Talk:Harold G. Koenig

Retaining content

I am restoring Koenig's CV as a source for information about himself -- this is a perfectly valid use of a CV (people can be sources about themselves).

I have also restored the journal article that was deleted by one editor who appears to be unaware of the voluminous research on religion and health. The claim that religion shows a positive relation to mental or physical health is documented in thousands of research studies. The Koenig paper appeared in a refereed journal that has been around for more than half a century. See Koenig's book Handbook of Religion and Health, and the reviews that it received, to show that claims that evidence support religion-health connections are well-received, though there is now a range of opinions about the degree to which this relationship can be regarded as causal. But evidence for positive associations between religion and health is overwhelming. See, for example, a recent review that identified more than 100 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, very few if any finding negative relations and majorities finding positive relations - DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_15.

Please think twice before attempting to enforce misguided changes again. You may receive the benefit of the doubt initially that you are not aware of the research. But if you persist, it will give the impression that you have a strong desire to push a particular POV, and are seeking to suppress well-sourced information that you believe is not consistent with your POV. --Presearch (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't accuse me of POV. In fact I am aware on voluminous "research" about religion and health that, until now, have produced no useful or replicable results, despite infinite funding by Templeton and publications on marginal sources. I have readded the entire Richard P. Sloan book (see ref 1). Sloan states (p. 62) that "Handbook" of Koenig "... was filled with misleading statements and crude and careless analyses". But this is not the question. You are trying to use the Koenig curriculum and a paper published by the subject. As I have explained in summary these are against our policies, specially RS and V. I try to find secondary RS to substitute these bad sources, but I encounter nothing. I do not intend fight a sealioning discussion about this. My next step, probably, will be ask for help on WP:RSN. Ixocactus (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Curriculum and SPS are reliable?

Hi @Presearch: I think that his curriculum and the paper published by him are not RS for the bio. What are your specious rationale for maintain these? Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

End of my day and can't respond further, but I think I mentioned both of them above in previous section (we're sort of "crossing in the mail") - unless I'm confused, the article simply used his CV for facts about his bio, such as where and when he got his degrees. Apart from rare exceptions (e.g. proven frauds) it's regarded as okay to use a person as a source about such bio details. And with regard to the journal article, it's an example of his publications -- maybe not the most important, but that's a stylistic issue that's entirely separate. There's nothing fringy about it, as noted in previous section (details added after you started this section). Best --Presearch (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are crossing in the mail. I put my five cents opinions above. Ixocactus (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)