Talk:Near-death experience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


James Alcock[edit]

Hello Rp2006 according to WP:MEDRS "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" need to be used. Now James Alcock has not published anything on the subject. Do a research in Pubmed and you will be able to see it for yourself.

Besides Wikipedia requires to use up to date evidence as per WP:MEDDATE and the book is super old

Best Josezetabal (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


reverted edit by 82.132.226.248[edit]

Hello 82.132.226.248 you reverted to previous version and wrote "(very bad fringe pushing ...)". I would appreciate more explanations as to why and how my edit was fringe pushing. Thank-you in advance Best Josezetabal (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Fringe edits from Josezetabal[edit]

I noticed Josezetabal has been deleting sources that give the NDE a natural neuroscientific explanation, and this is quietly been going on for a while. He has deleted various academic or scientific sources because he claims they are not on PubMed. Just because a source is not a paper listed on PubMed does not mean it should be deleted.

This source Towards a Neuro-scientific Explanation of Near-death Experiences by Vanhaudenhuyse, was removed by Josezetabal. His reason "Vanhaudenhuyse et al. 2009 does not exist in Pubmed - also reference 56 is a Book of Intensive Care Medicine and Vanhaudenhuyse is not one of the co-authors. So all references are wrong" [1]. I just linked to the Vanhaudenhuyse source. He was co-author. I do not usually edit on this wiki and I do not want to engage in an edit war, but there appears to be some deception going on here. Reliable sources have been deleted. Rebecca Bird (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree! One only needs to look at who has disappeared and who has survived the edits to identify the culprits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perky28 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion: Josezetabal just deleted a valid source (a book) because it was "a very old publication (45 ys old) and he has not published any scientific articles on the subject". They are basically framing this in such a way that the fringe viewpoint needs to be DISPROVED by science, else it cannot be critiqued. I reverted. RobP (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hello Rp2006 I have deleted the "Vanhaudenhuyse et al. 2009" by mistake - so my fault, I should have apologized. But a I was sincere. I even wrote to the editor to identify the link - they took 2 months to respond.
Regarding the accusation of "fringe" ... that is simply untrue. I have used every review article to basically write the same thing : there is no data or robust data. All models unfortunately lack data or lack robust data. Skeptics and non skeptic authors agree on this.
Finally, regarding James Alcock - he has not published anything on the subject. Other than a chapter in an old book. How can we call him an expert? This is against MEDRS. Though we can use other great authors like French for instance whom I have used massively throughout the article (and he is a skeptic 100%) best Josezetabal (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


Be aware that the same user is doing the same thing on Out-of-body experience. RobP (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hello Rp2006 - I will analyze the sources used - according to MEDRS criteria - on the talk page (of the out of body exp page) to show respect for the work you and other editors did on that page and to start a fruitful discussion. Have a great day. - best Josezetabal (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned about Josezetabal's edits, this user if you see their latest attempt to up-date the lead has a fringe agenda to push by attacking neuroscientific theories of the NDE. This appears to be on-going for months. 82.132.241.55 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@82.132.241.55: Hello 82.132.241.55 - none of the models presented by skeptics or less-skeptics have data backing them up. The experts agree on this. For instance Blanke says in his article that his model remains speculative due to the lack of data. This needs to be said in the lead of the article.

We also need to say there are multiple models and mention them, pointing out there is no solid data. Neuroscience is not the accepted or validated theory in the field of NDEs. I have read every single review article out there. I challenge you to find a consensus on a final denfinitive model. I would be curious to know in which ways writing this, is fringe pushing Best Josezetabal (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscience is not the accepted or validated theory in the field of NDEs — Neuroscience is the only valid scientific venue to study and explain such mind phenomena (this does not mean that there are completely satisfying explanations yet, of course). —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Adding (but not directly related to this discussion): the topic is indeed a difficult one, but I have the impression that this article has a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue, where hypotheses are presented like if they were equally valid (or equally uninformed) opinions... —PaleoNeonate – 15:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

On the validity of adding the citation relating to the order of events in NDE's[edit]

Hello, 5 days ago User:DagosNavy added a information to the article relating to the sequence of events in near death experiences citing a 2017 news article which was reverted by User:Jytdog an hour later since they found the citation of popular media coverage of primary sources on Wikipedia as against norms. Today, I became aware of the change made by DagosNavy through an email as I am watching the Near-death experience page. I agreed with Jytdog's revision and decided I could improve the article by adding back DagosNavy's edit while replacing the citation with a citation of the primary source, which I used Apoc2400's DOI Wikipedia refrence generator to create. 21 minutes later User:Alexbrn undid my edit with the note "Rv. junk source" using Twinkle. I am unsure what the meaning of "junk source" is in this context, my citation was of an original paper published in what recently became the most cited journal in Psychology according to Cornel's annual Journal Citation Reports[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor's Apprentice (talkcontribs) 18:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your source was a journal published by Frontiers Media. These are not generally considered reliable (aka "junk"). Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying, it is greatly appreciated! I'll try to avoid them in the future. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion (Near-death studies into Near-death experience)[edit]

A merge has been proposed. —PaleoNeonate – 01:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus had a Near-Death Experience[edit]

I added... The most famous example of a NDE was Jesus' Crucifixion which he miraculously survived. 2601:580:10D:A722:BDD4:5ACC:D85A:B64F (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We'd need a secondary reliable source (WP:RS) which discusses this as an NDE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)