Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Ian Stevenson

Edit request

Someone please add a sentence using this as a reference here. I dunno how.

Original research deleted in lead

I have deleted the last four sentences of the lead.

We can leave aside whether the passage gave undue weight to negative assessments. With one exception, the statements given go beyond what the sources cited for them say. They fail verification and therefore constitute original research.

The passage said:

Stevenson based his research on anecdotal case reports that were dismissed by the scientific community as unreliable because Stevenson did no controlled experimental work. His case reports were also criticized as they contained errors and omissions. Critics contend that ultimately Stevenson's conclusions are undermined by confirmation bias, mistakes, and motivated reasoning. Supporters of his work include Jim B. Tucker, a psychiatrist and colleague at the University of Virginia who now heads the division Stevenson founded.

Sentence One is not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that.

The same is true for Sentence Two. One might perhaps say that Angel (the source cited) criticized the reports for having errors and omissions. But that’s not what the sentence says, and in any event it’s hard to see why one man’s opinion should be singled out for inclusion in the lead.

Sentence Three is again not upheld by the source. The source doesn’t say that critics contend what the sentence says they do.

Sentence Four is accurate and sourced below in the article itself. But merely to report that Stevenson’s supporters include Jim Tucker doesn’t tell us much and doesn’t seem worthy of a place in the lead.

Although saying that Stevenson’s supporters saw him as a “misunderstood genius” might overstate things a bit, Magalit Fox’s quote from The NY Times concisely sums up how Stevenson’s work has been received. We don’t need more.

(My deletion loses a mention of another critique by Leonard Angel. I'll restore that in a separate edit.)

If other editors disagree, let’s please discuss.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, you have made overly promotional biased edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies. See below. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sentence One is not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that". Wrong, here the abstract to the source:

This article reviews the research of “top rebirth scientist” Ian Stevenson on spontaneous past-life memory cases, focusing on three key problems with Stevenson’s work. First, his research of entirely anecdotal case reports contains a number of errors and omissions. Second, like other reincarnation researchers, Stevenson has done no controlled experimental work on such cases; yet only such research could ever resolve whether the correspondences found between a child’s statements and a deceased person’s life exceed what we might find by chance. Finally, the best reincarnation research should at least meet the standards met by typical empirical research, but Stevenson’s methodology does not even meet the standards expected of third- or fourth-year college students. [1]

You are mispresenting sources that are critical of Stevenson's work and you have been deleting them from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional edits

O Govinda has been editing this article for about a year removing reliable sources critical of Ian Stevenson's work, inventing false claims of original research if a source criticizes Stevenson's reincarnation research, inserting unreliable sources that are "supportive" of Stevenson etc, claiming that the reception of his work was mixed with only limited opponents. The outcome was this [2]. "Dismissal without consideration", "Openness" and a giant "support" section citing many sources from unreliable figures.

This is bad case of WP:COI, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE editing. There needs to be more eyes on this article. The edits to the "support" section [3] are mostly UNDUE. This user has gone throughout history to try and find anybody who supports Ian Stevenson's work no matter how dodgy the source. The outcome was a hodge-podge of unreliable sources, non-specialists being cited. You also do not need to put MD on the article after citing someone, or list the person's employment details, this looks like argument from authority. I do not oppose a "support" section but it should be well-sourced, not just citing anyone for the sake of it to boost up Stevenson's reception. This is some of the most biased editing I have seen in a long time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue raised at WP:FTN Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP:Fringe Theories Noticeboard

I am copying below the discussion referred to above from the WP:Fringe Theories Noticeboard. My thanks to Psychologist Guy for informing me of this discussion.


Promotional edits by a reincarnation believer on Ian Stevenson

O Govinda has been adding tonnes of promotional and WP:Fringe sources at Ian Stevenson and removing sources critical of Stevenson's work. This has been going on since September. I have been bold and reverted their edits. See talk-page discussion. c (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I read that article recently and did feel like the whole "dismissal without consideration" and some other things there had some pro-fringe sentiment behind them. VdSV9•♫ 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial effort from one editor that has been ongoing for at least a decade or more. It begins with innocuous edits like formatting citations, cleaning dead links, improving grammar, etc. If there is no response, next very subtle POV shifts are introduced, slight watering down of criticism, etc. If there is still no response, then critical material is trimmed and credulous or supportive material is given primary weight. At this point, usually someone steps in, reverts all the edits, and the article goes dormant again for a few years, only to begin the same cycle again. I was about to do the revert when Psychologist Guy beat me to it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a type of stealth editing to make some slow minor edits but over time keep adding until the biased POV gets more and more. In general I am not a deletionist, over at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I supported a user's re-write of the entire article which was at first controversial. If edits (even controversial) are supported by good sourcing then that I will back them but in this case the sourcing is badly cherry-picked and mostly irrelevant fringe sources from non-specialists, there was a serious UNDUE problem. It's also concerning that this user claims on the talk-page that information cited to a critical source is "not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that". Yet when you click on the source [4] the text matched perfectly. The user removed the content without any consensus [5] claiming incorrectly in their edit summary "Verifications failed. Deleted OR". It's hard to come to any other conclusion that this was not done in good-faith because this material does not fail verification nor is WP:OR. This is a case of deleting sources they dislike and leaving false edit summaries. This isn't at the level of ANI yet but there has been a repeated pattern on and off regarding this type of behaviour on their account going back years from what I could see. If it continues into 2025 a topic ban may be appropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar cycle that happens on Talk:Parapsychology every year or so, a push to 'right the great wrong' of not recognizing parapsychology as a science, citing AAAS, Etzel Cardena, etc. It's currently in the ascendant phase now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits and behaviors

Reviewing what occurred

The extent of the edits

On December 6, without prior discussion, Psychologist Guy, being bold, deleted from various parts of this article 16,703 bytes of text. On the same day, he was joined by ජපස (jps), who deleted another 1,009. The edits undid roughly a year’s worth of work by me and other editors.

Again that same day, Psychologist Guy (as he courteously informed me) notified our colleagues on the WP: Fringe Theories Noticeboard of what he had done, under the heading “Promotional edits by a reincarnation believer on Ian Stevenson.” Editors active there voiced their approval, especially LuckyLouie (a user with 27,049 edits), who wrote, “I was about to do the revert when Psychologist Guy beat me to it.”

Notice and threat

The same day, coincidentally or not, a user I have not seen editing the Stevenson article posted a template-based notice on my Talk page to introduce me to Contentious Topics and inform me that for such topics “Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced.” Editors, the notice said, “should edit carefully and constructively [emphasis in original], refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia,” and follow various other best practices. The notice also said, “Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.” I found the notice informative and helpful.

Two days later, another user I have not seen here posted on my Talk page, “Your repeated editing of this article to be more favourable to WP:FRINGE ideas over the course of a nearly a decade, biding your time to re-edit the article once the immediate objection has subsided, is disruptive. If you do this again, I will take you to ANI.”

Edit summaries and Talk-page comments

Psychologist Guy, for each of his edits, provided a brief summary. The deletion of 14,000+ bytes was due to “promotional and WP:Fringe edits.” For the other edits the summaries were “undue weight,” “MDPI predatory journal,” “Remove weak source; this is nothing but a footnote,” “remove unnecessary,” “remove promotional list of books in the lead,” and also, when he restored most of two sentences he had deleted, “restore two sources that pass WP:RS.”

On the article’s Talk page, Psychologist Guy was a bit more informative. I had deleted four sentences from the lead and had explained on the Talk page why. I had concluded, “If other editors disagree, please let’s discuss.” Psychologist Guy reverted my edit and wrote, “Disagree, you have made overly promotional biased edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies. See below.”

Below, he responded that I was wrong in asserting a source-citation mismatch. To uphold this view he provided a summary of what the source had said. He concluded, “You are misrepresenting sources that are critical of Stevenson's work and you have been deleting them from the article.”

Psychologist Guy then added a new Talk section—”Promotional edits”—making the following points about my editing over the past year:

  1. I had been “removing reliable sources critical of Ian Stevenson's work.”
  2. I had been “inventing false claims of original research if a source criticizes Stevenson's reincarnation research.”
  3. I had been “inserting unreliable sources that are ‘supportive’ of Stevenson, etc, claiming that the reception of his work was mixed with only limited opponents.”
  4. The outcome was the sections “Dismissal without consideration” and “Openness” and “a giant ‘support’ section citing many sources from unreliable figures.”
  5. My work was a “bad case of WP:COI, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE editing.”
  6. My additions to the “support” section were mostly WP:UNDUE.
  7. I had “gone throughout history to try and find anybody who supports Ian Stevenson's work no matter how dodgy the source.”
  8. “The outcome was a hodge-podge of unreliable sources, non-specialists being cited.”
  9. I “do not need to put MD on the article after citing someone, or list the person's employment details, this looks like argument from authority.”

(Here I don’t wish to discuss the extent to which Psychologist Guy’s points might or might not be valid. I am just recounting the history.)

Psychologist Guy concludes, “I do not oppose a ‘support’ section but it should be well-sourced, not just citing anyone for the sake of it to boost up Stevenson's reception. This is some of the most biased editing I have seen in a long time.”

Deletions

Comments and edit summaries aside, what did Psychologist Guy’s edits consist of? They are wide-ranging and so extensive that I admit I have a hard time seeing clearly what he has done. But, for a start, let’s look at some of the sources whose cited views (and the citations themselves) he has deleted.

Let’s start with sources deleted from the “Support” section. He deleted the words of

  • A reporter writing in The Washington Post.
  • A well-credentialed Stevenson colleague, writing in an edited volume published by Columbia University Press.
  • A professor of religious studies at the College of Charleston, writing in the mainstream journal Religions.
  • A celebrated physicist, quoted by the skeptical academic Jesse Bering in his invited blog on the Scientific American website.
  • Jesse Bering himself, again on the website of Scientific American.
  • A well-credentialed neuroscientist and a teaching professor of Neurobiology, Psychology, and Cognitive Science at UC Berkeley, writing together in a book published by Columbia University Press.
  • An academic and medical professional at the Centro de Investigaciones Biomédicas of the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, writing in the peer-reviewed Investigación Clínica (the official journal of the Mexican Institutes of Health) (not added by me, by the way).
  • A professor of philosophy and religion, writing in a volume of the edited series “Library of Philosophy and Religion” published by Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Another noted philosopher, theologian, and professor, writing in a volume of the edited “SUNY series in constructive postmodern thought,” published by the State University of New York.
  • An emeritus professor of theology and religious studies, writing in a volume of the edited series “Library of Philosophy and Religion,” published by Palgrave Macmillan.
  • An emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, quoted in Psychiatric News, an official publication of the American Psychiatric Society.
  • The editor of the mainstream Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, again quoted in Psychiatric News.
  • An obituary in The Daily Telegraph (UK).
  • A well-credentialed Stevenson colleague, quoted in The BMJ.

None of the sources quoted were of a lesser stature than these. Psychologist Guy removed everything these sources wrote.

Let’s look at another set of deletions. In August of 2023 I wrote on the Talk page about the “Overview” section:

I think we can improve this section by telling the basic features common to the cases Stevenson wrote about. We have a sketch of one particular case from the NY Times, and Angel's deconstruction of another, but no overview of the features of the cases in general. If I can put together a neutral summary backed by reliable sources, I'll add that.

Five months later, in January of 2024, I wrote:

I've finally gotten around to this and have posted my revisions to the Overview. If you think what I've done should be improved, please let's first discuss.

I drew the enumerated features of the cases from an article by a professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Iowa, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Mindful of the maxim about “extraordinary claims,” I backed up his summary by citing for each feature one of several well-credentialed authors. I’ll spare the details, but the authors variously wrote in:

  • The mainstream journal Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice
  • The mainstream Indian Journal of Psychiatry
  • The mainstream International Journal of Sexual Health. . . .

Cutting short my summary of the deleted section, I merely mention that the deleted sources included The New York Times, The Washington Post, Paul Edwards (Stevenson’s chief critic), Jesse Bering, and a few other well-credentialed scientists and academics writing in volumes published by respected academic presses. And again none of the deleted sources were of a stature lesser than the ones I’ve mentioned.

On December 6, Psychologist Guy deleted everything I had added, and more, with no further explanation than what I’ve cited above.

Ethos and behaviors

Turning to matters of ethos and behaviors: On the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we hear that I am editing as a “reincarnation believer,” that I follow patterns of “stealth editing,” that I leave “false edit summaries,” and more. “It's hard to come to any other conclusion,” we hear, than that my edits were “not done in good faith.” Here I don’t wish to go into further detail. Those who wish to see the tenor of the discussion can read the relevant section from the WP:Fringe Theories Noticeboard, re-posted on this Talk page, or revisit the “Promotional edits” section, also on this page.

Thinking about what occurred

Now that I’ve reviewed what occurred, let me offer my own thoughts and observations.

An overwhelming avalanche of edits

First, I am troubled by these edits not just because I disagree with them (which I do) but also because of their sheer extent. They’re an avalanche, a barrage, a downpour of edits. Even to sort through them all to see what has been done would be a daunting task, to say nothing of trying to consider them one by one or respond to them. I assume that Psychologist Guy wasn’t deliberately trying to overwhelm me. But, again, he has unleashed an avalanche. Assuming we’re trying to work together to build a better article—and not fighting a war to win victory for our own metaphysical commitments—I would suggest that doing edits in installments small enough, and with enough time between them, so that all of us can deal with them thoughtfully and carefully would be a more collegial and productive approach.

Such an approach would also enable an editor like Psychologist Guy to tell us enough in individual edit summaries or Talk page postings to let us understand the reasons for each non-trivial edit. (We might also review, in WP:editing policy, the sections “Talking and editing” and “Be helpful: explain.”) Again, this would help us together build a better article.

Deletions of reliably sourced statements

I am also concerned by the extent to which the edits here consist of deletions. As we find in WP:editing policy, under the heading “Try to fix problems,” “Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't” (emphasis in original).

Deletions become even more concerning when what is deleted consists of well-sourced edits in a neutral narrative. When we delete such material, our edits may reasonably be considered disruptive:

It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Disruptive_editing. Passed 5 to 0 on 10 December 2006.

If deleting such statements is to be considered disruptive editing, deleting them on a massive scale might be considered massive disruptive editing. And teaming up to make such deletions might be considered conjoint massive disruptive editing.

Reasons given to justify the edits

I am also concerned by the reasons Psychologist Guy has given for his edits. Terms like WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE are not mere banners to be waved. If we want to invoke these terms, we ought to make clear what the conflict of interest is, why weight given is undue, and what the views are that must be regarded as fringe.

To take COI as an example: In response to a question on this Talk page, I’ve already declared that I have no WP:COI. So what is Psychologist Guy saying? Do I have some sort of WP:COI he is aware of but I am not? Am I lying to you all? Or what? At the least, merely charging “WPCOI !” is uninformative. It might also be considered uncivil, or even downright insulting.

Working together to build a better article

In this regard, we might take another look at WP:Etiquette. We’re asked to assume good faith. We’re asked to be polite. We’re asked to “Argue facts, not personalities.” (See also WP:No personal attacks and the essay WP:POV railroad.) We’re told, “Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalise disputes” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution). Why then the ad-hominem talk about my being a “reincarnation believer”? Why the allegations of COI? Why the accusatory and insulting tone? Why the talk of “stealth editing” and “leaving false edit summaries”? Why “It's hard to come to any other conclusion” than that my edits were “not done in good faith”?

I don’t think such talk is helpful. I would rather see us work together, with mutual respect, to make this a better article.

A proposal

As editors, we all have our own biases. We’re all inclined to be confident we’re right. We all sometimes get hasty. We all can sometimes bring about discord. But we’re also able to take a step back, to hear and better understand one another’s views, to work towards improving, and to move on.

@Psychologist Guy, I wish to suggest—and request—that you please revert your recent edits and return the article to my last version of December 6. Then let us take up your editorial concerns in digestible bites. To be clear: I’m not asking you to revert only the edits I’ve mentioned above and leave the rest of the avalanche in place. We may sometimes agree or disagree, but let us consider thoughtfully and communicate well, hearing one another out, and let us move towards making this a “good article,” accurate, well balanced, and well sourced. What do you think?

Thank you, and best wishes.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An apology
In a posting above under “Recent edits and behaviors,” I noted that a message on my Talk page warned of taking me to ANI. A subhead I wrote above that spoke of the warning as a “threat.” But I have lately seen somewhere on WP that such warnings, though they might feel intimidating, do not rise to the level of threats. (“Threats” in WP are matters far more serious.) My apologies, therefore, to the author of that message.
Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:Fringe. You keep appealing to authority by listing peoples place of work. Above you didn't list the names of your sources in the "support" section you added. They were:

  • Jim B. Tucker sourced to a book "Mind Beyond Brain: Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal".
  • Edward F. Kelly sourced to "Mind Beyond Brain: Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal".
  • David E. Presti sourced to "Mind Beyond Brain: Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal"
  • Ernesto Bonilla sourced to "Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation" [6]
  • Joseph Prabhu sourced to "The Idea of Reincarnation" [7]
  • David Ray Griffin sourced to "God and Religion in the Postmodern World" [8]
  • Paul Badham sourced to "Immortality or Extinction?" [9]
  • Lee Irin sourced to Reincarnation in America: A Brief Historical Overview [10]

On the above, you cited "Mind Beyond Brain" but didn't cite the rest of the title because it has paranormal in it: Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal. One only needs to look at the above sources to see they were either: 1. Written by a colleague of Stevenson 2. Written by a believer in reincarnation 3. Written by a fringe academic arguing for the paranormal. Most of those are not neutral or good academic sources. Paul Badham would pass WP:RS but he is a theologian who made passing mention to Stevenson. I do not know how long you sat on Google books looking for supportive quotes about Stevenson but that is obviously what you have done here. A lot of these sources hardly mention Stevenson.

You have cherry-picked these sources from mostly non-specialists to quote a single line from them which is undue. On the opposite end of the scale, the quotes from Scientific American were excessive. This is excluding the misleading edit summaries like this one [11], which I cited at the top of this talk-page. You said "Verifications failed. Deleted OR". This was despite the fact that the source matched to the text [12]. So this was not a failed citation; you just wanted it removed from Wikipedia! You have a long history of removing critical or skeptical sources of Stevenson's work but will cite anything you can find supportive of his work no matter the quality of the source. This is not good editing. Have you actually read all of your sources apart from the selecting quote mining? Do you think David Ray Griffin is a good source?

As for WP:COI I am not the first user to raise this issue; several others in the past have asked you to disclose your COI from ISKCON. I disagree with restoring your biased edits as others have raised concerns. The next stop may be WP:DRR/3 or WP:ANI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that we shouldn't be giving undue weight to Stevenson by leaning on Stevenson's colleagues, who have an obvious bias. I agree that the reversion of Govinda's edits is an improvement and should not be reinstated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. The omission of "Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal" is one of those stealth tactics mentioned above. Ths is a case of WP:NOTHERE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like “Is Person X a reliable source?” or “In a particular citation, shouldn't we include subtitle Y?” are the sort of routine matters we could have sorted out in the usual course of “editing and talking.”

The meta-question is this: We have suddenly thrown a year’s worth of editing over the cliff. Some of us say that at the bottom of the cliff is where it should stay. If anyone wants to bring any of it back, it seems, he will have to argue for it piece by piece (and we stand ready to oppose him). Is this appropriate?

The question, of course, could be differently worded, and we should be open to other ways of seeing things. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood and those who seem determined to keep the discarded material at the bottom of the cliff are more flexible than I think.

However worded, though, this question naturally leads to a second question: We find ourselves in a disagreement—I suppose we have to call it a dispute. How then should we resolve it? Two editors have brought up ANI. And that may indeed by where the matter is headed. But from what I’ve understood, what we’re first asked to do is seek to resolve the matter through polite and cooperative talk. If talk fails, then WP offers other ways of trying to resolve disputes, and if these fail we may end up in ANI. Perhaps an editor here more experienced in WP dispute resolution could clarify the process for us. In any case: How shall we proceed?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you make incremental case for inclusion of the content you would like to see included, @O Govinda: per WP:ONUS. jps (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @jps, for directly addressing the question and letting us know your view. In this regard, thank you also for bringing WP:ONUS to our attention.
I would suppose, however, that WP:ONUS is not intended to override WP:PRESERVE, protect massive deletion of well-sourced material (WP:DISRUPTIVE), or help fortify a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
Perhaps hearing from editors less polarized in their views than you and I would be helpful.
Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't use adjectivation to express your oppinion about our fellow editors. Sounded as a personal attack against ජපස. Since your editions were considered FRINGE, the ONUS is in your hands: to obtain CONSENSUS before return the disputed content. Psychologist Guy explained the details of the fringeness and undued aspects of your "well-sourced material". Jojo gives you useful behavioral tips. I suggest some essays for your weekend reads: WP:YWAB, WP:LUNATICS and WP:BLUDGEONING. Cordially, Ixocactus (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Uninvolved editor passing by...) You ask above, O Govinda, How shall we proceed? I suggest that you first ask yourself "How shall I proceed?" A good first step for you is to accept, and follow, the advice given to you by jps immediately above. I also strongly suggest that you review WP:1AM, an essay that describes the situation you are in quite well. To wit: several experienced editors in good standing have established a consensus that opposes your desired content, and serious concerns regarding your behavior (e.g., WP:NOTHERE) have also been raised. At this point you really, really need to avoid escalating this to a forum like ANI because, based upon what I've read here, it would almost certainly produce an outcome not to your advantage. Again, please follow the advice of jps. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Stevenson