Talk:Ian Stevenson/Archive 1

POV tag
POV: "provides evidence suggestive of reincarnation." ?

It does do that; the cases are in fact extremely compelling, no matter how difficult a theoretical challenge they offer in result (to my own beliefs included). Recommend pulling the POV tag since you appear to have already made the edit anyway. 69.145.82.2 06:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Deaths in 2007
It is official that this man died on February 8 2007, so why this was ever removed, I do not know. However, that means that he now has to go in the 2007 deaths category, and should not be counted as a "Living person". ACEOREVIVED 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Shroder
I think it would be good to have a paragraph about journalist Tom Shroder and the extended time he spent with Prof. Stevenson on fieldwork. Does anyone have more info? Thanks. Johnfos 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the book and am reading it now. What sort of inforamtion are you looking for? Arundhati bakshi 08:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan quote
The Washington Post obituary of Ian Stevenson was written by Tom Shroder, the editor of the Washington Post magazine, who also wrote the well-regarded book on Stevenson's work, "Old Souls." The reason that Shroder included the quote from Sagan is that Sagan was a leading debunker of claims of the paranormal -- indeed, that is a major part of what "The Demon-Haunted World" is about -- yet even Sagan grudgingly recognized that there was something in the work that Stevenson had pioneered that deserved further investigation. Sagan was clearly talking about Stevenson's work -- that's why Shroder put it in the Stevenson obituary, see? (The first time you removed the Stevenson quote, you substituted the statement, "However, the Washington Post has reported that Stevenson was no less a luminary than famous astronomer Carl Sagan," which was completely erroneous -- I honestly thought this was deliberate vandalism, since there was absolutely nothing in the Shroder obituary that compared Sagan to Stevenson.) The fact that the same Sagan passage that I have quoted is also referenced on the ]]Reincarnation Reserach]] page is not an argument against including it on the Stevenson page, but rather, another demonstration of its pertinence to the Stevenson page. So I am putting it back in.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FedDoc (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I appreciate that you are trying to make a contribution to this article, but the quote you're putting in seems not particularly relevant, interrupts the flow of the text, and is rather long and confusing. I think you're pushing a POV about the importance of reincarnation research.


 * Maybe if you indent the quote and close it with quotation marks that might help a little. And explain its relevance in the text. Maybe then things will be a bit clearer.


 * One thing that I think the article could do with is a paragraph about Tom Shroder's time with Stevenson. Can you help with that?  -- Johnfos 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think you're way off base on this. The passage you are referring to does not break any flow.  It is a single sentence at the end of a section.  It immediately follows a sentence that notes some people have criticized Stevenson's research methods -- citing a rather obscure source.  Quoting the observation of the famed scientist and debunker Sagan balances things out. The relevance of the Sagan quote was apparently also evident to Tom Shroder -- the closest person there is to a Stevenson biographer -- and to other editors at the Washington Post, or the passage would not have been included in the Stevenson obituary that Shroder wrote and the Post published. They didn't consider this sentence too long and confusing for Washington Post readers, and I don't think it is too long and confusing for Wikipedia readers, either.  As to expanding on the Shroder angle, I will see what I can find that is linkable.FedDoc 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess now. I'm not sure why you are using so many long quotes. You need to rely more on your own words. Introducing the source (eg., Washington Post) of a long quote in the main text is part of what interrupts the flow and I'm not sure why you do that. And I'm not sure why you would use two long quotes in a row. I still think you're pushing the point of view that reincarnation research is important and I'm not sure why you see the reference that is critical as being "obscure". I think you are playing down criticism of Stevenson. As it stands there is only one short sentence in the whole article that can be seen as direct criticism of him: "Further, some have questioned his objectivity in drawing conclusions from his research". And then immediately the tack is changed with the use of "However" and then we have five lines of response. There is no balance achieved here or in the article as a whole. And I really don't think it is very helpful to see Stevenson referred to as a "scientific legend" and "hero" in an encyclopedia article. So I'm adding a POV tag. -- Johnfos 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no rule against quoting paragraphs in encyclopedia articles. In a biographical article, it may often be appropriate to quote a paragraph or two, or more, from a well-regarded biography of the subject.


 * I didn't label Stevenson as a "scientific legend" and a "hero." That is part of an overview of his career offered by Tom Shoder, the Washington Post editor who wrote the only decent mainstream book about Stevenson. Shroder was observing that many people regarded Stevenson in those ways -- but this in the same paragraph that observes  that Stevenson was "largely ignored by his mainstream peers." If somebody wants to dig up some more scholarly critiques of Stevenson's work and quote some of them,too, that would be fine by me.  But the negative review currently linked as [10] is a rather juvenile piece of polemic by somebody named Richard Rockley, regarding whom absolutely no credentials are provided, posted on a, pardon me, obscure website. I am sure that somebody out there can do a lot better than that. FedDoc 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Page not reporting what he wrote or what his ideas or conclusions were, heavily BIASED AGAINST RE-INCARNATION
The page has a large bias against re-incarnation the subject that Ian studied in great detail. The page is dis-service to his efforts. He is dead, now we should do justice to report more facts about what he did and what he said then what we feel about those things.

It's a shame, the fanatism and the lack of intelectual honesty of the skeptical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.235.235 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stevenson's research is discussed in many WP articles
Articles which discuss Ian Stevenson's research include:


 * Reincarnation research
 * Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation
 * Xenoglossy
 * Reincarnation
 * Life Before Life

Links are provided to these in the Ian Stevenson article. -- Johnfos 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

External link suggestion
this talk of his clearly shows what I could loosely call "the research motivation received from his mystical experience of a sense of unity with a Great All and from other experiences which took away his doubts about the dual natures of mind and body." Twipley (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC) http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf

Picture of Ian
The pic on this page looks ugly due to over zoom, it needs to be adjusted in terms of pixels. How we do that ? Jon Ascton (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we stand a better chance of seeing somebody attend to this if you ask that question at the Village pump technical. __meco (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
This article has become unbalanced because material about skeptics views of Stevenson and his work has been removed. Johnfos (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the tag. Are there criticisms described in reliable sources that are not represented here? Mitsube (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence at issue is:


 * "Skeptics have questioned Stevenson's methodology and objectivity in drawing conclusions from his research."

When exploring skeptic's views, published material written by skeptics is the most reliable source of their views. Johnfos (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Those references don't qualify, try to find a published news-story or something, from a well known/well-reputed source. Greetings, Sacca 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary has been confirmed as a reliable source, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard, so I'm adding it back in... Johnfos (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is only reliable because of the publisher. The website is self-published and is not reliable. Mitsube (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. The book only got made because the reliable publisher concluded that the website content was reliable, and the website is made by the same guy as the book, so it's equivalent. That's how you tell if something is reliable: other reliable sources say so. And it's not just the publisher that agrees the site is reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know why the book got published? Why can we not use the book instead of the website? Mitsube (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spurned & Phyical Process bit
Hi I've tried to add some balance to comments about being spurned by critics - the Tom Shroder article points out that his critics didn't investigate his cases, so it seems a bit unreasonable to just leave the comment hanging that he was spurned by most scientists. Has anyone done a survey? These sorts of things always strike me as a bit weasle wordish, especially when followed by the mildly sensational emphasis about his own acknowledgement of a flaw in his argument. It doesn't seem to add anything factual to also describe it as a 'glaring flaw'. Blippy (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to find my edit reverted without comment beyond NPOV. I would suggest that my edit actually improved the NPOV here - it seems to me that there is a distinct pro-skeptic bias in the previous version. I have attempted to reword the edit slightly to make it more obvious where the perspective comes from. I'm afraid I lack sufficient experience with Wikipedia to know how NPOV's are decided, so I'm viewing this as a valuable learning opportunity if others feel that I am in error. Cheers Blippy (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, your edit is not neutral. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Verbal   chat  08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I had underestimated the passion this section seems to have tapped. I wont get into edit tennis, but thanks for directing me to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, I think they help to clarify the situation nicely.  I suggest that this is a case of allowing "good and unbiased research" to be discussed.  I am unaware of any other serious research school outside of the University of Virginia that tackles reincarnation, so I would suggest that whilst there may be opposing views and arguments to the validity of reincarnation, the only examples of "good and unbiased research" appears to originate from Stevenson's work.  Examples of other equally thorough research should be referenced here rather than making it seem that "the majority of scientists" have also conducted good and unbiased research into the field - a point that Shroder makes.   I am yet to find anyone describing Stevenson as other than genuine in his scientific endeavours - which make his work at the very least Questionable Science, if not an Alternative Theoretical Formulation, so I think this is a case of Wikipedia needing to describe the disputes alluded to rather than weighing in on one side or the other as seems to be the case here.  I note your disagreement with my view Verbal, but I think WP:FRINGE actually helps to justify my edits rather than your removal of them.  Cheers,  Blippy (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any serious research school. ;) I disagree with your interpretation, a journalist with close links to the subject is not a good source for criticism of expert critics. I am sorry I can't reply fully right now as I'm just going out. Maybe raise the issue at WP:FTN for broad input? Verbal   chat  12:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK that sounds like a good idea. This is all a bit new for me, so I welcome the learning curve!  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the article back. This is well sourced and important for the reader to know.207.58.129.52 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blippy and 207... The source is fine, the information is important, and the language more encyclopedic. "Glaring flaw" and "spurned" are emotive terms more befitting a tabloid newspaper than a dispassionate article in an encyclopedia.Burberry southsea (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are direct quotes. I'm not against Blippy's last edit, but Burberry southsea's go too far away from NPOV. Verbal   chat  12:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since nobody on talk objects to Blippy's version I have restored that for the time being. BTW, it doesn't matter if they are direct quotes. One of the things we can do as editors is tone down emotive language in order to produce a dispassionate NPOV article. Thank you. Burberry southsea (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) NPOV does not mean "whitewash" or "tone down" or "give undue weight to unsupported fringe views". KillerChihuahua?!? 12:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with KC that we shouldn't make Stevenson's work look better accepted (or better at all) than it actually was and is. I've made some further edits. Looking again I'm not sure why the "glaring flaw" quote should be removed. Perhaps it should be added after the current text, and maybe a longer quote? Verbal   chat  12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding one or two "scientists" that support something does not mean that it has any support in the scientific community. Verbal   chat  12:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, that is surely exactly what it means. The scientific community being the community of scientists qua scientists ("the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions" according to the article you cited). Secondly, here is another reliably sourced quote which has as much place in the article as the "glaring flaw", if not more.


 * Stevenson's studies were informed by an encyclopaedic knowledge of history, philosophy and the natural sciences but characterised above all by an empirical rigour. Shall we include this. Burberry southsea (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section "Speaking for the scientific community" for why you are wrong. Obits aren't good sources for such material, they are good sources for dates, qualifications, affiliations, etc. The glaring flaw quote is interesting as it comes from a supporter and is well sourced. Verbal   chat  13:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've done a little digging - I was concerned that KC may be misinformed about Stevenson by the "kook and charlatan" comment on one of the reverts.  I've found a couple of references to where Stevenson has been highly regarded by colleagues, and critics, in terms of his rigour.  I thought maybe it would be worth adding to the end of this "hotly" contested section to help clarify things.
 * Stevenson has been described by various colleagues as "methodical and thorough" and "meticulous[ly] diligen[t]" here and somewhat more famously as "either...making a colossal mistake, or he will be known as ‘the Galileo of the 20th century’” (R. Butziger, "A Scientific Look at Reincarnation.[Book or Media Review]", American Journal of Psychiatry. 162(4):823-824, April 2005.)
 * Thoughts? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick reply, see WP:PEACOCK. Verbal   chat  13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Longer reply, I'm liking the "little or no recognition from the scientific community" from the obit you linked better than your cherry-picked phrasing. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:PEACOCK bit - that's handy. I note that it specifies that "Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of a topic".  I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that Stevenson appears to be misunderstood by at least one of the people editing this article.  What I'm suggesting - and think I've gone some way to doing - is reflecting _qualified_ opinion in order to establish the significance of Stevenson's approach - whatever his actual results are/were.  I think that it is unfortunate that someone would edit this page based on a false assumption.  I realise some critics have suggested that Stevenson's approach may have been/was flawed methodologically, but this in no way speaks to the scientific integrity of the man.  I really think that it is important for editors of this page to at least acknowledge that Stevenson was not reasonably described as a "kook or charlatan".  This may well explain some of the enthusiastic edits and reversions here - a fundamental minsunderstanding of the person in question.  How could we go about clarifying/fixing this?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was probably not the best phrasing for me to use in that edit summary, but please note it is not, and has not been put, in the article. There is no point arguing about poor phrasing in an edit summary as we cannot change or edit those. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasn't meaning the edit summary, I meant the misunderstanding. I'm sure you would agree that if you are making changes because you are under the misapprehension that Stevenson was a kook or charlatan, then that can't be good for the quality of the article and may drive you to make edits and reversions not otherwise warranted.  That's the main point I'm trying to get across.  There appears to be ample evidence that Stevenson was a first rate researcher - and had he turned his talents to something less controversial would have had a very different approach to his bio.  I'm not confident that the reality of the situation is being reflected in the article.  It seems as though some people here do not believe that it is possible to be a thorough and diligent scientist researching a controversial field, as if the topic itself is somehow so toxic that no rigourous methodology can withstand its effects!!  So that's the nature of my question, how can we go about clarifying the situation about Stevenson as having been someone in this position i.e. careful scientist in a fringe area.  I think there will continue to be 'edit tennis' until there is broader agreement that Stevenson was attempting to provide an Alternative Theoretical Formulation - regardless of how un/successful he was.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of the criticism given by Walter Peck to Dr Peter Venkman. Verbal   chat  08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reaction to Stevenson's Research
I've been thinking that it would be worth including a section on the reaction to Stevenson's work. That way it should be possible to clarify that his efforts and methods were both praised and criticised, rather than the somewhat myopic view that currently exists. After all, this page is about Stevenson, and I think it would be unfortunate if the reader was unaware of the meticulous nature of his efforts - again, regardless of any results, impact, or flaws. What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY. Verbal   chat  08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather thought that was my point. Are you suggesting that I am attempting to push a personal view?  Can you provide some further information/explanation/evidence for that?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote you have just added replaced impartial description with needless puffery, and is not about Stevenson. Verbal   chat  08:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you quote the quote please? I've been working on the article for a while today, so I'm not sure which bit you're referring too.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of them are useless puffery, now, but I was referring to the description of DOPS. Verbal   chat  08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ok I'll try to do it for you. Do you mean the DOPS raison detre and the Galileo bit?  Didn't I add them after your claim of WP:ADVOCACY?  I'm happy to discuss all of them, but I'm particularly interested in what triggered your original observation.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What could be seen as attempts to whitewash this page and advocate for Stevenson and reincarnation research, and minimise the extensive, mainstream, view. This is against WP:NPOV. WP:COATRACK may also be relevant if you want to add more material about DOPS. The puffery needs to go. Verbal   chat  08:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I didn't see your previous answer before I posted the above - and I've just had an edit conflict with you while typing this; I'll slow down my exchanges so I can better keep track of your responses. Here's what I wrote initially, I'll respond to the whitewash comment shortly.
 * I fail to see how quoting the founding principle of DOPS is me pushing a personal view, or puffery. I thought I was merely stating a fact.  If you think it is overly flattering I imagine you would need to take it up with DOPS.  Similarly with the quote about Stevenson by Lief.  These are both WP:RS, and both relevant I believe.  You happen to be one of the many who believe that Stevenson was making a colossal mistake - and you may be right.  That in no way detracts from the fact that this is how he was described - and it speaks precisely to my earlier points about the regard with which Stevenson was held by colleagues and critics alike.  This isn't my personal view, it's the professional and/or personal views of others about Stevenson - I never knew the man.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. Verbal   chat  09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

outdent Hi. First I'd like to thank you for coming here rather than simply reverting. Second, I think the notion of whitewashing is inaccurate. In a different context you might be on firmer ground, but the section in question is about DOPS. This can't possibly be a WP:COATRACK since Stevenson founded DOPS and is notable because of his work there. If we are going to provide information about DOPS - which I don't think anyone would reasonably dispute - then the founding principle is surely relevant since that is *why* Stevenson founded it. You can't describe the founding principle as me merely producing 'puffery' - it's just their founding principle. If you want to include some other RS about/commenting on the founding principle then by all means do so, but what is already there is certainly relevant, factual and from a RS. The Galileo quote is from a critic. More importantly, it highlights - and I believe accurately conveys - the dilemma Stevenson was placed in as a result of trying to provide an alternative theoretical formulation. We should, of course, include commentary on criticism - which is exactly why I was suggesting the addition of another section on Reactions to Stevenson's Research. So I really think your claim of WP:ADVOCACY is unfounded, describing DOPS is certainly not whitewashing anything, and therefore not violating WP:NPOV, and we are simply describing (accurately) Stevenson and DOPS which cannot be fairly described as giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to anything because that's what the article is about!! Again, thanks for not just reverting. I'm also straining my brain to remember the Venkman/Dickless exchange - maybe I'll have to watch the movie again :-)  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson resisting parapsychological tag
Hi. I reverted to Verbal's version on the grounds that the change imputes a reason for Stevenson's actions that is not borne out in the source given. The other point, that many consider parapsychology to be pseudoscience is perhaps more relevant in the parapsychology page? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to add a wall of words here, but I do ask that you read WP:FRINGE. In articles that have fringe viewpoints or fringe proponents as the subject, it requires us to overtly state that they are considered fringe, minority, unaccepted. Not sure why you don't want the article to make clear that parapsychology is considered fringe research -- as it helps clarify Stevenson's avoidance of the term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's accurate to describe Stevenson using WP:FRINGE Alternative Theoretical Formulation - which requires a rather different treatment than the Obviously/Generally Considered Pseudoscience categories. Speculating about Stevenson's motives re:parapsychology tag is probably WP:OR, so wouldn't be suitable anyway, but having said that, I've been looking to try and find a source for Verbal's bit - which would be an important thing to add if it can be found - otherwise it may be necessary to remove that sentence.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Pseudoscientists category is inaccurate. Stevenson was extensively published, including peer reviewed journals. He has been described as a methodical researcher, even by critics, so I think that's rather misleading and violates WP:PSCI. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section removed
Renaming the criticism section "Evidence collected" and adding rebuttal material to criticism goes against WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should be changed back. Verbal   chat  12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I've been doing some slow motion work here and I may have buggered up something you were doing. Did you want to change the Evidence collected bit? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh! That was a big revert!  You've put back in some inaccuracies as well.  Children don't recall and forget, they start to speak about then stop speaking about according to Stevenson.  I'd appreciate a bit more discussion about the deletions you've made.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Helllllloooooo!! I'm seeing editing, but no discussing!!  Can we speak about the bits you've deleted please?  Evidence collected is - perhaps - a poor title, but the material within it seems neither controversial nor giving undue empahsis - it is merely clarifying the nature of his work.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is little to discuss since how WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE applies to the article has been explained to you at least twice, and there seems to be no support for your idea that Stevenson's research was not marginalized or considered something other than pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you've made up you mind without having discussed it previously, and are now using that as your justification for not discussing it now, you may be right - there could well be little to discuss!! In point of fact, I don't believe anyone has explained to me "how WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE applies to the article ", so maybe I've been in a coma and missed the (at least) two times this happened!  I'd be happy for you to point me to the appropriate spots.  I'd be even more grateful if you'd be willing to discuss the matter/s.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better if people who wanted to make large changes discussed them first, then this can all be avoided. It was hard to pull out the good edits due to the large structural change. I had a go though the diffs and replaced what I saw. Verbal   chat  13:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like someone with a sense of humour Verbal! I guess all those funny squiggles up above this section don't count as attempts to discuss adding a section to clarify his work and the reactions to it...?  Or are you actually speaking about the philosophy of WP wherein discussion helps reach consensus rather than large reverts without discussion?  Anyway, I like the old "do as I say, not as I do" as much as the next person, but I think there's a fundamental flaw in the approach some people have to this page.  So I'm sorry for you finding it difficult to be more gentle in your edits and therefore having to resort to more draconian measures, but I do think that I've made some pretty serious attempts to discuss improvements here.  I just saw a message from LL to you about someone removing the Criticism section from the article (which was absolutely inaccurate) shortly before your reverts.  None of the criticism was removed, in fact quite a bit more was added.
 * Anyway, all water under the bridge. I'd much prefer to move forward a bit more collaboratively here.  I think it would be useful to add a section on Stevenson's work - afterall, that's what most makes him notable. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this bio is the place to add detail already covered in depth here and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyLouie (talk • contribs)
 * Try posting specific suggestions here and making the edit after discussion or if no one objects. The discussion above was quite general, and didn't propose a large structural change that made the changes hard to track as it breaks the diffs. That's why discussion before making such changes is important. I had already seen your change before LL mentioned it on my talk page. Please propose here what you would like to add, with what sources. Please don't just change the article, the WP:BRD cycle is annoying! Verbal   chat  13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:BRD is annoying, but it's not as annoying as getting no response to suggestions, or having general acronyms replace specific discussion!! Anyway...  Blippy (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not following it. You are edit-warring to keep your changes instead of convincing your fellow editors your changes are valid. Your changes are against our guidelines on neutral point of view: due to the fringe nature of Stevenson's work, undue weight must not be given to his positions, and the scientific consensus against parapsychology must be given due weight in the article. The consensus of the editors on this page is that your edits weaken the scientific position to where the POV is unbalanced. Auntie E (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll pick up this thread down below where the Sagan bit is... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Positive Ways Forward
I think that it's quite reasonable to give a high level summary of Stevenson's work - just the highlights with sufficient detail to make it clear why he is so notable in the field. I think links (aren't they already there?) are absolutely appropriate, but I think the casual reader would prefer to have a sense of who Stevenson was without having to read all the gory details. How does that sound in principle?? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article contains a high level summary of his work, mention of numbers of cases, methods, why he felt it was significant, etc. so I am not sure what else you suggest needs be included. Also his notability (a researcher within a fringe subject whose work has not been accepted by the scientific community) has been established quite clearly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm taking that as implicit agreement for including a high level summary of his work. Now to the details!  I think the most notable aspects about Stevenson's work -excluding the founding DOPS- are his acknowledged commitment to the scientific project (regardless of his success), his efforts to find deceased persons who match the children's stories, and the birthmark/postmortem work.  How does that sound so far?  Let's postpone the WP:FRINGE discussion for the moment if that's ok with you.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His "acknowledged commitment to the scientific project" is not notable, whereas his failure to follow the scientific method is. I found a ref that he accepts that birthmarks may change and move between lives (which rather makes a mockery of that line of reasoning). I think that should be included, and I'll try to pull it out and bring it here. Verbal  chat  14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "OK, I'm taking that as implicit agreement for including a high level summary of his work. " ? No, sorry, I did not make any implicit agreement for what you are proposing. If there are notable details of his career we've left out, then those might be included. But further material promoting his diligence and earnestness is not necessary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree! If he didn't have a commitment to the scientific project, then his failure to follow it would be completely un-noteworthy.  Groucho Marx didn't follow the scientific method, but that's hardly notable.  In fact it is only because of his commitment that any deviations are worth mentioning.  I'm not sure how your quote fits here - it sounds interesting, but on the little bit you've provided it sounds like it might take some WP:OR to demonstrate his deviation.  In any case, if there are some good sources to show where he's not lived up to his own standards, so much the better.  A lot of the criticism I've seen is a bit wishy washy - but that's just my personal view.  Anyway, if I can drag us back to the notability stuff, would you at least agree that those areas are worth spelling out in the article - including appropriate criticism of course, but how we handle that can be discussed next perhaps...Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry LL, I clashed with your edit. I'm not talking about pushing any particular line here, I'm suggesting three areas worth mentioning.  Would you agree that they are notable?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what detail you suggest adding as Stevenson's methods are covered in depth here and here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at this stage I'm not suggesting any detail per se - I'm suggesting three notable categories that we could add some detail about. I accept that there are more appropriate areas for an extensive discussion of these things, and that's not what I'm proposing.  I'm just trying to reach consensus on notable areas of his work - and by that I mean what made Stevenson different to your garden variety "I was Cleopatra" reincarnation advocate... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no difference. He claimed to be scientific yet spectacularly failed to follow the scientific method and was notably credulous. I refer again to the criticism of Dr Venkeman - most apt. I wonder if Stevenson was an influence to Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. We have overwhelming criticism, to give WP:UNDUE weight to a few palliative phrases in his obituaries is not neutral. However, we should expand the birthmarks section with WP:RS that he accepted that birthmarks could move and change shape, and these would be counted as "evidence". Verbal   chat  12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not sure which difference you can't see? I'm just trying to address whether three areas are worthy of mention. Wouldn't it be better to agree on that first before we embark on the next bit of working out the detail? Can I assume tacit agreement for birthmark/autopsy material inclusion? How about the other two? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His work did not have impact outside of the marginalized parapsychology niche so the areas of detail you mention would only be notable to fringe "afterlife" proponents, not really worth much more than a brief mention in the article. (No this isn't tacit agreement to include more detail of birthmark and other material other than how it's already summarized in the article.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I think there is confusion about the topic here. I'm not trying to establish what impact he had outside of his field - I think the disputed quote below evidences that he had minimal impact (not no impact) - and if those are the grounds for in/exclusion then the entire article should be scrapped!  In any case, he is clearly a notable character.  The question is "what makes him notable"?  Are you able to take half a step back from your committed views to at least try to come to consensus on that point.  Whether we then fill the entire article with caveats and explanations of how wrong he was is another discussion.  So, if not these three things, perhaps you could nominate some areas of note.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any areas of note that have not been summarized in the article. Puffery, cherry picked data points to support certain claims, and a cherry picked quote promoting the idea that you shouldn't dismiss claims until you've personally investigated them - are the classical arguments used by pseudoscience to promote itself. They don't belong here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I guess that's a "no" to my second question!!  So how about the first then, what makes him notable in your view?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes him notable is already expressed in the article: he was an academic who pursued pseudoscientific research not accepted by the mainstream and ultimately ignored. And (re the Sagan quote) no "controversy" exists (then or now) in science regarding reincarnation or Stevenson's research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the only notable thing about him was that he was a pseudoscientist. How is that notable?  If that's the case, why have a page at all?  And the controversy refers to Sagan's comment, not reincarnation research or Stevenson's research.  Wouldn't you agree?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stevenson is notable for his activity (books, papers, field work, etc) in pursuing a marginalized area of research that ultimately wasn't accepted by mainstream science. The present article adequately addresses this notability with a summary of his career from his early work on psychosomatic illnesses to his directorship of the DOPS. Again, there is/was no reliably sourced "controversy" about Sagan's comments regarding reincarnation and none that apply directly to Stevenson's work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So his activity (books, papers, field work, etc.) in this marginalized area of research should be covered in this article in sufficient detail for a reader to understand what it was about his activities (besides not being accepted by mainstream science, because that would rule in every fringe theorist ever coneived) that makes him notable.  I would suggest that there are several areas worth focussing on.  And by focus, I mean providing suitable information on - and by suitable I mean providing adequate detail for a reader to understand what Stevenson did in each area AS WELL AS the mainstream view on these things.  Otherwise readers will not be informed, merely patronised.  As for the Sagan controversy, I concluded that there must be a controversy over the matter, otherwise people wouldn't keep removing the information from the article.  If there is no controversy then I'm happy for the reference to go in as it was before without the 'controversially' adjective.  What do you think?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think detail sufficient to inform and enable a reader to understand Stevenson's activities is already covered here and here and here and here. Regarding a Sagan "controversy", I'm thinking your personal conclusions are probably not a WP:RS source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite right on the controversy front. I was merely giving the benefit of the doubt to those who continually removed the relevant section - I'll put it back without the contorversy descriptor.  And given the coverage you've pointed to, it would seem needlessly silly if there wasn't some sort of summary of it also here.  I'm happy to have a look at the pages you've suggested to see if suitable summaries drawing on Stevenson's work can be compiled.  I'd appreciate any help you're willing to provide too.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if the additions don't work out I'd be happy to adjust or remove them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote about frustration
Hi Verbal. I think we're better off with the quote there rather than a cobbled together interpretation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it written it is misleading and nonsense, a it looks like it is quoting Stevenson, who refers to himself as "he". I prefer the more informative version. You also reverted proper tagging and a trimming of a quote. Please restore. Verbal   chat  12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right - it does look like a quote from Stevenson. Perhaps if we add Stevenson reportedly claimed... followed by the quote, then we can just use the text straight from the obit.  I'd changed the reference to a more reliable one, so your tag & trim was redundant.  What do you think?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's needless puffery, which is why I support the summary of the quote. Obits are not good sources for this kind of thing. Verbal   chat  13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you define puffery for me? It seems to get bandied about a fair bit and I'm not sure how one decides what is or isn't an example of it.  I would have thought that it was a pretty reasonable observation to comment on given it addresses one of the notable areas rather directly.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Puffery is the use of phrases or terms such as "painstaking", "greatest", "best" etc. Related to WP:PEACOCK. This source is very poor as it is an obit written by his research department, so to use a quote is introducing bias. The best we can do is summarise, if we use it at all. I'm not sure it meets WP:RS. Verbal   chat  08:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I don't see how you reverting without discussion is helpful. Injecting inaccuracies and replacing the UV source with one that is based on it seems a bit pointless.  Can you explain to me why you prefer that version?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okayyyyy... let's discuss it while your version is the live one. But can we discuss it now?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no initial revert, I expanded on a better version and removed the clear bias of the source, to make a neutral statement which can be put in wikipedias voice. Verbal   chat  08:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is lost by the summary? I do not think the obit is a good enough source for the quote. Verbal  chat  08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is reporting Stevenson's frustration. Frustration is always biased - that doesn't make the source biased.  And the Telegraph article is a mildly edited version of the UV piece anyway - complete with a version of the previous quote.  Nowhere does 'anecdotal evidence' appear in either sources, so what are you basing that on?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All his evidence was anecdotal, however if you want to remove that one word I don't mind. That the telegraph copied this obit makes both poor sources. Verbal   chat  08:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're basing your judgement on. I understood the UV to be the publisher - surely that's a RS?  I'm interested in your claim that all his evidence was anecdotal.  Do you have a source for that, or is it OR?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sagan revisited...?
Hi DreamGuy, can you provide some further details about which bit of WP:FRINGE you are using to remove the linked bits? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re pseudoscience cat, he's already in this cat via the parapsychology cat. That this isn't easy to find out is a failing on the category system. Maybe it should cats be rendered as a tree with a + that expands to show parent cats? Verbal   chat  14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I must say that it strikes me as quite inaccurate to place Stevenson in the pseudoscience category - particularly given what that normally connotes compared to what he actually did. Cheers,  Blippy (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE in presenting extremely fringe scientific ideas as regular old science and WP:UNDUE weight trying to claim a famous name saying he supported it when it's taken out of context and just one person out of many, many, many more scientists who do not support /endorse/etc. this research in any way. DreamGuy (talk)
 * So would you agree that this relevant: "mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint"? I would suggest that this is exactly what the Sagan link does.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not following it. You are edit-warring to keep your changes instead of convincing your fellow editors your changes are valid. Your changes are against our guidelines on neutral point of view: due to the fringe nature of Stevenson's work, undue weight must not be given to his positions, and the scientific consensus against parapsychology must be given due weight in the article. The consensus of the editors on this page is that your edits weaken the scientific position to where the POV is unbalanced. - Aunt Entropy quote from above
 * OK, re: the edit wars that was why I started the Positive Ways Forward section to try to reach some consensus on what to cover - it would be good if you could have a look at that and offer some suggestions.
 * I see a lot of WP:FRINGE being mentioned here, but not a lot of specifics, and no one has yet addressed the fact that Stevenson was attempting (whether successful or not) an Alternative Theoretical Formulation. So as for the 'must not' bizzo, I would agree if it were typical Time Cube stuff, but it's not.  The other point is that this is a biography, and a reader unfamiliar with his work would quite reasonably expect to be able to find out about it here - not in enormous depth, but certainly the relevant highlights.  None of that weakens anything, only strengthens WP.  I'm new, but based on the lots of common sense I've been finding in policy documents, I'd be very surprised if any combination of WP:FRINGE/UNDUE/NPOV prohibits the kind of thing I'm advocating for here.  I'm not suggesting to ignore other views, but I really think we have to get Stevenson's work sorted out first so as to know what other stuff to add to ensure NPOV/UNDUE etc.  So far there hasn't been a huge amount of collaboration on that point - but I'm recklessly optimistic about such things!  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting again... BIOGRAPHY
Hi, I'm starting this thread because I'm getting baffled by all the stop start stuff happening above and because of a mini-epiphany I had that I think might help clear all this stuff up. This article is a BIOGRAPHY. Therefore all of the relevant bits of WP:FRINGE/DUE/NPOV etc. apply to the content of this article, not the content of the content. Let me clearer. If someone wished to include content suggesting Stevenson was a Time Cube dweller then WP:FRINGE would apply - that would be arrant nonsense and a view held by an extreme minority. If Someone wanted to include content suggesting that Stevenson and Sagan were secret lovers and had some sources to back the claim, then WP:UNDUE would clearly apply, because that's not the majority view (as far a I know!). If someone wants to say that Stevenson is a saint of extraordinary compassion and goodwill who never spoke a harsh word in his whole life to anyone ever ever ever, then WP:NPOV would obviously come in to play. What matters here is applying WP policy to statements about Stevenson - NOT to Stevenson's work. Stevenson's work is verifiable and needs to be presented clearly in a well sourced, encyclopaedic way. It is not our job to apply WP policy to the content of that work, only to the way that work is presented here. I think that is the crux of the confusion/disagreements above.

So in that vein, I think that my suggested areas are worthy of inclusion - and perhaps to a greater depth than I had considered previously. It is a well verified fact that Stevenson attempted to apply high standards to his research. He also pioneered the research that persuaded Sagan to make the comments that he did. And the birth mark/autopsy stuff is at least as prominent as that work, and probably the pinnacle of Stevenson's efforts. So each of these areas warrants inclusion in this biography and I propose separate headings for each, or at least a heading under the DOPS section along the lines of "Research".

The only issue - in my view - of what needs discussion from here forward is whether the included material is accurate and balanced from the perspective of presenting Stevenson's work i.e. do the sources back up the assertion that Stevenson actually said so and so, or claimed blah, or proposed theory X. It is utterly irrelevant whether so and so, blah or X actually satisfy WP policy (other than obvious things like copyright/slander etc.) - afterall, Stevenson wasn't writing for WP.

What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe and undue apply to it all. He "attempted" high standards, yet consistently failed. That is what should be in the article (with RS). He was a poor scientist, and we have RS to show it. Verbal   chat  07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with all the relevant stuff going in; good, bad, and indifferent. The problem has been that people kept reverting anything that they felt put the guy in a positive light in some way, claiming that it was promoting pseudoscience etc. Did Sagan really say that stuff?  Yes.  Is it notable? Yes.  Should it be in the article? Yes.  Is there controversy about the matter?  Apparently!  So that should go in the article too.  Again, I believe FRINGE and UNDUE apply far more to the content of this article from a biographical perspective than from a scientific perspective - I'd be very interested to read where it says otherwise, because the WP:BIO policy seems to speak much more about what constitutes notability than anything else, so if you can direct me to the appropriate spot/s I'd appreciate it - it could save a whole lot of grief if we're all singing from the same song sheet.  In my view we should be trying to edit the relevant information, not trying to censor it to conform to one view or another.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it notable that Sagan said it/ NO. It's giving undue weight to a calculated attempt to search through all the comments made by any scientist ever to see if any could be found to support even with luke warm sentiment to try to slant the article to suggest that lots of scientists support it. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that these topics are pseudoscientific, fringe claptrap, and NPOV policy demands that people reading this article not be mislead. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's notable that Sagan said this. Not only is he a high caliber scientist, he is also a renowned skeptic of the paranormal. The fact that he singled out reincarnation as one of only a few areas where he felt research had been conducted well enough and the results intriguing enough to warrant further study as about as relevant to this article as anything could be. It seems that all the positive things that many people have said about Stevenson are being systematically rejected in favor of criticism that doesn't even seem to come from scientists (e.g., Kurtz and Gardner.Noirtist (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is cherry picking and misrepresenting what he said. He was interested in why people claimed to have these memories, not for a moment was he interested in the kind of "research" that Ian Stevenson engaged in. Verbal   chat  20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong Verbal (I know you will!!), but the quote refers explicitly to the "ESP field", not to people's fantasies, and worthy of "serious study", not oh I'm mildly interested in this. If you've got a RS for your version I'd welcome the chance to see it.  Given that Stevenson was virtually the only person to have published extensively on this kind of research, it is almost certain Sagan was referring to his work - but again I'm happy to be shown otherwise.  Cheers,  Blippy (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Any attempt to whitewash this article to remove the fact that his area of research with in topics considered to be pseudoscience is simply unacceptable. Three different editors now have removed such POV-pushing content to only one wanting to restore it. WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on this: we can't have people trying to promote such topics out of context to their true scientific status. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DG, as I understand it, WP is not about votes, it's about reasoned arguments for what should appear. You don't seem to have provided any of those above. Please direct me, in detail, to where WP:FRINGE says that biographies should not represent the work of the person concerned. As for the true scientific status of Stevenson's work, I have mentioned on a number of occassions that he is attempting an Alternate Theoretical Formulation. This is part of the scientific process. I would very much welcome a discussion on this point, because I've been resoundingly ignored to date! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about votes, it's about WP:CONSENSUS, of which voting is one way to determine (mainly it's a way to prove consensus when people stubbornly refuse to admit it). One POV-pushing editor ignoring all the reasoned arguments of the other editors on the article doesn't get to ignore consensus just by saying that his one vote counts more than everyone else's. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi DG, glad we agree! It's not about votes. Afterall, minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority - as they say.  I like to think of consensus as a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal - even if it wasn't WP policy.  It's good to know we share some common ground at last!  ;-)  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit and rewrite of lead
I've done a bit of a copy edit of this &mdash; extended the lead, per WP:LEAD, added some material from an older version that I couldn't see a reason to leave out (e.g. his criticism of psychoanalysis), and fixed the references so they give full citations. Hope this helps in some way. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Damned good rewrite and polish, SV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) Are there remaining reasons for the POV tag, or can it be removed?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This bio now looks excellent. I certainly see no reason for the tag. Burberry southsea (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still the problem with the article not talking about pseudoscience and pointing out that this guy's work is not mainstream science, which is a colossal NPOV violation. And it still contains the WP:Undue weight problems of trying to portray Sagan as a supporter. In fact, it looks like all the major problems we discussed before SlimVirgin edited this are still there in exactly the same way. Until that's fixed the tag should remain. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't add that it was pseudoscience without that in itself being an NPOV violation, and more importantly, meaningless. It's like editors wanting to add that people or groups are "terrorists," but never with a clear definition. In the end, these words amount only to "Some of us really don't like them."


 * Regarding Sagan, what is the UNDUE problem exactly? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the New York Times and Washington Post articles from which SV has rightly adopted the bulk of the article's material, weight and tone are a good guide to reporting the impact of Stevenson's work within science and academia. "Spurned by most academic scientists" and other unequivocal language leaves no question that the WP article should carefully conform to WP:FRINGE. The Post article does mention Sagan -- but only in relation to Stevenson's unfulfilled ambitions of gaining credibility for his beliefs. If Sagan is mentioned in our article I would expect we'd want to position him similarly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does make clear that he had little or no mainstream support. I see no UNDUE issue in mentioning Sagan. It would be odd not to, given that at least one mainstream news organization (The Washington Post ) mentioned him in relation to Stevenson.


 * "Critics questioned his methodology and objectivity, and his work gained little or no support within the scientific community, though astronomer Carl Sagan wrote in The Demon-Haunted World (1996) that one of the claims in parapsychology deserving serious study is, 'that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.'"


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let others opine on the matter, but as background, the quote expressing Sagan's personal opinion on the subject is a mainstay of various crank publications and websites promoting the existence of the paranormal. Wanting WP to be a reliable reference work, I can sympathize with DreamGuy's concerns and would prefer to err on the side of caution regarding the use of this quote. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've checked his book, and it's there, p. 302. I've fixed the quote so that we give the whole thing.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you are an absolute consummate WP editor. I think the article can now genuinely be described as a biography of Stevenson.  Thank you for your efforts.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only just looked here, but, I echo Blippy's comments. A truly outstanding job. Dlabtot (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit worrying that exactly the same arguments that were put to bed here are being recycled by editors at Reincarnation research.Burberry southsea (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You realise that the rewrite removed none of the criticism that you were opposed to, and in fact restored some? The article is much improved for that. You should also assume good faith, and not WP:CANVASS for help on other articles. Verbal   chat  16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag 2
Dreamguy, as you've restored the POV tag, could you list what you see the actionable issues as? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can support the POV tag, due to criticism of view are not mentioned in the lede, intro too long, bordering on WP:PEACOCK, lacks proper applicable Psuedoscience categories. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the new information is very good. However, I'm not keen on the Sagan quote, was it directed at Stevenson's research? Otherwise it should only be mentioned on the Reincarnation research page and not used here. Also, the Galileo claim is made about everyone who pushes unscientific beliefs, why does it deserve to be in the lead of this article. I also agree with Paranormal skeptic above, the lead is puffery and omits the substantial criticism. The fact his work had little or no impact should be prominent. Cheers, Verbal   chat  18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) To Paranormal -- The length is fine, and unconnected to POV. The rewrite modelled itself closely on the New York Times and W/Post articles, precisely to avoid claims of UNDUE or PEACOCK. Criticism is indeed mentioned in the lead&mdash;gullible and superstitious are not compliments. Do you have anything more specific? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, because NYT adheres to NPOV, right? And the length is way to long, peacocking the subject, rather than summarizing, lending WP:UNDUE to his work, however, a single phrase dedicated to criticism.  Also, there are no proper categorizations under Psuedoscience.  Specific enough, or do I need to do more than a cursory overview of the article?  Thanks and cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leads should be overviews of the subject, per LEAD, capable of standing alone, which this is, and the previous one wasn't. You cannot lend UNDUE to his work in an article about him, not unless you start writing screeds. There is a single phrase dedicated to criticism and a single phrase dedicated to praise. The rest is purely descriptive. Adding a pseudoscience cat would be POV, because we have no "not pseudoscience" or "pseudoscience not appropriate," or "pseudoscience is a silly term" cat.


 * That the NYT is not neutral is your POV, and is anyway irrelevant. Sources are never neutral and aren't required to be. The point of using these sources in this case was to overcome UNDUE objections, and that they do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obits are not noted for their neutrality, using that as a source is a surefire way to claims of peacock and puffery. If that was your model then the whole article needs another look. Verbal   chat  18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This lede does not stand alone either, it lends a single phrase criticiing his work, and one lauding his work, lending undue to the lauding. Adding the pseudo science cat is POV. But, it is a NPOV, since that was the focus of his work. NYT being NPOV is relevant, since this article was modeled after it. Plus, the article lacks any critque of his work, which again, alludes to the fact that his work was universally accepted, again, lending undue. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you create a section adding a critique? The POV tag is meant to be used only after all other efforts to fix the article have failed. It's not meant to be used in lieu of editing. If you think a section is missing, by all means add it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs
 * Or you could. I was only responding to the request for support of the NPOV tag.  This is my first foray into even touching this article. But, I will give it a once over in a couple of hours. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs one. You do, so the best thing to do is write one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I and others had already edited the article to make it more closely follow NPOV policy. Your edits removed those changes, despite the fact that they had been discussed previously so you ahd to have been aware of them. As this is under dispute, the tag is clearly needed... but since you say you want it to be edited (again) to address the issues I trust you will not undo the edits if they are put back the way they were? Otherwise you would seem to just be wikilawyering. DreamGuy (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I know how much Dreamy loves my suggestions, I'll offer one here. I think most of the peacocking and undueity come from the second paragraph of the lede, which is overly detailed, and repeats information found in the body (which info doesn't really need to be here, a summary is better). To wit, I would write it thus:

"Stevenson became known internationally for his research into reincarnation, interviewing children with stories that suggested (to him) the possibility of past lives. He also studied near-death experiences and apparitions, as well as more mainstream topics. His supporters saw him as a misunderstood genius; to his detractors, he was gullible and superstitious. Stevenson's work gained little or no support within the scientific community."


 * I'd also make sure the section lower lists all the mainstream topics removed from here. As always, just a suggestion. Eaglizard (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, but I don't like having a parenthetical in the lead, so I'd suggest:

"Stevenson became known internationally for his research into reincarnation, interviewing children with stories that he felt suggestive of past lives. He also studied near-death experiences and apparitions, as well as more mainstream topics. His supporters saw him as a misunderstood genius; to his detractors, he was gullible and superstitious. Stevenson's work gained little or no support within the scientific community."


 * which removes a bit of redundancy too (suggested ~ possibility). Cheers, Verbal   chat  21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All the buzz words that people are throwing around&mdash;UNDUE, PEACOCK, FRINGE&mdash;manage to ignore the most important aspect, indeed the point, of any Wikipedia article, which is to educate people about the subject; to teach them that the person existed, and what that person said and did. Editors who arrive at pages seeking to censor, so that the subject appears less interesting than he was, are missing the point of the project. By all means keep rubbish out of articles, but when the article is about X, the things that X said and that were said about him, don't count as rubbish (even if they really were); they are just the things that were said, and what we do here is repeat them. Wikipedians are meant to be driven by a desire to educate, not suppress, and education can't only be about the things we like personally.


 * If you want to add a well-written section of criticism, please do, but we should try to build, not destroy. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think fixing the lead is pretty important. The criticisms should be appropriately placed within the flow of the article, if possible. Although I have nothing against a new section for information that doesn't fit elsewhere. Verbal   chat
 * I don't think the lede needs fixing, but if you do, fix it. Dlabtot (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I corrected the misleading assertion that it was the "stories" that Stevenson thought explained phobias when it was the previous life that Stevenson thought explained both the stories and the phobias.Noirtist (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the article is much better now that we have got rid of the character assassinating first line. Noirtist (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say that Slim's version (near pun intended) strikes me as a genuine WP article, the kind I wish I could write, and quite different to what we had prior to her involvement. It's worth remembering that this isn't a science article, it's a biography of a scientist.  The facts we need to present are about the scientist and what they worked on, not the work itself.  So descriptions of what he worked in this page on cannot possibly be FRINGE, NPOV, or UNDUE issues in the way some are suggesting.  You cannot have a biography on a scientist without such descriptions - a cursory look at Sagan's page should evidence that.  And, of course, it is also important to describe how his work was received, to help situate him better in the broader context.  I think there is a misconception that Stevenson was a nutbag on the edge of mainstream society, rather than a scientist on the edge of mainstream science.  His work is a clear example of Alternate Theoretical Formulation for a phenomenon which resists mainstream explanations.  This, by definition, is science not pseudoscience.  Aside from all that, Stevenson worked in an area that is of immense interest to people, and readers should be able to come away from this article with a decent understanding of what he did, the impact it had, and some of the politics at play i.e. they should be able to understand the man and his context.  And just a note about the Galileo quote - such things may well be said about "everyone who pushes unscientific beliefs", but I would assume that's by their supporters, not their critics (as in Stevenson's case).  So I very much endorse the build not destroy, educate not censor ethic.    Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that editors who want to denigrate him should bear the "show, don't tell" rule in mind. Readers will make up their own minds according to the facts we publish about him, not according to the opinions forced on them by Wikipedians. If we say, "Professor X thought there were fairies at the bottom of his garden," it doesn't help for a Wikipedian to add, "And that shows he was crazy." Readers will find him crazy or not for themselves, and are actually likely to be swayed more in his direction by obvious efforts by Wikipedians to tarnish him.


 * As Blippy said, this is an article about a man, not about the science (or lack thereof), and his ideas are only discussed to give readers the flavour of his work. The job of the article is not to be pro- or anti-reincarnation. The job of the article is to offer information about Ian Stevenson, based on the articles and the book written about him, not based on Wikipedians' opinions, and not in a mealy-mouthed, let's-get-this-over-with tone. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a revert, why not just add back in the key points. This is smelling of ownership to me. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove that he was known internationally? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the source can speak for itself, and the reader can make their minds up up the range of his being known. Did he visit the Uighur's?  Or, anywhere is Russia?  It's a puff description that can be left to the reader to make the decision.  Example,in the article George Bush, does it state in the lede that he was "Internationally known"?  No, it's left to the reader to make the leap of logic. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What a specious argument. All U.S. Presidents are internationally known. The vast majority of professors are not. Dlabtot (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is peacocky. Dlabtot (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is based entirely on my own ideas of copyediting and good WP style, and has nothing to do with my (lack of an) opinion about this guy. I feel the para. is twice as long as it should be, and is loaded with stuff that is not sufficiently notable for a lede. Instead of focusing the reader on the man's important work, it confuses with excessive detail. imho. Eaglizard (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What would be some of the things you would gut from the lede to trim it down? I do agree it is a bit long at the moment, but I don't want to be accused :P of removing important points. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede is becoming a bit of a mess again. There are unsupported/unsupportable phrases like "non-scientific topics", and there are numerous grammatical problems and outright errors. What, for example, is "never able to identify any physical process a personality might survive death." supposed to mean? Burberry southsea (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead says "never able to identify any physical process by which a personality might survive death" which seems clear. Adding peacock terms and puffery to the lead is not the way forward. Verbal   chat  10:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It says that because I've just added it. Unsure how "by which" is a peacock term. Burberry southsea (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you worked out you can fix simple errors. The peacock terms and puffery are those so described in WP:PEACOCK and the edit summary I gave - such as "best", etc. Please get consensus on your changes to the lead and do not editwar, especially when your version goes against several guidelines. Verbal   chat  10:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Source problems in lead?
Burberry southsea claimed in an edit summary that the current lead is factually inaccurate and has sourcing problems. Please expand here so that we can understand the difficulty. Verbal  chat  10:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For one, the words "fringe" and "pseudoscientific" do not appear in any of the sources used for the lede, nor anywhere else in the article. Burberry southsea (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll fix those and remove the peacockery and puffery. Verbal chat  11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for fringe and pseudoscientific hardly require sourcing, when his main research areas are pseudoscience and fringe theories. Reincarnation is pseudoscientific, and the theory it can be explained through a physical process is a fringe theory, purely by definition. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have no objection to those terms being reinstated. Verbal chat  12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear that you are both supporting the introduction of unsourced pejoratives into the article.Burberry southsea (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not pejoratives. Those are terms used to describe certain fields and theories.  If you really like, I can use a dictionary for a reference to support it in the lede. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How are the words "decades" and "thousands" peacock or puffery when they are sourced and factual. Where does it say we cannot discuss the length of time someone does something for or the number of things that they do? I also see you have been canvassing - do the rules you quote to others not apply to you? 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burberry southsea (talk • contribs)


 * The above point still needs to be addressed. Also though, the lede now states that the entirety of Stevenson's work, including the mainstream work, received little or no support from the scientific community. This appears to be an underhand attempt to discredit the man, and one which has little or no support from any sources currently on offer. I have tried to change this but Verbal has now gone past 3RR in his editing and I have no intention of following suit.Burberry southsea (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, I have made two reverts and others add up to substantial edits, after discussion on the talk page. I have asked for further input from WP:FTN. Verbal chat  11:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've returned the same sections to the exact same state on three occasions and then on a fourth when you reintroduced the Pseudoscientist category which was removed the last time you added it.3+1=4. 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burberry southsea (talk • contribs)
 * You seem to have misunderstood what a revert is, and I changed the incorrect Pseudoscience category to Pseudoscientist as this is an article on a person - that is not a revert. However, I'm not even sure that category should be included, but the category structure is a bit of a mess. Please keep your posts here directed towards improving the article, and not on making accusations. I will undo/self-revert the cat change if you or anyone disagrees. Thanks, Verbal chat  12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you think "revert" means. Prior to my first edit today the article said this:


 * Stevenson was known for his research into reincarnation, or what he called the survival of the personality after death. He investigated stories from children that he felt suggestive of past lives, and hypothesized reincarnation was an explanation for a range of phobias and purported special gifts

I changed it to say this:


 * Stevenson was best known for his research into reincarnation, or what he called the survival of the personality after death. Over several decades Stevenson documented thousands of cases involving children which he felt were suggestive of past lives. He also hypothesized that reincarnation offered a possible explanation for a range of phobias and special gifts

And you changed it back (revert 1). I redid my edit and you changed it back again (revert 2). I then changed it back again and you reverted it for the third time (revert 3). The article still says exactly what it did before my edits today and it is you who has changed it back to be like that three times. You then reverted to the category "Pseudoscientist" that you previously added and which had been removed. Burberry southsea (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, each of your edits included a revert, however I made edits each time in a good faith attempt to address your concerns - when I could elicit what they were. Pseudoscientists was changed to Pseudoscience, which is wrong for two reasons - so I changed it back. I will undo that edit if you wish. If you have a problem with the current lead and categories please detail that, but stop attacking editors. Verbal chat  12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already stated above one of the major problems with the way you have written the lead. It now misleasdingly states that NONE of Stevenson's work gained acceptanace in the scientific community when the sources are only talking about his reincarnation work. It is wrong to extend this point to cover everything he did but when I changed it, and explained why, that was another of the things you reverted so I take it you want to it to be that way. Please justify the extension of the "little or no support" claim to Stevenson's mainstream work or self-revert.Burberry southsea (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note: according to the lede of pseudoscience, the term is derogatory, ie, it is a pejorative term. Eaglizard (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? If scientists call something pseudoscience it's not a violation of NPOV to fairly and accurately report that fact (in fact hiding it violates NPOV). ArbCom rulings have specifically said that topics can be labeled as pseudoscience. See the long quote I included below (with direct link to the ArbCom decision as proof that what I say is accurate). Your argument has already been decalred invalid several years back by the final authorities on such matters here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom sanctions
It seems this article falls under ArbCom enforcement, which says:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. ...

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Any editor who is here to advocate for, or attack, ideas about the mind separating from the body, or reincarnation, or Ian Stevenson; or to push the concept of something being "pseudoscientific" (which, please believe me, is a completely meaningless term); and in particular anyone using sockpuppets, should consider leaving to edit elsewhere, so that the rest of us can try to produce a well-written article that neither promotes nor denigrates.

For those who continue editing, I'd like to highlight this from the ArbCom decision:


 * "In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate."


 * No one understands the mind-body problem. No one knows what a mind is, or a personality, or consciousness, or even whether it makes sense to identify any of these as an "it." Philosophers have been wrestling with the issues for thousands of years, and neurologists are no closer to resolving them. We don't even have an established vocabulary that makes sense. It's therefore quite depressing to see certain editors, who clearly have no training in philosophy or neurology, arrive to announce that a psychiatrist who is investigating stories that he feels suggest a mind-body split, is ipso facto some kind of nut, or "pseudoscientist," whatever that means. Editors who do this are only displaying their own ignorance. My apologies for putting it so bluntly.


 * I promise you that, if you were to pick the scientist you most admire, and were to offer him the chance to speak to any of us, or to Ian Stevenson, he would choose Stevenson. Please think about that.


 * Those editors are asked to rely 100 percent on the published sources on Ian Stevenson, and to completely ignore their own opinions, because none of our opinions amount to a hill of beans. No more ideology, whether pro- or anti-Stevenson. Please write about him as though you're a Martian who has just landed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you consider it ignorant to call something completely untestable a psuedoscience. Maybe we should remove the pseudoscience term as applied to Intelligent Design then, as well, hm?  I think you need to go back and re-read WP:CIVIL, and maybe even WP:AGF since you are implying none of the editors who think this article is a puff peice of sorts are out trying to make this a battleground.  If you like we can add this as a citation for every occurence of pseudoscience:

"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.", from the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition 1989.
 * And then, we can move on to other things in the article here. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How is interviewing children scentific or pseudoscientific? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is not the fact he is interviewing children, but the field he is researching in, which is considered 'Pseudoscience. ie Astrology, EVP, Ghost Hunting, etc, etc, etc, Reincarnation theory, etc, etc, etc. I'm a paranormal researcher who uses these very same methodologies and know and understand it to be pseudoscience, because to presume to investigate and research something of which no evidence exists is in fact, psuedoscience. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I agree, but have to say I am mightily confused. All of the sources I have read on Stevenson make the point that he spent many years studying reincarnation. Some say "almost half a century", some say "over 40 years", yet we are not allowed to include any of that in the lede which must be indistinguishable from the lede for an article on someone who devoted 25 minutes to the subject. Similarly, all the sources I have seen (NYT, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, Skepdic) all make mention of the vast number of cases he collected, but again this information is not allowed in the lede which must read the same as it would for someone who had studied only 3 cases. This seems to me a deliberate attemptt to underplay the vast quantity of Stevenson's research.


 * On a different point, none of the sources I have seen (not even Skepdic!) use the words "fringe" or "pseudoscience" (or any of its derivatives) and yet several editors are openly advocating the prominent inclusion of these terms in the lede without the need for sources.


 * I have to say I can make no sense of almost any of the rules that have been cited on this talk page.Burberry southsea (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * More accurately, having read WP:Lead, WP:Peacock and WP:Wikipuffery, three times through I can find nothing to suggest that any of the phrases used ("several decades", "thousands", or "best known for") are disallowed by anything those rules say. If anything, those rules encourage exactly the types of thing I added: accurate, factual description backed by reliable sources. I can therefore make no sense of the way those rules are being cited here.Burberry southsea (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the rules being cited (UNDUE, FRINGE etc) are being used correctly, so please ignore them. The lead must give an accurate overview of the man that could stand alone, so that if someone were to read only the lead, they would still have picked up the most important aspects. Therefore, of course we must say that he was known internationally, that he travelled thousands of miles (55,000 every year at one point), and the number of children he interviewed, and what his colleagues said about him. The lead also has to interest us in reading further.


 * I am very willing to proceed with dispute resolution over this, because what I see happening here is not right. People who are in the censorship game need to find another hobby. Wikipedia is here to educate, and our purpose on this page is to educate people about Ian Stevenson, not to hide things about him. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is hardly censorship. We do not have to cover any specifics of the subject in the lede of an article; such as miles traveled, or numbers of children, or what not.  I also have yet to see how you can construe the guidelines being misapplied here.  Again, do we state how far George Bush traveled each year during his administration in the lede?  Or, do we say how many miles Barack Obama travelled during his campaign?  No.  Nothing is being hidden.  He reseached reincarnation.  He interviewed children.  You don't need the peacockery to make him more notable, or more worthy an entry.


 * But, if you feel the need to proceed with any dispute resolution, please feel free. In fact, if you like, I can RfC this to the Math, Sciences, and Technology section.  But, keep in mind, that if a NPOV tag is placed on an article, it's a very good chance it violates NPOV. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, SlimVirgin, you are the one using the terms UNDUE, FRINGE, etc. incorrectly, and it is in fact you who are trying to hide things about the individual (to whitewash the description of his work to give his work more support than he actually has in the field). You also are not an "uninvolved admin" by any stretch of the imagination, and you need to stop pretending you have some sort of superconsensus by virtue of being an admin regardless of what anyone else says. WP:FRINGE specifically ruled that fringe topics must be described as such or else the article misleads people into a POV. To try to cite WP:FRINGE to do just the opposite of what it demands of articles is pretty ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I was an uninvolved admin. Dreamguy, you're well-known for this, so I suggest you simply edit in accordance with the policies, and stop trying to push some POV or other. Just read the sources, and write what they say. Nothing else is allowed, and nothing else is required. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are well known for doing what you are doing. I am editing in accordance of the policies (while you don't seem to have actually bothered to read them). Making sure that an article complies with the rules on WP:FRINGE topics that ArbCom set out for us cannot in any way be described as POV-pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that SlimVirgin claims that others are in violation of ArbCom sanctions while she insists that people here to "push the concept of something being "pseudoscientific" (which, please believe me, is a completely meaningless term) [...] should consider leaving to edit elsewhere" despite the fact that the very same ArbCom sanction explicitly spells out:
 * Generally considered pseudoscience - 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So the question here is now whether SlimVirgin just didn't bother to read the ArbCom sanction she is citing, or if she is just misrepresenting it, or what exactly could explain such a disconnect between her claims and what ArbCom actually said?

Furthermore, the ArbCom decision on Pseudoscience is an older ruling that has been further enhanced by WP:FRINGE, which is more explicit. I wuold recommend that Slim go read both of those before making claims here that quite directly contradict both. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SlimV, I thought you did a terrific job cutting the Gordian knot with your initial rewrite of the article, but frankly, you've lost me with your recent rather pointed talk page complaints about 'people in the censorship game' etc. Among others, the National Science Foundation clearly does not feel pseudoscience is a "meaningless term". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean it isn't nonsense, and it's particularly nonsensical the way it's being applied here. "Pseudoscience" is a term used by some scientists to reject material that they feel has been collected without using scientific method, and yet is being portrayed in some sense as "scientific." The term "scientific" is equally misused. It's also worth bearing in mind that scientists (howsoever defined) aren't always right. These terms are used as sledgehammers by people who really don't know what they're talking about, and the more a person uses the term, the less they probably know. As I said earlier, it has as much meaning as calling someone a "terrorist."


 * But back to this article, where was the scientific method? Where are the claims that it was scientific? Where are the allegations that it was pseudoscience? What I'm seeing here is editors imposing their own, uninformed views, when what we are meant to do is stick to the sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The pseudoscientific fringe
Ok, to begin with I want to point out that SlimVirgin's comment above ("...he would choose Stevenson.") is just one of the most excellent talk page comments I have ever seen. Now, with that out of the way, I've spent several hours reacquainting myself with the WP:FRINGE and Pseudoscience articles. I don't know why, I'd never heard of Stevenson before yesterday, but today I wanted to understand this issue. And now I think I do. (Sorry if this is TLDR.)

As far as I can see, Stevenson was not practicing pseudoscience regarding reincarnation, at least not according to the WP definition(s) of it, for the simple fact that he never claimed to be practicing science in the first place. It seems to me that he understood the methodological limitations of his approach, and never suggested, as a scientist, that he had "discovered" or "proven" anything in regards to reincarnation. In fact, he seemed pretty clear that what he was doing was "hypothesis generation", looking for something that might lead to a testable, scientific hypothesis. He never claimed to have found one, did he? Hence, he was not engaging in, or pretending to engage in science, per se. Look at it this way: if the very same work had been done by a priest or a journalist, would it be 'pseudoscience'? Only if the author tried to present it as science.

And along those lines, I can't see how his work could be labeled as fringe science, either; again, he doesn't present an hypothesis, let alone a theory, nor does he claim, in published peer-reviewed work, to be engaging in any kind of experiment. Of course, and like many psychologists, Stevenson apparently felt free to speculate and conjecture willy-nilly, and he wrote a lot of things that are clearly quite unscientific. But again, he clearly realized the difference between conjecture and theory, and never presented anything he (or we) could call actual "science" regarding reincarnation. He was just looking for clues, and that would seem to be his own impression as well as mine.

In other words, he can't be called pseudoscientific simply because he never claimed to be scientific. In regards to reincarnation, that is. He may have published more rigorous work on other topics; I didn't look that deep. So that's my impression: or is there - again, in published peer-reviewed work - somewhere he claimed to be "doing science" with his child interviews? Eaglizard (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "As far as I can see, Stevenson was not practicing pseudoscience regarding reincarnation, at least not according to the WP definition(s) of it, for the simple fact that he never claimed to be practicing science in the first place."


 * Exactly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was. Skeptical Inquirer (Of whom the NSF links to), ran an article of his titled: Empirical Evidence for Reincarnation? Ian Stevenson 19(3)50-51  Empirical Evidence for a pseudoscientific subject?  Yep. Sounds like a duck to me. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with scientific method? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much simpler it can be explained Slim. Empirical evidence of reincarnation?  Are you going to say that past-life regression is also a viable scientific approach? Would you like me to RfC this as before mentioned?  We seem to be going round and round here. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because you won't answer any questions. My question is what has "empirical evidence of reincarnation" got to do with scientific method or pseudoscience? I am typing this reply to you. Anyone watching me has empirical evidence of my doing so. It's not science and it's not pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with science. When a journalist takes a photograph of a traffic accident, he has empirical evidence that a traffic accident took place. All that means is he's not deducing that an accident took place from first principles.


 * Just because scientific studies are supposed to be based on empirical evidence, doesn't mean that everything else based on empirical evidence has anything to do with science. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * However, if it is submitted to a journal in a scientific field, then yes; it has to do with science. Come on, how much more do you need it spelled out? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Paranormal Skeptic, The Skeptical Inquirer is not a formal scientific journal. The question mark in the title of the article you mention indicates it was an inquiry, and not an assertion. Eaglizard (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He published his papers in Psychology Journals. That is mentioned in the currently provided sources. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He interviewed children. He wasn't in a lab cutting their brains open. He just spoke to them, or to relatives or friends. It was research worth doing, according to his supporters, because he was very methodical, and also had a healthy dose of skepticism, so he wasn't taken in easily (he believed). And he didn't think he had shown reincarnation occurred. He just felt he had shown it was something that rational people could take an interest in. It's not science and it's not pseudoscience. It's rational inquiry, which some people regard as a good deal more productive and interesting than "science," and of course others disagree. The point is that they are not the same thing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

More removals from the lead
Paranormal, why are you removing that he was known internationally? That is important for the lead.

And what kind of reference do you want for "Stevenson became known for his research into reincarnation, or what he called the survival of the personality after death" that isn't already there? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove the fact tag, if you so desire. I was in there and worked on it, and was actually looking for a cite for that particular statement, since it is the next thing to a direct attribution, and couldn't find it.  As for removing international, it's peacockery, and really un-needed.  Just the fact that he was known for the work is sufficient. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that it is necessarily peacockery, but it's not really necessary to mention being known internationally. If it is mentioned that he was known, the international bit goes without saying. __meco (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish people would stop attaching meme-type words to material they want to remove. There's nothing "peacocky" about saying a scholar's work became known around the world. He got obits in several major newspapers in the U.S. and UK, which is more than most researchers will achieve.


 * There's a theory in philosophy called the "boo-hurrah" theory, which is roughly that all moral terms are meaningless, and boil down only to whether the speaker likes the thing or not. I'm powerfully reminded of that on this page. Peacocky, fringe, undue, pseudoscience, terrorist = boo. Otherwise quite meaningless. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those removals seem entirely appropriate to me. Please take your philosophy theories to other websites, this is not the place, see WP:TALK. Please WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL. I would have expected a user such as yourself would be aware of the basic rules in operation here. Verbal chat  20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, don't remind me of CIVIL, AGF, and talk-page etiquette while telling me to take my posts about philosophy to another website. If you want to focus on rules, I suggest you start by summarizing what the reliable sources have said about this man, peacock terms and all, whether you like it or not. That's the essence of NPOV, NOR, and V, all of them more important than the various magic incantations several of you keep trying to raise on this page. If you stick rigidly to the three basic content policies, and ignore your own POV, you'll find that the article will practically write itself, and disputes will melt away. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic of improving the article per WP:TALK (also noted above), and please don't make unfounded accusations of bad faith (POV editing, etc). If you have further to say to me, this is not the venue. My talk page is in my sig, though there is little more to say on this topic. Verbal chat  21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am precisely talking about how to improve the article, by suggesting you (and everyone else) stick closely to the three content policies, and put your own POV to one side. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Slim, you might want to take into account the phrase,"I'm not crazy, it's everyone else that's looney". Not to say you're loony, but if everyone is disagreeing with you, is it not quite possible that you are wrong? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the adjective internationally is excessive here, as it implies a degree of fame that just isn't so; outside his own circle, Stevenson is not that well-known at all, I believe. Also, the scientific community is considered to be "international" in itself, so I agree with PS and _meco above, simply saying he was known for his work is enough.


 * Side note: Sometimes telling someone to AGF etc can become in itself a failure to AGF, and IMHO some editors here are treading on that line. Certainly SlimVirgin's frustration is evident -- but so is everyone else's, sometimes. Everyone should remember that there's really no need to make this personal. (An based on this last exchange, I would strongly suggest to SlimVirgin and Verbal that they might both do well to take a break from this article for a few days.) Eaglizard (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He must have been pretty well-known to have had obits in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Daily Telegraph, and to have had a W/Post staffer write a book about him. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point, but then, that's only the US and UK. More important though is not how widespread, but known by whom? Do we mean he was known among the general populace, or known to scientists? To me, "internationally known" would connote "known by the person in the street", and (for scientists) would apply to guys like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, or that degree of fame. Pretty subjective, I guess. Doesn't really matter to me, but I prefer "known for", myself. Eaglizard (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose the connotation of having quite long obits in high-quality newspapers is that you're assumed to be known by the average well-read person. It would be interesting to find out where his books tended to sell. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we are not here to read what the connotations would be, that would be original research. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Few academics sell 50,000 copies of their books, so there needs to be some way to acknowledge Stevenson's recognition beyond the run of the mill academic. If "internationally" is problematic for people, perhaps something like "well known having over 50,000 copies of his book purchased around the world". Also on the "if everyone is disagreeing with you" point, that's rather reminiscent of DG's claims about consensus; it's not about numbers here, it's about reasonable arguments.  Two points are consistently overlooked by several editors in these discussions. i)  This is a BIOGRAPHY and we need to clearly present what he did, how it was received etc. the scientific content is not subject to FRINGE here; but the FRINGE theories and interpretations about Stevenson by some editors are.  The mainstream view of Stevenson is that he was a careful, methodical, respected researcher. Those pushing an illinformed view that he was a kook or charlatan or nutbag etc. are in violation of WP:FRINGE.  ii) EVEN IF it was a scientific article, Stevenson was providing an Alternative Theoretical Formulation for the phenomena he investigated.  On a related issue, there is no such thing as a pseudoscientific topic.  To suggest there is demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the term, because there is also no such thing as a scientific topic.  What makes something scientific or pseudoscientific is the methods employed and the formulation of the hypotheses.  Popper - who coined the phrase BTW - used falsifiability as the touchstone.  If a hypothesis was falsifiable and tested accordingly then you had science.  It is utterly irrelevant where the hypothesis comes from, or what it's about.  Stevenson's work was implicitly about a falsifiable theory (you know, the Alterantive Theoretical Formulation I keep going on about) because he was trying to falsify the hypothesis that reincarnation could explain the phenomena he investigated; i.e. he would investigate the claims/statements made by  the children - if they weren't confirmed, then he could dismiss reincarnation as an explanation for that case.  If they were confirmed, then the theory of reincarnation as an explanation was partially confirmed (in Popper's terms).  He formulated other variations of the theory as he went along e.g. the birthmark/death wounds stuff.  In no way is the TOPIC pseudoscientific, in fact the whole point of Stevenson's work was to demonstrate that reincarnation was amenable to scientific enquiry, something that prior to Stevenson had been considered impossible.  Of course if you take Kuhn's or Feyerabend's views of science you get something I imagine would be far less desirable to those pushing the anti-Stevenson line, although arguably more accurate.  But I'm sure here is not the place for such ruminations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What fresh hell ...
What does "purported" mean, and italics around special gifts? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Purported. As in claimed, but never proven.  Special Gifts is a rather subjective term, wouldn't you say?  So, the "scare quotes" were added so as not to lend undue weight to the claims made. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no claims being made, and no, it's not at all "subjective," whatever you mean by that. It's just another phrase for "talents," but it's the phrase the sources used, so I used it too. Why didn't you italicize phobias too?


 * As a matter of interest, when you say on your user page that you're a paranormal investigator, exactly what do you do, and what field do you come from? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a claim. Of special gifts.  Phobias are well defined in the DSM IV, however special gifts are not (or anywhere for that matter), and allude to pseudoscientific claims (such as ESP, et al).  As for the personal information, take it to my talk page if you like. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that's what they allude to? My understanding is that a "special gift" refers to a talent, such as being a brilliant pianist at a young age. I suppose it could also include ESP. But the point of the expression is simply to describe things that some children can do that you'd expect children not to be able to do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All this means is that children may be musically or artistically gifted and so on. Nothing that needs to be qualified with "purported". Noirtist (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually like the change you made. Thanks :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What Stevenson studied
In the introduction it says Stevenson studied NDE's and death-bed vision, but the sources say these things were studied at his department but not necessarily by Stevenson. I can't find any other source that says Stevenson studied them so unless one is forthcoming I will remove them. The rest of the article says nothing about them either.Noirtist (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IGNORE THIS. The university of Virginia source covers it.Noirtist (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience source
DreamGuy, thanks for finding a source that goes towards answering my concern raised above re: pseudoscience. However, I remain unconvinced, per my contention that his child interviews were not presented as "science" in the first place, except to the degree that field work in psychiatry is conducted along lines as scientific as possible. (There are a surprising number of people who feel that psychiatry as a whole is also pseudoscience.) Still, I say, as no concrete hypothesis was presented (only speculation, labeled as such), there was no attempt at scientific method.

Could you be so kind as to quote the passage(s) from the citation you've introduced which refer(s) to Stevenson? Do they reference him specifically by name, and do they discuss or analyze his work in any way? Is the discussion broader than the topic of PLE interviews (ie, do they discuss his work in other fields)? Eaglizard (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than remove the source and info I've added a check tag. Hopefully DG or someone else can quickly get back on this. Also, he did present his work as science and an attempt to make this research scientific. That he failed doesn't mean it wasn't his intent, so we'll have to follow the sources - it's not for us to decide. Verbal chat  19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently the entry in that book for "reincarnation" is written by Michael Shermer, an adjunct professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University, and Pat Linse, an illustrator? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael Shermer is the publisher and Editor in Chief of Skeptic Magazine, the quarterly publication of the Skeptics Society. As Editor in Chief his editorial board includes Richard Abanes (director of the Religious Information Center), Richard Dawkins, and Napoleon Chagnon. If these people respect his editorial decisions it should give him some weight.  He is also the founder of the Skeptics Society.  He is well known as an expert in the scientific method and in the investigation of pseudoscientific claims.  He is thus a valid source.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly a good RS, but what exactly does it say? Does it, in fact, say "Ian Stevenson was a pseudoscientist"? Or does it say "interviews with children about PLEs is pseudoscience"? Or maybe just "reincarnation are pseudoscience"? All 3 are very different. For this reason, I think it would be rather helpful for DreamGuy to post the paragraph(s) used to support his citation of that work. I would certainly appreciate it. Eaglizard (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I didn't furnish the quote and am not privy to what it said. Is was responding to SlimVirgin's question over the relevance of Shermer's expertise to the topic in general only.Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The mention is on page 205, and includes direct mention of his specific reincarnation studies as part of the section author's investigation into the pseudoscience of reincarnation research. It is an explicit mention. Incidentally, the author of this section is not Michael Shermer but another prominent author on pseudoscience, Phil Molé. Shermer did, however, have editorial control, and his credentials on the topic of pseudoscience are unquestionable, as that's the entire point of the book and widely respected as an expert source on the topic.

And, seriously folks, if you can't find half a dozen other sources pointing out this is pseudoscience you either just aren't bothering to look or have some pretty unimpressive Google-Fu skills. 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a source that says his work (note: his work specifically) is "generally" considered pseudoscience, not that Phil Mole, who describes himself as "a freelance writer and ardent film fan living in Chicago," thinks that.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shermer's editorial control does lend some credence to Mole's position.Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mole does not use the word "pseudoscience". Even if he did, we would need more than just that one source. We would need several top quality sources because we have to weigh those sources against the fact that a full issue of the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (the world's oldest independent scientific monthly in the field of human behavior) was devoted to Stevenson's work, and the fact that distinguished journals such as the British Medical Journal and the American Journal of Psychiatry reviewed his work and his life and didn't use the word "pseudoscience". On the contrary, the BMJ for example, described Stevenson as a "Psychiatrist who researched reincarnation with scientific rigour". Noirtist (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The source, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, is fully acceptable for this statement, if what DG says is true and I have no reason to doubt him (and by AGF). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the source. Where is the quote you want to use? Noirtist (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the editors who are insisting on having the word "pseudoscience" in the lead, to the point of having to rely on a source like that, could explain why it's so important to them? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why is because anybody who purports to be scientifically studying a phenomenon which can not be verified to exist and for which no mechanism is proposed is engaging in pseudoscience. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clearing house for new age silliness.Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that's just repeating that you want it there. My question is twofold: (1) why are you so keen to have it in the lead; and (2) what you think it adds. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps simply because wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not an answer to the question. I'd also like to know what Phil Mole's qualifications are. I've not been able to find them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is an answer. In what way does it fail WP:RS?
 * I answered your question quite precisely. And I've also spoken as to why Mole, writing in a book edited by Shermer could be considered an expert.  However, forwarding this, he is also a contributing editor in Skeptic magazine, previously mentioned in reference to Shermer.  This position, on the editorial board of a reputable and respected science magazine sets him as a professional in the field of assessment of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the application of the scientific method.Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to know who Mole is and what his qualifications in this area are. So far, all I can find is "freelance writer," which obviously isn't enough. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just told you that. He is a contributing editor for Skeptic Magazine.Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That just means he writes for them sometimes. What is his background, what are his qualifications? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Shermer identifies reincarnation in the book's table of contents as one of a number of "important pseudoscientific concepts", which is a reliable source to characterize the subject of Stevenson's research as generally considered pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The same section in the table of contents contains ball lightning, cold reading, cults, faster than light travel, hypnosis, the ideomotor effect, multiple personality disorder, and the placebo effect, all of which have Wikipedia articles and none of which mention pseudoscience. I look forward to seeing you add the line "...is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" to the article on the placebo effect. Noirtist (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on reincarnation does not mention pseudoscience either. Maybe try the source out there first.Noirtist (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about those other articles but Shermer is an accepted WP:RS for pseudoscience as it applies to this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Noirtist: Reincarnation research does, and it doesn't belong on reincarnation. Agree with LL. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, who has decided that he's an accepted RS? And second, we need to know who the person who wrote that actual article is. The editors of the encyclopedia aren't the main sourcing issue.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which bit of WP:RS do you think is lacking? (I think I asked already). You can always try WP:RSN, but you'll still have to say why you think it fails RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's less a question of RS (although neither Mole nor Shermer are qualified to speak for the entire scientific community), than a question of the source just not saying anything like it needs to do. The source simply doesn't say Stevenson's work is pseudoscience, and it most certainly does not say that his work was generally considered pseudoscience. If it does, cite the quote here please.Noirtist (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody speaks for the entire scientific community. Put ten scientists of any discipline in a room and ask for opinions on any scientific subject and you will very likely get eleven different answers. That's part of the reason why the scientific method was created - as a way of dispassionately assessing those answers and ideas against real-world data. When an individual distorts general scientific practice this is Pseudoscience. When an individual posits survival of personality and reincarnation of it after death without describing what personality, separate from the biological brain, is, without specifying a mechanism through which the personality travels after death, without blinding the study, and without even so much as applying rudimentary stastical tools to the information collected and when this study (to use the term loosely) is presented as if it is in some way science it is pseudoscience. One need not be a representative of the whole scientific community to identify pseudoscience and label it as such. In the case of the people responsible for this encyclopedia they are all people who have developed a large portion of their career around assessing the scientific veracity of a variety of pseudoscientific claims such as this one, "creation science", and other such piffle.Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For a source to support the claim that Stevenson's work is pseudoscience or generally considered pseudoscience it NEEDS TO SAY Stevenson's work is pseudoscience or is considered pseudoscience or something to that effect. The cited source does not say this or anything like it. Noirtist (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what DG said, or have you obtained a copy and disagree? Please revert yourself unless you have a good reason why this RS doesn't apply. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Above I provided a link to the source DG cites (here again )and nowhere does it say anything like you, DreamGuy and SimonM are claiming. The word "pseudoscience does not appear in the article on reincarnation at all, never mind in conjunction with Stevenson.Noirtist (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really arguing that the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience would do an essay on a topic and it be for reasons of claiming that it's not pseudoscience but real science? They are explicitly arguing against the idea, both in general and of this researcher in specific mention, in a book solely about pseudoscience. What kind of idiots do you take people for? DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Science Sources
Here are 4 sources that say Stevenson’s work is scientific:

The Daily Telegraph says Stevenson “was the world's foremost scientific authority on the study of reincarnation”

The British Medical Journal says Stevenson “researched reincarnation with scientific rigour”

Tom Schroeder’s book on Stevenson’s research is called “Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives

Lee Worth Bailey (associate professor of religion at Ithaca College) says Stevenson is “best known for his scientific investigations of reports of reincarnation”. 

We still await one source that says Stevenson’s work was pseudoscientific.Noirtist (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A source has been provided. The fact you dislike it doesn't make it less a source.Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please quote the section where Stevenson's work is referred to as pseudoscience.Noirtist (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DG gives all the information required above. Please undo your edit and cease editwarring. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This policy says "the source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article", and further, "when there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference". Please comply with this and quote the section where the source unambiguously supports the claim that Ian Stevenson's work is generally considered pseudoscience.Noirtist (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unambiguous, and the info is available on Google Books. It's listed as an example of bogus claims about reincarnation during a long list of pseudoscience. To try to claim that it was mentioned there in some way other than being pseudoscience when that was the entire point of the essay is just outrageous. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Lief writes, "while I withhold final judgement on the content and conclusions" of Stevenson’s research "I am a true believer in his methods of investigation" which he describes as "scrupulously following the scientific method". Noirtist (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of sources explicitly describing Stevenson's work as science or pseudoscience
Science - 5 sources

Pseudoscience - 0 sources

Noirtist (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be reflected in the article.Noirtist (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Phil Mole?
I'm posting this here in case the question gets lost. We're currently using a source for a contentious claim in the lead, but we don't know who he is. All I can find is that he is a freelance writer, a film buff, and he occasionally writes for Skeptics Magazine, or whatever it's called. We need to establish that he is a source of sufficient expertise, or notability, to be commenting on the work of a psychiatrist. Does anyone know what his academic qualifications and background are?

We also need a reliable source for the claim in the lead that Stevenson's work is "generally considered" pseudoscience, which is not something that Mole says, and therefore it seems to be OR.

If we stick rigidly to WP:V and WP:NOR, we can resolve this dispute quite easily. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he's on Skeptic Magazine's editorial board. And "whatever it's called" is Skeptic Magazine, it's a highly respected, internationally distributed, quarterly science periodical.Simonm223 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We still need to know what his academic background is, given that he's writing about a specialist subject, his statement is contentious, and it has been placed in the lead. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when did driving around the countryside collecting anecdotes about supposed past lives become a specialist subject?Simonm223 (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a psychiatrist, interviewing children as a psychiatrist, and analysing their responses &mdash; that is specialist work. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the evidence is clear that Stevenson's work was considered scientific. His work has been published in peer reviewed journals and had an entire edition dedicated to it, as mentioned above. It is clearly a violation of WP:FRINGE to be using such narrowly accepted views as those of Mole here. By all means let's give mention to the finge views of those who have not studied Stevenson's work, but let's stick to good practice and respect the views of the scientific commnity who deemed his work worthy of being published and rviewed. I think your faith in DG should have been quite shaken by the "kook and charlatans" comment Verbal. And all the glib dismissals (driving around the countryside collecting anecdotes) in the world will not change the fact that neither Mole nor Sherman have had entire editions of scientific journals dedicated to their work, and Stevenson did. How about some of that respect for FRINGE that was so recently touted? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting, SlimVirgin, that collecting anecdotes about past lives is "analyzing their responses" in a psychiatric fashion? If so I'd suggest you take a long hard look at psychiatry.Simonm223 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're going to criticize in the lead the work of a physician and psychiatrist who once had an entire issue of a science journal devoted to him, I would like to know who the critic is, beyond "freelance writer and film buff," which is all we currently know. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a mischaracterization. He is a member of the editorial board of a highly respected international science publication.  You keep disregarding this fact.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which highly respected international science publication are you referring to?Burberry southsea (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:BAIT other editors. It is mentioned in the first reply of this short thread. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bait???? I was asking because I didn't think he could mean Skeptic Magazine because here is the editorial board and as you can hopefully see, Phil Mole's name is nowhere to be seen. http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/editorial_board.html Burberry southsea (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the most recent issue of the magazine on my desk, open to the editorial pages, right now and he is listed. I can't speak as to why there is a discrepancy.Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what desperation to try to censor perhaps the single most authoritative and respected book on the topic of pseudoscience, with a whole series of the most respected experts on the topic as authors and editorial board. It's mind boggling to see what lengths people will try to wikilawyer with ridiculous arguments just to keep an article pushing their favored POV. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the text to match the source but it is not clear why Phil Mole's views should be given any weight. He appears to have no scientific credentials and his article on Reincarnation is a bit of an embarrassment. I don't think we should use sources of such low quality when we have many sound scientific sources to draw on.Noirtist (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you changed the text to deny what the source clearly said, and the source is the leading encyclopedia on pseudoscience, so it is directly relevant. And, frankly, your personal opinion on the quality of the source is obviously colored by your obvious pro-reincarnation agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Near death experience
I'm not clear on why NDE's are described as "fringe" in the lead section. Obviously, there may be some "fringe" explanations for the experience (just as there are fringe explanations for every mundane thing) however, NDE's have been extensively studied as a real experience or phenomenon, regardless of its unknown etiology. To put this another way, NDE's are a real experience, but their cause is unknown. The use of the word "fringe" here does not make sense. Could someone please address it? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the lead say Stevenson's work is "generally considered pseudoscience"?
For anyone coming here from the RfC, the dispute is about the claim in the lead that the research of Ian Stevenson (1918-2007), a psychiatrist, into stories from children that he felt suggested some form of reincarnation, is "generally considered pseudoscience."

The source is an article about reincarnation by Phil Mole in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article does not say that Stevenson's work was pseudoscience, though Mole's referring to him in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience implies that. It does not say or imply that his research was "generally considered" pseudoscience.

The editors of the encyclopedia are Michael Shermer, an adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University, who founded the Skeptics Society (before teaching economics, he taught history of science); and Pat Linse, an American illustrator. The writer of the article is Phil Mole, a freelance writer. Beyond that, we have no information about him.

Against the idea that his work was "generally considered pseudoscience," we know that, in 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to his research. We also know that most mainstream scientists either did not accept, or did not comment on, his findings.

The question for the RfC is (a) is the Phil Mole article in the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience a good-enough source to include in the lead that Stevenson's work is "generally considered pseudoscience," and (b) even with a good-enough source, is it appropriate to say this in the lead? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses
(no threaded replies here, please)
 * My view is that we should not say this in the lead, in part because the source is not strong enough; in part because the source does not say his work was "generally considered" pseudoscience; in part because he had an entire most of one issue of a science journal devoted to him, which would argue against the "generally considered" position; and in part because the word "pseudoscience" is being used to denigrate him, rather than to inform readers. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is used to summarize the main points of the article and should stick to that principle. Currently, science cannot study or examine reincarnation.  For what it is worth, the subject of reincarnation can only be examined using religious or philosophical paradigms; The idea is simply outside the methodology of science and it is somewhat begging the question to say that reincarnation research is generally considered pseudoscience.  The lead currently summarizes the fourth paragraph of the "Reincarnation research" section with "his research gained little or no support within the scientific community".  If we are going to also add "generally considered pseudoscience" we should probably attribute this derogatory opinion to an actual source.  If that can't be done, it doesn't belong in the lead.  It should be very easy to find reputable scholars decrying Stevenson's reincarnation research as pseudoscience, so the person adding this to the lead should do the necessary research to support the statement.  Otherwise, leave it out. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm off to sun myself in Italia for two weeks, but before I go... The first test of whether a source is suitable is whether it truly says what it is being used as a source for, or, at the very least, has words to that effect. If the answer to that question is no, then the discussion ends there. Since the source offered here says nothing even close to what it is being used as a source for, any further discussion on the point of suitability is irrelevant.Burberry southsea (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lede absolutely should include that his reincarnation research is pseudoscientific. And, frankly, reincarnation is outside of the boundaries of normal psychiatric scientific research and so it is a straw-dog to suggest that only the position of psychiatrists on his research should apply.  An editor of a prestigious international science periodical has referred to him as engaging in pseudoscience.Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with burberry southsea, this is an RS and clearly "has words to that effect", as DG said. We also know more about the authors and editors than SV says, as has been elucidated in the above discussion. Viriditas is wrong to state that reincarnation cannot be scientifically studied. That Stevenson failed in his attempts at scientific investigation of reincarnation (which is what RS asserts he was attempting) doesn't mean scientific study of these beliefs, etc, isn't possible. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE, topics that are considered fringe topics MUST not be presented as if they are mainstream scientific claims, as that's a huge violation of WP:NPOV. The source is very clear that his work is under the umbrella of pseudoscience that the book dedicated to that topic is writing about, as edited by two of the world's most respected sources on the topic. The people complaining are doing do out of either blatant POV pushing or an incredible disconnect between what the ArbCom decisions on these topics said and what they think they said (see SlimVirgin arguing above that "pseudoscience" is meaningless and only ignorant people would use it, compared to ArbCom explicitly saying the term can and should be used). DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should include that purported research into reincarnation is pseudoscience. This should be supported by a reliable source but, as Viriditas says, that should not be hard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Parse it any way you like, you can't escape the fact that reincarnation is generally considered pseudoscience within the scientific community, and pseudoscience is a concern among mainstream educators, so I support the current wording of the lead, or an alternate such as, "His research gained little or no support within the scientific community where reincarnation is generally considered pseudoscience." - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The information that his work is generally considered pseudoscience has not been verified and thus should not be included. That's really the end of the conversation here. There might have been a real argument if - for instance - The Skeptic Encyclopedia verified the text. Even still, in general, partisan sources such as The Skeptic Encyclopedia have not been deemed reliable enough of sources to levy such a definite statement about whether something is or isn't pseudoscience. Rather it is one of those sources which requires attribution of its opinion. (i.e. According to The Skeptic Encyclopedia...). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Skeptics Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience does not appear to cover the work of Ian Stevenson, and I see no reason why it should be used as a source here. Artw (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, apparently they spelled it wrong . I have to say, this still seems like an incredibly weak source. Artw (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The source doesn't support either the contention that S's work was generally considered pseudoscience, or the contention that critics have so described it. This is because the article doesn't include the word "pseudoscience" and therefore cannot unambiguously support the use of this word in the article. If an appropriate source is found we can look at weight issues with the scientific and other sources identifying his work as scientific, but until then the claim should be removed for failing WP:V.Noirtist (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

 * My view is that we should not say this in the lead, in part because the source is not strong enough; in part because the source does not say his work was "generally considered" pseudoscience; in part because he had an entire most of one issue of a science journal devoted to him, which would argue against the "generally considered" position; and in part because the word "pseudoscience" is being used to denigrate him, rather than to inform readers. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow "most" has evolved to "entire" ("In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work") yet I'm curious what that particular issue had to say about Stevenson's research into reincarnation; how it was received, reviewed, responses, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's here, 21 pages (pp. 305-326).  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching a bit further, I found the JNMD edition that devoted "most" of the issue to discussing Stevenson's work is Vol. 165, No. 3, September 1977 located here. It's apparently a number of responses to Stevenson's reincarnation work. These responses are not uniformly supportive, nor could they be seen so in any way. There is even an editorial up front making the journal's position clear that "we do not imply such endorsement" of such "nonscientific philosophies and conclusions". I think the WP article's showcasing of a journal "devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work" while leaving out the true context of how the work was stigmatized is pushing the bounds of WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very nice piece of paraphrasing. What LL forgot to tell you is that the editorial also says that their decision to publish is based on "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" as well as the journal’s "commitment to the freedom of scientific and medical information". Burberry southsea (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but let's be clear, while they do respect "the authors", they don't endorse the "work". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is used to summarize the main points of the article and should stick to that principle. Currently, science cannot study or examine reincarnation.  For what it is worth, the subject of reincarnation can only be examined using religious or philosophical paradigms; The idea is simply outside the methodology of science and it is somewhat begging the question to say that reincarnation research is generally considered pseudoscience.  The lead currently summarizes the fourth paragraph of the "Reincarnation research" section with "his research gained little or no support within the scientific community".  If we are going to also add "generally considered pseudoscience" we should probably attribute this derogatory opinion to an actual source.  If that can't be done, it doesn't belong in the lead.  It should be very easy to find reputable scholars decrying Stevenson's reincarnation research as pseudoscience, so the person adding this to the lead should do the necessary research to support the statement.  Otherwise, leave it out. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm off to sun myself in Italia for two weeks, but before I go... The first test of whether a source is suitable is whether it truly says what it is being used as a source for, or, at the very least, has words to that effect. If the answer to that question is no, then the discussion ends there. Since the source offered here says nothing even close to what it is being used as a source for, any further discussion on the point of suitability is irrelevant.Burberry southsea (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede absolutely should include that his reincarnation research is pseudoscientific. And, frankly, reincarnation is outside of the boundaries of normal psychiatric scientific research and so it is a straw-dog to suggest that only the position of psychiatrists on his research should apply.  An editor of a prestigious international science periodical has referred to him as engaging in pseudoscience.Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with burberry southsea, this is an RS and clearly "has words to that effect", as DG said. We also know more about the authors and editors than SV says, as has been elucidated in the above discussion. Viriditas is wrong to state that reincarnation cannot be scientifically studied. That Stevenson failed in his attempts at scientific investigation of reincarnation (which is what RS asserts he was attempting) doesn't mean scientific study of these beliefs, etc, isn't possible. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reincarnation cannot be scientifically studied as it is a non-empirical, metaphysical concept. If I am wrong, you will therefore show me good empirical data regarding reincarnation.  Please let me know when you find it.  Hopefully, I won't have to wait until the next lifetime. Viriditas (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been reading your comments Verbal, and you've been very circumspect about whether you've read the source. You keep referring to what DG has said about the source, as if that amounts to anything. What does the source itself say? What are the "words to that effect"?Burberry southsea (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to doubt DGs description, no one has presented a rebuttal, and the information is verifiable. Do you have reason to doubt DG? Remember WP:AGF in any reply. I've been quite open on this point. Have you got the source now? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the source? I have, and there is nothing in it to the effect that Stevenson's research is generally considered pseudoscience. Burberry southsea (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that DG is an experianced editor in good standing, while you are an WP:SPA with a clear agenda. His compelling account disagrees with yours. If you are to say DG has lied then you'll need a bit more proof. Do you have the source now? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear, Verbal, that you have little to contribute other than insults and accusations. The source is provided above. If you do not wish to look at it then nobody can compell you to. No doubt you will also "see" Phil Mole's name in the editorial board list of Skeptic magazine. Burberry southsea (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed the link above, as I also missed this comment in all the activity. Having now read the chapter it supports the characterisation and DGs summary was correct. Please don't make further personal attacks per WP:NPA. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to explain how User:Burberry southsea could make that claim. I will WP:AGF and assume that it's a reading comprehension problem coupled with a bias to not see what he doesn't want to see instead of a more serious problem. The studies are clearly mentioned as part of a long list of reincarnation claims described as pseudoscience. It does not say every sentence "this is pseudoscience, this is too, this one is too, also this one" but it's in a section describing pseudoscience and specifically named. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could quote the relevant section of the article.Burberry southsea (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the source on google books and amongst supporting DGs claims it also calls "Ian Stephenson" a reincarnationist, and then describes why his techniques are only pseudoscientific. AGF, perhaps the typo is your problem. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could quote the relevant section where it says Stevenson's work is pseudoscience? Burberry southsea (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at WP:TE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Your question has been answered. This is ample to characterise Stevenson's work. Read the chapter on Reincarnation. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked the same question and I have not received an answer. I personally believe that Stevenson's work is pseudoscience, but I haven't yet seen a source that describes his work in that way.  Please provide one. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FRINGE, topics that are considered fringe topics MUST not be presented as if they are mainstream scientific claims, as that's a huge violation of WP:NPOV. The source is very clear that his work is under the umbrella of pseudoscience that the book dedicated to that topic is writing about, as edited by two of the world's most respected sources on the topic. The people complaining are doing do out of either blatant POV pushing or an incredible disconnect between what the ArbCom decisions on these topics said and what they think they said (see SlimVirgin arguing above that "pseudoscience" is meaningless and only ignorant people would use it, compared to ArbCom explicitly saying the term can and should be used). DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem here? Why not just find a source that actually calls his work pseudoscience?  That shouldn't be difficult.  And, if this criticism can be discussed in the body of the article, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the lead.  What exactly is this argument about?  Verbal seems to think that science is some kind of Swiss Army knife, when in fact, science can only deal with evidence.  There is simply no good evidence for reincarnation, so science cannot study it.  It really is that simple.  Science can, of course, study beliefs and opinions about reincarnation, but it cannot study reincarnation itself.  So, what is it that Stevenson is studying?  Is he studying reincarnation, or beliefs and opinions about it? Viriditas (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. People claim there is evidence. Scientific, critical, evaluation leads to that evidence (in all cases I know of) being dismissed. Stevenson attempted to use the scientific method, but did so uncritically, and credulously (according to RS) which is why what he did isn't science (in relation to reincarnation). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People claim all sorts of things. And there are good, mundane explanations for most of them.  That doesn't mean reincarnation is real or not-real.  Please provide me with the name of one researcher who has examined reincarnation using the methodology of science and is respected by his peers.  This person does not exist because reincarnation is not a topic for science.  While it is true that one could study the beliefs and opinions about reincarnation, there is no good empirical evidence that would allow the theory to be tested.  It is, therefore, not a topic for science.  You seem to think that science can examine everything, when that is simply not true.  Granted, there will be those who will come up with scientific theories for why people think reincarnation is true - perhaps it is a psychological adaptation to dealing with the finality of death, etc.  But that does not presuppose that reincarnation is real in any way.  It merely accepts that people believe in it and attempts to find out why.  There is a skeptic-run website that breaks this down into three arguments 1) metaphysical; 2) empirical; and 3) theological.  In all three cases, science has nothing to say other than to offer us the simplest, mundane explanation: It ain't reincarnation.  Now, that doesn't mean reincarnation doesn't exist, it just means that science cannot study it. Viriditas (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See references 34 on on the Reincarnation research page. These are all scientists who have studied, scientifically, reincarnation beliefs. I agree partially with you, in that science has nothing to say about things outside of science (duh). However, Stevenson and others have stated that there was a real mechanism (not metaphysical, Tucker says it's QM - which is stupid, but there you go), and proposed mechanisms can be investigated. We can study claims of reincarnation or proposed mechanisms and will probably always come to the conclusion that they are wrong - like homeopathy. Even if something isn't in any way a science, it can still be a pseudoscience by the virtue of its presentation or misuse of scientific terms or methods - like water memory, quantum mysticism, Stevenson's reincarnation research... About your last sentence, it's a non sequitur to say science can't study it - you just said science concludes it doesn't exist, after describing some ways in which it is studied and found not to exist. As this discussion is off topic I suggest we move it to your talk page if you want to continue. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Science can't study reincarnation because the evidence doesn't support the concept from the start. Beyond belief, there is nothing significant to measure or test.  Homeopathy, on the other hand, operates on the placebo effect.  There are hundreds of published papers (thousands?) available on this subject, and more every year.  The evidence for reincarnation doesn't rise to the level of empirical data supporting the placebo effect, so the analogy doesn't hold. Viriditas (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your view of science is incorrect. You seem to be claiming that science can only study things that exist or subject to experiment? Not true, look at astronomy, maths and theoretical physics. You also say yourself that science explains reincarnation by positing other explanations - that is the conclusion of the scientific investigation of reincarnation. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My view of science is entirely correct, and reincarnation cannot be investigated by science because it cannot be identified and tested. For the purposes of the scientific paradigm, reincarnation does not exist.  Astronomy tests theories out all the time.  For example, we have the Kepler Mission searching and testing for Earth-like planets right now.  What kind of reincarnation detector do you find in the technological arsenal of science?  If you can't design or build a reincarnation detector, science can't examine it.  End of story. Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For a process supposed to shed light there seems to be an awful lot of confusion. This can be settled very quickly.  Whoever has the relevant bit/s in the RS/s, please quote it/them here.  DG, I presume this falls to you.  It needs to be remembered, however, that a skeptic magazine or dictionary or whatever is not to be held in the same esteem as a research journal.  Research journals and peer reviews are part of the scientific machinery.  Skeptic magazines/books are often part of the science fanboy literature (if I can use a little poetic license) - that is, they are typically not part of the scientific machine per se but rather part of the para-community where non-scientists can participate in ridiculing areas deemed irrational.  I don't mean that in a glib way, although I'm sure it reads much glibber than I intend :-)  This is a biography about Stevenson.  He was a professional scientist in that he was employed by a University to conduct research into a phenomenon, and was published in peer reviewed research journals.  It is utterly irrelevant whether his methods were flawed, science is nothing if not the history of flawed methods.  It is also utterly irrelevant whether he was the most or least popular scientist on the planet, popularity has no bearing on whether he participated fully as a professional scientist or not (hence the poignancy of the Galileo quote).  If anyone can provide compelling evidence (no "kook and charlatan" quotes please) that Stevenson was not a member of the scientific profession, please produce it.  Newton was a scientist even though all of his theories were ultimately wrong, so let's avoid the trap of quibbling over the content of his research, just focus on whether Stevenson was a practising professional scientist or not.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the reincarnation chapter, search for Ian Stephenson as there is a typo. He was a scientist, he also engaged in pseudoscience. That is clear. Newton engaged in alchemy (proto or prescience), and I should hope that's noted on his page. The source is fine. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a quote there Verbal. There is a huge range of stuff about reincarnation that skeptics tackle - I'd hate to see Stevenson's work lumped in with much of the rubbish that people have claimed is research, that's the whole point here.  And let's be honest, how good can the RS be if they can't even spell his name right?  A trivial point in one way, but it does speak to the quality of the research/fact checking and undermines credibility... and that's the kind of criticism that is often applied in skeptic 'analyses' to help underscore unprofessionalism.  I'm not encouraged.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a trivial point as I've seen it spelt incorrectly in multiple places and is merely a copyediting error. Should we not consider the guardian a reliable source? Please read the section I've pointed you to. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, what source says that Stevenson's research is "generally considered pseudoscience"? Per WP:V, please produce it here.  I personally believe that Stevenson's research is pseudoscience, but we don't edit articles based on our beliefs.  Please produce the source. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * {ec}Here we go then, in the spirit of 'if you want something done you have to do it yourself', the entire paragraph by Mole that refers to Stevenson. Note this is the only paragraph in the entire book that mentions him, and I'm not sure how long the article is - but stacked against even a single peer reviewed article it's pretty flimsy;
 * Strange birthmarks on a person's body are another commonly cited "proof" of reincarnation. Ian Stephenson, one of the most prominent contemporary reincarnationists, considers birthmarks to be the strongest evidence in favor of the doctrine.  He and many of his colleagues find a correspondence between birthmarks on living individuals and wounds or other markings on the bodies of deceased person, and they claim the similarlity of these marks is too strong to result from chance alone.  The only sensible explanation, in their view, is that the deceased person has been reincarnated in a new body, with the previous bodily markings intact.  However, most of these alledged cases of physical similarities are based on anecdotal evidence, since it is usually impossible to inspect the body of the deceased person or to analyze a detailed photograph of the body.  Many of the alleged correlations are invented retrospectively by family members who already believe in reincarnation.  After a child is born, family members belieiving in reincarnation look for birthmarks on the child and then try to recall a dead friend or relative who had similar marks.  This method of selectively reviewing data to verify preconceived ideas virtually guarantees errors in judgement and reasoning.  Aside from these difficulties, reincarnationists must also explain how the presumably immaterial soul of a deceased person can transmit physical characteristics to a new body.  Since there is no logical way that a nonphysical entity can cause changes on physical bodies, such a transmission of characteristics must be extremely improbable, if not impossible.  This modus operandi problem of conserving the physical traits of the dead continues to defeat the best arguments of reincarnationists (Edwards 1996, 135).
 * So there's nothing about pseudoscience for starters. Also Stevenson is being lumped in with "many of his colleagues" (whoever they are) and everything from that point on is generalisation after generalisation; "they claim", "in their view", "most of the alleged cases", "usually impossible", "many of the alleged",  "virtually guarantees", "extremely improbable".  There is nothing to indicate that this is a detailed analysis of Stevenson's work at all, Mole could be burrowing into any number of the 'many colleagues' work instead.  It also seems that Mole has drawn on Edwards book as his own source.  Here are some points that an academic in the field (James G. Matlock, Southern Illinois University) had to make about his book;
 * Edwards frequently cites the views of fellow skeptics, but does not attempt to address the responses of survival researchers, even when these are available to him. For instance, he references my 1990 review of reincarnation research (Matlock, 1990), which deals with all of the issues cited in the last paragraph, and which includes detailed rebuttals to a number of critical comments on Stevenson's research. However, not only does Edwards fail to take note of my comments, he ignores them and trots out many of the same tired arguments. At times, Edwards seems not to grasp the relevant issues...There are several outright mistakes, which betray a less than sure grasp of the relevant literature and personalities...The tone of the book often is condescending...Edwards is not beyond putting others down, sometimes to the point of slander...As philosophy, the book is disappointing. Edwards mostly rehearses the arguments of others, makes few original points, and does not closely examine any issue. Moreover, his bias sometimes leads him into circular arguments...Edwards spends much time on issues to which no serious researcher gives much attention (Kubler-Ross, Grof), and does not deal at all adequately with the more important scholarly literature, so serious researchers will find little of value here.
 * I would suggest that unless someone has a better RS that we stick with the fact that Stevenson was a practising professional scientist and leave it at that. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is fine, and to claim it doesn't mention pseudoscience when that's the SOLE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK is just insane. We get that you want to pretend this guy was a typical scientist, but that's just your POV at work. DreamGuy (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry DreamGuy, but your word is not good enough. You cannot just say that "the source is fine", nor make OR claims about the "sole purpose of the book" - I'm sure making money was at least one of its purposes.  So rather than you pushing your POV - of which you seem very keen to accuse everyone else of doing (ever heard of projection?) - just simply provide the quote that backs up your statements.  It's quicker, simpler, and requires far less rhetoric.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the opinion of parapsychologist James G. Matlock should be represented as an independent, 3rd party view of the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think unjustified dismissals help either. I'm not suggesting he's an independent 3rd party, I think he's an academic in the field.  If you have relevant points to make, have a crack at making them openly.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Parse this! 1000 vs 31000. The scientific community do not generally consider reincarnation to be pseudoscience. Instead, and quite correctly, they consider it to be part of religious thought. . If the introduction is to make any general point about reincarnation then it should be the massive majority view rather than a tiny minority view which is probably about what goes on in California.Noirtist (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Religious thought that someone does pseudoscientific research into is pseudoscience. Someone can believe all they want to in the holy ghost or whatever as far as their religion goes, but if they then do some crazy half-assed tests to try to support it as a real concept, that's clearly and obviously pseudoscience, as we have a very reliable source pointing out. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your source doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" in the section on Stevenson, nor in the article on reincarnation. You therefore don't have a source that unambiguously supports the contention the Stevenson's work was considered pseudoscience by anyone, let alone that it was generally considered pseudoscience. By contrast, five sources have been provided above (with quotes) which explicitly support the contention than Stevenson's work was seen as science. Even if you manage to find a source, you still have to account for these contrary sources.Noirtist (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need to say pseudoscience every sentence for it to be understandable that the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is talking about pseudoscience when it brings up specific examples. Your attempt to declare otherwise is just wikilawyering at its most desperate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the rule is, if the statement is challenged, you need to be able to provide a source that directly addresses the claim in question without any interpretation. Since the statement has been challenged by several editors, the EoP source doesn't suffice.  Do you have another source that directly supports the claim? Viriditas (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is people refusing to accept the source, while the source meets WP:RS and clearly supports the statement. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just provide a quotation as you are required to do by WP:V. We have asked you to comply with this policy 15 times now. Noirtist (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote's already been provided on the page, you just ignore it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DG's argument also fails because the same section in the book's table of contents contains ball lightning, cold reading, cults, faster than light travel, hypnosis, the ideomotor effect, multiple personality disorder, and the placebo effect. So, if being in that section makes something a pseudoscience then all these things would be too. Since they are obviously not pseudoscience, inclusion in that section is not good evidence for anything. Noirtist (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you just claim those are "obviously not pseudoscience" we're supposed to take your word and ignore what a reliable source has to say? That's insane. All of those are either pseudoscience or traits used in pushing pseudoscientific ideas/groups that grow up around pseudoscience. Cold reading, for example, is not a pseudoscience, but it explains how pseudoscientists use cold reading to trick gullible people. It's pretty obvious the context in which each of those items are discussed, at least to anyone who reads them. Reincarnation research is discussed in a section talking about it being pseudoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say you have very different standards of what makes for a good source on this page than you do on the Jim Tucker page. It mentions him very briefly, before moving on to dismiss the entire field in very general terms. It makes no mention of an direct criticism of Stevensons work by any scientists. It does not directly describe Stevensons work as pseudoscience. Are Michael Shermer and Pat Linse the “critics” refered to by  “Critics have described reincarnation research of this type as pseudoscience” refers to? Possibly the text should be changed to reflect that? Artw (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy
Per policy, WP:V, the claim that Stevenson's work is "generally considered pseudoscience" should be removed if no source is provided that says this (or a large number of sources provided who say it's pseudoscience to the point where it would be fruitless to argue that it was not generally considered such). But with no source at all saying or indicating that it was "generally considered" pseudoscience, it can't stay in the article.

WP:V says: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed," and "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."

The editors who want this in the article should provide that source, please, or else allow the claim to be removed. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been added, see above. Per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE it must be included. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the 12th request to produce a quotation in support of the claim that Stevenson's work was described as, or generally considered to be, pseudoscience. Please produce the quotation or stop adding unverifiable information to this article.Noirtist (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Information has already been provided. Stop pretending otherwise. The book title is encyclopedia of *pseudoscience* and it specifically names this individuals research in its description of the pseuodoscience of reincarnation. This has been pointed out time and time again, and for you to claim otherwise is basically just lying at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to where you claim the information has been provided. At least three people have requested this information in the last day or so and despite thirteen separate requests no quotes have ever been forthcoming. Quotes are needed according to WP:V "when there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source". Noirtist (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been provided EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU ASK. Continually asking for proof of something, ignoring it when it's given, and then claiming it never happened is outright lying. It is included as an example of pseudoscience in a section about pseudoscience in a book dedicated to pseudoscience. To believe that that somehow means something other than pseudoscience is perhaps one of the most ludicrous examples of wikilawyering demonstrated on this project. Every time you remove that fully cited information you will be reverted. Every time. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please link to one example of where you or anyone else has provided a quotation from the source in question unambiguously supporting the contention that Stevenson's work is pseudoscience. It is not just me who has asked for this and no quote has ever been forthcoming. Please provide quotes or diffs only. I have no interest in arguments about how the non-pseudoscientific cold reading is actually pseudoscience in some way or other and so must reincarnation be etc. We don't need arguments, we need quotes per WP:V.Noirtist (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with DreamGuy's edit summary here in that there does seem to be a problem here with people who insist that their POV is more important than sources. Possibly not on the identy of those people.Artw (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
I have found an interesting quote from Arthur C. Clarke about Stevenson that I would like to include. I believe it helps to demonstrate that he was held in high esteem by notable characters, as well as being an interesting quote in its own right, but I don't want to launch an edit war - LuckyLouie seems troubled that I would post such a thing on the Arthur C Clarke page, so maybe here is the better spot. What do people think? "I don't rule out the possibility of all sorts of remarkable mental powers - there are even things like telekinesis and so forth. And I'm sure that there are many things we don't know about. But they've got to be examined skeptically before they're accepted. An example is reincarnation, which everyone in Sri Lanka believes in. An American, Dr. Stevenson, has done a lot of papers on that, and has produced studies of about 50 cases that are hard to explain. But the problem with reincarnation is that it's hard to imagine what the storage medium for past lives would be. Not to mention the input-output device. I hesitate to rule it out completely, but I'd need pretty definite proof." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A passing mention does not equate to high esteem. Such an addition would be original research, and does not belong.Novangelis (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it is relevant. That is to say, Clarke was surrounded by Buddhists, not just any Buddhists mind you, but the Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka, holding on to a 2000-year old tradition.  I would support using the quote in the article, but only if it is carefully sourced, ideally with secondary sources commenting on it in relation to Stevenson.  Where does it come from? Viriditas (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the presence of Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists around Clarke would fall under WP:SOWHATSimonm223 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarke lived in a culture dripping with reincarnation beliefs, far more than in the west. He was in a position to experience this firsthand, and might have some knowledge on the subject to share.  Unfortunately, the quote does not illuminate much of anything. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the source. There is nothing irrelevant about the quote, in and of itself, but it does not support the proposed analysis. The Article about Arthur C. Clarke is about Arthur C. Clarke. Skipping over all the direct discussions of major religions to include a side example in Clarke's position of religion is taking a major analytical position on a minor comment. It has the nature of promoting one aspect of a primary source in disproportion to the totality. You could drop the discussion of the paranormal and ellipsis out the sentence about Dr. Stephenson without changing the focus on open-minded skepticism. The challenge is showing that analysis is mainstream.Novangelis (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right about it being a minor comment. Looking at it a second time, there's just not enough to really use it in the article. Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Stevenson is not a focus of that quote which in regard to Stevenson merely shows that Clarke was acquainted with his work. If we had somewhere to collate famous people's position on paranormal phenomena, that would be a place to insert the quote, otherwise, if presented in an appropriate context, e.g. Clarke's religious or metaphysical beliefs, I would instead press to have it included somewhere in the Clarke article. __meco (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Including that would give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to a fringe viewpoint and mislead our readers. That may be what some people here hope to do, but it's against our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm heartened that my first instinct was probably right, and that it is more appropriate on Clarke's page under the section on his religious views. Thanks for the feedback.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there was no consensus to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 4 days of silence is a fair indication of consensus. Anyway, let's shift this conversation to the relevant talk page over at A.C.C. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At least two editors had reverted your WP:COATRACKing advocacy of Ian Stevenson at Arthur C. Clarke and explained in detail why they objected to your approaching the article with the aim to find a home for a quote supporting Stevenson and reincarnation. Please don't take silence as consensus. Silence could mean someone is very busy or offline (as is the case with me.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the A.C.C. page is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced scientific commentary
We currently have multiple scientific sources lauding the scientific rigor of Stevenson's research. LuckyLouie, Verbal and DreamGuy keep removing all reference to this. Please explain why you think an article by a Chicago film buff outweighs the British Medical Journal and The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.Noirtist (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true, can you place the URL's (or refs) here so that others like myself can review? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are in the article now. Refs 5 and 6. They are also listed above in the section about sources describing his work as science. .Noirtist (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the references, I correctly qualified what they say. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've struck your name since you only removed the information once, and that was before I had a chance to cite the reference, so you may not have known it could be sourced to a scientific journal. Noirtist (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception
I've added a section on the reception for Stevenson's work which I think more fully covers what people have said about it. I have not added the sources yet but I think all is clearly related to sources in the article. Comments please. Noirtist (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this could be a good way to keep everyone happy. Personally I don't think the Mole piece is clearly about Stevenson except to point out that he did work on birthmarks, otherwise he seems to bundle various unnamed researchers into the one basket, and refers exclusively to "most" cases rather than the 40+ where postmortems were collected.  Clearly 49 strong cases is in the minority compared to 3500 cases overall, but offering critiques solely about the weakest cases is hardly compelling criticism - and Stevenson has critiqued the weaker cases far more robustly himself.  Personally I don't think Mole is strong enough to be included here, but if consensus is that it's a good analysis of Stevenson's work then I'm willing not to make a mountain out of it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'm happy to not include it. All the other names listed are fairly well known. Noirtist (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another interesting point, although not from RSs can be found in reviews of Edward's book. For example, Stevenson has "according to Edwards, written more fully and intelligibly on reincarnation than anyone else." And also, "only Dr. Ian Stevenson, who has investigated the subject since the early 1970s, gets credit for professionalism and integrity, if not flawless methodology.".  It seems some people here just don't want to accept that Stevenson was widely respected for his integrity and scientific rigor. Noirtist (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Will you stop all this POV pushing!!!!! Stevenson was a nutbag, reincarnation is a ridiculous hyphothesis, I'm right, you're wrong, FRINGE, PEACOCK, COATRACK, VERB, NOUN, ACRONYM, BLAH etc. oh, and PSEUDOSCIENCE!!!  Sadly there seems to be surprisingly little faith in the scientific method - apparently you can't use it in certain fields because they are simply too unscientifically toxic to be tackled.  I stumbled across a nice review of one of Stevenson's works - I'm trying to find it again - from a RS - which commented something about him being scientifically rigorous but not being a scientist because he contemplated unorthodox hypotheses!!  I'm not sure how they think old theories ever get replaced... The truth can be a dangerous thing when you think you know it.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding unsourced criticism to the lead
Verbal, you keep adding a section to the lede claiming that "critics have described reincarnation research of this type as pseudoscience". If you have such a source please quote the relevant section where the word "pseudoscience" appears in a description of Stevenson's work or where work of the same type as Stevenson's is so described.Noirtist (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This page isn't about a 'type' of research, it's about Stevenson's research. Any quote needs to address Stevenson's research, not a type, otherwise you are doing WP:OR to claim Stevenson's research was of that type. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote from the source DOES explicitly refer to his research. Give it up already, as you are just going in circles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blippy's point. I also think the number of quotes from the scientific establishment and elsewhere lauding Stevenson's methodology as rigorously scientific (virtually everyone says this), means there would be a real WEIGHT issue about throwing around pejoratives like pseudoscience in the lede. We certainly would need a lot more than the current argument involving book titles and section titles spreading their meaning to everything covered, however briefly, in articles in those sections or books.Noirtist (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lord... THE SOURCE WAS ALREADY PROVIDED (as discussed extensively on this talk page altready, which you are well aware of), AND IT'S LISTED IN THE ARTICLE (so even if you somehow drew a complete blank on the talk page discussion you participated in, just look at the source). A couple of SPA users trying to pretend that the source doesn't say what it clearly says is NOT going to allow them to push their POV onto the article. Give it up already, because your argument is nonsensical and only demonstrates the absurd lengths you'll go to to censor mainstream views to push your own personal beliefs. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the quotes that you claim to have provided in compliance with WP:V. If this has happened then providing the links should be a simple matter. Noirtist (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been done. Stop repeatedly claiming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is so then the diffs should be easy to provide. Diffs and quotes please? Noirtist (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The chapter on Reincarnation, search for Ian Stephenson. Google book link above. More than meets the requirements. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "pseudoscience" does not feature anywhere in that article. So, there appears to be a misunderstanding here. I, and others, think that the WP:BURDEN section of WP:V requires anyone adding disputed text to provide a quotation that unambiguously supports the disputed text on the talk page. 1. Do you agree WP:V requires this? 2. If so, do you think you have already provided such a quotation? If so, please provide diffs.  3. If you do not think WP:BURDEN applies in the way I have described then please explain why.Noirtist (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have provided an WP:RS that unambiguously supports the text. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which sections do you think unambiguously support this and could you provide the quotations please. Noirtist (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: WP:V doesn't require quotes: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article". Direct quotes of the form "X is pseudoscience," or "Beckham is a famous world class footballer" from a book called "Famous world class footballers" that has a section on Beckham, are not required. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this: you find a book called "Famous world Class Footballers" in which there are chapters devoted to, amongst others, David Beckham, Ian Botham and Manchester United. In the section on Manchester United you find a paragraph about The Neville Brothers (it's capitalized by mistake but you know the author must mean the footballers rather than the singers) and in the section about the Phil and Gary the words of the cult song referring to the players' dad Neville Neville are quoted. Does this mean that Neville Neville is a famous wold class footballer because he's mentioned in the book? What about Ian Botham? He's famous and world class at cricket, but he was only a half-decent footballer. What about Manchester United? It's not even a person so it can't be a footballer. In such cases I would ask for direct quotes, and if not provided, I would reject the tortuous arguments being used to say Neville Neville was the best player in the world ever as being almost the definition of ambiguity.Noirtist (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Analogies have limits. The analogy sufficed for the point I was making. The source we have provided suffices to say that Reincarnation research, including Steveson's, is considered pseudoscience. The situation you describe is not analogous to the situation we have here. I'm glad you don't dispute that you were wrong about quotes being required. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It suffices no more than my source would suffice to say Neville Neville is a world class footballer. That is, a small section which makes no claims about pseudoscience in an article which doesn't use the word in a book with chapters devoted to many non-pseusdoscientific things buys you precisely nothing. One might as well argue that the word "and" is pseudoscience because it's in the book.Noirtist (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources describing Ian Stevenson's work as pseudoscience per WP:V
1.


 * Kurz is not a scientist or a medical doctor. Title demonstrates strong predisposition to reject reincarnation research as scientific. Same could be said for Mole.  But NYAS is obviously RS, so we give them the benefit of the doubt - well, Mole is more of a problem in this regard than Kurz.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember anybody claiming that he was "a scientist or a medical doctor" -- his field appears to be philosophy, most probably philosophy of science (given that he is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) -- which would be relevant. The scientific community generally "reject[s] reincarnation research as scientific", so this is hardly surprising. I would suggest you read WP:GEVAL. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I can't blame you for not seeing my tongue in my cheek. "Most probably" isn't terribly convincing BTW, but most probably you knew that.  Oh, apologies Noirtist, I've mucked up the formatting here.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, cut down on the "tongue in my cheek" stuff: it grates and looks like baiting. I agree with Hrafn. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Most probably" = you've failed completely to impeach Paul Kurtz as an expert (as well as having failed dismally to spell his name correctly). Even if his field of specialisation does not turn out to be philosophy of science, philosopher + Fellow of the AAAS + long list of publication on the subject of skepticism and pseudoscience would appear to qualify him as an expert regardless. Watch where you put your tongue, somebody might decide to nail it to the table because you gave the impression of claiming some false equivalence between Kurtz & Bailey. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an equivalence. Both are non-scientist academics writing in academic works that both more than meet RS for our purposes here. All Blippy appears to be pointing out is a fairly blatant double standard being employed to rule out some sources and to elevate others to a position resembling a super-source. Both sources are adequate but neither tells us much more than the view of the author or goes into any depth about Stevenson or his methods. We have other much better sources below which do exactly that. Nonetheless, we at least now do have once source for the contention that some critics viewed Stevenson's work as pseudoscientific. Noirtist (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No there isn't. Being a Fellow of the AAAS is prima facie evidence of scientific standing. Prima facie evidence that has yet to be rebutted. Being the chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is likewise an indication of relevant expertise. On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that Bailey has any qualification, standing or expertise relevant to science. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebutted? What are you talking about? Noirtist (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."
 * I.e. being an AAAS Fellow gives the 'first impression' that Kurtz has scientific standing -- an impression that will remain unless something (a 'rebuttal') is found demonstrating that this first impression is sufficiently incomplete as to be unsound. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody, except you by extension below, is saying Kurtz doesn't have scientific standing. I have said he's not a scientist. Which he's not. But I also said that made no difference for the purposes of this article. He's an academic and his views count. Noirtist (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total sources = 1

Noirtist (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You ignored the reliable source already proven above: The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Simply insisting it doesn't say what it clearly says doesn't make you right, it makes you a liar... or just very confused and self-deluded by POV. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is for sources where quotations can be provided in order to allow the claim to be full verified. If you have a quotation to add please enter it after the number 2 above and we will count it. Noirtist (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources describing Ian Stevenson's work as science per WP:V
1.The Daily Telegraph says Stevenson “was the world's foremost scientific authority on the study of reincarnation”
 * Broken link. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * fixedNoirtist (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) the DT is hardly qualified to opine on the scientific merits of Stevenson's work. (ii) Their admission that "…his work received little or no recognition from the scientific community…" would appear that those who are qualified to do so view it rather differently. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody objects to saying that his worked received very little attention and even less support from the scientific community. Nobody is arguing about that. I myself added a section detailing exactly that today and ensuring it was discussed in the article as well as the lede. What we do not have though (despite over 20 requests) is a single quotation saying anything like "Stevenson's work was pseudoscience".Noirtist (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2.The British Medical Journal says Stevenson “researched reincarnation with scientific rigour”

3.Tom Schroeder’s book refers to Stevenson's work explicitly as science in many places in his book "Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives".
 * Book title demonstrates strong predisposition to accept reincarnation research as "scientific". What are Schroeder's scientific credentials? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

4.Lee Worth Bailey (associate professor of religion at Ithaca College) says Stevenson is “best known for his scientific investigations of reports of reincarnation”. 
 * Bailey is not a scientist or a medical doctor, as misrepresented in the article, and has no relevant qualifications for judging whether Stevenson's research is scientific. Nor did he write that chapter in which this statement was made -- Stevenson did.
 * Baily is a senior academic and he edited the book and wrote the introduction (where the quote is from) describing Stevenson.Noirtist (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A "senior academic" in a field completely outside science = NOT a WP:RS on the scientific merits of Stevenson's work. Please present WP:V evidence that it was Baily himself (not Stevenson, Stevenson's co-author, or Stevenson's publicist) who wrote the introduction.

5.Harold Lief writes, "while I withhold final judgement on the content and conclusions" of Stevenson’s research "I am a true believer in his methods of investigation" which he describes as "scrupulously following the scientific method". 

6. Eugene Brody refers to the "scientific and personal credibility of" Stevenson and others and "the legitimacy of their research methods, and the conformity of their reasoning to the usual canons of rational thought". He also describes Stevenson's research as providing "scientific and medical information".

7. Philosopher Robert Almeder (with a specialism in philosophy of science amongst other things) supports Stevenson's work and even stronger conclusions and refers to his work as scientific in various places in his book Death and personal survival. For example, in discussing Stevnson's work he says "a new willingness to consider alleged cases of reincarnation under the empirical methods of science has brought forward evidence that establishes the validity of the belief in reincarnation."

8. "There have been some attempts to explain reincarnation on a scientific basis" (p.130) followed by a discussion of the work of "...esteemed reincarnation researcher and physician, Ian Stevenson"… (p.132) In Searching for eternity by Don Morse.

9. "Ian Stevenson, the world’s foremost scientific investigator of reincarnation cases." in Charles Tart's Transpersonal Psychologies p.148

10. "One of the most thoroughly searched scientific accounts of reincarnation is by Professor Ian Stevenson." The Nature of Human Thought p.80 Anil K Rajvanshi.

11. "Scientific studies of the phenomena pointing to reincarnation have been conducted in recent years by Ian Stevenson" p.173, Encyclopedia of Death by Robert Kastenbaum

Total sources = 11 (breakdown: scientific sources = 6, other academic sources = 3, newspapers 2) Noirtist (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you regard a film buff as better qualified than a senior academic. Also, it's the section above you want to be filling in.Noirtist (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I think "a contributing editor in Skeptic magazine" has more relevant expertise than an expert in religion. Thank you for your tendentious comment. If Baily turns out to also be an opera buff, would that reduce his (only slightly) more relevant expertise in religion? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I just trim this down a smidge - we have three articles in two scientific journals saying IAN STEVENSON (not reincarnation research generally) worked scientifically. We appear to have zero articles in scientific journals saying he didn't. Maybe some editors might take a quick squiz at WP:GEVAL to help decide whether they want to place the views of non-professional scientists above the views of professional scientists or not. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you have three articles in two medical journals making this claim. Odd really, I hadn't realised that reincarnation was a medical condition. If so, how is it cured? More seriously, is their toolkit of medical research sufficient to qualify them to make a reasonable judgement on what standards would be required to make a reliable scientific study of whether reincarnation (a purported phenomenon well outside the mainstream of medical research experience) occurs? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that psychiatrists and psychologists and medical doctors don't count. What we need is good old fashioned philosopher. Someone with a first name like Paul, and a second name beginning with K. That would be a good source. Hmmmn, this is becoming ridiculous.Noirtist (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Founded in 1874, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is the world's oldest independent scientific monthly in the field of human behavior." This is simply not an issue to be debated here.Noirtist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I think what Hrafn is suggesting is that medical research is not a branch of science. This seems to tell us quite a lot about Hrafn, but very little about either medicine or science.  More seriously, Hrafn, it is not for us to judge the extent or otherwise of their 'toolkit', nor the extent or otherwise of how well this qualifies their judgement.  All we have to do is bring together RS's that experts have produced.  The producers of such RS's are the experts, we are merely the buffoons with too little else going on in our lives that would otherwise stop us from squabbling amongst ourselves about such things.  Let's not lose sight of reality all together.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight
I don't have a problem including Kurtz's singular claim that Stevenson's research was pseudoscience, but since we only have one source for that and 7 saying his work was rigorously scientific, I think this needs to be balanced carefully. I therefore think the addition of Lief's 'Galileo' quote provides some of the context and balance needed. Noirtist (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "balance" -- that's how you describe removing all mention of the prevailing scientific view, as backed up by multiple sources, and replacing it with wild fringe science claims? Seriously, you clearly do not understand NPOV policy... or just want to ignore it. Making your same POV-pushing edits over and over (with deceptive edit comments so only people watching you like a hawk can see what you did) and making false claims about them on the talk page does not mean you get to break policies. You will be reverted each and every time you make such a move per WP:BRD and WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed nothing in my last edits. You keep claiming that I am censoring information but I am not. I have also provided seven sources above for the kind of thing I am saying and you have only provided one or two if Shermer's book is counted for what you now call the "prevailing scientific view". Please explain how I manage to censor the information when I am not removing it. Noirtist (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The page history diff may misleadingly make it look like I am removing the claim about pseudoscience, so for clarity DG, here is what is currently in the lede (my version): "Some critics have described Stevenson's reincarnation research as pseudoscience"; and here is your virtually identical version "Critics have described reincarnation research of Stephenson's type as pseudoscience". I prefer mine because, not least, I spell Stevenson's name correctly, and also because it more explicitly identifies Stevenson as the target of the criticism rather than research of his type which, needlessly in the biographical context, implies other researchers as well as Stevenson. What is it you feel is being censored in my version.Noirtist (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, I'd always wondered what WP:AGF meant. DG, please provide citations for the "prevailing scientific view" of Stevenson's work - feel free to refer to the 7 scientific references above.  Personally I believe one passing reference to Stevenson by a non-scientist violates WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be in the lead.  Also, the Galileo quote is an important quote - nobody has demonstrated otherwise, so I'm not sure what the 'see Talk' bit means on the edit summary that removed it.  Not only is it important, but it's actually quite balanced as well.  Some editors don't seem to accept that it says that Stevenson could be making a huge mistake.  Note that it doesn't say that he *is* making a huge mistake.  I fail to see how some editors here can draw such solidly opinionated views about Stevenson's work when Lief and co. could not.  Smells like POV to me! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)