Talk:Life review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
G'day. I just put a NPOV tag on the page. It is written from a very obvious POV believing that it is some sort of real event. There are numerous examples such as:
- "While some scientists discount NDEs themselves or stigmatize their study, the large body of both NDE and LR accounts, when set under scrutiny, tends to defy dismissal as hallucination or cerebral effect..."
This is pure NPOV bull. Infact, having a large amount of the LRs points towards it being a common result of the brain dying or whatever the circumstances of the situation is, that is beside the point though. Needs a lot of work, and I know it is rude to expect someone else to do it, but I'm busy :P. Cheers. Rothery 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- G'day, I just removed it. Perhaps we could review the concept of POV before you impose your own dogmatic "pure bull" on a subject you come to completely green and unread on. You glibly glided over the careful NPOV wording "tends to defy", which is based on the evidence itself rather than preconception. You also skilfully excised the critical rest of the sentence, "...by virtue of its unusual detail, volume, consistency, verisimilitude, narrators' credibility, and its insistent recounting of vividness and panoramicity." The unsustainable word "obvious" to describe a well-supported and still neutral wording betrays where the real POV lies.
- Until you've read a good twenty or so related volumes and scientists' sites (including many hundreds of detailed individual accounts) and acquired anything distantly resembling a familiarity with the actual subject, in addition to the hefty refutations of the thoroughly debunked and untenable pseudoskeptic "brain dying or whatever" theories, perhaps you could confine your uninformed dogmatizing to instructing everybody on the religion pages, founded on much less volume of empirical data and study than this, to how silly they are to fill wiki with such from your POV, "bull" rather than this one. Chris Rodgers 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- G'day again. I was just going over my old talk page comments and found this page which I had forgotten about. Anyway...
-
- Whether I have read 20 (or 200) volumes about the subject is completely irrelevant to being able to recognise the very obvious POV that the article was written from, as it permeates the entire article. Since you apparently don't realise this, I'll give you some more specific examples.
-
-
- While some scientists discount NDEs themselves or stigmatize their study, the large body of both NDE and LR accounts, when set under scrutiny, tends to defy dismissal as hallucination or cerebral effect, by virtue of its unusual detail, volume, consistency, verisimilitude, narrators' credibility, and its insistent recounting of vividness and panoramicity. The NDE and its derivative phenomena as a result tend to lie more in the realm of the paranormal and parapsychology, though that does not argue against their scientific study or reality per se.
-
-
- First of all, aside from the fact that the entire paragraph implies that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of paranormal activity in relation to LRs without any sort of citation or reference at all, the word "stigmatize" is used. How you can possibly believe it is appropriate to use such a loaded term is beyond me. Then there is the phrase 'tends to defy', which are clearly weasel words used to try and make the sentence more impartial; you are referring in general to a large body of accounts so they either do or they don't. Then the end of the paragraph is pure opinion, stating that just because something lies in the realm of the paranormal or parapsychology does not mean it is not open to having any scientific reality. Not sourced and not true, in fact it cannot be true since it is an opinion. You could rewrite it and say that "the majority of scientists believe that LRs can be studied..." or whatever you would like, and accompany it with a reference.
-
- The rest of the article is absent of any blatant POV claims, but focuses entirely on the experience and the effect of LRs which is fine and dandy, but aside from the comment about the awful stigmatizing minority of scientists, there is literally nothing else in the article that suggests any possible alternatives to what is claimed in the lead. Some other misc stuff: the article starts off stating that LRs are "widely reported in near-death experiences"; widely has pretty much no meaning at all in this context. How widely? There is no hint at it being eight, 18 or 80 percent, and of course no source. Speaking of which, of the external links, two of them go to the same site (the "Description of the LR in a medical discussion of the NDE" appears to redirect to the main iands.org site), which itself is not a reliable source. I realise it isn't listed as a reference but just wanted to make sure you don't think it actually counts as any sort of citation for the article (as you appear pretty ignorant of other Wikipedia rules and policies). The third link could well be used as a reference source.
-
- You say on your user page that you have a "conviction in dialog and the NPOV". I am sure you are being genuine when you write this and mean no harm, but you really have to be sure to try as hard as possible to look at the article through a neutral viewpoint, and I realise this could be difficult. I would probably find it hard to write a balanced article on Fox News's editorial practices. Ironically (or coincidentally?) I believe that this article actually uses some of the same underhanded journalistic tactics that Fox News does. I am personally in my last year of journalism at uni in Australia and have a deep interest in how language can create bias, intentionally or unintentionally. However, I don't think I am being too pedantic in my criticisms; the entire article is written with an obvious acceptance of LR as fact. Whatever you or I believe about it is completely irrelevant. It should be written only with factual information in clear language. Hope that clears up what I was saying about the article being POV, lol. Cheers, Rothery 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
