and provide a complete history of notable individuals that detail notable events in their careers.The Tumbleman 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

: FYI, in your initial comment on this page you had added to an obsolete section which referred to an older version of the article. It was bad timing that during the archiving process you had edited other sections, so I copied those. Appending to sections that are 3+ years old is confusing since there's no correlation with the current article. ] (]) 23:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
::Vzaak - are these talk archives available anywhere? odd timing indeed. Does this suggest that this is now the only current talk on the article? The Tumbleman 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Thanks Vzaak!The Tumbleman 00:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::This is now article's talk page. There's a "search archives" field above, and the numbers next to it correspond to pages. The last archived page is 4. Something's wrong with your signing situation. I guess you removed the link to your user page in your signature, causing SineBot to think you're not signing. ] (]) 01:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:::: "Yes I noticed this too and will look into this problem. thank you."The Tumbleman 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Also, please add new comments below previous ones. And please read the guidelines at the top of this page. ] (]) 01:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

:::: ''yup'' The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

* Please note that on wikipedia ] does not imply treating different viewpoints as equal, or creating a false balance. We put fringe views into perspective with respect to the mainstream, ] (]) 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

:: ''Misplaced Pages is not written in the point of view of a purely scientific mainstream context, however nor is this a peer reviewed journal. That is not the editing voice of Misplaced Pages. This page is not about Sheldrake's hypothesis, it's about his biography of which his hypothesis has played quite a significant role. Wiki policy is clear that subject matter must be *notable*. Fringe policy by Wiki is also clear - it is important wikipedia not give attention to *insignificant* works. I think you assume 'fringe' means something it does not and your voice sounds a little biased here. Sheldrake has a career of responding to his critics and publicly requests them to review his evidence and reasoning in conference, public debate, written works, and interviews. There have been television specials on him in this regard as well as subject of journalists in various publications. He has shared round table discussions with Daniel Dennet, Freeman Dyson, Stephen Jay Gould to name a few. If he is fringe, he is certainly a scientist of notable controversy. We are here to present this neutrally. We are not here to say his theory is fringe or not fringe - we are only here to report if someone notable has referred to it that way and in light of a notable controversy when relevant.'' The Tumbleman 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::: Please keep in mind that you already with the "bias" claim in your very first message on this page. You thought the article intro contained a "horribly biased definition" of Sheldrake's work, but it was his own words which were quoted. Please take that false positive to heart. Also remember that such accusations directed at individuals (as opposed to the article) are forbidden per ] (and remember ]).

:::: ''Nope - not shooting myself in the foot by any means and still stand beside my claims of bias - I have not yet really begun to edit this page yet and do believe still that this page written in bias - and my first edit may still stand because the source that was referenced was a biased article and if that article used that sheldrake quote in context or out of context and I am researching the source still. At face value it did look like I was mistaken however and apologized. I do not believe wiki has a 'shoot self in foot' policy (edit - i see now that you are referring to the OUCH policy) and I have accused no one directly that I am aware of.''The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

::::: The above comment is in response to my comment. My response is below. ] (]) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

::: Your comments as a whole indicate that you need to become familiar with ] and the policies at the top of this talk page. They should answer most or all of the issues you've raised. In the past there have been problems with users not reading these policies, so please actually do so. ] (]) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::: ''Yup, have read them and Yup, am familiar with ]. If you believe one of my comments is out of step with ] then please copy and paste the comment in question and advise to that specifically, thank you. I develop collective editing systems and am quite familiar with objective protocols, voices of neutrality, unbiased journalistic standards, etc etc so your concerns are quite misguided here. I am agnostic as to Sheldrake's theories - I am here to make sure his bio contains notable events that are significant to his biography as per wiki policy.'' The Tumbleman 16:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::Claiming to be familiar with policy and actually demonstrating familiarity are two completely different things. ] (]) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::''True - so let's all work on keeping all of us in check''.The Tumbleman 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::], don't split up other people's comments like that. The signature distinguishes who said what, and it's confusing when it is not present. Also, could you please stop commenting in all italics? It's harder to read and there's no need to distinguish yourself like that. And, again, please fix your signature as it violates ] policy. A signature link aids in marking the end of a comment, among other reasons for it.

::::::I have fixed signature issues in preferences. I am not sure what you mean when you say 'split up other people's comments'. I comment directly underneath each comment with a editor signature.

:::::::Don't do what you just did again here, in the comment above. Don't insert your response between the paragraphs of someone's comment. There needs to be a signature in order to distinguish the end of a comment and to whom it belongs, otherwise mass confusion ensues. This is basic wiki convention and common sense. Moreover, there's no signature in your own comment directly above. ] (]) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I understand not to comment in between paragraphs - I am just not seeing the reference to where I "just did again here, in the comment above." if I see a comment and then after that comment i see a user signature, I leave my comment with my user signature like you are doing as well. If I interrupted a paragraph somewhere, it was probably an accident. I was having problems in preferences earlier that I was not aware of so again, apologize if there has been sloppiness. ] (]) 00:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::Your comment "Nope - not shooting..." splits my earlier comment, leaving my paragraph "Please keep in mind that..." signature-less. Your comment "I have fixed signature issues..." splits up my earlier comment "User:Tumbleman, don't split up other people's comments...", leaving that paragraph signature-less. ] (]) 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::There's also no signature in your indented comment below. If you indent like that, you need to attach a signature, otherwise people don't know who made the comment (short of investigating diffs). ] (]) 23:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::You because "it does not define the author's hypothesis but rather an interpretation from a negative science writer". I don't know where that comes from, since the source quoted Sheldrake. Reverting your edit, I said, . That should have been the end, but instead you comment on this talk page asserting that the quote is a . I respond by giving you a for the quote. Now you say that your removal of the quote "may still stand".

:::::Help us to understand your perspective. How on Earth could your removal still stand? Why did you think "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was "horribly biased"? ] (]) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::Let me clarify and I apologize if any of my form here has been sloppy. Correct, I did originally remove ""mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" because, academically speaking, it is not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis and the quote was linked to a scientific american article of high bias against the hypothesis article as reference, not one of Sheldrakes own publications as one would normally expect in a formal definition. However I was mistaken in regards to the quote not being attributed to Sheldrake directly, and I responded ( if you pull up the discussion we had) with "Apologies, I withdraw my argument".

::::::What *may* be in question regarding the Scientific American article is regarding that quote being used out of context by Scientific American to frame how Sheldrake's hypothesis is defined academically or formally by Sheldrake. This reads as bias to me from the Scientific American journalist himself and he may be taken out of context to show that bias. If this is the case, and that quote is not a formal definition of Sheldrake's theory, then I will remove it and request for a formal definition, cited from his own works on the matter, replace it. I am still researching this as well as to other issues effecting this page. As for now, your edit stands as well as all edits on this page until I complete my task and finish diligence here.

::::::In terms of my comment that you mention regarding bias in the over all article - it was in regards to the whole page of talk now in previous archives, it was my reaction to both sides of the argument - and yes I still do see evidence of bias on this page and will edit and clean when I have completed my tasks. Hope this clears things up. Thank you. ] (]) 22:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

: First "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was a . Then you pull back, . Then you say . Now we have juxtaposed in the same comment with "academically speaking, it is not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis".

: Sheldrake's own words are "horribly biased" against him and "not how Sheldrake presents his hypothesis". I give up.

: I would still like to know ''why'' you think (or thought) "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" was "horribly biased" -- not the genetic argument of where it came from (a fallacy), but what about the quote itself, the quote alone, is (or was in your mind) "horribly biased".

: P.S. In the edit in which your above comment was created, you have an indented paragraph lacking a signature. ] (]) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Vzaak - getting very unclear to me why this is still a source of confusion for you. I already addressed this once above. I was mistaken about attribution and therefore withdrew my claim based on that error since I assumed you were giving attribution to the journalist and not sheldrake, therefore making it 'horribly biased'. I was mistaken there. My claim of potential bias however, which I am still researching, is about the possible bias of the context in which Sheldrake's quote was used by Scientific American. "mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" does not appear at face value to sound like a formal definition of Sheldrake's hypothesis, but rather a loose and informal *explanation* of what his hypothesis suggests. Sheldrake is a formally trained scientist and one would expect a formal definition of the subject matter of his own hypothesis. A formal definition is not an informal explanation and an informal explanation is not notable unless the context it was given in was notable to the subject matter. The two are not the same. An informal explanation could be used by an author in a specific context (for example if the author is speaking to children he may explain something in simple to understand terms or metaphors). Since the Scientific American article is written with a negative bias regarding Sheldrake, he may be framing Sheldrake's words against him to make his hypothesis read more pseudoscientific which is the opinion of the journalist. Therefore, if this is the case, and i research the reference in question and I determine it to be taken out of context or not how Sheldrake formally defines his hypothesis, I will remove it once again with this argument specifically because it would lean towards a bias on the page and in violation of WP: NPOV. Until then, there is no reason for you to keep addressing this to me because until I do this, your edit stands. ] (]) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== TEDx talk ==
Looking for ]. Google News on this. ] pointed to , which is the only news source I know about. The article lacks detail, and it may not be possible to treat the topic appropriately without doing original research.

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

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

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



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

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

{{collapse top|title=Tumbleman argues that the TEDx blog is a news organization and a reliable secondary source}}
:::Not sure how 1 scientist and 1 clearly biased blogger would constitute view points that can be relied upon as the voice of the skeptic or scientific community, that seems like a bit of a reach and potentially in violation of Notability. In this article here on Huffington Post 10 scientists lend their support to sheldrake. For the same reason one could not claim that because 10 scientists give him public support as evidence the scientific community supports him, you cannot use simply 1 blogger and 1 scientist to say the same to the contrary. You have no references that would justify giving them that voice. that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Let's try to stay neutral here guys, these kind of arguments are what makes it appear to me to be some bias amongst the editors here and that there may be ideological reasons for them editing this page.] (]) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::TED's own publication reported on the controversy - and TED obviously is notable. As the TED controversy was also reported on by various other publications, it makes the TED controversy notable by wiki standards. Chris Anderson's own comments on the talk after the controversy also notable. I am still doing diligence on the TEDX issue and have not yet presented my formal edit.] (]) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

::::TED's own publication is a primary source. A primary source can be used for facts, but hardly anything else. That's why I said "the facts of what happened". WP policy is, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" (]). ] (]) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::TED's primary source in this regard is the Youtube Channel for TEDx (because that is where it is sourced that video was been removed) or at best TED.com (which is the hosting brand for TED channel) - Not TED's blog <ref>http://blog.ted.com//</ref>. TED.blog is a notable news outlet that covers events happening with TED events. It is reasonable the promote on the controversy as TED.BLOG reported on the controversy and use TED.BLOG as the source for TED's position editorially. ] (]) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::: I don't understand your comment, but if you're suggesting that TED's blog is a secondary source, it's not. The TED blog is also not a news outlet as far as WP is concerned, ].

:::::::: It is. I believe You are mistaken here. I don't see how blog.ted would not be considered a secondary news source for TED events, nor do I see how how it's not a news outlet is covered in ] - that seems a little extreme and quite a broad interpretation. so if you have a specific interpretation of this you need to be a little more clear. I hope you can make the distinction between TED as a forum for live events that are recorded, and TED as a publisher of news regarding it's own events. Clearly blog.TED is a reliable source to reference in terms of TED events. Your original suggestion was that TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source to define the controversy. I hope you are not confusing comments on the blog.ted site with what I am suggesting. blog.ted published a few articles on the controversy and many of the articles or comments there are directly from TED director Chris Anderson directly on TED's position. This is indeed relevant because TED officially retracted many of the claims it gave towards removing the talk. Many other publishers also picked up on this controversy. The controversy is notable to the bio of Sheldrake since Sheldrake has a long history with such controversy and this is the most recent historical example, so it's relevant to his bio. To suggest that a wiki editor can not use that as a notable reference for the controversy does not seem reasonable to me and I see no violation of wiki rules that you mention.] (]) 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::: Is this a joke? This is the third time you have split my comment, immediately following and my second request to stop. This is common sense. Don't split comments. People need to know who said what.

::::::::: You are confusing a news organization -- as in an organization with professional journalists and an editorial staff that hold themselves to journalistic standards -- with a blog about events of a random organization. The former is (typically) a reliable secondary source. The latter is not a news organization and not a secondary source.

::::::::: I did ''not'' say that "TED's own reporting on a controversy would not qualify a wiki editor from using that source". Indeed before you wrote those words I added material to the article using the TED blog as a source. I think you missed my point about the limitations WP places on primary sources (]).

::::::::: (P.S. Put the Sheldrake page on your Watchlist; you'll be able to see changes to the article and the talk page at the same time.) ] (]) 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: I am quite clear on what constitutes a news organization and so is WP. There is nothing in the WP that would disqualify blog.TED from qualifying as a news organization relative to that channel, considering TED is a massive online publisher. Your issue revolved, and correct me if I am mistaken, that reporting the event as a controversy and using blog.ted as a primary source to reference the event as a controversy was against WP and the only source you could find was the independent which also referenced the event as a controversy, which you then questioned as notable. Your exact words "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?". To me your words clearly show you are seeking to limit the notability of the event as a controversy or even referencing it as one. Perhaps you can share your thoughts here regarding this specifically? This does not seem like a complex issue so not sure why you have any issue with simply providing a NPOV on the matter as an unbiased editor. Any organization that reports news in any channel or interest is, in principle, a news organization relative to that channel. WP allows us guidelines to determine the veracity of what any organization reports and gives editors leeway under those guidelines, including (]). Again, I have not made my edits yet to this page so I guess we will be visiting this issue once I do.

:::::::::: Secondly, on this page you wish to show how the removal of the sheldrake talk was akin to issues regarding Tedx events such as TEDxCharlotte, TEDxValencia, and TEDxWestHollywood. While those events may have faced similar issues related to TED TOS with event organizers, Sheldrake's video was called out specifically by TED on the TED site which later retracted the claims that Sheldrake's talk was removed for gross errors and pseudoscience. Clearly you can see the distinction there.

:::::::::: As to the splitting of comments, apologies please do not assume it is a joke or take it personal. wiki TALK is naturally a very sloppy format in principle to handle these discussions and I am sure myself, like most wiki editors, have good intentions and I will make sure not to make this mistake again.] (]) 04:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: Vzaak, my concern is that you use WP a little to strictly to enforce what appears to me to be a loose opinion or interpretation, when in fact WP is clear when it is meant as a guide or heuristic instead of a policy for deletion. From (]) "''Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.''" As long as we keep a firm commitment to maintain a NPOV, these issues should be easy to resolve since these are quite rational distinctions. I look forward to working with you one this page over time to maintain this standard. ] (]) 05:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::: This is getting close to personal attacks again. Focus on article content and arguments, don't comment on people. ]. No more vacuous accusations of bias directed toward people. Remember that I declined to take that shot despite the easy target you presented in your mistaken first comment on this talk page.

::::::::::: You missed that I said "I think a brief description of the facts of what happened is appropriate" in the same comment as "Can this really suffice for notability per WP standards?".

::::::::::: The TED blog is clearly not a news organization and clearly not a secondary source. I'm not going to argue about this. Take it up with ], they'll tell you the same thing. You really need to read WP policies and understand them. ] ] ] and more. ] (]) 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is completely appropriate to mention the voice of an editor if that voice is influencing the actual content of the page. For example if an editor has a voice which suggests bias, it is not a personal attack to mention the concern of bias to that editor in TALK. I am merely commenting on your language and your evaluations and how you are using WP to make those evaluations and broad sweeping judgements which so far have been based on what appears to be very loose interpretations of WP. I stand by my comment and in no way is this a violation of ]. I have concerns of an ideological bias here on this and I have every right as a wiki editor to address that within reason. Please try to maintain a NPOV here. ] (]) 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I may very well take it up with ] but appeal to an authority as a basis for your argument here is a logical fallacy. If you cannot explain how TED's own organization that reports on TED's news and events would not qualify as a news organization relative to that channel or blur the lines between primary and secondary sources within the WP, then it would be fair for you to no longer comment in the TALK section about this issue. ] (]) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Warned. ] (]) 07:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: Comment was on "content" specifically and I have addressed my concerns with you on your personal page especially in relationship to ]. Please let's be civil and genuine in accordance with WP. If you want to resolve this with me on my personal page please feel free to message me there. ] (]) 07:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Note you can't use "<nowiki><ref></nowiki>" here since this page has no "<nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki>", i.e. the link you gave doesn't work. Use instead. (There's also an extra slash in your URL.) ] (]) 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::My full apologies, I am in between projects now and writing quickly. Have been away from wiki editing for awhile so please be patient with my while I re orientate. Here is the reference in mention ] (]) 02:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::: I wasn't confused about where the TED blog was; I already cited it myself. I was just letting you know about "ref". (FYI that link is still wrong.) ] (]) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

This is my first time on Misplaced Pages, so if I make any mistakes here, please be patient.
Here are a variety of sources for establishing notability for the TED controversy:
, , , , , ,

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

Lesser news blogs commenting on or linking to commentary on the controversy:
,

Other:
Summarys of the Controversy for reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::The is by TED on Sheldrake. The post states the action TED took and their reasons for it, and WP cites that. Anderson's links to that post. It still appears as though you wish to incorporate ]. ] (]) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:::::::: Vzaak, like many new editors on Misplaced Pages I am here to lend my expertise in a specific area. It is very important that the article be both accurate and neutral. I would hope that you are glad to have someone around who can sort out the controversy and put it into the proper context.] (]) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
The is right there at the top of Anderson's . The closing statement capped off the two-week discussion starting March 19 for which the TED blog post -- the source cited in WP -- gave context along with the video itself. Again, this was the by TED on Sheldrake, not the initial/original one as you claimed. ] (]) 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

::: You have this all mixed up. The last update to the blog post was on March 19th. The closing statement (that is specifically referred to as the closing statement) occurred on April 2nd, almost two weeks later. The part that you are missing here, that is of great significance, that I have already pointed out to you, is that there '''WERE NO REASONS GIVEN''' for the removal of Sheldrake's video. The statements that you are referring to were part of the initial complaints against Sheldrake's talk. Those were '''ALL RESCINDED''' after Sheldrake responded to those complaints. That's why Sheldrake stated that "there are no longer any specific points to answer." Because there weren't any.
::: This makes the account of the TED controversy in the Sheldrake article grossly misleading. ] (]) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::"sponsorship" ARRRRRGH!
:: ], 14 September 2013. ] (]) 12:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== Concerns with article ==

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

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

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

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

So the classification of this as ] is uncalled for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusion notes that "The presence of collective memory was tested by having three groups of students learn the morse code, which had been previously learned by a large number of people, and a novel code that had never been learned by others and was constructed to be of equal intrinsic difficulty. As predicted, the Morse code was initially easier to learn, and the Novel code itself became easier over the three groups. The results confirm Sheldrake's theory and lend credibility to Jung's concepts of the archetype and the collective unconscious while suggesting that the ladder contains much more than archetypal memories." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:First of all, Meta-Analyses are useless if the publication bias and/or amount of fraud are unknown. Occam's razor obliges us to assume those two possibilities. The solution are few and big studies and I know only one reason why parapsychologists wouldn't conduct them.
:Secondly: A survey in the "Epoch Times" isn't sufficient to label pseudoscience like parapsychology now as real science. Such surveys (if they are representative at all) have been there for decades which clearly doesn't speak in favor of parapsychology - PSI is always just around the corner, science just about to change etc. blah.
:Thirdly: The claim that Wiseman admitted that he replicated Sheldrake's findings of telepathic abilities of the dog is an outright lie by Sheldrake which is based on a quotation out of context.
:Fourthly: Sheldrake's claim about telephone telepathy is that many people report it and that it's a very widespread phenomenon. This contradicts your "replication" which claims that there are few individuals with the ability to "sense" the caller. You also concealed studies which observed no effect at all.
:I haven't even looked at the rest of your - obviously cherry-picked - "scientific" studies after reading ‘Spooky Action at a Distance' - as if there'd be any "action at a distance" involved in quantum entanglement. That's just another example for quantum-woo. Your ridiculous argument from authority (quoting Bohm, Josephson and Dürr) also won't impress anybody. It gets even more pathetic if you consider that most scientists reject Sheldrake's claims. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Scientific community rejects him, not just a few scientists ==

A good ref is http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion. ] (]) 02:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
:“Science,” according to the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, “is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” It is not the intellectual communism that is so popular here. It is also notable, as shown above, that leading physicists, including the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, have defended Sheldrake. Also, points of concern regarding Rupert Sheldrake have been addressed in the section above. Also, his morphic resonance hypothesis has been corroborated with other research, as shown above. What's left then is the atmosphere of intellectual communism that Sheldrake directly addresses. It is notable, also, the surveys concerning telepathy, related to Sheldrake's inquiry, given above showing that acceptance of it is not as fringe as some might imply, and the above given Baysean analysis of ESP experiments that proves the phenomenon. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::The article already says "widely rejected by the scientific community". A better lede would be, "rejected by many in the scientific community, but has been defended by notable physicists like David Bohm, Brian Josephson, and Hans Peter Durr."] (]) 06:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Nah, our sources say it's widely rejected. ] (]) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

:: To say that the scientific community rejects Sheldrake is misleading and biased no matter the source. It is impossible to define "scientific community." There is no comprehensive list of scientists who reject Sheldrake's work. It is on the level of gossip and not suitable for an article and should be removed. It is also not a NPOV and therefore violates Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons. ] (]) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Craig Weiler. Also, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Craig, you're asking us to choose between your personal opinion and our sources. The sources win every time. ] (]) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, the sources supporting Sheldrake (Bohm, Josephson, Durr) are actually more eminent than the sources rejecting him. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I don't care. We have reliable sources saying that the scientific community rejects his theories. Deal with that. ] (]) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The comparison of sources is equivalent to saying that Einstein or Newton defends his theories, but a cadre of purportedly "skeptical" science columnists reject them.

::It's pretty clear from the references that there's a lot of skepticism about Sheldrake's work. IMHO, that is fairly stated and strongly backed up by the material in the article. If, indeed, some credible people have defended his work, ] requires that that be mentioned and referenced. If somebody will post some verifiable references here, I'll be glad to put these points of view into the article, hopefully in a way that will be acceptable even to skeptics. I'll have to be able to see the references myself, though -- I'm not willing to accept their verifiability on faith. ] (]) 01:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I've got absolutely no problem with mentioning his supporters. I just don't want to lie by making it sound as if the scientific community as a whole takes him seriously. It doesn't, and that's not just my opinion, it's what our sources say. ] (]) 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:Positive reactions from colleagues can be included but they need to be given sufficient context, i.e. '''what''' the person is saying and '''who''' it is that is saying it. ] (]) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I will summarize the Durr article, which defends Sheldrake, and shows how his argument is not inconsistent with modern science: https://ia601001.us.archive.org/18/items/Rupert_201309/Sheldrake%C2%B4s%20Id%C3%A9er_07,pdf.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reference list ==

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

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

== Misleading lead section ==

The second paragraph of the article says
:''"Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis is widely rejected within the scientific community and has been labelled pseudoscience and magical thinking. Concerns include the lack of evidence for the hypothesis and its inconsistency with established scientific theories."''
There are lots of inline references that appear to back up these claims (though I haven't checked them all), so I have no problem with what this paragraph says. But other stuff is missing.

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

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

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

I'm not highly familiar with Sheldrake material myself, so I'm reluctant to try fixing the defective lead. Maybe some of the Sheldrake experts will work on it. ] (]) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
:If you read ], you'll see that it requires us to give weight based on the weight of our sources. We have a few sources supporting Sheldrake, but the majority are starkly critical. The article reflects this fact. ] (]) 14:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

::Comparing Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" with string theory is a disingenuous ]. ] (]) 18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
::: I believe it's actually quite an appropriate analogy. There is no reasonable claim an editor can make regarding Morphic Resonance as Pseudoscience as the term is used and defined in science unless you are claiming it is PS because it is not falsifiable. That appears to me to be the only supportive claim an editor can make to hold Morphic Resonance under ]. That's the exact same issue with ], and under the terms, string theory is pseudoscience. This is a problem in academia regarding this definition, as this article in Scientific American . that is why ] has section four. Editors cannot put an hypothesis in a ] category just because they have a quote from a scientist who says it is PS, and if they do, and it's from inside the scientific community, then it's considered an alternative theory and not PS. Help me understand your thinking here, what reasons do you as an editor support Morphic Resonance being held to ] as pseudo science? I am not seeing a clear case here and want to understand. ] (]) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::: "We" means the community of editors. Specifically, I am going to be submitting changes for the community's consensus and will be doing this strictly according to WP. Any editors failure to understand or abuse any WP Policy, especially ], are likely to find themselves removed from the page.] (]) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::: I see you're pretty much in a minority of 1 when it comes to thinking that ] will not apply to this article. ] (]) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Scientific community ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

] (]) 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::] Your POV is valued here and I am performing a reasonable inquiry. You claim you have explained things at length and I accept you have done this to the best of your skills as a valued member of the Misplaced Pages editors. If you believe I have missed a point, please address. Your other points, as mentioned in this talk section for any admin to read, are not consistent with WP policy for ALIVE and I look forward to hearing your thoughts when I make the first edit. ] (]) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Lemme jump in here. I read up on ] and I gotta say it applies here in spades. Rupert's ideas are widely rejected by science, and he broadly rejects science. We have to report on them because they're what he believed, but we can't treat them as if they're anything but fringe. ] (]) 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

As for the rest of your commentary, I am not sure I understand the implication. I agree that the article must frame the reactions from the mainstream scientific community. I'm just not seeing anything that qualifies this article which is governed under ] to fall under jurisdiction of ]. Yes, some prominent scientists have said it is pseudoscience, and the article should reflect that, but some prominent scientists have said it is not. Considering it technically is an 'alternative theoretical formulation', that's a discussion for scientists and philosophers of science, not wikipedia editors. In science, technically anything that cannot be falsified is pseudoscience. I am not seeing any source material state that the hypothesis Morphic Resonance is not falsifiable as a matter of scientific consensus. We just want to show the context on the page so a ] is presented. I look forward to hearing your commentary when I make these edits. ] (]) 22:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:The part that's relevant is:
::"Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."
:By this definition, Sheldrake's ideas aren't just scientific hypotheses that remained unconvincing, they're pseudoscience. Here's the checklist:
:#Attempt to change the basic laws of nature: Conservation of mass/energy.
:#To allow for phenomena that he wants to believe occurs: morphic resonance, perpetual motion.
:#Attacking mainstream theories: Conservation, again.
:#Attacking mainstream scientific methodology: "modern science has become a series of dogmas"
:#Relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence: the dog stories
:I could go on, but the perpetual motion machine alone should be enough to show that Rupert is a pseudoscientist by Misplaced Pages (and scientific) standards.
:Now that we know this, the policy you pointed at says we aren't allowed to present the two sides as if there's any sort of equality. Does that help? ] (]) 02:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Philosophy and motivation ==

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

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

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

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

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

== More trouble with the lead ==

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

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

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

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

:: Just to be fair ], there is a reasonable justification for having absolutely no mention of COE issue in lead, primarily because Sheldrake is only pondering the issue philosophically, along with 9 other scientific theories or assumptions. I think it's fine to mention these things in the section about the book, but the lead section in my opinion should not contain editors 'picking' one of 10 topics in one of his books because that would require an interpretation of what sheldrake is pondering on philosophically. There is no reason any editor should mistake a philosophical discussion about science as pseudoscience as it's not an hypothesis or theory, sheldrake is just critiquing the principles that guide science to investigate such things. His only point on COE and perpetual motion machines is that science should be more open to testing them, so it's just a rhetorical suggestion on his party and not by any means a focus of his work or POV. It's not notable enough for a lead section if the lead section was written appropriately. Since the lead section here is not written appropriately, I am going to be making a very strong edit to it shortly and seek to reach a new consensus. ] (]) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Perpetual motion is ruled out by... conservation of energy. ] (]) 22:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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


== Please insert neutral header here ==
:::] does not apply to philosophical conversations, ideas, or thought experiments, so it makes the argument for ] to remove it, not keep it. No problems with stating the mainstream position, it's sheldrake's position that is being stated outside of a ]. The page can't have both. ] (]) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::You're simply mistaken. It's not our fault that Rupert says wild stuff that makes scientists snicker, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. ] (]) 23:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) {{archive top|The below request asks us to fundamentally compromise ] in a way that is incompatible with Misplaced Pages policy. In future it may be better simply to hat such comments without replying to them. ] (]) 16:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)}}
I am disgusted by the incompetence and arrogance gathered in this article hoping to suffocate progress. This is not what Misplaced Pages should be for, you dare talk below about facts, but facts are REPRESSED AND REMOVED from the article. Here some BASICS that the article fails to honestly mention:


1. MOST IMPORTANTLY, Sheldrake is a proved high standing SCIENTIST. He studied biology and got his PhD from Cambridge, where he was sharing a house and frequenting some of the most brilliant minds of the time. At the beginning of his career he did way opening "main stream" research, which led to the fact the two of his papers were published in Nature, an achievement that most standing professors still dream of. PLEASE mention this and stop lying about him, as if he was just an "author"
:::: ], You don't have to pretend that you accept such an idea, you just can't pretend that a philosophical idea can qualify as pseudoscience as that would be quite a claim that has no support academically. Making scientists snicker is not enough to qualify an idea as ], unfalsifiability is. language like that makes it appear that that sort of editing is biased and there is nothing in the definition of pseudoscience which includes philosophical ideas such as ], ], or a host of other philosophical ideas that are discussed academically and also on Misplaced Pages and to do so would be ] and not in the spirit of wikipedia. I've heard your opinions, but now I would like to hear your reasoning, specifically, why should ] apply to philosophical ideas specifically in relationship to Sheldrake, can you explain? Perhaps if you could present your case as a reasoned argument editors here would be willing to consider it in the coming request for new consensus. ] (]) 23:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


2. Sheldrake decided to go his own way, being interested in phenomena for which there was no funding in academia, but he proceeded to be inventive and extremely cautious in EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. If he talks about evidence for the phenomena -- objective, seriously measured phenomena -- to which the morphogenetic field is just an ad interim PROPOSAL of an explanation, because the phenomena are not explained in present science, and the telephathy belong, his statistical support is so accurate, that I could only dream that the propaganda around covid had been supported by statistical evidence only 10% as accurate as Sheldrake's. I am sure that the ignorant contributors who dare cut explanations in favor of Sheldrake and spread difamation have no slight experience, never read a book or followed a complete conference of Sheldrake. To answer a question raised below by {{User|Thinker78}}: the only funding for study of parapsychological pheonomena, to what I know, comes from Koestler's funding of the society for the study of parapsychological phenomena. So yes, there have been empirical studies, but Sheldrake is leading by the extensivity and accuracy of his experiments, as well as the inventivity used. Nobody was abled to find flaws in his empirical studies, which why they go ad hominem directly, precisely as this page does.
:::::Conservation of energy is firmly within the domain of science. ] (]) 00:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


3. His empirical facts on the morphogenetic field are impressive enough, for having motivated research by many other main stream scientists, who diversified the realm of observations -- but kept low profile, for understandable reason. He is not alone! I must take the time to present at least the basic of the empirical evidence that lead to the explanation ATTEMPT by the (consciently) vague notion of morphogenetic field. What multiple experiments prove is a SURPRIZING AND UNEXPLAINED non-local spread of knowledge from the experience of solving certain riddles. The typical experiments involve some labor animals who either work their way out of complex labirinths, or succeed to remove their food-reward from an intricate system of containers, achievements which all required many days and weeks for the first experiment subject to SOLVE. What happens is that when repeating the experiment with the same kind of animals, and the same challenge, in various remote locations, the time for solving the riddle dramatically drops, slowly to half or less of the initial time. It never increases. And this despite of the fact that any physical kind of information transmission is totally excluded. So this is a repetitive indication that something happens that goes against probabilities, and suggest a non local "storage of collective information of the species". Now that is empirical science of the best, and it was taken over by more teams -- yet a solid theory is certainly still out of reach. But facts OBLIGE us to accept SOMETHING IS GOING ON. So stop difamating the morphogenetic field explanation, or do your home work and explain what it is and why you feel so self-certain (NOT BY QUOTATIONS, PLEASE, by FACTS).
you are correct ] . And the domain of philosophy is not within pseudoscience. Other than stating what is common knowledge, I am not seeing anything here in your reasoning to assume a philosophical exploration should fall under ] on an ] page. I'm hoping another editor can make the case as to how that makes this page better but so far I am not seeing much of anything to support it and WP allows for it to be removed under ] which is what is going to happen unless an editor can provide some reasonable and consistent argument for it remaining. ] (]) 01:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


4. You completely fail to mention a fundamental book of Sheldrake, "The science delusion" in which he individuates and explains 10 fundamental unstated axioms that are hidden behind the main stream sceintific view of life and the Universe. Noone could prove him wrong, this why you preferred not to mention the book, not having base for difamation.
:Hey, Sheldrake is who he is, and he claims what he claims. One of his important claims is that science has lost its way as an engine of inquiry, and has become a series of dogmas. Another is the morphic resonance hypothesis. The job of the article is to tell about him and his work. Though it can mention his detractors, they are not what the article is about (and if it mentions them, it needs to mention his supporters, giving appropriate weight to each).


I have not more time to go into detail, but must say that I am appaled by the insiduousness of ignorant contributors who obviously have the say also in REMOVING positive information, in order to maintain the overall difamatory style of the page. I propose to these ignorants to make their own site called WikInquisition, since THIS is what their level of undersanding and intelligence is! Misplaced Pages initially intended to educate, not to cenzor and difamate -- for this main stream media suffices! —] (]) 09:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:The lead needs to summarize what the article is about. If it says something about his work, it should be specific about that work, especially if it is going to mention people who knock it (scientists, of whose field he is strongly critical). If it mentions his criticism of conservation of energy (one of his ten major criticisms), it should provide a few words of background. It is then suitable to mention, briefly, that there are those who criticize that view. But if they are mentioned, those who support him also need to be mentioned. That's what neutral point of view is all about. ] (]) 04:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:TL;DR. See ].
:I stopped reading when even after three sentences, I found nothing related to article improvement.
:If there is anything that is relevant for this page (meaning: helpful for page improvement), can you please repeat it without all the hate, preaching, and hate preaching around it? If not, please delete the whole thing, it does not belong here because of ]. --] (]) 10:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::<small>Please don't refactor another editor's discussion heading with a POV replacement. The title was "WikInquisitia" not "Pro-fringe sermon". <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 10:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)</small>
:::What you obviously mean is "do not replace my pro-fringe POV, however hateful, defaming and vilifying, with a wording more in agreement with Misplaced Pages rules".
:::The ] was a murderous organization that tortured people and burnt them alive. Comparing Misplaced Pages with it is not appropriate, and if you reinstate it again, admins will have to take care of you.
:::Consult ] and ], especially {{tq|Never use headings to attack other users}}. --] (]) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you should consult ] and ] for some balance. ] (]) 13:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::You should consult ] (no perhaps about it) - {{tq|Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor}} That exactly fits the original header: it equated the editors of this article with mass murderers.
:::::Notorious ] editors should stop defending that personal-attack section header.
:::::I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Misplaced Pages rules? --] (]) 14:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::"Notorious pro-fringe editor"? That, in itself, is a derogatory comment, and your edit summaries about "crackpots" and "crackpottery" make your own position eminently clear. As for blatant threats to other editors here, like "if you reinstate again, admins will have to take care of you", this really does the public perception of your cause no favours, whatsoever. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 15:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::You may not like the original poster's rant, I might not like it, but from their point of view, they see areas in which the attitudes and stances of editors have been contributing negatively to the article, and they deserve to be heard and not ridiculed. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::And, sure, if the original heading of this thread offends you and dishonours the discussion process, then please feel free to take the matter to an admin noticeboard. BTW, my advice would be to avoid the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition, or else you might become traumatized. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::But amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as an almost fanatical devotion to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ] (]) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Misplaced Pages rules? Or are you only here to whine about the existence of people who disagree with you? --] (]) 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::"Derogatory" I think is only in the context of attacks against minorities or vulnerable groups. It is item 1.b. in the ]. Regarding WikInquisitia, I would say it would fit more in 1.a., c., d. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm dedicated to applying the ], but I don't consider myself a fanatic. I.e. when proper ] are presented, I am prepared to change my views, or at least allow opposite views in the articles.
::::::But, anyway, we are not here to change basic website policies just because a random editor asks nicely. ] has been adopted for a good reason, there is no motivation for dodging it inside this article.
::::::And no, we are not preparing for Sheldrake getting burned at the stake, comparing expressing rational criticism to such crime is risible. Yup, this reminds me of ], who complained that he gets crucified through humor.<ref name="Grail Foundation Press 1998 p. 229">{{cite book | title=In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message | publisher=Grail Foundation Press | series=In the Light of Truth | year=1998 | isbn=978-1-57461-000-0 | url=https://books.google.nl/books?id=QufsPdLo45AC&pg=PA229 | access-date=9 July 2023 | page=229 | quote=Only this time in a more modern form, a symbolic crucifixion through an attempt at ''moral murder,'' which according to the Laws of God ''is no less punishable than physical murder.''}}</ref> (Mr. Bernhardt proclaimed himself the Son of Man, the Savior of Mankind, so he was duly mocked.)
::::::{{re|Hob Gadling}} I think you should read the whole post. Why? Because it is involuntary humor.
::::::I don't agree with Sheldrake's POV, but I find the 10 tenets of ''The Science Delusion'' to be enlightening. I just don't agree that the mainstream science and evidence-based medicine would be wrong for upholding these 10 tenets.
::::::Do we know everything there is to know? No, but that isn't a reason to behave epistemically irresponsible.
::::::And, {{u|PredaMi}}, the scientific community is the boss of what we write here. Sheldrake should solve his problem with the scientific community before attempting to fix his article at Misplaced Pages. We do not follow your opinions, we do not follow my opinions, we follow the broadly shared opinions among the scientific community.
::::::Note that I'm not saying that science is always right, just that Misplaced Pages has absolutely no reason to endorse the ]. If present-day science has it wrong, then Misplaced Pages is also wrong. But it cannot be otherwise.
::::::Sheldrake's problem is that scientists who are competent enough to provide the ] of his magic field simply don't bother to perform the experiments (they have no incentive/funding to perform such experiments). So he is in the limbo of ]. E.g. the idea that mice take at first 4 hours to solve a labyrinth, and you train them to do it in 15 minutes, then mice all over the world presented with a clone of that labyrinth would solve it in 15 minutes from the first attempt, sounds like a falsifiable claim. But it sounds so preposterous that serious scientists aren't willing to test it. And even if they would be willing to test it, getting funds for it would be difficult. They would ask grants saying "I want to debunk an idea widely considered preposterous. It has to do with the paranormal." Unlikely to get the grant. ] (]) 02:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:Against my better judgement, I have read this entire diatribe, and both Sheldrake's education at the University of Cambridge and ''The Science Delusion'' are described in the article in extensive detail, so most of the poster's points are bogus. ] (]) 16:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:@] try discussing the issues without violating the ]. You should edit your post to remove the instances of uncollegiality. Propose edits backed by reliable sources. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::Well, there is ] to consider. ] (]) 09:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


{{reflist talk}}
==Latest Edit in Lead Section very problematic, requesting explanation of editing changes==
{{archive bottom}}


== Challenger ==
] Thank you for working on helping make this page have a more NPOV. I have a question regarding your latest edit, and request a reasonable explanation before it gets changed back to it's previous version. "sheldrakes hypothesis has been widely rejected" has been changed to "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis has been dismissed '''by almost all scientists''' who have examined it". The only reference you have for that is <ref>Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash.</ref>, <ref>Samuel, L. R. (2011). Supernatural America: A Cultural History: A Cultural History. ABC-CLIO. "...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash..."</ref><ref>Sharma, Ruchir (2012). Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles. WW Norton & Company. "Despite Sheldrake's legitimate scientific credentials, his peers have roundly dismissed his theory as pseudoscience."</ref> These are referenced opinions. That's fine that they are mentioned, however they cannot be stated as facts as a NPOV on the page. They must either be quoted to give attribution to the opinion, or removed. To state an opinion as fact would mean that an editor would be doing ] and that's not what we are here to do. I would like to offer you a chance to explain your thought process here before it gets reverted because there is no consensus on this edit. ] (]) 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


{{tqq|It solidifies Sheldrake as the most serious challenger to materialist philosophy in the modern world.}} &mdash; it's not written inside the article, so not actionable. Just a general reminder: if you keep your metaphysics unfalsifiable (i.e. make no predicaments about medicine and hard sciences), then mainstream science or mainstream medicine can neither endorse nor reject your metaphysics.
Additionally - the reason the edit was made is claimed to be that 'widely rejected by the scientific community' is problematic because 'widely' is a weasel word. This I find a very perplexing reason, considering ] suggests that '''"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something ''different, opposite, or stronger'' in the way they are made."''' I am not sure what 'widely ' means other than to 'cover a large or expansive area' inferring only that a significant number in a majority reject the hypothesis. I see absolutely no use of ] here, there is only one inference and that inference is 'widely' used when large groups, areas, people, or references are referred to as a common journalistic standard without bias. Let's work towards a more NPOV here, we don't want to stretch the ] policy here beyond ], because it just looks like ] is happening and it's hard to build consensus that way. ] (]) 04:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


What Sheldrake does not get is that philosophy/metaphysics aren't part of science. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:IMHO, ] strongly wants to paint Sheldrake as a quack, and his hypotheses as pseudoscience. He wikilawyers it pretty strongly. I removed a hugely one-sided paragraph on ] grounds. He restored it without justification on this page. I don't care for edit wars, but we need to see some sensible justification for ]'s work. Otherwise the offending paragraph going to be deleted again on ] grounds -- not that it's badly referenced (though a lot of them are questionable) but that it is not written from a neutral point of view. Example: "almost all" scientists. We need to get real here -- the summary of an article is not the place to hammer on one side of the arguments about its subject's work. ] (]) 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


:"predicaments"? Was that predictive text? <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::], earlier ] that "widely" is ]. The consensus on that discussion was that "widely" is bad, either via ] or ] or ] or whatever. An apparently high-profile person said "widely" would prevent GA status. There has been a history of arguing over the wording of how morphic resonance is viewed in the scientific community, with most complaints being that the article doesn't reflect the terminology in the source, e.g. "reject" or "scientific community" or "widely". I thought using the same terminology as in a given source would finally end such concerns -- but apparently not! I suspect at this point that no consensus can be made, because it seems everything has now been tried. I've asked for advice ]. ] (]) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


::https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predicament , meaning simply something that gets stated. ] (]) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:::]: Why don't you just ask for advice here on the talk page? There are reasonable people here who have an interest in the article, and who have a lot of experience in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


::: Ah, thanks. I thought perhaps it had something to do with predication. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::], your edit was unreasonable; removing the criticism paragraph entirely from the lead directly violates ], an important section of ]. As I was going to be away, it seemed prudent to notify FTN and ask for advice. Had you restored the old paragraph, I would have just said, "OK, let's try again." ] (]) 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


:As far as I can see, Sheldrake is more than happy to carry out empirical scientific studies (eg in the case of a person's awareness of being stared at, or whether a dog can be aware that their owner is on the way home, or most recently, whether a study involving a cloned ] puzzle would show an effect that might be attributable to "morphic resonance" as more and more players find the solution, and to have others attempt to replicate these studies.
== Worsening the lead ==
:As Sheldrake argues in the head-to-head alluded to above and referenced in the Misplaced Pages article, where he is especially at odds with many mainstream scientists and sceptics is that, in his opinion, their mechanistic materialist beliefs tend to minimise the credibility of such phenomena in their eyes, or even make study of such phenomena something unworthy of consideration, if not to be actively opposed as "cosmic woo". Indeed, their mechanistic materialist beliefs, in his opinion, present a stumbling block for understanding such psychic (or panpsychic) phenomena. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


::His claims are technically falsifiable, but they lack biological plausibility (not: metaphysical plausibility), so mainstream scientists are not eager to falsify his claims. In the end, "that time never increases" seems a bit too fanciful to be true. ] (]) 02:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A recent edit to the last paragraph of the lead has made it worse, IMHO. It formerly had three ideas: 1) Concern about his effect on understanding science, which follows other concerns in the previous paragraph, 2) New Age people favor him, and 3) In spite of that, he is an Anglican.
::Those "empirical studies" can be done in a competent way, with blinding and so on, and if they are, the result is negative. Same as with other pseudosciences.
::So he calls the logically unavoidable principle of starting from the null hypothesis until one has good reason not to, a "belief"? So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how science can and cannot work.
::And he thinks everybody who disagrees with him is a "stumbling block". So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how the scientific community works.
::None of all that makes him a "serious challenger". --] (]) 07:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 ==
Now it has only two, and they aren't properly sequenced with the rest of the lead: 1) New Age people favor him, and 2) Concern about his effect on understanding science (now out of sequence). His Anglican religion, which bears directly on the New Age stuff, has been removed without explanation.


{{edit semi-protected|Rupert Sheldrake|answered=yes}}
I propose to change it back, and I seek rational comments before I do it. I also propose that further edits to this article be aired here for consensus before they are put into the article. Many of the edits recently made are controversial, and many, like the one above, disrupt the flow of the article, or are not as well-written as they could be, etc. ] (]) 11:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
After the current text:


Reviewing the book, ] criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.<ref name="the"/>
: My only motivation here was to ease off the criticism after the harsh 3rd paragraph. Starting the 4th paragraph with more criticism seemed too much, and putting it at the end gave the impression that it was less important, which it is. As I said in the comment, I thought this was a softer approach. If you like the old way then go ahead and change it -- this doesn't matter to me at all. Inserting Anglicanism suggested a conflation between his scientific status and his religion -- maybe diminishing the former. Again this was a softening attempt, and if you think the old way is better then that's fine. This also doesn't matter as I see it. ] (]) 13:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Add the following text right after:
::Got it. Thanks! ] (]) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


In response to Susan Blackmore's critique, Rupert Sheldrake re-examined his twelve experiments. He found the percentage of time Jaytee spent by the window in the main period of Pam's absence was lower when the first hour was exluded than when it was included. Sheldrake noted, "Taking Blackmore's objection into account strengthens rather than weakens the evidence for Jaytee knowing when his owner was coming home, and increases the statistical significance of the comparison."<ref name="2000 Response">{{cite journal | last=Sheldrake | first=Rupert | title=The 'Psychic Pet' Phenomenon: Correspondence | journal=Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | date=2000 | volume=64.2 | page=127 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329555625_The_%27Psychic_Pet%27_Phenomenon_Correspondence | accessdate=11 February 2024}}</ref>
== Proposal for the lead ==


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


I believe I got the reference formatting correct although I'm not sure if '.' are allowed in the 'volume' field. Let me know. ] (]) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I propose that the lead should look like this, bearing the above principles in mind:


:{{Done}}. ''— ] <sup>]</sup>'' 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
'''Paragraph 1''', about his life and big idea #1. I'm happy with it as it is.
::I've reverted it as ] and ]. I'm not sure what would be due without a better reference, nor should Misplaced Pages's voice be used for Sheldrake's claims. --] (]) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:::May I ask why would this be undue and soapboxing? Also, regarding the quote, there is specific guidance in the ],
:::{{tq2|Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.}}
:::Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::::The only reference is him. --] (]) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think the info is properly contextualized. It is using neutral language in the form "he found" not "it was proven". Also, when he talks about statements of facts language like, "the objection strenghtens rather than weakens", he is quoting himself in a quote. Therefore, if it is a quote I think it is probably ok. Now if you still object to the statements of facts, maybe as a compromise it could be made a more neutral contextualized paraphrase. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Given that the text before that criticizes Sheldrake's findings: {{tq|Reviewing the book, ] criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.}}, it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion, otherwise this is just another way for Misplaced Pages editors to further debunk Sheldrake and deny him redress. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Sounds like ]. --] (]) 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::Definitely FALSEBALANCE.
:::::{{tq|he found}}: No. That's a claim he's making in his defense, with no independent verification. --] (]) 17:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::The current Susan Blackmore paragraph is confused text. Worse:
::::::''<small>Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.</small>''
::::::I don't blame the original writer of this paragraph for misunderstanding what Susan said in the article, as it's of very poor quality, but Susan did not 'interpret the results' and she did not 'show that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look'. The article is speculation from Blackmore for how these results could have been produced due to what she thinks might've been design problems. A reader would be left with the impression that Susan has ''actually'' done a statistical analysis on the data and has found that the significant result vanishes when her critique is accounted for. Sheldrake's ''published'' rebuttal demonstrates this speculative theory is not the cause of the result and leads to a '''more''' significant p-value when accounted for.
::::::I appreciate Sheldrake's rebuttal is unlikely to be merged into the article for ''''''reasons'''''', but I'd like to atleast fix Susan Blackmore being misrepresented. Here's what I'd change it to (and as I don't have write permissions, you'll have to be the one to merge it in):
::::::--------------------
::::::Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore speculated that the significant result might be coming from a problematic experimental design. She proposed that: '''1)''' Because every test was longer than one hour, and ''if'', '''2)''' Jaytee's animal behavior was to settle down for the first hour its owner was away, then, '''3)''' This could explain why it appears Jaytee is anticipating Pam's return as, in the data, Jaytee would always be resting the first hour and moving the remainder of the time.<ref name="the">{{cite web | url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/if-the-truth-is-out-there-weve-not-found-it-yet/147748.article | title=If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet | work=Times Higher Education | date=30 August 1999 | access-date=19 February 2015 |last=Blackmore|first=Susan}}</ref>{{Unbalanced opinion|title=Sheldrake's rebuttal of these findings has been excluded.|date=February 2024}}
::::::--------------------
::::::This text makes it clear Susan is merely proposing what could be a 'solution' for the problem, instead of something based on an actual analysis: as the current text reads. Of course her proposition doesn't actually vanish the significant result, but that's besides the point. ] (]) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I would say it is not about redress at all but about providing a proper balance to the article, which after all is a bio of Sheldrake himself. Only adding info about negative criticism of others against Sheldrake or his theories without including what Sheldrake said about it would certainly be unencyclopedic and more like a biased forum against Sheldrake. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::Again, that's false balance. Please review the policy. --] (]) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Per FALSEBALANCE,
::::::{{tq2|Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.}}
::::::I read this as it is stated, that it does not need to be presented <big>{{tq|along mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity}}</big>. This means not to give the fringe theory equal validity as the mainstream scholarship, it does not preclude inclusion of fringe theory material. The policy does not state, it does not need to be presented <big>{{color|purple|along mainstream scholarship, as if they were of equal validity}}</big>. Notice the comma that is not in the actual policy. This has a different meaning than the current policy, namely, it implies that including fringe theory material would provide for their equal validity with mainstream scholarship, which is not necessarily the case.
::::::Therefore, the quote of the fringe theory policy that I quoted in a previous reply applies. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The article already includes the fringe theory material when it describes what the book is about. It then summarizes the criticism. That is where we ought to stop, we don't need and should not have an additional layer of response to the response, that is when the fringe position gets too much weight. ] (]) 00:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I only pointed out that FALSEBALANCE doesn't preclude the inclusion of the material at hand. But certainly whether to include it or not is a matter of consensus. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 01:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::FALSEBALANCE means that {{tq|it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion}} does not fly. --] (]) 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Not having better sources for the material is what precludes the inclusion.
::::::::::As far as consensus is concerned, let's avoid any ] problems. --] (]) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


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


== Talkpage "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:" BRD ==
'''Paragraph 3''', about the controversies over both big ideas. It needs to give appropriate weight to the pros and cons, and it shouldn't amplify them to the point where they overwhelm the stuff about Sheldrake. Somewhere, maybe in paragraph 3 or 3a, it should mention that some folks are concerned about all the attention he gets.
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion on whether to include a particular source in a ] for the talkpage. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.''


The result of the request was: leave the source removed. There weren't formal votes, but what there was, was pretty even. There is not currently consensus to add back the source. Those wanting to include the link, pointed-out a source does not need to be reliable and can provide context and/or warning. The press template refers to several policies including ], which includes several points, including, "Err on the side of caution - If a link could violate this guideline, consider not adding it...Reflect on the value to an encyclopedia of any link." This closure does not state that the source has violated any guideline, it simply errs on the side of caution. If editors wish to contest this closure, they can restart a discussion on the value to this encyclopedia of the link.
'''Paragraph 4''', about New Age and any other minor stuff that deserves to be mentioned.


There's nothing magic about this proposal, but I think it could be something good to work from. ] (]) 14:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <small>(])</small> ] (]) 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
----


@], other interested, hello. About . What counts as press/media org in this day and age is a bit of a grey area, reasonable people can disagree. My view per is that the item fits the talkpage template well enough. The addition does not indicate "this is a WP:RS", or "WP supports this coverage", just "this coverage exists". ] (]) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:I think we need to find a way to fit the sentence "Sheldrakes ideas are regarded as batshit insane by most scientists" into the lede somewhere. All the scientists I know believe this. --] (]) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:What use is it to improving this article? --] (]) 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::Re. ]: "Oftentimes, the purpose of this is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable." <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::Like all such templates, possibly none at all. It's very discreet, for one thing. My general opinion is that this is an interesting template to have on talkpages when content is available, and if it contains stuff I disagree with that is fine (that is the nature of "media") and sometimes it even adds a bit of interest. It has some potential value for editors to know what kind of coverage is out there, and the stuff in them may inspire good edits, warn of something (and explain a recent view-spike) or make someone think "Cool, someone noticed the article I was working on." For me, that is enough. ] (]) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The larger utility is that it provides background to poorly-worded posts here from new editors and IPs. If we've been warned that a media item has discussed this article, then we know what to expect. There is no assertion that the media object is a reliable source and, I suppose, some might post that here just to get curiosity clicks to those external websites. I take {{tl|Press}} as a warning. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:copperplate gothic;">] (])</span></span> 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::"Warning" is fairly often the case, see for example ]. ] (]) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::We appear to already have so many notices and warnings on this talk page that I doubt the people who should read them will do so. I don't see the need to give ] to people who are ] the regular problems we have here. --] (]) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Fwiw, I didn't put the thing there with the purpose of promotion or to carry out an ideological battle. Excluding items like this appears to me as ], these templates are not restricted to "WP-nice" content. In my view the issue is mostly one of ''']''' (that essay is an essay, btw). The amount of voice given by this template is small:. Consensus will be what it will be. ] (]) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Apologies if I wrote anything that might indicate that your intentions are an issue. I'm assuming good faith here. I'm happy to refactor. --] (]) 22:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Meh, no biggie. ] (]) 22:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:My thinking would be along the same lines as Gråbergs Gråa Sång here, insofar as if there's been media on the article we should use the template to make editors aware of it. Whether it is reliable or not is irrelevant because the question is not about putting story into the article as a reference. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think this needs a formal closure, despite the request at ], but I've gone ahead and added the {{t|Press}} template back to the talk page on a reading of this discussion. {{u|Hipal}}, I think your objections would be better suited to the existence of the template in general, as I don't see any reason this article is particularly different in its use. ] (] • she/her) 08:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, nevermind, I'm not gonna do that, with apologies – I know that {{t|Press}} has disclaimers, but I think it should only be used where (1) a source is notable, (2) a source is reliable, or (3) a source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the article meets none of those three, I'm gonna go ahead and, instead of "closing", add my oppose along with Hipal as the relevant media just isn't worth including. ] (] • she/her) 08:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 06:31, 21 August 2024

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.
Article policies
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: 30 days 
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:

Also of particular relevance are:

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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParapsychology (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please insert neutral header here

The below request asks us to fundamentally compromise WP:NPOV in a way that is incompatible with Misplaced Pages policy. In future it may be better simply to hat such comments without replying to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am disgusted by the incompetence and arrogance gathered in this article hoping to suffocate progress. This is not what Misplaced Pages should be for, you dare talk below about facts, but facts are REPRESSED AND REMOVED from the article. Here some BASICS that the article fails to honestly mention:

1. MOST IMPORTANTLY, Sheldrake is a proved high standing SCIENTIST. He studied biology and got his PhD from Cambridge, where he was sharing a house and frequenting some of the most brilliant minds of the time. At the beginning of his career he did way opening "main stream" research, which led to the fact the two of his papers were published in Nature, an achievement that most standing professors still dream of. PLEASE mention this and stop lying about him, as if he was just an "author"

2. Sheldrake decided to go his own way, being interested in phenomena for which there was no funding in academia, but he proceeded to be inventive and extremely cautious in EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. If he talks about evidence for the phenomena -- objective, seriously measured phenomena -- to which the morphogenetic field is just an ad interim PROPOSAL of an explanation, because the phenomena are not explained in present science, and the telephathy belong, his statistical support is so accurate, that I could only dream that the propaganda around covid had been supported by statistical evidence only 10% as accurate as Sheldrake's. I am sure that the ignorant contributors who dare cut explanations in favor of Sheldrake and spread difamation have no slight experience, never read a book or followed a complete conference of Sheldrake. To answer a question raised below by Thinker78 (talk · contribs): the only funding for study of parapsychological pheonomena, to what I know, comes from Koestler's funding of the society for the study of parapsychological phenomena. So yes, there have been empirical studies, but Sheldrake is leading by the extensivity and accuracy of his experiments, as well as the inventivity used. Nobody was abled to find flaws in his empirical studies, which why they go ad hominem directly, precisely as this page does.

3. His empirical facts on the morphogenetic field are impressive enough, for having motivated research by many other main stream scientists, who diversified the realm of observations -- but kept low profile, for understandable reason. He is not alone! I must take the time to present at least the basic of the empirical evidence that lead to the explanation ATTEMPT by the (consciently) vague notion of morphogenetic field. What multiple experiments prove is a SURPRIZING AND UNEXPLAINED non-local spread of knowledge from the experience of solving certain riddles. The typical experiments involve some labor animals who either work their way out of complex labirinths, or succeed to remove their food-reward from an intricate system of containers, achievements which all required many days and weeks for the first experiment subject to SOLVE. What happens is that when repeating the experiment with the same kind of animals, and the same challenge, in various remote locations, the time for solving the riddle dramatically drops, slowly to half or less of the initial time. It never increases. And this despite of the fact that any physical kind of information transmission is totally excluded. So this is a repetitive indication that something happens that goes against probabilities, and suggest a non local "storage of collective information of the species". Now that is empirical science of the best, and it was taken over by more teams -- yet a solid theory is certainly still out of reach. But facts OBLIGE us to accept SOMETHING IS GOING ON. So stop difamating the morphogenetic field explanation, or do your home work and explain what it is and why you feel so self-certain (NOT BY QUOTATIONS, PLEASE, by FACTS).

4. You completely fail to mention a fundamental book of Sheldrake, "The science delusion" in which he individuates and explains 10 fundamental unstated axioms that are hidden behind the main stream sceintific view of life and the Universe. Noone could prove him wrong, this why you preferred not to mention the book, not having base for difamation.

I have not more time to go into detail, but must say that I am appaled by the insiduousness of ignorant contributors who obviously have the say also in REMOVING positive information, in order to maintain the overall difamatory style of the page. I propose to these ignorants to make their own site called WikInquisition, since THIS is what their level of undersanding and intelligence is! Misplaced Pages initially intended to educate, not to cenzor and difamate -- for this main stream media suffices! —PredaMi (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR. See WP:WOT.
I stopped reading when even after three sentences, I found nothing related to article improvement.
If there is anything that is relevant for this page (meaning: helpful for page improvement), can you please repeat it without all the hate, preaching, and hate preaching around it? If not, please delete the whole thing, it does not belong here because of WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please don't refactor another editor's discussion heading with a POV replacement. The title was "WikInquisitia" not "Pro-fringe sermon". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
What you obviously mean is "do not replace my pro-fringe POV, however hateful, defaming and vilifying, with a wording more in agreement with Misplaced Pages rules".
The Inquisition was a murderous organization that tortured people and burnt them alive. Comparing Misplaced Pages with it is not appropriate, and if you reinstate it again, admins will have to take care of you.
Consult WP:SHOWN and WP:TALKHEADPOV, especially Never use headings to attack other users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consult WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED for some balance. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
You should consult WP:NPA (no perhaps about it) - Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor That exactly fits the original header: it equated the editors of this article with mass murderers.
Notorious WP:PROFRINGE editors should stop defending that personal-attack section header.
I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Misplaced Pages rules? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
"Notorious pro-fringe editor"? That, in itself, is a derogatory comment, and your edit summaries about "crackpots" and "crackpottery" make your own position eminently clear. As for blatant threats to other editors here, like "if you reinstate again, admins will have to take care of you", this really does the public perception of your cause no favours, whatsoever. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
You may not like the original poster's rant, I might not like it, but from their point of view, they see areas in which the attitudes and stances of editors have been contributing negatively to the article, and they deserve to be heard and not ridiculed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
And, sure, if the original heading of this thread offends you and dishonours the discussion process, then please feel free to take the matter to an admin noticeboard. BTW, my advice would be to avoid the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition, or else you might become traumatized. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
But amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as an almost fanatical devotion to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I repeat: Is there anything in this thread about improving the article without ignoring the Misplaced Pages rules? Or are you only here to whine about the existence of people who disagree with you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
"Derogatory" I think is only in the context of attacks against minorities or vulnerable groups. It is item 1.b. in the civility policy. Regarding WikInquisitia, I would say it would fit more in 1.a., c., d. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm dedicated to applying the WP:RULES, but I don't consider myself a fanatic. I.e. when proper WP:RS are presented, I am prepared to change my views, or at least allow opposite views in the articles.
But, anyway, we are not here to change basic website policies just because a random editor asks nicely. WP:PSCI has been adopted for a good reason, there is no motivation for dodging it inside this article.
And no, we are not preparing for Sheldrake getting burned at the stake, comparing expressing rational criticism to such crime is risible. Yup, this reminds me of Abd-ru-shin, who complained that he gets crucified through humor. (Mr. Bernhardt proclaimed himself the Son of Man, the Savior of Mankind, so he was duly mocked.)
@Hob Gadling: I think you should read the whole post. Why? Because it is involuntary humor.
I don't agree with Sheldrake's POV, but I find the 10 tenets of The Science Delusion to be enlightening. I just don't agree that the mainstream science and evidence-based medicine would be wrong for upholding these 10 tenets.
Do we know everything there is to know? No, but that isn't a reason to behave epistemically irresponsible.
And, PredaMi, the scientific community is the boss of what we write here. Sheldrake should solve his problem with the scientific community before attempting to fix his article at Misplaced Pages. We do not follow your opinions, we do not follow my opinions, we follow the broadly shared opinions among the scientific community.
Note that I'm not saying that science is always right, just that Misplaced Pages has absolutely no reason to endorse the WP:FRINGE. If present-day science has it wrong, then Misplaced Pages is also wrong. But it cannot be otherwise.
Sheldrake's problem is that scientists who are competent enough to provide the falsifiability of his magic field simply don't bother to perform the experiments (they have no incentive/funding to perform such experiments). So he is in the limbo of not even wrong. E.g. the idea that mice take at first 4 hours to solve a labyrinth, and you train them to do it in 15 minutes, then mice all over the world presented with a clone of that labyrinth would solve it in 15 minutes from the first attempt, sounds like a falsifiable claim. But it sounds so preposterous that serious scientists aren't willing to test it. And even if they would be willing to test it, getting funds for it would be difficult. They would ask grants saying "I want to debunk an idea widely considered preposterous. It has to do with the paranormal." Unlikely to get the grant. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, I have read this entire diatribe, and both Sheldrake's education at the University of Cambridge and The Science Delusion are described in the article in extensive detail, so most of the poster's points are bogus. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@PredaMi try discussing the issues without violating the civility policy. You should edit your post to remove the instances of uncollegiality. Propose edits backed by reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, there is WP:REDACT to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. In the Light of Truth. Grail Foundation Press. 1998. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-57461-000-0. Retrieved 9 July 2023. Only this time in a more modern form, a symbolic crucifixion through an attempt at moral murder, which according to the Laws of God is no less punishable than physical murder.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenger

It solidifies Sheldrake as the most serious challenger to materialist philosophy in the modern world. — it's not written inside the article, so not actionable. Just a general reminder: if you keep your metaphysics unfalsifiable (i.e. make no predicaments about medicine and hard sciences), then mainstream science or mainstream medicine can neither endorse nor reject your metaphysics.

What Sheldrake does not get is that philosophy/metaphysics aren't part of science. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"predicaments"? Was that predictive text? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predicament , meaning simply something that gets stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I thought perhaps it had something to do with predication. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Sheldrake is more than happy to carry out empirical scientific studies (eg in the case of a person's awareness of being stared at, or whether a dog can be aware that their owner is on the way home, or most recently, whether a study involving a cloned Wordle puzzle would show an effect that might be attributable to "morphic resonance" as more and more players find the solution, and to have others attempt to replicate these studies.
As Sheldrake argues in the head-to-head alluded to above and referenced in the Misplaced Pages article, where he is especially at odds with many mainstream scientists and sceptics is that, in his opinion, their mechanistic materialist beliefs tend to minimise the credibility of such phenomena in their eyes, or even make study of such phenomena something unworthy of consideration, if not to be actively opposed as "cosmic woo". Indeed, their mechanistic materialist beliefs, in his opinion, present a stumbling block for understanding such psychic (or panpsychic) phenomena. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
His claims are technically falsifiable, but they lack biological plausibility (not: metaphysical plausibility), so mainstream scientists are not eager to falsify his claims. In the end, "that time never increases" seems a bit too fanciful to be true. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Those "empirical studies" can be done in a competent way, with blinding and so on, and if they are, the result is negative. Same as with other pseudosciences.
So he calls the logically unavoidable principle of starting from the null hypothesis until one has good reason not to, a "belief"? So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how science can and cannot work.
And he thinks everybody who disagrees with him is a "stumbling block". So what? That just shows once more he does not understand how the scientific community works.
None of all that makes him a "serious challenger". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After the current text:

Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.

Add the following text right after:

In response to Susan Blackmore's critique, Rupert Sheldrake re-examined his twelve experiments. He found the percentage of time Jaytee spent by the window in the main period of Pam's absence was lower when the first hour was exluded than when it was included. Sheldrake noted, "Taking Blackmore's objection into account strengthens rather than weakens the evidence for Jaytee knowing when his owner was coming home, and increases the statistical significance of the comparison."

I believe I got the reference formatting correct although I'm not sure if '.' are allowed in the 'volume' field. Let me know. Jmancthree (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. — Antrotherkus 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted it as WP:UNDUE and soapboxing. I'm not sure what would be due without a better reference, nor should Misplaced Pages's voice be used for Sheldrake's claims. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
May I ask why would this be undue and soapboxing? Also, regarding the quote, there is specific guidance in the fringe theories guideline,

Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The only reference is him. --Hipal (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the info is properly contextualized. It is using neutral language in the form "he found" not "it was proven". Also, when he talks about statements of facts language like, "the objection strenghtens rather than weakens", he is quoting himself in a quote. Therefore, if it is a quote I think it is probably ok. Now if you still object to the statements of facts, maybe as a compromise it could be made a more neutral contextualized paraphrase. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that the text before that criticizes Sheldrake's findings: Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look., it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion, otherwise this is just another way for Misplaced Pages editors to further debunk Sheldrake and deny him redress. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Definitely FALSEBALANCE.
he found: No. That's a claim he's making in his defense, with no independent verification. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The current Susan Blackmore paragraph is confused text. Worse:
Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.
I don't blame the original writer of this paragraph for misunderstanding what Susan said in the article, as it's of very poor quality, but Susan did not 'interpret the results' and she did not 'show that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look'. The article is speculation from Blackmore for how these results could have been produced due to what she thinks might've been design problems. A reader would be left with the impression that Susan has actually done a statistical analysis on the data and has found that the significant result vanishes when her critique is accounted for. Sheldrake's published rebuttal demonstrates this speculative theory is not the cause of the result and leads to a more significant p-value when accounted for.
I appreciate Sheldrake's rebuttal is unlikely to be merged into the article for 'reasons', but I'd like to atleast fix Susan Blackmore being misrepresented. Here's what I'd change it to (and as I don't have write permissions, you'll have to be the one to merge it in):
--------------------
Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore speculated that the significant result might be coming from a problematic experimental design. She proposed that: 1) Because every test was longer than one hour, and if, 2) Jaytee's animal behavior was to settle down for the first hour its owner was away, then, 3) This could explain why it appears Jaytee is anticipating Pam's return as, in the data, Jaytee would always be resting the first hour and moving the remainder of the time.
--------------------
This text makes it clear Susan is merely proposing what could be a 'solution' for the problem, instead of something based on an actual analysis: as the current text reads. Of course her proposition doesn't actually vanish the significant result, but that's besides the point. Jmancthree (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I would say it is not about redress at all but about providing a proper balance to the article, which after all is a bio of Sheldrake himself. Only adding info about negative criticism of others against Sheldrake or his theories without including what Sheldrake said about it would certainly be unencyclopedic and more like a biased forum against Sheldrake. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's false balance. Please review the policy. --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Per FALSEBALANCE,

Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

I read this as it is stated, that it does not need to be presented along mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. This means not to give the fringe theory equal validity as the mainstream scholarship, it does not preclude inclusion of fringe theory material. The policy does not state, it does not need to be presented along mainstream scholarship, as if they were of equal validity. Notice the comma that is not in the actual policy. This has a different meaning than the current policy, namely, it implies that including fringe theory material would provide for their equal validity with mainstream scholarship, which is not necessarily the case.
Therefore, the quote of the fringe theory policy that I quoted in a previous reply applies. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The article already includes the fringe theory material when it describes what the book is about. It then summarizes the criticism. That is where we ought to stop, we don't need and should not have an additional layer of response to the response, that is when the fringe position gets too much weight. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I only pointed out that FALSEBALANCE doesn't preclude the inclusion of the material at hand. But certainly whether to include it or not is a matter of consensus. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
FALSEBALANCE means that it is only fair that Sheldrake's rebuttal should be provided, in a neutral fashion does not fly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Not having better sources for the material is what precludes the inclusion.
As far as consensus is concerned, let's avoid any WP:CONLOCAL problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Blackmore, Susan (30 August 1999). "If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 19 February 2015.
  2. Sheldrake, Rupert (2000). "The 'Psychic Pet' Phenomenon: Correspondence". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 64.2: 127. Retrieved 11 February 2024.

Talkpage "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:" BRD

The following is a closed discussion on whether to include a particular source in a Press template for the talkpage. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.

The result of the request was: leave the source removed. There weren't formal votes, but what there was, was pretty even. There is not currently consensus to add back the source. Those wanting to include the link, pointed-out a source does not need to be reliable and can provide context and/or warning. The press template refers to several policies including Misplaced Pages:LINKLOVE, which includes several points, including, "Err on the side of caution - If a link could violate this guideline, consider not adding it...Reflect on the value to an encyclopedia of any link." This closure does not state that the source has violated any guideline, it simply errs on the side of caution. If editors wish to contest this closure, they can restart a discussion on the value to this encyclopedia of the link.

(non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal, other interested, hello. About . What counts as press/media org in this day and age is a bit of a grey area, reasonable people can disagree. My view per is that the item fits the talkpage template well enough. The addition does not indicate "this is a WP:RS", or "WP supports this coverage", just "this coverage exists". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What use is it to improving this article? --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Re. Template:Press: "Oftentimes, the purpose of this is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Like all such templates, possibly none at all. It's very discreet, for one thing. My general opinion is that this is an interesting template to have on talkpages when content is available, and if it contains stuff I disagree with that is fine (that is the nature of "media") and sometimes it even adds a bit of interest. It has some potential value for editors to know what kind of coverage is out there, and the stuff in them may inspire good edits, warn of something (and explain a recent view-spike) or make someone think "Cool, someone noticed the article I was working on." For me, that is enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The larger utility is that it provides background to poorly-worded posts here from new editors and IPs. If we've been warned that a media item has discussed this article, then we know what to expect. There is no assertion that the media object is a reliable source and, I suppose, some might post that here just to get curiosity clicks to those external websites. I take {{Press}} as a warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"Warning" is fairly often the case, see for example Talk:Recession. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
We appear to already have so many notices and warnings on this talk page that I doubt the people who should read them will do so. I don't see the need to give voice to people who are stirring up the regular problems we have here. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Fwiw, I didn't put the thing there with the purpose of promotion or to carry out an ideological battle. Excluding items like this appears to me as bowdlerization, these templates are not restricted to "WP-nice" content. In my view the issue is mostly one of personal taste (that essay is an essay, btw). The amount of voice given by this template is small:. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies if I wrote anything that might indicate that your intentions are an issue. I'm assuming good faith here. I'm happy to refactor. --Hipal (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Meh, no biggie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
My thinking would be along the same lines as Gråbergs Gråa Sång here, insofar as if there's been media on the article we should use the template to make editors aware of it. Whether it is reliable or not is irrelevant because the question is not about putting story into the article as a reference. TarnishedPath 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this needs a formal closure, despite the request at WP:RfCl, but I've gone ahead and added the {{Press}} template back to the talk page on a reading of this discussion. Hipal, I think your objections would be better suited to the existence of the template in general, as I don't see any reason this article is particularly different in its use. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind, I'm not gonna do that, with apologies – I know that {{Press}} has disclaimers, but I think it should only be used where (1) a source is notable, (2) a source is reliable, or (3) a source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the article meets none of those three, I'm gonna go ahead and, instead of "closing", add my oppose along with Hipal as the relevant media just isn't worth including. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: