Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 23 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.

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)

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)

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.

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)

I think it would be best to keep discussing to seek consensus instead of just reverting. Esowteric didn't revert and came directly to the talk page instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See: WP:BRD. This is the normal cycle. — Shibbolethink 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, cedar777's manual revert is better still (at least from my POV). See edit difference.

It re-adds useful biographical info: He has worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University, Harvard scholar, researcher at the Royal Society, and plant physiologist for ICRISAT in India.

and also reverts to Other work by Sheldrake encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, empirical research into telepathy, and the psychic staring effect.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree and personally think the manual revert from cedar777 is the best version of the options presented. I think the "empirical research" part probably is unnecessary but I don't think it detracts enough to remove it at this point. It seems important to others enough for compromise to be the best way forward here. — Shibbolethink 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Did he only conduct empirical research in telepathy? Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

Why has the reference to how Deepak Chopra has been a notable supporter of Sheldrake's work been removed from the end of the introduction? YTKJ (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure when or why that happened, but I agree with its removal. Notable supporters aren't really WP:DUE for the introduction, which is meant to summarize the most important aspects of a subject's article. — Shibbolethink 22:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• 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