This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Alternative Views B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Parapsychology B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Skepticism B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello editors. I would like to suggest the opening line of the Rupert Sheldrake article is changed from "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6]" to ""Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English natural scientist, public speaker, and researcher in the field of parapsychology[4]. Among his notable ideas, Sheldrake has proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which has failed to gaine mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6]".

Thank you. CatoTheElder45 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience" ... I don't think this is good encyclopedic voice. It is passive voice. Specifically, it is "has been characterized as pseudoscience", which sort of refers outward as if the decree kind of just is there. Even if there are groups that have moved to prove the conjecture sufficiently unfounded in the face of empirical evidence, to phrase the entry into the question of whether Rupert Sheldrake's work is empirically false, to phrase "has been characterized as pseudoscience" does not as text string contribute any meaningful content to learning about the figure in the sense of an encyclopedia entry. Garrett.stephens (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay to me. Could do with a "who" is calling it pseudoscience. But it is adding detail to the entry, it educates the reader, and it is compliant with WP:FRINGE. As FRINGE is a mainstream guideline of this wikipedia, it is pretty essential that we keep the phrasing here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His theory is the main driving plot point of game Zero Escape: 999, and is likely to be a major point of relevance for people finding information as years pass. As this page is semi protected does anyone feel up to mentioning it and linking the Wikipedia article for the game in this section? 107.77.232.66 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a decent source. What's the best you know of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person above (as far as I remember!), but I did add the listed game to the article and sourced "The Gamer"(the only article I could find that mentioned morpic fields in reference to the game. The edit was reverted.

The issue I have sourcing it is that an academic or news article really wouldn't mention morphic fields, as the game is rather niche and the reveal of morphic fields as a central theme only occurs towards the very end of the game. Would it be possible to use a game screenshot or footage as a source? It feels quite wrong to me to not have a game that uses Morphic fields as its central plot and was published on major video game systems to not be on the morphic fields article. Robotortoise (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sourcing/WP:PROPORTION thing. Existing is not good enough, someone must have noticed and bothered to write something about it (the connection between Sheldrake and the game), and my reading is that The Gamer [1] writes about an in-universe "morphogenetic field", quote "Sigma has the ability to travel through the morphogenetic field to himself at a different time" (I may be wrong, but I doubt Sheldrake says MF:s work like that). Sadly, for WP-purposes, it doesn't bother to mention Sheldrake.

How about if we use this [2] (Siliconera), to state "The 2009 videogame Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field ideas." Similar to how Fascination was inspired by A Midsummer Night's Dream. @Roxy the dog, care to comment? Come to think of it, there may be better sources in Japanese, but in context, I think this one is acceptable-ish, the game seems to be a bit of a deal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this connection is blown up out of all proportion. It's fine noting connections to acknowledged great literature (Trek references are used everywhere in modern SF, and Trek references imbibes our culture more than people realise.) Sheldrake culture, not so much. SF has had paralells of Sheldomorphism for a long time, way before the sheldopedia was envisioned. As to games culture, I'm 66 yrs old. I have been a devotee of the Polyphonic series of Gran Turismo for more than twenty five years. Other than that, I do not play video games. Perhaps this explains my edit of a few weeks ago. Perhaps some young people who have heard of shelly, and play games, might help us find a consensus. - Roxy the dog with opposable thumbs 17:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to lure some this way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a bit of a poor section with just one mention (although all of the Zero Escape games have a similar approximation to the morphic field theory). I feel like we are searching for a ref to make a point, rather than taking points out of a reference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roxy that this is out of proportion. It's a fun reference/homage but does not rise to the level of mention. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was unclear, I didn't suggest a section, I suggested a sentence in the Rupert_Sheldrake#In_popular_culture section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely argue that it rises to the level of mention. Sheldrake is explicitly mentioned by name numerous times in the game as the creator of the morphogenetic field theory, and the theory is discussed in-game by the characters. This is a central plot point of the game. Below, I have posted screenshots from the game. I trust this is sufficient to reference the game on the article? Robotortoise (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments above, these screenshots do not help the argument for inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that WP and Commons are both very strict about copyright. You stating that these screenshots are "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" doesn't make it so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think these references are probably sufficient for the mention described above (The 2009 videogame Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was inspired by Sheldrake's morphogenetic field ideas). The sources below are not high quality, but they are independent of the subject and at least moderate-traffic. Reliable enough for a factual mention like what is described, but not much more:

Scholarly source in a multimedia criticism journal, a paper about video games talking specifically about 999: Morphic resonance is a concept experimented with and explored by biochemist Rupert Sheldrake, who proposes that what is essentially a telepathy-like collective unconsciousness links the natural universe through morphogenetic fields. Unconsciously, organisms constantly inherit memories, which can then be used to explain epiphanies, or moments in which one just simply “knows” something despite never having experienced it. For example, Harvard University’s William McDougall had rats escape from a tank, and each generation of rats made fewer and fewer mistakes in the process. When scientists in Australia tried duplicating the experiment, their rats made fewer mistakes from the start. Presumably, the collective unconsciousness of Sheldrake’s morphic resonance was at work here, and the rats in Australia “inherited” the memories of those at Harvard (“More on Morphogenetic Fields”). Zero Escape takes this concept several steps further by connecting it to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics^[1]

Game guide/review site article on 999:The person referred to in the game as Sheldrake really exists, and, in fact, was still alive as of the release of the game. Rupert Sheldrake is a real parapsychologist, and he really did come up with the concepts of morphic field, morphic resonance, and the morphogenetic field.^[2] (Game guide/review site)

Game blog article about 999: How are these games able to trap their players? The key idea is that of morphic resonance. If that term sounds to you like a highly fascinating but scientifically unproven theory of biological communication, then you are spot on. Rupert Sheldrake first coined the term in his 1981 book A New Science of Life. It is a pseudoscience concept describing, in Sheldrake’s word’s, “the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species.” [1] According to this view, memories and experiences are stored in so-called morphic fields that surround us all the time, which can then transmit this information to other organisms of the same type.^[3] (note, this references wikipedia so there is some circularity. But the fact that Sheldrake is referenced in the game is not a circular part.)

Interview with 999's creator on Game news site: “Where do mankind’s inspirations come from?” That question alone was the root inspiration to this title. It all started from there and I started to read up on all sorts of documents. That’s when I came across an English biochemist named Rupert Sheldrake and I found out about his theory on the “Morphogenetic Field”. “Why did glycerin start crystallizing all of a sudden?”, “When you make rats clear a maze, why is that with each new generation, the clear time gets shorter?”, “Why is it that as more people know an answer to a specific question, the chance of people knowing the answer goes up?” “Why is it when you were talking about a friend, you happen to get a phone call from that exact friend?”, “Why is it that if you’re at a café talking about Paris Hilton, the person next to you happened to be talking about her as well?”… Rupert Sheldrake’s theory gives us hints in order to answer these phenomena and this theme became the main theme behind 999.^[4]

With all these sources, I think it's definitely enough to justify a mention. As far as WP:RSUW, it would be one sentence, and in the "in popular culture" section. It's clearly DUE by weighing media sources, and there's a lot worse content in the article. I want to caution users here to not let their feelings about Sheldrake get in the way. I think this guy is a crack pot as much as anyone else, I really really do. But I also think it's important to call balls and strikes correctly. This is one such instance.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Siliconera is the strongest of these, and I think that one + The Oswald Review is good enough for including the sentence in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, but it's pretty blog-ish:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have 3h, there's "Zero Escape: 999, The Sheldrake Cut" on Youtube. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think from my !vote surveying and just overall looking at what is said here, we do have consensus for your sentence. I'm gonna go ahead and add it. I made only extremely minor copy editing changes — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 08:10, 19 November 2022, User:Roxy the dog unreasonably reverted the edits I made to the lead, work that took me a couple of hours of analysis and reading the sources. The user made the following edit summary regarding the revert, "POV edits and changes to lead reverted."

I made detailed edit summaries to each one of my edits, stating the changes made and the rationale to make them. If anything, I think it would have been good ettiquette if Roxy the dog at least explained in a detailed manner why they think it is POV edits and refuted each one of them. I was not only trying to make the lead more neutral, but also, more concise, including more notable elements, and improve it overall. As it is, it comes just as an arbitrary and unreasonable revert. Thinker78 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and endorse the revert. The edits water down criticism against Sheldrake and cite non-RSes such as Project Reason. It also overemphasizes Sheldrake's credentials to further promote his acceptance as a mainstream figure, when in fact our RSes demonstrate he was not accepted as such. See also: WP:CHARLATAN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent edsum and a perfectly reasonable correction to the faulty text. -Roxy the dog 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, because you didn't indicate even a single reference, it all looks like OR to change the POV. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal I don't understand your point. Thinker78 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a huge problem. Sanctions apply to this article, which require a good understanding of our content policies. See the the information under "Please read before starting" at the very top of this page. --Hipal (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal, my understanding of policies is good. Although of course neither I nor any other editor knows it all. Please explain what did you mean with "because you didn't indicate even a single reference". You mean in the edit summaries, in the text, where? Thinker78 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. All the content changes you have attempted appear to be just your personal opinions because you didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes. --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Why are you saying this if the references are in inline citations next to the relevant sentence or paragraph and I got the info from a couple of those? Thinker78 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your misunderstanding of policy runs too deep to be resolved here. I feel my time is being wasted. --Hipal (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal try to focus on content and if you have concerns about me you are welcome to post on my talk page. Meanwhile if you don't bail from this discussion kindly point out why you said that I "didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes". If you made an error stating that, don't worry, but don't try to distract from that by attacking me. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to refactor anything I wrote. Please FOC and remove your claim that I'm attacking you. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of red herrings, why don't you simply explain why you said that I "didn't indicate any references at all that supported the changes"? Because actually the citations are right there next to the text.

Feel free to write in my talk page instead of keep attacking my character. No one knows all policies, but you appear to talk about policy in general, without any seeming connection to the question I made. My knowledge about policy in general is not perfect, but I do not have a deep misunderstanding of policy. If you have any policy in specific in mind, feel free to tell me. Thinker78 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink, you stated, "The edits water down criticism against Sheldrake". Wikipedia's objective is not criticism, but rather to objectively and neutrally reflect what reliable sources state. I found out about Sheldrake the same day I made the edits that got reverted. It looks like you have a POV about the subject and wants to criticize him. I don't know his work, but you appear to believe he is a charlatan.

Per the neutral point of view policy, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

If the subject had a background in notable institutions, specially if for many years, then said information has strong basis to be included in the lead. It is part of his notable background.

Regarding Project Reason, I checked and don't know which source are you talking about, because I mainly worked with The Guardian and the Nature ones. Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's objective is not criticism, but rather to objectively and neutrally reflect what reliable sources state
Yep, and our sources tell us there is criticism and to represent that criticism. Wikipedia reflects the sources. See also: WP:FRINGE.

If the subject had a background in notable institutions, specially if for many years, then said information has strong basis to be included in the lead.Yep, and we still cover it in the lead, but we should not overemphasize it as your edits have.

You should also check out WP:RSUW. The most notable things about Sheldrake involve his pseudoscience. So it is particularly inappropriate to say "a few of his theories..." as fundamentally this makes it seem like only few of the things he's done are characterized as pseudoscience. When, in reality, most of the things he's famous for are his pseudoscience!

Regarding Project Reason, I checked and don't know which source are you talking about, because I mainly worked with The Guardian and the Nature ones See: [4] You added a link to the project reason page which hosts a Maddox pdf. When we already have a maddox source. This was not great wiki-ing, as it duplicates a source. We should primarily link to the nature url, and the PDF should be only as an archive. As well, the sources do not reflect your wording "a few of his theories".

I'm going to ignore your unsubstantiated accusation of WP:POV, even though it probably runs afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

My final bit of unsolicited advice would be to check out this essay: WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink, Project Reason was already linked in the previous source before my edits. It is actually the link I used to update the citation. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about Sheldrake the same day I made the edits that got reverted And I have read two of his stupid books which are full of bad science and bad logic. Maybe you should fit the amount of your stubbornness to to amount of your knowledge? It's what I usually do, and it seems to work pretty well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Hob Gadling: "And I have read two of his stupid books which are full of bad science and bad logic." How exactly this comment contributes to this discussion? Well, I would say it establishes evidence for your editorial bias and lack of objectivity. Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)~[reply]

The quote above is not the whole truth: WP:PSCI requires us to have editorial bias. I wish WP:RULES were simple... tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, you are miss-attributing that quote about his "stupid books" to me. Please be more careful, and focus on content and policy instead. --Hipal (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Sorry, my bad! I apologize! Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it establishes that compared to the other users here, you know zilch about the subject. Please read WP:CIR. It is extremely naive to assume that you, who has just heard about this guy (and has edited Wikipedia for five years), has a better grasp of the situation than five far more experienced editors who focus on fringe topics and have known about him for decades. Please read the guidelines and policies we linked, and also WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling sometimes it is the case that there is a local status quo in a page that doesn't accurately reflect Wikipedia guidance. Even when there are very experienced editors involved. I am not stating this is necessarily the case here but it has happened in other pages.

I have to say that sometimes the status quo is successfully overturned. This is specially true when editors who don't have too much editorial bias get involved and more neutrally assess the situation. Sometimes extensive experience in the subject is good but other times is not. Thinker78 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the one who decides when it is good is you and you alone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same:

• Replacing the clear statement that morphic resonance lacks mainstream acceptance by the weasely "A few of his theories lacks mainstream acceptance" is not an improvement.
• Nobody has "criticized" any of his ideas "as heresy". The Guardian source uses the word to express sympathy with him, not to criticize him. It would be stupid and pointless to actually accuse anybody of heresy.

Independent of all that, why are we using "The Quest" as a source here? It comes form the Theosophical Society in America, a pretty wacky outfit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed we need a better source there. I have replaced it with some better ones. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hob Gadling,

1. I explained my rationale about adding "a few of his theories" in an edit summary, "replaced 'his theories' with 'a few of' because not all of his work lacks mainstream acceptance".
2. You stated, "Nobody has "criticized" any of his ideas "as heresy"." The Guardian said, It is not often, in liberal north London, that you come face to face with a heretic, but Rupert Sheldrake has worn that mantle, pretty cheerfully, for 30 years now.^[1]

   Evidently, the Guardian was referring to how Sheldrake has been considered a heretic for 30 years. And a heretic is someone criticized due to their ideas. There are no heretics who were not criticized for their ideas. That's the purpose of the term in the first place.

   And The Guardian was actually reflecting how he has been characterized as heretic. See for example the articles,

   1. "Facing biology's open questions: Rupert Sheldrake's "heretical" hypothesis turns 40" ^[2]
   2. Heresy. "Rupert Sheldrake earned the righteous scorn of his fellow biologists[...]"^[3]
   3. "Maddox advocated literally burning Sheldrake's books as heresy, yelling, "He deserves to be condemned for the exact same reasons the pope condemned Galileo." ^[4]
3. I also raised my eyebrows when I saw the Theosophical Society as a source. It was already there and I didn't delve into it but focused my attention in the Guardian and Nature.

Thinker78 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STOPDIGGING and WP:1AM. You are using a small set of fluff pieces to source the term "heretic" for Sheldrake. It does not reflect the accuracy of the overall source landscape and absolutely does not reflect the view of mainstream scholars. Just because a few poor quality fluff pieces describe him as a "heretic" does not mean that we will. You then link to a Bioessays piece, another extremely low quality non-peer-reviewed crackpot source. And an extremely low quality fluff piece in Discover magazine, again not a scientific publication and again an inflationary "point of interest" piece in a popular magazine. These do not tell us how scholars view Sheldrake. Scholars set the tone on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink, are you referring to the article by Alex Gomez-Marin in the publication BioEssays that Thinker78 linked to above? The wikipedia page for that publisher states that it is peer-reviewed. What is the source to support your description of it as an "extremely low quality non-peer-reviewed crackpot source"? Cedar777 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BioEssays also publishes non-peer reviewed opinion pieces, such as that one. MrOllie (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell that particular source is not peer-reviewed from the fact that it has no date other than a publication date. No acceptance or revision date. Of course it also says: After initial acclaim, his project was quickly met with dogmatic skepticism, dismissed as scientific heresy, and ultimately ignored. Forty years later, the experimental implications of his ideas remain largely untested. And yet, fails to point out, as many of our best quality sources do, that Sheldrake's ideas are largely untest-able. Hence, pseudoscience.

A note on BioEssays:

• The same journal whose editor wrote: "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one" [5]
• The same journal that published this absolute gobbledygook pro-lab leak conspiracy papers from a fungus scientist and a "life extension" entrepreneur: [6] [7] and another one [8] from a noted ex-con and his retired statistician dad, neither of whom have expertise in this.
• The same journal that published this crackpot stuff about miRNAs during the Cambrian explosion at a point in history from which no miRNAs would have ever survived. [9]
• And I could go on and on. Bioessays loves to publish controversial stuff about climate change denial, UFOs, pseudoarcheology, etc.

And that's what makes it such an interesting journal to read. But also what makes it a terrible journal to cite. For anything. On wikipedia. With extremely few exceptions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink I linked to the "Bioessays" piece as a source of the info that Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis have been criticized as heresy. I am not familiar with Bioessays, first time I hear of it. I used it as source because it is published in the US National Library of Medicine website. I have the impression that this latter website is a reliable source. Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that a journal is reliable only because it is indexed at Pubmed or Medline, then you are demonstrating that you know very little about medical and scientific sources.

• Finding a Paper on PubMed Does Not Mean the Paper Is Any Good. [10]
• In a blog post, Michelle Kraft, AHIP, former president of the Medical Library Association, compared PMC manuscripts appearing in PubMed to medical advice from Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop site being published on WebMD [11]
• Academics Raise Concerns About Predatory Journals on Pubmed [12]
• Wikipedia:RS § Predatory journals and Wikipedia:MEDRS § Predatory journals

As an aside, saying Pubmed or MEDLINE are reliable sources is like saying Google is a reliable source. It's just an index. Are MEDLINE-indexed journals generally of higher quality than non-MEDLINE-indexed sources? Yes. But that does not mean any individual source or publication is reliable just because it is indexed there. Journals often go out of their wheelhouse and publish stuff they have no expertise in. Happens literally all the time. Each journal (and indeed each article from those journals) must be examined on a case-by-case basis based on the principles set out in the articles I linked above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I doubt the reliability of even peer-reviewed studies in major scientific journals like The Lancet.^[5] In addition, many times there is a lot of money, millions, even billions, in play. But if you ask to determine the reliability of a source by conducting a detailed analysis of data that took months or more than a year to a scientist or a team of scientists to finalize... is a bit too much. Thinker78 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The guideline WP:WEASEL is stronger than your rationale.
2. This does not add up to "been criticized for heresy". His ideas have been criticized for not being supported by enough evidence to justify them, and some journalists have chosen the inappropriate word "heresy" to describe that.

Please check the archives of this Talk page. You are just the last in a long line of people who think they know better than scientists what is science and what is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling you got it wrong regarding the "know better" part. I am not a scientist nor I am claiming to know science better. I am simply trying to discuss changes to the lead, how to present the lead in a more neutral way without excessive editorial bias. Maybe not being a scientist provides me with a more neutral perspective than scientists that have a strong opinion about the subject.

@Shibbolethink, regarding STOPDIGGING, you cannot seriously expect to stop a discussion three hours after the thread was started (check the time you made such a demand). That's unreasonable. There are many edits I made and several issues, therefore, the discussion is not simple or short. Thinker78 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not being a scientist provides me with a more neutral perspective This demonstrates that I was exactly right: You really believe that you know better. Somehow ignorance is supposed to magically turn into competence, and competence into a hindrance. You also obviously do not understand what "neutral" means on Wikipedia, in spite of people linking the relevant policies for you. I am done here. Even if I were not, do not ping me. I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to mention that I have a particular interest in leads of articles in general and have focused to a degree and analyzed relevant guidance for some time (specially MOS:LEAD). When I stumble on an article where I notice issues, then I proceed to edit them. I understand you may feel strongly about the subject of this article and may have faced some people who had a certain point of view. Bear with me because I try to be more neutral than the average editor and try to do a quality work. And doing a quality work requires more work and discussion. I aim to the top of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the particularities of each lead relate to the content of the body and the overall landscape of sources, this is an extremely inadvisable endeavor. Each one is a microcosm likely to be full of disagreement. Please do not edit against consensus. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't get: website policy demands that we are biased against pseudoscience and quackery. Being more pro-pseudoscience or more pro-quackery isn't what WP:NPOV is about. Read it from top to bottom, then read it again. We don't follow the midway between mainstream science and pseudoscience. That would not be neutral in the meaning of NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may feel strongly about the subject Yeah, the problem is the feelings of the people who want to adhere to policy, so, go on and patronize them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, by the severity of the reactions here, one might think the subject had made a career of murdering children rather than as an author of controversial books.

Review the recent edits again to verify that the word pseudoscience was not removed in any of the edits under discussion in this talk page thread. The arguments within this section are being unnecessarily framed as though this were a case of either/or, i.e., either the subject's concept has been criticized as pseudoscience . . . or . . . as heresy. (The heresy being discussed here is that of the broader sense: an "opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted" per New Oxford American Dictionary). The terminology as applied to Sheldrake's case isn't either/or. He has clearly been described using both terms by multiple reliable sources and there is adequate sourcing to use both the terms pseudoscience and heresy in the article. Editors seem to be unaware that the severity of their reaction here at talk to the recent good faith edits inadvertently add support for the term directly used by the four sources cited above. It futher illustrates that individuals critical of Sheldrake do indeed find morphic resonance to be an "opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted", a.k.a., heresy. Cedar777 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, from physics and chemistry to biology, every science would have to be rewritten if morphic resonance were true. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "heresy" is that it is a descriptor extremely weighted in favor of Sheldrake's own narrative. If you examine the sources brought up here and elsewhere, those which use the word tend to be more flattering of Sheldrake -- as an "innovator" or a "persecuted genius" or someone who "dares" to disagree with scientists. It's exactly the narrative he has built for himself. On wikipedia, we use scientists and scholars to determine how to frame controversial science figures. Not journalists writing bio pic flattery pieces about scientists who "dare" to contradict the "dogma" of science and become "heretics." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why we should avoid the word "heresy" in Wikipedia voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]