Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
Also of particular relevance are:
|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.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.|
|The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rupert Sheldrake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121521210900/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727181657/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf to http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/formative.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212093259/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/19/the-science-behind-%E2%80%98torchwood%E2%80%99-morphic-fields/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/19/the-science-behind-%E2%80%98torchwood%E2%80%99-morphic-fields/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Add to the debate section of public appearances:
Rupert Sheldrake has appeared at the Institute of Art and Ideas' annual music and philosophy festival HowTheLightGetsIn to debate his ideas on morphic resonance and with leading philosophers and scientists on related topics.
- Which scientists are you referring to? At HowTheLightGetsIn I only found politicians, musicians, philosophers and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- This user has added a dozen or so links to IAI/HTLGI events in biographies. It is has the appearance of being an account used solely for adding spam. The addition should not be made. Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Reception of morphic resonance theory
Could this article not give more information about how Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance has been received by the scientific community by naming individuals, both critics of morphic resonance such as Steven Rose, and supporters of the theory?Carltonio (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it could. It will as soon as someone does it. I am not aware of any positive reception from the scientific community though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please do, but take care! Include inline cited well chosen reliable sources for what you add. This article has historically been the site of edit warring and other bad behavior, and morphic resonance is one of those topics that tends to provoke it. Being meticulous about your wording and sourcing can help avoid that. --Krelnik (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)