Talk:Life After Life (Moody book)

Comment
I'm in favor of spinning off the band part. Personally I hardly ever look for bands so all the incidental band (and Simpsons) info in the articles is rather distracting for me. You know, choose at random any major concept ever contemplated in the history of civilization and there's probably a band name or a Simpsons episode that somehow relates to it. --Smithfarm 16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. It appears that the band has nothing to do with the book. Loool 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the band should be a separate article. A Disambiguation page needs to be created. Also, please add more information about the book. E.g., what year was it published? 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Verbal has placed a "notability" tag on this article, but has not explained why. The book is a bestseller. It has a forward by the famed Elizabeth Kubler Ross and according to Amazon.com has been cited by at least one hundred books

In a critical review of Life After Life, in Kindred Spirit the journal of the Dallas Theological Seminary, Charles Caldwell Ryrie refers to Moody as a "respected medical researcher" and points out that Life After Life has appeared in a condensed version in the Readers' Digest. The book is obviously notable. I shall remove the tag. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?
The article associated with this book is pretty brief, but I would have expected something in the way of criticism. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in statistics to observe that a "study" containing a synthesis of 150 case reports does not constitute reliable scientific evidence.

2602:306:BC58:5910:487A:8FFD:7826:2DA2 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"... The total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[note 2] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content." Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

It doesn't take a Ph.D in physics to observe that a "theory" (I.E. the "Big Bang Theory") that leaves out 95% of the total mass-energy content of the universe does not constitute reliable scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:B5E8:F125:9C31:CE92:87F8 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)