Talk:Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

Criticism

There is a critical article on Stevenson's work here. Oku 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is too suggestive. It is written as if all claims were proven and scientifically accepted. The criticism part is too short and appears too late. Article should be reworded to reflect a more appropriate caution of the things stated.

FS 85.181.15.122 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. In fact I’ve read the Skeptical Inquirer article and therefore I’m placing a pov tag. --Cesar Tort 10:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just read it and it looks neutral to me. It starts describing what the book's about and how it's written always saying things like "Dr. Stevenson writes that..." and then presents both acclaims *and* criticism without taking any part. I'm taking the tag out, the article is OK. --cholo 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't present any criticism. It only mentions that he was critizised in Skeptical Inquirer, and then quickly follows with a quote from his answer. A quote that says absolutely nothing. --Apoc2400 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oku your link is broken. There's no way the article should be removed- like it or not, correct or not, the book is significant. Skeptical Inquirer can disagree all it likes with the content, but the book is still significant and definitely worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. Btw, you're not still assuming empiricism requires materialism, are you? (that's irrelevant to the question of whether it should have a POV or threat of deletion tag) 82.46.0.235 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I don't know why the notability tag is there? The title got 44500 hits on google when I tried, that's notable for a book published the second time 20 years before internet. google it yourself Hepcat65 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Current popularity aside (Google hits, above), the fact that a significant percentage of the people on this planet believe in reincarnation (with Hinduism and Buddhism alone holding at least 1.2 billion members), combined with the fact that this book has made significant inroads into a methodical, scientific investigation of the subject, make this book significant. Some of our most significant thinkers have believed in reincarnation in some form (Ben Franklin, Plato, Carl Jung, Giordano Bruno, and others). The article makes note that psychiatrist Harold Lief says of Stevenson, "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known . . . as 'the Galileo of the 20th century." To have a peer and critic compare a person to Galileo is to suggest that their most significant publication (the book for which this article was written) is in the larger sense significant. I think we can all agree that Galileo is a significant individual in Earth's history. LoneStar77 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References

POV and notability tags

This article has been tag free for some months, but on 10 June 2010 two tags appeared dated October 2009, see [1]. Please justify and discuss placement of these tags. Johnfos (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOV for coverage of a WP:FRINGE topic, and WP:NOTE hasn't been established. Verbal chat 11:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of published material to support notability, per the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion which says: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..." Also, article has been edited for NPOV. Johnfos (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Published results

This section in unsourced and seems to be a result of confirmation bias on the part of the author. It would be nice if it was discussed by independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Being that this is an article about a book, I would assume that the source for these claims is the book itself. Whether they are true claims, whether they can be independently substantiated, is not the point; this is not an article about whether reincarnation is real, it is an article about a book which claims to have found evidence that reincarnation is real. --69.41.200.16 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Since we have WP:FRINGE, we cannot just repeat what the book says. It needs to be put in context. And that is why we need better sources for that content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

There are a number of sources in the medical and psychology literature where parents, voluntarily or not, interpret events about their children, and/or provoke them to hold and reflect their own beliefs; sometimes this plays a role with the family's status in a community; the need for attention or other issues have been implicated in many "mysterious" cases like stigmata; at other times a parental need to prevent the development of independence (i.e. factitious disorder imposed on another). Psychologists or investigators can also project and force their conclusions in vulnerable patients (i.e. hypnotherapy related false memories, or day-care sex-abuse hysteria, etc). It would be nice to find sources about this also mentioning this book, as it'd be among the better explanations for the claims and the best evaluation of this book. —PaleoNeonate – 06:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: that's other than a purely religious or faith based reason, but this kind of book must be recognized as an attempt to project such beliefs into reality, a type of pseudoscientific endeavor. —PaleoNeonate – 07:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)