Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Science, not New Age

This is an article about reincarnation research and not about what some new age people might think about reincarnation. With this in mind, and if there is no objection, I plan to delete the paragraph towards the end about Atlantis. Thanks. Johnfos 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have made this change now. Johnfos 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Johnfos You just removed my text about the James Leininger case, and I put it back of course. It is the most celebrated evidence for reincarnation. Read the book first before removing the text again. By reading the book you'll find it is utterly well researched, and two of the world's most outstanding reincarnation researchers, Carol Bowman and Jim Tucker, have hailed the Leininger case as very good evidence, also because it has been so exhaustively investigated. Again: read the book fist, delete later. Michiel Hegener

Carl Sagan quote

That Carl Sagan quote is not only taken out of context, it's being used in such a way as to glorify the position of reincarnation research as scientific by quoting a known scientist. It doesn't need to be there.--12.219.177.48 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be right but this kind of editing just doesn't have a chance of sticking. If it's out of context, introduce the context. And why don't you register? --Anthon.Eff 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Including the context is unnecessary because the quote itself is unnecessary, and including the context would be a huge waste of space in the article itself. For reference, I will include part of the context here:

"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last the have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." (from The Demon-Haunted World page 303, paperback edition.)

Afterword he goes on to state that the only reason these deserve serious study is because to dismiss them out of hand in an authoritarian way would be unscientific. The quote as it's used in the article is misleading; I experienced that myself today when someone told me about how Carl Sagan said that reincarnation research deserves serious study, and that this thusly lent credence to the parapsychic claim. If you can slap a scientist's name on something, it becomes true!

Including the quote at all is just a skimpy way of saying "Look at this, Dr. Sagan believes this is worthy of research, so you should too!" He even says in this paragraph and the paragraph after it that the evidence is tenuous at best.

Secondly, it's poorly sourced. Whoever put the quote there used a secondary source (The Washington Post) instead of the primary source of the book it's quoting. As stated earlier, the quote is also edited in a way to seem vaguely sympathetic to the topic of the article.

Also, I don't register because I don't feel it necessary to make an account for one edit in one article. I wouldn't have found this if not for someone bringing it to my attention, and being a huge fan of Sagan, I hate it when he's taken out of context. Also, if you're going to reverse my edit (whoever did it) at least give a reason why.--12.219.177.48 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would just put the energy into the article that you put into this talk page we would all benefit. Your quote is correct, and it's given in the Jim Tucker book, just as you give it. The Tucker book is used as the source. So the source is OK. Just flesh out the quote until you feel comfortable with it. I'm already comfortable with it so I won't be going to that trouble. And I was the person who reverted your "contribution"--a contribution which consisted of deleting a large block of text that pointed to two sources. That's the kind of contribution that is almost always reverted, so don't take it personally. I think you could help make this article better, so please give it a try! --Anthon.Eff 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

Hello everyone. Especially Johnfos - sorry about taking so long to review this. So, this is a well written article that provides broad coverage of the topic using reputable sources (at least as broad as my quick Google search). I only had some problems with some needed citations and one POV sentence. These are tagged in the article. Fix those and it's GA. --Meowist 01:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Meowist. Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made the necessary changes. -- Johnfos 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes and for writing a nice article about a potentially touchy subject. It's GA --Meowist 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The category of reincarnation research is currently listed as pseudoscience, should this article be added to that category for consistency's sake?74.67.118.10 05:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article leans very strongly to the viewpoint that reincarnation is an accepted scientific fact. It depends almost entirely on published material supportive of such claims and studiously ignores the almost total lack of any objective research on the subject. I believe it now veers so far away from offering a balanced viewpoint on the subject I shall be proposing its delisting as a good article. Mighty Antar 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand you. The article pretty clearly states that there are two groups of people who do "reincarnation research." One group falls very far short of what most of us would call "objective research": the therapists who do hypnotic regression--very interesting (because these "memories" can be elicited in so many hypnotized subjects), but not science. But the other group--university-affiliated psychiatrists like Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker--clearly understand science and are trying to work within its parameters. My impression of these folks is that they have read their Hume, and that they consider reincarnation as a likely hypothesis only when all other explanations have clearly failed. --Anthon.Eff 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There has actually been quite a bit of research on the subject. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The two university-affiliated psychiatrists noted stand apart because of their qualifications, but can hardly be said to constitute a 'group' and the majority of material cited here is either directly from their work or secondary source material based upon favourable parts of their research. What the article does not make clear is that their views and conclusions have not only been shown to have been flawed, but that their conclusions are also a very long way from being accepted within the scientific community as a likely hypothesis. Mighty Antar 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reputable source showing "that their views and conclusions" are "flawed", then you would do a great service by introducing that source. As for your view that "their conclusions are... a very long way from being accepted within the scientific community"--there is no "scientific community", there are scientists, some of whom trouble themselves about this particular topic, and because the topic is new, there is no general acceptance of anything. All perfectly normal in science. Other editors have introduced the work of Tucker and Stevenson--perhaps you could introduce the work of scientists who have reviewed similar material and come to different conclusions. --Anthon.Eff 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A good source for that is needed. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said scientists, not "scientific community". See WP:ASF and WP:BIAS the onus lies with those who have introduced the material about Stevenson and Tucker to show that it has widespread acceptance. To date, billions of people have died and their is no objective evidence to show that any one of them has been reincarnated. Mighty Antar 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about reincarnation research. Stevenson and Tucker are two of the most important people who have done reincarnation research. They belong in the article, whether they are right or wrong. If you have someone else's work who belongs in the article, then go ahead and put it in. Keep in mind that if your contribution is original research, it will be reverted. --Anthon.Eff 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"This is an article about reincarnation research. Stevenson and Tucker are two of the most important people who have done reincarnation research. They belong in the article, whether they are right or wrong." Agreed, however the article is so liberally peppered with non-neutral phrases such as "past life", "previous life" and "memories" all of which inflict bias. Reincarnation is not an established fact, and it is not original research to state that. "past life", "previous life" and "memories" are not facts, they are all assumptions. Mighty Antar 19:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This article contained a number of copyright violations, which may have compromised its coverage; there may be more. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is not a mainstream journal but one which dedicates itself to "scientific research on topics outside the established disciplines of mainstream science" (Journal of Scientific Exploration). Some important claims (e.g. "it furnishes objective and graphic proof of reincarnation...") are referenced only to the researcher in question (ref #12). --Alksub 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been worded more carefully now, to avoid copyvios and to avoid claiming too much. The phrase "it furnishes objective and graphic proof of reincarnation..." has been changed to "it furnishes graphic evidence suggestive of reincarnation...". Johnfos (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these recent edits and wording changes. The article is more balanced now. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Any further suggestions for specific changes are welcome. Johnfos (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

After reading through all of this section and the entire article, I can say that I believe it is an WP:NPOV article. There is a "Skeptical reactions" section, which I think covers the fact that none of the information in the other sections may be accurate.  hmwith  talk 06:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been worded more carefully now, to avoid copyvios and to avoid claiming too much. Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Unbalanced

I have removed the "unbalanced" tag as I have read through the entire article and I believe that it gives equal balance to both pro-reincarnation and anti-reincarnation viewpoints. I do not see any of what Mighty Antar pointed to, although this may be due to the fact that the debate in question is approaching five months old and out of date. Regardless, from what I can see, this is a balanced article as of this posting. Jhskulk (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How are Stevenson's Birthmark Studies "objective"?

Stevenson's study of birthmarks was based on a psuedoscientific theory of his which stated that the soul had physical manifestations. This is not even to mention that his "matchings" were flaky at best (for instance, the "stab wound birthmark" in one case was in a different part of the body, and Stevenson simply said it had been translated.) This is not objective, because his theory that there is some sort of spirtual DNA which determines the shape of our bodies is unsupportable (in fact, he never made any attempt to defend this theory, and offered it simply as a matter of fact.) Stevenson was a poor scientist who didn't seem to grasp the basic tenets of the scientific method. (24.160.248.173 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Have removed the word "objective"... Johnfos (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IP number, I think you misunderstand the man and his objectives. Twipley (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC) http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf

Reincarnation research is Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Reincarnation research category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Reincarnation research category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:PSCI, obvious pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the clarification is not a clarification. It is, as of today, just a bunch of bickering between two POV's. As of this date, Wikipedia:PSCI is policy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Research isn't theories. How did you establish its obvious bogusness? Is this your fallback plan for all the Pseudoscience cat contents? You'll just say "It's obviously pseudoscience!" and that will be that?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Marlin. Do you think that one gets tenure at the University of Virginia for pseudo-science? I think the article makes it quite clear that the hypnotic regression folks are not practicing what one calls science, but that definitely doesn't hold for the childhood memory researchers.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I too think, based on Reincarnation and Biology (Stevenson; ISBN-13: 978-0275952839), that we are here dealing with science. @Anthon.Eff: you know that with your Ph.D in philosophy you might be in a position to suggest whether the "pseudoscience" term should or not be mentioned at the beginning of the "research based on hypnotic regression" section, and whether we should keep or not the "pseudoscience" tag. My opinion is that the article could both be tagged "science" (because of the first section) and "pseudoscience" (because of the latter). Twipley (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation and politics

• Tibetan Government-in-exile Repudiates China’s Reincarnation Rules

Where to place the topic?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.85.60 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable sources on WP... Johnfos (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Research on early childhood memories and birthmarks

An early written account of past-life memories was added to the end of the article's section "Research on early childhood memories and birthmarks". The mentioned section is devoted to explain how young children (at around three years of age and till seven) sometimes claim to remember a previous life. The account, reported at a time when there was no field of science conducting this type of research, was added into the section with the sole purpose of presenting a practical example (also historical, about one century ago) on the theme described at the section.
However, an editor reverted it as "removing story from a western mystic; we are talking about research and researchers in this article, not mere stories". Well, i do understand his point of view but i also consider that the account is clearly in accordance with the issue presented in the mentioned section; and so i leave below the story that i had added for any user that may be interested in the analysis of this subject:

“ Perhaps one of earlier written accounts of past life memories by a little children of our modern society was recorded in a book by Max Heindel in 1909 as following:

« Mr. Roberts had been walking in the street the previous day when a little three-year old girl came up to him and put her arms around his knees, calling him papa. Mr. Roberts was indignant, thinking that someone was trying to father the child on him. But the mother of the child, who came up directly, was equally put out and tried to get the child away. The child, however, kept on clinging to Mr. R., insisting that he was her father. (...) Mr. X. found however, that the child was normal and next proceeded to question the little one carefully. After patient work carried on intermittently during the afternoon, so as not to tire the child, this is the story she told:

She had lived with her papa, Mr. Roberts, and another mamma in a little house that stood all alone, where no other house could be seen; there was a little brook close to the house where some flowers grew (and here she ran out and brought in some "pussy-willows") and there was a plank across the brook which she was cautioned against crossing, for fear she might fall into the brook. One day her papa had left her mother and herself and had not returned. When their supply of food was exhausted her mamma lay down on the bed and became so still. At last she said quaintly, "then I also died, but I didn't die. I came here." (...) » (1)

”

(1) Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception (A remarkable story), 1909

Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.99.16 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Ramster

This section is based on an unreliable source (link) and a book published by "Somerset Films & Pub", which only seems to have ever published this one book and has no website. (link). Without reliable sources this section needs to be removed entirely. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tim Vickers You should read the book first before labeling it as unreliable. Ramster has been one of the great pioneers of reincarnation research and his findings were stunning. He uses film whenever appropriate, and his film Reincarnation regression (on YouTube) was shown world wide on tv in the eighties, reaching more people than a book would have done. I interviewed Ramster a couple of months ago in Sydney. At 62 he is still involved in reincarnation research, working on several books and at least one film.Rabbit1833 (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Peter John Ramster apparently has made more films than written books: see the Worldcat listing of his works. His other book appears to be The Truth about Reincarnation from 1980, which was published by Rigby, Ltd, Adelaide, South Australia, a general publishing company that published from the early 1900s through at least the 1980s (see for example). The blurb of the The Truth about Reincarnation (1980) says:

::The astounding story of how psychologist Peter Ramster discovered that many of his patients could actually remember their past lives. While he was using hypnotherapy to help a patient with her problems, she suddenly spoke to him as a woman from another age Under trance, she told him that she had lived in California during the period of the American War of Independence. Having made this startling discovery. Peter Ramster researched further He soon found that all persons capable of deep trance could recall having lived at different times in some cases thousands of years ago and in different countries. In this book, giving genuine case-histories and transcripts from tape-recorded conversations, he tells the whole amazing story.

The blurb of The Search for Lives Past (1992) says:

::In my efforts to discover the truth about reincarnation, I concentrated my research on the unconscious psyche of the subjects. First, I tried to remove all unconscious blocks, fears, repression and neuroses which might either hamper recall or create fantasy. The next step was to make the subject recall and ability he or she might have had during a previous existence, the ability to speak or write a different language, or some artistic talent which could not possibly have been learned in this life. All the while my main aim was to ascertain the truth.

I think that his first work is a reliable source insofar as it is published by a reputable publishing company in Australia. The first work also lends credence to the reliability of the second work. But perhaps these are not sufficient for sources for WP. The Victor Zammit link purports to be a summary of Ramster's work from several sources:

::The following information is taken from Peter Ramster's very important book, In Search of Lives Past (1990) and from a speech he gave to the Australian Hypnotherapists ninth National Convention at the Sydney Sheraton Wentworth Hotel on the 27th March, 1994 and from the films he made on reincarnation. In 1983 he produced a stunning television documentary in which four women from Sydney, who had never been out of Australia, gave details under hypnosis of their past lives. Then, accompanied by television cameras and independent witnesses, they were taken to the other side of the world....

One could cite the original Ramster sources, using Zammit as providing a summary of that work, since the original material is not readily available. Again, that might not be adequate for WP. One can certainly order the two books via used book sellers. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found interesting references to Ramsters work on youyube, but I'm unsure about wikipedia policy on references from there? Ian Lawton cites Ramsters work from "The Search For Lives Past" in his "The little book of the soul". Lawton reads himself in a series of youtube videos. Part 8, 9A & 9B is about Ramster's cases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35XAZ6FK7ao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6041WzI2h4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARi1XoxuRGE Ramster's TV documentary from 1983 covering the same cases is also on youtube in 11 parts - #1 is here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayY1yyXnn0 you can follow youtube's lead for the rest. Most interesting. Hepcat65 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Further references: to Peter Ramster's films on reincarnation:

• Peter Ramster and Brian Morris,Reincarnation, Sydney: Soundsense films (1982). OCLC 64353767.
• Peter Ramster, God doesn't play dice, Los Angeles, CA: Hemdale Home Video, Inc. (1991). OCLC 43043701. (I am presuming this is a film about reincarnation.)
• Peter Ramster, Life Death & Rebirth - A Film, no date given, listed on his web site:

::A film about reincarnation and life after death - including case histories of children who prove their past life recollections and adults cured of lifelong afflictions through past life recall under hypnosis or who have had evidential near death experiences.

• Peter Ramster and Robert MacGregor, The Reincarnation Experiments, TV broadcast August 15, 2000. The description given on a University of Wollongong web page:

::Two members of the University of Wollongong community have collaborated in the production of a documentary to be screened by Prime -TV on Tuesday 15 August. The film- 'The Reincarnation Experiments', documents the work of Peter Ramster, a practising psychologist of 30 years, who is studying immunology at UOW, while Information Systems senior Lecturer Robert MacGregor, has written the films soundtrack. 'The Reincarnation Experiments' focuses on the use of hypnosis by Peter Ramster to treat patients suffering psychological problems- in particular phobias and how, when hypnotised, some patients are able to provide detailed accounts of past lives.
"While treating patients I use hypnosis to take them back to their childhood in an attempt to identify the source of their individual problem or phobia, but I found some people spontaneously start talking about past lives", Mr Ramster said. Mr Ramster said since he began seriously examining the phenomena in the mid 70s he has had over 1,000 patients describe past lives to him while under hypnosis.
In an attempt "to extricate the memory’s fantasy from fact", Mr Ramster has hypnotised patients repeatedly over several years at intervals of six months, so as to correlate the information given and determine which specific facts remain consistent through time. "Boring people to tears over long periods of time", is how Mr Ramster describes his method of hypnosis.

After having viewed the documentary of Ramster's work from 1983 (on YouTube), I think the books and films are sufficiently reliable sources to document the essential features of Ramster's work. I think critical commentary that is directed generally to reincarnation regression or specifically toward Ramster's work also needs to be included. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

James Leininger case

Hello Johnfos You just removed my text about the James Leininger case, and I put it back of course. It is the most celebrated evidence for reincarnation. Read the book first before removing the text again. By reading the book you'll find it is utterly well researched, and two of the world's most outstanding reincarnation researchers, Carol Bowman and Jim Tucker, have hailed the Leininger case as very good evidence, also because it has been so exhaustively investigated. Again: read the book fist, delete later. Michiel Hegener

I guess if this is such a celebrated and well-researched case that it would be discussed in a refereed journal somewhere. Please provide details. Johnfos (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the national coverage makes it significant if only from that angle. The quote from Jim Tucker would also help. Mitsube (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked but can't find any refereed journal article about this case, and I can't see how a popular account like this fits in an article which is about research. So I have removed the section again. Michiel, if you think the book Soul Survivor is notable, perhaps start an article on it, providing references to support your claim. Johnfos (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this case is actually quite new. Jim Tucker, one of the most notable researchers of these cases (after the late Ian Stevenson), did not include this account in his book Life Before Life (2005) but did write an endorsement for Soul Survivor (2009):

::::Soul Survivor describes the case of James Leininger, a spectacular example of the phenomenon of young children who seem to remember previous lives. We are fortunate that one of our guides for the story is James' father Bruce, who approaches the situation with a critical attitude. His insistence on doubting each piece of information until it can be verified makes the eventual conclusion that James's parents reach--that he is indeed remembering the life of a deceased World War II pilot--well-earned. Anyone interested in the possibility of past-life memories, or anyone who thinks it can be easily dismissed, needs to read this book. --Jim B. Tucker, M.D.

On the basis of Tucker's endorsement of this case (including his judgment of the reliability of the verification), the relative newness of this case and the notability in the news media, this account ought to be included in this article, in my opinion. This case is also notable in that it is one of the few Western cases of this sort. Nearly all of Stevenson's cases were from India (Hindu or Muslim) or Lebanon (Druze) whereas this case is clearly Western. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. I have a lot of respect for Jim Tucker and enjoyed reading Life before Life. My suggestion would be for someone to start an article on Soul Survivor and to include a link and short summary of the case here. What we have here at the moment is something without refs that looks like it has been hurriedly written and just stuck in. Johnfos (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not hurriedly written, I wrote it after reading the book cover to cover twice - and after many years of reading about reincarnation research. The Leininger case really stands out among all the evidence for reincarnation. It is, I think, only at a par with the research by Peter Ramster (whom I interviewed at length some months ago in Sydney). I will include some refs, but they are all from the book itself. To my knowledge there are no academic articles about the Leininger case, which shouldn't surprise anyone because the scientific community tends to ignore evidence as compelling as this. They rather focus on material they can shed doubt on, if they deal with reincarnation research at all. The scientific community is far more interested in defending it's own false paradigm that reincarnation doesn't exist than exploring the evidence to the contrary. Peter Ramster, who produced conclusive evidence for reincarnation back in 1981 (see: Reincarnation regression part 1/11 - 11/11 on YouTube and or read his book In Search of Lives Past) told me that the scientific community wasn't interested at all in his findings. During the years he was teaching psychotherapy at the University of Wollongong he just couldn't even bring up the subject of reincarnation research when lecturing, otherwise he might well loose his job. That perfectly illustrates how science deals with evidence for reincarnation. Michiel Hegener --Rabbit1833 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)~

Where is the RS for this section? Can you justify why doesn't break WP:UNDUE? I've asked for more input from WP:FTN] Verbal chat 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by RS Verbal? ReSearch? And can you explain what "Can you justify why doesn't break" means? I just don't understand the grammar of this sentence. And do you ask for more input because the Leininger Case is fringe theory? That means the entire article about reincarnation research must be deleted. Amidst all the evidence that reincarnation exists, the Leininger case is special because it was so thoroughly researched. James's father Bruce thought reincarnation - as an explanation for his son's data stream - was out of the question because not in line with Christian ideas. So he set out to prove that the information James offered was false - and after four years of research, doing dozens of interviews, reading thousands of documents, he came to the conclusion that each and every detail of his son's story was correct. So why does the story need more input? Have you read the book? Rabbit1833 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is a Wikipedia term that stands for "reliable source". This is not a question of opposition from the scientific community: a WP article on reincarnation research should be about research, and I think this book qualifies as that, given Jim Tucker's stated opinion regarding the degree of verification used in the investigation. The reliable source here is the book itself, in my opinion, given it has Tucker's endorsement, who explicitly cites the degree of verification that was used. I agree that the section on this case should be reduced some in respect to undue weight and possibly link to an article on the book itself. Balancing critical commentaries have not been published as far as I can tell but they should be included in this section when they appear. --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just had to put the piece about James Leininger back in place again, this time user Dougweller was the one who had thrown it out, commenting that "this is not the place to hype a book that has just come out" and that there was too much YouTube in it. Well, there is just one YouTube reference, although it is mentioned twice. And the book may be new but there has already been written a lot about this case during the past five years. Why is it so many people are so keen to delete this passage? And why do they all come up with totally different reasons to delete it? My guess: the evidence is too strong. Rabbit1833 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a new book, I disagree that Tucker's statement is enough to make it a RS, particularly considering his involvement in the case, and the two mentions of YouTube were two too many for this article, although as a new editor I guess you wouldn't realise that.

And, I found this:

- The first and only counsellor who saw the poor kid was a believer in reincarnation, who went about recovering the old memories on the immediate assumption that they were there.

- Most versions of the story fail to mention that the boy had been to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas a few months before it all started.

- Little James talked about a Corsair, among the more distinctive planes featured at the museum. After investigation, it turned out James Huston was killed in a FM2 Wildcat. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the book you'll find reports about the two visits James Leininger made to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum, in February and May 2000, around the time his nightmares started. And in the book a lot of space is devoted to the apparent conflict between James's statement that he flew a Corsair while Huston died in a Wildcat. As it turned out, Huston flew for a long time (in 1944) in Corsairs, and there is a photo in the book of Huston standing in front of one. Rabbit1833 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is notable and is declared to be such by a reliable source, Jim Tucker. This is not the place to argue about reincarnation or possible specific cases of it. There are many other websites available for that. Mitsube (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the notability or the RS. Fine to mention it with sources, but to give over so much space to this one, recent case which hasn't been independently investigated isn't in line with policy. Verbal chat 16:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When you read the book, you'll find that scores of people, including historians, were involved in researching this case. And some essential remarks about his apparent past life were made by James Leininger in the presence of others than his parents. Rabbit1833 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is T.J. MacGregor? I don't think his opinion matters. Also I think that the material from the book should be condensed. It is too long. Mitsube (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you justify your revert of my edits please, which did what you ask here? Verbal chat 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The tagging and category were unwarranted in my opinion. Now that we know who is saying it is "some of the best evidence" we can remove that statement. If it were Jim Tucker or someone like that it would be different. We should not rely on the book itself too much. Mitsube (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is not neutral, relies on one source written by the father, and is just awful. The POV and citation tags are both justified. Also, what specifically was wrong with the other trimming edits? Verbal chat 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the book was not written by James's father but by novelist and non fiction writer Ken Gross, a skeptic who still does not believe in reincarnation and has written a short piece about his personal view on the story, on www.soulsurvivor-book.com under blog. He writes: "I don’t believe in reincarnation. I hardly believe in carnation. I am a secular, rationalist skeptic. But I have no reasonable explanation for James Leininger/Huston." Rabbit1833 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the point. The only thing making this wiki-worthy is the news coverage and the Tucker blurb. Mitsube (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, your recent tags are quite over the top. The article is good. There just needs to be a short summary of the book and Tucker's quote can be summarized as well and that's it. Mitsube (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that it is ok to say 'after years of dogged research'? Or to use publisher's blurbs/dust jacket hype for an article? The section reads as though Wikipedia is saying this is a genuine case. And we are usingT. J. MacGregor as the source for 'best evidence'? Who, writing as Trish MacGregor, "has written 15 nonfiction books that reflect her interests - astrology, the tarot, dreams, and yoga." Why are we using her comments? And it says 'some', can we have a list of the others who have also said it's the 'best evidence ever'? I hope no one has written 'some' without knowing of any others, but if an astrology/tarot writer is the best you have... Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

James Leininger case relevancy

This section isn't relevant to this particular article because the focus of this article in on reincarnation research, researchers, and methods; this section describes a specific testimony. In its current form, this section's main purpose is to describe a well detailed case which appears to provide evidence for the existence of reincarnation. The problem is that this section isn't about actual reincarnation research. Currently, it does not inform the reader about methods or researchers. In order to satisfy WP:TOPIC this section could either be rewritten as a discussion of the research that went into this case or it should be removed from the article and found a home elsewhere. Sifaka ^talk 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are quite right. I will remove it. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is hardly consensus about this. Please address my earlier points (below) that the book is research due to the independent verification that was done, and that the work has been endorsed by one of the main researchers in this field. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As research it is not up to the standards of WP:RS. Mitsube (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So you have read the book! (Otherwise, how could you be certain that the research is not up to standards?). Rabbit1833 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Reliability hinges on author and publisher, not the actual work itself. The basic standard is Verifiability, not truth. Mitsube (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just put it back. Maybe good to reiterate the origins of this page. About two years ago I inserted a paragraph in the reincarnation article on Wikipedia about Peter Ramster, who, according to many, proved the existence of reincarnation back in 1981. Sceptics from many walks of life were infuriated: they could live with an article (already very long) about belief in reincarnation, what Buddhists believed, what early Christians believed, etcetera. But to say that there was proof that reincarnation might be factual was heresy to the skeptics because it was at variance with their unproven belief that matter is all and that death is the end of all. They felt threatened. If there had been any evidence to support the claim that matter is all and that death is the end of all, the sceptics would not have been so emotional. As Bertrand Russell wrote in Why I Am Not a Christian (1957): "It is the things for which there is no evidence that are believed with passion. Nobody feels any passion about the multiplication table or about the existence of Cape Horn, because these matters are not doubtful. But in matters of theology or political theory, where a rational man will hold that at best there is a slight balance of probability on one side or the other, people argue with passion and support their opinions by physical slavery imposed by armies and mental slavery imposed by schools." And so, passionate members of the SCICOP threw out the Ramster praragraph as often as I put it back. This went on for weeks. In the end a compromise was reached and we started this Reincarnation research page. My Ramster paragraph moved from the Reincarnation page to the Reincarnation research page, but even so, sceptics continued to attack it by deleting the best bits of evidence and sometimes I put some of it back. Despite these skermishes, on this page there has always been room for evidence for reincarnation. After all, that is what it is all about, reincarnation research as such is a side show at best. And now the Leininger case - research-wise a special case indeed because James Leininger's father was so heavily involved - is undergoing the same fate as the Ramster paragraph. Already 4 of 5 editors have been in the business of throwing it out, and they all come up with a different reason for doing so... Not very convincing! Rabbit1833 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't all or nothing. I have also changed my mind as you failed to mention. Mitsube (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about WP:THETRUTH, and it is not a WP:SOAPBOX. See my comment below, and try and keep the thread chronological in some way. Verbal chat 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is reincarnation research, in my opinion, because of the independent verification that was done, and it has been endorsed by one of the main researchers in this field. I haven't read the book yet but from the details that are available from the extensive recent reporting of it, it appears that Bruce Leininger did reasonable work in verifying the details and not leading his son on. However, this work is open to the main criticism that the research was done by the father and not an independent investigator. It would be interesting to see if the plane is actually located near the spot that James pinpointed where it went down: that would be totally independent verification and is a completely falsifiable claim if I ever saw one.

I think this section of the article needs to be cut down considerably (summarized), highlighting the better items of independent corroboration (from Huston's sister, from the surviving squadron members, etc.) and a separate article written about the book and the case. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If it stays, it certainly shouldn't be using a writer of thrillers and books on astrology to suggest it's the best evidenc ever. This forum discusses the question of where the boy pointed. [1] - search for Chichijima. As this is a fringe topic, although I wouldn't use that discussion, we can, exceptionally, use sources we wouldn't normally use to show criticism, eg [2] or [3]. The point about the museum having a Wilcat is relevant, as is the fact that James called himself James 3 only after he was 3, which I doubt would surprise many parents. With time I am sure there will be better criticisms. I also think Carol Bowman is a serious problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How is Carol Bowman a "serious problem"? Did she regress James hypnotically or simply help him "share his memories"? There was a significant critique of the case in the Youtube (ABC Primetime show) by Paul Kurtz, that the "memories" derive from overheard conversations, cues from the parents, information from playmates and neighbors, etc. and a conviction builds up that he was this pilot. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact Paul Kurtz was saying that James Leininger had heard the four names which he mentioned of those who served on the Natoma Bay during conversations at home or that he had heard them from other kids, aged two like himself. It is just ridiculous! How could James Leininger have heard anyone say that Natoma Bay pilots Billie, Walter and Leon had died before James Huston? How could James Leininger have overheard anyone saying that the father of James Huston had an alcohol problem? How could he have heard anyone say that Corsairs tended to veer to the left when taking off? How could he have known that his parents had been having dinner on the beach near a "big pink hotel" on Hawaii before he was born? How could he have known that the Natoma Bay veteran who approached him during the Natoma Bay Association reunion in September 2004 was Bob Greenwalt? Kurtz was just saying something, without first doing his homework. Rabbit1833 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can find out from all these comments none of you has read the book yet. I read it twice, made many notes and searched to the best of my ability for inconsistencies. I found a few, but none that do harm to the essence of the story. I'd like to detail them, but then there will be complaints that the story gets too long... Read the book - write comments later. Rabbit1833 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS for any of this? The book and its marketing blurb don't count. Verbal chat 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And of course, as editors we are not supposed to be making comments on the book, but reporting what reliable sources as defined by policy say about it. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Jim Tucker, although on the jacket of the book, is significant: as one of world's most renowed reincarnation researchers Tucker could damage his own reputation by endorsing a shaky, unreliable book. The book appeared in the bookshops on June 5, so we should allow some time for further RS-comments to appear. Rabbit1833 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This section should probably be removed per WP:BLP, as it deals with a living person and is not backed by WP:RS. Of course, it should simply be removed for not being about the topic, not being backed by [[WP:RS], and for making he topic look ridiculous (moreso, I mean). The blurb on a book cover is not an WP:RS, especially when the book itself is not an WP:RS. It should be removed until reliable third party sources have been found, and the BLP issues dealt with. Verbal chat 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Verbal, read my coment made on 8 June 20:07. You and others come up with all sorts of different reasons to delete the James Leininger paragraph, but there is only one real reason: you, and all the other Leininger-deleters don't like the fact that here is hard evidence for reincarnation which disrupts beliefs - Christian belief in your case, skeptical belief in most other cases. But, as Jiddu Krishnamurti said: beliefs are crutches. Rabbit1833 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit1833, your comments are in poor taste. Specifically it is wrong to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Please avoid such accusations in the future because it is against wikipedia policy. Sifaka ^talk 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to quit this debate, I won't open this file again. All I have to say can be found in my previous comments. Just one point I wish to repeat: you are all debating a book you have not read. That was it. Now you can all go ahead deleting whatever doesn't match your personal convictions and beliefs. Bye. Rabbit1833 (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll of views, RFC?

This discussion seems to have not found a consensus. At this point I think it is probably time to call for an RFC. I tried to give arguments for both sides. If you feel there is an issue missing or the arguments for or against are not adequate, please add to them. For the sake of clarity, be as brief and clear as possible and provide links to the appropriate policy sections. (Do note that the current argument ordering is keep-as-is first and modify, delete, and move following). Comment on the validity of the arguments or whether you agree or disagree the issue below each arguments' viewpoints section. Sifaka ^talk

Primary Issues

• Is the paragraph relevant to the section?

Yes: It is a good example of how research has been applied to a particular potential reincarnation case.

No: The primary purpose of the section is to provide evidence for the existence of reincarnation. This is not appropriate for this article which instead focuses on reincarnation researchers and their research and reincarnation research methods. The paragraph is currently not informative in this sense.

Viewpoints

I agree with the "No" argument. In order to satisfy WP:TOPIC, this section could either be rewritten as a discussion of the research that went into this case or it should be removed from the article and found a home elsewhere. Sifaka ^talk 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is the book itself a reliable source? This question extends to the comment in the dust cover.

Yes: Following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources. As this article is about reincarnation, sources by reincarnation believers are appropriate to use in the article as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. The book has generated approval by reincarnation researcher Jim Tucker.

No: The book and the dust cover constitute a fringe source and should not be used a a source.

Viewpoints

The research in the book appears to have been done by primarily by the boy's father who, as far as I am aware, to not have any standing among reincarnation researchers. However I'm not sure I would agree with the assessment that it couldn't be used as a source; it would be good to use it as source for reincarnation research techniques used by people investigating cases. The fact that the book seems to be focused on a single case is problematic considering scope.Sifaka ^talk 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is this book a violation of Biographies of living people standards?

No:

Yes:

Viewpoints

• Does this section violate neutral point of view standards?

No: There is a whole skepticism section which goes over the mainstream point of view below to balance it out.

Yes: The second paragraph of this section clearly attempts to demonstrate the existence of reincarnation using the first section as evidence. While there is a criticism section at the bottom of the page, there is no mainstream belief context to frame this section in. From WP:UNDUE, "specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view.)" Also, this one case is given too much attention and may not be prominent enough for mention.

Viewpoints

I agree with the views expressed in the "Yes" viewpoint, especially that this one case is given too much attention. Sifaka ^talk 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• What should be done with this section?

Viewpoints

I'm in favor of rewriting it as a brief discussion of the research that went into this case or deleting it from this article. If the book is notable itself by the notability standards for books, it may merit its own article. Another possibility is to create a section for "alleged evidence of reincarnation", but it seems like citing specific cases would encourage a laundry list of cases which could lead to violations of Undue Weight and create an indiscriminate collection of evidence. Sifaka ^talk 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And that gets to the heart of the matter. This is an article on research, not on alleged examples, cases, whatever. Tucker is already in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire Talk page discussion, but from looking at the article diffs I would say that a single book and a dust-jacket blurb (from the same book) don't have sufficient weight to merit presenting this "case" as groundbreaking or even significant within the article. Take it out until the subject is covered by other, third-party WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about removal

I will not dispute the removal of the Carol Brown material, but why was this removed?: "In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to several witnesses, the boy provided the driver's name, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with. These all matched the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family." Mitsube (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it either--it's a well-written, sourced passage, that gives some of the flavor of the Stevenson work. Could you reintroduce the deleted passages you think most worth retaining? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us let Verbal respond. I have left a note on his talk page. Mitsube (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't originally remove this but I support the original editors removal and reasons. There is no 3rd party source for this para, and this section is already long with few sources and other examples given. These are just a few reasons. Verbal chat 08:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A reporter describing peer-reviewed research is a 3rd party. Mitsube (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A fringe source being used to give undue weight to a fringe position. Note that John reverted by mistake (see my talk) and does not support your position. You should replace the NPOV tag and improving edits I made at the very least, as there is ongoing discussion about the neutrality (or lack of it) in this article. Are you aware of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:COI? Verbal chat 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you try to rephrase this? Mitsube (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

James Randi Educational Foundation

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a WP:RS. If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it to WP:RSN, but note that they have often been found to meet our criteria. Also note that WP:BLP applies to edit summaries. Verbal chat 05:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By what criterion is it reliable? The burden is on the editor who wishes to include information. Mitsube (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least the JREF meets the "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." However, JREF is considered reliable anyway and meets WP:RS. Unless you have a specific problem I imagine the material will be restored. Verbal chat 10:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the passive voice in a sentence claiming reliability does not establish reliability. Have this (unqualified) man's articles been published by academic presses, as have those of the researcher he was quoted as critiquing? At least Carol Bowman has a master's degree in psychology. Mitsube (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Here, in Nature, for example. Master's Degrees are no guarantee of quality output. (If you've done a masters, consider everyone you knew doing a masters at the same time.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nature is not an academic press, it is a popular magazine. You are proving my point. Mitsube (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nature is a very prestigious journal. Have a look at our article, Nature (journal). Verbal chat 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about the journal. I think VsevolodKrolikov had the wrong James Randi, however. That article is about astronomy. Mitsube (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the right James Randi, and that is a very famous paper showing that the water memory hypothesis of Homeopathy is bunk. Verbal chat 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Apologies for the accidental revert here [4]. While viewing recent diffs it seems I mistakenly hit the rollback button. I went in to revert back but Verbal had beaten me to it.

I'm posting this because I know feelings are running high on the page at the moment. Please keep cool guys and we will surely end up with a better article. I'm taking this page off my watchlist for now... Time for bed I think... Johnfos (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and fringe problems

Raised at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Verbal chat 08:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

More work is needed. For example, material such as "The fallibility of memory" should be integrated into the article, not ghettoized into a criticism section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• Criticism sections are helpful in articles where different editors have very different views on a subject--assignment of turf helps keep the peace. Let's keep that tradition intact here, please.
• The only people who actually do research on reincarnation are the University of Virginia group--they are tenured faculty at a prestigious university, and are not people to be dismissed lightly. The skeptics mentioned here are not actually doing research on reincarnation--they are looking at the published reports and trying to figure out what could be wrong with the research and why the conclusions could be wrong. They are not actually interviewing children to find out why those kids know those things about a deceased person. The insights of the skeptics are valuable and belong in this article, but should hardly be highlighted. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Turf" is exactly the kind of ownership we need to avoid. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there are guidleines about ghettoising criticism. For your second point, see WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the previously mentioned position that sceptics have attempted to disprove reincarnation by finding flaws in the methodology of the research rather than by researching directly I have to add: attempting to find flaws in research methodology that could potentially discredit an hypothesis is a fundamental part of the scientific process. Past Life Regression studies have a history of being seriously flawed.Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, critiquing methodology is a part of science. But not all critiques are equally valuable. Postmodernist critiques of physics, radical Marxist critiques of neoclassical economics, and so on, are worthless. I'm not particularly impressed by the critiques of the Univ of Virginia work--it seems that Stevenson and his team have already considered the points raised by the critics. In fact, I find Stevenson well within the spirit of Hume's treatment of Miracles: the miraculous is considered a plausible explanation only when all other explanations have been shown to be insufficient.

As for past life regression studies, I don't think anyone seriously considers them "science".--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what critiques you personally feel have worth the issue remains that an uncritical treatment of past life regression - a flawed pseudoscience based on spiritualist presuppositions is not impartial.Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To add to what Verbal expressed re WP:FRINGE, we have plenty of sources that show reincarnation is viewed by mainstream science as a pseudoscientific belief and the article needs to properly frame UofV et al's "research" within that context. Ghettoizing criticism and cherry-picking favorable data isn't acceptable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientists are skeptical, but every scientist has her own area of expertise-- there is no "mainstream science" that has made up its mind about reincarnation. Most scientists, when asked about their view of reincarnation, would respond that they can't give an expert opinion, because it's outside their area of research--just as you would respond, when asked about the genesis of prions, or the emission of light from black holes, that you don't really know, but the people doing the research seem competent, and that you overall trust their conclusions. Those few scientists who have tried to investigate reincarnation are mentioned in the article. They are senior faculty at a good university; they are physicians (not psychologists); they don't appear to have a religious agenda. They seem competent and it's not hard to trust their conclusions--conclusions which are generally favorable to reincarnation.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For Mitsube, this is the NPOV tag discussion (plus the thread on FTN). However, the article is now much better than it was. There are still problems however, and the Ian Stevenson article is also in need of improvement. Verbal chat 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pssible copyvio issues

An editor has pointed out that there may be a (or even several) copyvios on this page. See the FTN report for details: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Reincarnation research 2. Verbal chat 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

These are both fairly blatant so I have removed them per policy. Verbal chat 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who introduced this material, so I'll leave a pointer to WP:COPYVIO here. Verbal chat 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiBlame is a useful tool for searching past revisions. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The material was attributed. The last was your fifth revert in 24 hours. I encourage you to restore the material, changing the wording slightly if you wish, or I will report your 3rr vio. Mitsube (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Material should be quoted directly, or rewritten in your own words. This was a clear copyright violation. The 3RR policy relates to the addition or removal of the same material. Verbal is on 2 full reverts at present, so I'd consul him to be careful. However, your reverts are also worrying, as you appear to show ownership tendencies towards this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and Verbal knows that. Mitsube (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since 3rr is being routinely ignored and an admin would likely just say "user warned and article locked" I won't bother with it. I would appreciate it if Verbal, as a sign of contrition, would post a 3rr warning on his own talk page (for a change). Mitsube (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it seems relevant here, copyvio issues overrule 3RR. See Wikipedia:Edit war#Exceptions to 3RR. Sifaka ^talk 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, they were blatant copyright violations hence I removed them. Removing vandalism and copyright violations are exempt from 3RR. That accounts for two of my "reverts". a third was undoing an accidental revert of another editor who apologised to me. I will not restore the material as per WP:COPYVIO that would make me culpable. Verbal chat 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (2)

Verbal, please explain your source. There is nothing about reincarnation research on the page you linked. Mitsube (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added citations and merged to the section on hypnosis and reincarnation research. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are the books and articles on the pages linked, not the webpages - those are just the abstracts. Verbal chat 07:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard practice is to give the page number so it can be verified that the source makes the statement. Mitsube (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is for books, perhaps, but often references are used several times and including page numbers can be difficult. Also, it isn't normal in academic referencing. Finally, when the ref is available electronically you can simply use the search function. Verbal chat 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't difficult. Please give the page numbers for the ideas you are quoting so as to prove that you are not making it up, which is the impression you are giving by your evasive answers. Even better, give the full quote here as done below. Mitsube (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That a reference "is not available except for a fee-not even the abstract" is not a valid reason for removing it if it is a WP:RS which meets WP:V. If there are free refs then fine, but most academic papers are behind such paywalls. Verbal chat 13:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For an abstruse scientific result, you are right, it might be available only in a single article behind a paywall, and we would have to cite that article. But a sweeping generalization "reincarnation research is pseudoscience", should be out there in thousands of books and articles, if it is true. If all you can find is an incidental statement in a minor journal, then the generalization cannot be true. I think the way out is to find a place where Martin Gardner or some other highly reputable science writer describes reincarnation research as "pseudoscience". Then we simply say, much as the article says now, that "some science writers like Martin Gardner describe reincarnation research as pseudoscience".--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the google scholar link above, and the other references that were removed. In addition, the source is an WP:RS and the balance is required by WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong? How so? Which google scholar link? Which other references? You are maddeningly cryptic.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here the part of the Kurtz paper that discusses Stevenson. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A second popular area that illustrates the same point is the reemergence of reincarnation. This classical doctrine presented in Hindu, Buddhist, and ancient Egyptian literature, and indeed even in Greek philosophy, held thatthe soul was separable from the body, preexisted birth, and will exist as separated from the body after death. Similarly, animals and plants were said to

be possessed of souls. Upon death the soul could be transformed from one organism to another and could be released only after a period of time. This was dependent upon karma, the behavior of a person in his past lives. Interestingly, these doctrines, held on a basis of faith, have now been given some kind of pseudoscientific credence by a number of parapsychologists and psychiatrists, and reincarnation is presented by the media as if it has been verified by science. For example, Ian Stevenson, American doctor and former president of the Parapsychological Society, maintains that there is evidence for this claim, especially in India, based upon the memories of young children of their previous lives.

You are stretching this quote way out of its sense and importance. A doctrine "been given some kind of pseudoscientific credence" is not enough to label the whole field pseudoscience, even if Stevenson is mentioned (though not his compelling birthmark evidence). Mitsube (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The field is not described as pseudoscience, the article states that the field "has been described as pseudoscience". This statement is an unarguable fact, as people have made that statement. Do you see the difference? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian theologians

A reference was recently removed with the edit summary saying they are "Christian theologians". I don't see how this justifies the removal of a WP:RS. Please revert or explain. Verbal chat 13:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that one. It's not removed, it's moved, out of the lede. Trying to keep the lede as a summary of the article, not a place where arguments are presented. Actually, that article is not a serious source. Take a look at it--amateur probability theory, an explanation of experimental design for theological students. Any research team at a major medical school would include a professional statistician--their knowledge of experimental design would much exceed the level of the E&B article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find other academic reviews of Stevenson et al's work, feel free to add them. The article presently has a serious over-reliance on primary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Flaws of the Stephenson Study

These are common criticisms of the stephenson study that have been routinely deleted from the article, I'd like to know why:

1) Non-disprovability of Reincarnation Hypothesis:

This, right here, puts the stephenson study into pseudoscience. He does not set a null hypothesis - that reincarnation does not occur - and disprove it. Instead he tries to collect evidence which, by his own admission, is inconclusive of the presence of reincarnation.

2) Failure to control for false positives:

Stephenson had no adequate method for controlling for deliberately misleading accounts and for coincidence. By depending on solicited personal accounts he also significantly limited both his sample size and the randomness of the sample. The pattern of hunting out stories that could possibly match sometimes vague accounts and using them as confirmation invites additional false positives.

3) Discarding of contravening accounts:

Stephenson has been criticized for not including accounts that turned out to NOT support the reincarnation hypothesis.

4) Failure to adhere to occam's razor:

Two entities being assumed when only one necessary. Classic failure to adhere to occam's razon.

There are references available and these criticisms have previously been included with citations. They have ended up deleted. Why?Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For your number 1: Evolution by natural selection can also not be falsified (Popper pointed this out)-- is it pseudoscience? I think your numbers 2 and 3 are important--try to find good sources critiquing Stevenson for these and we can work them into the article. Your number 4 is a bit opaque--what are the "two entities" you mention?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually evolution by a variety of natural mechanisms, including natural selection, can be falsified through experiment with organisms with short life-spans (eg: bacteria) Popper is not the end all of knowledge. That aside the two entities referred to are a "soul" and a "body" separate from the soul. The survival of one after the other implies a separation - thus two entities. This is unnecessary and spurious.Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh--you can falsify the theory of evolution with an experiment? I think you mean "demonstrate". --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Point conceded until such time as I can find evidence of my position. However my other points stand.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point 4 doesn't seem like such a great criticism either. When two bodies exist at different points in time, and you posit a connection between the two bodies, one necessarily needs a third entity to provide the connection. I think you need to focus on points 2 and 3---as I said, they seem like valid and important criticisms. If you have good sources we can put them in the article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable, which deals with this myth in detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! A nice discussion and I feel a bit humbled. Nevertheless, I think opinions still differ on this. Haldane's comment (later echoed by Dawkins) that "fossil rabbits in the PreCambrian would disprove evolution" would more likely provoke insistence that the fossil was fraudulent or the paleontologists incompetent (it's even discussed here). Kind of like the reaction that ardent secularists have when they encounter Stevenson's research :). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These points are very interesting. #1 being over, I might, without thinking too much, take a go at the rest (I have no particular opinion on this subject).

2 - Actually several points. (a) Stevenson does confirm the stories with other people and checks for objective data when it exists. (b) Coinciding data used for each case is well beyond just a couple of "coincidences". (c) Solicited verbal accounts are indeed a problem. They're also called interviews and you have to know how to make them without influencing the subject. A psychiatrist is expected to be competent at making such an interview. (d) The vagueness of stories is not always that much. It would be nicer if they really could be less vague, but nevertheless many contain very factually verifiable points.

3 - That's a problem no science has solved yet: publication bias.

4 - I never read that Stevenson postulated the existence of a second entity (maybe a soul?), that's for the theologians. I haven't read all of Stevenson, of course, and don't intend to. At some point, though, we either admit a new "something", which might not be a thing but a process, or Occam's Razor will chop our legs off. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic

Skeptic and critic are not synonyms in this article. Christians and Muslims join skeptics in objecting to a belief in reincarnation--they are also critics. Can we say skeptic when we mean skeptic? I think Paul Kurtz should be described as a "skeptical philosopher", not simply as a "philosopher". Verbal disagrees, for reasons he has not stated. My view is that there are all kinds of philosophers, that Kurtz is most definitely a particular type, and knowing what type he is helps the reader to evaluate his view. Same issue for Richard Rockley--he is a "skeptical journalist", since that is what he does. Perhaps Verbal can explain why he keeps reverting the word "skeptic"? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you bring reliable sources for the classifications here then we can discuss them. All journalists, scientists, philosophers, etc should be sceptical to some degree, so just putting the word in doesn't really help. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to adding our own adjectives to describe people, this applies to "prominent philosophers", "skeptical journalists", "famous scientists" etc. Unless we have a good source describing somebody as XYZ, then we stick to the simplest and most descriptive noun we can find - their job title. Alternatively, if we have to classify people, then we will have to describe our sources as either "skeptical journalists" or "credulous journalists", I don't think that would aid our attempts to reach NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work and the journal's credulous editor described Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious investigator."
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work and the journal's naive editor described Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious investigator.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's work and the journal's gullible editor described Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious investigator."

New age

I've taken out the silly description of astrology as a "new age belief" since it isn't and neither source provided says that it is. Please don't keep adding the claim that astrology is a new age belief when neither source supports it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Burberry southsea (talk • contribs)

Yes, I suppose astrology has been with us for a long time, although some sources do class reincarnation belief as part of "new age" ideologies, for example link and this book notes reincarnation belief as a major part of some New Age systems. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, of course, but reincarnation is around at least since the Buddha. New Age appropriated itself of many terms it hardly was able to digest.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism do a pretty good job explaining the difference between providing credit for an author's idea and substantively stealing their presentation. Please read and understand them. This edit misunderstands the point; making minor changes from the cited source does not make a piece of prose your own work. Compare those two paragraphs - it was rewritten, not summarized or integrated into the article. As a rule of thumb, if your text could have been produced from the original by simply running it through a babelfish a couple times, it is plagiarism and only slightly less inappropriate than flat out stealing someone's words without attribution. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please quote for me a policy which says that rewording something and sourcing it can still be considered copyright violations or plagiarism. This is news to me. Mitsube (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also avoid misleading edit summaries, and editwarring. Please propose the text you want to add with a justification, or link to a diff of it and provide justification of the addition and your reasoning as to why it is no longer a copyvio (note, copyvio was only the immediate reason for removal). Verbal chat 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of that section, the edit summary was clear. You simply failed to understand it because you did not look carefully at the new material I added. Mitsube (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between summarizing a source and obfuscating someone else's original idea with your words. A point-by-point recapitulation with slight variations in word choice and sentence breaks is paraphrasing too closely, and is not an original contribution. To write Every family that is happy experiences the same happiness, but every family that is unhappy experiences its own unique brand of misery.^{ref=Anna Karenina} would be unacceptable, as that is substantively the same as (though less poetic than) the opening line. This is not based on some idiosyncratic Wikipedia definition of plagiarism, but you should really read the policy and the guideline I link above, Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism, respectively, and the associated essays and sources. The Signpost recently covered the point with some nicely accessible examples. The point is subtle in its execution, but glaring in the intellectual processes involved in the process of information transfer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The essay you pointed me to doesn't change my mind. The material was cited, and wasn't creative work, but simply relaying facts. Would giving the reporter's name and the newspaper solve the problem for you? I have no problem with that. In general, it would be preferable if editors simply attributed instead of reverting on this page. Mitsube (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional input requested here. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

←You ask for a pointer to policy: WP:C, Wikipedia's core copyright policy: "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." More on this is viewable at Wikipedia's copyright FAQ, which says, "Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation." In evaluating copyright infringement, the US government utilizes a "substantial similarity" test intended to determine if infringement exists. Melville Nimmer produced subcategories of "substantial similarity" for which the court search. In the first, they look for "fragmented literal similarity", checking for phrases and passages copied from the original text. Unless such phrases are defensible as fair use, their presence is a strong indicator of infringement. (Note that on Wikipedia, such phrases must always conform to our non-free content guideline.) Even non-fiction text is, so far as the courts are concerned, "creative" in terms of copyright protection. It is the reporter's own choice to use the language and the structure he or she has selected. The facts are not copyrighted, but the phrasing and structure of his or her presentation of them are. One could say, for example, "Stevenson chronicled the case of a Beirut boy who described his life as a 25-year-old mechanic in minute detail, down to the names of friends and relatives and the particulars of his death in an automobile accident. Such a man was found to have existed and to have predeceased the boy by several years, though there was no clear reason that the boy or his family should have known about this man." This is just one way that such material could be recast. Other details may be deemed important, or other structure, but the point is that we do not have to...and should not...appropriate the reporter's words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion were the words appropriated in the most recent version? Mitsube (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most recent cut a little too close to the source. Mind you, determining substantial similarity is something that lawyers can argue over for years, but Wikipedia tends to take a conservative path with regards to copyrighted materials (and hence the restrictions of WP:NFC). Sometimes, one can paraphrase a bit more closely with an inline attribution ("according to Shroder", for example), but that gets really convoluted when one is dealing with somebody paraphrasing somebody else. I believe that in order to create a new copyright which can be licensed as required by Wikipedia, more dramatic changes to structure and language are required. The structure of the original is substantially similar, and there are some runs of completely duplicated text. I believe that a typical person reading this would not only find fragmented literal similarity, but also find a substantially similar concept and feel. A complete overhaul safely complies with Wikipedia's policies while still allowing us to use the facts, though we may lose a bit of detail. The perils of being a tertiary source. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag and review of article

I'm returning to this page after being away for a while, and am adding a POV tag as the article is not neutral and is very negative about the subject of reincarnation research. The very first paragraph of the article puts the cart before the horse, in that it articulates criticism and controversy before the basic research has been discussed.

Stevenson's work is not given a balanced and neutral treatment, and there are several references to situations where Stevenson "attempted to" do this and do that. This sort of language immediately casts doubt on the veracity of Stevenson's research. Stevenson's work is presented in a cursory and dismissive way:

• 1) Absent from this article is a basic overview of the typical pattern of Stevenson's cases. This is how Stevenson decribed the basic features of his cases:
  • "The best evidence supporting the belief in reincarnation comes from the cases of young children who, typically between the ages of 2 and 5, make statements about a previous life they claim to have had before being born. Their statements are often accompanied by behaviour that is unusual for their family but appropriate for the life that the child claims to remember." p. 225
  • There is often a "forgetting of the imaged memories between the ages of 5 and 8; a high incidence of violent death claimed in the claimed previous life; and mention of the mode of death by the subject."p. 225
  • "Some 35 per cent of the subjects have birthmarks or birth defects. In the majority of these cases the subject's marks of defects correspond to injuries or illness experienced by the deceased peron who the subject remembers; and medical documents have confirmed this correspondence in more than forty cases."p. 224

• 2). Investigation of birthmarks and birth defects is a significant part of Stevenson's work, yet it receives only one paragraph of discussion in this article, and no mention in the lead. The phrase "has attempted to match" to describe Stevenson's approach in this area is not neutral. Perhaps there should be a separate section on Stevenson's birthmarks and birth defects work as it often involved autopsy reports and hospital reports, and so was something different.

• 3) The article emphasises that many of Stevenson's cases are from foreign cultures such as India, where people already believe in reincarnation for religious reasons. But it does not mention that Stevenson also did work in the West and published the book European Cases of the Reincarnation Type in 2003.

• 4). More information about the depth and breadth of Stevenson's work is needed, mentioning more of Stevenson's books in the main text rather than just in the Bibliography, perhaps along the lines of what the New York Times obituary said:
  • "Logging tens of thousands of miles each year, Dr. Stevenson recorded more than 2,500 cases, which he published in a series of technical books. Among them are “Cases of the Reincarnation Type” (University Press of Virginia, 1975-1983); “Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation” (University Press of Virginia, 1987); and his major work, “Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects” (Praeger, 1997), at 2,268 pages." [5]

• 5). Stevenson's methodology is criticised, which is fine, yet his "painstaking protocol" [6] is apparently not articulated in this article. The use of the term "anecdotal reports" to describe Stevenson's "cases" is dismissive and not neutral.

• 6). Criticism of Stevenson's work from many people is presented but author Tom Shroder's assessment of Stevenson's work is not mentioned. Shroder travelled with Stevenson for a time, (at his own expense) while Stevenson conducted fieldwork, and then Shroder wrote the book Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives. [7]
• 7). Skeptic's Dictionary is definitely reliable as a source for skeptical viewpoints, but SkepticReport looks like WP:SELFPUB would apply [8].

• 8). In the Research on reincarnation beliefs section reincarnation is being portrayed as some sort of fringe belief, which is held mainly by those who have suffered psychological trauma. The lead section speaks of "a possible link between psychological trauma and a belief in reincarnation". Yet, although it is not mentioned in the article, Stevenson has clearly put reincarnation beliefs into context by saying:

• • "The belief is held (with variations in details) by adherents of almost all major religions except Christianity and Islam. In addition, members of many Shi'ite Muslim groups believe in reincarnation, and between 20 and 30 percent of persons in western countries who may be nominal Christians also believe in reincarnation. Although reincarnation is not a feature of orthodox Judaism, the branch of Hasidic Jews believe in it. Ethnologists have documented the belief among nearly all the traditional religions of ethnic groups in Africa, North and South America, and Australia/Oceania. The tribes of north-west North America continue to believe in reincarnation despite negative attitudes towards it on the part of Christian missionaries and churches. The nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer offered a definition of Europe as that part of the world where the inhabitants did not believe in reincarnation". p. 224

• 9). What is the source for this statement: "One of the most prominent organizations is the International Centre for Survival and Reincarnation Researches, in India, headed by Kirti Rawat". I would have thought the University of Virginia work was much more prominent. Of the work that has been done in India, Satwant Pasricha is a notable researcher, but her work doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main text of this article.

In terms of both presentation and content, this article has skewed coverage and serious POV problems. It really does seem that someone has "an axe to grind" and is pushing a skeptics POV... -- Johnfos (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there are some problems with this article, I do not think the POV tag is justified. Following WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, and and WP:FRINGE, this article should be critical - by giving the mainstream perspective prominence. The article is also much better than it was a month ago. Much much better. Verbal chat 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The current introduction is a shambles. It consists of little more than name calling. Absolutely awful.Noirtist (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

— Noirtist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I participated in the rewrite, and in some ways I agree with Verbal, the article seems better--it's more coherent and there is the new section on psychological research on the causes and consequences of reincarnation belief. But I agree with John, as well, the editors who did the rewrite (at least one an admin) did highlight critical views of the Stevenson research. As Verbal acknowledged above, those editors felt justified since they believe that research on reincarnation is fringe, and that the "mainstream perspective" should be given prominence. The problem with Verbal's view, though, is that there is no scientific "mainstream perspective" on reincarnation--science is not a commissariat that passes out decrees on what is and what is not true--it is a collection of individuals, each working on their own research. And those individuals working on reincarnation include, prominently, Stevenson. When Verbal and Tim and others try to bring in their "mainstream perspective" they can do no better than invoke philosophers like Paul Kurtz or bloggers like Richard Rockley--men who have never done any scientific research on reincarnation. What privileges their perspective over Stevenson, an endowed professor of psychiatry at a major US medical school?

Would it be possible for the rest of us to step back a bit and see what John can make of this?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Anton Eff's assessment that there is no mainstream view on the matter. The following sources are written by scientists/psychologists who have analyzed reincarnation research. From The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience By Michael Shermer, Pat Linse, Chapter: anomalous psychological experiences, pages 25-30. Link to description of book.

"In general, those with a high degree of scientific training are less likely to have an anomalous experience and are less likely to believe in paranormal explanations for such phenomena [includes reincarnation] than those with limited scientific background."

"A significant proportion of the general public and a small minority of scientists believe that anomalous psychological experiences [includes reincarnation] represent actual paranormal or supernatural phenomena."

It's probably worth it to read the chapter using google preview. See the above link.

Also of use may be the book Varieties Of Anomalous Experience: Examining The Scientific Evidence edited by Etzel Cardena, Steven Jay Lynn, and Stanley Krippner. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2000. Pp. xi + 320. ISBN 1-55798-625-8. Note the publisher is the American Psychological Association (APA) Quoting a review of the book:

"Past-life experiences (PLEs) are addressed by Antonia Mills and Steven Jay Lynn, focusing on cases occurring spontaneously in childhood. After summarizing the literature on the characteristics of PLE experients (they tend to be better socially adapted than other children in public but more argumentative and withdrawn when at home; they usually grow up to function normally), they weigh possible explanations, including paranormal ones. They are respectful but skeptical of the evidence for either reincarnation or psi theories of the PLE. A key problem is how to quantify the likelihood that correspondences between a PLE experient's [sic] statements and features of their supposed 'previous life' are not due to chance. The same challenge holds for matches between birthmarks and wounds allegedly sustained in the 'past life.'"

These sources will probably be useful for sourcing the general acceptance or the belief in reincarnation among scientists. Also they discuss the psychological profile of people who tend to give reincarnation accounts and also offer up various non-paranormal explanations for the phenomena. (8 on the list above).Sifaka ^talk 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sifaka, thank you for producing these useful sources. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks good! I like the sentence "They are respectful but skeptical of the evidence for either reincarnation or psi theories of the PLE". I think Stevenson is also "respectful but skeptical"--that is, he never claims that he has demonstrated the existence of reincarnation, but he concedes that reincarnation remains a viable hypothesis for some of his cases. A "respectful but skeptical" tone would be appropriate for this article, don't you think?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added with the claim "the article is not neutral and is very negative about the subject of reincarnation research" -- per WP:FRINGE we must not mislead readers into thinking a fringe topic is accepted by the scientific community as valid. NPOV does nto mean "give each side equal time" it means we have to weigh the experts by both their numbers and their expertise. Doing so means this article has to acknowledge that reincarnation research is not considered scientific, and to do otherwise is to outright push the POV of an extreme minority view. As the reason for adding the tag directly contradicts our NPOV policy, I have removed the tag. DreamGuy (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

9 detailed points were made above regarding why this is not NPOV. Almost none of them have even been addressed.Burberry southsea (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

— Burberry southsea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Only 7 and 9 are potential problems, the others have been addressed or can be addressed here, or are irrelevant to the POV tag. This article is much improved over its previous state. I don't think the tag is justified. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are still very relevant, and we need to avoid wp:peacock terms and puffery. Also, 1 to 6 are specifically about Stevenson, who is not the topic of this article. We already have an article on him, and shouldn't give him too much space here. Verbal chat 16:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that article does not present the topic in a NPOV way. It seems to give undue prominence to the views of skeptics. When I search the sources, the tone does not seem consistent with this weight and, for example, I see the work of Professor Stewart described as "straightforwardly scientific" (Metaphors and action schemes: some themes in intellectual history p. 254). I have accordingly restored the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• It now occurs to me to wonder why this page exists at all. We would not normally separate the research upon a topic from the main topic itself and so this article seems to be a WP:POVFORK of Reincarnation#Scientific research. Attack pages are normally considered unacceptable here, especially if there is a focus upon an living person such as Professor Stewart. I shall nominate the article for speedy deletion on these grounds to see if an admin agrees. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:POINT. Please stop your ridiculously disruptive editing. Verbal chat 09:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• An editor has removed the speedy deletion tag. He didn't give a reason but is, I gather an admin, so I suppose we should consider the speedy to have been declined. We might now consider taking the matter to AFD but first should discuss whether there is anything worth saving and whether a merge discussion might be better. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the speedy deletion tag, because "serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity." is plainly not the case. I am not, nor have I ever been, (or claimed to be) an administrator.  pablo_hablo. 09:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) edited to clarify which tag I meant  pablo_hablo. 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Colonel Warden and Mitsube [9] that this article gives undue prominence to the views of skeptics, and so am restoring the POV tag. This tag should not be removed until the dispute is settled. Johnfos (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree as well. Here's a rephrase of the first paragraph:

X research is the study of X. Some of it's paranormal and involves discourse. It's controversial. Skeptics A and B say it's pseudoscience[1][2]. Skeptic C says it reminds him of aliens![3][4] What's more, studies say you're psychologically damaged to believe in X.

Four skeptic refs and two fingers at reincarnation-based religions in, there's barely one line describing what the research involves, and zero references to researchers. Blatant pov fork. K2709 (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any policies being broken by giving the mainstream view of reincarnation research WP:DUE prominence. There is also a lot of coverage of Stevenson and his groups activities. This article was initially a POV fork with overly credulous and sympathetic coverage of Stevenson et al. This has now been appropriately balanced, and accusations of it being an attack page and attempts to delete it that way are clearly rediculous. We should not censor wikipedia by not covering the prominent, mainstream, scientific actuality of the state of this research and how it is regarded - despite the activities of a few editors who are trying to whitewash and misrepresent reincarnation research and Ian Stevenson related articles. We follow the WP:RS. They say this topic is WP:FRINGE. WP:NPOV insists we correctly cover the subject and not mislead readers. This is an encyclopedia. Unless specific issues are brought the tag should go. If you think this is a POV fork start an RFC. Indefinite tagging is not the way to go here whrn the coverage is accurate! Verbal chat 13:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)