Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nealparr (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 4 March 2010 (→Reincarnation research: tweak: keep or merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reincarnation research

Reincarnation research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Parthenogenesis? Thought you were talking about something controversial. Guess your analogy fails. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
original 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • There's a number of books listed with Google Books [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • It's a subarticle split off from Reincarnation#Scientific research 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
oppose -- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
oppose 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)[reply]
Oppose. Per the above. But by all means nominate it again later. Mitsube (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research&oldid=347612525"