Talk:Reincarnation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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)
        • I think this conversation has gone on for long enough, don't you? Mitsube (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's dead with no chance of reincarnation. Kinda like Stevenson's research ;-P ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 7 May 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)

Maybe you should read it again. I don't think you understood it. For one, I clearly wrote "there aren't many people working on this, that is true". Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear about what's wrong with your arguments. Whether these research programs are well-funded is irrelevant: religious believers are notoriously generous with their money when it goes to confirming their beliefs. Whether you think the research is interesting or not is irrelevant to whether it deserves inclusion. The "journals" have "pointed out" no such thing as you propose: the most you can say is that an editor of the journal respected Stevenson's methodology. The coverage of reincarnation research is far from "significant". The perceived injustices leveled against reincarnation believers by the meanies in academia are also irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 7 May 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)

There should be some mention of Buddhism in the intro. The distinction here is that in Hinduism and Jainism there is an unchanging thing that goes from incarnation to incarnation, while in Buddhism there is not (rather, there is a stream of consciousness that flows from place to place), so it's not reincarnation per se. Mitsube (talk) 06:05, 5 May 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)

Please, no one but no one in academia takes this reincarnation research business seriously. It's a joke. Sure, Stevenson's methodology was laudable, but his work has been debunked subsequently by numerous skeptical outlets with little in the way of rebuttal. And parapsychology, as an academic discipline, has been steadily declining at mainstream research institutions since the 1970s as they seem to have essentially a bunch of misinterpretations, null results, and in some cases outright fraud to show for themselves. This is neither here-nor-there because we have a full panoply of relevant academics who discuss reincarnation from the perspective of comparative religion. That's the correct focus for this article and parapsychology fantasies need to be relegated to the fringe position that they currently enjoy in academia by virtue of their simple minority statuses. Just because someone is a full professor doesn't mean they can't be on the fringe. Our guideline you yourself reference is pretty clear on that point. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Stevenson is mainstream enough to have an obituary in the British Medical Journal [22] with the sub-title "Psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour", and that there are plenty of reliable sources about his work, I think it would be good to have section in this article about his work. And there could be a separate section on any relevant comparative religion material. Johnfos (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson was friends with one of the editors of the BMJ, also the location where he published all of his mainstream work. We can have a section here about his work, I'm fine with that. We used to have one, and I'm willing to put it back in. But the article has changed so much and so much has been taken out that it's hard to know how to reincorporate it. The comparative religion material should be the main thrust of the article. Currently it is notable in its absence. Major scholars of Eastern religions do not have their work referenced here, neither do the relevant anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics who have commented on this subject. This is a travesty. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this article could do with considerable work. Restoring the Stevenson-related material would probably be a help at this stage... Johnfos (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have restored some Stevenson-related material. Johnfos (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is Reincarnation. The subject can be, and has been, approached from an anthropological/comparative religion view, from that of folklore and popular culture, historically, by means of psychological methods/studies and also in the dimension of philosophical speculation, including that based on materialist conceptions of the mind-body problem. Outside psychology there has been little actual scientific study since there is no quantifiable physical paradigm to test. However, it is not possible entirely to separate study of the religious aspect of the phenomenon from the philosophical and empirical, since Pythagoras, Plato, Patanjali and Gautam Buddha all claim rational and empirical bases for a theory whose origins cannot be determined. The origins of popular modern western belief also cannot properly be determined either, but overall the subject is not "fringe", nor is it generally derived from simple childhood faith - Stevenson's work is a noteable product of this modern religious phenomenon that well delineates some possible reasons for its attraction. Obviously the reasons other people do not accept it are equally important.

Although some of these separate viewpoints currently have separate pages, this highlights the importance of such views to the overall subject and these standpoints, linked, must therefore be prominently displayed and briefly explained. You state that articles based on religious studies are "better" than any others, but this means no more to me than contending that a picture of Donald Duck is "better" than a screwdriver. Your personal preferences should not interfere with the addition of a neutral and comprehensive introductory section.

Since any article must proceed from the general to the special, such an overall view of the subject must precede the treatment of various religions separately. For chronological reasons any extended account of modern thinking may come after the religions, but in this case it is not intended to treat Stevenson, for instance, or this natural philosopher with anything more than brevity unless the page Reincarnation research is to be merged here.

You write: "Sure, Stevenson's methodology was laudable, but his work has been debunked subsequently by numerous skeptical outlets with little in the way of rebuttal." I'd be grateful if you'd supply the best of such rebuttals for inclusion. I'd ask you carefully to differentiate between work showing flaws in method, that suggesting alternative explanations and that raising questions in another arena of thought, such as assertion of brain-memory identity. Please supply brief sentences and verifiable links for each.

You have complained about the lack of material on Plato - I have added a section. I have considerably extended the Greek and other comparative religious sections already. You write; "Major scholars of Eastern religions do not have their work referenced here, neither do the relevant anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics who have commented on this subject. This is a travesty." But again, I have been adding such material, whereas you yourself have added nothing. This is a travesty of an argument.

I would simply like to enquire if any editor supports or objects to the construction of such an introductory section as I have proposed, the basis of which has twice been destroyed by Science Apologist. As I understand it, his proposal leads to the result that this page must be renamed Reincarnation in religion, anthropology, philosophy and literature but excluding any modern westerners who thinks there may be anything in it - If SA would like to second the proposal, or suggest a snappier title?

Please remember that removal of data, just like addition of data, is editing that requires a neutral presentation of authoritative opinion and that This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Redheylin (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue I have is not with your additions but with your spin (which is currently out of the article in a way that is satisfying to me). You seem to have a goal of presenting reincarnation as something which has scientific basis: and this is a misleading direction for the article. Parapsychology is a marginalized and fringe subject. We can have brief mention here, but making it the first section or prominent in the lead or related to some sort of overarching claim about "natural philosophy" is ridiculous. The section that Johnfos restored at least dealt with the subject in a balanced way since I worked on it with Mitsube (and this, by the way, is the answer to your insistence that I haven't added anything) even though it is probably a bit long-in-the-tooth about Stevenson. The point is, lensing this article through reincarnation research is inappropriate because the subject isn't as prominent as comparative religion treatments. I am under no obligation to do anything but marginalize the overly-weighted sections. In other words, I am under no obligation to add, add, add. In fact, good editorial practice demands that one know when to cull, summarize, and simplify.

I'm unsure what you are trying to claim you need in an "introductory section" that is different from the current lead. Please clarify.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have explained: there are articles about various aspects of reincarnation that are significant enough to warrant their own article, such as research and popular culture. This very fact shows that these aspects are significant enough to be introduced and linked prominently here.

Your contention that I am "presenting reincarnation as something which has scientific basis" is absurd, first because I have worked only on religions and popular culture, second because, despite several requests, you are unable to clarify what you mean by "scientific basis" - the only studies I know of are in the realm of psychology - by researchers who only become "para"-psychologists by dint of the fact that they research the topic. There are a few discussions in terms of philosophy of mind - these began with Patanjali and Pythagoras - and there is comparative religion. Your own revelation, that there is no "physics of mind" is indeed a profound and significant insight that deserves to be shared with the world, and, handily, notables like Arthur C Clarke and Carl Sagan have offered comments on this in respect to Stevenson's work - a fact that demonstrates the prominence of his work.

The only comparative religion at present is the western survey and a very unbalanced and inadequate part of the lede. I have inserted quick notes on Greece, Ismaelis and gulat, Manichees and Druids and merged Buddhism and Kabala and, together with modern developments, the lede is inadequate. "Comparative religion" cannot be entirely distributed between the separate religions, neither can it be entirely divided from philosophy and empirical research, neither can the modern era entirely be separated from ancient times, nor east from west. This is why I chose to migrate upwards all material that did not relate to specific religions. It is not proposed to give a full account of any matter, but to provide linked sentences approximating to the first line of the lede of the linked page. But I do not discard other editors' work without a throrough examination.

You are under no obligation to add - but then you have no reason to complain about what others have not added. Redheylin (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being intentionally vague or whether you just don't really know, but it seems clear to me that 30- to 40-year-old research that has been followed-up by increasingly few and marginalized researchers doesn't belong as an anchoring focus of this article. Stevenson's stuff was praised in its time, but it is pretty much ignored today. Pretending that it is au courant or indicative of empirical basis for reincarnation beliefs is the problem. Mentioning it as an historical oddity is fine. The faint praise of a late astronomer-skeptic and the oblique excitement of a late science fiction pedophile does not, in my mind, make Stevenson's work particularly more noteworthy than the relatively modern treatments found in Tony Walter's work, Paul Yevtic's work, or Peter Bishop's work. I will continue to marginalize what I consider to be undue weight applied to Stevenson and other believers in an empirical reality for reincarnation so as to preserve the integrity of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Selective merging of the pages has shown an internal contradiction: the Indian material had many references proposing a non-IndoEuropean origin for reincarnation theory, whereas Greek and Druid material proposed the reverse. I have therefore merged material on the origin and early nature of the doctrine upwards to an introduction and added the definitions and scope of various terms. The material is somewhat synthetic, contains OR and professes large amounts of ignorance: it is to be hoped that this can be improved now that comparative religion and philosophy can be better applied. Redheylin (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide extracts on the proposed proto-Indo-European reincarnation idea? This is news to me. About ScienceApologists lengthy posts, I'll just add that the material published on skeptics' websites etc has indeed been refuted by Almeder and others. Mitsube (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Almeder is a joke and a credulous believer anyway. Not neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just throwing insults around at someone who's written something you don't like, a transparent and ineffective ad hominem attack. Mitsube (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Find a contemporary source from someone who doesn't explicitly believe in reincarnation that "refutes" the material referenced here. Independent sources are required. Almeder doesn't fit the bill by any stretch of the imagination. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation and rebirth

Mitsube: the Buddhist content on this page very strongly pushes the doctrine of no-self and a consequent supposedly univeral adoption of the term "rebirth" in contradistinction to "reincarnation" in English Buddhist studies. While I understand that the distinction of doctrine is important and the useful terminology is advocated by some, I also find by Googling that usage of the term "rebirth" is not more universal than usage of "reincarnation", "transmigration" etc. in Buddhist context.

Further, I find that pages on the related concepts of samsara and karma, which are separated according to religious doctrines, offer views that, to the general reader, would appear contradictory. For example, Saṃsāra (Buddhism) quotes the Dhammapada;

"the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing"

It seems to me that a Mahayana/Theravada POV fork is possible: there's no accessible bridge between these two statements for the general reader, who is not informed of different schools nor of how this apparent self-contradiction of Buddha can be resolved. You have supported the "reincarnation" of the page Rebirth (Buddhism) but it seems to me these pages only perpetuate such forks, making Wikipedia a manual of dogma without historical and comparative religious context, in which much repetition and duplication only hides the logic and sequence of philosophic differences from the reader while providing a playground for quarrelsome editors on a thousand fronts. The above page carries no information not also present on this page, but it avoids comparative/historical/philosophical analysis there, lacks structure and even forks with other Buddhist content. It just exists for POV-pushing. "Anatta" is important here to allow a special Buddhist page, but on the Samsara page it is nowhere to be found, just souls wandering miserably forever. There the Noble Truths are the excuse to have another page from the poor, bog-standard, ordinary Samsara page that is only good for Hindus.

I have mentioned a few other such latent forks I have recently found in the treatment of this subject, for example the account of Indo-European versus non-IE origins, the presentation of Stevenson' work, of the Greeks. I'd ask you to offer your skills in the improvement of this dismal record, to refrain from supporting the inclusion of duplicate material elsewhere and instead to seek systematic, accessible and neutral presentation of key concepts shared among Indian religions. Redheylin (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Redheylin, first of all I think you have done good work on this page. Now I have two points. First, can you provide extracts on the proposed proto-Indo-European reincarnation idea? Excluding a possible new translation of one sentence in the Rig Veda, there is no evidence of reincarnation in the earliest Vedic texts. So what do the sources say?

Now about reincarnation vs. rebirth, the material in the intro is reliably sourced. You can look at the link.

Now about anatta, that is a pan-Buddhist doctrine. Mahayanists believe in it as well. Even in one sutra which seems to teach Self, it says that the "Self" it teaches is really not-Self. If you want to get nitty-gritty, the Buddha never said that there is no self, but he did say that no self could be perceived, and all doctrines of self lead to suffering.

About the samsara page, this is where the stream of consciousness idea comes in. The past life is not entirely different, so it is permissible to say "you suffered then". But it's not entirely the same so you cannot say "you are the same person". It is just the same as changing from one day to the next. You are not the same person you were yesterday, but in another sense you are. If this article doesn't explain this clearly I should work on it. It is explained pretty well here. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, thank you but you have misunderstood. I have not doubted that "reincarnation vs. rebirth...is reliably sourced" but said that greatly undue weight is put upon this source, even to the extent of the very structuring of articles, and that this has resulted in forking, internal contradiction, duplication and redundancy and prevented historicism and clear comparisons. I see no value in this given that the majority of Buddhist scholarship in English does not appear to observe the distinction of terms here proposed as fundamental. Further, I had not personally requested an explanation of doctrine or links - I had pointed out that the reader of the articles lacks such apparatus. Here I must add that the linked section itself would need to be examined for independence of source before being explained or linked elsewhere. Next, as things currently stand, I believe you'll need to paste your work into at least four pages; this, the reincarnated Buddhist page, the general Samsara page and the Buddhist samsara page. I am curious to know why you support a presentation that requires this unnecessary duplication? Redheylin (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the existence of an article just on the Buddhist concept of rebirth. It is unique to Buddhism.

Could you please justify the claim that reincarnation might have proto-Indo-European roots? I don't think this is true. The belief is found in "small-scale" societies all over the world. There is nothing specifically Indo-European about it, though in theory it could be part of proto-Indo-European religion, I just haven't seen any evidence for this, and in fact I have seen evidence to the contrary. Mitsube (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"the Buddhist concept of rebirth... is unique to Buddhism". This is a tautology: every individual concept may also be unique to that individual. Certainly the concept of each religion is unique, yet they still cannot be presented properly in isolation. You have not addressed the points.

Sorry to break up your post. You have not shown why you think the Buddhist view cannot be properly presented in isolation. I think it is currently (relatively) properly presented, in isolation. Mitsube (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Indo-European view can be improved but is supported by references. Your evidence to the contrary, and for "small scale" societies, can also be added. Redheylin (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no page numbers given, and the sources don't seem to be reliable. These claims are the sort of ideas that would be in a new-age book. If there isn't anything specific or the sources are not shown to be reliable I will remove that content, don't you agree that is the best course of action? Mitsube (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break up your post. You have not shown why you think the Buddhist view cannot be properly presented in isolation. I think it is currently (relatively) properly presented, in isolation. Mitsube (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed this - better not to break posts up then I suppose. In my view, already stated, historical and philosophical differences can only be presented in historical and philosophical terms. Philosophically and historically Buddhism forms a continuum with Hinduism, so that many statements of criticism of the one standpoint are also defences of the other. Wiki is not a dictionary or a "how-to" manual and should be topic-driven, not belief-driven. This applies to a wide range of pages. The present page merely shows that all the information currently available on reincarnation in Buddhism fits on the general page but is currently spread over several pages that contradict each other as it is only to be expected they would. The present interest seems merely in getting as many Buddhist pages as possible for I see no move towards actually fixing the incoherent view wiki offers, and is being forced to continue to offer. Wherever I find edit war I find fundamental imbalances and inconsistencies of presentation that invite it. Redheylin (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Philosophically and historically Buddhism forms a continuum with Hinduism". I don't think you could find reliable sources making that statement. And I don't know what you're asking for, for the articles on the Buddhist theories of rebirth and samsara to be deleted by redirecting the names somewhere else? That seems like a pretty bizarre idea to me. These articles should be expanded not deleted. And the current reincarnation article is already too long. If there are contradictions between the articles then they should be cleaned up, not deleted. Mitsube (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think you could find reliable sources making that statement" - first page I tried: Flood, p 17; "These Sramana traditions, including Buddhism and Jainism, developed during the first millennium BCE and were in conflict with brahminical, vedic orthopraxy". In fact it could not be otherwise - it can not be a coincidence that all use the same terms such as karma, samsara.

"the articles on the Buddhist theories of rebirth and samsara to be deleted by redirecting the names somewhere else? That seems like a pretty bizarre idea to me. These articles should be expanded not deleted." The articles are expanded by bringing them into closer contact with others on the same subject. Nothing was deleted; the entire contact of the "buddhism" page is included here already, but it gains clarity and substance through a historical presentation, comparison and distinction.

"And the current reincarnation article is already too long." It's as long as it ought to be. If it should be split it would not necessarily be best to split it into separate sects. Material that I have pulled out of there now forms half the article, so if that general treatment, made up of related information that was previously spread through separate sects, were to be detached, for instance, all the sects could still remain together - "reincarnation in religion" as distinct from in popular culture and science. But the matter is a general one: it applies to many pages, particularly in religion where, as I say, people wish to present doctrine as a timeless truth hermetically different from all other knowledge by virtue of its self-evident rightness - and then fight with critics who clearly know that this is wrong and the other is the only truth. Redheylin (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The shramana traditions were in conflict with Vedic orthodoxy as Flood says. That's all he says. Nothing about a continuum. That is not a good way to describe the situation.

There is a lot of content at Rebirth (Buddhism) that is not in this article, which is appropriate. The existence of articles to discuss the different religion's conceptions isn't necessarily a problem. If you find one of those articles to not be neutral then clean it up. Mitsube (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I am going to continue to put this case but I realise it is a common thing that should be discussed overall. A "continuum" exists both historically and philosophically both in similar traditions and polarised traditions. This is the historical and philosophical context in which the Indian religions arise. To include a manual of doctrine of every sect, outside the purview of history, philosophy, comparative religion, anthropology, self-evidently leads to duplication, POV forking, internal contradiction, patchy presentation and over-use of primary sources. I myself merged Rebirth (Buddhism) and I know nothing has been thrown away - not even OR. But there are plenty of other stupid things to get on with...... Redheylin (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I could list the sourced statements that are in that article but not this one, but I won't. Mitsube (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of one? Redheylin (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

William James

Is there any evidence that he did reincarnation research? There aren't any page numbers given anywhere. "Psychical" just means pertaining to the mind. Mitsube (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. The Stevenson section is now disproportionally and inappropriately long. Several other researchers might also be included, and this undue weight, again with attendant duplication, gives him an importance equal to the entire remainder of the history of western thought. Redheylin (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Complete idiot's guides are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. Though it should be noted that it devotes an entire chapter to Stevenson, and the secondary source coverage of him in works on reincarnation is quite extensive. The version of the reincarnation research section is the result of many compromises and hard-won consensus, please respect this. Mitsube (talk) 02:19, 11 May 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)

The Greek equivalent for reincarnation is "μετενσάρκωσις", not "μετεμψύχωσις". "Μετενσάρκωση" literally translates as "re-incarnation".Amadeus webern (talk) 21:08, 12 May 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 did not understand that you were using the word in a specific sense. I apologize for going on about that. Now that I understand what you were saying, I disagree with that as well. Religious believers would believe that any conception is an incidence of reincarnation. So reincarnation is indeed measurable and observable, just as a physicist believes that gravity is measurable and observable because things fall to the earth. Mitsube (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all religious believers think that their dogmatic beliefs are measurable. See fideism. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about religious believers in reincarnation. Mitsube (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you prepared to speak for all of them? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No I am not. Mitsube (talk) 21:34, 11 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)

Parapsychology: Lead and article context

Reincarnation research is a bizarre article that probably should be dealt with separately, but essentially three points come out of it:

1. Parapsychological research by Stevenson and Tucker
2. Past-life regression
3. Surveys about belief

The final subject is, I think we can all agree, highly relevant to this page. The first subject is not well-discussed there nor here, so work should be done. The second subject is absent here and arguably doesn't belong there. I'd like some people's thoughts on this.

But primarily, I'd like to discuss how prominent people think Stevenson and Tucker are to this particular subject. I contend that they are actually minor players and should be folded in to some modernist consideration section as a historical oddity since they are so marginalized. Others seem to think they deserve considerable more prominence, but seem to argue that they do because they are accomplished scientists or have uncovered empirical evidence for something. Amazing new discoveries, of course, should be kept out of Wikipedia until verified by independent sources which has manifestly not happened for Tucker and Stevenson's stories.

So I propose to incorporate Stevenson and Tucker into the section on modern Western beliefs about reincarnation. I also propose making the sentence in the lead into something more like a clause to tack on to the mention of New Age and Theosophist beliefs.

Please respond.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think we should stick with a separate "Parapsychological research" section about the work of Stevenson and Tucker, and a sentence or two summarizing it in the lead. Johnfos (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that looks to me like only a partial "oppose", and this isn't a vote or an attempt to determine consensus so I'm not sure why you are bolding it that way. It'd be nice if you actually justified your position rather than simply stating it. For example, do you think that these two are particularly major players? Is a short sentence okay? (e.g. "Some parapsychology researchers have investigated reports of reincarnation"?) What are the parameters? Why should we keep them separate from other sections? What distinguishes them from other Western believers in the subject like Deepak Chopra, for example? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see it as a full oppose, not a partial oppose, and think it is time to try and reach some sort of consensus. There has been plenty of discussion about reincarnation research on this page an elsewhere, and my most recent contribution is here. Please refer back to it if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT apparently. Anyway, the point is you didn't seem to want to include any past life regression, so on that we agree. The particular beliefs of Stevenson are actually a bit more complicated than his predilection for theosophy, but Tucker's New Age adherence is clear from his book's adoption of quantum quackery. That's not entirely relevant to this page, but it is at least an indicator of the direction this "research program" has gone. You are refusing to answer my particular questions and don't really seem interested in dialoging about what the appropriate direction is. Instead, it seems you prefer to declare your preference and then refuse compromise. Consensus cannot be reached with such obstinancy. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The parapsychology section still reads like the blurb on the jacket of a book by Ian Stevenson. It either needs to be titled Ian's Stevenson's research, or it needs to be balanced with other material. Tossing out examples, Raymond Moody did past life regression research along parapsychological lines. There's probably other filler as well. Point is, it doesn't need to read like a promo for Stevenson. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He did get the most coverage. We could say Stevenson and others at the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies. Tucker and at least one other professor were in that division and they helped him. There are other researchers who publish in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Mitsube (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No proof for SA's claims. This "theosophy" thing is getting pretty old. Mitsube (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Theosophists believe in reincarnation explicitly. Stevenson admits to being influenced by them. Pretty straightforward. Similar to those people parading around their "discovery" of Noah's Ark. Transparently, they all happen to believe that Noah's Ark was real for religious purposes.ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You have repeatedly stated that Stevenson believed in Theosophy, but there is no evidence of that. Mitsube (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

His mother's beliefs are what initially got him interested. Mitsube (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what he says in his books. He says that his mother was a theosophist, but that he investigated the paranormal because of his own interest in theosophy. Whether she played Monica to his Augustine is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. Exactly which books are you referring to where Stevenson discussed theosophy as the driving force behind his work? Please provide page numbers. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Every place he discusses it he says that. Are you serious? Which books of his have you read? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take European cases of the reincarnation type which I read recently. I don't recall any particular mention of theosophy. So please just provide the page numbers where Stevenson discussed theosophy in this book, as the driving force behind his work. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That I don't have this particular book on hand makes this request prohibitive. However, does he even discuss his motivation in that book? His 1989 essay is certainly one of the most prominent pieces where he discusses why he started discussing the issue, IIRC. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mention a "1989 essay". If you are referring to The Flora Levy Lecture in the Humanities 1989 then I have to inform you that there is nothing there that would support your assertion that Stevenson was a "New Age reincarnation theosophist researcher". Indeed, Stevenson discusses his "discontent with psychoanalytic and other current theories of human personality" as being the driving force behind his work, and refers to a 1977 article he published entitled "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation", for which he had "more than 1,000 requests for reprints from scientists all over the world". In this article Stevenson drew attention to reincarnation as a hypothesis of explanatory value for a wide variety of unsolved problems in psychology and medicine. So, in summary, 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. -- Johnfos (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with prevailing theories of human personality led me to extend this interest, and in the 1950s I began to read systematically in the literatures of theosophy and psychical research.

Complementary tactics from a credulous mind. Pretty clear. Those interested in parapsychology, like Stevenson, always find inspiration from such sources even while trying to crowbar a separation in methodology. It's no different from creation scientists who use the Bible as their inspiration for going out and discovering Noah's Ark. Pseudoscientific rationalizations are often derived from dogmatic investigations of that sort. I also love the self-aggrandizement. Can you imagine Einstein talking about the myriad of "requests for reprints from scientists all over the world" of his theories? Just goes to show that people who want scientific justification for their beliefs in things that lack empirical basis tend to the same promotionalism across the board. Sure, Stevenson thought he was doing good. But he never took the null hypothesis seriously and that is what made him a credulous pseudoscientist in the end. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote is the opposite of what you said. The quote says that because of his scientific opinions, he was led to read theosophical literature. This is not what you said. You said that his belief in theosophy is what motivated his scientific opinions. Mitsube (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling bullshit on that one. He was introduced to theosophy by his mother. Science leading to theosophy is not the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who quoted it. Then when it turned out that you had misread it, you call it bullshit. This conversation is pointless. You are always changing the goalposts. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if your reading comprehension is what it should be. I did not misread the quote. I am calling your interpretation incorrect. If it feels like I'm changing the goalposts, maybe it's because you keep changing games and fields. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the explanatory value of reincarnation for modern medicine that Stevenson was really interested in. To try and deduce otherwise from a single sentence in a single publication is a mistake. Stevenson's self-professed "habit of wide reading" is a benefit and not something to be frowned upon. Johnfos (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What Stevenson was interested in was proving the existence of reincarnation. He didn't think theosophy was convincing enough to do this. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your ill-informed opinion. This conversation has shown that you have no proof that your claims about Stevenson's motivation are true. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this conversation has shown, in part, that people who are trying to promote reincarnation as being a phenomenon with empirical basis are more than willing to ignore the facts put right in front of them. That's not surprising, but it is ironic when they accuse others of doing that. The evidence is pretty clear that you are not able to really comprehend the fact that Stevenson's great reincarnated hope was born out of reading occult manuscripts. That he chose to use scientific methodology to reinvigorate these beliefs is interesting, but does not erase the fact that he followed the dogma of these religious beliefs in reincarnation. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You just don't have any evidence to support your deprecatory claims. That is because they aren't true. And it is better not to use the word phenomenon in a narrow sense. It's most general definition is simply "a significant event": [23]. More on that word above. Mitsube (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is plain for anyone to see. The truth-value of my claims compared to yours are also easily verified. The word phenomenon should be used in a more strict way when we are dealing with supposed "scientific evidence". ScienceApologist (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is plain. Your only "proof" demonstrated that you were wrong. He said that his "discontent with psychoanalytic and other current theories of human personality" was the driving force behind his work and motivated his extensive reading of literature related to psychic phenomena. This is the opposite of your claim, that "Every place he discusses it [his work] he says that [theosophy was the driving force behind his work]". And you haven't even tried to prove the separate claim, that he believed in Theosophy. One can be interested in something without believing in it. You have tried and failed to show that his research was motivated by interest in Theosophy, not belief in Theosophy, though you have also incorrectly claimed that he was motivated by belief in Theosophy at other times. Mitsube (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That Stevenson didn't like Freud is part of why he appealed to theosophy since Freud viewed such story-telling as being a realization of the unconscious not unlike psychoses. The way he positions himself as a defender of the faith in the reality of reincarnation is the crux of my claim, and it is directly indicated by what is written in the source. That you don't seem to understand this is only indicative of your continued refusal to understand the basic reason why Stevenson's work is wholly outside the mainstream. Stevenson's attempt to obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value. This feature of Stevenson's worldview is also seen in the way he ignored (perhaps unwittingly -- faith as such does impose special blinders) the obvious problems with assuming presuppositions had to be confirmed by the evidence he gathered. Ask yourself the question, "what forms of evidence would have convinced Stevenson that reincarnation and the ideations of theosophy were not correct?" ScienceApologist (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep bringing theosophy into things unnecessarily. There is no proof he believed in it. Mitsube (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You can ignore the statements he made if you want. But insisting that there "is no proof" of Stevenson's obvious religious fervor for reincarnation is like insisting that there is no proof that Clonaid is populated by believers in Raelism. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts again. Note that you didn't mention theosophy in this post. Mitsube (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Theosophy is directly discussed in the antecedent of "the statements he made". I haven't moved any goalposts (which is getting to be a ridiculously strained metaphor at this point). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well whatever you wrote, if you find quotes demonstrating a fervent religious devotion to Theosophy I'd be interested in reading them. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fervency is not a feature of theosophists. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself again. Mitsube (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the two quotes with datestamps to show where you think a contradiction was made. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In this section alone, you have claimed he had a "predilection for theosophy", said that "Stevenson has freely admitted in his books that his interest in the paranormal derived from theosophy", said that theosophy was "the driving force behind his work," and said that he "appealed to theosophy". You said he attempted to "obtain an empirical basis for theosophical concepts", which "could only come after being exposed to and accepting these concepts at face-value", stated that his "faith as such does impose special blinders", then mentioned his "obvious religious fervor", but then claimed "Fervency is not a feature of theosophists". You also claimed in the article itself that he was a "believer in theosophy". And you have said that he was "fervent". Yet, theosophists are not fervent. So, you contradicted yourself. But your attempt to evade admitting this seems to suggest that you have now backed off of your unsupported and irresponsible claim, which you put into the article itself, that Stevenson was a Theosophist. And moreover, there is no support for your claim that he was motivated to investigate claims of reincarnation by a prior "fervent" "religious" "belief" in it. So please don't get us started down this same path with that canard. Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what's happening. I'm pointing out that Stevenson has a religious fervency with respect to reincarnation. I'm not saying that he has a fervency for theosophy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassins

Shouldn't something like that in the lead be sourced? Can it be? Is it true? Mitsube (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Assassins" is just another word for Nizari Ismailis - I just put it in to give you a thrill. Redheylin (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The redivision of the introduction is unsuccessful since it ignores chronology and seeks to divide the elements of faith, thought and empirical subjectivity, which cannot be achieved. This has led to the idea that, if Patanjali says he remembers it is "faith", whereas if a Stevenson subject says so it is "research". It is a pity thus to obscure both the chronological nature of the presentation and the interaction of thought, faith, popular culture and empirical enquiry so I'll seek an alternative. Redheylin (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious, then. Mitsube (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion when it's Patanjali, philosophy when it's Pythagoras. Still - I see you all want to get on with your edit-warring, your claim to own the page is noticed: I shall most likely leave you all for a while to make the article worse between yourselves, as I know you can. Redheylin (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would put those two in the same category. It's not a big deal. Mitsube (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Violent deaths

Tucker writes that these are the cases that they chose to study with their limited time, because they have the greatest potential of providing interesting evidence. Mitsube (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or because those were the stories that were most likely to be talked about at home and have an effect on the impressionable imaginations of young children. Yes, it should be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove it again. Mitsube (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not why they investigated them. Now you're accusing Stevenson et al of bad faith in addition to everything else? Mitsube (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. I'm not the first person to cast aspersions on Stevenson. We cite a number of recent works which do so. They may not be doing their selection bias intentionally, but it's pretty obvious that they have real problems with control. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding your personal uninformed opinions is distracting and pointless. Mitsube (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that my opinions are "uniformed" is a personal attack that is distracting, pointless, and against the WP:NPA policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Mitsube (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Eye of the beholder. See User talk:ScienceApologist boilerplate. I find it to be so because you are assuming that I am uninformed when I have read more about this subject than some 99% of the general population, and have demonstrated it. Regardless, I'll let the sleeping dog lie. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit discussion

1. It is claimed that I removed the information about when the memories occur. This is false. The information is still there. Please read carefully.
2. It is claimed that I keep removing the word "scientific", which is sourced to the British Medical Journal. It is true that I usually refer to "methodological rigor" rather than "scientific rigor" this is because the source does not specifically say that Ian Stevenson was functioning as a good scientist. The sources agree his methodology was good, but good science must also come to well-supported conclusions. No one outside of Stevenson and his fellow reincarnation believers thought that his conclusions were scientific. Thus we refer ONLY to his methodology when describing independent praise.
3. It is claimed that "similar" is too vague, and so functions only to obfuscate. However, the sources do not indicate that the locations of the birthmarks were anatomically identical: only that they were on similar locations of the two bodies.
4. It is claimed that "in some cases" is needed, because that didn't always happen. But this is not verified by any of the cases. He investigated possibilities for alternatives, but it is not for us to judge whether it is possible to find alternative explanations for all the cases or not and he never stated that such was impossible. Thus we should just point out that he investigated alternatives and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. No. You said that the children he studied were between 3 and 7. You removed the data about when the memories occur, begging the question, why did he choose to study children in that age range? That's bad writing. Why did you do that?
   2. You removed the phrase "scientific rigor of his methods", which is sourced to the article entitled "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". So the sentence in this article is sourced, and not only that, it refers specifically to his methods. The source isn't so specific. So, what you wrote above doesn't make any sense at all.
   3. Let's see what the source says: "Further evidence of invariance is to discover that vastly different cultures appear to share with very similar behavioral and physical manifestations in these phenomena—as in the case of birthmarks symbolizing injuries in the previous personality or the apparent high incidence of violent unexpected death in many of those who are reincarnated ... The intensive study of these children has revealed several provocative findings, such as the apparent increase in death due to violence in those who reincarnate and the startling correspondence found between birth marks on the child and similar marks or distinguishing features present on the body of the reincarnated personality during their lifetime, such as wounds, injuries, and other stigmata." I had corresponding earlier. I think you removed it. Hopefully you won't remove it again. Besides, it's "Stevenson believed". So it's not even saying it's true (though it is). I'll put in "in correspondence with" hoping you won't revert that.
   4. Fine, but we can add "and he discounted some cases". That's the point I was trying to make. I will put in "... discounting some reports." Metta, Mitsube (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I tried to accommodate the peculiarities of your understanding of the text. See what you think.
2. The poorly used phrase in the source "scientific rigor" is referring to Stevenson's methods. Let's be clear about that rather than vague. The source is quite specific. Read it beyond the title.
3. similar is used in the source. I like it. Corresponding is a bit weird so I removed it, but if you want to try to work it back in with the word similar, for example, "correspondence found between birth marks on the child and similar marks on the deceased".
4. I'm fine with the current wording.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That "similar" is general, referring to similarities across cultures, i.e. the general trend of birthmark correspondence. A man getting hit by a car in Virginia and an Eskimo getting impaled by a spear, with the corresponding birthmarks on young children, is what the author is talking about. And they are not just in similar places. As an informed expert you must have looked at one of his books where he has photographs and detailed physiological descriptions. In one example I saw, a birthmark looked just like the spread of the shotgun blast that corresponded to the fatal wound of someone who died, in the manner you might expect. "Correspond" is from the source, where it is stated as fact, we are only saying "Stevenson believed" it,

I am not trying to get the word "scientific" applied to everything Stevenson did. That's why I put in "of his methods". What's wrong with that? I can't quite make out what you are trying to write in your response on that point. Please clarify. I just reread the BMJ article and it supports my wording. I will leave what you have for now until you respond. Mitsube (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree with how you interpret that statement which uses the word "similar", but it's not that important. I tried to reword it using "corresponding". I have looked at the photographs and descriptions. There is no rigorous correlation attempted nor any null hypothesis tested for these birthmark-correspondences. The plural of anecdote is not data, I remind you.

What's wrong with calling praise for Stevenson's method "scientific rigor" is that the scientific method has some steps that Stevenson arguably skipped. Stevenson's scrupulosity in collecting data is laudable, but science is more than collecting data. That's the reason I think it better to simply refer to his methods which is indeed the way the sources praise him. Indeed, even those who praised him argued that more work was needed. An unfinished and unconfirmed work is not "scientifically rigorous" in the normal sense. It's just important to keep the word "scientific" away because there is obvious controversy over whether Stevenson was engaged in a kind of pseudoscience. Best not to spoonfeed the reader that the work was in any way scientific. Let them come to their own conclusions, especially when the sources themselves are skeptical of Stevenson's ultimate conclusions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Correspondence" is sourced to the American Journal of Psychiatry, and "scientific rigor" is sourced to the British Medical Journal. Your disputing with them is OR. The corresponding is even in the range of "Stevenson believed". About the latter, I will try "methods and protocols" for now. Also, your latest addition is wrong. It wasn't only interviews. There were also photographs (which you have seen), obituaries, other written records, etc. Mitsube (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence is not independently validated, so I attributed it to Stevenson. Since there are no objective measures of the correspondence, we have only the author's say-so for saying this.

I'm not sure why you keep adding a laundry list of continents. Doesn't "around the world" do it?

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cadoret states the correspondence as a fact. It is a reliable secondary source. The list of continents is important because the secondary sources say things like "He catalogued more than 2,500 remarkably similar cases, mostly in Asia and the Middle East but also in Europe, Africa and North and South America."

I found that two more of the sources use the word "scientific": one says he followed the "scientific method". So that is overwhelmingly well-sourced to reliable secondary sources and it is going back in, your original ideas to the contrary.

"Correspondence" is sourced to the American Journal of Psychiatry. The problem here is that you are personally disputing reliable scientific journals.

The AJP article also has:

"A brief description of a typical case of the reincarnation type would show the following features: 1) Starting in years 2–4, the child spontaneously narrates details of a previous life. 2) Volume and clarity of statements from the child increase until ages 5–6, when the child talks less about them. 3) By age 8, remarks about previous life generally cease. 4) Unexpected behavior unusual for child but concordant with behavior of deceased person occur, e.g., phobias for guns or special interests and appetites. 5) In many cases the child has a birthmark or congenital deformity that corresponds in location and appearance to fatal wounds on the body of the previous personality. A high number of reincarnated personalities report violent death, which the child alludes to. 6) In some cultures the individual who “reincarnates” predicts his or her next incarnation and may appear in a dream to the expectant mother of the child to announce an intention to reincarnate in the baby. 7) After the age of 10 these child subjects usually develop normally.

No "according to Stevenson" in here. Again, you are disputing a scientific journal. Wikipedia is not the place to do this.

I'm also changing a "claimed" to "proposed", because Stevenson didn't argue for reincarnation, he just assembled evidence, and "proposed" reflects that better. Mitsube (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube -- you are misinterpreting and reinterpreting sources to suit your own agenda rather than accepting the the fringe nature of Stevenson's claims.

First of all, you don't have any sources which establish Stevenson's conclusions as "scientific" objectively. This canard about Stevenson's work being "overwhelmingly well-sourced" as "scientific" is just that, a canard. Since there is obviously a controversy about Stevenson's work and whether it is scientific, we can't just state it outright that it is scientific. We can state that Stevenson's work was praised for its methodology and protocols, but Stevenson simply wasn't doing science according to some. We cannot simply summarize Stevenson's work as being scientific when there are plenty of sources which dispute that.

Secondly, the AJP article is a book review of Stevenson's work. It is summarizing Stevenson. It is not a recipe for taking Stevenson's word as gospel. Just because it is written in a journal doesn't mean that it somehow has magical powers. Since this is a review of a book written by Stevenson, this is absolutely "according to Stevenson". I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. I am not "disputing a scientific journal", I'm putting it into its appropriate context. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN.

Thirdly, you haven't explained why you are listing all those continents.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The AJP article makes factual statements about the cases. It avoids the use the extraneous use of "according to Stevenson" that you favor, because of your unsubstantiated assumptions of bad faith. I will respond about the word "scientific" below. I am willing to compromise on the list of continents. I don't know why you don't like this information. Mitsube (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't really have "bad faith" towards a source. The review article describes what's written in the book. Attributing the beliefs of those who wrote the book and who the book is about shouldn't be problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You have accused Stevenson of acting in bad faith [24] and this accusation is your basis for introducing stilted language not present in the source we are using. If the reliable, independent, secondary source states something (correspondence) as fact then we will too. "Stevenson believed that the best evidence for reincarnation was the existence of birth marks and deformities on children which he reported corresponded to fatal wounds of the deceased." is poorly written. There is a correspondence. Presumably you believe that it is coincidental. But there is a correspondence, as stated by the secondary source, which obviously does far more than summarize the contents of the book. Your interpretation of Cadoret doesn't make sense. Mitsube (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether an an actual correspondence exists or not is solely a matter of opinion because the matches were not demonstrably shown to exist beyond the level of anecdotal commentary. I don't even "believe" that it was coincidental: I submit that there is no consistent evaluation of the data to show correlation (which is the synonym for correspondence here that most people would tend to think of in (pseudo)scientific contexts). If it is "poorly written" then rewrite it, by all means, but we must be clear to attribute the belief in the "correspondence" to Stevenson and not state it as plain fact (it is, in fact, only an opinion). See WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Scientific

If you keep insisting that we describe Stevenson's work as being praised for its "scientific rigor", I think we'll have to begin the impeachment process with the following source:

NYAS report by Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, and Robert Todd Carroll's critique in The Skeptics Encyclopedia.

Even Eugene Brody admitted that Stevenson's work was generally regarded as "unscientific": [[25].

That's what we have.

Deal.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A VERY reliable source sourcing the perspective that Stevenson was involved in rank pseudoscience. We can

Let's be clear. The material I have currently is "praised for the scientific rigor of his investigations." That is sourced to three scientific journals. The "of his investigations" is key here. The statements does not include in its scope any conclusions people may make. Stevenson himself proposed explanations alternate to reincarnation, viz. ESP. Kurtz doesn't dispute the scientific rigor of the investigations, and Edwards and Carroll are self-published skeptics who don't have the same standing as material published in scientific journals, so they can't be used to dispute material found therein.

About Brody, it seems that you have not read the entire passage carefully enough. I'll reproduce it here. He say: "Publication of papers on these topics may imply editorial endorsement of nonscientific philosophies and conclusions ... our decision to publish this material ... recognizes the scientific and personal credibility of the authors, the legitimacy of their research methods, and the conformity of their reasoning to the usual canons of rational thought."

So I am upholding the distinction we have repeatedly made about methods (scientific according to journals) and conclusions (speculative) by including the phrase "of his investigations". Do you think the current information upholds this distinction? If not could you propose language which uses the word scientific and upholds the distinction to your satisfaction? Mitsube (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made it clear that the interpretations and conclusions of Stevenson have been criticized as being pseudoscientific. The statement is NPOV now if not succinct. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also not right. The Skeptic Encyclopedia doesn't accuse Stevenson of making pseudscientific conclusions: [26], it just says he's wrong. The Kurtz source is one sentence but I won't argue with it. It's not NPOV because criticisms of Stevenson have been (resoundingly) refuted, but I won't push for inclusion of that fact now. Mitsube (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicky, aren't we? The "resounding" refutation was not very convincing to all, and to all a good night! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't write the entire article based on the half-scientific truths of Doctor Stevenson and his followers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced to independent secondary sources. Your post here doesn't make sense, and doesn't support your change to the lead paragraph. Mitsube (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An essay from the Washington post does not override an article from a medical journal on the plausibility of reincarnation, sorry. Take it to WP:RSN. I do not see how it "doesn't make sense", perhaps from an unscientific viewpoint. The collective weight of science does not support reincarnation. A million reliable secondary newspaper sources cannot override that, especially to put a POV conjecture into the lead of this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"The collective weight of science does not support reincarnation." Hmmmm...I didn't realize science was subject to gravity. Nor did I realize it had a collective voice, if that's what was meant. Nor do I know of any way science can test reincarnation - dye a person's soul blue and see if it returns??? I think you must mean that lots of scientists don't believe in reincarnation. But belief is not science. hgilbert (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is that there is very little objective evidence and even less repeatable and testable evidence for reincarnation. I think this is true, and as a believer in reincarnation this doesn't bother me. The same is true of most cosmological theories that scientists argue over. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The same is also true of any fringe theory, including alternative medicines. A lot of people swear by homeopathy as well (even myself at times), but the general scientific consensus is that it cannot work. Science is indeed a collective voice in many cases, as represented by the thousands of peer reviewed journal entries published by reputable sources. The point is that you have a lot of respected people that say "no, its simply too ridiculous to even bother considering", and one very isolated doctor that tried to convince them otherwise. This lone doctor does not solely represent the debate on the theory of reincarnation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say anything like what you have attributed to it. Tagging. Give the extract you are summarizing or cease edit-warring: the burden is on you. Mitsube (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics

If you want to bring criticism of Tucker's idea into this, you have to find it in a reliable secondary source, not synthesize it into existence. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources provided are reliable and none of the criticisms of quantum quackery are synthetic. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Violent Death

There is no reason to include the "often those who met an untimely death" in the introductory sentence. No secondary source does that. Furthermore, "that seemed to him to be able to remember events in a life that had ended" is ridiculous, both because it is poorly written and because it is misleading; many others thought that the child was remembered events from a past life, he just investigated it. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I seem to recall in the past that you were arguing that the violent deaths were an important feature of the accounts. I myself don't care one way or the other and would be fine with removing that little tidbit. In fact, I think the entire Stevenson account is overly bloated in much the same way that Cosmic Latte has argued before. I'm just trying to see if we can reach consensus and so I'm compromising my desire for succinct summaries until such time as everybody has calmed down about exactly how to present this baloney.
2. No independent sources have ever claimed that others believe children remember events from a past life. Everyone who has said that is a true believer in reincarnation and thus it is not an objective statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Belief in the West

You cited an essay in support of removing that information from the lead, which mentions the belief in reincarnation all around the world more prominently than belief in the West. Please explain this removal. Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence itself was only talking about the West. If you want to reincorporate a sentence that has a global view, please feel free. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Plato talks explicitly about reincarnation towards the end of the Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.206.108 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

reincarnation

reincarnation sounds very scary to me it includes death

5-27-10

tamalie jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.85.132 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes life, the universe and everything scary, Tamalie. But things get scarier the more we do not look at them. Maybe the shadow on your bedroom wall looks like a monster. If you get up and have a closer look, you find it's a shadow, not a monster. But so long as you hide under the bedclothes it goes on being maybe a monster. And if it IS a monster, then too it is better you should know about it! Redheylin (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you (and all of us) will die one day, anyway - reincarnation or not. So the remark isn't very logical! Commented by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), 27 September 2010.

Different Than Metempsychosis

This page offers limited information on the ancient Greek development of metempsychosis (a topic of intense academic debate, particularly in regards to its likely Western origins), including details of the semi-legendary Pythagoras, his influence on the thought of two and a half millennia including that touchstone of Western philosophy, Plato. The person who advocated for the integration of the page 'metempsychosis' into this page, while claiming that "all the information from [metempsychosis] is reproduced here" (or something to that effect) is simply lying. That metempsychosis is a key phrase in perhaps the most important novel to date, Joyce's Ulysses, argues for a separate page. The editor repeatedly impaled him(or her)self on [their] own arguments in discussion (see Metempsychosis Talk). If a fuller discussion does not take fruit, I will restore the page Metempsychosis, against the tyranny of a single editor. The editor in question would benefit by soliciting citations or expert review. His or her lack of distinction has been made clear. This is not a question of ideology but basic practices. Unilateral deletion of contributed content is not generally a hallmark of Wikipedia. I hope interested intermediaries will note this. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTES by Jan Erik Sigdell TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT REINCARNATION, THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY

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. [Cf. this note.]

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…].

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 3:3-4 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…

Added by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) September 27 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.210.183 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Reincarnation

The existing page says that "Christian doctrine" rejects the concept of reincarnation even though 24% of American Christians believe in it and 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics in Europe expressed a belief in reincarnation.

It seems to me that the term "Christian doctrine" is innacurately global. It does not recognize that there is huge diversity in the doctrines of any number of Christian churches on any number of subjects, e.g., the virgin birth, baptism by immersion, transubstantiation, justification by faith alone, creationism vs. evolution, gay marriage, to name a few.

It does seem to me that most MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES reject the concept of reincarnation, but there are many denominations, some of which do not claim to have any doctrines, and so, therefore, some may entertain the possibility of reincarnation. It would be extremely difficult to exhaustively research the doctrines of hundreds of Christian denominations.

At the same time, a reliable source--Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distringuished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California and an Episcopal priest--concludes that belief in Christianity and belief in reincarnation are not mutually exclusive. See cites from Quest and Amazon where sample pages are available.

I see value in deleting the reference to "Christian doctrine" and replacing it with "mainline Christian churches" and adding a reference to MacGregor's work.

I apologize if this post is in the wrong place or if I should have appended it to someone else's subject because I didn't see an easy way to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance I've received from Dr. K and a Macedonian so far. I don't wish to argue, simply make observations from my perspective with hope that the Wikipedia community will see value in my observation, or at least that it will spark a discussion that eventually lead to consensus on the subject.

I'm glad that there are people who are willing and able to spend a lot more time on this than I am. Activadvocate (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate, 2-27-2011, 10:30 p.m. Eastern time

I am not a Christian so I have no bias in what is included. It seems to me that every major Christian denomination rejects reincarnation. Christian doctrine is the official teachings of the church, not what people think. In my view it would be right to say "it is generally accepted that Christian doctrine..." and then add a single sentence giving Prof MacGregor's view that they are compatible with a citation.

I don't think that you could change "Christian doctrine" to "mainline Christian churches" unless you find and cite a church that is generally accepted to be Christian that explicitly accepts reincarnation. Churches that claim not to have doctrine are not sufficient in my opinion, as if you included common beliefs of Unitarian Universalism you would also have to say that Christian doctrine included the worship of earth spirits, the practice of Wicca, and atheist Humanism! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. In your opinion then, would it be okay to say, as you observe, that every major Christian denomination rejects incarnation, but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite]}? I'm not sure that this reference to every major denomination can be verified any more than the article's original claim that globally, all Christian doctrine... or mine, for that matter, that most mainline Christian churches reject it. In any case, I'd be satisfied with "every majore Christian denomination."

In case you care, I'm sure a lot of Christians would not see me as a Christian. I see myself as a truthseeker, and I find it in many places. Activadvocate (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate

I think that the adding "but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite] would be OK. I think that saying every major denomination should stand, we know it is refjected by the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox churches. If anyone belongs to a denomination that explicitly accepts it we can then decide if it is a "major" denomination. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I have added the changes that there seems to be consensus on. I also see value in Jan-Erik Sigdall's research as expressed above and in his book, , because he has documented his sources but I hesitated to add it since I'm not sure you editors recognize him as a reliable source. I was unable to find his credentials in a quick Internet search and wonder if lack of credentials is the main reason his comment above has been mostly ignored? I welcome your advice and insight on the value of adding him / his book to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activadvocate (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put this post, so please forgive me if I guessed wrong; I'm still trying to figure this out. I thought the system autosigned me but still it's apparently important to SineBot that I put the four tildes at the end of my posts. Not sure why. Maybe SineBot is the one who autosigns my posts if I forget the four tildes?

Also saw a reference to BullRangifer and that user page emphasized the value of verifiable content. I suppose this is a gentle way of saying that Jan Erik Sigdall's on-line book is not verifiable, even though it has a lot of quotes in it from other sources. I continue to wonder who / how it's decided that some people are verifiable sources and others are considered original research. When does one become the other? Do people have to be associated with a leading university to be verifiable? Does a policy make this clear somewhere? Thank you for any advice or direction that would help me understand.Activadvocate (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate.

Yes, it is good practice and considerate to sign your posts with the four tildes.

Verifiable content depends upon many things. If a book is published by an academic publisher or is written by a notable authority in the field, for example, it is generally a very good source. If it is self-published it is not a very good source. See WP:Verifiable sources. hgilbert (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler believed in reincarnation - his suicide and body burned on 'Walpurgisnacht'

I've seen the History Channel documentary Hitler and the Occult more than once. HC is a legitimate resource. Hitler's suicide on April 30 and his command to have his body burned was no 'coincidence' - There Are No Coincidences (there is synchronism). Hitler believed in reincarnation and saw committing suicide and having his body burned on Walpurgisnacht as a vehicle to control his next reincarnation. This is an important fact and should be listed in the article with History Channel as its resource. - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

External link dead or is it just me?

I previously removed the newly added "www.ial.goldthread.com In Another Life, extensive multi-media reincarnation resource" link because it appeared dead. I am still not getting anything from it but I want to check with others before I remove it again in case it's just me. Does it work for anyone? -- Q Chris (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning

Is there partial past memories remaining in you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.133.202 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation in the West

Well, to hear statement, that there is 44 % those who believe in reincarnation in Lithuania (thats were I living in) is simply too ridiculous. Also in highly catholic countries, like Poland and Italy every 1/5 person believes in reincarnation, i.e. completely opposite believe to catholic doctrine ? Sounds something wierd.(Submixster (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Hinduism

Thanks for the helpful text on this theme, ‎Kapil.xerox. I have tried to simplify the wording, using English terms with the Hindu original in parenthesis afterwards, which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at laypersons. I hope my changes are acceptable. Do fix anything I have gotten wrong, as I am not an expert! hgilbert (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the current wording in Hinduism section. The article says reincarnation idea is non-Vedic? Not true. Quoting from "The Brahmasutras and their principal commentaries by B.N.K. Sharma" - Rig Veda 4:27:1-2 record the experiences of Vamadeva on the basis of awareness of his own former lives. RV 4:26:1 goes on to say (of Vamadeva) - "I was Manu and Surya. I was Rsi Kaksivan the Brahmin". Madhva in his commentary on the Brahmasutras uses these sruthi verses in the aphorism 1:1:28-31 of the Brahmasutras Antaryami Pranadhikaranam. Could someone repsond on this issue? If not, I can go ahead and provide this quotation in support of reincarnation in the RV to add to the already present RV verses.

Stevenson et al

Mentioning the research on reincarnation done by Stevenson et al seems perfectly proper...why would it be giving undue weight to peer-reviewed research to mention this in one sentence, especially since critical responses are also included? -- Also, though the mention of particular works is not necessary here, links to the titles of their works do not seem terribly obnoxious. Take these out if you really want to...hgilbert (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no problem having it in the body of the article, but why must we showcase it in the lead? Out of all the other material in all the other sections in the article, why Stevenson and his book titles be given special attention in the lead? It borders on WP:ADVERT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad this material was restored. One of the books is by Stevenson and one is by Tucker. There is no mention about avoiding book title links in WP:Lead, and many FAs have them, see Ernest Hemmingway and Rachel Carson. I don't see how it looks like an advert. Rather than remove material from the lead, consider expanding it to 4 paragraphs, as is common for an article of this length, for better coverage of neglected viewpoints. Johnfos (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, in those two cases ([27], [28]) the books mentioned in the lead are the books those writers wrote... I hope that no one believes that "Reincarnation" itself somehow wrote the two books mentioned in the lead of this article...

Anyway, it is completely clear that giving those books one (or two, if we count "Skeptics are critical of this work and generally are incredulous about any claims of life after death.") sentences out of nine ([29]) is undue (including the sense of WP:UNDUE). Even if the theory promoted by the books was not fringe, the relevant writings of philosophers, theologians, scholars of comparative religion and historians would dwarf those books. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I do agree that the lead shouldn't promote particular books, songs, etc. I've removed Kundun, What Dreams May Come and Birth, authors Carol Bowman and Vicki Mackenzie, and Stevenson and Tucker. They can be put back into an appropriate place in the body of the article if someone feels its important. hgilbert (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stevenson's research and "reincarnation research" in general is of minor significance to the topic of the article. It is fringe, at best, and has not been widely recived in the academic community. By far most of it has been published in books and journals with no semblence of academic review, primarily his own sham journal. This work is not widely cited by independent scholars in their own peer-reviewed work, and has indeed been largely ignored. Those who have examined it have found it wanting to the point of being implausible at best, methodologically flawed to the point of being useless, or just plain pseudoscience. His credibility in this field is irreparably damaged by the fact that he set up a fake journal in which to promote himself and his work. Few scholars writing about reincarnation in real academic sources mention Stevenson, and there is no evidence that academic experts on reincarnation even know that he existed. To give more than a very brief allusion to it in this article violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONEWAY. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation"

I added the following to the Judaism category... Kabbalah also teaches that "The soul of Moses is reincarnated in every generation" <ref]Kabbalah for Dummies</ref]. I came up with that reference by memory and need to find the book to provide page #, author, publisher, and year. - Ben Hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't most Jews believe in reincarnation?

I was told by a rabbi at a forum that pretty much all Orthodox Jews, both Sephard and Ashkenazi, believe in Kabbalah, and, therefore, in reincarnation, contrary to what this Wikipedia article is saying. Which is not to say that many actually know Kabbalah; most simply don't get that far in their studies. The source seemed authoritative, and was not contradicted by anyone else, so I'd say it's worth checking.

I was told Moroccan Jews are the largest exception of that rule.

You don't hear much about reincarnation because 1) Jews are not encouraged to prozelitize, and 2) Judaism was born as an anti-Egyptian religion of sorts, and as a result, the Egyptian obsession with the afterlife is discouraged. Jews are pretty much told that this world is what matters now, everything else we are going to find out when we get there. But yes, I believe reincarnation is a bigger part of Judaism than the article says.

Sobaklavan (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism

The main article suggests merging pre-existence with reincarnation. Pre-existence is a very big deal in Mormonism, and is completely different from reincarnation. Even for non-Mormons, pre-existence does not have to mean physically existing or existing on this world or with a different name. Pre-existence and reincarnation are fundamentally different. For this reason I vote to keep the topics separate. 85.211.155.41 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Shias

The following text was removed from the lead: "and the Shia sects such as the Alawi Shias". Does anyone know whether this group incorporates beliefs in reincarnation? Should the text be restored or not? hgilbert (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that preexistence should not be merged with reincarnation, because in some religious sects the belief is that the current birth is the only one and the soul exists before the current birth till it is ready to take birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddmisra (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-personal reincarnation

I believe that some people believe that reincarnation is possible without there being a soul. For example, in buddhism, the empty not-self is reborn every time one dies (according to some schools). The core of the being is not a singular entity (anatman), but just pure consciousness, without "I".

In the concept of trikaya, there are three bodies that describe something that is a bit like a soul. The pure everything-that-exist-at-once dharmakaya being like the atmosphere, the intermediary sambhogakaya being like clouds and the experience-of-being-a-human nirmanakaya being like the rain that falls from the clouds. The dharmakaya is eternal, while clouds move over the surface of the earth and the rain being our temporary experiences as humans.

Here, the "I" is just a temporary manifestation of something entirely different, and not at all like what we usually mean with a soul. I would say that this is a belief that does not include souls (or an I) at all. The concept of a soul is merely added so that we (people with a western culture) have words to use for describing it.

African vodun section

On investigation of the link and book title, I removed the most obvious promotional material from this section, but have the impression that the whole section relies on a spurious source. There is better more authoritative, well-researched material out there. Generally, the terminology is not classic to writings on vodun/voudon/voodoo. Manytexts (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

in regards to "Rabbis who have rejected the idea"

I have added the rosh and rashba the rosh is in responsa "additanal responsas" #70 in which he argues on his grandson and the rashba was a letter writen to him in responsa #418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.122.220 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC) the rosh is better known as Asher ben Jehiel and the rashba as Solomon ben Aderet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.113.222 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'Reincarnation...now scientifically confirmed concept'

'Reincarnation' is the religious or philosophical concept - and now scientifically confirmed concept... I added "now scientifically confirmed concept" because the book Soul Survivor strongly documents reincarnation. Reincarnation Theory & its 23 Principles/Theory of Luck (ex. Einstein returned as Watson) (http://7seals.blogspot.com ) is another strong scientific proof as is all the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates at University Of Virginia and the many psychiatrists practicing past-life regression. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed. Please don't add it again as it is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. The scientific consensus is still that reincarnation doesn't happen. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's correct WP policy to remove this passage, but it's worth noting that science doesn't make claims one way or another about reincarnation, which is outside its remit, and that there is certainly no "scientific consensus" about the subject. Some scientists make such claims, but without any scientific basis for either side of the issue, they are just expressing personal beliefs. And no, a few skeptics who are not specialists in a field do not a consensus make. HGilbert (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

and the scientists are arguing for Shariah law all over the western world, which means they are duffases.

Nostradamus speaks openly about it, but it is in Early modern era latin, and a part of his private correspondence, and a difficult book to find, UCLA and Cal Berkeley have each a copy.

Scientists at Cal make weapons to harm and kill defenseless humans, how can you argue they are the boarder guards, duffasses? I have my own reincarnations, with photos and all sorts of people , then and now living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.202.34 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Reincarnation

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reincarnation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Peters":

• From Abrahamic religions: Peters, Francis E.; Esposito, John L. (2006). The children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12769-9.
• From Medieval Inquisition: Peters, Edward. Inquisition, University of California Press, 1989, ISBN 9780520066304

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is repaired HGilbert (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101119020132/http://www.mullasadra.org:80/new_site/english/Paper%20Bank/Anthropology/kennedy%20day.htm to http://www.mullasadra.org/new_site/english/Paper%20Bank/Anthropology/kennedy%20day.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110924143120/http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/introduction/introduction-to-sikhism-the-sikh-teachings.html to http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/introduction/introduction-to-sikhism-the-sikh-teachings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing reference to the Indus Valley

There is sharp disagreement about how far the Indus Valley civilisation shared the beliefs of later Hinduism. And about whether the Vedas endorse a belief in reincarnation. The writing system of the Indus Valley has not been read and may not even have been a full writing system. Even though the claim seems to have a source, the source would be going against almost all other sources. The reference treated a minority view as if it were generally accepted. --GwydionM (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Rig-veda references, suggestion to add proper ones

Quoted Rig-veda verses are not accurate. RV 10:90 is Purusha shukta and it is not about reincarnation, nor the given text is to be found in Purusha shukta translation. Rig Veda 10:16.1-4 is about funeral rites, when soul of the cremated is sent to Pitrloka, the planet of forefathers, where it truly does get a new form, but is not subject to law of karma, it does not create good or bad karma anymore, thus it cannot be considered to be a regular human life, but the kind of an afterlife.

Reincarnation was mentioned in Ṛgveda 3.1.20-21 "The knower of birth is hidden in every birth" (janmañ-janman nihito jātavedāḥ) and Ṛgveda 4.54.2 "For you first impel immortality to the gods worthy of the sacrifice as their highest share; just after that, o Savitṛ, you reveal your gift: lives following in succession for the sons of Manu" (anūcīnā jīvitā mānuṣebhyaḥ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodrag1963 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Motivação: Is "aspect of" superfluous? Per the main article discussion, only an aspect of a living being is believed to reincarnate: soul or consciousness or etc, depending on the tradition. For direct WP:RS support, see Encyclopedia Britannica, which reads, "Reincarnation, also called transmigration or metempsychosis, in religion and philosophy, rebirth of the aspect of an individual that persists after bodily death—whether it be consciousness, mind, the soul, or some other entity—in one or more successive existences". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613231607/http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/news-media/faq/pg016.html to http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/news-media/faq/pg016.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_60/ai_55208520/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reincarnation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/faqs/reinceur/reineuro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821030150/http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/transmig.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/transmig.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the connection between Zalmoxianism and Reincarnation and I got a warning that I am vandalizing

Zalmoxianism is connected with Pythagoras concepts of reincarnation and transmigration of soul. I was adding the citations and completing my ideas and the concepts got removed and I got a threat that I am vandalizing and that I am subject to punishment if I keep doing this.

I want my changes reverted because all my concepts presented are based on existing theories . None are personal conjecture.

This is the person that removed the section of the article I was working on and threatened to remove my privileges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr.K.

I want this matter resolved and my article back because I was working on valid knowledge.

Zalmoxis and Zalmoxianism was an ancient Dacian religion that is connected with Pythagoreanism according to Herodotus. Zalmoxis taught Dacians that people do not die but rather they continue on and in other sources that they return to earth as different people in different places. Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death and laugh because it is an illusion. Trajan prides himself according to sources when he defeated the Dacians because they are the most warlike people they never fear death they celebrate when people die. I was working on the citations before this person removed my article. Please discuss here and correct this gross monopolization of knowledge. This should be an openly and freely editable encyclopedia and nobody should have a monopoly on knowledge on what is Reincarnation. If my articles require citations or better sources please let me know but do not remove and threaten me for bringing valid knowledge to the table. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Zalmoxis himself died and was reborn after 4 years. When Dacians die they celebrate death because it is an illusion. No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And I forgot to add that when Dacians die they cannot celebrate death, as you claim, because when they are dead, they cannot do anything, let alone celebrate. Dr. K. 05:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to make a complaint against you for vandalizing my article. You are not an authority on what is fringe theory. I had valid citations and references. You cannot simply reject people's edits simply based on your own concept of what is fringe theory. I am contacting all the admins on this site to make sure you get punished for your gross vandalism of my valid edit. You need to discuss concept you disagree with instead of accusing people of vandalism. I had VALID knowledge and you have no right to remove my edit because is not fringe theory nor is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be my guest but be also advised about WP:BOOMERANG. Best of luck. Dr. K. 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Was that a threat? Very unprofessional man. I am not gonna start an edit war with you. I will ask others to help me with this. The correct procedure for discussing edits you disagree with is talking it out https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war NOT blatantly removing it calming is vandalism and threatening me to remove my privileges. That's a gross abuse of your powers. I am open to discussing how to include Zalmoxis or even if Zalmoxis is to be added or simply mentioned but the way you proceeded is not appropriate for a moderator. By the way See Also section mentions Zalmoxis and so does Metempsychosis See Also section. Trollworkout (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not a threat. It was a polite warning about what might happen. I fully agree with the removal of the material in question. We are not going to include unsourced claims of reincarnation. Meters (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As our friend hasn't provided it, this Wikisource page is (probably) the only primary source. Herodotus concludes "I for my part neither put entire faith in this story of Zalmoxis and his underground chamber, nor do I altogether discredit it: but I believe Zalmoxis to have lived long before the time of Pythagoras. Whether there was ever really a man of the name, or whether Zalmoxis is nothing but a native god of the Getae, I now bid him farewell." It would be inappropriate to describe the claimed resurrection as anything other than myth. What any of this has to do with reincarnation is beyond me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually an interesting figure in religious history, but not really related to reincarnation, so far as I can tell. Clean Copy^talk 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on Origen

I found the section on Christian views of reincarnation interesting, especially the references to Origen. Vorbee (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Eternal Soul is the basis for Reincarnation

I tweaked the opening sentence... Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept of an eternal soul that starts a new life in a different physical body or form after each biological death. 73.85.206.136 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bloodofox [that an aspect of a living being starts reverting] your edit; Buddhists do not believe in a soul (soem don't believe in rebirth, either). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

+1. @IP: please do not edit war, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. You can't have reincarnation without having a soul. I've restored my edits, but have deleted "eternal" - just having "soul". The Dalai Lama is chosen because he passed the tests of being the reincarnated previous Buddhist leader - google that. 2601:580:103:2ACD:21D7:70AE:954B:2A5C (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The idea of a "soul" isn't universal, and the concept is complex. Exactly what role the term and concept had in Germanic paganism, for example, is highly controversial, which the article will soon reflect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Paranormal infobox and Numerous Article Problems

Right now the article includes the paranormal infobox. The concept of "paranormal" is deeply entwined with pseudosciences, particularly stuff like parapsychology, ghost hunting, and cryptozoology. Meanwhile, reincarnation is a central component of many religions across the world, both now and in the past.

I've tried to remove this infobox, but the edit was reverted ([30]). The reason? "This article is linked within that paranormal navbox, so it belongs". With that logic, one could expect to said user to argue that because the infobox is on this article, it belongs in the template.

Additionally, the article's lead currently features an image discussing Jianism, and the intro falls in and out of discussing eastern religions rather than summarizing the topic as a whole. The article needs serious work from start to finish. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not very invested in this article so do whatever (I don't even know why this is on my watchlist), but I do think that when a WikiProject or something decides to create a navbox to link between a series of articles, the place to take up whether or not the article belongs in that series / the navbox belongs on the article is with whoever is behind organizing the series/navbox. Nobody puts together series or navboxes by looking to see what articles already have that navbox, like you suggest might happen; it goes the other way around. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal is inactive as far as I know. A decade ago, the template was someone's good faith effort to collect Fortean oddities (and to the Western mind, reincarnation is usually an oddity) and "paranormal beliefs" in one place: see [31]. I agree with Bloodofox that the template is no longer useful or appropriate here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's no compelling reason to include the paranormal infobox and thus concede a common religious concept to "paranormal" while not applying it to concepts like heaven. Upon reflection, "paranormal" might apply in situations where someone is claiming to have memories of past incarnations, just as it might in situations where someone is claiming to have died and been to heaven briefly, but that doesn't make it an appropriate sidebar for either of those articles. --tronvillain (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

POV edits by User Shashank5988

Shashank5988 keeps reverting to his POV (possibly motivated by Hindu nationalism) to claim that the early Vedic period had already a concept for reincarnation. The given reference is about Buddhism and does not speak about if the concept was already present in the Vedic times. I changed the wrong facts and included a reliable academic reference (A.M. Boyer: Etude sur l'origine de la doctrine du samsara. Journal Asiatique and Yuvraj Krishan: . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1997) which both state that reicarnation or cycliy system were not part of the early Vedic religion. I will revert his edit again. If we take a look at his talk page, we already see that there are more problems regarding his edit-style.--212.241.98.39 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Some religions and belief systems believe in (effectively) instantaneous reincarnation - do some allow for intervals between 'appearances'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And would 'time travel and killing your reincarnation' count as suicide? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

We are just unpaid, voluntary editors, not experts in the field. Sorry!—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

In the section titled, "Investigations of children who seem to remember a past life", I want to add this citation, but is it a reliable source?—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn’t appear to be a WP:FRIND source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say "No". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Move Carl Sagan paragraph

I think the paragraph under "Western World" speaking of the dialog between the Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan should be moved to the section "Skepticism" as it does not relate to how reincarnation is received in the West but rather a particular skeptic's ideas on the subject. Tac62184 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Punarjanman and Reincarnationism into Reincarnation. I think that the content in both the Punarjanman and Reincarnationism articles can easily be explained in the context of Reincarnation, and merging will not cause any article size problems there. Shenrichs (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hadith proposal

Can you show the hadith Sahih Bukhari 2972? Egon20 (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Quranic Verse About Reincarnation

Hi, Can We Add This Verse in Islam Section

كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُوْنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَكُنْتُمْ اَمْوَاتًا فَاَحْيَاكُمْۚ ثُمَّ يُمِيْتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيْكُمْ ثُمَّ اِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُوْنَ

How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.(Quran 2.28)

Sufi Muslim In Indonesia use This Verse To Supported Their Belief About Reincarnation 112.215.240.129 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Reincernation (recloning of deads) with microversians

Normally microversian probably are used to recloned new entities out of dead entities. They can be nativity grown or can be generated throw preonic engineering as AI's and so on. 2A02:AA11:9102:3D80:FCC4:743A:8198:A16A (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

EXPLORE

I don't think we would consider EXPLORE to be indicative of the kind of source we would want to include at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Bibliography and Further Reading

Hey @jps, I see you deleted the Bibliography and Further Reading, and you say you left a note... but where is all of that information now? I agree it was superfluous to have inline references, a bibliography, and a further reading section. Still, we can't just delete all of that. Maybe everything that was in the Bibliography and Further Reading can be in the box at the bottom? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We need to incorporate any relevant information into the article. See Template:Further_reading_cleanup. If you find that there is some text missing from the article that can be cited to those sources, do so! jps (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds insanely difficult and a lot of work but I'll try lol LightProof1995 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is, but it benefits the reader a whole lot more than an unadorned list of sources. Try adding sources where you think they may be most appropriate first to already existing text. Then, if there is no place to put the idea, try adding a sentence. Workshop it here if you need to. jps (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote for Reincarnation as Vital-3

There is currently a discussion started on the Vital-3 Talk Page for moving Reincarnation up to Vital-3, if anyone here would like to vote for it to be moved up from Vital-4. Thanks LightProof1995 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Believed in Reincarnation

I added... Benjamin Franklin a scientist believed in the "transmigration of souls based on energy is neither created or destroyed, only transferred/transformed" - Isaac Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. 12.188.116.34 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin is currently mentioned in the Renaissance and Early Modern period section. I didn’t find any sources linking his belief to the conservation of energy, though; do you know of any? Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

2500 cases

Is it a good idea to mention that 2500 cases of reincarnation have been studied? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation Temp0000002 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". 2500 * 0 = 0. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

@LightProof1995: Your sources fail WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Tgeorgescu, this page is about Reincarnation. The section is on children remembering their past lives. The story of Barbro Karlén is one of the major ones along with James Leinenger. Barbro is at least a prolific author who recounted her experiences remembering past-life memories of Anne Frank and visiting the Anne Frank House and recognizing it, and I cited her book, along with two websites not affiliated with her. The sources are reliable given what the subject is and I think you're letting the subject of the material misguide you on whether it counts as a reliable source or not. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: Now this is being discussed at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You say that Karlén and Leinenger are the "major" claims to children remembering past lives. Do you have an independent source which identifies them as such? The sources you tried to insert did not really pass the muster for that. jps (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: Recognizing Anne Frank's house? I don't know how anyone in the sane mind could construe that as evidence that she is the reincarnation of Anne Frank. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was rather hoping for a source that identified these particular claims as being important to the reincarnation-believing community. I bet that Jim B. Tucker takes this claim as "serious evidence" FWIW. That's not particularly surprising, though. For Wikipedia's purposes, we would need someone who was examining the reincarnation-believing community to identify this claim as important. I tend to imagine it is likely not that important. jps (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: Yup, I saw some Discovery documentary about research about reincarnation through hypnosis. And the subject remembered very well details from his previous life in the US Civil War. Alas, he remembered very well using a carbine which was only invented some two decades after he supposedly died. So: don't look for confirming details, but look for Popperian falsification. Americans have read a shipload of books about the Civil War and have seen hundreds of films thereupon, so they "remember" details from such stories. When they remember something impossible (anachronistic) is when you know that their reincarnation story is bogus. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Human memory is unreliable anyway. We misremember details about our own lives. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Past life regression is, indeed, the most popular form of "research" into "past lives". But it, of course, is not considered legitimate research by anyone but the believers in the technique. It was even pooh-poohed by the likes of Ian Stevenson. jps (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello jps, in regards to your edit where you said "This is really all this is. It's not really academic because most of this work was not published in the relevant journals but instead in obscure or parapsychology outfits." please note that this is entirely incorrect as the past-life memory stuff has been published in the following peer-reviewed (i.e. academic) journals: Specifically, the "Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories" is peer-reviewed in the International Journal of Sexual Health, "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance" is peer-reviewed in Medical Hypotheses, "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation" is peer-reviewed in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects" was peer-reviewed in two journals: Omega, and the Journal of the American Society for Physical Research. We need to fix this back because all of the references are messed up. I have no clue why tgeorgescu bothered to undo my Barbro Karlén edits when the Wikipedia Fringe Theory noticeboard literally said it is a notable reference. Also I am upset tgeorgescu took away my "Further Reading" links as they were meant to provide the scientific explanation for this without me having to spell it out. So I'm adding this all back. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I also want to add, the title "Past-life memories as an academic field" is neutral!!!!!! It says nothing about whether the pursuits show reincarnation and past-life memories are real or not. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "neutral" when it isn't factual. The facts of the matter are that reincarnation is not really studied by anyone but a vanishingly few number of fringe academics. To give it the veneer of respectability by not couching it as as the WP:FRINGE work it is would be misleading to the reader. jps (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey jps, I also added cyclic model back, which undoes your edit where you commented: "cyclic model has nothing to do with reincarnation except for perhaps the appeal it has to believers in such.", not necessarily permanent, I just ask this from you: Why would we not have "further reading" links here for both those who believe and for those who don't believe in reincarnation? LightProof1995 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:FRIND we need sources from journals that are high impact and highly regarded, not out-of-the-way outfits and not pocket journals. Certainly not the horrible sources you are proposing. Note that right now you are engaging in WP:PROFRINGE editing. I am going to revert now and we can discuss one by one. No one in science or academia save the very few we already identify takes reincarnation seriously. The attempt to shoehorn in concepts from physics which say absolutely nothing about reincarnation is not okay. jps (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, what are the "horrible sources" I am referencing? Surely you don't mean the peer-reviewed journals...

I also found this book written by an Indian physicist, Dr. Amit Goswami, that mentions both reincarnation and string theory: "Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality". LightProof1995 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

As is sometimes said around here, "[Peer review] is not magic pixie dust." Journals are only as good as the editors and reviewers that they get. For example, the journal Medical Hypotheses is known to be absolutely problematic and I think is on our list of sources never to use (at WP:RS). Amit Goswami is a blast from the past. You can see where his page redirects to on Wikipedia. In short, not exactly the sort of up-and-up physicist we would rely upon. I can name all sorts of pseudophysicists like Goswami who use their credentials to hawk problematic claims. The proof is in the citation. Goswami is making extraordinary claims for which he does not have extraordinary evidence. If he did, he'd probably have a Nobel Prize. jps (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow you are right about the Medical Hypotheses hahahaha. Journal of the American Society for Physical Research seems to be specifically paranormal as well. I think the International Journal of Sexual Health, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, and Omega are all good peer-reviewed journals though. As for Goswami, the documentary he was in seemed to be criticized for having a bunch of experts in it, but then maybe misconstruing what they said. So I am not holding it against him that he was in that film lol, and his book sounds like it has both a lot of physics and reincarnation in it even though it doesn't sound like it attempts to explain everything down to the quark, so I included it in further reading along with Barbro's book. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that these articles are pretty obscure according to their citation count. Two of them featured on retraction watch which I think may be indicative. I think we need more independent notice before discussing them at this broad article. jps (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I can find absolutely zero reliable sources which connect the cyclic model of cosmology to reincarnation. Sources which do so would be interesting, to say the least. We would want someone who knows enough about physics/cosmology writing the source, by the way. jps (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey jps, thank you for the WP:PROFRINGE link. I am a newer editor so I didn't know the rule about how there must be source about the topic that also mentions the topic I am trying to reference. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I edited out this half-sentence: "Psychiatrists who believe in past lives have made claims that they can..." LightProof1995 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I think your movement of Stevenson's xenoglossy claims down to past life regression was a mistake. I moved that back. jps (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It was not an accident lol. I felt the xenoglossy fit better under the past-life regression section, but it also doesn't fit as the last paragraph of the section, so I'm not sure where it should go lol. I don't think it should go with the "children remembering past life memories" section though because it was adults under hypnosis, instead of children spontaneously stating details/memories of someone else. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that these accounts Stevenson argues for are not just kids, though I think Stevenson's cases are all about people who first reported remembering past lives as children. Stevenson did not like past life regression, but for some reason he did make an exception for people speaking other languages. Hmm... as usual, things get more complicated the more carefully you look. I think Stevenson really did not like the bad name the regression people gave to his work, but at the same time he dabbled in similar dubious hypnotic/suggestive evidence gathering (although I believe he himself never performed hypnosis). Maybe we just remove children and leave it at that? jps (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I do want to make it clear that we need to be as honest to the reader as possible when it comes to what the most famous claims actually are. I think Stevenson and Jim Tucker are right up there. However, there are a lot of others who make these claims that may be famous. What we need to establish fame is references that outsiders consider to be relevant and important claims in the area. Ben Radford, for example, mentions Bridey Murphy. I'm not clear whether that deserves mention or not, but a systematic treatment of sources is something that we've been needing for a while now. jps (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I just read about Bridey Murphy. I've been on the Vital Wikipedia pages because I just discovered them. I propose we can use similar methods here to determine which reincarnation cases to include.

Method #1 Voting -- A Suggestion for a reincarnation case to include is made. After 15 days have passed, if there are 3+ votes with 2/3%+ to add, we add.

Method #2 Bold -- We assume if someone bothers to make a bold edit and just include a reincarnation case, if it is well-written, then it is a notable case.

Method #3 Discussion -- The importance of a reincarnation case being included is determined by discussion alone. No one should add a case without at least mentioning it on here with a case for why it should be included, and if no one writes a better discussion arguing why someone shouldn't be included, whoever propositioned the case may go ahead and include it.

Here's a list of cases, feel free to add:

==Real memories, i.e. children usually ages 2-5==

King James IV --> Ada F. Kay (Note her page currently states she had memories only the night before visiting where KJ4 was killed, but according to her psi-encyclopedia page linked below, she had memories of being him from a young age).

Anne Frank --> Barbro Karlén

The Dalai Lama (14th) (Already included)

Ibrahim Bouhamzy --> Imad Elawar

James Huston --> James Leininger

Marilyn Monroe --> Sherrie Lea Laird

Marty Martyn --> Ryan Hammons

Princess Diana --> Billy Campbell, son of David Campbell

Said Bouhamzy --> Sleimann Bouhamzy

==Fake memories, formulated by an adult's mind under hypnosis==

Bridey Murphy --> Virginia Tighe

Links to Psi-Encyclopedia pages (I am not from there lol):

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/famous-past-life-claims

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/imad-elawar-reincarnation-case

Right now we are using both Methods 2 and 3. I'm personally only using 3 but am okay with 1.

No, we are not merging these as one category. Here is why.

"Dr. Ian Stevenson's work cannot be evidence of reincarnation because there is no proposed scientific mechanism for it, therefore it can't be true." is a false statement.

"Dr. Ian Stevenson's work could be evidence that reincarnation is real and we just don't understand the science of our world well enough to describe how it occurs." is a true statement.

Besides, the answer is string theory. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

String theory isn't physics, it is applied maths, since there's not a shred of evidence that string theory could be true. Mainstream science does not study God, the supernatural, and reincarnation, so those who claim to do science about these do in fact pseudoscience and their writings do not fulfill the requirements of WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, anyone who says string theory with reincarnation is believing in Quantum mysticism. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: True, but is that "good" or is that "bad"? AFAIK quantum mysticism isn't mainstream science, if it ever was. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Both string theory and reincarnation are science. Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science. Science is not always about explaining or understanding phenomena. Instead, it is the scientific method. Ian Stevenson and Allan Kardec both used the scientific method and came up with astounding results, but that doesn’t mean the results are wrong. My sources are good for this page. Please see AdS/CFT correspondence as proof string theory is in fact 1. Physics and 2. Highly cited physics. Also, I vote James Leininger as first to be added.LightProof1995 (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Votes don't count, see WP:VOTE. And the idea that Kardec did science is frankly bizarre. Perhaps you should quit editing articles that have to do with science: you clearly don't understand what science is.

When there will be a shred of empirical evidence in favor of string theory, it will become physics. Till then it remains applied math, even Sylvester James Gates stated so in his course for The Great Courses.

You might notice that the article AdS/CFT correspondence does not contain anything starting with "fals" (as in falsifiability), nor anything starting with "empir" (as in empiricism), nor anything starting with "test" (as in testing). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Great. Good to know votes don’t count. I have a bachelors of science degree. I am able to delineate a wetland and program in assembly language. You do know the “applied” in the phrase “applied mathematics” refers to the math being applied to another discipline, e.g. physics, right…? You telling me I “don’t under science” and shouldn’t “edit science articles” is not WP:ETIQUETTE. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are bizarre, pro domo, ad hoc, and ignorant of everything epistemology stands for. It seems that you have never had a course in epistemology, and that's a standard course in any science faculty. E.g. Even Spiritism, where mediums were interviewed, is science. is completely ROFLMAO. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I can program in Assembly Language too (or used to be able to--I stick with C nowadays), but it never occurred to me to think that gave me any scientific expertise whatsoever. A Bachelors of Science degree doen't necessarily have anthing to do with science, despite the name. I have a Bachelors of Art, among various other degrees and certificates. That doesn't make me an artist. I never took a single art class. In any case, it seems to me that whether a particular subject should be considered science depends on whether 1) the overwhelming majority of its practitioners approach it scientificly and whether 2) the subject is susceptible to scientific treatment. I would judge that reincarnation fails to meet these criteria. The reincarnation studies I'm aware of that purport to be scientific merely compile anecdotal accounts. TheScotch (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable claimants

I think LightProof1995's list is a good start, but I think what we need to do is find sources that show why and how these claimants are more notable than the oodles of others that are out there. I also don't think we should be in the business of listing people who don't have wikiarticles and are not likely to have them. These need to be blockbuster stories because this is a top-level article. I am going to reproduce the list of people (and add some others I'm finding here on WP) that may be worth including here and hope that users add sources beneath them for us to consider. Keep a close eye on WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, etc! jps (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ada F. Kay
• Barbro Karlén
• Dalai Lama
• Bridey Murphy
• Jenny Cockell
• William W. Davies
• Shanti Devi
• Divine Truth
• Dorothy Eady
• Arthur Flowerdew
• Marie-Paule Giguère
• Joan Grant
• Robert_Matthews_(religious_figure)

References

reference for "researchers such as Stevenson acknowledged these claims".

(Section: Reincarnation#Claims of past lives)

This sentence does not appear well-supported. The reference is to a Washington Post article which contains the line "But Dr. Stevenson himself recognized one glaring flaw in his case for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body." Firstly, the only thing this says Stevenson acknowledges is the lack of a physical mechanism, whereas the previous paragraph in the Wikipedia article lists other criticisms as well, such as cherry-picking, unreliability of memory and fabrication to obtain money. As it is, it sounds like Stevenson is acknowledging these criticisms too, which is definitely not in the reference.

Secondly, I feel this requires a primary source. What exactly did Stevenson say? It could have been sth like "we don't yet have the full picture of a physical mechanism, but there is promising progress being made", or "it is, admittedly, very hard to see what physical mechanism could support these past life memories". These are very different things, and both could have been paraphrased as the line from the Washington Post. Also, it mentions personality transferring to another body, which is not really the same thing as memory. The only thing we can actually say is "One journalist has written that Stevenson himself acknowledged the lack of a physical mechanism by which personality could transfer to another body after death". I'd say it's better to just remove the line until there is a better source. The Washington Post journalist also wrote a book about Stevenson's work. If someone has access, maybe they could find something in there? Bollus101 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. We should not make Stevenson appear smarter than he actually is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point; go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)