Talk:Eben Alexander (author)

Help convert this to a legitimate article
Raymond Moody provides an example.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Résumé
So far this article is nothing but a résumé of the "I Love Me" variety. As it stands now, it is highly deletable. Please, someone, put something substantial in it! Oh, I know! How about something about the controversy engendered by his current bizarre best-seller?? 69.255.153.126 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! I'm waiting for your edit wit bated fingers.--Pawyilee (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't wait too long, or you might not like what you get... 69.255.153.126 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Article title
The Wikipedia style guide discourages using titles and degrees in article titles, but allows Sr/Jr/III as disambiguators. I believe this article's title should be Eben Alexander, III, especially since his father was also a neurosurgeon (so "(neurosurgeon)" would not disambiguate effectively). --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider Eben Alexander (author), since he doesn't use the III in his byline, and it is as author rather than as M.D., neurosurgeon or great-great-grandson of the original Eben Alexander that he became notable. I initially started this article as "III" but Eben Alexander III (without a comma) redirects to Eben Alexander. I failed to note until now it's a circular redirect from the tagend of that article. Since I didn't find who the "III" related to, I went with M.D. The start-class French article Eben_Alexander_III uses III without a comma, but has even less info than this one.  Since the "III" relationship is given in the original article (even though our guy is really the IV,) then this could be moved as Macrakis proposes and disambiguated appropriately. If committed Wkipedians can transform this into a decent article, I'd like to read it; but if there's insufficient interest, I won't cry if this one is is deleted. In any case, remember to change Eben Alexander's hatnote and the III's redirect. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, Eben Alexander (author) is probably the best option. He's likely to be best remembered for that book regardless of whatever else he does or has done... 69.255.153.126 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's settled, what about the niggling little comma: should not one follow his family name? (I redirected the comma'd link.) --Pawyilee (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean Eben Alexander III versus Eben Alexander, III? I've never seen a comma there before, on anyone... I vote no comma. 69.255.153.126 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York Times agrees. Eben Alexander, M.D. redirects here, so the article needs a dab. Consider adding See also Simulation hypothesis. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Suffix (name) says use of the comma is an older form (like me) that is now optional (and mine's running out.)--Pawyilee (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Info box person
Started. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dab who's who
Eben Alexander "was the father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather of four Eben Alexanders, although his son, a Knoxville physician, is regarded as Eben Alexander, Sr. His grandson, called Eben Alexander, Jr., was a prominent neurosurgeon who served as Chief of Neurosurgery at Wake Forest University from 1948 to 1978. Eben Alexander III is also a neurosurgeon, at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and author of Proof of Heaven." As this is confusing, ‎EPadmirateur changed the dab to read For his great-grandfather, see Eben Alexander. which directs to the author's great-great-grandfather. Since junior or senior are not yet notable enough for articles of their own, we could leave it at that; or take pity on the befuddled and create Eben Alexander (disambiguation).--Pawyilee (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * EA III (this article) likes to say he is really Eben Alexander IV. What happened was the "initial" Eben Alexander was not considered EA I. So the lineage is:
 * Eben Alexander (1851-1910), ambassador -- progenitor
 * Eben Alexander, Sr., Knoxville physician -- son
 * Eben Alexander, Jr. (or II), neurosurgeon at Wake Forest University -- grandson
 * Eben Alexander III, neurosurgeon and author, born December 1953 -- great-grandson
 * Eben Alexander IV, studying neuroscience, born 1987 -- great-great-grandson


 * --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You not only got ahead of me, you obviously know more than I do. While you were posting here, I was creating new section Eben_Alexander. The new section lacks references; do you have them? Or a better ides how do it while integratimg the link to Suffix_(name)? --Pawyilee (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From the Generational titles section, it looks like the Eben Alexanders are actually pretty regular in their suffixes. The only references I have are to EA III's father and his son (EA IV) from Proof of Heaven. EA IV was born in 1987 (p. 12) and EA Jr. or II was a prominent neurosurgeon who was "chief of staff" at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, NC (pp. 50-52). EA III has said in his talks and interviews that EA IV was studying neuroscience at the time of the illness (2008). EA IV has probably gone on to graduate school in that or a related field. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer your layout to my prose entry (modified from the original.) Suggest using yours as Descendents of the same name, introduced by "His descendents use these generational suffixes," change ambassador to diplomat and scholar; link progenitor; add your reference at the end. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds great! --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one with the reference, so why don't you do it? --Pawyilee
 * Like! --Pawyilee (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Information Self-Published?
Good evening. I recently added a new paragraph to this article in order to keep it up-to-date and I described a recent commentary that was published in IANDS. I put a reference at the end of the paragraph, but for some reason it was removed anyway because it "appeared self-published." I am not sure why this is the case given that I cited my source, and I am certainly not the person who published the original commentary. It's a little disappointing spending a considerable amount of time and effort contributing and then having it all removed without any warning. Is it possible to somehow resolve this issue and hopefully have the content restored since it is well cited?

--Nikolozik (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, by self-published I wasn't implying that you published it; I was referring to the term as it appears in the Wikipedia policy WP:RS, the link I gave in the edit comment. It looks like falls under the category of group blogs and thus would not be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia to cite. Vzaak (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hi! I see what you mean. But actually the article is found in the News section of the website and it is not a blog. If you open the article as a pdf at http://iands.org/images/stories/pdf_downloads/esquire%20article%20on%20eben%20alexander%20distorts%20the%20facts.pdf, it appears as a regular article and the format does not resemble that of a blog. And as far as I know, the IANDS is considered to be a pretty well-known and respectable organization. --Nikolozik (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact the IANDS is the organization that regularly publishes the Journal Of Near Death Studies, which is the only peer-reviewed scholarly journal in the field. --Nikolozik (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well a website that publishes blog-like entries under the title "News" is quite distinct from a news organization that publishes a blog that is held to journalistic standards. The biographies of living persons policy is pretty clear, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (WP:BLPSPS). You could solicit a second opinion at WP:RSN, but I expect they would tell you the same thing. Vzaak (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When is it pushing a POV?
In the "Criticisms" section I made a slight change to the following text:

"Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by scientists, including neuroscientist Sam Harris, who described ..."

The change I made was based on a quote from Wikipedia which describes Harris as "a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism"." The changed version therefore reads as follows:

"Alexander’s book and publicity campaign have been criticized by others. This includes neuroscientist, critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism, Sam Harris, who described... "

Vzaak has removed my change, claiming that in giving this added information about Harris, I am pushing a POV. Harris' statements, he says, were made as a scientist.

As a first-attempt-at-editing contributor, I am puzzled. I thought that I was precisely removing a POV entry, namely the POV that when people make claims "as scientists" then it is not necessary to know anything more about their views of life, because, as scientists they are bound to be absolutely objective. In my view, Harris is not a dispassionate observer calmly reviewing Alexander's work. Rather, he is someone whose entire reputation rests on the falsity of Alexander's claims. That does not make Harris' statement false, but knowledge about who and what Harris stands for surely helps the reader to assess Harris' statements.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am "agnostic" about Alexander's claims. I think that Harris and Oliver Sacks raise perfectly relevant criticisms about his claims, and he needs to respond appropriately to them. Nevertheless, I fail to see how I push a POV if I expose Harris as someone with his own very strong and committed POV. CarlosChio (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia shouldn't embrace the genetic fallacy with open arms. Imagine reading the following line in an encyclopedia: "John Doe, who is black, argued that blacks scored lower on these IQ tests due to sociological factors unrelated to intelligence." If that sentence is as unseemly to you as it is to me, then you should also rule out less obvious manifestations of the genetic fallacy. Vzaak (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider the following statements:
 * 1. "Jane Deer argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."
 * 2. "Scientist, Jane Deer, argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."
 * 3. "Scientist and well-known Nazi, Jane Deer, argued that it is unscientific to believe that sociological factors explain why blacks scored lower on these IQ tests."

If we are to eschew the genetic fallacy as you suggest, then only statement 1 is admissible in an encyclopedia. The limited information about Jane in 2 already embraces the genetic fallacy, suggesting that she is a dispassionate observer.

The current text is not analogous to 1, but analogous to 2. Notwithstanding your genetic fallacy aversion, only statement 3 seems fully respectful of the reader's intelligence, allowing her to make up her own mind about the controversy. In suppressing relevant information, both statements 1 and 2 seem manipulative and indeed deceitful. Admittedly, the text partially redeems itself by providing a link to Harris's wikipedia page, but the casual reader is unlikely to follow the link. CarlosChio (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the genetic fallacy to mention qualifications that bear on the argument being made. Your item 2 is fine and is the way encyclopedias are written. For example see IQ, "Psychologists such as Alan S. Kaufman[107] and Nathan Brody[108] and statisticians such as Bernie Devlin[109] argue that there are insufficient data to conclude that this is because of genetic influences."


 * Please keep in mind that your reasoning leads to statements like "John Doe, who is black, argued that blacks scored lower on these IQ tests due to sociological factors unrelated to intelligence." According to your reasoning, since John Doe is not a dispassionate observer calmly reviewing IQ testing, readers should be informed of this and be allowed to make up their own mind about the controversy. Therefore the sentence should start "John Doe, who is black,..." No, that is inappropriate because being black has nothing to do with the argument being made. On the other hand being a psychologist (for example) is relevant.


 * It may very well be true that John Doe is not a dispassionate observer, but the argument he makes stands on its own and should not be poisoned by its genetic origin. Vzaak (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is one thing to speak of "John Doe, who is Black,..." (he cannot help but be Black) and quite another to speak of "John Doe, prominent figure in the black rights movement, ...." (he has made a positive choice to be engaged in that movement). It is interesting that the views of psychologists and statisticians in IQ are contained in peer-reviewed sources. This is in contrast to the online references given for Harris and Sacks which do not seem to be peer-reviewed sources. And so the reader has to contend with neuroscientists denouncing a fellow neuroscientist for being anti-scientific even though none of the neuroscientists have not subjected their positions to the scrutiny of their peer group. Notwithstanding the difficulties I have with your reasoning, I shall nevertheless acquiesce in your ruling and take consolation in the fact that the text gives references to to Wikipedia pages for Harris and Sacks. CarlosChio (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, see WP:PARITY. Rebuttal of self-published work is not required to be peer-reviewed. This only makes sense. Alexander's book isn't peer-reviewed. Vzaak (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors:

In response to the Sam Harris statement, I offer some or all of the following:

"Computer scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup challenged Sam Harris's accusation with a viewpoint supporting the more scientific stance of Alexander's argument. "I believe there to be a couple of faulty assumptions in Harris' argument. The most glaring one is reflected in this segment of his post: 'His experience sounds so much like a DMT trip that we are not only in the right ballpark, we are talking about the stitching on the same ball.' The implicit suggestion is that, because of similarities between a psychedelic experience -- DMT is a psychedelic compound that occurs naturally in the human body -- and Alexander's NDE, the latter was likely generated by brain chemistry and, therefore, mere hallucination. Underlying this suggestion is the completely unsubstantiated assumption that no valid transcendental experience can be initiated by physical means, like alterations of brain chemistry...So Harris' assumption that a physical trigger cannot lead to a perfectly valid NDE seems to completely miss the point in contention... Therefore, Harris' comparison does not at all refute the validity of Alexander's NDE... The potential similarities of his experience with a psychedelic trance rather corroborate the reality of Alexander's NDE, since the mechanisms involved should indeed be analogous. After all, both Alexander's meningitis and psychedelics reduce brain activity...

"The more regrettable aspect of Harris' criticism is an overt attempt to discredit Alexander's capacity to judge whether his NDE could be explained by traditional neuroscience. This is embedded in a quote from his UCLA thesis advisor that Harris adds to his post: 'Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them.' The claim here seems to be that Alexander, a then-practicing neurosurgeon and former professor at Harvard Medical School, does not understand what part of the brain does what, or what level of injury is sufficient to impair those brain regions. How plausible is this? What motivates this kind of argument?...

"Scientism activists casually take the liberty to throw all scientific caution to the wind when peddling the notion that consciousness is generated by the brain, even though nobody has the faintest idea how that can possibly be the case. Their activism flies in the face of reason, passing speculation and hypotheses for fact. It aims directly at convincing lay people of a particular agenda, rather like politicians do during electoral campaigns. Harris' thinking seems to be like this: 'Since the reports of NDEs are such that I can eliminate all theoretical possibilities I can think of, then NDEs can only be delusions and confabulations, despite all evidence to the contrary.' Well, this thinking doesn't say much about NDEs; it speaks only to Harris' ability to devise theoretical alternatives. In conclusion, whether Eben Alexander's 'trip to heaven' was a valid experience or not, Sam Harris' arguments against it simply don't hold up to reason, empirical honesty and clear thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Certain anchors to earth time in memory"
Does anybody know what Alexander means by that (e. g. here) and may add the crucial information?--Der Spion (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He's referring to his assertion in "Proof of Heaven" that the first appearance of an image of a particular person he knew in waking life within his NDE visions could be referenced to the actual first arrival of the particular visitor at his bedside. This "correlation", he believes, indicates at what point in "earth time" particular NDE experiences occurred. This he uses to support his idea that the NDE experiences were occuring over a prolonged length of time and during an extemely toxic stage of his infection and not very quickly and on the final, highly confused, recovery stage termed "reboot". Interesting but of course still wide open to criticism.Marceve1 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight on Alexander's responses
The mainstream view should be clearly described in relation to the fringe view. The current he-said/she-said format lends itself to a false dichotomy that would seem to violate WP:FRINGE. Alexander's response to the Esquire article seems fine as is, but the second response -- especially the length of it -- seems like undue weight. As a compromise, perhaps the second response could be placed in a footnote. vzaak 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to put both criticism and response in a context that allows the reader to receive a good and complete overview of the whole discussion. But, for sure, you won't achive that by amputating the line of argumentation on either side.--Der Spion (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not give fringe views equal weight or validity to mainstream views. See WP:GEVAL WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE. vzaak 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing WP:COPYVIO and unreliable sources
This is a copyright violation. As I explained in the edit comment, it is also unduly promotional, especially considering the length already afforded in Alexander's quoted response. Do not restore plagiarism on Wikipedia under any circumstances.

This is not a reliable source. It is also unduly promotional. vzaak 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See above.--Der Spion (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Laura Potter Esquire misrepresentation quote
I keep seeing this quote, attributed to Dr. Laura Potter (a huge source for criticisms in the Esquire article), floating around. It reads like a press statement. Can anyone help track down the original/authoritative source of the quote? If it is real, it seems highly relevant to the section on the article.

“I am saddened by and gravely disappointed by the article recently published in Esquire. The content attributed to me is both out of context and does not accurately portray the events around Dr. Eben Alexander’s hospitalization. I felt my side of the story was misrepresented by the reporter. I believe Dr. Alexander has made every attempt to be factual in his accounting of events.” — Dr. Laura Potter --Sackandsugar (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts
http://iands.org/news/news/front-page-news/970-esquire-article-on-eben-alexander-distorts-the-facts.html

I've found this article on the IANDS website and I think it should be summarized and added to the Criticism and reaction section. 110.174.166.224 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eben Alexander (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/paperback-nonfiction/list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Malpractice
Perhaps this bio should include some information on Alexander's extensive history of malpractice lawsuits? Including the occasion when he screwed up a vertebrae fusion and tried to cover it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.160.50 (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Criticism and reaction section already starts with a mention of this, with a reliable source. If there is additional significant information documented in reliable sources, it can be added. But WP articles aren't the right place to air personal grievances. --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors (from Eben Alexander MD):

I propose that the following statement be removed: "Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. He settled five malpractice suits in Virginia within a period of ten years.[13]"

This is a fully inflammatory, slanderous and libelous statement that i a distortion of fact. It implies Dr Alexander was at fault for leaving two institutions, when in fact the conflicts resulted from offenses by a Neurosurgical Chief (at Brigham & Women's Hospital) who was later himself terminated for issues related to Alexander's firing, and a Surgical Chief (UMass Memorial in Worcester) who released 14 other surgeons over a year or so, including Dr Alexander, and including 3 of the other 4 neurosurgeons, and was then terminated himself. Dr Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice. Neurosurgeons are sued more than any other specialty, and a NEJM report in 2013 revealed that on average a neurosurgeon in the US can be expected to be sued every five years [ref http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370].

As to alteration of medical records, three state medical boards and the American Board of Neurological Surgeons investigated those allegations and found them to be spurious, fully restoring his license in all three states and his board certification.

Please help delete these misleading statements from this article. These fake facts are there to distract people from the main features of Dr Alexander's story -- they do a great disservice to the world by being injected as more inflammation to Dittrich's sadly self-destructive reporting. Note that Dittrich might have been an award winning journalist leading up to his hatchet attack on Dr Alexander, but that he has become a pariah in the publishing industry, barely able to get any stories published since he left Esquire July 2014. This can be understood by reading the charges against him leveled in Dr Robert Mays' investigation of Luke around his attack on Dr Alexander:

"Great journalism or journalistic malpractice? "To Esquire's Editor in Chief David Granger, Luke Dittrich's story is great journalism. "To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures:

"failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama).

"And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused. I am sure Luke Dittrich and his editors felt completely justified, based on what they felt was a solid case against Eben Alexander. They probably also considered the negative effect that Dittrich's article and its conclusions would have on Alexander and others, and similarly felt justified. In their minds, Eben Alexander is a complete fraud and deserves to be exposed as such.

"But did Luke Dittrich and his editors exercise sufficient care in building their case? In my opinion they did not: the facts presented in the article were distorted or completely wrong and the conclusions are totally unwarranted. And the result has been devastating to those people who know the facts and how utterly wrong they were portrayed in the article. They include all of the people I mentioned two paragraphs above, especially Dr. Laura Potter whose statements were misrepresented and distorted by Luke Dittrich to establish the central fact of his case. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama would be quite dismayed that his warm, supportive statements to Eben Alexander have been so cleverly distorted into the exact opposite of his meaning.

"But the person most harmed is Dr. Eben Alexander, whose reputation has been severely damaged on the basis of Dittrich's erroneous, distorted judgments. From now on, many people will associate Eben Alexander with altering records, embellishment, fabrication and delusion. Eben Alexander's response seems all the more relevant now that the facts are a little clearer:

"'I wrote a truthful account of my experiences in Proof of Heaven and have acknowledged in the book both my professional and personal accomplishments and my setbacks. I stand by every word in this book and have made its message the purpose of my life. Esquire's cynical article distorts the facts of my 25-year career as a neurosurgeon and is a textbook example of how unsupported assertions and cherry-picked information can be assembled at the expense of the truth. (emphasis added)'

"And what of the other allegations insinuated or leveled at Eben Alexander? He deserves to have his side of these cases heard as well. Dr. Alexander’s 25-year neurosurgical career included over 4,000 surgeries. Luke Dittrich does not have a good track record with the truth with respect to Eben Alexander: one cannot trust Dittrich's portrayal of the facts.

"The most serious of the cases Dittrich cites, that Dr. Alexander altered medical records in a case of wrong-level spine surgery, similarly distorts the truth, according to Dr. Alexander. The patient in question had excellent relief of his symptoms after Dr. Alexander's surgery, delaying Alexander’s discovery that surgery had been performed at an unintended level. Dr. Alexander corrected the record to reflect the newly learned facts of the case, and disclosed the surgical error to all parties after follow up revealed a genuine surgical benefit. After full investigation by three state medical boards and the American Board of Neurological Surgeons, Dr. Alexander continued to practice medicine without restriction, with his board certification intact.

"From his investigative work, Luke Dittrich knows something about malpractice. In professions like medical and legal practice, malpractice involves negligence or incompetence on the part of a professional. This would entail the failure to exercise the degree of skill, prudence and diligence ordinarily expected of a member of the profession. Malpractice is not ordinarily used for journalistic practice. However, there are certain informal ethics and standards of behavior that apply, particularly within a given publishing organization.

"The content of Luke Dittrich's article certainly raises the question as to what standards were applied to it by Esquire. In my opinion, Mr. Dittrich's actions in investigating and writing the article and Esquire's unabashed endorsement of it rise to the level of malpractice."

ref: https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in-the-news/970-esquire-article-on-eben-alexander-distorts-the-facts.html

If Wikipedia wants to present a fair depiction of these issues, I suggest the full flavor of Dittrich's attack, widely recognized by the publishing industry by his inability to publish new articles, be reflected. In truth, Dittrich inserted all of this inflammatory and damaging ad hominem material to distract people from Alexander's central message, which is very important for this world to hear. I hope you understand, and will help me set the record straight.

I alos made several edits correcting the Sam Harris material, but Godric on Leave deleted them all. This is most frustrating. How can we clean up this slanderous and libelous Wikipedia post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest. All this is far too long and ponderous to make any sense out of, (TLDR), so I suggest you break it down a little lot into more easily handled chunks, citing reliable sources WP:RS. I'm also pretty convinced that your last sentence is a legal threat per WP:NLT. Do not make legal threats here or you will be prevented from editing. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not the original poster, but the TLDR version is to remove the statement that, for reasons given in too much detail, does not meet requirements for biographies of living persons. 2601:181:C300:541A:6938:C189:12AE:1A89 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved from user talk page: background bio information for context
I propose adding the following paragraph as the initial introduction at very top of Wikipedia page:

Eben Alexander III (born December 11, 1953) is an American neurosurgeon and the author of the book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012), in which he describes his 2008 near-death experience and asserts that science can and will determine that the brain does not create consciousness and that consciousness survives bodily death. Dr. Alexander's achievements include driving advances in linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery, illustrating the role radiosurgery could provide in managing brain metastases (a frequently utilized application globally for this technology) , participating in the development of an intraoperative MRI system  , and directing research for developing focused ultrasound surgery as head of brain research for the Focused Ultrasound Surgery Foundation , the position he held when he suffered his meningitis-induced near-death experience in 2008. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, over 50 invited chapters, and nine books.

adminhelp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotideypoc41352 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Proof of Heaven
This article's section seems overly long and redundant with the main article Proof of Heaven. Another possibility would be merging the article here... — Paleo Neonate  – 03:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Now reworked, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Living in a Mindful Universe
Was this book less successful? The current entry is very promotional and is supported by suboptimal sources. A quick search showed bookstores but independent reviews appear to be rare. — Paleo Neonate  – 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: shortened for now, — Paleo Neonate  – 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Eternea
First time suggesting edits and stuff, so bare with me. Why doesn't this article mention anything about Eben's global non-profit research organization Eternea? I would imagine its an important thing to mention in a biography. According to an excerpt from the back of the book "Proof of Heaven", as well as the website eternea.com he is a co-founder of this organization along with John R Audette (link here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruooop (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help correct the intro paragraph, especially cause of coma, no claim of brain death
There is no reliable reference to claim that a "medically-induced coma" is factual. The provided peer-reviewed medical journal reference (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease) clearly states it was not a medically-induced coma. This is highly misleading to Wikipedia users, who are expecting unbiased facts.

There is no reference to any assertions from myself (Eben Alexander III MD) claiming "brain death," there are plenty of references of my assertions of severe incapacitation of the neocortex.

Following is a correct version of facts:

"Eben Alexander III (born December 11, 1953) is an American neurosurgeon and author. His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 during a coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis. "His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug- induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued". [1] He asserts that the coma resulted in severe incapacitation of his neocortex, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife. Alexander has also authored follow-up books."

With reference to [1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/09/Greyson_-Alexander-JNMD-2018.pdf

Thanks for your help.

Need more factual information
Numerous times over the years, I have contacted the various editors of my Wikipedia page, primarily to inform them of the many ways in which a July 2013 Esquire article on which much of the contents of my Wikipedia page has been fully debunked due to its gross, provable inaccuracies. The Esquire article has spawned much additional coverage reinforcing its fallacious statements. Most of the footnotes in my present Wikipedia profile fall under that category.

Further, scientific criticisms of Esquire’s reporting, all of which are detailed throughout the Talk page have been wholly disregarded. Today, I write because a new, nearly encyclopedic compendium of scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, much of which cites my near-death experience and medical case study report as published in the September 2018 Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, has emerged.

The Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies, the Las Vegas-based think tank founded in 2020 by aerospace executive Robert Bigelow, has just awarded $1.8 million to 29 essayists whose professions include physicians, research scientists, philosophers, sociologists, historians, physicists and therapists, who answered the query “What is the best scientific evidence for survival of human consciousness after physical death?”

The contest attracted more than 1,200 applicants and of those, 204 were invited to submit essays of up to 25,000 words that would be selected by a panel of six judges from the fields of medicine (neurology, psychiatry) academia (philosophy, physics), journalism and statistics. There were 29 winners – three top prize winners, 11 runners up and 15 honorable mentions. Applicants were required to provide evidence that they had investigated the topic of survival of human consciousness after death for a minimum of five years.

In November, the winners were announced. All 29 essays are now published on the Bigelow Institute website, Bigelow Institute. The half-million-dollar first prize was awarded to Jeffrey Mishlove, Ph.D. for the essay, Beyond the Brain: The Survival of Human Consciousness Following Permanent Bodily Death. Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel took the second prize for his essay, The Continuity of Consciousness: A Concept Based on Scientific Research on Near Death Experiences during Cardiac Arrest. The third prize was awarded to Dr. Leo Ruickbie for the essay Ghost in the Time Machine.

Both Drs. Mishlove and Ruickbie cite my near-death experience (NDE) as compelling evidence for the primordial nature of human consciousness. My medical case study report that sustained peer review was cited. Previously, I have shared with Wikipedia editors the report that published in the September 2018 Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, wherein three medical doctors not involved in my care during my 2008 week-long coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis (not a medically induced coma as Wikipedia notes in the sentence that leads of the Eben Alexander III, M.D. profile) examined my medical records nearly a decade after my illness and subsequent full recovery. The doctors, who included Bruce Greyson, M.D., were fascinated by my extraordinary recovery, and concluded that my demonstrably non-functioning brain could not have been responsible for the vivid experiences in coma I reported upon recovery. They asserted that medical science cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for my survival and return to full vibrant health, nor my recollections of experiencing another realm while my brain was fully compromised by infection, without appealing outside of conventional materialism. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is a highly respected peer-reviewed medical science journal and far from a “fringe source,” nor does it have a biased agenda.

Dr. Ruickbie specifically notes that “Since publishing his experiences in the New York Times best-seller Proof of Heaven, attempts have been made to tarnish Alexander’s reputation and undermine his credibility in respect of the claims made in the book.” In the related footnote, Ruickbie notes the July 2013 Esquire article and Robert Mays’ rebuttal to it, published in January 2016, of which I have made Wikipedia editors aware repeatedly. In the same footnote, he cites Esquire’s editing of the Dalai Lama’s statements which “were edited to present an opinion on Alexander that was contrary to his actual opinion.”

I feel it is important to note here the timestamp that demonstrates the intentional misquoting of the Dalai Lama from the May 2013 event I attended as his guest, which remains live on YouTube (Wikipedia forbids my posting the youtube link). The timestamp 44:30 to 49:08 provides the full context of the Dalai Lama’s statements regarding my NDE which was distorted in “The Prophet” article Esquire published.

In his Bigelow essay, Dr. Ruickbie asserts that Dr. Alexander has been “subjected to a public trial” and that “most of the allegations do not directly relate to his NDE” and those that do “simply [are] the opinions of people who were not present nor qualified to judge a medical case.” Ruickbie also notes that “Although the book…became a bestseller…there was no way of his knowing that at the time and a fabricated story about an NDE simply to make money would have been a long shot at best easily recognizable as such and difficult to maintain in the long term. On the contrary, Alexander’s case has been independently reviewed and verified…by a team of experts, including Dr. Bruce Greyson, who really has no need to risk his career and reputation supporting a bogus claim.”

Numerous Bigelow essays explore after death communications from loved ones, mediumship, reincarnation and related phenomena, the majority (more than 75 percent) explore, at least in part, the near-death experience, and of these, half cite my specific case as significant evidence for the survival of consciousness beyond bodily death. It is vital to note that the Bigelow Institute intends to broadly disseminate these essays in a bound volume, enabling the data to be reviewed at once.

I implore you to consider the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies as a credible source publishing the most current science providing copious evidence for the primordial nature of human consciousness and acknowledging my near-death death experience and medical case study as among the most compelling evidence, a complete counter to the narrative Esquire published in 2013. The Esquire article has been shown to be an unreliable, libelous and defamatory source  and should be removed altogether as a reference on Wikipedia, including its unfounded accusations of termination from hospital positions, and confusion around other aspects of the story, such as claims of “medically-induced coma” when Dr. Bruce Grayson and others clearly make the case that Dr. Alexander’s coma was caused by meningoencephalitis affecting all eight lobes of his brain. Likewise, parrot versions of the Esquire article, like the Wired article by Christian Jarrett [Jarrett, Christian (December 27, 2013). "Butterfly-riding Neurosurgeon Hits Turbulence". Wired.], should be eliminated from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Robert Bigelow has a long and colorful history in research into UFOs, cattle mutilations, and 'haunted' properties. I don't think there is any way we could regard his organization as a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Restored Criticism and reaction section.
An edit a long time ago [13:31, 15 February 2020‎] removed this entire section and other valid criticisms in the body. I reverted the vandalism. I hope this didn't cause any issues with edits made since. If so, I do apologize. 99.57.201.245 (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello IP. Thank you for restoring the content. However, a separate "criticism" section is not needed. Most of the criticism is about his book, so it can be covered in the same section. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

untitled
Since my edits have unfortunately been reverted, the question is: is Proof of Heaven (really) telling the truth about what happened to Eben Alexander?

And is there any way we can be sure of the survival of consciousness after death? Jquesada123 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:NOTFORUM. You seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and how it is written - Wikipedia is a summary of what the best independent sources have to say about a subject. In this case that means the Esquire article - and it rules out the sources you are attempting to insert, both of which are affiliated with Alexander and the International Association for Near-Death Studies, which is a WP:FRINGE group dedicated to advocating on this topic. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that readers of this article are being misled to believe that his coma was medically-induced when in reality it was caused by bacterial meningitis. And so is there any way we can say with confidence that his coma was meningitis-induced (not medically-induced)? Jquesada123 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That is Alexander's claim, but we have no sources that are not affiliated with him to use for our article. We have Esquire (who are directly quoting the ER doctor who worked on Alexander), and we will 'say with confidence' whatever they say - that is what Wikipedia's policies require. You are welcome to write to Esquire to see if they will print a retraction - as Mr. Alexander has been told several times, that is his path forward here. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)