Talk:Past life regression

Initial comment

Indeed, the article only mentions Dianetics and Scientology as illustrative examples of past-lives regression. There are tons of other methods out there which ought to be mentioned. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § "Past-Life Regression, or Regression Therapy" is a technique, or method of sourcing the root causes of a problem, or issue, by regressing one's higher self, using hypnosis, to the origins of the target issues. The subject is then taken through the origins of the problems, which causes the emotion and energies to be released from the causal events, followed by reciprocal forgiveness of all parties involved. Whether or not the origns represent one's prior lives is irrelevant, and subject to alternate explanations, in light of it's efficacy. The process is capable of resolving maladies such as migrain headaches, phobias, allergies, colitis, pains, tinitus, panic attacks, fears, and interpersonal acrimonies.

The modality essentially uses principles of quantum physics in acquiring, resolving, and discharging the energetic origns and effects of the targeted problems. Numerous books by numerous psychiatrists and other health care practitioners may be found through affinity groups or professional associations such as The International Association for Regression Research & Therapies/IARRT, International Board of Regression Therapy/IBRT, International Association of Counselors & Therapists/IACT, where references and directories list pratitioners worldwide. Some of the more recognized books are by the Miami psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Weiss' books, "Many Lives, Many Masters." Also, "Remarkable Healing," by Dr. S. Modi, MD; Dr. Ian Stevenson, Ph.D., "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation," which also finds that the concept of reincarnation is present in all of the world's 5 major religions: Christian Gnostics, Jewish Kabalists, Islam's Sufis and Druze sects, as well as Hinduism and Budahism. The overall subject is covered extensively in "Reincarnation, A New Horizon in Science, Religion, and Society", by Cranston & Williams, which proffers a superbly referenced bibliography.72.144.183.186 06:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

209.150.197.196 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Why is this info not added to the page it is very good information and should go under the sub heading of Regression Therapy. Please think about adding it into the article.

Criticism

"Many skeptics claim that past lives are just selective thinking. Some studies conducted in Europe have shown that implausible claims of reincarnation can be caused by memory errors. This also can account for a few plausible claims. Though even the researchers say that you can not completely disprove a claim."

While noting an able copy-edit by BlueJ774 on 14 June 2007, the presumably well-meaning addition of this paragraph by 66.222.30.24 on 5 May 2007 has nevertheless survived longer than it should.

The phrases "Many skeptics ... claim," "Some studies ... have shown," and "the researchers say" are vague and unsupported. Tolerable, perhaps, in limited instances of a larger insertion by an author seeking assistance in finding authoritative citation to a reference the author knows exists, but has perhaps misplaced. Their isolated use here, unverified, impairs the article's NPOV, so the paragraph should be removed.

See, also, emerging discussion of "weasel words" in connection with the Manual of Style, at WP:WEASEL. dkbrklyn 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay University? I highly doubt the authenticity of this crackpot Hirst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.136.151 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

Okay, do we REALLY need the Criticism section? It just repeats 'The reality of lives recalled under PLR.' I realize the de facto rule is every page must have a criticisms section (just like real encyclopedias) but the article pretty much criticizes PLR from the beginning.

Also, I'm removing the final two words of 'Skeptical sources such as Ian Wilson’s Mind out of Time and The After Death Experience (1981 and 1987), Paul Edwards’ Reincarnation (2002) and Melvin Harris’ Investigating the Unexplained (2003) have argued apparently convincingly...' Trying way too hard to be NPOV/POV at the same time. 'Have argued' means the same without sounding so wimpy. --Marco Passarani (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. In general, a criticism section is actually discouraged. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite - July 2008

The article has been rewritten to improve the introduction, incorporate previous criticisms, add a new section of the therapeutic use of past lives, improve the balance between sceptics and supporters views and improve the number of references used.

I would like the comments by the Wikipedia editors to be removed regarding the neutrality and the quality standards of this article.

Andy Andy Tomlinson (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic/sceptic

Note that skeptic is the US spelling, sceptic is the UK spelling. Jayen466 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

for UK read British/Commonwealth/International spelling :) Verbal chat 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrible article

I was alerted to this article and was appalled by it flagrant violations of most of Wikipedia's policies. The major ones are listed at the top of the article. This article will be overhauled in a painful and large way very soon. I'm also posting a notice to WP:FTN about this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I helped to clean up this article some time ago and have been watching it, and I think that what you wrote above is a gross overstatement. Before you merged in the "Life before lives" stuff, the article was pretty restrained and avoided making any dramatic claims. I would have preferred to tone down the claims even more, but before you got involved I was the only one watching this article and didn't want to turn a reasonable compromise into a one-on-one edit war. looie496 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you shouldn't have compromised. It read like a promotional puff piece one might find in a newspaper advertisement with one of those disclaimers about "medical advice" and "opinions not being that of this publication". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"This article will be overhauled in a painful and large way very soon." Of course; you have a deep, intimate knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the subject, as well as many similar subjects, plus declared qualifications and experience, and being completely open with who you are. RichardKingCEng (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I too was extremely apalled at the one-sided and opinionated explanation of PLR in this article. I edited it a bit to make it a little less opinionated, but there's not much that can be done. Hopefully someone will come up with some information to post here before the article gets deleted for the immature and inaccurate view of the author... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Seeking Shade (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article is severely lacking in reliable sources. Perhaps we could collect and summarise some below for inclusion. Verbal chat 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement you reverted was: According to proponents, PLR has produced dramatic, rapid and permanent improvements in some clients who had spent years in conventional therapy. The book cited is by a PLR practitioner (a Jungian psychotherapist) that has been published in 5 English editions, notably Doubleday and Bantam, plus German (Hugendubel) and Spanish.

So how is this not a reliable source for the statement of what PLR practitioners claim PLR has done? This should be regardless of your opinion whether the claim is correct. There are also counter claims about the efficacy of PLR which should be included in the article, for example: M Schröter-Kunhardt (1996). Reinkarnationsglaube und Reinkarnationstherapie: Eine transpersonale Fiktion. Transpersonale Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 67-83 reprint. (Belief in reincarnation and reincarnation therapy: a transpersonal fiction).

I think this article needs to be balanced but the source you are objecting to is a reliable source for what PLR practitioners claim, which is all that the sentence states. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Doubleday isn't suitably reliable to be considered a medically reliable source that is required to make claims of health-related efficacy. As a fringe topic, any claims truth or efficacy must be very well sourced to avoid placing undue weight on the issue. There is no need to balance topics that are blatant pseudoscience or quackery, in those cases wikipedia is obliged to represent the mainstream scholarly consensus. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim "memories can be explained scientifically" is too bold! Not all past life memories can be ex::plained throught confabulation of suggestion, especially those reported by children. In my view this article is not neutral but reads as a dismissal of past life experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.220 (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG. There is no scientific rational for the transfer of memories across lives when memories are both easily created and believed to reside in a complex network of neurons in the brain. This is a fringe theory and WP:NPOV does not require us to report every event sympathetically. The most reliable sources portraying a mainstream viewpoint take the sensible position that there is no reason to believe in the reality of past lives or memories thereof. There are no comparably reliable sources I am aware of that can prove past lives existed, ergo no reason for the article to claim that they do when there are obvious alternatives that are more parsimonious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the line "memories can be explained scientifically" causes confusion between scientific explanation and scientific proof. Not all cases can be explained via confabulation or suggestion so claiming that they can be is not a NPOV. Doing so, in my view, is a miss use of the actual scientific research into this field which suggests that confabulation and suggestion can create the illusion of PLR in some, but not all, cases. To present that research as a mechanism which explains all cases is simply incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.220 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Undent - do you have any reliable sources that state they are likely to be memories of real past events? I have two sources that state the sources of the memories are most likely confabulation. What is your source to justify your belief that "not all cases can be explained"? It is certainly a violation of NPOV to state that a referenced assertion must be qualified in contravention of the contents of the actual sources. If you have actual "scientific research" that suggests not all memories are confabulation, please present it so the article can be adjusted and stop mis-representing the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is simply that unless that there is definitive proof that PLR is confabulation / suggestion in all cases the article should not claim or imply that such is the case. I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, simply to make sure the article is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.220 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the experimental studies I just added by Spanos? NPOV does not mean we give a credulous article that places undue weight on a series of unsupported ideas that have been experimentally tested and found to be beyond flawed. Since I've provided experimental research that shows the memories are pretty much bunk, I think the page is pretty neutral to demonstrate the flaws. Anyway, you can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof is on the claims maker to support it. I have, so I think we're about done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The experimental studies successfully prove that people can and do confabulate stories of past lives, this is not under debate. The point is that just because something can be confabulated does not mean that it always is.

Within this article I do not believe that the Sceptics Dictionary should be treated as an unqualified source as it is written from a non neutral perspective. I think its quotes should begin with something like "sceptics assert". This is a small change that would give the article a better NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.55.220 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral and that would add weasel words to the page. This is a fringe theory, so there's no need to qualify. And there's no reason to believe past life regression actually exists, and a fair amount of evidence that it's simple confabulation and little else. I see no reason to qualify, particularly since there are several very good sources that give the same perspective. There's nothing comparable I have seen that "proves" PLR has any merit. NPOV does not mean we give every crank and nutjob theory the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it's a spectacular claim with no evidence of factual merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Being open about where the sources come from is not weasel words. I have no problem with anyone stating that they think believers in PLR are "nut jobs" but they should be open about that viewpoint in the article, so the reader can be in full knowledge of the articles perspective. Not to do so would be less than ethical. The article as it stands IS from a Skeptics viewpoint, which is fine, but not making that perspective explicit is not right.

Metaphor

My understanding is that whilst many practitioners and patients believe in actual past lives, many consider the whole process to be purely metaphorical. There should be some references on this issue somewhere. Fainites ^barley 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Western point of View

Past life regression has been part of Eastern and Indian belief system, Yoga and Meditation practices, since 2 BC and before, this article only presented a western view (Till now), as it is only now discovering this ancient art. There too western skeptics take over most ancient wisdom articles on wiki!

In all fairness I suggest a section titled Skeptics of PLR, wherein all such view points can be placed, so that a balance view can be presented.

Plus a section of Further reading is badly needed, especially for people who are ready to work in this area further, just because PLR has skeptics in West doesn't mean that rest of world should be stopped from advancing in it! --Ekabhishek (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these additions. I don't understand this statement "Prati-Prasav means reverse birthing or going back to the source of the memory or the present and entails going back to the very birth, the trauma when the present was born". Can you explain or word it better? I'm having trouble with "the source of the memory or the present" and "when the present was born". Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As it was started, the page was primarily focussed on the modern uses of PLR as a therapeutic technique. Though history should be included, it should be at an appropriate level of detail for a general page on PLR rather than a specific page on the beliefs of one Indian yogi. It's also possible that the page could or should be split into different versions - Western therapy, Eastern mysticism - if the detail on each should be greater. But in any case, the page should not be a coatrack or soapbox for excessive details about one aspect of the topic in one tradition or one specific type of tradition. Is there modern attention paid to this, or is it solely ancient meditation? If there is modern attention in scholarly sources, it might be worth including in greater detail since the page title is rather general. Also, placing a lot of emphasis on an ancient technique when there's no expectation that there is any reality to it (i.e. it's still nothing but false memories) seems like undue weight on a fringe focus. In particular, the sources seem a bit suspect - a publication from an Indian university which I can only find in one place on the internet, and a website of questionable reliability for an organization that seems to promote yoga and meditation, are very limited sources to write a page on.

A further qualification - I realize reincarnation is part of Hinduism/Buddhism, but the sources I've seen state that the ideas of memories transferring between lives is not (i.e. the soul is reborn in a new body and the karma 'transfers', but there is no recall of specific past). Accordingly, if only one person in all of Indian mysticism believes it is possible to do so, and he's 2200 years dead with no notable body of contemporary followers publishing in reliable sources, that's more undue weight and soapboxing concerns that I have.

As a final comment, this is not the place to promote a specific viewpoint. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should report the comfortably mainstream and substantial minority viewpionts. Any further reading should be to inform readers about past life regression from reliable sources, not how to do it. What is needed are historical and contemporary scholarly texts, from mainstream publishers. WLU (t)/(c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Past life regression is part of eastern traditions per the references and that history belongs in this article. And there is modern emphasis in these traditions per the references. The current presentation is hardly WP:UNDUE weight. And WP:NPOV requires that all relevant aspects of a topic be covered. An encyclopedic presentation of this topic would be quite deficient without the information from eastern traditions, particularly Hindu traditions. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The current version I'm OK with regards length and weight (the wording could be adjusted though), the previous versions had too much detail. Cordon explicitly states that the transfer of memories across lives is not part of religious beliefs; Hinduism is however, a huge field/religion/set of beliefs and though the majority may not, a minority may (such as Patanjali). Originally I was going to remove the italics per MOS:BOLD#When not to use emphasis (which really only states "use it sparingly" - I don't think the idea is sufficiently complex to require emphasis), but I ended up rewording to remove and simplify. The idea of involution is apparently a very specific one to certain branches of mystic thought, and I think this one is an even more specific entity. I reworded to convey the idea more simply, but it's very possible I've missed out on some parts - please address if I have not done so. Also, based on a fairly cursory review within google books, the practice of prati-prasav doesn't seem to have much play in yoga (again, it's a huge field, so it's hard to generalize, but we don't have an article or other mention of it and google shows up a small number of hits); I've qualified from "yoga and kundalini yoga" to "some types of yoga". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The changes you made are OK with me. It's very possible Cordon is wrong. I think Buddhism also has this doctrine. Logically, how would anyone know about past lives if no one could remember them? --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The skeptic's answer is pseudomemory I'm not sure regards Buddhism - the Dalai Lama and other Lamas, AFAIK, are found based on the ability of the new incarnation to identify posessions of the deceased ones. But it's religion so logic and empirical evidence play second fiddle to doctrine. Cordon, I would guess, is speaking quite generally and wouldn't get into the level of detail that a religious scholar would. Is he wrong, or is he just trying to keep his entry to a reasonable size? Don't know. But I did check and on re-reading, he states that they do not include "repressed memories", which is a bit of a qualification. Ekabhishek, is prati prasav conventionally capitalized, as a proper name? Would it qualify under one of the uses of capital letters found in MOS:CAPS? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As the West is waking up to the traditional Indian practices like Prati-prasav, it is all right to have skepticism, I recently saw Dr. Brian Weiss regressing an entire audience, on Oprah Winfrey Show much to my surprise; as out here in India, we have been practicing it for years, or shall I say Millenniums, to amazing results. I have been fortunate enough to have had encounters with sages, who could take one beyond the present, I am glad I was open enough to trust! And yes it is fairly easy, all one requires is an open mind, and a willingness to step into what you cannot be explained through logic and reasoning. Though I firmly believe it all happens when we are ready to step on to the path, heck you don't even get to believe in God, before its your time, so skeptics also have a place in evolution of things, and I understand that well, and steer clear from conversion, as that is Nature's job and of Time! --Ekabhishek (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of See Also: Xenoglossy

• Past life regression - article predominantly discussing hypnotic study of episodic memory alleged to have originated from somewhere outside a person's current life.
• Xenoglossy - article predominantly discussing hypnotic study of linguistic memory alleged to have originated from somewhere outside a person's current life.

In what way are these two concepts unrelated exactly? K2709 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's only two cases, individuals, where it is mentioned. I also agree it's not a good choice as it's a generally not accepted concept. Also, I agree with this revert, as the source itself specifically compares it to repressed memory therapy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation from another web site

The very long section added recently by User:Siddharthananda (talk) appears to have been taken from Chalice hypnotherapy web site. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

'Can Regresion therapy be used outside the realms of medical therapy?

== The recent articles and TV shows has once again brought limelight on regression therapy. However following questions are now being asked by the common public to the practitioners of regression therapy:-

   (a) can regression therapy be utilized by police to nail suspects of a crime?
   (b) does a person during regression hypnosis also deludes and if yes is there a technique/drill to differentiate between delusion                
       and past life experience?
   (C) Is regression therapy requires medical fitness?
==

My answers: (a): No, I don't think so. Perhaps therapy can give ideas on historic cases, but not by far reliable enough to rewrite history books without corrobating evidence ;-)

(b) Yes, unfortunately. The amount of fantasy/symbolic material compared to "real" memories varies, so there's no telling what's real until supporting traditional evidence is found. (c) Fitness isn't required, except perhaps being free from breathing issues to be able to relax deep enough. Medical fitness has been reported to improve dramatically in a few cases after successful therapy. Hepcat65 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

External link

I added a link to a serious organisation, *The International Board for Regression Therapy (IBRT) Inc, "an independent examining and certifying board for past life therapists, researchers, and training programs. Its mission is to set professional standards for practice, evaluate the preparation and qualifications of practitioners and the quality of training programs, and to issue certificates to those who pass the rigorous evaluation process." User:WLU removed the link with a degratory comment "useless pseudoscience". As the article on Transcendental Meditation can have a link to an organisation who promotes that kind of spiritual practice, so why shouldn't this article have a link to an organisation who promotes serious research & sets professional standards for practitioners? Hepcat65 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether it is a "serious" organisation, as you claim, or a "promotor of pseudoscience" as User:WLU claims. I propose that each side presents evidence for either case. Whether the link preliminarily should be added again pending the discussion I am not sure, but if that would entice User:WLU to join the discussion rather than ignoring it the past 18 days then perhaps so. I will glance at the website and add the link myself depending on my own impression. Others are of course invited to join the discussion. Fedor (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been checking out some of the studies reference to on the site and they seem to check out OK on google and google scholar, but I need to underline that these studies barely lend support for providing evidence for the reality of past live regression. Rather, most of them focus on benefical aspects of the therapy and providing softening circumstances for some of the criticisms. Also, many studies are old, like from the 80s or late 70s. The rest of the website does not help much either, so I am still unsure about the link. I will add it anyway to spark the discussion and because it provides information that a person may be interested in when exploring the topic. Fedor (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

*Promotor of pseudoscience* - Also not a notable organization selling certification, I don't think we need the spam link. Also note that their 'upcoming events' are dated 2006. Probably defunct. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

First look at the front side, there's news from february this year. The organisation is notable, since they are for example recommended by both "Complementary Medicine For Dummies" published by For Dummies (2007) and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Past Life Regression" published by Alpha (2003) (see Google Books here and here.) Hepcat65 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a notable organisation, or add to the article. Seems to be a fringe source and a spam link. Verbal chat 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Any arguments other than your general impression? We cannot use this for anything. Please come with some facts! Fedor (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And please do not remove the external link while the discussion is in progress. Especially since you have not supplied us any evidence other than your general impression! Fedor (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So far Hepcat65 has been supplying most facts for the "Serious organisation"-side. Opponents please evaluate the evidence and supply counter-evidence. Fedor (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You could simply drop me a note on my talk page if you really wanted my opinion. This is a fringe topic. Trancendental meditation is a disciplined meditation process and spiritual practice; it does not present it self as a science, and does not clearly violate many precepts of actual science. What facts are needed? PLR is pseudoscience, that is easily explained and experimentally demonstrated as something other than memories from before birth. Being mentioned in books that don't present mainstream science as the primary opinion (as wikipedia is required to do) doesn't mean it should be linked here. Further, the organization may be notable, but that doesn't mean it should be linked. Please justify it's inclusion per WP:EL. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I am not the opponent here or choosing sides; I am just interested in a resolution of the issue. I am aware that PLG is not exactly mainstream science and probably even pseudo-science. However, I don't read in WP:EL that all external links should be scientific in nature. Rather, links should be to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject...". So the question is whether the website provides relevant "neutral and accurate material". So far, my impression is that it is. As a neutral reader, this is a kind of site I would like to check out to learn more about the subject. BTW I deplore that you again just removed the link without awaiting the outcome of the discussion. Fedor (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience can't be neutral, and no information could be accurate. It'd need to be a third-party link about the site, since there's nothing to be neutral and accurate about. We wouldn't link to an astrology chart on astrology, except perhaps as an example. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why, I wonder, are there links to creationist websites under the article on Creationism? It seems to me to be quite normal. Fedor (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Creationism is a major page with a history that stretches backwards centuries and has splintered into multiple coherent groups of advocates and viewpoints where it is easy to name both the main viewpoints and major international organizations that promote them (Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research and Category:Creationist organisations and Category:Intelligent design organizations in general). Wikipedia has dozens of pages on specific organizations, as well as their individual viewpoints (young earth creationism, intelligent design, old earth creationism, gap creationism, deism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism). From what I can tell in creationism, each link has its own wikipedia page as well (indicating it is notable, which isn't a requirement but is a suggestion - particularly on such a large page as that where you'd otherwise get crammed in all sorts of nonsense from tiny fringe sects and churches). These organizations also lavish attention on the subject and have hundreds of pages on their "research" (really their viewpoint since their "research" is shoddy and self-serving) meaning the ELs do add something encyclopedic to the page. IBRT has little information, a single page listing 19 research papers (many to the same vanity journal which does not appear to have an editorial board, others being simple papers that don't appear to have passed through even what passes for peer-review in PLR research, and 14 are written by the same person - Henry Bolduc, with Marjorie Reynolds being the second author on 11 of those - and another 4 by Hans TenDam who is a member of the Board of Directors), is not notable and essentially exists to sell courses, accreditation, and promote itself. There's a vast difference. And also, flaws in the EL section of Creationism or any other page means the same flaws should be perpetuated here - inclusion is based on the policies and guidelines. The site itself contains neither neutral, nor accurate information (it's hopelessly partisan towards PLR being a real thing, and it's not accurate since there's no research base) and does not contribute towards the encyclopedic understanding of the topic (which in PLR is another name for cryptmnesia).

And if the external link is replaced on the page, per the guide to layout it goes at the bottom, below the references section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Religions

Regarding the statement "religious traditions that incorporate reincarnation generally do not include the idea of repressed memories of past lives", I am not sure what exactly she means. Hinduism and Buddhism both address the ability to recall events from previous lives. They may have no concept of "repression", but that isn't what comes across in the sentence. It seems to be saying that they have no belief in remembering past lives. Here is the page: [1]. What do people think? Mitsube (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

wait, Hinduism and Buddhism have no concept of repression? So a buddhist or hindu can remember all their past lives? thats fascinating! I wonder if I converted,could I do that?? Or is there a Buddhist or Hindu belief that you can never remeember past lives? Or is that you may under certain circumstances remember a past life? Make sure you answer with some great citations, so as to avoid original research... Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No you would have to work on it for a long time first! The article about these things (Abhijna) is reliably sourced. I thought there was no concept of "repression", thinking that it meant suppression due to trauma, that is, "repression" in the sense of repressed memory from modern psychology. But maybe I was misunderstanding the exact meaning of the term. Mitsube (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On an OR note, so you have to work at it, presumably while learning about the myths, religion, and cultures of past lives? Yeah, that won't lead to cryptmnesia...

what page specifically are you referencing in that book? You linked to a search results page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential effects/Source of Memories

Please do not revert the edits which add a citation needed template. Claims about the harmfulness of PLR require a citation, or must be removed. I think we all know that this technique can be harmful, and if users whish to improve the article, they should find sources to cite to back up this claim. There are also sources which suggest that some people feel they have been helped by the technique, and these are included in the article. Please do not remove this well sourced fact from the article. An NPOV is required here.

Also, please do not remove the edit concerning "likelyhood" vs "the belief of researchers". One cannot say how likely something is, but one can be sure what most mainstream researchers believe, and there are multiple citations to support this. The language is cleaner, and more factual. (Didshe (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Regards this diff, first-hand testimonials are considered primary sources and therefore not reliable or appropriate to adjust the page. The statement "to actually increasing suffering in the patient or their families" is sourced to Luis Cordon's book Popular psychology. Adding in "mainstream researchers" is both weaselly and inappropriate per WP:UNDUE. We give weight to the scholarly opinion, which is critical and negative, easily explaining purported past lives through cryptmnesia and other errors of memory brought about by hypnosis. The language is actually pejorative towards the mainstream opinion we are supposed to be representing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Accepted the point about first hand testimony, and have replaced it with a secondary source. Readded the citation needed template. If you have a source, great! Just take off the citation needed temp, and replace it with the citation. Don't know what you mean about UNUDE, as that's a broken link, but as for wealeyness, I'm assuming you mean it's weaseley in that it's an unsourced attribution, right? How is it unsourced when it's followed by 7 citations? Likely-hood is a matter of opinion, though the existence of consensus is not, and is shown by the citations. Even if we agree "past lives are most likely narratives created by the subconscious mind using imagination" is probably true, "scientific consensus is that past lives are narratives created by the subconscious mind using imagination" (which is what I have now added) is definitely true, and backed up by sources. Let's go with what is definitely true, and sourced, over what is probably true, but not sourced. I'm not sure we're supposed to be representing mainstream opinion, I think we're supposed to be documenting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didshe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Must be a reliable source, which a webpage is not. Claiming medical benefit requires a peer reviewed article or some other high-quality source; as a fringe theory it requires very good evidence to claim anything unusual or surprising, and as a medical claim it requires a highly reliable source. A webpage is not adequate. The source for that statement is at the end of the sentence, there is no need to repeatedly add a citation after every sentence. The entire statement "Luis Cordón states that this can be problematic as it creates delusions under the guise of therapy. Memories can vary from harmless to actually increasing suffering in the patient or their families. The memories are experienced as vivid as those based on events experienced in one's life, impossible to differentiate from true memories of actual events, and accordingly any damage can be difficult to undo" is sourced, quite clearly, to Cordón LA (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia.

I have corrected the link to WP:UNDUE. The mainstream consensus, as well as experimental tests, have demonstrated that the sources of the memories cryptmnesia. Weaselly also means casting doubt on the assertion - in this case doubt that it's the right conclusion, that there's an alternative explanation that mainstream sources have missed. With seven sources, this certainly is most likely the explanation. I'd be happier to change it simply to "the sources of the memories is" but there must be a nod to the wildly unlikely. If you'd like to take this to a third opinion that would probably be the quickest way to resolve this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll refrain from reverting for a about 12 hours. If there's no response, or if we come to some agreement, I'll revert some time after that. How about "...is widely agreed to be...", or some such? I just don't think we can be sure of what is likely. How likley? 80%? 99%? What do we base that number on? I've no disagreement that (pratically) all empirical studies suggest the source of "memories" is as stated, and that language should reflect this. "the sources of the memories is" is over stating it, but "likely" I think is understating it, and I think "is widely agreed to be" is more definite, whilst still preserving the nod to wild unlikelyhood. Regarding the webpage source, it's from a PHd, and I don't think it's making a medical claim. It's possible to be benefited without being medically helped. Regarding the citation needed, I see what you mean now, but didn't at first, which is rather the point. If I didn't realise the citation was for both sentences, others won't. Doesn't hurt to be redundant. I'll leave it for now, and if we've come to an agreement, please edit to reflect my suggestions here, or go to third opinion.Didshe (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

How likely are past life regression memories cryptmnesia? Around 100%. If you want to portray it as the scientific consensus, I ultimately don't have much issue. I have adjusted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Additions/ Changes deleted without comment

i made some additions and changes to this very one-sided and skeptic/negative article (see history). they were deleted very fast (3 minutes) and without any comment.

i dont know what exactly i did wrong, or if it just was the opinion of the users (wlu and atarimike) that it should be deleted. i dont think that that is fair behaviour.

so i would like to hear the reasons for the deletion, so i have a chance to adjust the article in a correct/ agreeable way. Merlihn (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's pretty much no changes that can be made to portray it as anything but false memories; experiments have essentially demonstrated this is the case. To do anything otherwise places undue weight on a fringe theory and promoting a particular point of view. Pages must be neutral. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the changes to the page. Per WP:NPOV, criticisms should be integrated with the text, not hived off into separate sections. The sources used for the information on Chinese PLR do not appear to be reliable. In particular, the use of blogs is inappropriate. The rest of the sources are in Chinese and I can't read them but look a lot like random, rather than scholarly and thus reliable, websites. I'll see if I can find information on Meng Po when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 08:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• [2] Integrated into the mythology section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Past life regression was a long tradition of Eastern Religion culture up to this moment. Mendel 56 (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)