Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I've introduced text contextualizing the commentary Sagan made regarding Reincarnation. It's problematic to include this reference to Sagan at all here as while he may have known of Stevenson's work, he makes no specific mention of him by name in "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark". I've also added sourcing to specific quotes as well in response to the complaint the amendment was poorly sighted and "one-sided". It's suspect to attempt to lend credence to Stevenson's work by using Sagan's name, at the least his exact wording and qualifications need to be present.

Apologies for making the edits anonymously, i'm user MGorky but my password resent seems to be not be coming through, looking into that now.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.137.84 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorted out my login issues. So yes, regarding the quotes. The initial introduction of contextualizing text was removed by user Johnfos and sighted as having a lot of "loaded language". However the said loaded language was contained in direct Carl Sagan quotes? I've now sighted each. And this would be the point, in his book Sagan was not putting his backing behind the work of Stevenson at all, he did not even name him. He was making a case that sceptics need to not just blindly dismiss extraordinary claims out of hand, a few may prove true. He then named three that "at the time of writing" he felt were worthy of considerations, the stories of children quote used here is the third. He also qualified this strongly by saying he did not think they would prove true, just that the question was open. If any of this is to be used in the section here, then it should be used with full context, and direct quotes. To do otherwise is misrepresenting his thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGorky (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As you say, Sagan didn't even mention Stevenson, so I can't see how all of this commentary is relevant here on the Ian Stevenson page. It is WP:COATRACK material and so I have removed it. Perhaps it would be better placed on the Sagan page? Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're probably wrong about the WP:COATRACK claim, but correct that this shouldn't be included if it's WP:OR - however this link is made by a number of people, I've added one reference that does this, and so restored the text you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.103.166 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This material is totally out of place here, and I have removed it again. Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Prominent individuals commenting on Stevenson's work in the section on reception of his work is hardly out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.134.156 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sagan is does not refer to Stevenson's work directly so this is WP:COATRACK material. This part of the edit should be put in the Reincarnation article. The other part of the edit regarding Orch-OR (Hameroff, Penrose) and Quantum mind: the reference fails verification. We need to know what exactly Hameroff and/or Penrose said in the Discovery article regarding Stevenson or his research. Otherwise this is original research either by Jane Bosveld or editor MGorky. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong on three counts. i) Sagan is referring to Stevenson's work in the section alluded to - but he does not refer to Stevenson by name. ii) It is a RS making that connection which is being cited in the article, not Sagan and iii) If you think it is good enough for the Reincarnation article, then you accept it meets WP standards (if it is WP:COATRACKING here it would be WP:COATRACKING there as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.125.126 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

EP is right, and I notice the Sagan material already appears in the Reincarnation research article. There is simply no reason for it to appear here as well. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Adopting your incisive style - EP is wrong. Adopting a more WP style - might I suggest you address the reasons provided rather than making pronouncements. This is a discussion page designed to progress the quality of the article. I think your exclusion of the material in question reduces quality since it is true that Sagan and Clarke both held Stevenson's work in a different way to other things they were skeptical about. It does the reader a disservice to pretend these prominent skeptics rejected Stevenson out of hand rather than considered his work to be serious - however unlikely to be true. It is not WP:COATRACKING, it is reporting RS's which have made this connection between Sagan, Clarke, and Stevenson. The fact that you think it is WP:COATRACKING suggests that you are concerned that Stevenson is being presented in too positive a light, this is misreading the references which are hardly flattering of Stevenson, merely not dismissive of him. To think that such bland comments are somehow puffing up Stevenson smacks of an excessive sensitivity and a possible bias _against_ Stevenson's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.125.126 (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Three experienced editors have said that there is no good reason for this material to appear in this article -- EPadmirateur, Mariordo [1] and myself. Please try and accept that. Johnfos (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems that according to you 3 x WP:IDON'TLIKEIT = "no good reason for material to appear". How persuasive you are. Perhaps I could encourage you to abandon your dismissive approach and address the arguments put forward - instead of pretending they don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.130.160 (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• The material in question appears to be a poorly-sourced WP:Synthesis-ridden mess. Either find sources that support the claims without such severe patchworking, or accept that this material is not fit for Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting needlessly argumentative, and there is more being removed than just the stuff relating to Sagan. I have restored the other material and added 2 RS's linking Sagan's comments to Stevenson. Could I suggest that if editors want to delete other material that they first bring it here for discussion in a relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.130.160 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sagan never mentions Stevenson in The Demon-Haunted World. Therefore linking him directly to Stevenson via that book is illegitimate WP:Synthesis.
• What Sagan in fact says about past-life (and his other examples) is explicitly extremely equivocal:

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course I could be wrong

• I would therefore suggest that if we're talking about Sagan and past-life, then we (i) should not make any attempt to link him to Stevenson -- as Sagan himself makes no such link, & (ii) include the full context of Sagan's full equivocation on the topic in the text.
• Finally, what's with the completely bollocksed-up citations:

^ Quoting directly from The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1997, p. 302 | http://books.google.com/books?id=5QpLlsPPM_YC&pg=PA302&dq=at+the+time+of+writing,+there+are+three+claims+in+the+ESP+field+that+deserve+serious+study&hl=en&ei=RsHjTdjgHIncgQfS17y4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=perhaps%20one%20percent%20of%20the%20time%2C%20someone%20who%20has%20an%20idea%20that%20smells%2C%20feels%2C%20and%20looks%20indistinguishable%20from%20the%20usual%20run&f=false | "Perhaps one per cent of the time, someone who has an idea that smells, feels and looks indistinguishable from the usual run of pseudoscience will turn out to be right."

^ Quoting directly from The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1997, p. 302 | http://books.google.com/books?id=5QpLlsPPM_YC&pg=PA302&dq=at+the+time+of+writing,+there+are+three+claims+in+the+ESP+field+that+deserve+serious+study&hl=en&ei=RsHjTdjgHIncgQfS17y4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=%22at%20the%20time%20of%20writing%20there%20are%20three%20claims%20in%20the%20ESP%20field%22&f=false | "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:"
...

^ Quoting directly from The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1997, p. 302 | http://books.google.com/books?id=5QpLlsPPM_YC&pg=PA302&dq=at+the+time+of+writing,+there+are+three+claims+in+the+ESP+field+that+deserve+serious+study&hl=en&ei=RsHjTdjgHIncgQfS17y4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22I%20pick%20these%20claims%20not%20because%20i%20think%20they're%20likely%20to%20be%20valid%22&f=false | "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look carefully at what you've done Hrafn, but based on my cursory reading of it I like the approach you've taken. There's some bits that could be tightened and I'll have a go at that later, but overall I think this is an improvement to the article. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.130.160 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked your edits as follows: Improved readability of the Sagan piece by just re-ordering the sentence - pretty uncontroversial I suspect you'd agree. I also removed the summary of Clarke's quote that preceded it - I assume this is also uncontroversial, since we should either have the summary or the quote, and I think the quote is better. What you may disagree with is my removal of the 'fishy' bit from the Harris sentence. My argument for this is twofold, first, Harris is identified as a skeptic, so it is already implicit that he does not subscribe to Stevenson's views and so saying that he "admitted" to details being fishy makes is sound like he's actually defending Stevenson - which I believe misrepresents him, but secondly (and more importantly in my view) the author of the cited article says "Pressed, he admits that some of the details might after all be "fishy"". In my view this is far from compelling since we have no information on what details he is agreeing are fishy, or even if this is an actual quote from Harris - in fact Harris claims Gorenfeld was being malicious in this article (see http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-January/031777.html) and says of Stevenson's work "I cannot categorically dismiss their contents" (here http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/). So I think the quote you used is accurate and reflective of Harris' view, but I think the "fishy" bit is a bit fishy and it would be better to find an actual quote from Harris that details such reservations rather than relying on Gorenfeld's interpretation (I haven't found anything useful yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.130.160 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Harris opinion ("fishy") can't be reported because it's not a quote? Then why is in quotes? It can't be used because he's already labeled as a skeptic? Mmm, no. And per Harris, he never 'repudiated' it: "However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.158.85 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

'Never' is an ambitious claim - and describing the article as "a poisonous mash of misquotation and paraphrases" is hardly a ringing endorsement!! I think you clicked on the wrong link - your quote comes from his specific responses to the paranormal stuff where "I cannot categorically dismiss their contents" comes from. The other link contains the more forceful repudiation. Given the fact that Harris claims he is being misrepresented by the article, and that he does not have prima facie evidence to dismiss Stevenson's work, the 'fishy' word seems to be somewhat out of context and is perhaps one of the paraphrases Harris refers to? If he felt there were fishy elements then he presumably would have included them in the article you cited, but his clarification there - as you quoted - says that he can neither dismiss the work nor can he be bothered looking into it further himself. That is very different from calling the evidence "fishy" i.e. he is saying he isn't interested enough to personally investigate the matter, he isn't saying that the evidence is suspect. So as I said before, I think the 'fishy' line misrepresents Harris' view. Incidentally, I didn't say that it can't be used because he's already labelled a skeptic, and I didn't say it wasn't a quote - just that there is some ambiguity as to whether it *is* Harris' opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.130.160 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this and found some problems with it (repetition, inconsistent formatting, dead links, etc), so I've copy-edited it, rewritten parts of it, added some details, and made the reference formatting consistent (diff). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, you've several times reverted material without saying what the problem is. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In the most recent revert, you removed several things (including subheads), and seemed to say that Robert Almeder, the philosopher, is not a reliable source. Yet in the same edit, you restored some material from him too. Could you explain why you consider him not reliable for the section you removed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The part I object to is using the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a source. It's not peer-reviewed (regardless of what they claim) nor does it qualify as a reliable source. What Almeder writes there has not been peer reviewed. As for the use of Almeder elesewhere, I have no problem if it's from a real academic source, but would agree with you that it should be deleted if it's not. The problem is with the noteworthiness of his claimsnotabilility of his claims in JSE. Since there is no credible oversight or academic review, and the journal is not indexed nor widely cited by other academics, we have no way of knowing how significant his opinions stated there are. Again, my concerns are limited to the section sourced with JSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable. Almeder is an academic philosopher who has been published on this issue elsewhere by reliable publishers, so even if this article were self-published, we could still use it under WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.")

In addition, the material is not contentious. Stevenson's position is clearly minimalist, and Almeder offers a definition of it (in the second paragraph of this section), which -- if you're familiar with the academic literature on personal identity -- is entirely straightforward. It helps the reader to understand what is meant by reincarnation in this context. We're not talking about religion, or karma, or any spiritual belief, but about personal identity and its requirements (e.g. whether it requires just one body). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As you haven't responded, I've restored this and continued with the expansion of the article. The source is definitely policy compliant -- not least because Almeder is a recognized expert on this subject and has published two books about it, and therefore the journal that published this particular article becomes irrelevant, per WP:SPS; that is, the reliability resides in Almeder. I also don't see what's wrong with the journal, and it does seem to be peer-reviewed, but that's a separate issue and not needed for reliability. In addition it's an informative article that we can link to, rather than expecting readers to hunt down Almeder's books, and it's being used only to support an uncontentious definition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are relying on something which is essentially self published, for a BLP. WP:BLPSPS. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, he died in 2007. Is there not a more reliable source? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

JSE is a patently unreliable source for a scientific claim. Its use has been widely deprecated in other articles about pseudoscience, and this one should be no different. Skinwalker (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not being used to support a scientific claim, but a philosophical definition. As it's written by an academic philosopher, the source is an appropriate one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the passage in question:

Stevenson's research is associated with what the philosopher Robert Almeder calls the minimalist reincarnation hypothesis. Almeder describes this as the view that: "There is something essential to some human personalities ... which we cannot plausibly construe solely in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states ... and, further, after biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body. Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth."^[1]

• Someone restored text with Copyvio issues which I had removed, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I had merged in reincarnation research, then I noticed it had copyvio issues, so I reverted, but then someone reverted me. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been rewriting this for the last couple of days, so I'd be surprised if there are any copyvios. Can you point to an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

[7],[8][9] Happy hunting. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest having a look at Reincarnation research, which duplicates much of that section. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, SlimVirgin. I did write and post a response to you, but it didn't get posted because of an edit conflict, and I didn't check, so my bad. Here's what I wrote:

First of all, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that "personal identity and its requirements" is to be treated here either as a scientific topic, or as some other legitimate academic topic, presumably something like philosophy, psychology or religious studies. For serious academic topics, we require serious academic sources that are acknowledged by clear consensus among demonstrably qualified experts in the relevant field, usually (I'd go so far as to say practically always) in peer-reviewed sources. Such consensus clearly does not exist for JSE, by any stretch of the imagination.

As for using you claim that it be used as an SPS, based on Almeder's professional qualifications, I don't think so. First of all, he chose to publish this definition in a non-reliable source. The fact that he did so strongly implies that he did so because the paper was rejected for publication by a real scholarly journal, and couldn't be bothered to bring it up to real-world academic standards. Or it could mean that he couldn't be bothered to write a rigorous manuscript in the first place, and realizing that it would not pass the academic review process, decided to bypass the process. Other explanations are highly unlikely, because, as a qualified academic who had intimate knowledge of JSE, and a it would be extremely difficult to argue that he didn't know that it was not an acceptable outlet for academic publication.

This raises the question of his motive for doing so, and one would not be acting unreasonably in concluding that that motive was essentially self-serving, that is, to influence the course of the scholarly debate interjecting terms defined to suit his own purposes. The sources is therefore clearly questionable, and fails WP:SELFPUB.

I can't see the utility in adding this definition to the article based on Almeder's say-so. His credibility was damaged when he intentionally published in what he well knew was considered by the majority of his colleagues to be a sham journal.

I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that this source will ever meet our requirements for the definition you want to add.

I've read the article and the related article on reincarnation research, and have to say that they are a complete mess. I don't even know where to start, but sourcing is a major problem. Also a major problem is that this is presented as science, which it clearly is not. I'm going to ask a couple of fellow editors who are very knowlegeable about our sourcing policies in science and humanistics to look over the articles and give their opinions. As for me, I cannot see anything in these articles that qualifies as legitimate science, and am not confident that I can evaluate them as non-scientific academic articles.

Coincidentally, IRWolfie was one of the editors I was going to invite to checked out the article, but he showed up on his own. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The issue of whether consciousness can exist without the brain is a philosophical one, first and foremost; that is, whether it makes sense to think of consciousness as nothing but brain states, or as something separable. The minimalist definition of personality transfer is offered here by an academic philosopher, Robert Almeder, so the source is entirely appropriate. In addition, Almeder has written two books about this issue, so his views on the subject are both appropriate and notable. That is, he is an established expert in the field. As such, it matters not where he published the article we are discussing. That is the policy.

In addition it's an interesting and intelligent article, whether or not any editor agrees with it, so that's another reason to use it as a source. It seems to me that you are objecting in principle to this journal, no matter what it publishes, but that really isn't an appropriate way to approach sourcing. As WP:SOURCES explains, reliability on Wikipedia can reside with the author, the publication, or the publisher. In this case it resides with the author. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the journal's editor in chief and it's Stephen E. Braude, professor of philosophy, and former chair of the department of philosophy, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. [10] He specializes in philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and parapsychology, which are all pertinent to this article. In addition, Ian Stevenson helped to found the Society for Scientific Exploration, which runs this journal, so again that speaks to appropriateness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because "it's philosophy" does not mean that we can use any old source, no matter how unreliable it is. Philosophy is a legitimate scholarly discipline, just like science, so any material related to philosphy must be supported by legitimate academic sources that the consensus of experts in the relevant field agree are reliable. While this is easier to establish in the sciences than in humanistic disciplines, especially philosophy, there is no doubt that JSE is far, far, far beyond the pale, especially as it dishonestly portrays itself as a legitimate scholarly publication. That the editor is a respected academic does not "speak to appropriateness" in the least. Lots of sham journals are edited by otehrwise respectable academics.

I've already explained in great detail why I wouldn't trust Almader himself as far as this source is concerned. The fact that he is an established expert in the field and has published a lot actually makes things worse, because it makes it a lot harder to argue that he didn't know what he was doing when he published in a sham journal. It strengthens my suspicions about his motives.

Your argument that the article should be included because YOU find the article "interesting and intelligent" is ridiculous and insults my intelligence, and that of our readers. I, and our readers, care about what experts in the relevant field think about it. I very highly doubt that it has been widely cited by real scholarly experts in the work they publish in real scholarly sources, except perhaps by those with a close connection to Almader himself, who I can justifiably discount as being part of a mutual adoration society. If experts in the relevant field independent of the source don't consider it worth citing in their work, why should we even consider using it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're letting personal POV about this journal get in the way. The question is not: "is this journal a reliable source?" That's a meaningless question, because we would need to know "a reliable source for what?" The question is: "is this article by an academic philosopher – one who is a published author on personal identity and reincarnation – a reliable source for a definition of reincarnation? And it seems to me that from every perspective (policy and common sense) it is. The only thing other academic philosophers would care about is whether his arguments are solid, not where they were published. In addition, the article is referenced in the Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma (McFarland, 2010), and by Jim B. Tucker in Life Before Life, because it's one of the articles that rebuts the criticism from Paul Edwards.

Do you actually object to the definition I added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You think wrong and that's an ad hominem argument. My judgement was based on my examination of the source. And it doesn't matter what material you want to source with it. You asked, "what is it reliable for"? Absolutely nothing at all, so your question is irrelevant here. Your argument from "common sense" again insults my intelligence, and your argument from "policy" is, well, you have no argument from policy. Cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the rest is not an argument from policy.

As for the two books you give that cite the article, neither is reliable itself. '"Norman C. McClelland is a retired teacher, independent scholar, and a Zen dharma master, ordained by the Venerable Karuna Dharma, Abbess of the International Buddhist Meditation Center of Los Angeles. He is a published poet and author of a chapter on Zen in an anthology on gay spirituality."' So he's not a qualified expert by any stretch of the imagination. As for Tucker, he's what I'm talking about as a member of a mututal adoration society. He's intimately connected with with JES and Stevenson. Nor can I find any evidence that his book is highly cited. According to our article on this essentially self-published book, it was reviewed by four sham journals, one of which is JSE, hardly surprising because Stevenson wrote the preface. Nothing indicating that it has been widely cited in the real academic literature. Being cited by these books lends ZERO credibility to Almader's article.

As for the definition itself, whether I object to it or not is irrelevant. My opinion of the validity of the definition is, like yours or any other editors, completely worthless here on WP. Even Almeder didn't think that this definition was important enough to get published in a reliable journal, so why should anyone else? And if you really think that academic philosophers waste their time reading stuff that is not in real reliable scholarly sources, except perhaps for shits and giggles, you're sorely mistaken. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but what the hell, The question is not: "is this journal a reliable source?. That is utterly wrong, yes the reliability of the journal does matter: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is wikipedia, the reputation of the source is important. The journal has zero reputation for fact checking. The journal raises a WP:REDFLAG, it's lack of citations except from Tucker and Russell Targ raises more red flags. "The only thing other academic philosophers would care about is...", sorry what's that got to do with anything? We aren't academic philosophers, and yes the venue does matter in publications. Why do you think discplines often have dedicated journals? It's so they can be subject to peer review, and then notice by their peers. When someone does not publish in the usaul venues, they don't get attention by their peers. If you look through the pages of Scientific exploration and similar, you will find all sorts of researchers saying all sorts of things, but they aren't reliable for what they say. Ask yourself, if it could have been published in the publications of his research community, why wasn't it? Take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the sourcing policies, and there's no question that this article is reliable and appropriate for the material I added. If the author had published the article on his blog it would still be an RS (for this particular point), because of who he is.

Whether you object to the definition itself is the key issue. Otherwise you are saying you want to remove material that's okay simply because you don't like the source. I would not use this source for anything contentious, given your objections. But this is not a contentious thing at all. It is just a definition of reincarnation from a philosopher. This is what philosophers do; they define terms and give ideas structure. Here is the definition again, so please say whether you object to it, and if so what the problem with it is:

Stevenson's research is associated with what the philosopher Robert Almeder calls the minimalist reincarnation hypothesis. Almeder describes this as the view that: "There is something essential to some human personalities ... which we cannot plausibly construe solely in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states ... and, further, after biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body. Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth."^[1]

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would both tone down the aggression. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether I object to the objection itself is completely irrelevant. Whether I "like" the source or not is also complelely irrelevant. Whether Almader is a respected academic or not is completely irrelevant. Whether the editor of the journal is a respected academic is completely irrelevant. Whether anyone cites the source in their own non-peer-reviewed books is irrelevant. And whether it's contentious or not is likewise completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters here that the source itself is not reliable, as IRWolfie and I have patiently explained to you in great detail. I have nothing more to add. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See [[11]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the conclusions of that discussion, which is that the journal is an RS for the opinions of its authors, but not for scientific statements/facts. I'm using it here to support the opinions of an author, with in-text attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No you're not. It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. Also, not convinced that he is an recognized expert on this subject matter. Has he published anything in peer-reviewed journals about this topic? If not, he is just a self-described expert, and his even his opinions do not matter. Dominus Vobisdu

The source, who is an academic philosopher, offers his definition of the minimalist theory of reincarnation. It is his definition. This is what philosophers do when they approach problems. They read a position, they summarize it, they name it, then they proceed to find its strengths and weaknesses with reference to other named positions. These are opinions and arguments, not "statements of fact" (except in the trivial sense that it's a fact that he proposed this definition).

Look, this is not a good way to spend time on Wikipedia. This philosophers's definition is perfectly straightforward; you have lodged no objection to it. He is a recognized expert in this field, with two published books about it. I want to use him and Paul Edwards as sources because they have gone back and forth about this over the years. I am in the process of doing the reading. Every time I have to respond here to this issue about the definition, it slows things down. If you would just allow the work to be done, you would see how it ends up taking shape and (I hope) making sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

He is only an expert on the topic is his work on the topic has been published in reliable independent sources, and since this is (supposedly) an academic topic, that means peer-reviewed journals and/or peer-reviewed books published by real academic presses, AND if that work has been widely cited and is positively viewed by other academics in their own peer-reviewed work.

That he has published two books on the topic is irrelevant unless they were peer-reviewed.

That he is a professional philosopher is also irrelevant. A philospher who is an expert on Schpenhauer, for instance, is not an Expert on Aristotle if he has never published peer-reviewed work on Aristotle.

Trying to add material from unreliable sources is not a good way to spend time on Wikipedia. And you are doing our readership no service by doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect, it's your opinion that he's not an RS. He's professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University. He has written two books about this very issue, Death and Personal Survival (1992) and Beyond Death (1987), and several others about philosophy of mind in general, and the philosophy of science. And it's your opinion that source material has to be peer-reviewed to be reliable. But that's not policy. We have content policies so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every single talk page, so that editors who simply don't like a source can't exclude it unless it violates policy. And according to the policies that philosopher's paper is an RS for his definition of the minimalist position.

If you disagree, please show me which part of which policy that article violates.

I was going to try to get this article to GA standard (not necessarily to nominate it, but at least to get it there), but I'm thinking of abandoning that idea if this is what the discussion will be like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The source fails as a reliable source per WP:RS, specifically the sections on scholarship, questionable sources, self-published sources, usage by other sources, and . The policy requires that the author of a self-published source be an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The relevant field here is reincarnation research, not philosophy in general. That is irrelevant as I demonstrated above with the Schopenhauer/Aristotle example. From what I can tell, all of Almader's peer-reviewed work has nothing at all to do with reincarnation research.

This article will NEVER reach GA status as long as the sourcing is not top notch, and that's clearly not the case here. Far from it. A lot of the material needs to be simply deleted, perhaps the bulk of the article, as it is unreliably sourced, too.

Furthermore, I can find no evidence that "reincarnation research" is a legitimate academic field, even as philosophy. Very little of the work in the field has appeared in real academic journals, and even that has not been widely cited by other scholars in reliable scholarly sources. Almost all of it has appeared only in sham journals like JSE, self-published sources or non-academic sources. Looks like woo to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS is just a guideline; the policy is WP:V, but I'm sure this article is also WP:RS compliant (and if the guideline says anything inconsistent with the policy, the policy prevails). And I have not argued that the disputed paper is self-published, so that's a red herring. (I argued that, if it had been an SPS, it would still be reliable under the policy because in this case reliability resides in the author, Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, who is known for his work in this area.)

Once again, source material does not have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable, according to our policies, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop repeating that as though I haven't addressed it. If there is a policy that supports you, please show me where it is. In any event, if you're familiar with the problems of peer review, you'll know that there is plenty of good material that's has not been through peer review, and plenty of dreadful material that has.

As for "reincarnation research" and whether or not it's a scholarly topic, I'm not sure what your point is in relation to this article (lots of material on JSTOR). Academic philosophers have written about it, from both a supportive and a withering perspective – their interest stems from an interest in consciousness studies, which is where mine comes from too – and I am reproducing what they have said, insofar as it relates to Stevenson. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, further argument is pointless. I've examined the article in light of our polcies and guidelines, I've carefully and patiently considered your arguments, and I have come to the very firm conclusion that the source fails our policies and guidelines by a wide mile, and cannot be used for the purposes you intend. That is my contribution to the consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a look at this and I agree with DV that this source is too weak to use. Given that this article is covered by WP:FRINGE policies we shouldn't be using articles in pseudo-journals. This could go to RSN for more eyes Itsmejudith (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've requested uninvolved input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This synopsis of Ian Stevenson and description of his life is extremely biased and negatively slanted, with a good deal of half truths. It really demeans the life work of the man, and the writer that characterizes Ian in this article provides very little insight into the actual work he did - and cites almost none of his voluminous material.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to spend to dispute this callous and negative summary of Ian Stevenson. One would think the University of Virginia might make an effort at correcting this despicable essay. In any regards, those who do bother reading this comments section - beware of the highly opinionated and half-truths provided by what is a borderline spurious version of Ian Stevenson's research and life - meant to leave readers with the impression that his work was invalid and he was simply a "gullible" individual (a shameless smear of Ian's character.)

This is not real science here - whomever wrote the article, but a new kind of fundamentalism, that is willing to discredit anyone that doesn't fill the check marks of what appears to be a reductive materialistic ideology - coupled with biased cruelty and deliberate misinformation.

Allowing articles of this kind to be publicly available does a disservice to the credibility and veracity of Wikipedia.

~Jamenta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.9.48 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was rewritten against consensus in November 2012. It looks the way it does today because the number of editors on Wikipedia has declined dramatically and it has become difficult to ensure NPOV in articles. Shii (tock) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Shii. I believe it. What horrendous unapologetic bias here. Sad. Jamenta (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1)

Despite this early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work.

2)

Edwards argued that Stevenson referred to himself as a scientist, but did not act like one. According to Edwards, he failed to respond to, or even mention, significant objections; the large bibliography in Stevenson's Children Who Remember Previous Lives (1987) does not include one paper or book from his opponents.

2 begs the question of what the "significant objections" are, given 1. 1 is clearly true as can be seen from the extensive bibliography on this article. I therefore claim that to resolve the contradiction, 2 should be removed because it gives insufficient detail to prove it is a meaningful statement. Shii (tock) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how may significant objections were listed by Edwards, because I don't have access to the source. 2 is only a problem because you removed one of those significant objections right before posting here. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it is difficult to know an unpublished paper even exists, let alone list it in a bibliography. Do you disagree? Shii (tock) 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And, as I said in my edit summary, the source is Edwards, not the unpublished report itself. Edwards is a reliable source for material about the unpublished report. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So Edwards claims that Stevenson is not a true scientist because he didn't cite Edwards' 1996 book, in 1986? And this claim is made in the book itself? Is this some new kind of catch-22? My point is that 2 contradicts 1 so the article makes nonsense of itself. Shii (tock) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got yourself hopelessly confused. Edwards is saying that in Stevenson's twelfth or thirteenth book on the topic after publishing for more than twenty years, he still did not address any of the criticisms made by numerous parties over the years, and even completely ommitted any mention of them in the voluminous bibliography of his (Stevenson's) twelfth or thirteenth book on the topic. No contradiction there. You just read wrong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you say there were "numerous parties" making criticisms that Stevenson could cite in 1986 when we don't even mention a single one of them, and in fact say conversely that "most scientists ignored Stevenson's work"? Shii (tock) 03:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the last sentence of the lede, and the Carroll source cited after it. And "Most scientists ignored Stevensons's work" does not mean "All scientists ignored Stevenson's work". Again, no contradiction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Are those the critics? So it's exactly as I said. You're saying that Edwards expected Stevenson to cite Edwards' 1996 book in 1986. Shii (tock) 04:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and neither is the article. Read it already. Carefully. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edwards was publishing opposition to Stevenson's ideas at least as far back as 1988. In any case, it isn't a good idea to argue that Stevenson didn't have any significant opposition while removing examples of it from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that Edwards started writing about Stevenson from at least 1986. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't keep removing this material. [12] The source – Paul Edwards, editor-in-chief of MacMillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy – is a well-known critic of Stevenson.

If you want to add to the article (for example, by writing up one of Stevenson's stronger case studies, something I intend to do if I can find time, and if one exists), please do. But what's there already is well-sourced and shouldn't be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Since when is a prejudicial source been a valid source of objectivity? What a farce. Wikipedia has become a mockery of itself with this kind of spurious and POV nonsense pretending to be objective. Jamenta (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? Yes, well-sourced criticism is fine, but the length of a criticism section should be balanced per WP:BALANCE. We shouldn't be summarizing an entire book. Including several paragraphs about a single case out of dozens, and a paragraph devoted to an unpublished manuscript, is a clear violation of our policies.

Here is an example of an unbiased, third party article about Stevenson: [13] Criticism is 2 paragraphs out of over a dozen.[14] Criticism is 1 paragraph out of a dozen, and the article closes not with criticism, but with Carl Sagan endorsing Stevenson's work. Shii (tock) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about summarizing an entire book. I would like to include summaries of two case studies; I've already added one, and I tried to find a stronger one but was unable to. If you're familiar with Stevenson, perhaps you could suggest one?

There is no point in describing the case studies without going into detail, because it's only when you see the detail that you realize what his methodology was. That's why I decided to add just two, rather than shorter summaries of several.

As for the W/Post obit you linked to, that was written by one of his supporters, and a Wikipedia article isn't meant to be written as an obituary, so comparing it to obits doesn't really help. This article is extremely respectful of him compared to what used to be here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"There is no point in describing the case studies without going into detail, because it's only when you see the detail that you realize what his methodology was. That's why I decided to add just two, rather than shorter summaries of several." What the...?! Why are we suddenly discussing approaches to revealing Stevenson's methodology through careful choice of case studies? Is that at all appropriate? Is this an encyclopedia article, or a personal essay? We should not be offering "examples" of his work because that is how essays are written, not encyclopedias. There should be no "case studies" at all! I've never seen anything like this on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 23:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be exceedingly odd to write an article about his work that offered no examples of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

But the article is about him, not his work. And we're not trying to prove a point about his methodology through illustrative example. At least, I hope not; that would be WP:OR.

I realized, thinking it over, what this article needs. We need to create a sub-section for Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation and summarize that article in a single paragraph, which is more standard on Wikipedia. In that article we can detail individual cases. Moving your paragraph from Stevenson's article to the book article would make both articles more balanced. Shii (tock) 00:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That article already exists: Reincarnation reseach. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Stevenson and his work, and criticism of him and his work. We can't remove the criticism and leave the rest – and it is only just over 3,000 words, so there are no length issues. Also, your point about OR. This is all sourced to secondary sources. It was Paul Edwards who highlighted that case, not me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

But Edwards was criticizing the 20 Cases book. His specific criticism belongs in the article about that book. Since you seem really hung up about this single case, maybe we can give it a single sentence in the section summarizing the book in this article.

Do me a favor and look at these two articles: Alfred Kinsey vs. Kinsey Reports. Does the article on Kinsey himself have a section about his methodology? No, because that's too much detail. Or, look at Charles Darwin vs. On the Origin of Species. Do you see what I'm getting at? Shii (tock) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Shii, have you read Edwards or Stevenson? Edwards wasn't only criticizing one book. He criticizes Stevenson extensively: his cases, his ideas, his arguments and his methodology. The criticism, whether from Edwards or anyone else, is not about one book, it is about the entire body of work, which is why it belongs here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And do either of the biographical articles I linked have lengthy descriptions of an individual critic of the subject of the article? Shii (tock) 01:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You linked to two obituaries, one written by one of his two main supporters. This is a very different kind of article, one in which we tell readers what academic secondary sources have said about Ian Stevenson and his work. And that's what the article does. Edwards was his main academic critic; Chari was another one.

Can you say whether you've read Stevenson, Edwards or any of this? The reason I ask is that it's important to do that before commenting, because what you see is not what you get, when it comes to Stevenson. Reading his research in detail sheds a very different light from reading brief summaries of it, a greater difference than you might expect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read neither, but what I see on this article is not NPOV. If Edwards is as influential as you say that should be attested by more than his ability to sniff out unpublished essays by disgruntled employees, and mass-market essays that make mention of Stevenson like Chari's. It's fine to mention critiques, but I do not expect that I would be allowed to summarize the argument of a Christian critic of Darwin on his Wiki biography, not even a very lengthy criticism that cites lot of sources. It's simply unbalanced and undue weight. Shii (tock) 01:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't possible to judge what's NPOV-compliant without being familar with the material. NPOV involves reporting what appropriate secondary sources have said, and also roughly reflecting the proportion of views. Academic sources are almost uniformly critical of Stevenson, or silent about him. This article has to reflect that. In fact the article is, as I said before, extremely respectful of his work, compared to the secondary commentary.

I don't understand the analogy with Darwin. Edwards was a notable philosopher, one who had a soft spot for some of these alternative ideas. But he strongly opposed Stevenson because of the latter's methodology. That's why it's important to read Stevenson directly. If you do, you'll almost certainly see what Edwards meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than criticizing, it would be helpful if people could suggest a case of Stevenson's that they believe to be a strong one. I'm quite willing to do the work of researching it and writing it up, but every case I've looked at has suffered from similar weaknesses to the Chotkin example. But I haven't read them all, so if someone knows of a good one, please point it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I believe you are a highly bigoted editor with an agenda, presenting a false front to make sure what is written here is not by consensus. This is not scholarship, it is the worst kind of dogmatic fundamentalism and dishonesty. Jamenta (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jamenta the way you are going you may be blocked from Wikipedia. Is that what you want? It seems you have a long history of leaving trollish rants on talk pages related to the paranormal and personally attacking other users. Nothing you have suggested has been constructive. If you truly believe that Wikipedia is owned by "atheists" and "materialists" and that Wikipedia editors are bigoted and suppressing evidence for the paranormal then why are you wasting your time trolling on here? Doubter12 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jamenta, your tone in wholly inappropriate. Please stop and withdraw your personal accusations. The difference between your and SlimVirgin's contributions on this page is instructive as to unproductive and productive ways to go about improving a encyclopaedia article: please watch and learn. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see that has happened to Wikipedia and why there is so many negative articles present regarding psychical research and the many remarkable founders of the SPR. Very sad to see this kind of nonsense being presented to the public as non-objective articles on the subject. You guys ought to be sued in court for your disingenuous defamation of character of very reputable human beings who have worked in the Psi field. What you are doing here is a deceptive POV campaign to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with a dogmatic Skeptic's Society agenda - and since you have editorial control of Wikipedia no one can challenge your deceptiveness in a fair manner. Jamenta (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that Jamenta has left some very foul and offensive comments on his talkpage (some of which he even tried to delete) regarding this issue. [15]. I don't think he has any interest in watching and learning at the moment. I understand these topics may be emotional or sensitive to him, so I would suggest Jamenta you take a small break from editing and just calm down for a few days and once you have done that, discuss in simple language what your exact problem is with some of this article and suggest how to improve it. Doubter12 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note to readers: I will be contacting the surviving family members of both Frederic Myers and Ian Stevenson and let them know about the kind of public smear campaign now taking place by people like Doubter12 and the rest of the deceptive editors here on Wikipedia. The articles here are clearly not objective and the authors should be sued in court for defamation of character. Jamenta (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats. Shii (tock) 10:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The user Jamenta (talk) has been blocked for "Making legal threats: edit warring; personal attacks". He obviously has not learnt anything because he is now doing the same sort of thing on his IP address 98.248.9.48 (talk). Doubter12 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

An expert is needed to go through this article, considering the following points...

Sure we need balance, but Edwards name is mentioned 31 times in the article, which seems excessive. Johnfos (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

14 hits for "Edwards" are in the references. That leaves Edwards being mentioned 18 times in the text (he's mentioned 32 times on the article) in total including the references. Personally I don't see any problem with that at all considering he was one of Stevenson's most notable critics. I don't think it's excessive. Goblin Face (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also it's appropriate to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We have the text say "According to Edwards..." or "Edwards wrote..." etc. to identify the criticism comes from Edwards rather than Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As the MOS says, "claim" can imply that a given point is inaccurate and can be seen as an expression of doubt. It is used 22 times in this article, which is excessive. Johnfos (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been remedied, but the use of the word "claims" is entirely appropriate for extraordinary assertions of fact, such as evidence of reincarnation or past lives. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some books about Stevenson's work do not get a mention, eg, Science, the Self, and Survival after Death: Selected Writings of Ian Stevenson (2012)

-- Johnfos (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Stevenson's works are already listed in the article's bibliography. I'm not sure what a book of excerpts from those works would add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading large parts of Stevenson's work, I conclude that this Wiki entry is heavily bowlderized for consumption by members of the scientific community, i.e. adherents of the masterialistic paradigm who have a professional interest in keeping that paradigm alive. The reader must be led to believe that there is probably no truth in Stevenson's findings. I'd encourage them to read Stevenson and avoid this very unbalanced piece. It reminds me of my attempts, years ago, to add a few paragraphs about reincarnation research to the entry about reincarnation. Whatever I wrote was deleted, no use putting it back though I tried for some time on a daily basis. The scientific community simply would not allow it, though they did allow long, fairly irrelevant passages about who believed what. In the end, via the talk page, it was decided to set up a new entry "reincarnation research", and there the same happened again. Each time I added something it was deleted. 07:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit1833 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so we do reflect the views of the scientific community. Do you have specific suggestions for what should be added or changed? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, to actually reflect the views of the scientific community, as you claim to do, would require a body of scientific research that disproves reincarnation. Stevenson has amassed a huge body of research that suggests it. What actual research is there that disproves it? --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the material that creates an unbalanced article. Articles are not meant to be opinionated and clearly GoblinFace has an agenda. Please stop undoing my edits. With my edits, the page is more balanced and reflects that some people disagreed with Stevenson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbaDeTamble (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When an article presents a WP:FRINGE theory that's rejected by a majority of the scientific community (and there's no doubt that quasi-scientific research into reincarnation fits that category) Wikipedia is not obliged to give equal validity to both the fringe and the orthodox view. Your removal of criticism in an attempt to achieve "balance" is a bit misguided. Also, I could be mistaken, but a lot of the content you removed was possibly from a separate article on Reincarnation research that was merged into this article. As for accusing Goblin Face of bias, today I saw a a brand new essay that may help explain your perception. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are whitewashing major chunks of the article. The problem is the material you deleted is well-sourced. Corliss Chotkin, Edward Ryall etc were some of the cases Stevenson investigated. Absolutely no reason to remove any of this. Goblin Face (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think LuckyLouie and GoblinFace may be the same person. Anyway... This article is not about Reincarnation. It is about Stevenson. Second, these are your opinions of the research and the idea of reincarnation. You don't have the right to impose them on an article about a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbaDeTamble (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and you're well past WP:3RR now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced content against consensus is edit warring and against policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

None of you is addressing my reason for trying to balance the text. Furthermore, I did not start the process of undoing edits. I am merely trying to create a BALANCED article. The fact that it is well-sourced is irrelevant if the material is just cherry-picked to discredit Stevenson. The material I deleted is there because of your so-called "debunking" agenda. You clearly have an axe to grind on Stevenson and are unwilling to listen. Instead of admitting your bias, you hide behind Wikipedia norms of consensus, and condescending lecturing. Instead of actually engaging in a discussion about the content we are disagreeing over, you want to simply keep ignoring my arguments. Admit that you have an ideological agenda and please go grind your axe somewhere else.--AlbaDeTamble (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not norms but policy. If you carry on like this, you wont have a happy time editing here. I hope you can find a way back to acceptable behaviour, because you seem intelligent enough. regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbaDeTamble (talk · contribs) has been blocked temporarily for edit warring and harassment, but it is quite obvious they have also used these IP addresses to edit war:

• 71.115.147.162 (talk · contribs)
• 74.79.61.145 (talk · contribs)

And nobody is ignoring your arguments Alba. Unfortunately you are not being civil and you have not read Wikipedia policies. You are deleting massive chunks from the article that is well sourced and you have no consensus for these bold edits. You are deleting references to reliable sources like Terence Hines, Robert Baker, Ian Wilson or the linguist Sarah Thomason, etc. These are men and women who have studied Stevenson's cases and found flaws in them. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia editors personal opinion. Wikipedia goes with what the reliable sources say. If you have such an issue of researchers or scientists who found flaws in Stevenson's research then you will need to take it up with them off-Wikipedia. This is not a Wikipedia problem. It seems to me you are the only person here with an axe to grind. If you come back remember to be civil and suggest improvements for this article. Deleting loads of reliable sources and claiming the sources were 'biased' is not an improvement. Goblin Face (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Alba said "Instead of actually engaging in a discussion about the content we are disagreeing over, you want to simply keep ignoring my arguments". What text in the Ryall and Chotkin case do you feel unfairly discredits Stevenson? What text in the Criticism section do you feel unfairly discredits Stevenson? You removed a huge amount of material and argued that it made Stevenson look bad, was only there to discredit him, made the article unbalanced, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that once we pass the "Overview," the section "Case Studies" works poorly. It discusses only two of Stevenson's many cases, with no apparent reason for why these two are selected.

Most of the material here, I think, could profitably be deleted or else shifted to "Reception." The entire first paragraph under "The Case of Corliss Chotkin" would more sensibly be located under "Reception."

If no one objects, I will edit accordingly.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ian Stevenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229061304/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_4_almeder.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_4_almeder.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120724055143/http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm to http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229061304/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_4_almeder.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_4_almeder.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728095537/http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Edelman.pdf to http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Edelman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian Stevenson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507023025/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_tucker.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_tucker.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201160956/http://jas.sagepub.com/content/21/3-4/204 to http://jas.sagepub.com/content/21/3-4/204

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calin99 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The section is called Reception, where the majority view of Stevenson's work should be represented. Although some have recently made edits that appear to give equal validity to his beliefs in reincarnation.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that in this article we should always strive to distinguish clearly between fact and opinion. The views of Stevenson's critics deserve to be presented, but as precisely that--their views.

That Stevenson was deceived by those he interviewed, that he asked leading questions, that his translators were credulous, and that he "always maintained a personal belief in reincarnation as a fact of reality," to the exclusion of other possibilities--all this may be true. But all these are expressions of subjective opinion, not objective fact.

Facts deserve to be reported as facts, and opinions as opinions.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

While I agree about the "deceived by" parts, if his questions were recorded, or at least observed by his assistant who also made that objection, then I think questions such as "and this is the same girl you also saw in your dream, right?" or something like that, could be presented as "leading" questions and not "neutral" questions, objectively speaking. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the deception is pretty well-documented. I don't see how you can consider it an "opinion". There were instances of the families admitting to the deceit, in fact, and Stevenson even copped to it! jps (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please remove redirect to this article that is currently in place that links from "Edward Ryall". I can only assume the redirect was created accidentally, as there is no reason valid why the Edward Ryall Wikipedia entry should redirect to Ian Stevenson. RYALL EC (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Search the Stevenson article for "Edward Ryall", and you will find that someone by that name wrote a book Stevenson had a connection to. It seems that Edward Ryall was not important enough to have his own article but important enough to be mentioned in this article. So it is not accidental. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to Edward Ryall being mentioned in the profile of Ian Stevenson.

I do object to not being able to create a legitimate profile for Edward Ryall on Wikipedia because there is a redirect in place that is blocking the creation of this profile.

It is completely unreasonable to prevent the creation of an individual's profile on Wikipedia because it is currently being redirected to some other individual's profile for a tenuous reason. RYALL EC (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Could it be that your problem is that when you search for Edward Ryall, you get redirected? But then the Stevenson page will show the additional information "(Redirected from Edward Ryall)", and when you click on that link, you go to the page that redirects here, and you can edit it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Search for Edward Ryall redirects to Ian Pretyman Stevenson.

It doesn't appear possible to remove the redirect without having some content in the Edward Ryall page. Two previous attempts to edit the Edward Ryall page with some initial content and external links have been rejected ... my understanding (maybe mistakenly) is that this rejection was as a result not as a result of the content for Edward Ryall but because the request to remove the redirect was rejected - somewhat frustrating given the time involved in creating the profile and all the external links.

There are 2 separate issues here. One is the redirect which appears to be blocking the editing of the Edward Ryall page.

The other (which is separate) is the eligibility of the Edward Ryall content based on notability criteria and the ability to progressively add more links and content once the redirect is removed. RYALL EC (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition - the Edward Ryall referred to in the Ian Stevenson page is an Edward W Ryall, author of a book back in 1975. If Edward W Ryall as an author is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia entry I don't see why "Edward Ryall" should be used as a redirect.

The Edward Ryall that I would like to create a Wikipedia entry for is a different Edward Ryall (currently still alive) and therefore it would be erroneus to use this profile for redirection to the Ian Stevenson profile. RYALL EC (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah! You need to check [16]. You actually changed the article, but your changes were reverted because the article you wrote was not enyclopedic. You should discuss this on Talk:Edward Ryall, not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edward Ryall and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 24#Edward Ryall until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As above 188.31.129.222 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, I found his book Mind Out of Time in general scholarly and persuasive, and in places brilliant. And he is certainly interested in religion. But since he has no academic credentials apart from an undergraduate degree (albeit from Oxford), "religious studies scholar" seems subjective and unverifiable. Under such circumstances, "independent researcher" is a common neutral term.

O Govinda (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when this appears to be another edit (in a recent series) focused on critics of Stevenson's work. For example, this edit was used to justify the removal of Baker’s general criticism about the validity of reincarnation claims. That Stevenson agrees with the criticism doesn’t make it any less valid. Edits like this inferring that a critic lacks the proper credentials, and this, as well as this, removing criticism contained in a cited source appear to be part of a push to strengthen the fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

O Govinda's editing seems to violate WP:Fringe. I think there are some issues here. "Stevenson, even one of his critics wrote, was cautious in making claims about reincarnation", this seems to be a bad case of cherry-picking and undue weight put directly in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Angel is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, and what he says bears weight. His views deserve to be represented in the article.

But I think we ought to take care in two regards.

First, we should carefully distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of objective, verifiable fact. There may be room for both, but we should make clear which is which.

Second, we should make sure that what our text says is upheld by our cited source.

In the Criticism section we have many critiques of Stevenson’s work, all of them clearly identified as being what this or that critic said. Similarly, in the Support section it’s clear we’re reading people’s supportive views. All opinions.

In other sections we read that Stevenson wrote “Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation,” that Chester Carlson left $1 million to continue Stevenson’s work, and so on. All objectively verifiable facts.

Now we come to this: “Stevenson based his reincarnation research on anecdotal case reports that were dismissed by the scientific community as unreliable as Stevenson did no controlled experimental work. His case reports were also criticized as they contained errors and omissions..”

Are we here reporting opinions or facts?

Clearly, these are opinions. So, like the opinions later in the article, they should be identified as such. According to WP:RS/AC, “A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.”

See also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

As for the second issue: What our text says should be upheld by our cited source. This too is essential. Now, I’ve read through the cited text, and as far as I can see it doesn’t say that Stevenson's case reports were dismissed by the scientific community as unreliable. Nor, if I recall, does it say that the reports “were criticized” for containing errors and omissions. Rather, Angel dismissed the reports as unreliable, and he criticizes them for errors and omissions.

So, in essence what we have is this: Leonard Angel criticized Stevenson’s reincarnation research for relying mainly on anecdotal case reports, without benefit of controlled experimental work. The case reports, Angel wrote, also contained errors and omissions.

If we were to say that, we’d be stating objective, verifiable facts and be faithful to our cited source. (By the way: This sort of material would seem to fit best in the Criticism section.)

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As you say the Angel paper is a reliable source [17]. Are you a reincarnation researcher? I noticed your username has been mentioned on some boards in the past and you have been accused of being a paid ISKCON employee. If you have a conflict of interest, you should disclose it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not a reincarnation researcher. I have never been affiliated in any way with with Ian Stevenson. I am not a paid ISKCON employee. Although we all have our biases, I have no conflict of interest here.

Yes, Angel's paper is a reliable source. Now we just need to make sure we use our reliable sources properly. And so the tag ^{[dubious – discuss]}.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Almeder's arguments that Edwards had begged the question and was was under the sway of "dogmatic materialism" speak to the criticisms given by Edwards. So too does Almeder's assertion that the possibility of fraud was indeed investigated. Accordingly, these points from Almeder logically fit in the section where we find the criticism by Edwards, rather than two sections later. We have no reason to make the reader double back to find out what Almeder is talking about.

Also: Better to reserve the "Support" section for direct expressions in support of Stevenson.

Absent compelling reasons not to, I therefore suggest we move back to the Criticism section the paragraph where Almeder makes the arguments mentioned above. (And we can drop the introductory words "In support of Stevenson," which in that context are gratuitous.) 98.17.13.82 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for using the Talk page. We are mostly constrained by WP:FRINGE to place the most WP:WEIGHT on the mainstream view, and avoid (for example) a mainstream view assertion, followed by a fringe view rebuttal, followed by a mainstream view counter rebuttal, etc. Looking through the archives, I see this article has been through many cycles of the pattern I have described above. It appears that containing supportive assertions/rebuttals in a "Support" section was the WP:CONSENSUS solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you point me to the place where that consensus solution was reached?

Best. 98.17.13.82 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I said "it appears" there was a consensus solution (which I assume you want to challenge) so I don't know where that might be located in the Talk page archives. My guess, it was probably part of User:SlimVirgin's 2009 rewrite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh. . . Thank you. 98.17.13.82 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

[18] slight copyedit to add the needed context. Hope that helps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful by connecting what's here with what came two sections before. But, no, I don't think this helps. First (minor points): There's no need to pump up Edwards by adding "philosopher" again and reminding us that his criticisms are "extensive." Second: What would help would be to situate the paragraph where it naturally fits. I've offered reasonable grounds for doing so. I wonder whether anyone has grounds to the contrary that come closer to compelling than the ones you've offered. And I have to wonder why such a small and natural editorial adjustment as putting related ideas together, an adjustment so little deserving of controversy, should meet with resistance. 98.17.13.82 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one person. What a second person said about a third person does not belong there. I will delete that part now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed Almeder entirely. I'm sure it's fascinating to consider that "dogmatic materialism" can cloud one's judgement about another's published work in empirical science... but the obvious point is that the venue is empirical science. If this were a spiritualist retreat, the argument might fly. But this is academic psychology. Sorry... that's the rules of how you do science. jps (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In the lede we have a sentence that deserves attention.

It has appeared in this article in two forms. The first is the one I introduced as an edit on 27 June (when not logged in). The second is the prior version, which User:Brunton restored the same day. Both of us cited NPOV.

Form 1: "Critics, particularly the philosophers C.T.K. Chari (1909–1993) and Paul Edwards (1923–2004), raised a number of issues, including instances where the children or parents interviewed by Stevenson had allegedly deceived him, instances where the critics charged that Stevenson had asked leading questions in his interviews, and problems with working through translators who, critics said, credulously believed what the interviewees were saying."

Here we say that the critics alleged that Stevenson was deceived, that they charged him with asking leading questions, and that they said his translators credulously believed what they heard.

Form 2: "Critics, particularly the philosophers C.T.K. Chari (1909–1993) and Paul Edwards (1923–2004), raised a number of issues, including instances where the children or parents interviewed by Stevenson had deceived him, instances of Stevenson asking leading questions in his interviews, and problems with working through translators who credulously believed what the interviewees were saying at face value."

Here we implicitly accept that Stevenson was deceived, that he did ask leading questions, and that he worked through translators who did credulously believe what they heard. And the critics have brought instances of these facts to our attention.

In both of these forms, the sentence offers no supporting citation. That's fine because in a lede no citations are required, as long as they appear in the body of the article.

In the body we have "Critics suggested that the children or their parents had deceived him, that he was too willing to believe them, and that he had asked them leading questions." We also have "According to Ransom, Edwards wrote, Stevenson asked the children leading questions. . ." Here, two of the three charges are mentioned (the one about "translators" is absent). And the charges are stated to be what critics suggested, rather than proven facts. (Also, none of the criticisms are attributed to Chari, and only one to Edwards). In other words, it seems the text here only partly supports form 1 above, doesn't support form 2 at all, and is spotty in its supporting citation.

Any thoughts or suggestions about this?

Cordially, ~~~~ O Govinda (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should give Stevenson's WP:FRINGE view less credit than his mainstream-science critics. So, we should not add words like "alleged" if they are not in the source. But actually, the sentence is not sourced in the body, and we cannot check whether the source takes your FALSEBALANCE approach or the mainstream one. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Though coming at the matter from different angles, on some things we seem to agree. You're right: The sentence isn't sourced in the body, so we have no way to verify any version of it.

As for WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE, I understand and agree with the policies. Now, to implement them we ought to pin down: What are the fringe view or views we need to balance against? We might have thought that Stevenson was claiming to have "proved" reincarnation. That would certainly have been fringe. But now that we know he hasn't claimed that, what is the fringe view we need to watch out for?

(Let's keep in mind, too, that this is a biographical article, not an article about reincarnation and whether it might be true or false.)

As for Stevenson's mainstream-science critics, I'm all for giving them ample space. So far, our article doesn't seem to have many of them. Chari, Edwards, Carroll, and Angel are philosophers. Thomason, Samarin, and Frawley are linguists. Ian Wilson is an author and independent researcher, Ransom an attorney. Richard Rockley (RS?) is a blogger, but I don't see more about him than that. Robert Baker is a scientist, but what he's cited for seems to be misattributed.

That leaves us with only two scientists--Taylor and Hines, both eminently qualified. But Taylor only writes (and convincingly so) about the Ryall case. For whatever reason, he doesn't comment on Stevenson's other cases. That leaves us with only the brief criticism from Hines that Stevenson didn't do enough to rule out storytelling and leakage of information from friends and relatives and so the cases are "somewhat less conclusive." So if we can add more from scientists, great.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk)

The WP:MAINSTREAM view is that Stevenson was led astray by his belief in reincarnation. He wanted to believe. He did not have good evidence that such things actually occurred and he often admitted as much. jps (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Our article says: "In Stevenson's defense, Robert Almeder wrote in 1997 that the Chotkin case was one of Stevenson's weaker ones."[citation]

This simply isn't what the cited source says. Not even close. O Govinda (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Almeder is now removed. jps (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that here we have another instance where what is attributed to our RS differs significantly from what the source actually says. As far as I can see, the book has nothing critical to say about Stevenson or his work. Rather, the book takes aim at supposed hypnotic "past-life regressions," dismissing them as fantasies, and rightly quotes Stevenson as expressing a similar view.

The source says nothing about "many of the alleged past-life experiences investigated by Stevenson." So the notion that the source is criticizing Stevenson or his work appears to be a fantasy itself.

Absent evidence that the source says what the paragraph attributes to it, the paragraph seems to deserve speedy deletion. O Govinda (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The book is online at Archive.org. O Govinda (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you clarify how you determined there is nothing in the book about Stevenson? jps (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @ජපස, for joining in discussion about this.

I never wrote that there's nothing in Baker's book about Stevenson. I wrote that the book says nothing critical of him and that it says nothing about "many of the alleged past-life experiences investigated by Stevenson." In other words, the book doesn't say what our article attributed to it (and now attributes to it again).

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but I think you missed the main issue. Baker is quoting Stevenson as being skeptical of past-life regression, true, but Baker's argument against reincarnation research is generalized and directed at all academic claims of evidence for reincarnation. This includes Stevenson's claims and the rest. jps (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand your point as well. If I have it right: Baker is critical of reincarnation research. Stevenson conducted such research. Ergo, Baker is critical of Stevenson. Yes?

But, if I'm not wrong, we're supposed to maintain text-source integrity. That is, our source should directly say what we attribute to it.

Baker did not write that "many of the alleged past-life experiences investigated by Stevenson. . . can be explained in terms of known psychological factors." Had he wanted to write that, he would have.

And so, attributing to Baker an assertion he never made is unjust both to Stevenson and to Baker.

When we cite a source, the reader should be able to go to the specific page we've cited and confirm, "Yes, that's what the source said." But in the citation we're talking about, no page is given--and in fact no page can be given, because Baker never said what we attribute to him.

May I make a suggestion?

If I recall, Baker's book especially criticizes cases of supposed "past-life regression." And Baker quotes Stevenson's criticism of it. So--since this is, after all, a biographical article about Stevenson--why not add a section or paragraph mentioning Stevenson's having taken the stance that "past-life regression" generally "generates only fantasies"?

That's a legitimate part of his biography.

For this we can straightforwardly use Baker as a secondary source, and cite him right down to the page number. (Other reliable sources could also be found.)

This might not make Stevenson look bad. But if we think that warning people about pseudoscientific claptrap is a good cause, this will help serve that cause.

And for criticism of Stevenson's work, we can rely on sources that actually criticize it.

How does that seem to you?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing "by Stevenson" should suffice to satisfy your concerns, I think. jps (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Our article has this sentence: "Skeptics have written that Stevenson's evidence was anecdotal and by applying Occam's razor there are prosaic explanations for the cases without invoking the paranormal."[citation]

The citation goes to a page from skepticreport.com, which appears to be a personal blog. Its "About" page doesn't identify anyone behind it, but the article cited has the byline of one Richard Rockley, and clicking on his name brings us to the contact form for the site.

The cited page doesn't report to us what skeptics have written. Rather, Rockley himself is the one who tells us that the evidence is anecdotal and that with Occam's razor we'd come out with prosaic explanations.

The tone of Mr. Rockley's blog is casual and unprofessional. Regarding one quotation he comments, "No s---!" (hyphens mine)

So: First of all, it seems that our sentence is OR. And, second, this blog appears to fall short of being a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Anyone object to my deleting the sentence?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY. Since Stevenson's ideas are subject to skeptical inquiry, I'm not sure I understand your objection. jps (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, my objections are two:

1. Mr. Rockley doesn't say what we attribute to him.

2. The personal blog of a person we know nothing about fails to qualify as a WP:RELIABLESOURCE.

For WP:PARITY, we should cite reliable sources, and cite them properly.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you have misjudged the source and I think your splitting of hairs about our text reporting on this source as an example critique is not legitimate here. We could, if you would like, add additional sources, but I don't think that's required. jps (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we can improve this section by telling the basic features common to the cases Stevenson wrote about. We have a sketch of one particular case from the NY Times, and Angel's deconstruction of another, but no overview of the features of the cases in general.

If I can put together a neutral summary backed by reliable sources, I'll add that.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m less than persuaded by Stevenson’s claimed xenoglossy cases. I tend to think that Thomason has it right. Nonetheless, a well-credentialed linguist has published a contrary view in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so his view deserves to be included. I'll add that. O Govinda (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added quotes from other sources. The two categories “Criticism” and “Support” now seem too narrow to fit the reception received. So I have expanded the categories.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Several times in this article we have found mismatches between our text and the sources cited for it. Sometimes our text has left out statements from the source that are relevant and significant. Sometimes the text has attributed statements to a source that the source never made—and sometimes, in fact, we have put words in the source’s mouth that say the opposite of what the source actually said.

A case in point: a statement we attribute to Sam Harris. Our text says:

Sam Harris cited Stevenson's works in his book The End of Faith as part of a body of data that seems to attest to the reality of psychic phenomena, but that only relies on subjective personal experience. [emphasis supplied]

On the page cited (page 41), here is what Harris actually wrote:

There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science.¹⁸ The dictum that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” remains a reasonable guide in these areas, but this does not mean that the universe isn't far stranger than many of us suppose. It is important to realize that a healthy, scientific skepticism is compatible with a fundamental openness of mind.

Harris’s footnote 18 above points to page 242 (also included in our present citation). There Harris first cites three other authors and then writes: “There may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation.” He then cites three books by Stevenson.

As we can notice concerning the italicized text above:

1. Harris never makes the point attributed to him.
2. Taken as a whole, what Harris says is quite contrary to what our text makes him out to say. It makes him seem to dismiss what he doesn’t dismiss at all.
3. What Harris actually says but we have left out is directly relevant to our article.

Any author – and certainly one as influential as Harris -- deserves to be cited faithfully. And our article deserves to report what Harris actually wrote. I have revised accordingly.

Again, if you think what I've done should be improved, please let's first discuss.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

We have a similar but less egregious case for Carl Sagan. Our text says:

Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon-Haunted World, referred to what were apparently Stevenson's investigations as an example of carefully collected empirical data, and though he rejected reincarnation as a parsimonious explanation for the stories, he wrote that the phenomenon of alleged past-life memories should be further researched. [emphasis supplied]

The text in italic has no support from either of the sources cited. Again, I've revised the text to bring it in line with what Sagan actually wrote. And again, if you think what I've done should be improved, please let's first discuss.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)