Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Talkpage "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:" BRD

The following is a closed discussion on whether to include a particular source in a Press template for the talkpage. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.

The result of the request was: leave the source removed. There weren't formal votes, but what there was, was pretty even. There is not currently consensus to add back the source. Those wanting to include the link, pointed-out a source does not need to be reliable and can provide context and/or warning. The press template refers to several policies including Wikipedia:LINKLOVE, which includes several points, including, "Err on the side of caution - If a link could violate this guideline, consider not adding it...Reflect on the value to an encyclopedia of any link." This closure does not state that the source has violated any guideline, it simply errs on the side of caution. If editors wish to contest this closure, they can restart a discussion on the value to this encyclopedia of the link.

(non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

---

@Hipal, other interested, hello. About . What counts as press/media org in this day and age is a bit of a grey area, reasonable people can disagree. My view per is that the item fits the talkpage template well enough. The addition does not indicate "this is a WP:RS", or "WP supports this coverage", just "this coverage exists". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What use is it to improving this article? --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Re. Template:Press: "Oftentimes, the purpose of this is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Like all such templates, possibly none at all. It's very discreet, for one thing. My general opinion is that this is an interesting template to have on talkpages when content is available, and if it contains stuff I disagree with that is fine (that is the nature of "media") and sometimes it even adds a bit of interest. It has some potential value for editors to know what kind of coverage is out there, and the stuff in them may inspire good edits, warn of something (and explain a recent view-spike) or make someone think "Cool, someone noticed the article I was working on." For me, that is enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The larger utility is that it provides background to poorly-worded posts here from new editors and IPs. If we've been warned that a media item has discussed this article, then we know what to expect. There is no assertion that the media object is a reliable source and, I suppose, some might post that here just to get curiosity clicks to those external websites. I take {{Press}} as a warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Warning" is fairly often the case, see for example Talk:Recession. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We appear to already have so many notices and warnings on this talk page that I doubt the people who should read them will do so. I don't see the need to give voice to people who are stirring up the regular problems we have here. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I didn't put the thing there with the purpose of promotion or to carry out an ideological battle. Excluding items like this appears to me as bowdlerization, these templates are not restricted to "WP-nice" content. In my view the issue is mostly one of personal taste (that essay is an essay, btw). The amount of voice given by this template is small:. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I wrote anything that might indicate that your intentions are an issue. I'm assuming good faith here. I'm happy to refactor. --Hipal (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Meh, no biggie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

My thinking would be along the same lines as Gråbergs Gråa Sång here, insofar as if there's been media on the article we should use the template to make editors aware of it. Whether it is reliable or not is irrelevant because the question is not about putting story into the article as a reference. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a formal closure, despite the request at WP:RfCl, but I've gone ahead and added the {{Press}} template back to the talk page on a reading of this discussion. Hipal, I think your objections would be better suited to the existence of the template in general, as I don't see any reason this article is particularly different in its use. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I'm not gonna do that, with apologies – I know that {{Press}} has disclaimers, but I think it should only be used where (1) a source is notable, (2) a source is reliable, or (3) a source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the article meets none of those three, I'm gonna go ahead and, instead of "closing", add my oppose along with Hipal as the relevant media just isn't worth including. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article in the German Wikipedia

The article in the German Wikipedia appears to give a more neutral account of this scientist and his work. Are Wikipedias in other languages counted as WP: RS by the English Wikipedia? YTKJ (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

No, see WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hinduism's akashic records,[152]

The linked article attributes the concept to Theosophy, not to Hinduism. It would be good to know whether the conflict arises from Sheldrake, the newspaper journalist, or the wikipedia author, and then to decide how to respond to it.
11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC) ~2026-25776-64 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Source quotes Sheldrake: "It’s similar to psychologist Carl Jung’s concept of a collective unconscious or Hinduism’s akashic records, which store all knowledge on another plane of existence.", It being the idea that memory is not stored in the brain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Action at a distance

I added this link because his model suggests that physically distant structures are altering structural formation, and that organisms are affecting one another regardless of physical distance, which is is action at a distance. I didn't expect adding a link to be contentious, but since the one who reverted it won't discuss, the matter I thought I'd give you all a chance to weigh in. Idacticus (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

And I reverted you because IMO Action at a distance doesn't make sense in this context. "Telepathy-like" and "an object's motion can be affected" are quite different. There's nothing on telepathy in that article.

See WP:BRD on "won't discuss". On WP, that implies that you started a talkpage discussion you alerted me to and I didn't respond for some time, say at least 24h or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts are associated with, and possibly caused by, the movement of calcium through the channels of neurons. The thing distinguishing telepathy-like activity from ordinary communication or perception is its lack of physical proximity.

Yes, as you discovered i was referring to the one who reverted my change. The only thing I knew to do was to post on @Imaginatorium's talk page. Is there a better step by step protocol you could tell me about? Idacticus (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No, though in general it's better to discuss article content on the article talkpage, since more people are likely to see it. See also WP:APPNOTE. But sometimes people miss, or notice and then forget, or think reply isn't needed, or ignore such messages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems "won't discuss" refers to an earlier revert per User_talk:Imaginatorium#Rupert_Sheldrake, but I was unaware of that and we're different editors. FYI-ping to @Imaginatorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging @Imaginatorium. How exactly do you do that? Idacticus (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Idacticus See Help:Talk_pages#Reply_tool. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't particularly intending "not to discuss". I do not have very strong feelings about this, but I agree with GGS above. I do not think the reader, wondering what "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms" means, will be helped by trying to read Action at a distance. I just looked at this article, and it seems to me to be a very rambling essay, which will just make the reader's head hurt even more. I suggest that it (Aaad) could be added in a "see also" category, for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate having your attention on this matter. If there was a more cordial way to get it, please let me know so that I can show proper etiquette to editors in the future.

I'll see if I can make any improvements to Action to make it less rambling. As far as concern for making the reader's head hurt, I'm not aware of any complete worldview which does not include non-local effects, even if they are not phrased as such. Furthermore, our job as purveyors of knowledge is not to provide comfort if that comfort comes at the cost of the truth; but it is worth minimizing the discomforts of learning through gradual introduction associated with the familiar where possible.

You could be right about that not being the place for the link, but I wonder if putting it in the See also would give enough context. Maybe there's a better place somewhere else in this article, since it's a foundational premise of his minority world view on morphogenic structures. Idacticus (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I was probably slightly carried away there. The problem is that "action at a distance" is more a slogan than a label for any coherent piece of theory. If you want to refute the idea that there is no AAAD, you cite the earth and the moon and gravity. But if you want the opposite you invent a field that describes exactly the same situation without the embarassment of AAAD.

I do not think the article as a whole is very good. Sheldrake is not your ordinary woo-merchant. (I said this before, a long time ago: and got nowhere, as you will see.) He started as a scientist, and while his scientific career would probably not make him WP-notable on its own, I think that when you write an article about someone it should be balanced in terms of that person's whole career, not just the crazy part that makes him famous. And what an opportunity for irony is lost! I forget the details, not being a biologist, but he published work on a conjectured mechanism concerning cell development in plants (morphogenetics, I suppose). Then he went to the dark side, and declared that this was all wrong, and proposed a basically magical replacement. Then (fairly recently) other researchers confirmed that his hypothesis was indeed correct. Now when you listen to an ordinary woo person talking about why some science is wrong, you can usually see that this person basically has no clue about the science, the scientific method, and so on. But in Sheldrake's case, the science he says is wrong is work he did himself, so it is difficult to accuse him of not understanding it. The fact that he has a scientific background shows in the way he creates this "morphogenetic field" as a mechanism for magic. Now you cannot just say "Oh, obviously the idea of a morphogenetic field is a priori absurd", because this would be equivalent to saying the same about gravity. The problem with the "morphogenetic field" is just that there is no coherent evidence for it. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

When studying cellular morphogenesis, he found (as many before him) a frustrating absence of chemical markers to explain the differentiation of tissue structure. The genes signal for how to build proteins, but they don't signal how to build an arm instead of a leg out of those proteins. This is especially crucial in the four chambers of the heart, as the difference between mammals and other vertebrates there includes having four chambers rather than two. In an attempt to solve this problem, he posits the existence of a physical law akin to resonance but utilizing action at a distance. Such a mechanism explains not only how the body "knows" to stop building muscle tissue at a certain point (whether it be the chambers of your heart or the muscles of your forearm), but also the finding that unique crystal configurations require less time to coalesce over time once instantiated, the common experience of feeling someone look at you and then turning to look directly at them, the well documented evidence of unrelated rodents completing a particular maze at consistently improving times regardless of having not run it, a new crossword puzzle being (as is also well documented) easier to complete after many other have completed it, etc.

While he may be wrong, we do a disservice to the readers not to present his ideas whatsoever. The process of knowledge requires learning the explanations put forth by others, whether or not they are correct. Furthermore, it's valuable to know exactly how far outside the bounds of the mainstream of thought on has to get before being socially ostracized by the scientific community (and embraced by the "woo" community).

There was a time when the effects of magnets were considered to be magic. I'm sure we had to go through a great number of inaccurate theories before they could be refined into the laws of electromagnetism as we know it today. We cannot refuse to allow others to learn something simply because we do not comprehend it. If his ideas are not presented, then neither can any rigorous testing to debunk them be cited, and what's worse there may be some part of his framework which resists disproving and needs to be incorporated.

Finally, his ideas appear to be falsifiable, yet I haven't seen any rigorous attempt to do so. There's a difference between an idea being disbelieved and an idea being disproven, which can easily be seen in heliocentrism. Idacticus (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Remember, this page is not on the subject of the physical laws of reality, but on the subject of a man's life: a man who began in academia before being disavowed. The circumstances of his relationship to the scientific community are important to know. Idacticus (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)