Talk:Reincarnation

The article needs focus and a better structure

CarlosRibeiro 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) - In my opinion this article grew way to much, and needs more focus, or a better structure. Section boundaries are not being respected, and some views on the subject take a disproportionate amount of space. Due to the discussion on the scientific aspects regarding reincarnation, there has been a lot of editing; information on hinduist beliefs also takes a lot of space.

I believe this page should be a starting point for those looking for information regarding reincarnation. Specific views or beliefs should be discussed either into their own pages, or strictly inside a specific section. Adding more text to this page only makes it more confusing and less helpful to the casual reader. I propose the page to be split in such a way that only the main arguments from all sides are presented here, and details are discussed in the specific topic.

I agree that this page has become unfocused and without a coherant structure over time. However it makes sense to me that Hindu & Buddhist perspectives on reincarnation be explored in some amount of depth (as at present) because the theories of reincarnation and re-birth are essential to thier overall philosophies. The Jainist perspective should probably be mentioned in a more detailed manner than at present, but I'm aware this would make the page longer still. It's going to be a big job to fix up the article as a whole as there as just so many viewpoints on the subject. For me the intro is okay - it's the later sections and some kind of 'concluding' paragraph that is lacking. Ys, GourangaUK 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Reincarnation Research article is referred to, I suggest that the Research and Debate section (and sub-sections) could be condensed into a new, smaller section simply called Scientific Research. At present, discussion of research by Bishai, in particular, adds little and should be deleted. Johnfos 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "scientific publications" list at the end of the article needs to be better formatted and reduced in length. Johnfos 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have now made these changes. Johnfos 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is much improved now. Section boundaries are being better respected, and some sections which had a disproportionate amount of space have been edited. All in all, it is a tighter and better structured article now. Johnfos 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with 'Concluding Comment'

This 'Concluding Comment' section has no citations to its reference that "Reincarnation is once again attracting the minds of intellectuals and the general public in the West". Citations are required to indicate that this section is not just speculation.

Also, the 'science of reincarnation' statement is an idication of an obviously theistic bias.

I've tried to word the Concluding Comment more carefully now, and have provided some references. See what you think. Johnfos 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your addition to this section is an improvement. But there still needs subtantiation for the statment "Reincarnation is once again attracting the minds of intellectuals and the general public in the West". Statistics showing that there is a significant change (ie: increase) in the topic of reincarnation is required for this statement to be included. Aequitas1234 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have made a change. See what you think. Johnfos 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Page: Reincarnation and Hinduism

I feel that the topic of "Reincarnation and Hinduism" is a major one which deserves its own page, in much the same way that the topic of Rebirth (Buddhist) has its own page. It could contain all the material in the existing Hinduism section here, and more. We could then refer readers to the new page at the start of the Hinduism section of this article, instead of referring to Samsara, as we do now, which is about much more than Hinduism. Johnfos 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Have made this change. Johnfos 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory of reincarnation started in Upanishads as stated here in this article. Separating hindu part in some other page and then linking is more like cheating as re-incarnation is associated more with hinduism than any other religion. Even other religions borrowed it from hinduism. If two concepts are tightly coupled than creating separate pages almost cheats the reader by giving incomplete story.Skant 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The page size limit for wikipedia should be raised so that an article can grow upto 5-6 pages if needed. With good internet browsers and good scrolling facilities/ page-size adjustments available in browsers, viewing 5 pages by scrolling is less difficult and much faster than moving between links of different pages (so if context needs information to be together, then we should try to keep it together and shouldn't use page-size as an excuse to make things less informative or irrelevant, this should actually be debated by wikipedia and let us see what arguments we can have!).Skant 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have added the POV because of a strong bias in the structure and tone of this article. The scientific research section is my primary concern, however the rest of the article has a biased tone as well. Take this for example;

"Some scientists and skeptics, such as Paul Edwards, have analyzed many of these accounts. In every case they apparently found that further research into the individuals involved provides sufficient background to weaken the conclusion that these cases are credible examples of reincarnation. Philosophers like Robert Almeder, having analyzed the criticisms of Edwards and others, say that the gist of these arguments can be summarized as "we all know it can't possibly be real, so therefore it isn't real" - an argument from lack of imagination."

The structure alone points a a reincarnation bias. By including both arguements for and against the existance of reincarnation in the same section the article seems to be presenting a viewpoint then promptly shooting it down.

Another area of concern is the "Contemporary movements and thinkers" section. The majority of groups listed in this section are religous. By catagorizing them as "Contemporary movements and thinkers" the article seems to give them some sort of legitamacy in a encyclopedic or scientific context. Religions are by definition based on faith. Therefor they cannot be used to provide scientific support or critisizem for any topic. If this section was named "Religious view of reincarnation" it would be far more neutral. As it stands it is unacceptable and when I have a bit more time I will change it. There are many other problems similer to this and I suggest that a total restructering be done, which I would be happy to help with. Foolishben 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective the title Contemporary movements and thinkers is general enough to cover the information given and wouldn't agree that the title in itself constitutes a strong bias. The scientific section is seperated below under a different header. Not all viewpoints in the Contemporary section are necessarily religous - unless anything concerning reincarnation is to be classified in that way. What do others think? It could do with a tidy-up maybe to remove any POV remarks? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gouranga, Thanks for shifting the NPOV tag. I agree with what you have said, although I have suggested a new section heading: "Contemporary perspectives". And I would also like to see a new sub-section relating to "Reincarnation in popular western culture", eg., films, novels, songs, which could help to reduce the perceived religiosity of the article as a whole. I have also reduced the length of the Hinduism and Buddhist sections slightly. And, yes, the tidy-up you mention is a good idea. Johnfos 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph begining 'Some scientists and skeptics, such as Paul Edwards...' is still very biased. Edwards being described as 'skeptic' while Robert Almeder is described as 'Philosopher' not 'Supporter' shows a degree of bias. Also, Almeders statment describing an 'argument from lack of imagination' is in no way a valid argument against Edwards views (See article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for an example). Adding fallicies such as this undermine the reliability of this section.Aequitas1234 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the implication that Paul Edwards is a skeptic, but would make the general comment that it's actually quite difficult to do justice to everyone's views in such a small section, which is why the main Reincarnation research article is referred to. Johnfos 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This last comment by Johnfos is typical of the vast hogwash that characterizes the article itself. There is NO credible attempt to present a balanced view of reincarnation. No one has suggested that the article should do justice to everyone's views -- this is a "straw man" -- a bogus goal mentioned for the sole purpose of refuting it. What is essential for this article to be remotely worthy of not being removed entirely is a credible section containing views of those who hold that there does not exist adequate evidence to believe in reincarnation. There are a large number of scientists, for example, who have pointed to the absence of any credible evidence to date in favor of reincarnation, but there is no attempt to present any of these views, no less everyone's views.

I strongly recommend that this article be removed soon, unless a balanced presentation is made. And it is utterly not adequate to merely refer to the article on reincarnation research to make this article worthy of Wikipedia.Daqu 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting the Reincarnation article be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JuJube (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

"By including both arguements for and against the existance of reincarnation in the same section the article seems to be presenting a viewpoint then promptly shooting it down."

Uh, read just about any article that refers to skeptical, atheistic, or secular views, and you'll find that this article is no more slanted than they are. Many of those articles also have rebuttals which are almost always promtly shot down within the same section.

Johnfos, I just wonder why do you erase Swammerdam's link. It's ONLY serious scientific theory, showing that the reincarnation can be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.55.2 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to count Hollywood stars?

Contemporary Perspectives should omit Ford and Patton, and limit itself to significant groups - or we will get the views and memories of hordes of movie stars and singers. OlavN 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate what you say, OlavN. But the Ford and Patton info seems right on the topic of reincarnation and probably needs to stay. As for Hollywood stars, there has been some agreement already that the "Popular western culture" section should be expanded into a separate article and I would see them fitting in there. -- Johnfos 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation in popular western culture

Have made a start now on the new article Reincarnation in popular western culture and will make a few changes here to reflect this. -- Johnfos 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation in the Vedas

The sentence which reads "The doctrine of reincarnation is absent from the Vedas..." is factually mistaken: as noted in the preceeding paragraph, it is mentioned in the Upanishads, which are actually segments of the Vedic texts.

I'm removing it for that reason. Kamandi 06 June 2007

Hello Kamandi, although Vedas as a general term is often used to denote a whole range of texts, in encyclopedic terms the Vedas and the Upanishads are viewed as seperate literatures. It would good to have a citation to back up the statement however, so I have added a tag. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Robert E Howard believed in reincarnation

Could I be him? Its a scary thought, but I never liked reading yet I'm writing books, I'm a dead ringer look a like for the guy, and his life was way too simular to mine always had a sick mom ect...always cared for her. shy,depressed,i had my bout when i was 28.......i'm 52 now.......were did my skill to write books come from......if i never read any? backs of covers for book reports......and do you come back looking the same? as if you never left. i never read anything of his or any of his friends so why is it i now write books? and have the knowledge to do so and with skill......why cant you remember past lives...at least the good things........very puzzling to say the least but how i stumbled onto this someone looked up her fav author and said the picture was me.......her mom said same thing.......freaky.....

Henry Trigg

I have put back my entry about Henry Trigg which you thought fit to delete. Why? He's an interesting character! I thought Wikipedia was supposed to welcome contributions, not be under the domination of the person who first put the article on?

Les Gillard, Penzance, Cornwall

Les, I'm sure Henry T is an interesting character, but we need notability for an encyclopedia entry (see WP:N). So I'm going to have to remove his section again. -- Johnfos 08:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Trigg is mentioned in sites about Stevenage, Hertfordshire because of the coffin which was in the barn until the 1940s. The incident of his burial and expected return is listed in the XXI Annual volume of the Gentleman's Magazine for 1751, February, page 91. Thus there are evidential sources for Trigg's existence. As to "notability", surely the exclusion of a fact or person just because lots of people don't already know about it/them is a nonsense. On that basis, no unknown fact would be published on Wikipedia! Surely the encyclpaedia is there to inform about what is not known, or to clarify what is not fully understood. This article should welcome balance by including someone who has not notoriety like Patton and was in an ordinary position and yet had an extraordinary belief in his reincarnation. And isn't it a bit mean of you to delete him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.175.95.201 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

In making an encyclopedic article not all information can be included, and I would agree with Johnfos that the story of Henry Trigg is not of primary interest in this instance. See Wikipedia:Five pillars in regards to what is usually considered relevant page content on Wikipedia. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are the views of Henry Ford and General Patton more relevant than an "ordinary" person? Is this the cult of celebrity? For a balanced article you should include a non-American, non-famous person or two to demonstrate the belief in reincarnation in general life. Les Gillard

Sorry, but this page will not benefit from adding accounts of the zillions of "ordinary" people who have promised but failed to reincarnate at a certain time and place. Metallion 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Shanti Devi

One of the most interesting cases - i believe - is the case of Shanti Devi. I do not think any case has come closer to a scientific proof of reincarnation. Among other interesting facts is that Mahatma Ghandi allocated a group of researchers investigated her case. I am puzzled as to why there is nothing about her on Wikipedia, while there are hundreds if not thusands of web pages about her. Sture Lönnerstrands book [1] about the case (just added by me to the list of references) is also translated to many languages. Metallion 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because nobody thought about writing it until now! Care to be the first editor? Be bold! Start the story!--Jondel 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added information on William Butler Yeats

Yeats' theory of reincarnation as expressed in A Vision deserves note, especially since it is rather unique (not dependent on linear time). This seems congruent with certain ideas current in quantum physics (such as e.g. probable realities; that time is not linear but multiply ramified). BobMill 17:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)BobMill

According to Swammerdam there shouldn't be any time dependence between previous and next lives. I.e. the next life can happen EARLIER in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.55.3 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

China and Buddhist reincarnation

Not sure of this is relevant to this. But i just ran across an article that talks about the chinese govt. saying that people cant reincarnate without permission. Here's a link -- BeliefWatch: Reincarnate -- Mayuresh 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This 'reference' is a hoax.

'One of the scientific theories of reincarnation could be found in Johann Swammerdam's book "Karma for Dummies". A pity, it has been never published, but only some it's parts [45] can be found in the net."

1. Johann Swammerdam lived in the 1600's. The "For Dummies" series started in the 1990s.

2. The only page referencing this fictitious work is the one listed. Said link is all gibberish.

3. I would am going to delete this reference if I can.

Best,

DMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.1.190 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful.

1.Have you ever heard about people with similar names? Obviously, it's NOT Swammerdam from 17 century. 2.Yes, it's the only link I found. 3.It's the ONLY explanation made me and some of my friends understand that reincarnation can be real. It seems to be much more interesting than various idiotic reports about various people who claim that they have seen other people, who told that they remember that they lived before... Anyway you find such stories suitable for being mentioned here. 4. So I'll keep editing this page to save the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.55.3 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

reincarnation

i think the idea has already been proved cuz in the other case we can not belive gods fgair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.163.5 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not proved. There is zero evidence that it is it true or demonstratable. reincarnation is a belief, and not one shared by everyone. it perfectly complements the human desire for immortality resulting from the fear of death and mortality.

Unpublished material

By the verification guidelines, unpublished material cannot, unfortunately, be included in Wikipedia articles. The corresponding material will have to await some future publication, which no doubt it will find if of the quality the text implies. Hgilbert 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Swammerdam

As I said, I continue to keep the info and link alive. I understand, that there are the Smartest people here, who Knows Better whet people should know about the subject, and I believe that 'scientific' researches about a guy who has seen another guy who told that he remembers the previous life are more fascinating than dry logical constructions, but I don't allow to myself to erase various bullshit because someone may need it. So I don't understand how adequate person can erase the ONLY theory based on physics and mathematics. Well, actually I have an idea of what can be in his mind: "I am very smart, but I don't understand this. So it's a junk and I'll erase it". Anyway it's his right, and I don't oppose. I am just going to use my similar right to edit this page again.

Best wishes, Ratcatcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.55.7 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert:

Yes, you are absolutely right, I am new here. And I am not going to spend much time improving the world. But some of my friends and me are sure we should share this link with others. You can check - the guys from RIS don't even bother to seed the links to their site.

You also may be absolutely right that the link I try to save doesn't complain some rules. And I am absolutely sure that the formal view will allow to remove about a half of the links in the article. Shall we?

You also are absolutely right, I've been blocked for 3RR breach. No problem.

Well, you really seem to be a person who can be right. But the harmony is not in being right.

I won't spend time in typing why the concept of reincarnation is important to me and to some more people around me. The idea is that for long years I had no explanation how such process can take place in our world. When I found the text, I was impressed. Yes, it's not clean, it needs some efforts to understand the language... I don't care. Now I KNOW that there is logically, physically and mathematically explained reason to include reincarnation in skeptical mind. I am sure that other people who need to KNOW rather than to trust will appreciate this set of thoughts.

Mmm... Well, I allow myself to be wrong. But I am also sure that even if I let the people see the link by my mistake, there won't be any harm. Are you sure that if you won't let them see it it will be good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.55.10 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what this whole wikipedia thing is. It is not a search for the truth. It is an encyclopedia. We are interested in verifiability, not truth. --Rocksanddirt 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt: ok, should I start removing links with a lack of verifiability from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efialt (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the link to "karma for dummies" does not seem to function!

If you are concerned about the verifiability of statements in this article, you should request citations using a {{fact}} tag in the article and/or discuss them on this page with experienced users. Please realize that as a new user you may be able to learn from our experience as to how Wikipedia functions. We all hope you can make constructive edits that fit the encyclopedia's policy! Hgilbert 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please put 4 (four) tilde's (~) after your comments with leaves your name and date.

Please read the wikipedia polity on verifiability, then look at statements in the article that need to be supported by reliable references. Then find the reliable references. What you were wanting to add appears to be an unreliable reference (the book is not published yet, some text purportedly from the book taken out of context from a website). Generally self published things like blogs, and websites are not reliable sources to be used to verify information in an article. --Rocksanddirt 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Shit, they really are down...

"things like blogs, and websites are not reliable sources to be used"

So let's remove all such links?

As far as I understood you call the link unreliable because 1. It's the only one copy of this text in the net. 2. It has no ISBN number 3. You have never heard about the author.

Yes, no?

Efialt 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond: 1) it's not on the net appearantly, as I can't open the page. 2) ISBN isn't the key, publication, review, peer review of the information to be a reliable source. Fragments that can't be reviewed by anyone certainly don't count as a published book, and not all books are reliable sources anyway. From the reliable sources guideline "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

3) I've not heard of lots of authors, that doesn't matter. --Rocksanddirt 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's look at (2).

A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand

Not all the links are published works, if we mean paper. "trustworthy or authoritative" are subjectives. "credibility of the author" is subjective.

These terms suppose some people, who would trust or not. I do, you not. After all it's not a policy6 it's guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efialt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Efialt 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS goes, I'm actually pretty easy. If something can be shown to have been actually published (not self published) I'm inclined to let it be as reference. This doesn't appear to be anything. You've got a bad link to something labeled "fragments". Please fix the link so at least others can read it, and decide if inclusion of the material will violate another encyclopedic tenent, that of Original Research.--Rocksanddirt 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll look what can be done.

Efialt 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Josephus/Reincarnation in Judaism

This part seems way off to me. The reference given after the quotation is simply to the full text of Book II of Josephus's The War of The Jews. Therefore it's not a reference to someone saying that's what Josephus was talking about, and the idea that he was referring to reincarnation seems to be the writer's own interpretation. Possibly that even counts as original research, I'm not sure, but it seems to be unsubstantiated by any other research. In any case, it would seem to me to be far more likely that what Josephus was getting at was the Pharisees' belief in a physical resurrection of the dead at the end of the world, as opposed to the Sudducees who did not believe in the resurrection (the Bible records that they once tried to get Jesus to side with them on this, see Matthew 22:23-33).

So, it seems to me that there isn't anything (or at least anything unambiguous) to suggest that the Pharisees believed in reincarnation in the time of Josephus, and that that part of the article ought to go. Jenesis (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reference to reincarnation in any Jewish sources until after the Talmud. The above comment is correct. I am removing that part. 96.246.48.79 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical Greek Philosophy

Gouranga(UK): Please be so kind as to not summarily reverse my edits, especially not based on a false attribution of bad motives! I am a scholar and simply wish to see the facts accurately reported. If there were evidence, for example, that Socrates believed in reincarnation I would be the first to state it. Note that in the previous version, no authoritative references were supplied in the Greek philosophy section. If you disagree, may I suggest that a more appropriate response is to supply counter-evidence, not to delete all edits.

The case of Pythagoras can perhaps be conceded (but only in a short article; the issue is actually fairly complex, for we don't have any writings from Pythagoras himself, and must rely on hearsay, much of it biased).

For Socrates, any student of Greek philosophy knows that, again, we have no written works by him. I could show with dozens of scholarly citations that a belief in reincarnation is not generally attributed to Socrates. However, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion -- in this case, the claim that Socrates did believe in reincarnation. Note that the quotation in the original article is not from Socrates himself, but from Plato, who uses Socrates as a fictional character in the dialogue, Phaedo. As I pointed out, the writer Xenophon, who wrote an actual historical biography of Socrates, does not mention reincarnation. How can you justify removing such an obviously relevant fact as that?

In the case of Plato, opinion is about evenly divided as to whether he believed in reincarnation or not. I would like to give the reader the benefit of both sides of the opinion. Previously, only one side was presented. Do you not agree that, in an encyclopedia article on reincarnation, all sides should be fairly presented?

Concerning Christianity, the popular myth that early Christianity taught reincarnation is so absurd that any serious historian would find it ridiculous.

Finally, even if it were my wish to promote some kind of general 'anti-reincarnation' view, which your brief comment seemed to falsely imply, that alone is not grounds to reverse the edits. People of all opinions are entitled to supply additional facts and points to this neutral article (that is what makes it neutral and objective). However, if you summarily negate the opinions of those you disagree with, then *that* is what makes the article biased -- would you not agree?

If you disagree with any of my edits then please say so here, and we can address each issue individually. However, my sincere wish is that you simply leave the edits as-is, on the principle of "good faith" (see top of this page). Otherwise, after much pointless discussion, and wasted time on both our parts, you will see that all my edits are factually based.

In any case, it is not polite to simply delete an entire set of edits, giving no consideration to the time and effort the other person put into placing them, checking references, etc. Practical321 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor change to the description of the Phaedo dialogue used in this page; I omitted the word "fictitious" from the description. The Dialogues are Plato's philosophy, written in the dialectic. It is, I know, debatable how much of dialogues represent the accurate philosophy of Socrates, and what parts that of Plato. I understand the common consensus to think of it as both. With regards to Plato directly, please consider the introduction by Huntington Cairns in the Bollingen Series LXXI, Collected Dialogues:

[Plato] was poet, thinker, scientist all in one and there has been no such combination of powers displayed by anyone before or since. to understand Plato is to be educated; it is to see the nature of the world in which we live. The vitality of what he has to say is due to one factor. He took his point of departure from what is and not from what man wants. One by one he took up the great problems and if he did not solve them he left them at least in a framework in which subsequent ages could see them in their essential nature. He as been misunderstood, and adapted to points of view completely antithetical to his own; but these aberrations have always run their course, and it is by a return to Plato's insights that the thought of the West has continually renewed itself.

It should be noted that Socrates (Plato) does not effectively prove reincarnation, nor disprove it for that matter, it is presented in the Phaedo as a mystical concept, and left open for choice of the individual to believe in or not to believe in. Gerald Roark (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to Shaivism and Sri Ramakrishna

"The followers of full or partial Dvaita schools ("dualistic" schools, such as bhakti yoga), on the other hand, perform their worship with the goal of spending eternity in a loka, (spiritual world or heaven), in the blessed company of the Supreme being (i.e Krishna or Vishnu for the Vaishnavas, Shiva for the Shaivites). [9]" Note the above text: firstly, Sri Ramakrishna is not a Dvaitan, I have Gospel of Ramakrishna and I would like to know which page this was taken from...Sri Ramakrishna is an Advaitan but not pure Advaitan, he relates to the real existence of God/dess(Kali for him) but he does follow the ideal of becoming one with pure Brahman... Secondly: The majority of Shaivites do not believe in Dualism, they practice a form of Advaita(Isvaravada)- monistic theism..Thus their supreme loka is Parashiva/Parabrahman, so thus they are not going to live with Shiva in a loka(although shiva is brahman-think about shivo'ham I am Shiva, and also all is shiva) in the sense of a heavenly plane that refers to mainly Vaishnavism..Domsta333 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that Ramakrishna must have been talking about the Dvaita school in this quotation, rather than saying he was a follower of it? The book has an ISBN so it should be possible to obtain a copy and check this. I understand there are both monistic and dualistic schools of Shaivism, and the quotation is refering to the dualistic one's specifically, I will address this now. Thank you for pointing it out. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Better Image?

Is anyone aware of a better image which could be used in the opening paragraph? I feel that a clearer, or more detailed illustration one must exist somewhere. Maybe an old painting or drawing from a book explaining the subject, or an medieval painting from Buddhism or Hinduism? Lion Sleeps 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes to the discussion about reincarnation, the Bible and Christianity

By Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia). Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – "Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church" (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).

To die once, Hebr. 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose.

John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13 John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally. John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 2 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…]. So Elias had murdered...

The man born blind, John 9:2 A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn. Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.

Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43 One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come… This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.

Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3-4 and 8 Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language. Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…

Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19 Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.

Origen and reincarnation Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording. Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.

The anathemata against Origen In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council. Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…” The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation. Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…

The Council in Nicaea in 325 It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.

The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18 “The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…

Signed: Jan Erik Sigdell, Slovenia, Europe 193.77.16.252 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Occident: a mainly Greek idea, at the dubious origin

Pythagore. Although some believe to detect the belief in the reincarnation at the Celtic druids or other group pagan, it is mainly in the Greek world that the doctrines of the métempsycose flower. In Greek, métempsycose means "transmigration of the hearts". In these doctrines, the heart continues its evolution of existence in existence, and can be possibly incarnated in an animal or a plant. It is towards the Life front century. J.-C. which this belief appears in the Greek world. Its origin is not known with certainty. One does not find of it trace at Homère or Hésiode, it is thus not very probable that it comes from the Greek mythical past. For the Greek historian Hérodote, the belief in the métempsycose would be of origin égyptienne^[2]. It is also possible that it was inpirée by the Indian hindouism. The contacts between Greece and India however were complicated a long time by the fact that Perse, enemy hereditary of the Greeks, was between two civilizations (it is mainly with the conquests of Alexandre the Large one that the Greek world and the Indian world were in constant contact). Among Greeks, the orphism and the pythagorism will constitute the stones of sitted of the doctrines of the métempsycose. It will influence then poets like Pindare and of the philosophers like Plato. One finds discussions direct of the reincarnation or allusions to this one in Phédon, Ménon, the Banquet, and particularly in the er myth. In the Greek thought, the reincarnation is primarily regarded as a process of purification allowing the rise to be it matter towards the divine one (towards the Platonic Ideas, in particular).

• 1^[3] "They are still the Egyptians who, the first, said that the human heart is immortal and that at the moment when the body perishes, it comes to be placed in another alive being which is born then; that, when it lived in turn all the terrestrial species, watery and air, then it penetrates again in the body of one man at the moment when he is born, after a three thousand years migration." - Hérodote, Investigation, II, 123.

Decomposition

is any theory exist that connect Reincarnation to Decomposition? --alone (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think in any direct way. Hinduism says that the Atman or soul is permanent whereas the body is Prakrti or perishable matter and subject to constant change. I believe Buddhism has a similar distinction between causal and non causal things -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sagan

skeptics, such as Dr Carl Sagan, see the need for more reincarnation research [citation needed]

I don't think that Sagan said that there was a "need". IIRC he implied that it was worth pursuing, not because he believed it, but because it's interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.182.179 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro sentence on research

"Some researchers, such as Professor Ian Stevenson, have explored the issue of reincarnation and published evidence of children's memories of earlier lives. Skeptics are critical of this work and say that more reincarnation research is needed."

While this sentence is balanced, it does not reflect the article. That is what the introduction is supposed to do. The article conveys the situation fairly, and the situation is that there is convincing research proving that there is something to the idea, and no one has a convincing way to refute these ideas. The introduction should try to encapsulate that summary. Mitsube (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sufism and Reincarnation

I am curious about the author's interpretation of Sufi notions on death. He/she refers to a book title as evidence of some Sufis believing in reincarnation: "Bawa Muhaiyadeen (see his To Die Before Death: The Sufi Way of Life)." This is probably a misinterpretation of a fundamental tenet of Sufism and Islam in general. When Sufis say "die before you die" they mean the death of the ego. Sufism is about complete surrender to the will of Allah. All preconceptions, desires, and connections to this world are released and total submission is made to God. This is the primary goal of any Sufi. It has nothing to do with reincarnation. That is not to say that some Sufis do not believe in some form of reincarnation, but that would be something of an anomaly and still has nothing to do with "Die before death" or die before dying as some Sufis put it.

Suleiman, Qadiri-Rifai Sufi Order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.202.21 (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?"
This often-quoted poem by the great mystic Rumi does not necessarily prove reincarnation, but may refer to the development of the human soul in one life, either as a moral metaphor or in prenatal development. According to Aristotle, the semen is only matter, and the human embryo acquires plant and animal states before it grows fully human. Rumi will have known Aristotle or even Avicenna.
--Curryfranke (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Persons ?

There is a Persons section in this article...what is that suppossed to mean ? They are persons who claimed to be reborn etc - it should be made more clear...Jon Ascton (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is under the "See also" section, meaning if you click any of the links under that section, the articles there are related in some way to reincarnation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any references to reincarnation in Richard James Allens article, so I'll remove that link. I'll add Shanti Devi instead, since her case is one of the better cases of verified past life memories. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition/etymology

The very first sentence of this article says that reincarnation literally means "to be made flesh again." This is actually quite a bad gloss, if you ask me. First and foremost, "to be made" is a verb, and "reincarnation" is a noun--no matter what, the definition needs to be in the form of a noun, not a verb.

Secondly, the definition is in the passive voice, and it shouldn't be. "To reincarnate" means "to make flesh," not "to be made flesh." There is a very significant difference.

My proposal would read something like this: "the act of making (s.o./sth.) flesh again." 71.77.10.216 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done It is fine as it is right now. Reincarnation is to be made flesh again, not to be made flesh. That would be birth. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary perspectives

This section has been focused on movements rather than individuals, and I suggest we need to maintain this distinction or it will grow out of hand. Edgar Cayce has been an exception, and one I'm ambiguous about. What do y'all think? hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation of angels

I remember reading a weird story in which the author claimed to have been a reincarnated angel or archangel. He then <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>described his youth as a form of soul sleep, a prelude to a later re-awakening in adulthood in which he possessed a semi-consciousness of his earlier life. ADM (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have that story? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes: origins in India

There has been a substantial change to the description of the pre-Vedic tradition. Could others look at this as well? hgilbert (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Using freeread.com as a source or link

This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books and no warranty as to accuracy or contents is given for texts and essays he includes. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.—Ash (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern and Western: Weird organization

It's odd that Native American beliefs are included under the umbrella of "Western", considering their ideas developed in complete isolation from the European traditions we associate as being the core of "Western Civilization". In that sense, in Pre-Columbian times Native American cultures had even less connection to European cultures than Far Eastern societies did. Islam and Zoroastrianism aren't particularly "Western" or "Eastern", either. --76.98.148.217 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree about Native American - it belongs in a class of its own. However, Islam is considered a Western religion because, a) it arose in the West (Middle East, the same place Judaism and Christianity are from b) because Western Civilization/philosophy/thought, was greatly developed and influenced by Islamic Arabs between the 700s and 1400s, and heavy undertones derived from Islam as a religion are representative in these. Notions that developed from a religious interpretation of Islam lead to ideas such as secularism, scepticism, and empiricism (the scientific method).

But Islam also strongly influenced east philosophies.

At any rate, Near Eastern philosophies (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism) are Western philosophies, while anything East of Persia (India and beyond) is Eastern. 94.4.150.110 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Energy and reincarnation

I have a thought about reincarnation that might be relevant to this article. In any case, perhaps this would be of interest to a person who's curious about the possibility of reincarnation.

Einstein proved with his famous equation that everything in the universe is energy. Consequently, it's a scientific fact that upon death every human being will transform into some other expression of energy. Of course, this doesn't validate any notion of a soul moving from one body to another. But doesn't it prove that there is undoubtedly a perpetuated existence of all living beings? Nothing is added or taken away from the universe. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about physics could extrapolate on this. Shoplifter (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)¨

I found an article that discusses precisely the issue I've raised here. Very interesting stuff. http://www.helium.com/items/1559904-is-reincarnation-scientifically-possible Shoplifter (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation in non vedic cultures

The theory of attributing reincarnation to the "aboriginal" non vedic culture is entirely speculative. The earliest written evidence containing precise definitions of karma and moksha can be found in Brihadaranyaka by Yagnavalkya. The idea of rebirth can be traced to Rigveda (egs in mandala eleven, there is a description of how a persion is repeatedly put into a mother's womb). The idea might have evolved (probably independently) in the Shramanic culture (having its roots in the non orthodox Sankhya school). One of the references that was referred, suggests that Yagnavalkya was reluctant to teach the concepts of reincarnation to Janaka, and based on this, concludes that reincarnation was previously unknown. In Brihadaranyaka, Janaka is eager to learn the concept of Brahman (not reincarnation) and Yagnavalkya tests the eagerness of his possible student. In the upanishads, lot of such stories have been told (egs: there is a story about a son who tries to learn the concept of Brahman from his father). What should be noted is that the concept of reincarnation was primarily born from the experiences of the seers ( both vedic and non-orthodox ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. If you find such a source disagreeing with those cited, we can include what that source says as well. Where did you get the idea that the Shramanic culture arose from Sankhya? Mitsube (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This subject is not pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is of little relevance to it. Please remember that as an encyclopedia, we must adopt a neutral, historical and global point of view. Reincarnation is a major subject of our global culture and folklore, in recent decades people may have used pseudoscience to 'prove' its existence or whatever, but it's an extremely minor aspect of the subject, which should not be given undue weight. Cenarium (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all reincarnation beliefs are pseudoscientific, but much of the claims, discussion, and history is, and we have a source for it. Verbal chat 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A unique source that is contradicted by multiple other sources and not followed up by next publications, its validity is contested at talk:ghost and elsewhere. It seems utterly absurd for me to say that followers of Gautama Buddha hold pseudoscientific beliefs, it's a complete anachronism. Belief in reincarnation is according to all reliable sources on this one of folklore, tradition or religion, not of pseudoscience. The pseudoscientific aspect of reincarnation is extremely minor, and one single source can't justify categorization. Cenarium (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, it's exactly the same pattern as at Placebo, where BullRangifer injected a gratuitous reference to homeopathy into the second lead sentence in defiance of WP:ONEWAY, along with the POV formulation "deceptive" which readers would then apply to homeopathy, and when I removed that nonsense you reverted it back in. You seem to be BullRangifer's assistant in disrupting this encyclopedia, and that's not a good thing. Stop it.

You world view appears to be seriously distorted by too much occupation with pseudoscience. But WP:ONEWAY is applied according to the general public and the expected readers of an article, not according to the pseudo-sceptic community or according to a fringe community. Is that too hard to understand or do you find it impossible to make allowances for your own biases? Hans Adler 19:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't mention "derided" or "pseudoscience". The statements are unsupported deprecatory additions added by User:ScienceApologist. Mitsube (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms are there by any reasonable measure. This kind of argument is tendentious and disruptive. Blockable. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not synonyms. If they were, I presume you would have left their synonyms in. I don't agree with your characterization. Mitsube (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is better than quoting. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Adjustment

Mentioning Ian Stevenson in the lead seemed like a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. I have also adjusted the section on parapsychology research to more appropriately reflect how the subject is dealt with in the academy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. "The academy" means academics, not magicians. What you have done is removed responses to skeptical reactions (which are not from within the medical research community). Could some other editors please give their opinions? Mitsube (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And Guyonthesubway, no other editor on either page has supported your wish to keep the information level low. Could you reconsider? Mitsube (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Guyonthesubway's proposal with regards to certain issues surrounding WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? You support his removal of the material you want to remove but not the material you want to leave in? Mitsube (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Guyonthesubway over you. Always. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to bear me some personal animosity. I advise you to try to be kind to even people you disagree with; it makes things a lot easier. Mitsube (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that you make it very hard to agree with you when you make these sweeping unequivocal statements and railroad a false claim of consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reverting

In spite of the edit summary, I see no justification for this revert that was done by Mitsube: [4]. Unless one is forthcoming, I recommend reversing this. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They are in the above two sections, and have been. By the way, inciting others to revert-war is no better than reverting yourself. Mitsube (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no discussion above. I will comment below shortly. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll summarize it. You skewed the article by removing positive descriptions and including unsourced negative descriptions. Mitsube (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The exact opposite is going on. The article was less skewed after I edited it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you won't drop this, we'll do an RfC and settle the issue. Or we could just discuss this below. Mitsube (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Do an RfC. No dropping will be had. Better yet, ask on WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you insist on insisting that I didn't post here in explanation, that's all there is to it. Mitsube (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

There should be mention of reincarnation research here. It is clearly germane to the subject of the article. And if there's coverage of it, it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD.

Besides, Stevenson's work has made it into secondary sources that discuss reincarnation aside from reincarnation research. See below.

Now I am alright with removing the Tucker quote because it seems to be original synthesis. I will tag the thing it is being used to rebut at the moment. The rest of the material is good.

And please note that including the reactions of skeptics but not of supporters is POV. Mitsube (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version has four objections/criticisms and one response. The Sagan quote is neither. It gives a nearly neutral presentation of the responses (though doesn't actually describe the research).

It should mention the positive reviews in the journals, which are the most important reactions. If others insist on adding more skeptical material, I will also insist on adding this important material. However I am willing to accept the current version which is somewhat balanced, though as I noted tilted toward the negative side. Mitsube (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of balance, and the goal should not be to portray this work as having an equal number of supporters vs. detractors. Fringe theories such as reincarnation research should not be described in terms of "equal validity" with mainstream views. While we don't "unduly" denigrate the minority view, neither do we give it equal prominence with the majority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no theories mentioned in connection with the research. Mentioning the research, which simply provides evidence for reincarnation, should keep the disputes lower. The disputes about what conclusions to draw from the research can go into other articles. Mitsube (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See, here's the problem. Even in this statement you evince a skewed perspective. The research does not "provide evidence for reincarnation". Only believers in reincarnation think that (and they are a minority in the medical and scientific research community). The research indicates that a dedicated theosophist believer in reincarnation can gather evidence and present his data in a methodologically sound way. That's about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to edit these articles, you should do some reading, at least about the skeptical reactions you hold up. This is from skepdic.com: "all Stevenson had to show for over forty years of research is that it is now false to claim that there is no evidence for reincarnation." Note that double negative = positive. I can find a reliable source for that if you are interested. And about your idea, which you put in the article that Stevenson was a "dedicated theosophist believer", you are probably misremembering this: "His interest in the paranormal derived from the influence of his mother, a devotee of theosophy. He was quite fond of the Society for Psychical Research, even though one of its early leaders, Richard Hodgson, had thoroughly debunked Madam Blavatsky, the creator of theosophy." Mitsube (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you even reading the context of what you cite? I don't think so. It looks to me like you stop reading as soon as you arrive at a sentence you like and then try to extract the most favorable-to-reincarnation quote you can muster. Terrible editing practice. Stevenson was definitely a theosophist and, like many, accepted that Blavatsky's ideas were a bit problematic without abandoning the faith entirely. Sort of like a Catholic who rejects medieval scholasticism. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claim "Stevenson was definitely a theosophist", and don't bother trying to gauge my reading comprehension. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Read his autobiography. He describes making careful study of theosophy writings and speaks with admiration for their moral teachings. He rejects theosophy as a basis for science but maintains that he follows its religious precepts. If you would like to provide a different definition of a theosophist that does not include such a person, be my guest. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the "parapsychological" back. I really hope you can be satisfied with this. I am making serious compromises in good faith. Mitsube (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to as well, but your constant insistence on challenging everything that even remotely states that Stevenson may not have anything but a bunch of stories that were made up on his hands makes it difficult to write neutrally. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with stating that groundless opinion of the skeptic community if and only if these opinions are addressed by the responses to them that have been published by professors. I think that is quite reasonable. Mitsube (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your personal belief that the opinions of the vast majority of academics are groundless is irrelevant to the article, yet you continue to insist on inserting wording to that effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Kurtz quote, there is no need to go into the validity or non-validity or even existence of conclusions drawn from the research. If Kurtz' statement about drawing pseudoscientific conclusions is mentioned then I would have to mention Almeder's statement that the evidence suggests that it is irrational to not believe in reincarnation to keep NPOV. Let's just leave the conclusions out of it, isn't that better? Readers can learn about that discussion in the larger articles. I hope Guyonthesubway would agree with me on that. Mitsube (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"But other skeptics, such as Dr Carl Sagan, see the need for more reincarnation research."? This is a distortion of Sagan's comments. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't: [5]. Mitsube (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is, and your link does nothing to dispute that fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

He said that it "deserv[ed] serious study". See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Mitsube (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can cherry-pick and quotemine as much as you like, but I'll make sure the context gets in. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this as an admission that you were wrong. And it's not quotemining, it's looking at the source that was already cited. I find that to be a useful practice. Mitsube (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of what I said. You were guilty of a number of informal fallacies. Read Quote mine and Cherrypicking. Context is always key. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is literally only one person studying reincarnation research, including mention of it in the lead is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. There are probably close to a billion people who approach reincarnation from another perspective. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source coverage indicated otherwise. Mitsube (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, it agrees with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately it is difficult to ignore the many links to the many mentions in academic textbooks that have been scanned onto googlebooks that I have provided below. Mitsube (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

All of which indicate that there is almost no one doing "reincarnation research" since they're all uniquely obsessed with (the late) Stevenson. Good job. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think it is a sizable list which shows significant coverage. So, thank you, I suppose. Mitsube (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I got Tucker's book. It had not been misused as you said in the other article (you might not have been able to see this on google books). He describes the research in much detail there, and he himself has done many cases and is continuing Stevenson's work. And he has gotten a huge amount of media coverage (so you need not be concerned that the reincarnation research coverage is just about Stevenson). Also see Tucker's 2008 article for the names of four other researchers carrying out similar case studies. There is a lot of interesting new material in the book that I hadn't known about and I would be happy to share some of it with anyone interested. You have been concerned (I don't know why) about the focus on Stevenson. Do you think any of this new information should be added to this article? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Four researchers? That's a laughably small number. That Tucker has gotten media coverage is not surprising, the media loves this kind of sucker-pseudoscience nonsense for their news of the woo-woo or news of the weird segments. In any case, Tucker is not an independent source. Please find an independent source that verifies the claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources on reincarnation that include coverage of Stevenson's research

Books I happen to have read personally: B. Alan Wallace Contemplative science by Columbia University Press 2007, p. 13, and Peter Harvey ed., An introduction to Buddhist ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2000, page 419, and [6] (this one is a key academic text studying the development of the concept and related ones that is cited by other major works I could cite, and covers Stevenson's research extensively).

These are other academic texts: [7] (more extensive coverage), [8], [9], [10] a university textbook on issues relating to death,

In regards to the Jewish concept (seems to be high quality, possibly academic): [11],

Reincarnation: a bibliography, published by Taylor and Francis, devotes an entire chapter to cases suggesting reincarnation: [12],

And Contributions to Asian Studies: 1974, Volume 5 by Brill Academic Publishers includes an article by Stevenson and co-authors: [13].

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation, for what it's worth, devotes a chapter to it: [14].

Here are some other sources that I don't know the background on the authors or publishers but do look like they're worth considering here: [15], [16],[17], [18].

So there is no WP:WEIGHT issue. Mitsube (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The brief mentions of it in the academic literature testify to it being unimportant enough for the whole field. Compare to any other reference work on reincarnation: reincarnation research will not be mentioned in the first three paragraphs. You are incorrect in your assertion: reincarnation research should be excluded form the lead per WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Academic texts on reincarnation devote entire chapters to this work. It will be given the proper weight here. Mitsube (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The best academic texts on reincarnation are found in comparative religion sections of your library and generally have NOTHING on reincarnation research. Done. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your vague "the best" is an evasive way of ignoring the academic texts that are linked to above. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Mitsube (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Then "the most". Go to a library and check out all the books written by academic scholars on religious beliefs in reincarnation. The vast minority of them mention Stevenson. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about, say, pre-19th century religious beliefs in reincarnation. It's about "reincarnation". You can start such an article and I won't quibble with your exclusion of his research here. Many secondary sources give significant coverage to Stevenson's research. At least three of the books I linked to above are academic texts on comparative religion, and each gives substantial coverage to his research. His research now forms a significant part of the discussion of reincarnation in academia, like it or not. Mitsube (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. The seminal work on reincarnation are those texts which discuss the cultural beliefs of the various religions which believe in reincarnation. The focus is clearly on the religious implications of the beliefs, not the stories that some dead researcher collected over his lifetime. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue has little to do with reincarnation research appearing in books about reincarnation, and a lot about where those mentions occur. This is an article primarily about the topic of reincarnation itself, written in a general way. I don't think you'll find many (or any) academic books that cover the topic of reincarnation that devotes much time to reincarnation research in the intro of the book. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's true (and I don't accept that it is, I know that the Taylor and Francis source does in its very brief introductory page), it's not a useful observation, I think. We're working with WP:LEAD here: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Mitsube (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Keyword "concise". Not concise. Comparatively to the thousands of years of history of reincarnation in human thought, for the lead this minor footnote topic doesn't require more than a partial sentence that reads "and inconclusive research into reports of reincarnation were conducted in the late twentieth century." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these points. The sentence you removed was the result of repeated attempts to fix POV, which originally came from this edit [19]. I will try to put in a sentence along the lines you describe. I think "inconclusive" is too strong. The fact that it received some (in some cases extensive) coverage in medical journals shows that it is also suggestive and interesting. But I understand that this will not be accepted in certain quarters. I think "multivocal" is better. In fact if you look at the etymology I think it must be acceptable to everyone. The section covers Stevenson so he should also be mentioned, and he is always held up as the dominant figure in this area generally by the sources above. Also, the research is still being done by Stevenson's protege, so I will change the verb tense as well, hopefully without objection. Mitsube (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconclusive would be the direct way of saying what it is, neutrally avoiding obsfucation and ambiguity. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Multivocal means "has many interpretations". But Guyinthesubway objected to its use, because he didn't know what it meant.

There is no need to use any adjective. Readers coming to the article will have no idea what Stevenson's results or opinions or even methods were from reading "research into reports of reincarnation have been conducted since the late twentieth century, most notably by Ian Stevenson." They will probably think that the reports were of a skeptical nature. Mitsube (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mitsube surely has a valid point and is not asking for too much here. Perhaps the final sentence of the lead could read something like this: "research into reports of reincarnation have been conducted since the late twentieth centurey, most notably by Ian Stevenson, whose findings have been regarded as suggestive of the reality of reincarnation by some, but dismissed by others.' That seems reasonable. Best regards. Suddha (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in the lead because it is a relatively minor tributary of the main streams of this topic. Certainly the suggested wording is entirely inappropriate. First of all, we have no reason to believe that "research" has been going on "since the late twentieth century". I'd like to see an independent source for that contention. As well, only believers in reincarnation have "regarded" his "findings" as "suggestive of the reality of reincarnation". The "some and others" bit is entirely too weasely. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You know that the research is continuing. Don't be dense. Mitsube (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources to that effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Parapsychological research is a contemporary perspective

It should be a subsection of the contemporary perspective section. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And all the pro and con nonsense of the intro needs to go as well, per WP:UNDUE. The article is largely an article about a religious topic. Scientific/pseudoscientific research is a footnote here, largely overshadowed by the importance of other aspects. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And what is the perspective? I accept removing pro and con: just describe the research. The point is that then there is no perspective to quibble over. People can read about that in the other articles. About your point that the article is about a religious topic, I'm not exactly what you mean, and how the title "reincarnation" implies that. One can believe in reincarnation without being religious and many people do. Given the extensive secondary source coverage of reincarnation research in scholarly treatments of reincarnation in general, it is important to keep the RS content on that in the article. Mitsube (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Largely a religious topic is different than solely a religious topic. Some people believing in reincarnation without being religious is largely overshadowed by the fact that this topic is a central tenet in world religions dating back thousands of years and shared by millions of people. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, and the coverage in the secondary sources agrees with this as well. But the coverage it receives is far more extensive than the coverage of the theosophical movement, etc. What are your thoughts on that? Mitsube (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see that what you're saying that has something to do edits to the article. The pro- and con- crap that was in the intro needed to go, and it did, and the article is better for it. The section on parapsychological research is a contemporary perspective, so was correctly added to that section. The article is better for it. I'm not sure what you are arguing for. Are you wanting to move it back out of the subsection or something? It is, after all, a contemporary perspective on reincarnation. It is not a standalone topic like the main headers in the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Neal, with some minor tweaking ideas of my own. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist, can we remove the labels ("believers in reincarnation", "apologists for reincarnation")? The secondary sources don't present things in this suggestive way. Can we just leave the facts? People who go to the Ian Stevenson article will clearly see that he believed in reincarnation. And putting that in here presents only that side of him, not that the fact that he was a careful, methodical, even obsessive researcher. So instead of describing him in one sentence, let's leave these things out. Also, calling Almeder an apologist for reincarnation is unsupported, and is casting an aspersion. Calling the journals "low-impact factor" is not supported and irrelevant even if true. I accept "pseudoscientific interpretations of this work have been roundly criticized by skeptics" without the "roundly", which is an endorsement. Also why do you need to remove the information about children remembering past lives from the Sagan quote? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you continue adding things to the article which are irrelevant and from the POV of believers, we must attribute them as such. Culling the article would help, but you seem opposed to doing that for some reason. Take out all the sentences, fine. But you cannot assert as fact anything that purports to say that there is scientific evidence in favor of reincarnation. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright let us do that then. As to your latest work having "There are very few people who have investigated reincarnation, but those who believe in reincarnation generally come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate phenomenon, such as Peter Ramster, Brian Weiss, Walter Semkiw, and others" isn't informative. Mitsube (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I find it very informative as it lists the (few) people who have investigated reincarnation and properly describes them as believers. But taking that sentence out totally is fine with me, I guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not understanding the wording of your own sentence. All it says is that believers in reincarnation have come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate phenomenon. "It" refers to its antecedent "reincarnation". Obviously, believers in reincarnation would believe that reincarnation is a legitimate phenomenon. Mitsube (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That presupposes that believers in reincarnation all believe that science will vindicate their belief. That's by no means a given. I imagine that the Dalai Lama would not be so quick to jump at this idealization of Stevenson's work. The reasons why are obvious: when you make a dogmatic statement based on the best understanding of science, you can easily end up declaring the Earth to the be the center of the universe. Most religious leaders with decent heads on their shoulders are aware enough of this problem to keep their endorsements of fringe science explanations for their beliefs at the very least muted. Of course, those that were cited were not exactly intellectual giants among those philosophizing about what reincarnation means theologically, metaphysically, or historically. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about a grammar issue. I don't know what your post is regarding. I think the issue has been resolved so we are alright. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement, "Obviously, believers in reincarnation would believe that reincarnation is a legitimate phenomenon." is not necessarily true. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. Mitsube (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let me explain why you're wrong: Phenomenon is rigorously defined as being associated with a measurable event. Not every believer in reincarnation thinks reincarnation is measurable, therefore not every believer thinks that reincarnation is phenomenological. Some actually take it on faith, believe it or not. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension issue, nothing else. You are not comprehending what you are reading (and have written). "Believers in reincarnation would believe that reincarnation is a legitimate phenomenon" means that believers in reincarnation would believe that reincarnation is a legitimate (real) phenomenon (occurrence). The sentence is saying that believers in reincarnation would believe in reincarnation. Mitsube (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Phenomenon != Noumenon for many spiritual people. Often they are the ones who realize that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, by definition. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope the recent changes will not be objectionable. I am surmising that ScienceApologist's "Take out all the sentences, fine" indicates amenability to this kind of change. The new presentation is totally neutral. I think that as soon as any opinions or reactions are stated the system will fly out of balance in a cycle of feedback loops and collapse. That has been the pattern. Let us leave it in its basal state. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The current LuckyLouie version looks great to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It follows the solution arrived at the ghost article. When the article is refocused to deal with the subject as a "belief", discussing research/science or the failings of it is inappropriate in the lead. (I fixed the inline refs I added. Someone else added one cited as "Skepdic", however it remains broken.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is primarily about religious beliefs, but it is not exclusively so. Nealparr and I came to a compromise above regarding the intro. Have you looked at that discussion, LuckyLouie? I think Suddha's suggestion runs the risk of starting the spiral into chaos that we saw recently, but I would like your opinion on that as well.

The current version of the article is largely alright, but the current language at the end of the section completely sidelines what attention the medical community did give Stevenson. For example, the review of European Cases of the Reincarnation Type in the American Journal of Psychiatry described called the book "an inspiring example of application of a painstaking protocol to sift facts from fancy". There are also numerous positive statements about his work in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. This is a good summation: "Though Stevenson’s efforts did not produce mainstream acceptance of his work, it did garner some respect in mainstream circles. The Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed one of his books in 1975 and stated that “in regard to reincarnation he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases... in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds.”" I'm adding in that bit of information (not the quote from the Journal of the AMA), but as I hope you will both agree, what I added is entirely accurate and doesn't slant the section either way, and gives the "negative" statement the last word, which should appeal to some. Mitsube (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What compromise? I see NealParr told you all the pro and con nonsense of the intro needs to go, per WP:UNDUE, the article is largely an article about a religious topic and scientific/pseudoscientific research is a footnote here, largely overshadowed by the importance of other aspects. That did not mean you should keep adding a promo for Stevenson into the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course LuckyLouie is correct. Stevenson and reincarnation research do not belong in the lead and consensus of the editors who have commented here clearly indicate that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to address the substantial secondary source coverage. Nealparr, Suddha and I have all posted in favor of some mention of it in the intro. I will remove the mention of Stevenson personally as per LuckyLouie's edit summary. Mitsube (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you misunderstand, let me be clear: I do not think discussion of reincarnation research, evidence, pseudoscience, etc. belongs in the lead, with or without Stevenson. For example, many topics have "substantial secondary source coverage", including Henry Ford and Auditing (Scientology), yet since they are of minor importance in the context of the article, we don't include these in the lead. I don't think we should make an exception for reincarnation research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I said a partial sentence would do, if at all. It wouldn't hurt to have a well written mention, but it's not absolutely necessary either. -If- there's something, leave the promos out. I don't see Plato in the introduction, and he's certainly more notable to the topic than Stevenson. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source for mainstream respect

In the section on parapsychological research the following clause is present:

“ Though his work did garner some academic respect ”

This is referenced to a work by Jim B. Tucker. Obviously this does not qualify as a mainstream source, nor does it support the statement, per se. Unless an independent source can be found for this clause, it should be removed.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "mainstream" struck me as original research. That word itself would need a source to back it up. But Tucker, as a university faculty member, is by definition an academic. He may not be mainstream, but since the article already states that the scientific community at large disagrees with him, the article would not seem to be implying that his research is any more accepted than it is. Whether Tucker is a reliable source about reincarnation is, I think, beside the point; he would seem to be a reliable source for a mundane assertion that support for Stevenson has popped up somewhere in academia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But he's not independent: he's a student and successor of Stevenson. Independent sources are needed so as not to skew the reporting. In other words, Tucker has an incentive to claim that Stevenson was respected because if he were to say the opposite he'd probably jeopardize his own job. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose my resistance to outright removal of the source is rooted in a sense that, even if Tucker is on the academic fringes, he seems to be a (the most?) notable supporter of Stevenson. In any case, Tucker is a reliable source about himself, so how about something like this: "Though his work did garner some positive treatment by at least one prominent psychiatrist, his conclusions gained little support within..."? (I say "prominent" because he does hold a high-level position at his university, and because he's rather well-known in general; I don't mean to imply "mainstream" or anything to that effect. Also, "positive treatment" seems relatively neutral with regard to motive.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a fairer description of Tucker's work be along the lines, "Stevenson's line of research has been continued by his collaborator Jim B. Tucker" ? Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert this edit as unnecessary wheedling, since the sentence prior to it includes mention of Stevenson's "supporters", there's no need to further enhance it with descriptions of who they are and what credential they hold. _ LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The qualifier seems to set up a unnecessary and strained dichotomy along the lines of, "Although Bernstein thinks that Woodward's reporting was groundbreaking, the general consensus is that it Woodward was misled." Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare, the situation is not like the example you presented. Stevenson's research was largely ignored, received some positive coverage, and was never discredited (except among the community of skeptics - not in medical or scientiic journals). That is the situation. The distinction between the work (that is, the case studies) and the conclusions is crucial. See this post of ScienceApologist for some of the context. Mitsube (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The objections to calling the Journal of the AMA and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease "mainstream" simply because the word was taken from an article by Tucker is not in good faith. Mitsube (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A nitpick: when journals publish research that later turns out to be irrelevant or a sideshow curiosity as this research currently is, we do not expect there to be any rejoinders or papers discrediting the research in the journals. Such papers are only published when other researchers decide to support the research. This never happened with Stevenson. In such cases where research garners no interest in the relevant community, journals generally reject all papers relating to the subject whether they are positive or negative because there is limited space to publish papers and there are editorial reasons to let sleeping dogs lie. This is essentially the case right now with nearly all parapsychology research. There was a brief flurry of interest in the 1960s and 1970s in some of these subjects, but it's now more than 30 years on and no self-respecting journal would touch this drivel with a 10-foot-pole. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't notable that there was this period of "let's hear what they have to say" in the history of academic science, but that period of time is over. Because of this situation, pretending that we can only accept journal articles as a refutation of the claims of reincarnation is simply not going to fly. The older the journal article is without receiving support or literature citations, the less likely it is still relevant to contemporary understanding. In short, Stevenson is discredited precisely because he is ignored. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are, of course the reviews of his books and articles in medical journals. If you object to such an innocuous presentation as that which I recently added I can find many even stronger statements in the medical literature. Is that what you would like? Mitsube (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be crossing the line into WP:TE. I think I'll leave this article for a while. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] While I admit that ScienceApologist raised some valid issues with regard (ultimately) to phrasing, I'm rather baffled by the effort to exclude Tucker entirely. From what the Jim B. Tucker article says, it looks like Tucker is a respected (and well-known) faculty member at a mainstream university. His eccentric research interests do not make him less credible as a scientist; in fact, his article even calls him a skeptic. Compared to the likes of Isaac Newton and the guy who led the Human Genome Project, this makes Tucker sound like Richard Dawkins. But I digress. The overall theme of the section in question is that Stevenson conducted research on reincarnation. The view of the scientific community, while noteworthy, is not the main idea of the passage. The main idea is Stevenson, and it follows (as a basic rule of good writing) that the contents of the passage should be weighted relative to the main idea, i.e., to Stevenson. Regardless of what views the scientific community has (and, really, regardless of what Tucker thinks), it is notable that Stevenson and Tucker were collaborators. Tucker is a notable individual who prominently collaborated with Stevenson. While it might be inappropriate to frame Tucker's views so that they look like the authoritative views on reincarnation, it is, IMHO, perfectly reasonable to place Tucker in the Stevenson paragraph, framing his views as complements (or counterpoints) to Stevenson's own conclusions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument, that the "main idea" of the section is Stevenson and should be weighted towards that, is akin to saying the ad shouldn't get off message. Already this section is too Stevenson heavy. Weren't there some past-life regressioner research too? Raymond Moody did reincarnation research. Strangely it doesn't even mention the word parapsychology in the body of the section (despite the header). It really does read like a book review for Stevenson. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, I actually agree with you. My position is that, if Stevenson is to remain the section's main idea, then Tucker probably deserves some mention. But perhaps the section really is too "Stevenson heavy" and needs a thorough revision, after which a mention of the Tucker-Stevenson collaboration might be tangential or undue. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson is the main idea, though his line of research is being carried on by others now. Stevenson's methodology and rigor have been praised in medical journals. This is the mainstream respect. ScienceApologist and LuckyLouie both know about this fact. It seems that this is being removed on a pretext. If we are going to mention reactions to his research at all (and my complete rewrite did not), we must include this, which is the most important reaction. If he had been doing past-life regression, he wouldn't have gotten the coverage he has. The other reactions to his work, and discussion of his conclusions, have been in non-scientific fora.

I have added in some content sourced to two different medical journals. One is his obituary in the British Medical Journal, which entitled his obituary "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". I hope that this new addition will meet everyone's standards on every front. Mitsube (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson shouldn't be the "main idea" of a section about "research" is the point. And it's not all about mainstream respect either. Otherwise you wouldn't have Scientology, Eckankar, and others in this article. It's about notability, including notable research follies like past life regression. There's all kinds of notable "non-scientific fora" surrounding reincarnation. Again, it doesn't even mention that he was a parapsychologist, despite the header. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To use an example that Nealparr and I are intimately familiar with, Stevenson is to Reincarnation Research as Konstantin Raudive was to Electronic voice phenomenon. A major (perhaps the major) player, but not the only one. I find myself agreeing strongly with Neal. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think Mitsube's information above is extremely interesting. I myself was unaware of it. Furthermore, Mitsube is simply trying to show that Stevenson's research cannot be dismissed as un-scholarly or unscientific, as is so often attempted in the pages of Wikipedia. To receive such a clear commendation for one's research methodology as has been given to Stevenson by the prestigious BMJ is indeed notable. Regards. Suddha (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The reference is really, really old. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact that the articles were published 30-40 years ago is irrelevant, or course. The continuing secondary source coverage could be used to defeat your argument if was made using policies, but it's not. Mitsube (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Relevant in the extreme. There is no continuing independent source coverage. See WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I have taken out mention of parapsychology research from the lead twice now in a week. Others have taken it out as well. Only one editor keeps putting it back in.

Here, I submit that parapsychology research does not deserve mention in the lead of this article, or, at the very most, deserves very minor mention.

Let's decide exactly how to write the lead. My opinion is that the three major sections of the article should have representation in the lead, but Eastern religions and traditions should be weighted most heavily followed by Western religions and traditions followed last by Contemporary perspectives. I submit that parapsychology amounts to 10% of the section on contemporary perspectives. Giving rough percentages, I think we should be able to agree on a 45% for Eastern religions/traditions, 35% for Western religions/traditions and 20% for Contemporary perspectives. In this case, parapsychology should be 2% of the lead following the definitional sentence. This roughly corresponds to about 3 to 4 words in our lead. I submit that this is the maximum appropriate weight. However, note that WP:WEIGHT admits that often such minor opinions deserve outright exclusion. I think we're on the threshhold of that here. Reincarnation research is a minority field even within parapsychology. It's so marginalized (rightly or wrongly so) that there does not appear to be more than 4 people seriously working on it today. Comparing this to the billions of people who actually believe in the subject makes me more convinced that the sentence that Mitsube was trying to include was indeed overly weighted.

Cheers,

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source coverage is a better guide than your strange statistical arguments. Mitsube (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To address your point which is not policies, namely, there aren't many people working on this, that is true. But of course, not relevant. There are many reasons why that might be so, but the few that have researched it have gotten significant secondary source coverage, in academic treatments of reincarnation, as I proved above. Why is there not more interest? Entrenched dogma against reincarnation, is one. Similarly unsubstantiated dogma kept homosexuality labeled a disorder for a long time.

Yet, given the secondary source coverage, this research is clearly interesting. And it is well-funded. But really what is there to add? It is a proven fact that thousands of children have reported past life-stories. The journals who published Stevenson's research point out that there aren't really any normal explanations for these phenomena. These reports were scrupulously documented, in all areas of the world. So what else is there to do? You can draw conclusions or not. Mitsube (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to the discussion. Unfortunately, almost everything you say is false and you have NO SOURCES to back up your claims that there are a lot of researchers working on this subject, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. That's your agenda, and it will continue to be resisted. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebirth (Buddhism)

I think the distinction between reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of rebirth could be further explained. Reincarnation implies taking human form, whereas rebirth does not, reflecting the Buddhist belief in other realms within the cycle of rebirth - those of the gods, demigods, hungry ghosts, hell beings and animals. Only the last of these has any tangible connection with the human realm but all are possible rebirths.

RE: "Tibetan Buddhists also believe that a newborn child may be the rebirth of some important departed." I have objections to this statement. Most importantly, it fails to distinguish between rebirth, which happens to beings in accordance with their karma, and incarnation (not reincarnation) which a realized individual chooses to do (out of compassion for other beings' suffering). The statement would be much better expressed (IMHO) something like: *Tibetan Buddhists believe that an accomplished or realized practitioner (by maintaining conscious awareness during the death process) can choose to return to samsara and exist within, but no longer uncontrollably bound to, the cycle of rebirth. In this way, many lamas choose to be born again and again as humans, and are called tulkus or incarnate lamas. " The one recognised does not have to be a newborn. Usually the mother/parents will have signs before the birth indicating the child may be a tulku, but the individual may not be formally recognized as a tulku until for years - sometimes not until adulthood.

Injimonk (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making these clarifications. I've edited the article ([20], [21]) according to your suggestions. If you think that any of my wording (i.e.,in the lead section) can be further improved, please feel free to make suggestions--or to make the changes yourself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Might want to add a source for these beliefs, especially with the introduction of a new term like tulkus. I agree that the addition is much more informative, but it's also WP:OR without a source that describes how the beliefs are comparatively distinct from other religions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of data

Requires a reason and a dscussion. Redheylin (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The "data" is not independently confirmed, was presented in an absurdly credulous manner, and needs to be excluded per WP:FRINGE. Calling it "natural philosophy" and pretending that there is any scientific justification to the New Agey beliefs in the persistence of souls, life after death, putative energy, or reincarnation will always be excised from Wikipedia since the most reliable sources show this kind of pseudoscientific garbage to be just that. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SA: I agree that the section needs to be modified. You will observe that I have brought in several religious articles and trimmed them down a bit. Nevertheless the religious sections are extensive and fragmented according to belief. Therefore a general and contextual section must precede them, and the surest basis for this is general academic study of the subject in and of itself. As a religious belief it is not "fringe" in the west - it probably compares with the number of thorough materialists - while in India, which English wiki serves, it may be a majority view. This overall view has primacy, establishing the notability of the subject, views and general features.

Studies such as those of Stevenson and philosophical arguments are therefore useful. I have not added to these - I'd cut the latter example down - but have simply gathered them for such a general presentation. They have been present for some time and I therefore consider your present edits unhelpful particularly since they are motivated by the extreme point of view that has been frequently blocked. In fact, I have been prevented from improving this section because an edit war on Reincarnation research has led to full locking. There's a further presentation of Stevenson's work under his own page, too lengthy to be detached from the page that cannot be edited. I find all this spreading unacceptable since it leads to confused, forked presentation. Several other pages, dealing with things like past-life recall, should be mentioned here or even merged in. To allow all this inward merging I moved all the "popular culture" material out, so the page is now around 9k smaller than when I began to edit.

Stevenson's studies are, as Clarke says, "hard to explain" because they involve apparently well-documented cryptomnesia. Fundamentally these take place in the realm of subjectivity and anecdote, but they are well-documented and hard to explain. These papers do not present a detailed "scientific" argument about the consequent nature of mind, let alone the "physical mind" to which some of these articles refer. They raise the question of memory - whether it can have some existence outside a brain. Of course scientists use the term to describe behaviour of materials, but not time and space I think. Apart from a few like Sheldrake, since the successes of molecular biology, the idea has been "fringe", certainly. But the place to mention it will be beside the other researchers and philosophers and this is clearly the only non-sectarian, general treatment and therefoe has precedence. Really, even an ancient Indian like Patanjali has to be considered also. Your thoughts on this section and on page mergers and splits are welcome of course, particularly if you will help bring about the unlocking of the mentioned page. Redheylin (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Redheylin, the best academic studies of reincarnation are not from Stevenson et al. They come from comparative religion departments which treat religious beliefs and dogma to be something other than empirical phenomena. That's important since the vast majority of the people who believe in reincarnation do NOT interact with it under any assumption that it is a scientific subject. I'm fine with a contextual section, but you must base in on comparative religious academics: not on New Age reincarnation theosophist researchers at dying parapsychology programs. Sheldrake, Stevenson, and the other woo-woo fringe academics belong at the END of the article with a rigorous mainstream treatment of the subject following literature, philosophy, and religious studies. As Nealparr pointed out, it's ridiculous that Plato isn't in our lead but we are insisting on including Stevenson's much ignored research. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that WP:FRINGE applies to Stevenson and his work. Stevenson was a full professor at a major university who wrote a dozen books and many refereed journal articles. His work has had a mixed reception, but that is not unusual in science.

I don't believe that Stevenson was a "New Age reincarnation theosophist researcher". Stevenson was a psychiatrist who considered that the concept of reincarnation might supplement those of heredity and environment in helping modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development.

I'm not sure which "dying parapsychology programs" you are referring to. Recent books by the Division of Perceptual Studies research faculty include Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (Rowman and Littlefield, 2007) and The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Praeger, 2009).

If you wish to include material on Plato, please go ahead.

-- Johnfos (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)