User talk:Tumbleman/sandbox
Request for a New Consensus for Sheldrake lead
[edit]Requesting all editors to reach a new consensus for the lead.
MilesMoney , Roxy the dog, Annalisa Ventola, Vzaak, David in DC, Lou Sander, LuckyLouie, Barney the barney barney
After engaging with many editors on this page for the past few weeks and addressing concerns and reading others, I believe we need a new consensus in the lead section.
Please view my sandbox for proposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tumbleman/sandbox
The lead section I suggest only needs 3 paragraphs of 1 sentence each, and it reflects the context of not only the entire article but frames the context of sheldrake in a neutral POV.
The first thing that needs a clean up to return the article to a NPOV is how Sheldrake is framed professionally. I am removing 'parapsychologist' because he is not a parapsychologist, has no degree in parapsychology, and does not refer to himself as a parapsychologist. The claim that he is a 'former biochemist', the removal of his title as biologist just seems like it's important to some biased POV that Sheldrake is not taken seriously as a scientist, and there is no consensus there and will not be. Therefore, framing him as a parapsychologist looks like OR and it seeks to diminish is very real career as a scientist and researcher. It is important that the article reflect the context of why sheldrake is notable, he is notable because he is apart of the mainstream scientific community and therefore he is QUALIFIED to critique it. So instead of listing all of his degrees, honors, etc etc, I thought it best that both sides make a compromise here and make it simple. He is an author and biologist noted for his hypothesis of MR, his research into telepathy, and his public critiques of mainstream scientific thinking. There will never be any consensus to the lead if editors are trying to frame sheldrake as something he is not to prop up a WP:FRINGE claim which makes the page looks like it has an ideological POV.
The second sentence/paragraph frames the POV from the skeptics and scientists without editors having to make a point or interpret what sheldrake really means or what a skeptic really means. We do not need any more than this in the lead section. I have many issues with how references previously were being used. This still needs better references.
The last paragraph sentence is necessary to show 'why' sheldrake is notable with proper references.
I see no reason WP:FRINGE needs to be applied as the sole guide to how this page is edited based on any of the references that are currently on this page and personally do not accept the WP:FRINGE guideline to this page, however I understand that the skeptical POV is relevant here - but that should be fleshed out in the body, not the lead. Any references to sheldrake talking about philosophical ideas and using that to lump him in as a pseudoscientist is disingenuous to WP. Sheldrake's arguments include philosophical ideas that are not even unique to his authorship, such as an 'extended mind', Holism, or panpsychism are all acceptable philosophical ideas and WP is not a soapbox for philosophical arguments between skeptics and philosophers.
This is an entirely NPOV devoid of any ideology and in step with WP:GOODARTICLE I think this is something that all sides can accept.
Paragraph 1:
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is a British biologist and author, most notable for his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance, his research into telepathy, and his public criticism of philosophical materialism in mainstream science
All references checked in sandbox
Paragraph 2:
Sheldrake’s work on morphic resonance and telepathy has been widely criticized by prominent scientists, skeptical organizations, and science journalists, with some claiming it is pseudoscience, unsupported by evidence, and others labeling it as magical thinking and heresy.
References here are incomplete because there are issues with current references to this, so references still an issue in paragraph 2 requesting support here.
Paragraph 3:
Reactions from the scientific community and the debate surrounding Sheldrake's ideas have been analyzed in public debates, books, documentaries, television programs, scientific and skeptical journals, and academia.
All references in sandbox support this
This is an entirely NPOV devoid of any ideology and in step with WP:GOODARTICLE I think this is something that all sides can accept. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)