Talk:Pam Reynolds case

Untitled

I would very much like someone to corroborate or refute the statement: "Proponents have generally misrepresented the amount of time which Reynolds was flatlined: the actual surgical timeline suggests that her brain stem activity was fully flatlined for a period of only five to six minutes at most, and there is no evidence that she retained memories or experiences during this particular period, as opposed to the rest of the several-hours long surgery.", because that is what determines the value of this NDE. - Waninge 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for it anymore. I did it myself by writing a time line, based on the book of Sabom. It doesn't really matter how long Reynolds was flatlined. The time line shows that Reynolds observations in the operating room happened before she was flatlined. - Waninge 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

open question and comment

The only thing that seems not to be explained by the sceptists is the visual experience of seeing an oddly shaven head and oddly shaped saw/drill. How can you see when your eyes are covered?

By the way, how can you make a timeline of mental experiences? Did she had a stopwatch recording the time of every experience? The brain is not very good with time: it records only relative time, no absolute time, and it sometimes mixes things up. The brain is messy, very messy. Jdruiter (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the time line, based on the book Light and Death. The left column (Operation time) is based on the times and events mentioned in the book. The events in the right column (The NDE) are associated to events in the left column, for example if Reynolds hears a female voice saying that her veins and arteries are very small (right column) and at some moment a female surgeon is locating arteries in Reynolds legs and discovers that some arteries are too small (left column) then these events are believed to be associated and placed next to each other. Also, the sequence of events in both the left and right column is based on the sequence they were written in Light and Death. Waninge (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

@Waninge: There's a paper in The Lancet (2001) which says "Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom²² mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG." Reference 22 is to the book Light and Death. So did the authors of this paper misunderstand the book? They say that she had a very deep NDE durig the period of flat EEG. (They don't specific'ly say that all of her NDE was during the flat EEG, but they imply that some of it was.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that Waninge stop'd contributing to Wikipedia back in 2009. So I managed to read some of Sabom's book on Google Books. He says that Pam satisfied three criteria for her brain being dead, namely a flat EEG (showing that the cerebral cortex was inactive), no response to the auditory clicks (showing that the brain-stem was also shut down), and no blood flow to any of the brain. Sabom says (p. 49), "Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the 'deepest' near-death experience of all Atlanta Sudy participants." On page 43 Sabom writes that at 11:25 they drain'd the blood from her body, and then says, "Sometime during this period, Pam's near-death experience progressed:" and gives her description of the sensation of being pull'd, but not against her will... Unfortunately I cannot view page 44 where it continues. Page 45 tells about her coming back. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The claim that 'Ear plugs do not block all external sounds' mentioned in the "Critical" section is factually incorrect, in this case. Were they normal ear plugs used by concert goers as Augustine, your reference, seems to imply, it may have been correct. However, they are molded speakers which occlude the ear canal and deliver loud 95dB clicks at a rate of 11.3 clicks/second. I've been told 95dB is roughly the volume of a vacuum cleaner. Both Reynolds' own neurosurgeon, Dr. Spetzler, and the authors of the Irreducible Mind agree that the speakers would have blocked all external sounds, making it impossible for to hear anything by "normal" means. See the BBC documentary cited at the end for Dr. Spetzler's remarks, and pages 392-393 in the Irreducible Mind to get the details on the clicking devices. Dayv23 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Assumption

This whole article is written from the perspective of "prove life after death/disprove life after death." But it doesn't say so. There is a section labeled "Critical," and no explanation of what one is being critical of. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments about Critics

The whole section listing then arguing against critics' points appears to be original research, and not very good at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fche (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Split / Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Pam Reynolds case, per comments from AjaxSmack and the nominator below.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pam Reynolds (singer) → Pam Reynolds (patient) –

This article seems to talk about The Case of Pam Reynolds more than Pam Reynolds herself. Therefore, I propose that this article be re-titled The Case of Pam Reynolds and a separate article about Pam Reynolds as a singer be created.

Since the article themes her as a singer, the new Pam Reynolds (singer) article should focus more on her life and singing career. If she doesn't have a sufficient discography, perhaps the article should be re-titled Pam Reynolds (patient).

- Amanisdude (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, the disambiguation looks odd this way. Nothing in the article has anything to do with her music. – Alensha ^talk 03:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Since it has been ample time since my previous post, I'm going to add the following tag templates to the article:

{{cleanup-articletitle}} {{split|Pam Reynolds (patient)|The Case of Pam Reynolds}}

As well as the following tag to this Talk section (shown in code to prevent multiple bot parsings):

{{subst:Requested move|Pam Reynolds (patient)|This article talks more about Pam Reynolds as a patient than a singer. It should also possibly be split, with one article detailing Pam Reynolds herself, and another detailing ''The Case of Pam Reynolds''. –&ndash ~~~~}}

The tags will propose that the article be renamed "Pam Reynolds (patient)" and, possibly, the details should be split off into a separate article, "The Case of Pam Reynolds". Please comment on this matter here. –– amanisdude (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• The proposed move of Pam Reynolds (singer) → Pam Reynolds (patient) is tangential to the issues here. The subject here is "significant for his or her role in a single event" and "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person" (see WP:ONEEVENT). The article gives no evidence for the subject's notability except for her near-death experience and there is not even any biographical information in the current article to populate a bio article of more than one sentence. Therefore, I oppose an article split and support a move to Pam Reynolds case. Cf. other articles such as Baby Jessica case, Terri Schiavo case, Kara Neumann case. —  AjaxSmack  16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I actually feel that AjaxSmack's proposition is better. There appears to be no major cultural notability for Pam Reynold's herself other than her involvement in the Pam Reynolds case. I will, however, keep the split article tag on the article to promote further discussion, but change the "The Case of Pam Reynolds" article title proposition to "Pam Reynolds case" to maintain uniformity with Wikipedia standards. Thanks AjaxSmack. –– amanisdude (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Singer songwriter

Does anyone know if she had any commercial success, e.g. songs recorded by well-known artists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.150.181 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find anything. If she was successful, it must have been underground or with a subculture scene.

I have, however, located two of her songs on her MySpace page. Nevertheless, there is no indication of how commercially successful these songs were. –– amanisdude (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Balancing Woerlee

The entire critical analysis section of this article is a near cut-and-paste from the website of GM Woerlee. The specific criticisms are leveled by Woerlee against the video produced about the Sabom book.

Worlee is notedly biased toward atheism and his website uses that as the basis for his criticism.

I have no problem if his criticisms are accurate but I'd like to see other points of view than "you can hear with ear plugs" from a single-source.

I've provided some quotes from Woerlee directly about the case, not to skew the argument, but to provide balance. Personally I'd like to see the entire section removed, but my likes are irrelevant to a peer-reviewed encyclopedic article.

For context, this is a quote from Woerlee on his web site:

"All direct and indirect proofs of the reality of religious belief fail to prove the reality of any and all religious beliefs in a soul, a God, and an immaterial world inhabited by the dead. The only path forward is a world without a God, a world in which humans live in full knowledge of the reality of their being, and a world in which people strive to make the best of their lives and this world."

Woerlee further notes in the introduction to his criticism of NDEs link

I could go on for much longer, but the final conclusion is evident. Near death experiences are profound and wondrous experiences, but despite the intense and profound emotions and experiences they arouse, they are nonetheless conscious socio-culturally determined hallucinations generated by life-threatening experiences. The consistency of these experiences is rooted in the commonality of human body function, as well as the fundamental socio-cultural desires of all people regardless of race or sex.

Emsed1 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)emsed1

Hi, Emsed1, you are saying that parts of this article are "a near cut-and-paste from the website of GM Woerlee". I looked at this page and I don't find any obvious copying. Woerlee's page is much more detailed. Do you have specifics where the text is nearly identical? Thanks, --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, it seemed like to me that it was a rewording of Woerlee's views. I will try and post some examples. Emsed1 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)emsed1

Actually rewording and summarizing reliably sourced material is perfectly OK in WP. If there are other views that have been published in reliable sources (books, journals, etc.) or by experts in the field, then those viewpoints can be added to balance Woerlee's viewpoint. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Time line"

I assume this was a good faith effort, but synthesizing raw data from one book into a timeline in order to "clearly show" some kind of conclusion is original research, and so I have removed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Balancing Woerlee (2)

I agree that a balanced pov is necessary. Woerlee is not a neuroscientist. Qualified neuroscientists view on this should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SansBias (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Chris Carter a "qualified neuroscientist"? His degree is in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Keri (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite edit warring on the part of @SansBias: — for which they are currently blocked — and @ZevofB3K: — a suspected sockpuppet of SansBias — there has been no attempt by either of these accounts to discuss the current content dispute. Edit summaries are not discussion. The argument used is that Woerlee is not a neuroscientist − but then neither is Carter. The disputed material also links to a source which does not appear to be reliable, but irrespective of this the specific link returns a 404 not found error. Although there has been no discussion on this talk page to thrash out consensus, @76.107.171.90:, @Edward321:, @LuckyLouie:, @Chainsaw Maniac: and @IronGargoyle: have all reverted the insertion of the disputed content. @151.225.126.171: has also repeatedly attempted to add the disputed content. I invite you all to try to find consensus here to avoid further edit warring and disruption in the article space. Keri (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated: SansBias and ZevofB3K are now indef'd for socking. But some input about the disputed content would still be useful should this situation arise again in the near future. Keri (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the fuss is about Woerlee. We have a pretty solid maintream-view cite from Columbia University Press [1]. We don't need to give equal validity or "balance" that with Chris Carter (clearly a pro-fringe author [2]) pro-WP:FRINGE-view material from www.merkawah.nl ("the near-death network"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with that completely. Keri (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think most people don´t notice that Woerlee can´t be right saying he analysed the case thoroughly as his statements are proof of somebody who didn´t even look at the original data and only had superficial touch with the story. Pam Reynolds could remember everything from the moment on she awoke. It was just that she believed it was a dream. She could not have seen the tools as they were all unavailable until the cardio-circulatory arrest was achieved and was time to ope the skull. This is standard procedure as everything must remain sterile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.97.194 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pam Reynolds case/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I felt the need to modify the section of critical analysis. I felt it would be more useful to readers to make it a more balanced section and in particular with the issue of the earplugs. The earplug issue has been completely misrepresented by Woerleee and Augustine and truth be told it should probably be removed as it is completely misleading. I choose not to remove cause I did not want to be accused of trying to bias the article toward the afterlife view but I do think it needs to be explained to laymen that the earplugs were not normal earplugs.

Last edited at 14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 02:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pam Reynolds case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023527/http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/psychology/French_NDE_and_the_Brain.pdf to http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/psychology/French_NDE_and_the_Brain.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

False balance

Note: I've noticed this as it was mentioned at the fringe theories noticeboard. This NPR source[3] is not considered reliable to make grandiose claims versus better sources that are already in use from people with relevant credentials. Part of the neutrality policy includes avoiding false balance. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: NPR source represents claims of both sides and concludes with neutrality. And it says the editor met Pam Reynolds in person and interviewed her. Unless we want to suspect all the integrity of this journal, I think there is no reason to dismiss the source. There is a segment of Hagerty, the editor of npr, interviewing Reynolds from National Public Radio including a short clip from a rock song Reynolds wrote based on her experience. Even if we should ignore the npr source, there are plenty of sources with references claiming as same as npr. So, if we should abandon npr source, while I disagree, we can just use this new source to make sure her claim includes seeing people or hearing operation members talking about her veins being too small and the hotel california.

To summarize, 1. NPR source is reliable enough as it is neutral primary data. 2. Even if NPR source is unreliable, there are other reliable sources filled with paper references. 3. So we have to make her claimed NDE as specific as possible, not deleting all the edits and references. Hello0501 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for using the Talk page. The short answer to many of your questions can be found in our WP:FRINGE guidelines. Wikipedia is not “neutral” when it comes to minority scientific claims such as consciousness after death. Also specifically, I invite you to review our sourcing requirements WP:FRIND. Per this policy, the Society for Psychical Research isn’t an independent or objective source for this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd also point out that "primary data", as you put it, is not the preferred sourcing. See WP:PSTS. jps (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I get it that we have to consider it as one of fringe things, however though we consider this case as fringe, we have to be as specific as possible when we describe her 'claimed' NDE. So, if some of you may think that reception part is out of balance, just leave it like just now, and do not undo the edit about her claim. I think this is fair enough. Hello0501 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't quite got it yet. With these edits, you have revised text that serves to unambiguously clarify what the fringe view is vs. what the mainstream view is to create an ambiguous "some say this and others say that" proposition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

1) It seems like not only you don't get it all, and you don't want to get it, or have will to understand, even intentionally refuse to read comments and Chris French's paper properly.

2) We should not manage to edit part right before reference, as it is related directly to reference. Chris French didn't write like that. Some wiki user manipulates and distorts the original intention of the author of paper arbitrarily.

3) There was slient concensus as no one objected the balance, and there were many talks deduced actual concensus about balancing the article which did not include any objection to the part that some user arbitrarily distorted the intention of the author of the paper.

4) Wikipedia, though we do not have to mention it. is not the place users' personal view or interpretation of the text takes priority to reference itself. Hello0501 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Empty reasoning. Please stop that.
2. We are under no obligation to write in the same style as the source. But Chris French is a skeptic, and according to what the article already says, he does mention Woerlee - the quote starting with "Woerlee, an anesthesiologist" is sourced to French 2005 too. Is that wrong?
3. Sometimes, no one objects because no one notices. That means nothing. See argument from silence.
4. Obviously. But this is not about that.

You need to stop edit-warring. But if you want to continue, can you please at least not involve the innocent improvements?

• 50 °F (10 °C) is clearly better than 50 °F (10 °C).
• This is about a case, not a person. Therefore the categories for people are inappropriate.
• But "at the age of 53" is clearly better than "at the age of 53 years old".

Now to the substance.

• "Believed by some" is WP:WEASEL. Attributing this to the actual group of people who believe it (those who already believed it) is better.
• What purpose does the phrase "because of the circumstances under which it happened" serve? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And maybe just to summarize the state of current knowledge on the topic:

• People can live surprising personal experiences especially under special circumstances. Some common drugs including anti-anflamatory and some to produce anterograde amnesia, are known to increase the chances of delirium where the patient lives vivid "dreams" without the capacity to differenciate those from reality.
• Anyone who survives by definition was not dead
• The mind is prey to its own tricks. Among them, previous beliefs and fears influence the interpretation of stimuli.
• The memory of such experiences may be created upon waking up, like is often the case for dreams. The brain tends to retroactively place memories (and fabricate them), extend them in time and this may cause the impression of events lasting a long time even if the neural activity to produce them occurs in less than a second.
• There never was reliable and reproducible evidence that divination methods, out of body experiences or remote viewing, etc (despite previous government programs), allow access to any information that is not available from the normal senses or from the mind and memory itself.
• There is evidence that people react differently to sedatives and that awareness levels vary, even for the same person during a procedure, especially with the short-lasting (and better controlled) drugs favored today by anaesthesists. In some cases the mind is able to register some of what happens during a medical procedure. The brain's interpretation of these is usually confused.

All of that to remind that it's not surprising for reliable sources to describe personal experiences and claims but to avoid stating as facts claims of extra-sensory perception, travel into other dimensions, contact with non-physical beings, etc. Similarly, we shouldn't represent such claims as having the same weight as common medical knowledge (that is not a particular person's opinion). —PaleoNeonate – 06:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits like this appear to show an ignorance of WP:FRINGE policy, which in essence compels us to represent the majority scientific consensus as the one having the most weight. Near-death research is part of parapsychology and can't be misrepresented as having the most weight here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have concerns about whether the Chris Carter source is an RS, as it seems to be making medical claims (I have raised the issue at RSN). Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal (the leading journal for near-death phenomena), which should count as a RS for the perspectives of researchers who study near death phenomena (which was the claim). Also, Chris Carter was not the only person who pointed out the shortcomings. Either way, I don't have the energy to keep doing this. I just don't think you can call yourself honest if you are actively suppressing counterpoints. AvantiShri (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

JNDS is reliable for nothing except the credulous claims of believers. Proper peer review does not seem to be part of their goal as a journal. jps (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Source? AvantiShri (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Look at their editorial board. jps (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

...and? AvantiShri (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I struggle to be any clearer. It is, of course, possible to assemble a group of credulous believers as a journal board and publish anything. This is why we require third-party evaluation. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of very problematic sourcing. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The line saying it represented the "general scientific consensus" was deleted. I'm not sure why the references pointing out the shortcomings of Woerlee's explanation were deleted. Even if you favor a materialist explanation, it is important to find one that fully accounts for the data. Also, Reynolds' case is consistent with work done at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/, and is extremely typical of other near-death experiences, including that patients who report an out-of-body experiences are significantly more accurate in describing their resuscitation procedures compared to those who don't: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/ AvantiShri (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources need to discuss her case, not any others. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

From the perspective of Occam's razor, it's relevant that other cases of reported out-of-body experiences that did not involve a patient under anaesthesia (they involved patients who were brain dead) also include similar elements to Reynolds' case. This fits with why Woerlee's explanation of anaesthesia awareness is failing to fully account for the details of this case. A better explanation likely exists, but we won't find it if we assume that the first materialist explanation must be the right explanation. AvantiShri (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Our job here is not to "find the better explanation". Our job is to follow the best sources on the matter. As it is, the best sources are independent of belief in extraordinary phenomena. Until other sources are created, our hands our tied since we don't do our own original research. If you want to effect the change you seek, go get published in a venue that receives the kind of notice so that it can be properly evaluated by third parties. Wikipedia is not the place to make the stand. jps (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We are not finding a better explanation, we are literally just documenting the shortcomings of the explanation and also representing the views of near death experience researchers in an article discussing near-death phenomena. AvantiShri (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We can only document such "shortcomings" if relevant experts that are independent of the credulous believer have noticed them. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that if you use the Division of Perceptual Studies out of UVa as a way to declare that there is something to your argument, you aren't liable to get very far. See Ian Stevenson, Jim B. Tucker, etc. jps (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you spell out your argument here? That because these people study extraordinary claims, that means...what exactly? That they are inherently unreliable? AvantiShri (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

They are documented to use motivated reasoning to come to their conclusions. They want reincarnation to be true and go out looking for evidence for it. All of them suffer from this cart before horse approach in flagrant disregard of the scientific method. This is a well-known critique and is why they really aren't taken very seriously in the WP:MAINSTREAM. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No. It means that to include their claim they need to have been prominently noticed by third parties. That has not happened. jps (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

so the page you linked to states "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)". Even if you believe that flat earth claims are in the same category as the idea that the formation of awareness (a long-standing open problem in physics) is linked to a phenomenon that involves distortions in spacetime (literally all that you'd need to postulate to allow for an explanation of these events; no need to involve the "paranormal", physics at very large and very small scales is weird enough to make room for this), wikipedia's own policy states that you should make room for those views in articles devoted to those claims. AvantiShri (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We can only do that if third parties have noticed these views. Show some non-believers who point out that these views are expressed. Break free of the WP:Walled garden. That's the kind of source we are looking for. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Also in line with not getting very far, AvantiShri, your comment that I just don't think you can call yourself honest if you are actively suppressing counterpoints is a clear personal attack that violates Wikipedia policy. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It was a statement about the act of discarding counterpoints. Do you agree that counterpoints are actively being suppressed? AvantiShri (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you justify removing these lines that point out major shortcomings of Woerlee's explanation?

"It 2006, Steven Cordova the Neuroscience Manager at the Barrow Neurological Institute, who was the intraoperative technologist responsible for inserting speakers into Pam Reynolds' ears before her operation, offered personal testimony to Michael Sabom in 2006 in which he explained that the "speakers were molded into each external auditory canal, [and that] they were further affixed with 'mounds of tape and gauze to seal securely the ear piece into the ear canal'". In the addendum to his controversial 2011 article challenging survivalist interpretations of Reynolds' NDE, Woerlee provides instructions for readers to recreate the auditory conditions under which Pam Reynolds was able to register the sounds of her operating room, however Woerlee assigns the use of padded headphones or earbuds instead of molded speakers and fails to mention that Reynolds' speakers were further affixed with generous quantities of tape and gauze" AvantiShri (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of complaint is pretty much par for the course by true believers. Someone shows how a particular claim has a prosaic explanation and instead of recognizing the ECREE principle, the believer starts attacking the skeptic who took the time to actually wade through the eye-rollingly poor argumentation to say things like, "bUt WhAt AbOuT tApE aNd GaUzE?!" In any case, Wikipedia is under no obligation to try to accommodate such poor reasoning without independent notice. jps (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The "extraordinary claim" here is not that paranormal phenomena exist, it is that Woerlee's explanation fails to fully account for the data. The scientific method should strive for an explanation that matches the data. Why are you closing the door to the possibility that there is a better materialist explanation, one that fully accounts for the data? AvantiShri (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim is indeed that paranormal phenomena exist. You can't change that fundamental aspect of the narrative (and, yes, it is a narrative -- not a scientific experiment here). jps (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The deleted paragraph does not claim that paranormal phenomena exist. Once again, it is merely documenting the limits of Woerlee's explanation. There is nothing extraordinary about this claim. AvantiShri (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a fig leaf for that belief. It's pretty clear that this is the agenda of the argument and since it hasn't been noticed by relevant independent experts, it does not deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The irony is not lost that Woerlee's explanation was the one that involved poor argumentation (nothing is poorer that cherry-picking the facts to support a foregone conclusions), and that others had to wade through his addendum to find it. AvantiShri (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your opinion of the explanation is. It is clear that your own evaluation is such that it is sympathetic to the paranormal believer. But the problem is that Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. It is not a place to accommodate the parochial beliefs of users like yourself. If you want your critique to stand, you need to find (or create) independent reliable sources that do what you want. Credulous argumentation in out-of-the-way sources do not count. You may think this is unfair, that Wikipedia should right the wrongs of how these ideas are presented. But that is not our job here. Our job is to reflect the mainstream understanding no matter how flawed you may think it is. jps (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically the fact that there is no law of physics that explains the formation of awareness is also "sympathetic to the paranormal believer", as is any area of science that is incomplete, but we do not use "what people may read into an article" as a reason to suppress documenting the shortcomings of explanations. The paragraph under debate states that Woerlee's instructions for recreating the conditions do so differently from the conditions described *in the book that is being used as a source for the NDE claims in the present version of the article*. We are not discussing introducing a new source. Since this source is not a new source, and the paragraph stated only makes observations about sources that are presently cited, it is not making a new argument. AvantiShri (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is rather torturous and something that is perhaps most clearly described as a WP:MANDY issue. The argument is that Woerlee's explanation "strains credulity". But I see only believers in the reality of the "spookiness" of NDEs as being those who argue as such. Woerlee is not making any grand or extravagant claims here. The critique of Woerlee is thus something akin to someone who believes passionately in, say, a conspiracy theory about the 2020 election who argues with a source that identifies simple problems with their reasoning that they didn't hone close enough to the stated narrative of the conspiracy theorist in their debunking. That's rather beside the point. Obviously, the claims that Pam Reynolds experienced anything unusual are ones that have been noticed by the mainstream media enough to have caused experts in the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of events such as this to comment. Rejoinders to such points need to be noticed for them to be considered prominent enough for our inclusion here. The pattern is such: if a fringe theory is not noticed by non-believers, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If a critique of non-believer's discussion of a fringe theory is not noticed by non-believers, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

As you have already been told (more than once?) we do not evaluate (see wp:or), we repeat what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Right? And the paragraph deleted was merely repeating facts? And I was responding to someone else's evaluation? AvantiShri (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Isn't jps' statement that the deleted paragraph constitutes "poor reasoning" an evaluation? AvantiShri (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven It seems as though an evaluation of the deleted paragraph (which is only statements about sources that are cited in the present version of the article) is what is being used to justify deleting the paragraph.. AvantiShri (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but WP:ONUS is clear, it is down to you to make a case for inclusion, based upon policy. Thus any material that is based upon wp:or or fails wp:v will be (rightly) removed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of the lack of sources that pay attention to the claims in the deleted paragraph is what is important here. jps (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)