User talk:HappyWanderer15/Archive 2

14th Dalai Lama

Please argue your point of view on the 14th Dalai Lama’s talk page.

"Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). "

Also please don't claim there is a consensus without a link please.

You seem to be the only one rejecting my claims, and one person doesn't decide the consensus. We need the arguments of other people. Adamwikisz (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldrake

Hi HappyWanderer, thanks for the links you placed on the Sheldrake Talk page. I haven't had a chance to watch the YouTube video yet; I'll do so later in the week. There is definitely a problem with the Rupert Sheldrake article, and also with the users that have taken control of it. I'll be in touch. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus Glad you found them informative. I see they have been removed as a "conspiracy theory," which is a pretty standard tactic. Guerilla Skeptics do most of their coordination, article drafting, and so on on Facebook Groups and forums on outside websites in order to conceal their involvement when actually on Wikipedia. Not everything they do is bad. Obviously, we don't want Wikipedia to be promoting fringe theories such as anti-vax, chemtrails, etc. But they tend to be pretty doctrinaire in their views and end up writing very skewed biographies of individuals they don't like. One would think that being involved in such things would be considered WP:ACTIVISM and it would be policy that they declare their affiliation, but unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to determine who exactly is involved in the project. Here is another article about their work, which is good in many cases. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWanderer15 Sorry you've decided to leave, albeit maybe just temporarily. I can, however, understand why you've done so. I guess these perfectly acceptable edits [1], which were reverted by one of the Sheldrake article owners, was probably the final straw. If there was an external assessment system such as Trustpilot for Wikipedia articles, the Sheldrake article would perhaps accrue just two stars. As you know, it's being used as vehicle by the article owners to promote their world view. I guess a good part of their world view does in fact overlap with yours, as it does with mine, but the difference is that they use Wikipedia to push theirs. One of the worst examples of article ownership is this edit to the Talk page: [2]. Also on the subject of ownership, it's clear from my own enquiry about sources [3], that the owners are never going to let Sheldrake be described as a biologist, no mater what sources are found. As to the owners themselves, it's worth pointing out that at the lowest level of Wikipedia user categorisation there are just two categories: users who seek to build and encyclopedia by adding content, and users who seek to regulate the encyclopedia builders. The Sheldrake article owners - and there are three hardcore owners, with a further one on the sidelines - are of the second persuasion. They rarely, if ever, add content, and spend all their time reverting other users' edits and complaining on Talk pages. HappyWanderer, I suggest that, assuming you return at some point, you just forget about the Sheldrake article, as I now have. It's a bad article, but there are loads of other bad ones. I guess we just have to move on and seek out the good articles. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus, thanks for your support and interest. I've had a few days away from it to cool down. You are exactly right that the edits you first cite were a cause of major frustration for me. To me, they are obviously not POV edits, and the goal of the owners of the article is obviously to intimidate those who do not share their point of view out of editing the article in any way. It's a shame that there is no formal system of review (at least, I haven't been able to find one) for WP:OWN and WP:TAGTEAM issues. In fact, daring to mention such an idea will surely be met with shouts of "personal attack" and "conspiracy theory" in spite of the evidence. To me, this is a sign that Wikipedia policies and the systems for ensuring they are carried out have reached a shocking level of dysfunction. I'll likely pop in and out in spite of all this but perhaps you are right that my blood pressure would be better served by avoiding Sheldrake, at least for some time. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for Sheldrake to go to the BLP Noticeboard again. I checked the archive and it's been a regular there in recent years and has generated much debate. Unfortunately the discussions tend to peter out. However, the situation is now so deplorable that a revisit seems to be required. As well as BLP there are, of course, other issues such as article owning. Maybe these need addressing separately at the appropriate noticeboard. Unfortunately there are several editors who, as a group, engage in wikilawering and gaming the system. The saddest thing about this is that they have effectively closed down the article, to the extent that you need their permission to carry out even basic copyediting. I'll give some thought to how to address the overall problem. Do you have any ideas how best to proceed? Arcturus (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcturus, I hadn't considered the BLP noticeboard, but I think it is an excellent idea. I will give the discussions a readthrough, give some thought on how to proceed, and write back soon. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arcturus, here are some of my thoughts on how to address the issues at the Sheldrake article at the BLP noticeboard.

I suggest that we cite WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE with regard to the subject of morphic resonance. While morphic resonance may not warrant an article of its own, the extent to which the point is hammered home that it lacks mainstream acceptance is excessive. We can clearly state the scientific consensus on the matter while avoiding giving the subject undue weight.
With regard to whether Sheldrake can be described as a biologist or not, I suggest we point to the Brian Josephson example. Even though "In the early 1970s Josephson took up Transcendental Meditation and turned his attention to issues outside the boundaries of mainstream science," he is still called a physicist because of his notable work in the field. It would be absurd to make the argument, as some have with Sheldrake, that since his work in mainstream science took place several decades ago, he no is no longer a scientist. While some will argue Sheldrake's work in mainstream science was not notable, we should point to his discovery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport. [4] We can also point to the Guardian, which called him "one of the most promising Darwinians of his generation" [5], the New York Times, which refers to him as "the biologist Rupert Sheldrake" [6], the Washington Post, which describes him as a "well-regarded plant physiologist" [7], Scientific American, which calls him a "renengade biologist" [8], and the Telegraph which states that he was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge." [9].
I believe we can also point to WP:WEASEL with regard to the word "conjecture," which is un-sourced and value-laden.

I hope this is a good start. Please let me know what you think. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HW, yes, it all looks good. Also, I have found several recent sources that describe Sheldrake as a biologist. I'll draft a BLP Noticeboard submission over the next couple of days and send it back to you for your review and comments. I wonder whether the NPOV Noticeboard might also be worth considering, but perhaps we take this one step at a time. I'll be in touch. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again HW, sorry for the delay. Here's a suggestion for the submission to the BLP Noticeboard. Please feel free to amend it in any way. I'll leave it up to you to submit it when you're happy with the content. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that Rupert Sheldrake has made it to this noticeboard. This extensive discussion took place in 2013 [10], without resolution. In addition to BLP, there are several other problems with the article, including NPOV and ownership, and these overlap significantly with the BLP issue. The article is currently being used as a vehicle for a group of arch-sceptic editors to promote their world view. They have locked it down, to the extent that permission must be obtained by other editors even to perform minor copyediting work.

Although the article is a biography, much of the text is devoted to the idea of morphic resonance and a repudiation of it. The rejection of the idea is repeated throughout the article, but starts in the very first sentence, where the idea is described using the weasel word "conjecture". Criticism of morphic resonance occurs in multiple sections, and this has led to the article becoming a coatrack article. A link repository to invariably critical sites has been established within the article. As an example, this sentence in the lead is tagged with no fewer than 22 critical references: Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science. Further links to critical websites are given in the Notes section and throughout the article. Within the Notes section there are no links to material offering an alternative view, even though a Google search results in numerous instances of such material being available. Undue weight is being given to the idea of morphic resonance, and in particular to a criticism of it. The constant criticism makes it difficult within the article to differentiate between criticism of Sheldrake himself and criticism of his ideas.

Despite there being numerous external references to Sheldrake being a biologist, any attempt to describe him as such is immediately reverted. A comparative example is Brian Josephson. Even though "In the early 1970s Josephson took up Transcendental Meditation and turned his attention to issues outside the boundaries of mainstream science," he is still called a physicist because of his notable work in the field. It would be absurd to make the argument, as some have with Sheldrake, that since his work in mainstream science took place several decades ago, he is no longer a scientist. While some will argue Sheldrake's work in mainstream science was not notable, we should point to his discovery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport. Here are some links:[11] We can also point to the Guardian, which called him "one of the most promising Darwinians of his generation" [12], the New York Times, which refers to him as "the biologist Rupert Sheldrake" [13], the Washington Post, which describes him as a "well-regarded plant physiologist" [14], Scientific American, which calls him a "renegade biologist" [15], and the Telegraph which states that he was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge." [16]. And here is a more recent article in the Church Times, a reputable source already used in the article: [17] and describing Sheldrake in the headline as a biologist.

Further to these points, the Talk page has recently attracted disparaging remarks about Sheldrake. For instance, Sheldrake has been described as a "wooster" (whatever that might be, but obviously a pejorative description) by User:Roxy the dog; see Talk page, Archive 21, and as a "confirmed charlatan", by User:Eggishorn here [18].

A solution to the BLP problem could be to remove the material about morphic resonance to a separate article, and certainly to do the same for the books. However, the discussion about this possibility was quickly closed down here [19].

How you think this doesn't violate Wikipedia:Canvassing is beyond me but sure, we all pick our hills. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet cabals like this whose members engage in militant tag-team "consensus-building" are exempt from such considerations? Esowteric+Talk 18:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Woo. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I merely followed the provocative link you provided. This, across at the Rupert Sheldrake talk page might also be construed as canvassing: "For info, Arcturus is plotting a BLP noticeboard appearance. [diff] -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)".

The main reason I haven't been contributing to the Sheldrake article (a subject which interests me) is that it is on "lockdown" and even minor edits are frequently reverted. Esowteric+Talk 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:CANVASS again. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have you here Esowteric! Thanks Arcturus, this looks fantastic. Within the next day or so I'll refine the text and post it to the BLP noticeboard. We'll see what happens. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappyWanderer, the BLP submission seems to be running out of steam, as I thought it might. I was hoping for some independent views, but apart from a couple of minor contributions, they weren't forthcoming. Over the next couple of days I'll go back the Talk page with a list of references, which will, of course, attract the usual suspects and no progress will be made. However, I think we could use the list as the basis for a stab at Dispute Resolution and/or Mediation. The advantage of using those forums is, I would hope, the assistance of uninvolved parties - users who don't hang around the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. What do you think? Arcturus (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus, yes, I was hoping more uninvolved editors would get involved in the discussion as well. Any course of action that would lead to that is worth pursuing. Please let me know how I can help. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]