Talk:Reincarnation research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Reincarnation research is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Good article Reincarnation research was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] Science, not New Age

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

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

[edit] Carl Sagan quote

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

You might be right but this kind of editing just doesn't have a chance of sticking. If it's out of context, introduce the context. And why don't you register? --Anthon.Eff 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Including the context is unnecessary because the quote itself is unnecessary, and including the context would be a huge waste of space in the article itself. For reference, I will include part of the context here:
"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last the have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." (from The Demon-Haunted World page 303, paperback edition.)
Afterword he goes on to state that the only reason these deserve serious study is because to dismiss them out of hand in an authoritarian way would be unscientific. The quote as it's used in the article is misleading; I experienced that myself today when someone told me about how Carl Sagan said that reincarnation research deserves serious study, and that this thusly lent credence to the parapsychic claim. If you can slap a scientist's name on something, it becomes true!
Including the quote at all is just a skimpy way of saying "Look at this, Dr. Sagan believes this is worthy of research, so you should too!" He even says in this paragraph and the paragraph after it that the evidence is tenuous at best.
Secondly, it's poorly sourced. Whoever put the quote there used a secondary source (The Washington Post) instead of the primary source of the book it's quoting. As stated earlier, the quote is also edited in a way to seem vaguely sympathetic to the topic of the article.
Also, I don't register because I don't feel it necessary to make an account for one edit in one article. I wouldn't have found this if not for someone bringing it to my attention, and being a huge fan of Sagan, I hate it when he's taken out of context. Also, if you're going to reverse my edit (whoever did it) at least give a reason why.--12.219.177.48 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If you would just put the energy into the article that you put into this talk page we would all benefit. Your quote is correct, and it's given in the Jim Tucker book, just as you give it. The Tucker book is used as the source. So the source is OK. Just flesh out the quote until you feel comfortable with it. I'm already comfortable with it so I won't be going to that trouble. And I was the person who reverted your "contribution"--a contribution which consisted of deleting a large block of text that pointed to two sources. That's the kind of contribution that is almost always reverted, so don't take it personally. I think you could help make this article better, so please give it a try! --Anthon.Eff 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research on early childhood memories and birthmarks

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

[edit] GA Passed

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

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

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

[edit] Pseudoscience

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

[edit] Unbalanced

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

I guess I don't quite understand you. The article pretty clearly states that there are two groups of people who do "reincarnation research." One group falls very far short of what most of us would call "objective research": the therapists who do hypnotic regression--very interesting (because these "memories" can be elicited in so many hypnotized subjects), but not science. But the other group--university-affiliated psychiatrists like Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker--clearly understand science and are trying to work within its parameters. My impression of these folks is that they have read their Hume, and that they consider reincarnation as a likely hypothesis only when all other explanations have clearly failed. --Anthon.Eff 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There has actually been quite a bit of research on the subject. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The two university-affiliated psychiatrists noted stand apart because of their qualifications, but can hardly be said to constitute a 'group' and the majority of material cited here is either directly from their work or secondary source material based upon favourable parts of their research. What the article does not make clear is that their views and conclusions have not only been shown to have been flawed, but that their conclusions are also a very long way from being accepted within the scientific community as a likely hypothesis. Mighty Antar 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a reputable source showing "that their views and conclusions" are "flawed", then you would do a great service by introducing that source. As for your view that "their conclusions are... a very long way from being accepted within the scientific community"--there is no "scientific community", there are scientists, some of whom trouble themselves about this particular topic, and because the topic is new, there is no general acceptance of anything. All perfectly normal in science. Other editors have introduced the work of Tucker and Stevenson--perhaps you could introduce the work of scientists who have reviewed similar material and come to different conclusions. --Anthon.Eff 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A good source for that is needed. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said scientists, not "scientific community". See WP:ASF and WP:BIAS the onus lies with those who have introduced the material about Stevenson and Tucker to show that it has widespread acceptance. To date, billions of people have died and their is no objective evidence to show that any one of them has been reincarnated. Mighty Antar 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about reincarnation research. Stevenson and Tucker are two of the most important people who have done reincarnation research. They belong in the article, whether they are right or wrong. If you have someone else's work who belongs in the article, then go ahead and put it in. Keep in mind that if your contribution is original research, it will be reverted. --Anthon.Eff 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"This is an article about reincarnation research. Stevenson and Tucker are two of the most important people who have done reincarnation research. They belong in the article, whether they are right or wrong." Agreed, however the article is so liberally peppered with non-neutral phrases such as "past life", "previous life" and "memories" all of which inflict bias. Reincarnation is not an established fact, and it is not original research to state that. "past life", "previous life" and "memories" are not facts, they are all assumptions. Mighty Antar 19:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The article has been worded more carefully now, to avoid copyvios and to avoid claiming too much. The phrase "it furnishes objective and graphic proof of reincarnation..." has been changed to "it furnishes graphic evidence suggestive of reincarnation...". Johnfos (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for these recent edits and wording changes. The article is more balanced now. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Any further suggestions for specific changes are welcome. Johnfos (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

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

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

[edit] Not Unbalanced

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

[edit] How are Stevenson's Birthmark Studies "objective"?

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

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