Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is sufficient evidence that there is indeed a field of study that involves researching reincarnation. If there are problems with the way the article is written, they can be addressed through editing the content. If the perceived problem is the title, a rename discussion can be held on the article's talk page. The argument that we don't have a similar article on the research of other beliefs is entirely irrelevant. Merger into the main reincarnation article is a bad idea given the length of that article already. I would add that I do not care for the tone of a few of the participants. There are many millions of people from numerous religious traditions around the world who believe in reincarnation, and mocking that belief to score points in an AFD is despicable. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an original research sythesis of a variety of research programs both legitimate and dubious that involve reincarnation. There are no academic programs, departments, or professional research societies that are organized around "reincarnation research". There are billions of human beings who believe in reincarnation just as there are billions who believe in virgin birth. But we do not have special articles on virgin birth research for obvious reasons just as we should not have an article on "reincarnation resesarch". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose It escapes me how this is OR "sythesis". Please elaborate. Additionally: have never noticed that tenured academics at a top US university study virgin birth; to add a bit of credibility to  your analogy, would appreciate if you could  alert me to their existence.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * parthenogenesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Parthenogenesis? Thought you were talking about something controversial. Guess your analogy fails. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of researchers at Christian Colleges who make the claim that parthenogenesis proves the possibility of the Virgin Birth. Pretty sure that's a controversial contention. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  oppose merge Synthesis is a + b = c. Tidy up the "= c" by all means, but there's no valid reason to blast a and b out of existence while you're at it.  The virgin birth argument is also specious, as it doesn't hold for more relevant topics such as ESP.  K2709 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ESP is a "more relevant topic"? I wonder how that determination was made. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are well known protocols for obtaining data for testing of both ESP and reincarnation related hypotheses. VB isn't even a field of experimentation, it's a one-off miracle.  K2709 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's well-known unreliable protocol, but nothing more rigorous than the guesses of the literalist Christians who advocate for the reality of the virgin birth as a "scientific fact" that is subject to "well known protocols for obtaining data and testing". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  oppose Keep or Merge It would have to be original (unpublished) synthesis for us to be concerned with it running afoul of policy. Then we would have to consider if it could only be original synthesis for us to consider the concept for the article flawed and delete it outright, instead of rewriting or tagging it for cleanup. There have been a number of books written since the 1970s that published a synthesis of research programs on the topic of reincarnation. Whatever the content of our current article, legitimate (non-original) synthesis already exists externally. Because the concept for the article is valid, it shouldn't be deleted. --Nealparr (talk to me) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do not dispute that there are books written about "reincarnation", can you point to a book that's written about "reincarnation research"? Similar to my virgin birth analogy: there are books written about virigin births, but none about "virgin birth research". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a number of books listed with Google Books that have a summary of what research has been done and by whom. Even the Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation covers it. Probably every New Agey book trying to make case for reincarnation outside of religious tradition includes a synthetic summary of research to support their argument. If you're looking for more reliable sources, you'll definitely find sources that take a critical/skeptical look at reincarnation research, and of course these synthesize the material together as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, Nealparr, I can point you to a hundred Christian books that point to parthenogenesis research and claims of the impossible (some of which happens at Christian colleges) for virgin birth research. We don't have articles on virgin birth research because the idealization of "research" legitimacy is simply not there. What we have here is essentially POV-pushing based on one man's program and a bunch of synthetic primary source documents you have pointed us to. Redirect to reincarnation, by all means, but supporting this as a legitimate topic which is a research subject is untenable. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a subarticle split off from Reincarnation to cover the subtopic in greater detail. Redirecting it back to reincarnation may "delete by redirect" information not contained in the main article, information for which the split off was created in the first place (per WP:SUMMARY). What you seem to be arguing is that it's not a notable topic that has enough information for a split off. I don't have an opinion on that. I don't, however, believe there are any original synthesis issues here. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy you finally understood my argument, I totally disagree with your claim that there is no original research in the section you quote. That section is, in fact, full of original research and blatant mischaracterizations. (e.g. "But other skeptics, such as Dr Carl Sagan, see the need for more reincarnation  research." Really? Because my version of the Demon Haunted World says no such thing.) One thing at a time, Neal. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apropos original research and blatant mis-characterizations, there are sources that confirm that the 1997 edition does contain that words to that effect. Indeed, books.google return a full hit for that very quote. Unomi (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I admire Robert Ehrlich, his summary of The Demon Haunted World is pretty far off the mark in that footnote. Read the actual book, not quotes about the book. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe Ehrlich quotes Sagan correct, then perhaps you accept what The Sceptic's Dictionary writes on this quote from the Demon Haunted World? review of Radin's Conscious Universe"At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (---) and (3) that young children sometimes report the 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. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. They have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.”(Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302). He indeed saw the need for more research, though he didn't really think there would be any confirmation of earlier findings. But in fact there is confirmation of earlier findings - and there is an academic program at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia for this research. Academics in the Netherlands and in India are also doing research on children who has strange memories that can be traced to a previous personality. Deal with it. Hepcat65 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the club of reincarnation-belief apologists is having such a hard time actually figuring out the context of The Demon Haunted World. So I'll tell you: Sagan was saying not that more research dollars needed to be invested in these boneheaded and idiotic claims. Rather, Sagan was saying that the so-called "data" that was "supporting" these subjects should be scrutinized in much the same way that, for example, water memory was debunked. Let's end all this quote mining, m'kay? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  oppose Keep -- flawed reasoning and analogy. There are several academics who are or have been engaged in investigation and research of reincarnation phenomena and their work is notable. The article in question discusses specific methods of research (childhood memories, birthmarks, hypnotic regression, reincarnation beliefs in relation to PTSD or myths about disease). None of these lines of research (save possibly the last) is "standard science" -- the methods are notable (and also criticized) for that. Research in parthenogenesis is "standard science" (DNA testing, mating behavioral analysis, etc.) so the research per se is not notable and therefore no WP article for it. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several academics who have engaged in investigation and research of virgin birth "phenomena" as well. Just stating that something is notable does not make it so. I'm particularly amused by your contention that "standard science" is not notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  oppose Keep  as per the reasons stated by EPadmirateur on flawed reasoning and analogy, and by Nealparr on directing back to Reincarnation - that article is already long enough. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per the above. But by all means nominate it again later. Mitsube (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere else (probably Reincarnation), or pick a different title. Strictly speaking a page on "reincarnation research" could talk about the research (methods, theory), but not the results.  I think this page is more looking for a new title more than anything.  However, as an extreme claim, any suggestions of "proof" should be good quality.  The page should default to the skeptical position, with the research done being given minor mention and discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with an WP:UNDUE bias, WP:FRINGE sources, and to be of dubious notability. Verbal chat  17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep nuisance nomination. Artw (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, abject nonsense on a stick. It looks like a POV-fork of reincarnation by someone who has drunk the kool-aid. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATP. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge relevant material. At this point, the article is a re-hash of material from Ian Stevenson and Past life regression. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete violates our editorial policies as described above.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Reincarnation, especially since some useful references on the prevalence and causes of reincarnation beliefs had been deleted from the version of the article that was nominated for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge relevant material with Past life regression. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To merge Reincarnation research into Past life regression would be like the tail wagging the dog - most past life regression is feelgood theraphy without much research in it, but some past life regression is a legitimate part of reincarnation research. Helen Wambachs, Peter Ramsters and Rick Browns work could all be regarded as serious and successful reincarnation research using past life regression. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, you have no independent sources for this demarcation, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Reincarnation and Past life regression. No need for a separate article on this. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is sourced, too long to be merged back. As Stephenson exemplified, reincarnation research is a notable topic, to what extent conclusions can be reached or methodologies can be critiqued is not really what afd is for. SA should be well versed enough in wikipedia policy by now to know this. Unomi (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like to make it personal, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of sources, and the article has good NPOV, well balanced between the "believer" viewpoint and the skeptical viewpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of sources, Google news search button at the top of the AFD seems to point to even more of them. If you have a problem with how the article is written, or something in it, use the talk page.  AFD should be used only as a last resort.   D r e a m Focus  16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.