Talk:Rupert Sheldrake/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

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.[1]
• Foster, Charles (March 2019). Literary Review, "More Morphic Resonances: Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work By Rupert Sheldrake" [2]

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[3]. Another editor removed[4] 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[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] 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: [5] [6] [7] [8]

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 [9] 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)

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.[1] — 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.[1] 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 ^TALK 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 ^TALK 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.[1] 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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

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. [ref]

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

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)

Objective writing on wikipedia

Please do not write your opinion just facts. This man really is a scientist: a phd. He wrote books and wrote a theory and even had hypothesistesting with it. There are also counter views and science isnt settled on this issue. However to write someoneis accused f beeing a pseudoscientist: tgere are no scientists on this world tgat have never been accused of doing pseudoscience. Science about new and in this case very broad abstract and fundamental subject matters are by definition debated about and there is no consensus. The term pseudoscientist is an opinion and Wikipedia should be about facts. Facts are he has a theory. Please dont use Wikipedia as a way to cent your opinion, it is ruining this medium. Nobody want toknow the writers opinion on someone, we just want tokniw what bookstgeories where he did his phd etc. there is something written about “new age” but that movement has little to do with this subjectmatter.on wikipedia people should stop ruining things by constantly in the intro saying their personal opinion on so eone; this is an online encyclopedia, its just a statement of facts. We dont want the writers opinion in every intro. Or if histheory is tge “truth” there is no totalitairian truth, there are just people writing books and writing theories and the reader should think We dont need the writers advice what we should think about it. 2001:1C02:2B15:2900:CC2B:6391:F413:2C6 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We document the facts and opinions described by reliable sources. No opinions from editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)