Talk:Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.


Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Criticism

There is a critical article on Stevenson's work here. Oku 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is too suggestive. It is written as if all claims were proven and scientifically accepted. The criticism part is too short and appears too late. Article should be reworded to reflect a more appropriate caution of the things stated.
FS 85.181.15.122 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. In fact I’ve read the Skeptical Inquirer article and therefore I’m placing a pov tag. --Cesar Tort 10:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I just read it and it looks neutral to me. It starts describing what the book's about and how it's written always saying things like "Dr. Stevenson writes that..." and then presents both acclaims *and* criticism without taking any part. I'm taking the tag out, the article is OK. --cholo 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't present any criticism. It only mentions that he was critizised in Skeptical Inquirer, and then quickly follows with a quote from his answer. A quote that says absolutely nothing. --Apoc2400 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)