Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016[edit]

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.


2A00:9400:0:800:0:0:8:2 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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[edit]

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)