Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is an important quote - it quite neatly summarises Stevenson's work; either he was making a collossal mistake, or was making a truly pioneering contribution to human knowledge. This is a quote from a scientific journal by a reputable, pioneering, psyschiatrist, it's not just some fanboy fantasy - it certainly isn't "obscure". If a reader only looked at the lead they would come away having a much better understanding of Stevenson with this quote than some would seem to like them to have. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not "an important quote". (i) The analogy is amazingly inapt, Stevenson doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being known as "the Galileo of the 20th century", as unlike Stevenson, Galileo provided solid evidence for his claims. (ii) WP:DUE states:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Harold Lief has very little "prominence", so it is disproportionate to quote him in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear a tad confused. Wikipedia reports the work and views of others. Whatever you think Stevenson's chances are of being known as "the Galileo of the 20th C" are not relevant, unless you have managed to get these views published in a reputable source - if you have, please provide the appropriate reference here. What we have here are the views of a pioneering, prominent psychiatrist - you might benefit from reading about Lief's work. But in any case, the JNMD saw fit to publish his comments, and so per WP:DUE it is important to fairly represent his significant view which was published by the RS JNMD. They also happen to nicely encapsulate Stevenson's predicament, so are eminently suitable for the lead. Surely you would agree, Hrafn, that if it turns out to be correct that some kind of 'survival' can occur, then this would be quite a profound discovery - which would lead one to draw a rather nice simile between Stevenson's treatment by the broader scientific church, and Galileo's treatment by the narrower Catholic church. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you appear to be more than a tad tendentious:

1. "Stevenson's chances … of being known" are summed up by: "little support from other scientists … for the most part the scientific establishment ignored his work." Per WP:REDFLAG you would require an "exceptional source" for the ludicrous claim that he may one day known as "the Galileo of the 20th century"
2. "What we have here are the views of a pioneering, prominent psychiatrist" Substantiation of Harold Lief's prominence?
3. "But in any case, the JNMD saw fit to publish his comments…" does not render them prominent. Your claim that this is a "significant view" is unsubstantiated.
4. "They also happen to nicely encapsulate" one man's hope that there is a 'snowball's chance in hell' that Stevenson may one day be vindicated.
5. I would "agree … that if it turns out to be correct that" faeries existed at the bottom of the garden, that "this would be quite a profound discovery" -- but see no more point in giving WP:UNDUE weight to that possibility as to one obscure researcher's hope that Stevenson's claims may one day enjoy a quite miraculous vindication.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that Lief is a self-described "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Stevenson. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, the changes you made are not suitable for the introduction of the article. Both Lief and Almeder are professionals writing in their professional capacity. Their views should therefore be presented without trying to slant the reader's opinion of them by adding irrelevant details.Noirtist (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirtist: that Lief describes himself as a "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Stevenson and that Almeder contains an explicit endorsement from Stevenson is hardly "irrelevant". And your edit summaries for both this edit and this one is FALLACIOUS! The information you removed was factual, NOT editorial opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The detail is irrelevant. These are professionals writing in their professional capacity. So what if Stevenson endorsed Almeder's book. Almeder wrote it, not Stevenson. Lief's comments were published in a top quality journal as Lief's professional view. Noirtist (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... you're a tough nut to crack Hrafn. I'll have another go though and see if I can get through that gruff exterior this time.

i) whether you consider Lief's claim to be ludicrous or not is irrelevant. What matters is that JNMD did not deem it ludicrous. All of the WP:OR you care to conduct in backing your view is pointless, because it simply doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what Lief thought and that JNMD published it. So waving a red flag is only going to attract the attention of a bull, which might help you explain the smell rising from your argument :-)

ii) If JNMD isn't enough for you to confirm Lief's prominence, maybe these will help^[1][2][3] You will note he was also active, prominent, and pioneering in the field of False Memory Syndrome.

iii) This is a significant view. You will find it quoted in several of the references on the Stevenson page. Have a look.

iv) I think you are misreading Lief, it isn't him 'hoping' that Stevenson would be considered this way - he's saying it's one or the other, not that it's obviously the latter.

v) You seem to have ducked the question. And you have it the wrong way around, it is actually WP:UNDUE to ignore Lief's comments.

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the NYT obit confirms his prominence (though the other stuff is marginal at best). Probably he should be described in the article as "former president of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and a self-described 'close friend and indeed an admirer' of Stevenson" -- this would both explicitly justify his prominence and provide context as to his personal association with Stevenson. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirtist: that you consider being a "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Stevenson to be an 'irrelevant detail' in providing the reader acurate context as to Lief's independence, is utterly ludicrous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Lief is a professional scientist who gave his opinion as a professional scientist in a scientific journal. That is what we are reporting, not what Lief wrote on Stevenson's birthday card. You are just trying to play down any non-negative commentary by portraying it as not genuine or professional but as only coming from close personal friends. Noirtist (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that beyond Lief being a self-described "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Stevenson, Death and personal survival comes with an endorsement from Stevenson.[1] I am therefore templating the lead section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Which sources specifically do you claim are non-independent.Noirtist (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You know very well what sources are non-independent, as you removed the factual evidence of their involvement with Stevenson. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for Stevenson to like and recommend a book that is completely independent of him. Like Almeder's book, for example. What connection do you suggest Stevenson has to this book that means we need the tag. Noirtist (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The book contains an endorsement from Stevenson, therefore it is not an independent source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Which page? Noirtist (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The back-cover, I think. Still looking for an image to confirm this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lief's commentary is obviously that of a person open to Stevenson's efforts, albeit not necessarily convinced by his arguments. It is quite improper to suggest that Lief is somehow writing a puff piece, or that he had anything but the utmost respect for Stevenson's methods - professionally, not merely personally. After all, it is Stevenson's methods that matter here. If scientists had to hate each other before we accepted their professional views of each others' work we'd be in a spot of bother, don't you agree? And JNMD were at least as aware of their relationship as you are now, yet still chose to publish. The RS status and opinion of JNMD is far more important here than our idle speculation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}As for Almeder's book being endorsed by Stevenson, this was one of four "informal reviews solicited by the publisher ( and appearing on the back of the paperback edition) from philosophers not recommended by the author". ^[4] I'll paste the relevant bits here to avoid 'context' issues and to show that the book has been reviewed widely and positively - you'll also find a reviewer says Almeder's critique of Edwards is "devastating";

...Almeder has hand-picked carefully only the most air-tight and persuasive cases as evidence, and indeed points out potential flaws in some of them himself.....Almeder provides powerful arguments in every case that the alternative explanations will not hold up. (Carl Hahn. Canadian Philosophical Reviews. August 1993. pp. 129-130)

It is out of fashion today for a professional philosopher to believe in personal survival, and it is certainly out of fashion to contend that this is the most rational position to take given the best available evidence. Nevertheless, this is precisely Almeder's position and he does an excellent job in establishing it.....Wisely bypassing the provocative but relatively weak evidence coming from past-lives therapy, Almeder focuses on the research of Ian Stevenson and his critics, especially Paul Edwards whose four part attack on reincarnation (Free Inquiry l987) is widely cited as a proof text for the dismissal of Stevenson's work. Almeder's critique of Edwards-- and through him Ian Wilson, William Roll, and C.T.K. Chari--is devastating....Any subsequent discussion on these matters must take into account Almeder's contribution." (Chris Bache, Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Youngstown State University, in Dialogue and Alliance (forthcoming).

Otherwise the available informal reviews solicited by the publisher ( and appearing on the back of the paperback edition) from philosophers not recommended by the author read:

1. "Almeder provides the most sustained argument for survival, especially reincarnation, in the contemporary literature, carefully examining the empirical evidence, the skeptics responses, and the philosophical objections to survival. The book is a goldmine as a resource for all aspects of the survival question. I recommend the book for everyone" (Hoyte Edge, Professor of Philosophy, Rollins College)

2. "Almeder's new work is absorbing and audacious and deserves to be read carefully and widely. His description of what he counts as good evidence for survival is vivid and well organized." (James Wheatley, Professor of Philosophy, University of Toronto)

3. "I have read Robert Almeder's Death and Personal Survival with great interest and appreciation. The book has developed excellently, and I am happy to have you quote me as saying: `Robert Almeder has clearly summarized an extensive body of evidence and argued its merits with the skill of a professional philosopher' " (Ian Stevenson, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry, Univ. of Virginia School of Medicine)

4. "Almeder's book is a thoughtful and informed response to the usual superficial dismissals of the evidence within the academic community. Unlike many academics who have the hubris to publish their views on the subject after only the most cursory examination of the material, Almeder understands the issues and has studied the evidence very closely" (Stephen Braude, Professor of Philosophy, Univ. of Maryland)

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few current versions on offer. Many of the differences between the to are links, corrections of typos and such etc. One version even has the phrase "explicitly endorsed by explicitly endorsed by" in it. If people are going to edit the article it doesn't help if clear mistakes are reintroduced after they have been fixed. Please explain here what changes you want to make and why.Noirtist (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At the start of the disputed section in the lede I have added the claim that the scientific community tends to dismiss things like reincarnation out of hand as I think this helps balance that section. I have sourced this to Brody.Noirtist (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're starting to get a much more balanced article happening now. There is certainly a need for criticism of Stevenson etc. to be there, but there was so little of Stevenson in some of those earlier drafts that we just had a heap of straw men instead. It's good to see Stevenson accurately represented in the page and now be able to work in the appropriate criticisms and mainstream views in a more balanced way. Well done Noirtist. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Lief's remark "either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known ... as 'the Galileo of the 20th century" is appropriate for the lead. But rather than simply removing it, I think it looks nicer to simply move the paragraph about his research to the "research interest" section, since it's very detailed, specific information, not just a general description of the man. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this: that one paragraph was causing too much trouble. As the lead stands now, it is entirely factual. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored and trimmed that section. The other material could be reintroduced to the body, however it is important that the lead gives an overview of the article and contains all salient points. Criticism of Stevenson is one of the most important aspects of his work, and shouldn't be removed from the lead. Verbal chat 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to note the reception Stevenson's work received and so have restored one major commentator (Almeder) to the lede. Noirtist (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is one opinion, whereas there are multiple sources that Stevenson's work in this area and reincarnation research generally are considered pseudoscience. WP:UNDUE. Feel free to add it somewhere in the body with appropriate wording, but it is not suitable for the lead. Verbal chat 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have only one source for the tiny minority pseudoscience claim. The majority view is clearly stated at the start of the section when we note that his conclusions gained little or no support from scientists some of whom tend to reject reincarnation outright. I have therefore restored the important appraisal by Almeder and clarified the mainstream view. Noirtist (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The rejection of his work is because it is outside the mainstream and pseudoscience. Your "balance" is giving "undue" weight to a minority, fringe, view. You also forget the sceptic encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The rejection of his work is dealt with in the opening lines of the paragraph. This is the mainstream view. Kurtz's view is just his singular opinion which is contradicted by multiple source representing the scientific community at large. It's also interesting that we're probably devoting more words here to Kurtz's view of Stevenson than Kurtz ever published specifically about him. Noirtist (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

People are more likely to edit-war over the lead if it contains reviews of his work. Apart from that, he has had many reviews and something specific, like the review of certain research by a scientist or a handful of scientists, is so specific that it clearly does not belong in the lead of the article.

Instead, I would support a single sentence, such as, "His research has received mixed reviews" or "His research has been generally not been well-received". I'm not totally familiar with the sources, so I'm not sure which of those would be most accurate. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}I'm happy with the Galileo quote moving to the body - but it seems to keep disappearing entirely... does someone have a specific problem with it? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors working on this should probably be aware that User:DreamGuy is campaigning to have you banned. [2]Artw (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

nson==Two or three or all who have spoken== I see that Verbal keeps saying that only two scientific commentators have described Stevenson's research as rigorously scientific. There are three sources provided: Janice Hopkins Tanne, Harold Lief and Eugene Brody. Which one is being excluded. Brody is also described as a "supporter" of Stevenson. Where is the source for that claim. Noirtist (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the some wording. Most or many is clearly not supportable. Verbal chat 07:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's true his work has been mostly ignored by the scientific community, the existence of any reviews shouldn't be in the lead at all. 96.241.171.99 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've named Brody in the relevant section since there is nothing to suggest he is a "supporter".Noirtist (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, where is your source that calls Brody a supporter? Why not just name him. Noirtist (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

His words frame him as a supporter rather than someone who is disinterested, and as he is clearly in the minority we should be careful to ensure that his views are not given undue weight. Verbal chat 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a supporter of Stevenson's method (the scientific method) but not necessarily of his conclusions. I have just added his name. Noirtist (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson didn't use the scientific method, he used the methods of a detective or investigative journalist (according to our article). Maybe it's a pseudoscientific method. The framing is correct. Verbal chat 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the scientific community speaking through the BMJ and JNMD disagree with you. Noirtist (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A minority view; please stop trying to spin it as anything else. Our article disagrees with you, I'm afraid. Verbal chat 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not spinning anything and I have no interest in debating you about the matter. The sources listed above are vastly numerically in favor of the view that Stevenson's conducted his work with appropriate scientific rigor. Seven sources to one at last count. Noirtist (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of scientific supporters doesn't establish "scientific support". For instance, there's been a few lists circulating around, "Ten thousand scientists who don't believe in global warming". Now, if such scientists aren't in fields related to climate research, it's a pretty silly list... In this case, from what it says so far, Ian Stevenson's research was mostly ignored and so the number of supporters doesn't count, since the same might hold true of any pseudoscience (i.e. most scientists ignore research into UFOs or voodoo, but then you might have a handful which say, "This is great research!"). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming there is scientific support for reincarnation. I think the article makes that clear. The only supporting voice discussed is Almeder who gets a line or so in the "reception" section. But, what comes out loud and clear when looking at the reviews of the work of Stevenson is that there is a distinction between his research methodology (which many support) and some of his stronger interpretations (which almost nobody does). That is, at almost every turn scientists and scientific commentators are saying that his research was conducted with meticulous scientific rigor but that they don't agree with his conclusions. Leif, for example, who is no supporter of reincarnation says that he "scrupulously followed the scientific method". Brody, who again is not a supporter of reincarnation, says much the same in the editorial for the JNMD issue. Janice Hopkins-Tanne (an award winning medical journalist and the New York correspondent for the BMJ) is also clear that he investigated reincarnation with "scientific rigor". Then there are the four or so more sources listed above including science writers and academics who say his research was scientific. Then there is Carl Sagan and Arthur C Clarke who both commented favorably about his research while not accepting that it demonstrated reincarnation. Sagan, in his book devoted to debunking pseudoscience, not only doesn't mark Stevenson's work as such, but goes to the trouble of singling out his research with two others as fundamentally different from the rest and deserving of further serious study! And then there is the fact that his research was conducted under the auspices of the University of Virginia and his results published in academic books and journals. All of this marks out Stevenson as very different from the usual purveyors of pseudoscience who do not solely conduct their work within academia, who do not have major scientific journals devoted to their work, who do not have numerous top quality scientific commentators providing testimonials for the high scientific quality of their methods, and whose work does not receive anything like an endorsement from noted skeptics like Sagan. This is what marks Stevenson out as different. I therefore cannot even come close to agreeing with your suggestion that "the same might hold true of any pseudoscience". Noirtist (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems as though some people are trying to word the article in a way that treats Ian Stevenson as "scientific" and others are trying to word the article in a way that dismisses him as a fruitcake, and both of these wordings imply the scientific support for reincarnation (if Ian Stevenson is legit, reincarnation is real -- if Ian Stevenson is a fruitcake, reincarnation is nonsense). So, the two go together and the numbers of Ian Stevenson's supporters are irrelevant if most scientists ignore him, something he acknowledged in his memoirs, according to the article.

I think Ian Stevenson's research falls under Wikipedia's definition "questionable science," and whether it's legitimate or pseudoscience is a matter of opinion. And all the various opinions out there should be put in the article, whether favorable or unfavorable, but then that wouldn't fit or belong in the lead. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with the lede roughly as it currently stands. It says his conclusions got little or no support, it says some have called his work pseudoscience (even though we only have one source for this) and it reflects the views expressed by several scientists writing in the JNMD and the BMJ that his work was scientifically rigorous. That covers most of the points you make and it seems to me neither too long nor unbalanced. The only view that is not represented is the view that Stevenson's work proved reincarnation to a significant degree and I accept that this is such a minority view that it maybe can't be properly represented there.Noirtist (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the lead is that specific criticism or support for Ian Stevenson is there arbitrarily. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} I think it is clear that Stevenson's work is an alternative theoretical formulation. Not a theory that has garnered much support, but obviously not pseudoscience, as his methods, intent, and efforts have all been directed within the scientific model. This is obviously not pseudoscience, which is why there are no scientific sources to that effect, and per WP:NPOV it should not be described as such; Stevenson was very obviously attempting to "deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away" (from NPOV) - which is what skeptics Sagan, Clarke, and Harris all acknowledge about him. The 'fruitcake' mindset does not accurately reflect the regard with which Stevenson (the man) was held - it is a WP:FRINGE view and should be treated as such. We need to clearly separate out the integrity of Stevenson from the reception of his theory - they are not the same thing - and it is only his integrity that has made such skeptics sit up and take any notice whatsoever of what he had to say. If he was a fruitcake then he and his research would have been relegated to the Time Cube. Again, this is a biography about Stevenson, so I would argue that is appropriate to place emphasis on the way he was perceived and regarded rather than on the way his theory was perceived and regarded. Where the reception of his work sheds light on his reception, then more detail is useful, but where the focus is more strongly on the theory itself probably belongs on a different page - Reincarnation research for instance. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious that it's not pseudoscience, else there'd be no issue right now over how to word this article. After all, the entire field of Parapsychology is regarded by some scientists as pseudoscientific. So, the claim, "his methods, intent, and efforts have all been directed within the scientific model", is an opinion, not a fact. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think our own views on this are relevant. We have reliable sources saying both. Kurtz called his research pseudoscience, while seven other sources (including at least three scientific sources and a few more academic ones) refer to his work as scientific. Some sources are critical of his methods and his conclusions, others laud his methods but disagree with his conclusions, while others still laud both. Since most of these sources are solid academic sources, surely we just cover what they all say without prejudice. This is sort of what the article does right now and therefore I don't really understand the problem here.Noirtist (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I am not stating my opinion about his methods, intent and efforts but was rather referring to the scientists (and others) who have commented on these aspects of his work - I never knew him. It *is* my opinion that his work was an ATF however, and I am yet to hear any reason stated here - or on the Fringe noticeboard - to the contrary. If this opinion is reasonable (which I believe it is, given the comments of scientists et al.) then the WP policy for dealing with ATF's applies. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we cite sources, per WP:V, that identify Eugene Brody as a "Stevenson supporter". My understanding is that Brody praised Stevenson's methods but disagreed with his conclusion. Noirtist (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

5 days now without a source provided. I have removed the unsupported assertion that Brody is a "Stevenson supporter" pending the production of a source.Noirtist (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday and today I made around 30 separate edits which amounted to about 15 changes ranging from very minor copyedits to adding new sources and adding new detail as well as general tidying up. Today I see that Verbal has reverted every single change with nothing but the edit summary “Reverted to revision 307042948 by Verbal; rvt NPOV, framing” as an explanation. I am therefore reverting to my version and listing all the changes I have made below. If there are reasons for rejecting these changes then I would like some explanation of them. The previous edit summary was woefully inadequate as an explanation for such a mass revert. Thanks

• 1. I changed

Stevenson's conclusions gained little or no support within the scientific community

To

His conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community,

I think this is shorter and sharper, it avoids repeating Stevenson’s name and it get’s rid of the “no” support since as long as Brody is in the article as a supporter it is contradictory with that later claim.

• 2. I changed

Some critics, such as philosopher Paul Kurtz

To

Philosopher Paul Kurtz

Because at present Kurtz is the only source we have for this which meets WP:V

• 3. I added the following text and introduced Stevenson’s University of Virginia obituary as a new source for the article.

...and lead to the lifelong voracious reading habits which saw him read over 3500 books according to the list he has kept since 1935.

I added this because I think it is interesting and appropriate for a bio.

• 4. I removed the word “psychosomatic” from the line “This psychosomatic work” since it appears twice in the preceding sentence.

• 5. I fixed the duplicated reference “Half a Career with the Paranormal” so that it only appears once.

• 6. I removed a strange piece of text about other academic departments which study the paranormal because it only showed up when editing the article and not to readers, therefore seeming to me to serve no purpose.

• 7. I changed the following text

Stevenson's research has been associated with a 'minimalist' model of reincarnation that does not make any religious claims. Almeder outlined the model as

To

Stevenson's research is associated with a 'minimalist' model of reincarnation that makes no religious claims. According to Robert Almeder, the central feature of this model is that

I did this to provide a link for the first mention of Almeder and because I think my version says much the same thing but in a bit of a clearer way. That is, what Almeder goes on to describe is the central feature rather than the outline.

• 8. I changed

Tom Shroder writes that Stevenson used the techniques of a detective or investigative reporter

To

Tom Shroder has likened Stevenson fieldwork technique to that of a detective or investigative reporter

I did this because I think it says the same thing in a better way and avoids repeating the words “Shroder writes” which appear later in the paragraph

• 9. I moved the text about Almeder’s response (“In response to this problem, Almeder has argued…”) from the ‘reception section’ to the one on research. I think it fits better there.

• 10. I added the word “within” to the “scientific community” as I think it males the same point more clearly.

• 11. I removed the word “small” from in front of “number of scientific commentators” since that kind of editorializing doesn’t appear elsewhere. For example, we don’t say a small number of critics”, or “a small number of Skeptics” etc.

• 12. I changed the sentence

Stevenson’s work also attracted the attention of Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke, who, while intrigued by Stevenson’s work, felt it fell short of offering proof of reincarnation which they both viewed as unlikely

To

Stevenson’s work also attracted the attention of Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke who, while intrigued, felt it fell short of providing proof of reincarnation, which they both viewed as unlikely

I did this to shorten the sentence and avoid needlessly repeating the words “Stevenson’s work”

• 13: I changed the wording

...but that in his opinion so few had read the evidence he had assembled

To

...but that in his opinion most did so without even reading the evidence he had assembled

I did this because the old version referred to his obituary from the University of Virginia and the new version is a more accurate reflection of what he says there. The point he makes is quite explicitly about those who rejected his work doing so without reading it and not just a general complaint about rejection. This is another reason for the addition of new source added at point 3 above.Noirtist (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and pushing of personal POV. 1 and 2 are rubbish, 3 is trivia, 4 is possibly an improvement, missed in all the dross. 5, Possible improvement, 6, That text was in comments to stop it being added again (irrelevant). No problem with it being removed so long as Blippy doesn't add it again. 7, Prefer original wording, undue weight to Almeder, 8, POV, original is correct. This is response to comments above. 9, Debatable. 11, Simple misrepresentation and this has been discussed. 12, Fine, 13, POV editing again.

Rather than just describe your changes, why not justify them per BURDEN with reference to previous discussion where it has occurred. Verbal chat 13:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are good, except #13. Logically, saying "few have read the evidence" is not the same thing as "most

I don't see any problem with Noirtist's edits here. Most of them seem to be improvements, some seem pretty arbitrary. The only one I take issue with is maybe #13. Logically, there's a difference between "few have read the evidence" and "most have judged Stevenson without reading the evidence". In the former case, it's plausible many scientists didn't make a judgment at all because they were disinterested. In the latter case, it suggests they're intentionally ignorant. Now, I suppose it's roughly the same message either way, but to be clear and avoid sounding weasel-y, the previous wording is better.

Thanks for letting us know about the edits you made, by the way. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On point 13, the reason I wrote what I did is that the source makes a much stronger point than was in the article. In the source it says

his greatest frustration was not that other scientists dismissed his interpretations of the evidence, but that most of them did so without even bothering to read the evidence that he had so painstakingly assembled

I therefore don't think the weaker complaint that not enough people read his work really captures the much stronger point that most of his critics criticized him without even bothering to look at the evidence. Since we make it clear that it is nothing more than Stevenson's opinion ("in his opinion"), we really should say what his opinion actually was rather than the wishy-washy "not enough people read my books".Noirtist (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is his opinion and needs to be framed as such. I also strongly oppose the removal of the factual "small" in point 11. It is counterfactual and biased editing. Verbal chat 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

13 currently says "but that in his opinion most did so without even reading the evidence he had assembled". How much more clearly do you think we could frame this to ensure people realize it is his opinion? Noirtist (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, when you say that Stevenson’s bronchitis led to “his reading over 3500 books” it makes it sound like he was doing this as an attempted cure or in the search for a cure. What this is actually about is that the boredom of his spells in bed as a youth led to his reading habit.If you're going to change things please try to keep the meaning clear.

You also changed Almeder’s claim that it is possible to know that something happened without knowing how it happened, into just the claim that it is possible to know something happened. This completely changes the meaning of what Almeder said and strips away any relevance it has as a response to the lack of a process for reincarnation. What is the point in doing that?

Finally, you changed “a number” into “but only a small number” which is unacceptable editorializing. We could as easily say, “every scientific commentator who has expressed an opinion”. Or we could say “Stevenson’s work has drawn a small amount of criticism from a few skeptic’s”. Let us just stick to neutral descriptions without making judgements.

You should also have seen that my edits have some support above. Maybe you should try to make your case here before reverting again. Noirtist (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits as they are unsupported and misrepresent how Stevenson is viewed. I removed the silly example from Almeder. A small number is correct, and leaving it out is giving an intentionally misleading impression about how Stevenson's work is viewed in the scientific community. It is getting to the point where your WP:SPA editing is clearly about "pushing a POV", in wikipedia parlance. Your other "improving" edits are debatable and I do not feel they improve the article, hence I have reverted them. Verbal chat 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't just remove the example from Almeder, you removed the second half of what he said about not knowing how something happened. What you left was nonsense. Please also note that Zenwhat agreed with all of my changes except point 13. Blippy also reverted to my version so seems to agree as well.Noirtist (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you all have different definitions of NPOV. Also, Noirtist, I said I agreed with most of them but some of them seem arbitrary and remember that consensus is not in numbers, Wikipedia is not a democracy.

I really don't have any problem with either keeping the edits as they are, or removing some of them. You seem to be arguing over petty, minor grammatic details, which could be interpreted as weasel words, but aren't really significant enough that they make the article that biased or inaccurate. It might be best for everybody here to calm down, take a break, and come back later. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@Spritebox, I don't think any source is required to have an NPOV. I think we accept that many commentators will bring their own POVs to a subject. Just because Kurtz has a widely known POV does not mean he is not an academic and therefore qualified to speak on the subject. We should have no problem citing his views prominently. In fact, citing reliable sources on subjects should be almost all we do on Wikipedia. Noirtist (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@Zenwhat. I know it's not just an issue of majority rule, but it's not the opposite either. I spent a few hours a few days ago making what I think are many good changes to the article. The next day they are ALL removed even though some of them are things like reconciling two versions of a source into one and removing a lot of repetition of the name Stevenson. In the past I have had to change the spelling of Stevenson's name from Stephenson to Stevenson multiple times because of mass reverting being done without any attention to the actual edits. Today I have had to reinsert text from Almeder's point three times because it kept being removed and what was left was nonsense. I have also added a significant amount of text to the article and most of the negative stuff about Stevenson currently in the article was actually added by me, so it's just not true to say I am trying to keep all the criticism out. I added most of it! It's just hard to do anything constructive when every trivial change has to go through about a week of argument.Noirtist (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The text from Almeder should be removed totally as it is vacuously true. The removal of "small" is clear POV pushing and weaseling in order to misrepresent the actual view of Stevenson in the real world. The replacing of Stevenson with His is poor style. The edits are sloppy and intentionally biasing the article, such as Noirist's representation that Paul Kurtz is the only critic of Stephenson. This WP:SPAs edits are harming this article and therefore damaging the project. Verbal chat 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Almeder's point is a response to the particular criticism that is listed and so should stay. All I did in any event was move it to a more appropriate section. It was already in the article. The addition of "small" is clear editorializing since this is the same view we find in every scientific source we currently have. At no point have I said Kurtz is the only critic. I actually wrote the criticism section in the part on reception and mentioned Edwards and various skeptic's there. I also added the point that most scientists reject reincarnation to the lede several times but you removed it, and where I added it to the article you have downplayed it to be only the view of a "Stevenson supporter". It is therefore grossly unfair to say I am trying to hide this criticism. Noirtist (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an observation, not a response, and a facile one. The omission of small is clear POV pushing and editorialising. The other wordings are misleading and not NPOV. You are trying to mislead the reader with your edits, that is now clear (well, it has been for some time). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirtist: A source is not required to be NPOV, but we're not primarily discussing what sources to use, but how to present the sources involved. Relatively minor issues like whether to call the critics "small" or to refer to Kurtz as being among "some critics" are blown way out of proportion. Verbal: Small could be seen as being weasel words, but it's a pretty minor, trivial issue.

What's the objective definition of "many"? More than one? More than two? It's a subjective notion and really a trivial thing to argue over, either way. I really fail to see all of Noirtist's edits are just POV-pushing. It just seems like you're going to revert any edit he makes because you think he's a biased POV-pusher, and that's what you've been doing.

I agree with Noirtist that Almeder's point should stay. An analogy is early research into genetic inheritance, in which, for instance, Gregor Mendel was researching how genetic inheritance was going on, without actually knowing what the mechanism of inheritance was (chromosomes, DNA, etc.). Regardless of whether you consider the point legitimate or not, it is at least relevant and notable which is the only necessary prerequisite for it to be included. Every opinion cited on Wikipedia does not have to actually be true.

I want to again reiterate that I think any and all notable, relevant sources of criticism or support for Stevenson should be included, since there's nothing that really establishes one published commentator's notability over another. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted every edit he makes. The good edits he has made in the past and those he has justified to my satisfaction (and others) remain. I do not like you failure to assume good faith and ask you to strike that portion (or remove) of your comment. Verbal chat 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you've edit warred every inch of the article for weeks now, claiming otherwise would be utterly ridiculous. Artw (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep this article within wikipedia policies and guidelines I and others have had to undo or refactor a lot of edits made by two problem editors. The leaving out of "small" (or minority) is misleading in the extreme. I care about wikipedia, and feel these misrepresentation are damaging the project. If Noirtist respected wikipedia and it's policies he would not be reverted so often. Verbal chat 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

...and now you're just concern trolling. Your respect for Wikipedias policies appear to be extremely limited and restricted to those that bolster whatever cause you happen to be pushing. Your edits do not constitute some grand defence of policy, but are merely a concerted effort to turn an article you don't like into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Artw (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Noirtist, it would be good actually if you could slow down on the number of contributions a bit. I understand somewhat why Verbal suspects you of POV-pushing when you add so many edits to this article nearly every day. You can add the same material, but if you add so much at one time, it makes it harder to track violations of the WP:3RR and discussion is more difficult because we have to have a broader discussion about a variety of edits instead of a narrow discussion about a specific edit. If you don't want to keep getting reverted, make a single edit and we can try to discuss... Of course, yes, it seems likely we won't go anywhere, because the two of you can't seem to agree on hardly anything. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moral highgrounds are notoriously slippery. WP is a human endeavour, so it is fraught with POV. Stevenson's biggest complaint was that so many rejected his work without looking at it. We've seen lots of that here too. I'm sure if Stevenson was alive he would recognise a lot of what is going on here. Obviously I am impressed with Stevenson's work, and I believe (my POV) that others would be impressed as well if they were able to read about it in a neutral light - neutral as in having pros and cons, not just the cons. I don't think we have any editors making contributions at the moment who doubt Stevenson's integrity per se, even if they doubt his work, conclusions etc. And I don't think we have any editors who are wanting to white wash Stevenson's work and pretend there are no valid criticisms or concerns with his work. But we do seem to have a bit of the other, where editors are wanting to black wash is work and pretend there are only valid crticisms and are no valid elements to his work. Personally I believe he was providing an ATF, and I believe this perspective is justified by the comments of the vast majority of professionals who have published on his work. I believe that this would provide a useful touchstone for us in deciding what to include/exclude and how to phrase any inclusions. An ATF is always going to have critics, some hysterical, many well reasoned. The well reasoned criticisms should be included. Similarly and ATF will have supporters, again the hysterical and well reasoned. And again, only the well reasoned should be included. If we set up his work in this kind of framework, then it is obvious to the reader that this is not a widely accepted theory, and that all which follows is in that context. Then we don't have to agonise over the 'smalls' and 'manys' etc. because it is all being dealt with in the context of being an alternative theory that has not gained widespread acceptance. But ATF's are entitled to be treated seriously and nuetrally, not constantly being cast in the narrowest possible light because of their ATF status. I have no interest in trying to fool readers into thinking Stevenson was right or even vaguely right. I am merely trying to treat his work, and the reader's intelligence, in a respectful manner that provides both the strengths and weaknesses. Or am I setting myself a fools errand? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says:

He also recognized a limitation, or what Shroder calls a "glaring flaw", in using reincarnation to explain the phenomena he investigated, namely the absence of evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.[3] In response to this problem, Almeder has argued that it is nevertheless possible to know that something happened without knowing how it happened.

The response by Almeder is irrelevant, not answering the preceding point, and it is also facile as it is clearly true. I suggest it be removed as it adds nothing to the section or the article. Verbal chat 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The crux of Almeder's point is that the 'glaring flaw' is irrelevant to the veracity of Stevenson's work. Perhaps this would be better;

He also recognized a limitation, or what Shroder calls a "glaring flaw", in using reincarnation to explain the phenomena he investigated, namely the absence of evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.[3] Almeder argues that the lack of a known process for reincarnation does not preclude reincarnation from occurring, in other words, it is possible to know that something happened without knowing how it happened. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an answer, and I don't think Tom Shroder or Stevenson though this invalidated his work (there is much besides which does that). It is a response to a criticism that isn't made, and a blatantly obvious and facile one. It adds nothing to the article, and is irrelevant to the point it is a supposed counterpoint to. Verbal chat 10:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that neither Shroder nor Stevenson thought it invalidated his work, but then that quote is surely there to represent the oft stated complaint by skeptics that there is no physical process to explain reincarnation. Personally I think it misrepresents Shroder's position and that the criticism would be more accurately attibuted to someone else. In any case, if you don't think that the lack of physical processes is supposed to invalidate his work, then what do you think it is trying to do? It is certainly a common complaint - but one convincingly refuted by Almeder in my view. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't address that complaint, and as it is not a counterpoint to anything in the article should be removed. At the moment it is being misrepresented as an answer to the point it follows, which it isn't. Verbal chat 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the point it follows, in your view? If there is no substantive point, then let's lose the 'glaring flaw' along with Almeder's response. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Almeder is specifically addressing the "no physical process" concern in what he says, so of course it is relevant. What is irrelevant is the assessment of the quality of Almeder's argument being offered here.Noirtist (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please say how it is relevant. No one has dismissed it because the mechanism is unknown, Shroder merely says there is no known mechanism and calls this a glaring flaw. He doesn't question the fact which Almeder states. Verbal chat 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant because it's Almeder's response to the point being made in the article. It is therefore a comment on that point from a reliable source. It doesn't matter in the least whether any of us think it's a good argument, or whether we think it completely misses it's target.Noirtist (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How does it address the point made by Shroder? It does matter as we can exclude such irrelevant and superfluous information, as I propose.Verbal chat 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think Shroder's point is?Noirtist (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shroder's point is that even if he proved reincarnation was the best answer, the lack of a plausible mechanism is a huge problem which would then need to be addressed. We don't ignore the results of experiments because we don't have a theory to explain them. For example, I'm hard pressed to explain why Gordon Brown is an unelected PM of England, but I don't question the fact that he is. Almeder's "response" tells us, and adds, nothing. Verbal chat 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the lack of an explanatory mechanism is:

1. That it means that any other mechanism-free alternative to reincarnation (e.g. invisible magic bumblebees that go about lives 'polinating' memories from one life to another) will be at least as credible;
2. That it means that the scientific community will always favour coincidence inflated by selection bias and/or confirmation bias over a mechanism-less claim.

(Incidentally, there is an explanation for Gordon Brown -- the Westminster system -- which never allows the electorate to elect a PM -- but then again, has never been known to elect George W. Bush.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and Almeder's "response" addresses none of this. Verbal chat 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are both saying completely different things. Verbal, you said "we don't ignore the results of experiments because we don't have a theory to explain them", while Hrafn said that is exactly what the scientific community does. It rejects the results on the basis of coincidence inflated by selection bias because it doesn't have a theory that coul;d account for it in any other way.Noirtist (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I humbly suggest you have misunderstood us both. I agree with Hafrn, Almeder's "response" is a counterpoint to nothing, and itself says nothing; the informational content is zero. Verbal chat 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of my points were "ignor[ing] the results of experiments" -- (i) because there were no "experiments" (as there were no "controlled conditions"), merely observations, and (ii) they were pointing out flaws in the logic connecting Stevenson's observations to his conclusion of reincarnation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is not for a general discussion of arguments for and against Stevenson. It is about whether Robert Almeder's response to the point Tom Shroder and others have made should be included in the article.Noirtist (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And my point was that "Almeder's response" is largely an impotent non sequitor that fails to address the scientific community's very real problems with Stevenson's claims. As an example: I hear that somebody flipping coins came up with 20 heads in a row, and claim that 'fairies at the bottom of the path' are responsible. The scientific community says 'nonsense nobody's shown any evidence of the existence of fairies'. Almeder responds 'that it is nevertheless possible to know that something happened without knowing how it happened.' See: just as irrelevant -- we have no more evidence for reincarnation-as-a-mechanism-for-memory-transfer as fairies-as-a-mechanism-for-heads. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, these are Shroder's and Stevenson's own concerns. They are not concerns coming from the scientific community that Stevenson rejected, as you seem to be portraying things. Secondly, we get that you don't think Almeder's argument is very good, and that you think it misses its mark. That is not in question. What is in question is whether Almeder's point was made in response to Shroder and Stevenson's concern. On that point it seems you agree that it was, and his response is therefore relevant just for that reason. That is, it is a response to a point covered in the article by a reliable source and it doesn't really matter if the response itself is good bad or indifferent. That is something that the reader can decide in the same way you have done here. If we don't put it in the article then nobody will even know the attempted response was made.Noirtist (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Once again some confusion about 'our' views vs. the views of RS. Here's a quote from Almeder: I have heard people say "reincarnation couldn't occur because...as scientists we don't know what the mechanism is, it couldn't have a mechanism that we could examine so we can't know that it occurs." As objection go that certainly leaves a good deal to be desired because you many not know how something occurs but have plenty of evidence that it occurs. Almeder is attributing this argument to scientists - it's not for us to claim otherwise. I still think the 'glaring flaw' thing lacks accuracy in terms of representing Shroder's position. Surely if such an argument is going to be put here it should be attributed to people making it. Kurtz or Edwards maybe? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Edwards does go on at length about the modus operandi objection, that if the mechanism of soul transmission cannot be explained, then reincarnation is unacceptable as an explanation. I think this is a better home for the 'glaring flaw' bizzo rather than Shroder. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I see you removed Almeder's name, although you included his argument, and also that you returned to the inaccurate description of both the problem and Almeder's argument on the basis of relevance. Almeder's name is obviously relevant since he made the point in question. I also think we should be accurate in what we say about these arguments and so I used quotes as opposed to interpretations.Noirtist (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument doesn't need to be attributed in the text as it is such a facile and obviously true statement, but the references remain. In fact in should just be removed as it is pointless, irrelevant, and being misrepresented as an actual refutation when it is simply misdirection. Verbal chat 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not portray it as a refutation in any way. I simply said "as Robert Almeder has argued" and aligned the text with the quote. I don't see what you're argument is here at all. To leave the quote unattributed made it look like it was the editors of the article who were making this point. Noirtist (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added three more quotes from scientific commentators above who describe Stevenson's research as scientific. This makes six scientific commentators and a further two academics. Before it becomes even more ridiculous, can we stop adding specific numbers into the article and just say "some...", or "a number of...".Noirtist (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A small number of, or few, would be acceptable. It should be clear that this is not a common view. Verbal chat 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you will be advocating the same type of description be used for the minority view (currently supported by just one source, two if you count the one that doesn't actually say it) that his research was pseudoscience. Shall we say "almost nobody has called his research pseudoscience". Or perhaps "next to no one...". It is this double standard of describing one normally using words like "some" and then describing another using words like "small" or specifying exact numbers when in fact the sources we have (see above) show there is far more academic support for "scientific" than "pseudoscientific".Noirtist (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd say that. No. Because reincarnation research is a fringe, pseudoscientific, field of parapsychology (itself questionable), and we have at least two references explicitly criticising Stevenson's work in that heavily criticised "field". A poor false equivalence. His work is pseudoscientific, more akin to a private detective than a scientist, and support it has received is exceptional (ie, unusual, not normal). The support is also of a very poor kind; that he had rigorous methods! Wow. Verbal chat 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We know you think his work is pseudoscientific. But the scientific community in the shape of every scientific commentator we have so far found, disagrees. We also know you think a Chicago film buff is a better source than the British Medical Journal and the JNMD, but on that point also the scientific community disagrees.Noirtist (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Care to address the points? More misrepresentation of sources doesn't look good. Verbal chat 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did address the points you made. I said we know what your view is, and it doesn't tally with the quality scientific sources we have such as the BMJ or JNMD. Or are you now claiming that these sources are being misrepresented. That is, are you now claiming, for example, that the BMJ does not describe Stevenson as a "Psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour" " Noirtist (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you are misrepresenting me as well. I will not engage with you if you cannot debate without continued misrepresentations. My points stand. Verbal chat 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I only ask because you say the support for the view that Stevenson's research was conducted with scientific rigor is "of a very poor kind". That means you either regard the BMJ and the JNMD as very poor or you are excluding them as sources for the "scientific rigor" claim. It would be helpful if you clarified what you mean, although in either case you are clearly wrong. The BMJ and the JNMD are top quality sources and they both clearly support the view that Stevenson's research was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor.Noirtist (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More straw men arguments. Any idiot can have scientific rigour. It is very faint praise. I will not respond to further misrepresentations like this. Verbal chat 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with your second sentence, but I fail to see why, if you really think this, you are so reluctant to acknowledge widespread support for it in Stevenson's case.Noirtist (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of widespread support, just a few people being nice to a guy that apparently did some good work then wasted his talent and his life. Verbal chat 18:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, we understand that you hate him and all he stands for. But when writing the article we need to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say rather than our own views, and so far the reliable sources don't support your assertions.Noirtist (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}"Any idiot can have scientific rigour"!?! I think you may be breaking the party line there a smidge Verbal. Have you run that one past the Fringe Noticeboard? Rigourous method is the only thing that separates science from pseudoscience - that's it, nothing else. 'Science' is a verb in this sense, a way of doing, it has nothing to do with theory construction, topic investigated, person doing the research, qualifications etc. It is purely a methodological issue. If you are dumping that as the criteria then you are clearly coming from the Fringes of skepticism - indeed far more from the realms of scientism than even normally associated with typical skepticism. Stevenson was not a pseudoscientist. He worked on an ATF for a particular set of phenomena. MANY sources concur, one does not. I thought you wanted to be accurate? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no party line, and many idiots fail to have scientific rigour. That alone does not make a scientist, which is what you are implying, and not a great scientist. It is one of the things that seperates science from pseudoscience, but not the only one. Again this is not addressing my point. You have already stated that you feel my edits are fine, but you want to support Noirtist for no apparent policy reason. This is off topic, please return to the topic. Verbal chat 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beligerence helps no one. By all means specify your version of what separates science from pseudoscience. ATF is a topic that has been avoided for quite some time. What is your evidence that Stevenson was not working to provide an ATF? I'm not sure which edit you are referring to, but again I direct you back to your stated desire for accuracy. By your standard we should be doing what Noirtist has alluded to and placing the number of references before every claim in place of more general modifiers. But don't let me distract you from addressing the ATF issue. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will then ask you to return to the topic of this thread. Correct framing is very important per FRINGE, UNDUE, etc etc. Verbal chat 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A word about ATF since there appears to be some misunderstanding. You may want to carefully read WP:PSCI. You'll note that Reincarnation - which is the basis of Stevenson's work - cannot be compared to something such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics for a number of reasons, e.g. science excludes the supernatural as causation. WP:PSCI makes the difference between ATF and pseudoscience clear: "Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy." This description seems to fit Stevenson's work like a glove. Since you may not agree, you might want to post an RFC at the Wikiproject Science WP:WPSCI Talk Page addressing your concern that Stevenson's reincarnation work deserves to be labeled as "Alternative Theoretical Formulation." Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have multiple top quality scientific sources such as the BMJ and the JNMD that tell us exactly how Stevenson's work was regarded. Noirtist (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Which you are misrepresenting. Verbal chat 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting them? Do you think they are nor scientific sources or that they don't say what I claim they do? Noirtist (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for one thing, you are misrepresenting an editorial that is clearly labeled "A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT" to be a significant endorsement by a scientific journal. For another, you have quote-mined the writer's opinion of Stevenson but excluded the journal's characterization of reincarnation research as "unscientific." I could go on, but you get the idea. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Louie, here is the editorial by Brody you refer to. [3] Perhaps you could show us where it is clearly labeled "A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT".Noirtist (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The "personal viewpoint" by Brody is in the same issue, Volume 165 #3 [4] and it is portrayed in our article as support by the JNMD rather than the individual (Brody). I noticed with some dismay that your other link to the "Editorial" by Brody does not actually cite Stevenson as having personal credibility, scientific methods, etc. but refers to unspecified "authors" as having same. As there are other authors in that issue, it comes into question who Brody may be talking about. You may want to pull that out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked to isn't the editorial and it's not by Brody. You made a mistake. Nothing else you say about the sources you are unable to accurately cite is true either.Noirtist (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It actually does. The typography isn't the best, but "A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT" is there below the title [5]. The author is Lief, not Brody. And it is being used as a citation (reference #8) to assert that Stevenson's work was "conducted with appropriate scientific rigor. It doesn't seem to mention Stevenson by name. Sorry, that one does. The other Journal article you linked to does not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, you accuse me of misrepresenting an article. But you have been looking at a completely different article. And so what remains of your criticism that I left out vital details when those details turn out not to have ever been in the article I was describing in the first place. I urge you to withdraw you accusation of misrepresentation. Noirtist (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Both articles are in the same issue of the Journal and both are cited by the Wikipedia article. It's an easy mistake. But I still question your interpretation of what they are saying. There is some cherry picking and quote mining going on, and the article's language is subtly biased to make it sound as if there are significant scientific endorsement's of Stevenson's reincarnation work. And by the way, we all enjoy the occasional personally-directed wisecrack, but you're getting close to a WP:CIV violation in your previous remark and edit summary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

An easy mistake maybe, but when that mistake leads you to falsely accuse someone of having misrepresented sources and to end your supposedly simple demonstration of that misrepresentation with the words "I could go on, but you get the idea", then perhaps something more magnanimous than instant self forgiveness and another accusation of wrongdoing might be in order.Noirtist (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} LL, let's read WP:PSCI carefully together. First, nothing is mentioned about reincarnation there. Let's look at what is; To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality." I don't think you'll find a closer fitting glove than that one. Stevenson dealy with strong puzzling evidence. Even stars of the skeptic world acknowledge this. He conscientiously and exhaustively explored alternatives to reincarnation as an explanation. Out of thousands of cases he still had around 50 cases which defy all of these efforts and seem to only yield to reincarnation as the best way of explaining their reality. You will note that what he doesn't do is propose changes to basic scientific laws in order to allow some phenomenon which he wants to believe occurs. In fact he doesn't even say that these 50 cases are cases of reincarnation - just that reincarnation appears to be the only rational explanation of what is going on, because no other viable explanation has been found. Sounds a lot like ATF to me. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone actually still disputing the overall neutrality of the article or can the tag be removed? Noirtist (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are arguments about minutia now ('some' vs. 'small' vs. 'a number' etc.) suggest that we're well and truly beyond the realms of an unbalanced article. I think Stevenson is getting a 'fair hearing' now, so I'm happy for it to be removed. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact you are calling the misrepresentation of sources "minutia" seems to suggest we still have a neutrality problem. Verbal chat 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are saying that the neutrality of the entire article is in dispute because of a quibble over "some sources" vs. "a number of sources" vs. "a small number of sources" suggests that we have a problem with one editor having a rather strange view of what constitutes neutrality. By all means point out what you believe to be the contested aspects of the article so that we can have a sense of the scale that makes you wish to preserve the tag. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem that the article is giving a very slanted view of this person. That is just one example. Verbal chat 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. Blippy (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some editors are consistently misrepresenting sources and Stevenson's impact, recognition, and respectability within the scientific community. Verbal chat 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you made clear which sources you think are being misrepresented.Noirtist (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote I have now removed twice today is not encyclopedic. It is only there in order to suggest (falsely) that Stephenson demonstrated proof of reincarnation despite failing to discover a mechanism. This rhetorical trick damages the neutrality of the article. Please stop putting it back in.Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is clear. Your opinions as to whether or not he has proved reincarnation to occur are not relevant. As Almeder's response is to the idea in the previous sentence, it is also relevant. Mitsube (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The sentence may be clear but it is clear PoV pushing. It goes.Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See the section above for why this should be removed, and more examples of misleading POV editing given by LuckyLouie just above. Verbal chat 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, the arguments there are not convincing. Mitsube (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't fix it again today because I've used my 3 reverts.Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. Originally there was the Shroder 'glaring flaw' quote - then added to this was Almeder's refutation that it is a glaring flaw. There were concerns that Almeder is not refuting Shroder's point, and in fact that the whole point of Shroder and Almeder are either irrelevant and/or facile. Note that Shroder's position re: Stevenson is being misrepresented since this quote makes Shroder sound like he rejected Stevenson's work, which is not the case. I would suggest this is a good example of decontextualised quote mining since it actually gives the incorrect impression about the author of the quote - so I don't think this is good quote to use to raise the 'lack of mechanism' issue. Fortunately we now have Edwards making the explicit case for the mechanism issue, which he called the modus operandi problem. Given people complained that the original argument is weak, and that Almeder is explicitly refuting Edwards, we don't need both versions - least of all the one that gives readers a false impression. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead section begins with the following sentence:

"Stevenson's work tended to polarize opinion, and while his supporters saw him as a misunderstood genius, his detractors thought him gullible and superstitious."

I don't think it is appropriate to present this weaseled, belittling characterization. The article which is cited in support of the terms gullible and superstitious, the New York Times obituary, simply attributes these sentiments to "his detractors" and our article uncritically parrots this. With the standards we are currently employing for accepting reliable sources, having this very loosely attributed negative characterization placed this prominently in the article does not satisfy our neutrality benchmark.

If these two terms are to remain in this position, there must be references that attribute them specifically to notable, named individuals. Otherwise they should be removed from this prominent location within the article. Unless of course we can find a sufficient number of critics that we can quote and adequately reference. Then this phrase should be removed altogether and if we then need to summarize or paraphrase Stevenson's critics we can do it based on what we have sternly presented and already referenced. __meco (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is written as though this guy proved reincarnation happens - SCIENTIFICALLY (!!) - and that he is revered in the scientific community. This is so far from reality it's untrue. I changed it back to a version from earlier yesterday before the article was made worse, but it is still an awful biased whitewash (as IP, got an account now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NottsStudent09 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NottsStudent, do you not think that points like "His conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community" and "for the most part the scientific community ignored Stevenson's reincarnation work" and "many of them (scientists) simply dismiss ideas like reincarnation", make it clear to the reader that his conclusions were not accepted? Noirtist (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes it easier (but not always possible) to discuss things if you're specific NS09. Can you point to the bit that suggests Stevenson proved reincarnation, or that he was revered by the scientific community? Hopefully being far from reality is always the same as being untrue. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you re-re-reverted and removed a new referenced addition. Please restore it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does seem to me like you are trying to minimise the consensus and majority views, while maximising and giving undue weight to the views of a few people which are decidedly counter to the majority view. NottsStudent has a point. I understand why NS feels the way he does. Verbal chat 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will ask you the same question then Verbal, do you not think that points like "His conclusions gained little support from within the scientific community" and "for the most part the scientific community ignored Stevenson's reincarnation work" and "many of them (scientists) simply dismiss ideas like reincarnation", make it clear to the reader that his conclusions were not accepted?Noirtist (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will add, please be specific. Waving a hand dismissively with a slightly pinched expression wont solve the problem. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your edits, misrepresentations, and outright lies here and on the Jim Tucker pages show clearly where the problem is. NS has it right. Verbal chat 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on fixing this by removing the OR (per below) and the irrelevant Almeder stuff (which keeps being warred back in, per above). I've also fixed the lead where a small group of editors keep changing the text to make it appear that Kurtz was the only person to criticise Stevenson. Per the RfC I have readded the other source for pseudoscience, that explicitly discusses Stevenson in negative terms and denounces his field as pseudoscientific. This is only a first step towards achieving neutrality. Verbal chat 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

and the usual suspects are removing these improvements with the same misleading comments and incorrect summaries. Verbal chat 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The OR issue has been addressed. See compliance with WP:V below. .Noirtist (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

More misleading edits. Verbal chat 19:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This recent addition by Blippy looks like OR: "Recent work by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff on quantum consciousness has been suggested as a possible mechanism by which reincarnation could be explained." Why is it in the Stevenson bio? It should be in reincarnation research, not here. And neither should the Almeder stuff that you added back too. That looks like a lot of reverts to me. Verbal chat 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument against the Almeder quote is about whether the argument is a good one or hits its target in the real world. This is irrelevant. What is important here is whether Almeder said what he did in response to the type of objection in the article, and the answer to that is obviously yes. It therefore qualifies as an on topic, even if badly misguided, comment from a reliable source. It's not our problem that Almeder isn't as clever as some editors here and couldn't see that he was talking rubbish.Noirtist (talk)

It is irrelevant. You say it is misguided too. We are editors here and have editorial control. We don't have to include every bit of rubbish sprouted on a subject. From your comment it seems that your support of adding it to the article is mere disruption. Verbal chat 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I think it should be added because it is what a reliable source said on the subject and that is what we are supposed to include in articles here. That's how we decide on content, and our appraisals of the quality of that content is not relevant. Noirtist (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant so it should be left out. Verbal chat 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the quote and the Penrose stuff since the source relates this to Stevenson and is therefore not OR.Noirtist (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of that. Verbal chat 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the source. I'll provide a quote per WP:V even though you continually refuse to reciprocate. Here is a section from the article:

"Penrose’s ideas hint at a physical mechanism for consciousness that persists after death. “If a patient isn’t revived,” Hameroff says, “it enters the universe at large, and maybe it gets picked back up again by someone someday, who knows?” At the Division of Perceptual Studies, there are file cabinets bulging with case studies of people who think they know. Most of them are children who remember past lives: who they were, where they lived, what they looked like, what work they did, all sorts of details of a life.

Psychiatrist and physician Ian Stevenson, who founded DOPS..."

Grateful if you could reciprocate below and provide the quote, or even the name as requested. ThanksNoirtist (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to mention Stevenson, per your "policy". This would do on the section about the Division of Perceptual Studies in the reincarnation research article. Double standards? Still WP:OR to have it here. Verbal chat 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't copy enough. I have now added the next line which mentions Stevenson and links him the the last paragraph through the mention of DOPS.Noirtist (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks like WP:SYNTH of two sections to me. Even if it was added this would have to be framed appropriately per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. You have failed to show why it should be included. Verbal chat 19:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". It says nothing about not combining things from two consecutive sentences and rejecting conclusions explicitly stated. But you knew that. Noirtist (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I see that once again you are claiming that others have said Stevenson's work is pseudoscience. Paul Kurtz is one, but please provide the names of these other critics. Thanks. Noirtist (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See the added reference, the RfC, and the section two above this one. Please keep conversation together. Verbal chat 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the name of the person who called his work pseudoscience. I am asking because apparently there has been a lot of misrepresentation of sources and I think it important to clarify things here, on talk, as required by WP:V. Noirtist (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some editors are misrepresenting sources, however in the case the RfC supports the addition of the reference I added, and my reasoning based on the RfC in the section above this one. Verbal chat 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was clear that that source was not sufficient. Most editors thought "pseudoscience" should be included but added that a new source was needed. Please provide the name of the critic you claim called Stevenson's work pseudoscience.Noirtist (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your interpretation of the RfC. You have just repeated your view. I have added a reference that has been cleared through an RfC here. Please don't make misleading edit summaries, it can lead to action being taken to stop further disrupton. Verbal chat 18:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There were only three people out of 11 who said that reference was suitable. At least three said it was not and most did not address the issue. If the source supports your claim please provide a quote or even a name to begin with.H ow hard can it be if the source says what you claim? Thanks Noirtist (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you look at the policy arguments the three against goes to zero. But I dispute your "count" anyway. The source can be used, if you have a problem take it higher up the chain. WP:RSN perhaps? Or WP:FTN? The result of the RfC was that the source can be used. Please do not continue in your vandalistic removal of RS information. Verbal chat 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}Verbal, are you wishing to protract the issue or curtail it? It's starting to look like the former... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Another misleading statement. The RfC was clear, the reference can be used in the way I am using it. If you would drop your attempts at whitewashing we could move on. Verbal chat 08:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're getting a little fond of the ad hominen's there V. Let's save everyone the eye strain, and you the carpal tunnel syndrome, and just take it as read that you consider certain other editors to be liers, misleaders, whitewashers, sock and/or meat puppets, and get back to collaborating on this article. The RfC was for whether pseudoscience should appear in the lead. It does, even though the RfC 'result' was less than clear. I have only seen one RS that states Stevenson's work was pseudoscience, and that's in the lead too. The other one was hotly disputed, and even more hotly dropped, and no one has provided convincing arguments that it fingers Stevenson as opposed to one of his colleagues. The entire quote is above and makes for salutary reading given your other claim about the marvelous modus operandi mystery and how nobody dismissing reincarnation because of it - "Since there is no logical way that a nonphysical entity can cause changes on physical bodies, such a transmission of characteristics must be extremely improbable, if not impossible. This modus operandi problem of conserving the physical traits of the dead continues to defeat the best arguments of reincarnationists". By all means let's move on. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided evidence of my claims, please don't go off topic here. The plural "critics" is supported by references and WP:RS, and validated by the RfC. Please stop stonewalling improvements to this article. Verbal chat 10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to spend more time saying that you have already said something than actually saying anything to help collaboration. Maybe your translator could help again?  ;-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your whimsy to yourself. I have answered. The reference, as per the RfC, supports the inclusion of the plural. Even without the reference, the misleading insinuation that there is only one critic is feeble. I'm not interested in compromising wikipedia policies. If you want to work with different standards I suggest you try a different website - the goal here is to write an accurate encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall keep my whimsy to myself when you stop keeping your justifications to yourself. Looks like we're both doomed. The RfC does not support the inclusion of the plural. So far there is only one RS describing Stevenson's work as pseudoscientific. Bring the others if you have them. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I think I see the problem. The whole point of the talk page is to provide justification for edits, not for whimsy, stonewalling, etc. The RfC supported the use of the reference. The reference can be used (although it really isn't needed, as it is clearly justified anyway) to justify the plural. Verbal chat 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh! I'm starting to see how much fun this is!? You say "the RfC supported X" repeatedly, and then I'll say "the RfC didn't support X" straight back. This is much easier than you saying "the RfC supported X" repeatedly, and me - foolishly - writing lots and lots of justification and so on only to have you say "the RfC supported X" again in a couple of lines... But you see, I haven't got the stomach for all the name calling that seems to go with it. The RfC didn't support the use of the reference. The reference can't be used to claim Stevenson's work was pseudoscientific. I've already provided the quote in the RfC when all you did was claim that DreamGuy's word was good enough. Others have done likewise. If you have a different quote that proves it, please bring it here. I understand how depressing it must be to have to scrabble for just two quotes that say this, and so I can understand why you would want to slip that one under the radar, but you see, I'm not interested in compromising WP policies, I just want to write an accurate encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You are merely misrepresenting the RfC. And implying in the text that there is only one critic. These are both clearly false statements. Verbal chat 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I was going to say that you were merely misrepresenting the RfC, but I thought I'd empathise with your plight instead. Please provide the detailed citations for the other critics you allude to. And if my statements are "clearly false", you should have no difficulty bringing the relevant quotes here to demonstrate this, otherwise I would suggest you cease your unproductive accusations. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is above, there are two sources for pseudoscience, and there are multiple critics in the body of the article. The text has been adapted and no longer misleading (in that section at least). Verbal chat 10:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of "neutrality", in the one paragraph in the lede where we talk about the reception of his work, we are told that some thought him gullible and superstitious, while some say he conducted pseudoscience and that his methods and conclusions were questionable, and also that his conclusions gained little support within the scientific community. This seems to me leave little doubt that his work was not accepted. Do you think we need to heap still more criticism into the lede before the tag can go. Noirtist (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to not misrepresent sources, such as by implying the BMJ sources etc gave unqualified support. Verbal chat 17:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't mention the BMJ. We use the BMJ article as a source for a viewpoint that needs to be represented since we have about 10 academic sources saying the same thing. We could also use it separately (if quotes can be provided) for the view that his work gained little support from the scientific community.Noirtist (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I see you are claiming that the same scientific commentators who said Stevenson's work was scientific did not support his conclusions. In Lief's article he says he withholds judgment on those conclusions, but where are the quotes from Tanne-Hopkins and Brody saying this. Please provide the quotes here per WP:V. Also note there are five other scientific commentators listed above who said his work was scientific. To make the claim you want to make (that they all supported his work but not his conclusions) you will need to have sources for their lack of support for his conclusions also. Noirtist (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to think we need to keep the tag given the POV pushing that seems to be going on here. I shudder to think what would happen if the situation were reversed and we had 10 RS's claiming Stevenson's work was pseudoscientific and only 1 which said it was not - it would be a lucky thing the man was already dead methinks or we might be in for a lynching! Could I suggest that those pushing for the UNDUEly critical stance in the lead consider such a hypothetical reversal and how tolerant they would be of anything that looked even vaguely positive? Dare I suggest that these editors may actually already think that this hypothetical situation is the reality? Perhaps there is a confusion between Stevenson and the more 'whacky' reincarnation fringe, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The current lead has positive statements about his scientific work and his reincarnation research, despite the preponderance of scientific opinion backed by RS. I don't see much of a problem with the current lead, as the positive comments are correctly framed and qualified, where required, as are the criticisms. Verbal chat 10:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson has presented the idea of reincarnation "as having considerable explanatory value for several features of human personality and biology that currently accepted theories do not adequately clarify."

Stevenson, I., "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation," The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. CLXIV, 1997, No. 5.

Twipley (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/pseudo-science/

That article hints unanimity is still to be attained in the definition of science.

Twipley (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikilawyering to remove pseudoscience was halted when further RS as to the fact were introduced. Verbal chat 15:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have took action modified the second paragraph that way:

After training as a psychiatrist, Stevenson taught at Louisiana State University. In the 1950s, inspired by a meeting with Aldous Huxley, he was involved in the early medical study of the effects of LSD and mescaline. He experimented with LSD himself, describing three days of "perfect serenity" and the sense that "I could never be angry again,"^[5] a mystical experience in which he felt "a sense of unity with all beings, all things."^[6] His experiences with psychedelics have enhanced his interest in extrasensory perception,^[6] and "increased [his] conviction of the dual natures of mind and body."^[6] Stevenson views the mystical experience as one of those "other means of attaining knowledge besides the scientific method."^[6]

However, I was tempted to add that that belief did not interfere with the objectivity of his scientific research (on reincarnation), because, as Almeder puts it, "he doesn't push the view on anybody."[6] That belief of his might have motivated him to pursue his research on reincarnation, though.

I am fearing adding the latter might be against WP:PG, but doing such would to my mind duly complement the last added sentence.

Twipley (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not get it. Anytime I propose changes in the "discussion" section, nobody objects, but almost immediately after I take action and put the changes in the article per se it gets reverted. So, I will no do any more changes to the article, but I would appreciate if someone could note what is wrong in the proposed changes:

After training as a psychiatrist, Stevenson taught at Louisiana State University. In the 1950s, inspired by a meeting with Aldous Huxley, he was involved in the early medical study of the effects of LSD and mescaline. He experimented with LSD himself, describing "a sense of unity with all beings, all things,"^[6] three days of "perfect serenity," and the sense that "I could never be angry again."^[5] His experiences with psychedelics have enhanced his interest in extrasensory perception,^[6] and "increased my conviction of the dual natures of mind and body."^[6]

First time, it got reverted on the ground of "self-published self-description represented as fact." Thus, I have revised the changes I had made, and corrected the pointed flaws (which I had then got to perceive). But, the second time, though, the revamped changes were reverted on the ground of, if I get it right, "incorrect tense changes." This one I simply do not get. "Incorrect tense changes?" Can anyone be any clearer?

Thanks, Twipley (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That was one of my reasons, the other was you removed information. The reason the tense is incorrect is because he is dead. I do not think your changes make any valuable addition. Could you please justify what value you think is added by your edits? Verbal chat 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a tiny bit of information which I have found of little importance, and replaced it with the added changes, which I have thought of greater importance. The added information I have found of special pertinence because it develops the current information by precising the value that mystical experience had on his future work. I mean, you are the Ph.D., and I just a regular student, but is not it that an experience that has both "enhanced his interest in extrasensory perception" and "increased his conviction of the dual natures of mind and body" would (if I am not mistaken) produce some sort of change in motivation in him?

I mean, the current way that paragraph is phrased bears only moderate pertinence in that respect, but the way I have proposed the paragraph to further be developed might link his LSD experience with the later direction of his career. The following phrase of mine may be original research, but, reading the addition over and over, I cannot help but see a link with that experience and a significant subsequent alteration in the direction of his scientific work. This latter phrase I would not want to push on any reader, but to my mind his mystical experience is definitely part of his early career and should figure in any thorough, however brief, such descriptions of the career of any person.

What do you think about that? Should I bring feelings into this, I would note that I appreciate when someone details his reasons for controlling an article, such as the "of dubious value" you have just claimed. Twipley (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I also want to note that if you have any recommendations in improving the proposed addition in question, such as the noted tense fixes (as you have noticed English is not my native language), you would be very welcomed to do so. Twipley (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are engaging in speculation (original research), which we should avoid. Unless we have a source saying it changed his life, we shouldn't add it. Verbal chat 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, The curent paragraph already states:

He experimented with LSD himself, describing three days of "perfect serenity" and commenting, "I could never be angry again. As it happens that didn't work out, but the memory of it persisted as something to hope for."^[5]

I mean, we have no indication of the value of such an experience, and yet we have such a paragraph present in the article. It does not make sense to me, that my proposed additions should not be pertinent enough, while such a paragraph is present at the moment. Twipley (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you do not mind, I would greatly appreciate further opinion on the matter. Because to my mind, the debate is not yet closed.

Oh, and furthermore, it happened to me when re-reading your reply that I was not sure of what is referred to in its last sentence: "Unless we have a source saying it changed his life, we shouldn't add it." What do you mean, by "it?" I have not the intention of suggesting it changed his life! Is that what you meant? Twipley (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very simple. If you can show A happened then B happened (both properly sourced), you cannot say that A impacted B, no matter how likely, unless you have a source which links the events. Inferring the link yourself is a synthesis, a form of original research. Do not add conclusions that are not found in the sources.Novangelis (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I am inferring anything. The very subject of this section is to supplement the LSD paragraph of the article by a second phrase about it, stating how it changed one of his interests and one of his convictions. Both are sourced.

Verbal objects, because "I do not think your changes make any valuable addition." I in turn have objected to that, because it seems to pertain to the subject. But Verbal has replied, stating (if I got it right) that the current LSD-experience paragraph should not be supplemented because it is not known whether that experience changed his life. But, I have replied, if the LSD experience is of no importance, then why the mention of it in the first place, and if it is of importance, then why not supplement it by the suggested sentence? Twipley (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If I ever get the okay for the edit, I would only add, and not remove the last bit of the paragraph as I had first intended to do (as Verbal made me change my mind about that). Twipley (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The process of chopping sentences down to clauses, then juxtaposing the clauses is original research. Quotes must be used in context. There is an authority to quotation that cannot be abused by isolation from context. Quotes should be used sparingly, and the use of snippets should be confined to characteristic passages which reflect word choice and eloquence (or ineloquence for other subjects). Prematurely truncating a quote before the idea is expressed is bad, although the quote can be ended and the qualifier reduced to a description, but the context must be preserved. Important qualifiers (such as the finite aspects of an experience) can be omitted. Taking multiple fragments non-consecutive fragments, stripping them from their context, and stitching them together is a risky proposition, at best. It is almost impossible not to use a conjunction that creates a synthesis. The subject's quotes should not be converted into facts. There is a difference between "Mr. A said X changed his life" and "X changed Mr. A's life". Your edit truncated a thought that was part of the context of a quote and introduced a synthetic passage. Your edit involved original research and eliminated a contextual element from a quote in use. There is nothing wrong with mentioning an impact, but it has to represent the statement. Interpreting a subjunctive clause "although they enhanced" as "enhanced" is original research, even if it were to stand away from juxtaposed ideas. Taking away the conjunction strips the context of the quote, even in paraphrase. Such reductionism of clauses from a paper emphasizing holism is ironic.Novangelis (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the due clarifications, Novangelis. I am going to try to update the proposed proposition so that it has the chance to be reviewed in a constructive manner such has just have been made. But, first, here is the second paragraph (again, from the "early career" section), which I have decided to leave alone:

After training as a psychiatrist, Stevenson taught at Louisiana State University. In the 1950s, inspired by a meeting with Aldous Huxley, he was involved in the early medical study of the effects of LSD and mescaline. He experimented with LSD himself, describing three days of "perfect serenity" and commenting, "I could never be angry again. As it happens that didn't work out, but the memory of it persisted as something to hope for."^[5]

At first, I wanted to supplement that paragraph by mentioning another (presumably "another," although one cannot make this claim from the source in question without straying into original research) of his LSD experiences, and thus include some of that: "With one of my experiences with LSD I also had a mystical experience by which I mean a sense of unity with all beings, all things."

The additions I am proposing to that section immediately succeed the second paragraph, and are as follows:

Stevenson says that his experiences with psychedelics "increased my conviction of the dual natures of mind and body,"^[6] and that "my interest in extrasensory perception did not derive from my experiences with drugs, although they enhanced it."^[6]

I admit I somehow was tempted to rather put the latter as: "my interest in extrasensory perception [was enhanced] from my experiences with drugs." However, since one (especially directed to Novangelis) seems positive that such a rephrasing would be "inconsistent with the intent of the source," thus would stray "out of context into original research," I am leaving it that way. Personally, I have no strong opinion yet on any side of the matter.

Thanks for helping me in my first significant contribution to Wikipedia, outside of the talk pages. Twipley (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The first problem is that he doesn't say anything - he's dead. I also don't see the value of these edits. Verbal chat 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you see value in the current mention of one of his psychedelic experiences? Twipley (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the value in extending the section, especially when the tense is wrong. What value do you see in adding your edits, properly corrected? Verbal chat 22:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson said that his experiences with psychedelics "increased my conviction of the dual natures of mind and body,"^[6] and that "my interest in extrasensory perception did not derive from my experiences with drugs, although they enhanced it."^[6]

The value in the suggested addition is perceived in its contribution in the developing of the current second paragraph by precising the effects those already mentioned psychedelic experiences had on him. Twipley (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC

I feel the need for more opinions to be expressed, here. Here, is willing to be described an experience that might have contributed to the increasing of his conviction of a dualism between mind and body. Is not it, that this mention would be at least as pertinent as the mention of "three days of serenity?" The guy has spent about the last forty years of his life doing research on reincarnation, and you are telling me that the mention of a given set of experiences that might have increased his conviction of the dual natures of mind and body would be of insufficient value? At least have the decency of putting in the required energy in justifying your own opinion, besides a constant discredit based on wrong verb tenses. Twipley (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of "mights" in that, plus your perception and interpretation. Looks like your justification is still mired in original research/synthesis. Bring an RS that says what you say above, and then we can discuss it. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is always http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html, which talks about his dualistic philosophy. However, I must admit I have always doubted their methodology, but that may well be prejudiced. That source is published in the form of a book, right? Twipley (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I am not quite sure of what you are looking for. An RS that justifies the inclusion of my proposition in the article? Since when such a thing is needed? Twipley (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A second-party reliable source is required to support any synthesis, otherwise it is original research. A straightforward statement deriving from a primary source does not require a secondary reliable source. (Note the selection of the existing quote by a secondary source.) Juxtaposition or a segue with an inadvertent conjunction implying a relationship would constitute original research. Again, avoid the use of snippet quotes where a paraphrase would suffice. Any paraphrase should avoid interpreting an ambiguous idea like "enhanced", even implicitly. (Was it just enough to mention in passing or profoundly enhancing?) If you have to adjust the quote, it is likely that you will weight it. Novangelis (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not too sure about that, but...

http://www.amazon.com/Children-Remember-Previous-Lives-Reincarnation/dp/0813911400/

Is not the book older than 2001?

Twipley (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The most recent revised edition was published in 2001, but the book was originally published in1987, according to his old university faculty; http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publications.cfm Hepcat65 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant since the citation in question refers to the 2001 edition. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is useful to know the history of the work. Mitsube (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It contributes nothing to the article, which is about Stevenson and not his work, and it just clutters the article up. It's cruft and should not be there. Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that his book was published by an academic press is about both him and his work, and helps establish his position in the field. This is why you want to remove it. Mitsube (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, don't make accusations of bad faith. I've tried to improve the section a bit. The fact that his book was published by an academic press tells us nothing. Verbal chat 22:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll wager very few if any Wikipedia articles on academics list the publishing history of each of their books. UofV or McFarland...pick one, no need to list both. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with LuckyLouie. If you want to cite the first edition published by UofV that's fine... as long as the ref still applies to the first edition. However putting up both is simply unnecessary and poorly structured. Simonm223 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, ISBN gives all we need. Verbal chat 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit has been reversed on the grounds that;

1. the number fifty is not mentioned in the source. 2) quotations were misused

with the result that Clarke was once again misrepresented as requiring a "physical" theory of mind (which is absurd) and the impression given that his comments might constitute a rejection of Stevenson's findings. Here's the final para of the cited source:

"An example is reincarnation, which everyone in Sri Lanka believes in. An American, Dr. Stevenson, has done a lot of papers on that, and has produced studies of about 50 cases that are hard to explain. But the problem with reincarnation is that it's hard to imagine what the storage medium for past lives would be. Not to mention the input-output device. I hesitate to rule it out completely, but I'd need pretty definite proof."

It is plain that every reason for reversion is mistaken. "Fifty" IS mentioned, Clarke did not reject Stevenson's findings, did not require a "physical" medium. His objections arise from his consideration of the 50 cases. The fact that these matters have been overlooked or misunderstood underlines the necessity of exactitude in quoting this source: "Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors."

Redheylin (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says, "about fifty". You complain about exactitude yet equate "fifty" with "about fifty", when the specific (or overly specific) number is extraneous. You then proceeded to take my summary: "Exact number not given;..." and represent it as saying "the number fifty is not mentioned in the source". Selective quoting and context building is why quotes should be avoided in favor of a concise summary. I have removed the words physical and mechanism.Novangelis (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It will do - but tell me; to which wiki guideline respecting quotations do you refer? I have quoted one such guideline in favour of exact quotation in the present instance and your edits appear to remove detail, rather than clarifying grammar or adding the word "about". Since in my view this is opening the paragraph to controversy, I'd like to know what is your reason for removal of Clarke's exact words, what statement are you alleging I deselected and what context you think was built or unbuilt? And again, why not add this statement or context rather than making it vaguer? Redheylin (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations covers this: the quote is not pertinent.Novangelis (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that you can not understand the relevance of the quote to the page and it requires further explanation? Does this replace your former unexplained statement that the quote was selective? Redheylin (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not try to tell me what I am am saying if you are going to consistently get it wrong. I am saying that quotations should be pertinent to the subject of the article and used in the context of the source.Novangelis (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)