Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 18 February 2023

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

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

WP:NPOV and Sheldrake's religious views

Re: "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions"

@Esowteric: NPOV is about slightly more than just reporting the sources. It's also about fairly weighting content based upon the preponderance of that content in the overall landscape of best available sources. Hence WP:DUE. This is a fawning book review which also describes Sheldrake as "famous for his radical theory" and as "distinguished by his qualifications as a brilliant biochemist and cell biologist, coupled with a strong and generous sense of aesthetics, especially music."

Why do we consider this source (and especially this quotation) to be the best representation of the overall landscape of our best available sources re: Sheldrake? — Shibbolethink 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, you reverted another editor's edit (diff) with the edit summary "1) WP:NPOV, 2) This is an exact quote, and thus a plagiarism concern, and 3) WP:DUE issues, as this is true of most anglicans." (plus ref)

All @Cedar777 did was change Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican to

Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican that is favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions. (plus ref)

I then changed it to

Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican and "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions.", with the edit summary "Not NPOV if directly reporting the source. Plagiarism? Then put this SHORT phrase in quotes. Disagree that this is undue. Let's not wikilawyer."

We're talking about just six words from one source here, and it's not our job to dismiss simple facts because we personally consider the review to be "fawning". We can't cherry-pick. And how many words in your opinion may be legitimately used from a source, if six are too many? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, was not aware that Anglicans are mostly "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions". Referring to Sheldrake, I'd consider this useful information. Otherwise, he might also be dismissed as a religionist as well as a pseudoscientist. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the favourably disposed comment is undue as not the sort of thing we put in a BLP, and do not support its inclusion. - Roxy the dog 19:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

What you mean is that you are not "favourably disposed" to including anything "favourably disposed" to Sheldrake. In my opinion, the reviewer had good reason to include this rider. I fully understand the need to monitor and moderate fringe issues, but I am somewhat concerned by the possibility of genuine consensus-building degenerating into vigilantism. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be an indictment of Roxy as a user and a great example of failing to assume good faith in other editors. Please refrain from this sort of behavior, and if you are inclined to engage in it, please restrict yourself to user talk or noticeboards like ANI, where such criticisms are on-topic, as opposed to here, where they are not. — Shibbolethink 19:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I've never seen commentary like that in other BLPs of Anglicans, who are favourably disposed to other traditions by the very nature of Anglicanism. - Roxy the dog 19:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at the BLP of Michael Shermer and see if there is any undue material in there. It gets into a lot of detail on his particular beliefs and preferences - even in the lede where it states "Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer ceased to believe in the existence of God during graduate school. He accepts the labels agnostic, nontheist, and atheist but prefers to be called a skeptic. He also describes himself as an advocate for humanist philosophy as well as the science of morality." It also worth noting that the current version is almost entirely sourced to Shermer himself.

An earlier version, prior to clean up, elaborated things even further here to an almost absurd degree.

The subject of this BLP, Sheldrake, states he was an atheist in his youth. Secondary sources report that he shifted back towards Christianity yet he does not exclusively subscribe to it, i.e., he remains "favorably disposed" towards other spiritual traditions more broadly. It is a distinction worth recognizing. Adding a secondary source clarifying the subject's beliefs in the personal life section is entirely due and it is an improvement on using the subject only as is done at length in the Shermer BLP. Cedar777 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. That part of the Shermer article should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely WP:UNDUE in Shermer's case too. Some shorter less emphasized version of that content may be appropriate, but a long pp like that probably is not. The self-citation is not optimal but it doesn't break any particular policies, especially since Shermer is not peddling fringe theories. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically not a good argument in these situations since local consensus will mostly dictate this sort of thing. — Shibbolethink 14:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick review of results from google, Scholar, The Misplaced Pages Library, JSTOR, Google Books, and Google News shows this characterization appears basically only in Benthall's review of Sheldrake's book. We have no truly independent sources verifying this information. That is why I characterize it as "undue".Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, I would also categorize this book review as "opinion" and thus subject to WP:RSOPINION. If we are to include it at all, it would probably have to be attributed. But I think DUE would tell us that the fact that nobody else says this, that benthall is not particularly regarded as an expert on Sheldrake, and the Times Literary Supplement is not exactly authoritative when it comes to biochemistry, history of science, or physics, all mean we should probably not include it. — Shibbolethink 19:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Any decent Anglican will be "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions" by the very nature of their tradition. We dont need to say it cos it's undue. I'm sure Rupe is a nice chap in that regard, its just his suppositions that are batshit insane. - Roxy the dog 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, it is a mistake to assume readers will come to the article with the same assumptions regarding Anglicans and their general trends. The BLP for Sheldrake doesn't need to get into what Anglecanism/Mormonism/Unitarianism is or is not . . . and the source doesn't get into it either. It does however clarify that he is not exclusively practicing/supporting/evangelizing one given spiritual tradition. It is a distinction worth making. Cedar777 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction between actively practicing a particular type/sect of a spiritual tradition and being open to, i.e., supportive of, i.e., "favorably disposed towards" other spiritual traditions. Many Misplaced Pages bios detail the environment in which one was raised (Jewish, atheist, Christian, agnostic, Mormon, Buddhist, etc. while also addressing the position(s) the subject arrived at on their own as an adult. Again, see Michael Shermer. For another example: see Andy Ngo who was raised Buddhist, shifted to Christianity, and then became an atheist.

This is pretty routine territory for Early life and Personal life sections in biographies and The Times Literary Supplement is more than adequate for this content. Cedar777 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree that a short paragraph on Sheldrake's involvement in various religions and his path to his current religion could be WP:DUE, but as written it was a NPOV issue. It would need to be short, succinct, and sourced to a better RS. As it was, that section was overly fawning, and written almost entirely in sheldrake's preferred language or that of his admirers. A short, neutral description would be appropriate. — Shibbolethink 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is about Sheldrake's OWN view: "Sheldrake is a practising Anglican but favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions ..." if you read the source. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I don't know why that would change anything I said above. — Shibbolethink 19:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. - Roxy the dog 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The book review in The Times Literary Supplement is from Jonathan Benthall, the founding editor and director emeritus of Anthropology Today, a peer-reviewed journal. According to the University College London website, Benthall has been with the Department of Anthropology at UCL from 1994-2003 as an honorary research fellow and from 2004-present as an honorary research associate. His review on Sheldrake's book published in 2019 is suitable for inclusion with attribution. Cedar777 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say. If the author of a source has founded a journal and is an emeritus, then whatever he said needs to be included, no matter whether it makes sense and whether it adds value? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cedar777 is rebutting the notion that the book review in The Times Literary Supplement is unworthy (see talk above). In any case, that phrase has been removed with the edit summary "per talk consensus" -- even though consensus has not been established. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This religious stuff is WP:UNDUE, even if true, it is unimportant for a BLP, especially as he is in a minority position in this country. - Roxy the dog 14:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the belief systems of any given biography subject on Misplaced Pages is routine. It can't be based on one's relative majority or minority position within their culture or social group. Children are often submerged in belief systems they do not choose, and as adults, they may or may not embrace or reject the given systems. We can't exclude christianity, SBNR, or atheism from biography subjects just because, by some classifications, it is the minority view. Cedar777 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This comment runs directly against WP:FRINGE, an accepted WP:PAG. — Shibbolethink 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The article's lede sentence and the entire third paragraph are already devoted to statements that the scientific community does not accept Sheldrake's conjecture of morphic resonance - there isn't a problem with FRINGE non-compliance.

WP:BLP, also an accepted WP:PAG remains in effect. Look at the way belief systems are covered in the BLPs of figures such as Barak Obama and Angela Merkel. This sort of basic coverage of a person's religious/agnostic/atheistic beliefs in a Misplaced Pages biography is ordinary. It's WP:WL to suggest otherwise. Cedar777 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Important points from that guideline:

• majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately
• Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources
• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community
• If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources
• Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Misplaced Pages, but should not be given undue weight

Nowhere does it say: FRINGE applies only to the LEAD section — Shibbolethink 12:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning in favor of including that part that have been suggested are:

• Not including it is "vigilantism". (Weak.)
• The Michael Shermer article contains similar fluff. (Weak.)
• The author of the source has a big peer review penis. (Weak.)

Reasoning against:

• Using the exacty same wording is plagiarism. (Weak.)
• That is normal for Anglicans and not worth mentioning. (Strong if true.)
• As a book review, it's an opinion piece. (Strong.)
• That judgment appears only in one source. (Strong.)

In any case, you need consensus for including it, not for excluding it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. We revert to stable while consensus is established. As it is, with a poor source like this, and DUE/copyright concerns, it should be excluded. If we were to craft a more neutral few sentences backed up by multiple better quality sources, I would be very amenable. — Shibbolethink 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How does WP:FRINGE apply to Sheldrake's religious and spiritual beliefs and practice, which clearly form a substantial backdrop to his life? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It clearly deserves inclusion, but must be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. That is the essence of WP:FRINGE: Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Misplaced Pages, but should not be given undue weight. But even more so, WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since when were "religious and spiritual beliefs and practice" fringe? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In totality, the category is not. But specific ones are, yes. No one can reasonably argue that Mormon fundamentalism is as mainstream as the LDS church. Nor that the Branch Davidians are as mainstream as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. — Shibbolethink 14:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reviews of "Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work" (2019)

The subject's most recent book Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work from 2019 has received several reviews.

• Benthal, Johnathan (April 12, 2019). The Times Literary Supplement, "Rupert Sheldrake: Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work", no. 6054, p. 31.
• Foster, Charles (March 2019). Literary Review, "More Morphic Resonances: Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work By Rupert Sheldrake"

Sheldrake's last two books appear to deal mostly with consciousness studies and broad spiritual practices. I added these two sources to the article and attributed the views in each one to both its respective author and publisher in this edit here. Another editor removed the content and sources by stating "Why is this content so important as to eclipse many other reviews?"

There is no evidence that other reviews have been "eclipsed" and no existing reviews were deleted or modified. What other reviews of this book are being overlooked? Cedar777 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In particular, Benthal's review is quite fawning and overly positive. It references very little criticism of the work. Foster's review is better, but still embraces the underlying premise. Including only these two reviews fails to include some negative POVs in violation of WP:FRINGE, such as Steven Poole's. I also think the overall real estate this takes up on the page is WP:UNDUE given how few reviews of this book there actually are. — Shibbolethink 22:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's say that there was a separate article for Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work: Spiritual Practices in a Scientific Age (blurb), with a balanced set of reviews. Would that, and how would that, fall into the catch-all of WP:FRINGE? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A separate article would likely not be notable, given its lack of mention in many reliable sources. It only has notability insofar as it connects to Sheldrake. As a sidenote, this is also a great heuristic for whether the content deserves inclusion in Sheldrake's article, and how much should be included. It does imo, but must be proportional to its notability and presence in reliable sources. Not a lot of coverage in other sources? Probably should not get a ton of coverage on our page. — Shibbolethink 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A separate article would likely not be notable? We could easily rustle up at least three RS reviews. That's all you need to get started. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you believe as much, I would encourage to you start such an article. I anticipate an AfD, on grounds of WP:POVFORK. and even moreso, that the idea/book itself has extremely little notability when not connected to Sheldrake. It exists as notable only insofar as he talks about it. This is akin to WP:NCORP's restrictions on having an article for a company just because something they did is notable. The thing, and the company, are judged for notability separately. — Shibbolethink 13:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

With 3 or more RS reviews, the book would be notable in its own right. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reviews discuss the book in the context of Sheldrake's overall career. I expect any attempt at an independent article would just get merged back here. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

NBOOK says: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself (emphasis mine)Charles Foster is an admirer and friend of Sheldrake and his children, and has lauded basically everything they have ever done: As previously described, Benthal's review is not very independent of the work, embracing its fringe views in their totality.I'm not sure these would qualify as truly "independent" — Shibbolethink 13:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And if WP:FRINGE did not apply, where does that leave the subjective opinion Benthal's review is quite fawning and overly positive? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ex falso quodlibet: from falsehood, anything follows. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This review in the Telegraph for one, which is more mixed. - MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see it has already been linked above. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added Poole, Benthal, and Foster's reviews. I still think Foster's is not truly "independent" but I also think it's the more comprehensive of the two between Foster and Benthal, but if we make them short, I think it's probably DUE and good summary to include all three in proportion. I also made the mentions closer to NPOV and FRINGE compliant by better summarizing the positive AND negative attributes in each review. This is now closer to the length of the prior book sections. — Shibbolethink 13:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Positions in institutions in lead should be modified

I think the most prominent positions of the subject should be included in the lead.

Currently the text reads,

He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973, then as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978.

For starters, adding such a long name of an institution to the opening paragraph relative to its size and importance seems to be disproportional, provides for clutter, and lack of conciseness. Second, it is not his most notable, relevant, longest, oldest or latest position or activity. If the subject had a background in more notable institutions, specially if for many years or more significant in his career, then said information should be included in the lead instead or additionally. MOS:OPEN states, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."

I propose as text,

He has a background as biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, and researcher at the Royal Society. He was also a plant physiologist in India. 

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC about background of author

Should the most prominent positions (education, employment, activities) of Rupert Sheldrake be included in the lead? Thinker78 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Simplicity is best for introductions, agree with proposed edits to shorten the intro as the relevant details are already covered later in the article. Myoglobin (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Will also add that this may have been a relatively minor edit and might not have needed an RFC necessarily (though it is a good question with broad applicability; is there already a relevant style article/guide?) Myoglobin (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This was my question. Does anyone oppose the change? Agree with the proposed change. Nemov (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Thinker78 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support proposed changes. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Adams, Tim (4 February 2012). "Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
2. Sheldrake, Rupert; McKenna, Terence K.; Abraham, Ralph (2011). Chaos, Creativity, and Cosmic Consciousness. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9781594777714.

I would say Agree with summary style in the first paragraph as proposed, but then move this down to the body, probably in Rupert Sheldrake § personal life. I honestly also would just remove He was also a plant physiologist in India.. It's extraneous in this formatting and in true summary style, it's also a stylistically problematic short sentence.Also agree this did not need an RFC. OP should withdraw. Could have just been discussed. A reminder to all editors here, that creating multiple unnecessary RFCs is a component of tendentious editing, and to make sure you have always engaged in WP:RFCBEFORE before you start one. I see that the talk page discussion had not been responded to for a few days. That is not a good enough reason to start an RFC. — Shibbolethink 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we would jump to the conclusion of tendentious editing. Why not assume good faith? I see no reason to assume that User:Thinker78 has any agenda for simply wanting to use summary style. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I made very clear that I was not accusing anyone here of TE. Merely reminding that we should not create too many unnecessary RFCs. And I definitely never accused anyone here of having an agenda. Thank you for remembering to assume good faith. — Shibbolethink 15:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont see the need for change at all, Oppose - Roxy the dog 14:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think he focused his research in plants. Thinker78 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we either need to give just as much detail about his plant physiology work as we give the other phases of his life, or not include it in the lead. To do the former is probably too much detail, hence why I suggest removing it altogether. — Shibbolethink 03:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:Shibbolethink, how about this:

He has a background as biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, and researcher at the Royal Society. He was also a plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I do like that, but it doesn't totally fix the stylistic issues with extremely abrupt short sentences. Why not concatenate it further: He has worked as biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India. — Shibbolethink 16:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Was his main line of work generally as plants biochemist? Thinker78 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Support the changes to the lede proposed in RFC. Cedar777 (talk)

Regarding the last sentence for the lede suggested by HappyWanderer15 “He was also a plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India.” The sentence separation does accurately reflect the chronological progression of the subject over time, i.e., after earning several degrees, he held a number of conventional academic roles closer to home (UK/US) before diverging to engage with other cultures (Malaysia for one year and India for several) where he also began to experiment with various spiritual practices (Sufism and the Griffiths ashram). I suggest lengthening the sentence to address this, e.g., He relocated to India for several years where he explored different spiritual practices and served as a plant physiologist for ICRISAT. Cedar777 (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That might provide some context as to how he evolved his thinking into unconventional paths. Thinker78 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I like what both Cedar777 and Shibboleth are aiming at here. How's this as a way to combine the two approaches: After completing his graduate work, Sheldrake worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India. While in India, he lived in an ashram and his work turned towards spiritual topics. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It sounds nice, but the text "after graduate work" excludes his earlier education at Cambridge. I don't know for how long he lived in an ashram or if he lived there for the duration in his stay in India. Your sentence gives me the idea of this latter. Thinker78 (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

He has no notability as a scientist so it should not be in the lede - body of text only -----Snowded 21:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Snowded even if he had no notability as a scientist, I think it's normal for biographies to have the education and prominent positions of the subject in the lead as part of the context if the lead is long enough. This is specially relevant in a biography of someone like Sheldrake, who is prominent for scientific controversy and pseudoscience. Thinker78 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You quoted policy above in respect of the lede "a summary of its most important content". Other than to his followers (who constantly promote it) Sheldrake's original career does not count as important -----Snowded 06:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to say his scientific training has no influence on his notability. Even sources like Scientific American describe him as a "renegade biologist." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That is about his training, not his career. He could have started making weird claims directly after getting his degree, or after doing forty years of undistinguished science, it makes no difference for his fame/notoriety. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not the same a John Doe making pseudoscientific claims than a highly educated scientist that had a background in top educational institutions. As such, this latter provides important context. Thinker78 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Important enough to include in the lede? I don't think so. It would give credence to what he is famous for: his esoteric bullshit (which has no connection to his scientific work). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It is one thing to not give undue weight to pseudoscience, it is another thing to try to hide the background of the subject in order to discredit his pseudoscience, which would deprive the reader from proper context. We need to exercise caution in not actually having a POV against the subject because of his conjectures. This is a biography after all, not an article about morphic resonance. So we need to focus in who Sheldrake is, not in his conjectures. Thinker78 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Still no reason to include those details in the lede. The lede is for the relevant stuff.

This is boring, and I will not respond any further. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thinker78's reasoning is sound per WP:BLP. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not even mention "lead" or "lede". Dropping random WP links is not reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point, the further tweaks we are offering aren't really catching on. How about if we return to User:Shibbolethink's suggested wording above, and see if we can't reach consensus on that?: He has worked as biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a nice compromise edit. Thinker78 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming nobody objects, I'll update it to this in the next day or two. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so that is how it works. People have to repeat that they object again and again, because as soon as they stop, you add the stuff they object to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please be civil. I am trying to reach a consensus based on Shibbolethink's wording, not mine. As far as I can tell your opposition is a minority position, which is fine. But opposition should be defended based on reason and shouldn't just be a reflexive response to even minor changes for the sake of using summary style (and this is not the first time I've seen that happen at this article). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Tbh Hob Gadling, HappyWanderer15, WP:CONSENSUS is not clear about what to do when there are minority dissenting voices who disagree with the other editors. Because even though it says it is not a vote, we all know that when the majority says something that's what usually sticks. Also, I wonder what's the difference between a consensus with lack of unanimity and no consensus. According to the policy, it should be a matter of analyzing the discussion and discarding votes that don't provide an analysis or explanation. Thinker78 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I remind you that Shibboethink started the removal discussion above, saying I suggest removing it altogether, and only later made a compromise suggestion, but you count him for your side. Snowded said, Sheldrake's original career does not count as important. You behave as if I were. the only person who disagrees with you, because, just as I said, the others are silent.

You know what, do what you want. As long as you don't turn this into a hagiography, it's not worth it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Demosthenes22: Please take heed of the above. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

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

Correct first "citation needed" reference following "Big Bang" to reflect the following correct reference for Dr. Sheldrake's assertion: https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+rupert+sheldrake+pbs+interview+1993&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS800US800&oq=youtube+rupert+sheldrake+pbs+interview+1993&aqs=chrome..69i57.18367j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0a2a1bd2,vid:z5Z4sI3gxZc

, a Dutch documentary which first aired in the U.S. in 1993. Baldy63 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: All that would do is move the citation needed tag to the previous sentence. What's really needed here is for someone to find page numbers in A New Science of Life, preferably supported with book reviews and the like. Tagging Baldy63. casualdejekyll 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Empirical research into telepathy

Thinker78 (talk · contribs) changed "empirical research into telepathy" to "telepathy" with the edit summary "removed text for conciseness". That may have been the intention, but I see it as further chipping-away at any remnants of legitimacy that Rupert Sheldrake has in his BLP, along with the amplification of illegitimacy under the WP:FRINGE umbrella.

The fact that he is conducting experiments using empirical research is more noteworthy than removing three (yes, THREE) words in the name of conciseness, imo. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My interest in this case is the format and syntax of the lead. The previous sentence was "Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, empirical research into telepathy, and the psychic staring effect." I removed "empirical research" from the sentence fragment for conciseness. I did this because its inclusion is not congruent in the in-line list within the sentence. Let's analyze this in a regular list format.

Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such as

• precognition,
• empirical research into telepathy,
• and the psychic staring effect.

In my opinion, "a paranormal subject" is "telepathy". I would say that "empirical research into telepathy" seems to be more an activity than a subject.

I modified the edit after your challenge. If you have further considerations let us know. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A clarifying question would be "what other way is there to study telepathy (as a biologist or psychologist)? Other than empirical research?" I can think of no other way, within those disciplines, which are inherently empiricist. — Shibbolethink 23:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference TimAdams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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