Talk:Near-death experience/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Chris Carter and Bruce Greyson quote-mine

There has been edit warring about this source. I believe it should be removed - as it has been on other articles. Chris Carter is a fringe proponent and paranormal author who in his book says consciousness has been shown to exist out of the body and spirits exist. As far as I know no scientist has taken his book seriously. His research has been described on psychic phenomena as pseudoscience [1]. It should not be in the lead IMO. But more importantly the quote from Bruce Greyson shouldn't either. Goblin Face (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is like the sixth or seventh time you make this argument without backing it up. Chris Carter is no more fringe than mainstream NDE researchers, or a paranormal author than Susan Blackmore - he's merely reporting what other researchers are finding, cumulatively. And if you don't know that other scientists have taken his book seriously then you haven't read it, as actual NDE and other scientists are supplying their highly positive editorial reviews in it.

His research on psychic phenomena has been described as pseduoscience by one biased reviewer. What controversial statement and conclusion has never met dissenters? That doesn't settle the issue, and he actually goes through the general theme of that accusation ("Is Parapsychology a Science?") in the last third of his book (which the author of that review leaves out completely). Either way, I prefer the new lead intro that Ironrage has written. English Opening (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Explanatory models for the NDE can be divided into several broad categories, including psychological, physiological, and transcendental explanations. Research from neuroscience which is based on the premise of physicalism tries to explain the NDE in terms of physiological and psychological factors, while some NDE researchers in the field of near-death studies advocate for a transcendental explanation."

I have edited the lead into this form. It's simple and neutral. So i hope that the edit wars will now stop. - Ironrage (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is three of those neuroscience textbooks do not discuss the NDE in any depth, you seem to be using those sources to mention the premise of physicalism but this is unrelated to the NDE and is original research to add it. We can only use a source if it specifically says something and those books do not discuss the NDE. Another problem is that some references have been removed from the article in the lead, but they were cited elsewhere in the text so now there are errors. It needs to be fixed. I also object to putting Pim van Lommel in the lead, his ideas have been described as pseudoscience by other neuroscientists. Should we really be giving equal weight to the 'transcendental' (survivalist) view? James Alcock, Mario Bunge, Jason Braithwaite, Chris French, G. M. Woerlee etc have described this interpretation as pseudoscientific. Why give equal weight to pseudoscience in the lead? Goblin Face (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"but this is unrelated to the NDE and is original research to add it."

It is related to the "tries to explain the NDE in terms of physiological and psychological factors", and the premise of physicalism is the explanation of WHY it does that.

"I also object to putting Pim van Lommel in the lead"

Then replace that with some references that you think are more reliable. - Ironrage (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bringing in philosophy into the lead is just redundant.

• Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH; Jessell TM; Siegelbaum SA; Hudspeth AJ. "Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition" (2012).
• Squire, L. et al. "Fundamental Neuroscience, 4th edition" (2012).
• O. Carter Snead. "Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment" (2007).

You added these books but no page numbers given - I doubt those books even mention the word "physicalism" either. None of them discuss the NDE. Do you really think it is appropriate to be citing these books onto an NDE article right in the lead, that do not even discuss the NDE? This is called original research. Goblin Face (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"You added these books but no page numbers given - I doubt those books even mention the word "physicalism" either."

Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition, Part I/Overall Perspective, page number 5. "Such a unifed approach, in which mind and body are not viewed as separate entities, rests on the view that all behavior is the result of brain function. What we commonly call the mind is a set of operations carried out by the brain."

Fundamental Neuroscience, 4th edition, in the preface it says, "Neuroscience is a large field founded on the premise that all of behavior and all of mental life have their origin in the structure and function of the nervous system."

Physicalism is simply the philosophical name (see mind–body problem) for the approach in which neuroscience as the scientific study of the nervous system is carried out.

"Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment" is not a book, it's an article. And here is a newer version of it: on page number 4.;

"The foundational premise of cognitive neuroscience is that all aspects of the mind are ultimately reducible to the structure and function of the brain. As Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen have described it, cognitive neuroscience is the “understanding of the mind as brain.” ......Like other disciplines within the modern life and physical sciences, cognitive neuro science is committed to the premise of physicalism, which philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg has noted, is “the assumption that there is only one kind of stuff, substance, or thing in the universe, from matter, material substance, and physical objects all the way down to quarks.” - http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/12/28%20neuroscience%20snead/1228_neuroscience_snead.pdf

"Do you really think it is appropriate to be citing these books onto an NDE article right in the lead, that do not even discuss the NDE?"

No, i don't see a problem with that. - Ironrage (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be citing these, but let's see what others think :) Goblin Face (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironrage, I think your edit runs afoul of WP:GEVAL. You seem to be presenting the scientific and the pseudoscientific as if though they are on equal footing. I prefer the previous version because it gave the scientific view more prominence. Remember, this is not a “history of the controversy” type article like Ancient Egyptian race controversy. There is a scientific explanation for NDEs, and it should be featured prominently. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Research from neuroscience which is based on the premise of physicalism explains the NDE in terms of various physiological and psychological factors, while some NDE researchers in the field of near-death studies advocate for a transcendental explanation."

Is this better? I basically just replaced "tries to explain" with "explains", besides that i don't see how my edit presents the scientific and the pseudoscientific as if though they are on equal footing. - Ironrage (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why the word "physicalism" has to be on the article (especially in the lead), do we have this on other articles on Wikipedia that explore neuroscience? We don't have this on other neuroscience articles, hallucinogenic drugs or psychological articles discussing mental illness do we? It seems you have added this physicalism premise to others articles like afterlife, soul and consciousness after death. It seems to be smack of POV. There is no assumption or premise. Features of the NDE can occur with drugs or messing around with stimulation to the temporal lobe. It has been demonstrated in scientific papers. Physicalism (a philosophical view) does not come into it. There is no underlying philosophy here. Goblin Face (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironrage, when there is a scientific explanation for a phenomenon WP:ASSERT allows us to present that scientific explanation as a fact. To say that the scientific explanation is “based on the premise of physicalism” seems to be implying that science is constrained by preconceived views about how the world operates. Such a criticism has no place in the lead. I think that the previous lead was fine, though I think it could be made more direct. Such as:

“Science has determined that NDEs are hallucinatory experiences caused by various neurological factors such as cerebral anoxia, hypercarbia, abnormal activity in the temporal lobes, or brain damage. Some parapsychologists and philosophers consider them to be evidence for an afterlife and mind-body dualism.”

76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face,

I have already mentioned why physicalism is in the lead, it's an explanation for why science tries to explain an experience (the NDE) in terms of physical causes. But you have a point. It's not necessary for it to be in the lead. So let's say that we remove it, without It you have something like this;

"Research from neuroscience tries to explain/explains the NDE in terms of (various)physiological and psychological factors, while some NDE researchers in the field of near-death studies advocate for a transcendental explanation"

Do you agree with this formulation? if yes then we can agree and i can edit the article.

"There is no assumption or premise. Features of the NDE can occur with drugs or messing around with stimulation to the temporal lobe. It has been demonstrated in scientific papers. Physicalism (a philosophical view) does not come into it. There is no underlying philosophy here."

Saying that a mental experience is a product of brain function (and assuming that that functioning is purely physical and only what we can observe) is not philosophical? the last part is a ontological assumption, yes. It's a statement about what exists and what doesn't. - Ironrage (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironrage - I have been accused of WP:OWN by another user. I have no interest in developing this article anymore it is a constant battle and fringe-market place for users who want to insert undue weight to dubious paranormal claims. But like I said I have no problem with the "survivalist" interpretation being mentioned in the article but not in the lead. The article should be kept as academic and scientific as possible with peer-reviewed scientific papers from neuroscientific or psychological papers. I have attempted to do this.

The section "Neurobiological and psychological analysis" written mostly by me must have taken me more than 400 hours to find all those scientific papers, summarize them, cite them etc. This took countless nights of my time and it is blatant incompetence when another user (not you) comes in and says none of those papers claim the NDE is a hallucination (because all of them do). The very first scientific papers on the NDE were describing these experiences as hallucinations (Oskar Vogt etc). It seems some people forget this. I remain unconvinced about your suggestions but at least you are adding reliable sources and attempting to improve the article. I respect your edits but I think what 76.107 says is more reliable for the article and I don't think physicalism should be added. Contrary to what another user said I am not claiming to own the article. I recommend to get other users involved here or raise this on another board and see what they think. Thanks for your interest in this and would be interesting to see what this article is like in a few months time. Happy editing but I will not further be commenting here. Goblin Face (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face, you write that "The article should be kept as academic and scientific as possible with peer-reviewed scientific papers", but everyone agrees with you on this already. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that there's nothing "unscientific" about a survivalist interpretation. Neal Grossman addresses this point in his essay Who's afraid of Life After Death?, by writing the following:

In the above paragraphs, I have been using the terms "science" and "scientific" in their epistemological sense. Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena which fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific". This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would be, not because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science (in terms of materialist metaphysics) has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from its scope.

Peter Fenwick uses the term "science" in this metaphysical sense when he writes

"So far we've taken a largely scientific, and therefore a rather limited view of the NDE. We've been looking at mechanism, and almost everything we have said has been based on the assumption that the NDE takes place in or is constructed by the brain. We've confined "mind" to the brain because, scientifically, we have no other option. When the brain dies, the mind dies; the scientific view does not allow for the possibility of a soul, or for any form of personal survival after death.

It is only by looking at some non-scientific views that we might find a wider explanation of the NDE...."

If the term "materialistic" is substituted for "scientific", then the above passage is an accurate statement with which I have no quarrel. The last sentence becomes "it is only by looking at non-materialistic views that we might find a wider explanation of the NDE...." And this is absolutely correct. Materialism is a woefully inadequate framework in terms of which to understand the NDE. And, I wish to insist, it is science itself, understood epistemologically as a metaphysically neutral method of inquiry, which has discovered the limitations of materialism. After all, the primary researchers in the field are not philosophers or theologians, but well-trained scientists and physicians, who, using standard scientific methodology, have been forced by their data to conclude that materialism cannot be the whole truth. - Grossman, Neal. Who's Afraid of Life After Death? Why NDE Evidence is Ignored The Journal of Near-Death Studies, Vol. 21 (1) Fall 2002.

This is partly why I insisted on keeping this source in the lead, because part of what it does is to address this very common misconception. English Opening (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, honestly.. what can i say? I will edit the lead regardless so let's see what people think.

Edit: done. If after this people like the older version better, then so be it. - Ironrage (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

38%-50%

"38%-50% of the American Adult population who come close to clinical death have had a near-death experience" reads a little oddly, as plenty of people "come close to clinical death" and then just die, so we don't know what they experienced. I'd make it clearer, but the source isn't available online - what does it actually say? --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR (need to login)

The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 98, No. 3, Mar., 1998

A Visit From an Angel

How would you respond to a patient's reported encounter with an angel? This nurse researcher, who's had some personal experience with such events, offers some suggestions.

By Mary J. Kennard, MSN, RN

Mary J. Kennard is an interviewer for the protocol: Testing the Effectiveness of Advance Medical Directives, at Kent State University, Department of Psychology, Kent, OH.

Do you believe in angels? Or, what's more important, do your patients? Findings from a Gallup Poll published in Time magazine in December of 1993 revealed that 69% of Americans believe in angels, and 46% believe they have their very own guardian angels. In fact, 32% of Americans believe they've had actual contact with an angel. Angels are believed to be an important component of the near-death experience. It's thought that about 5% of the adult population—or as many as 38% to 50% of all patients who come very close to clinical death—have had a near-death experience. And many of them report the presence of angels.

That's the start. The article goes on to provides three accounts from relatives of dying patients involving a claim regarding a visit from an angel. It is about 1.5 pages of text and is just aimed at informing nurses of the comfort that such claims bring to the people involved, presumably to prepare nurses so they react politely if they encounter such reports. There is no footnote or reference to explain where the ""It's thought that" figures come from, although there are 8 "selected references" at the end of the article. The statement is obviously bogus because there is no precise definition of what a near-death experience is, and no way to measure what is going on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and cut this from the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

complete OBE created in experiments

Complete OBEs were created with healthy persons, in experiments. This demonstrates, that OBEs are only the result of a thinking activity and no supernatural phenomenon. Information can be found: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430124107.htm Brain scan reveals out-of-body illusion. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.059 Posterior cingulate cortex integrates the senses of self-location and body ownership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.201.1 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection

This well-known movie could be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.172.58 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanatory models - Mainstream or fringe?

Let me just add a few observations to the debates on this talk-page that regards the categories of science and pseudoscience, and the categories of mainstream and fringe, with regard to the transcendental model and the formulation of the lead intro. There is always a risk that an explanatory model, that is ontologically challenging, might be interpreted as pseudoscience or fringe-science. But, several reliable sources - The Lancet (1990;2001), Psychology Today (1992), Resuscitation (2001), Progress in Brain Research (2005), and Psychiatry (Edgmont, 2009) - include the "Transcendental model" as one of the three explanatory models of NDE-research. The others being (1) the physiological model and (2) the psychological model. Even French (2005:354), who might be considered a skeptic, discusses the three broad categories of NDE-theories, including the Transcendental/Spiritual. The three categories are also featured in the neuroscientific literature. In an article for the Annals Of Neurosciences Purkayastha and Mukherjee (Vol 19, 2012) review several explanatory models, including "spiritual theories". The existence of several explanatory models are reflected in the heading of their paper which is entitled "Three cases of near death experience: Is it physiology, physics or philosophy?". When The Lancet published the viewpoint-article of Owens, Cook and Stevenson (1990) and the research-article of van Lommel et.al (2001), the articles included discussions of the three explanatory models, including the transcendental model. The Lancet also published an article by Greyson (2000) which included discussion of transcendental factors in NDE-research. I believe that if the editorial boards of The Lancet and Resuscitation had found the articles of van Lommel et.al (2001) and Parnia et.al (2001) to be inappropriate for academic publishing, because they mention the transcendental model, or transcendental factors, then these articles would not have been published. Please note that I am not saying that the transcendental model is the correct model, or the most influential model. The neuro-biological model is probably the model that is most mainstream. What I am saying is that academic discourse seems to bring up three particular explanatory models, (1) physiological, (2) psychological and (3) transcendental/spiritual. Since this observation is descriptive, it might be appropriate that all three models are noted in this wikipedia-entry. Also, when the transcendental model is mentioned in articles published by leading medical journals, such as The Lancet and Resuscitation, then they are introduced to the center of science, not the fringes of science. Already in 1985 The American Journal of Psychiatry published Greysons typology of Near-death Experiences, which featured the transcendental component as a major part of the research design. These are all mainstream publications, and their legitimacy is well established. However, I welcome other viewpoints! --Hawol (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, clearly this model has a basis in the neuroscientific literature and needs to remain as one of the explanatory models. --Philosi4 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Some researchers ... are open to the possibility that consciousness/mind may not result from brain activity

This statement from the lead is incredibly vague. Some researchers are probably open to the possibility that the Earth is 6000 years old, but we don't make vaguely supportive statements about their research in articles about evolution. As far as I understand it, this is a minority view; at the very least, we should be identifying it as such. Also, I'm not quite sure that all these sources pass WP:MEDRS. Nova Science Publishers, for example, has courted controversy for not being peer reviewed, according to our Wikipedia article on them. I have tagged the statement as undue, as I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to make sweeping changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A related issue I noticed while reviewing the "Afterlife claims and skeptical responses" section is that it gives heavy weight to a tiny handful of researchers, most of whom acknowledge themselves that their views are WP:FRINGE. Parnia and Fenwick, in particular, seem to have the bulk of about five paragraphs devoted to them, most of which is extensive quotes and references to a single paper (and numerous refutations to it); probably one mention at most is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Some NDEs are reported by persons when/after they had the diagnosis ´brain-death´. This (brain death) is the reason why some NDE-experts say, that consciousness/mind might exist independent from the biological brain activity. For them, the biological brain is similar like a radio-receiver - but for an external consciousness. For me - this idea is nonsense: Brain-Death is not reversible - NEVER! Therefore - when NDEs are reported by persons who had the diagnosis ´brain-death´, then this diagnosis was obviously completely wrong! This wrong-diagnosis the the most great evil for a person - because after this diagnosis, medical treatment will be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.222.183 (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by Wega14

This user has repeatedly added a section linking to YouTube videos that mentions NDE researchers at the bottom of the article. The sources are unreliable, most of the researchers listed are fringe proponents and some of them already mentioned in the article, I fail to see what this new section adds to the article. So I am removing it. JuliaHunter (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You are deleting here a whole section which was included for around one year. Nobody had a problem with that. Now you start to delete this section again and again. What problem do you have with this? Most researchers listed here have a own article in Wikipedia. Sources you can find there. It is more or less a list of researchers, working on this subject. And today this is serious research. They are posting articles in serious science magazines. So which problems do you have exactly with this section? Seems, you are here the only one. Wega14 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, another editor deleted this nonsense as well [2], it reads as promotion and even some kind of advert for fringe beliefs regarding the NDE. Guys like Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia (who are already mentioned on the article) are fringe proponents and majority of scientists have rejected their views so they don't need an entire section, and linking to their YouTube videos does not help as reliable sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

See the Near-death studies article, section "Research - history and background", it has extensive information on Lommel or Raymond Moody. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

For me this is POV. For example Pim van Lommel had an excellent science article in The Lancet in 2001. Kübler-Ross, you deleted too, was elected by times magazine 1999 to one of the most important scientists of the last century. If you call them fringe proponents, that is your personal opinion, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. You also deleted a book of Eben Alexander. His book Proof of heaven was on the The New York Times Best Seller list for 97 weeks. May be you can't agree with them, but that is your personal problem. Here is the article Near-death experience, and here we describe all the researchers working on that subject. No problem, if you can find other ones, which are working on this field and have different opinions. But normally, if researchers work on this fields, they have more or less similar opinions. Please stop this personal fight against this. You have a strong belief in something, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Please start thinking logically, and not with emotion or any belief. Thank you. Wega14 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Pim van Lommel is a pseudoscience promoter who believes in psychic powers. Look at the 'reception' section on his own article. He has heavily been criticized by the scientific community for ideas that have not held up under scrutiny. None of this has anything to do with my own belief. It is just what the sources say. I do not see why need a whole section for these pseudoscience promoters, even when they are already mentioned in detail on the article. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Eben Alexander see the "Personal experiences" section, he is mentioned already as well as the fact his book was a best seller. The "literature" section is not personal experiences, it consists of fictional accounts and novels so that is why it was removed. JuliaHunter (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

on the Pim van Lommel wikipedia article there worked users like Ironrage and Goblin Face. They included all that bad text, you tell me now to read. And if I check your work, you do similar things: JuliaHunter : [3] . Really, I read better other sources, as this manipulated Wikipedia articles. I told you, that Pim van Lommel had an excellent article in The Lancet. I give more in this serious science magazines, as in such Wikipedia articles done by users called Ironrage and Goblin Face . thank you. Wega14 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

On this article there is already an entire section that mentions the "Van Lommel studies", even a photo of Lommel. This section mentions his Lancet article, so nobody is 'suppressing' this information from Wikipedia. It does not matter which editors added sources to wikipedia even if they are citing skeptics, it matters if the sources are reliable or not, in this case they are. Wikipedia is about reliable sources not our own individual opinion/s. There are reliable sources that criticize Lommel's research as pseudoscience i.e. Dr. Jason Braitwaite and neurobiologist Dick Swaab. It seems to me the real issue here is that you consider any skeptical sources of the paranormal as 'bad text' and you want to promote some fringe ideas. I am sorry there is not much we can do about that. I have no problem with articles that mention the paranormal (I have written many), but Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We have mainstream scholarly and scientific sources dismissing paranormal and pseudoscientific ideas. I really do not see a problem. There is nothing else I can add to this conversation I am afraid. Take care. JuliaHunter (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all: you deleted a whole section here. I didn't delete the work of users like Ironrage and Goblin Face, also if I think that is really strange. Also I didn't delete your work. Second: normally I work on more technical articles here in Wikipedia. With a good source, good arguments there are no problems to include content. Only in articles like this, where people like you and other think they have to promote their own belief, people with little logical thinking, it is very hard to work. I will include that section again, because I can't see, that there are other people like you, which want to delete this section. In this section there were listed many other researchers, too, you deleted them all. Most of these researchers have their own article here in Wikipedia, and it was just a list of the most popular researchers working on that field. There are working today now several thousands researchers on that field. May be you still live in last century with your thinking. But things are changing. And you should accept, that this is not pseudoscience, it is real science. Other is your personal opinion. Wega14 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to be line with WP:OR

Hello Jytdog - hope u r well ! In my opinion the below paragraph needs to modified since: a) source [32] is bloggy b) source [33] is certainly not a review article. Hence I would delete the last 2 sentences to beging with. Your thoughts? Ferrer1965 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

As cognitive neuroscience is an interdisciplinary area of study embracing neuroscience, psychology, and computer science,[31] and NDE studies address multiple possible feelings, sensations and their origins, some research on NDEs has been conducted by researchers with credentials in cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience addresses the questions of how psychological functions (for example, human feelings and sensations) are produced by neural circuitry (including the human brain).[31] Modern contributions to the research on near-death experiences, however, have come from several academic disciplines that generally do not include neuroscience. There are multiple reasons for this trend.[32] For example, brain activity scans are not typically performed when a patient is undergoing attempts at emergency resuscitation.[33] Claiming that there is no measurable brain activity without having a variety of different EEG, catSCAN, FMRI, etc. is not considered a good scientific practice.[32][33]

---

Unsourced researchers

moved here per PRESERVE

Maurice S. Rawlings

Maurice S. Rawlings was an American cardiologist who focused on near-death experiences from a Christian point of view. Rawlings was the author of several books, including: "Beyond the line of death - New clear evidence for the existence of Heaven and Hell" (1987), "To Hell and Back - Afterlife" (1996), which were translated into several languages.

Bernard Jakoby

Bernard Jakoby is a German NDE researcher who comes to similar conclusions as Moody.

Sam Parnia

Sam Parnia is a British assistant professor of medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Parnia is the principal investigator of the AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation), which was launched in 2008, and published in 2014.

Penny Sartori

Penny Sartori is researching near-death experiences, culminating in the publication of her monograph The Near-Death Experiences of Hospitalized Intensive Care Patients: A Five Year Clinical Study.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced part of "Research" section

moved here per PRESERVE

Medical disciplines involved in research

As can be observed by researching online the US National Library of Medicine, also called PubMed, for the term "near death experience", research has been done in the disciplines of medicine, psychology and psychiatry, in recent times and over the last couple of decades.

Scientific Journals Publishing Research in NDEs

Among the scientific and academic journals that have published, or are regularly publishing, new research on the subject of NDEs are Journal of Near-Death Studies, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, British Journal of Psychology, American Journal of Disease of Children, Resuscitation, The Lancet, Death Studies, the Journal of Advanced Nursing and occasionally the well known New England Journal of Medicine which has published some articles on out of body experiences (a componenent of NDEs). Most top peer-reviewed journals in neuroscience, such as Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Brain Research Reviews, Biological Psychiatry, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience are generally not publishing research on NDEs.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Restorations

User:Smkolins please see the sections above. You have been restoring content that violates policy. Please address the issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole sections don't violate policy. Some individual entries might - I don't know. But you are a young wikipedia editor and already have an reputation of revert waring on your talk page. My advise is to slow down and make your points rathe slash and burn like you are doing. Smkolins (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They are shot through with awful content. I actually first went through and did a bunch of trimming but there was so much bad content I just moved it all here for review. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Even without considering the substantive content, this diff by Smkolins has many problems. For example, "As can be observed by researching online..." is an argument that someone might make on their personal blog, but is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia where reliable secondary sources should be used for any kind of analysis. This article is not "List of sites on NDE found in a web search" and the list of external links is inappropriate. One minor issue concerns inserting "Known" into a heading to make "Known NDE researchers". Following that strategy would require "Known" to be inserted in many heading in most articles—of course only known items can be discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yawl seem to be missing the point - I'm not saying leave everything. I was saying the process deserved care rather than slash and burn whole sale cutting of material. Other editors have sometimes done things like this leaving a mess to clean up. I'll grant that Jytdog has actually begun followup, albeit hours after initially just removing whole sections. He's already verified some content so my from my pov he was deleting good content with the bad, is that against policy?, and it seemed lacking in any skill, and instead started bashing with rules as if simply wishing to improve the article that overall by fiat instead of actually working the material that had seen a lot of contest and compromise. I'll grant that perhaps the article hasn't had much simple oversight and things been creeped in inappropriately, but a wholesale swipe seemed unfair and prone to bias, making everything a nail with a thinking that one is a hammer. But I'm thankful he has actually backed up this move with the actual work of constructive effort to verify material and restore it. O wait - I say that but he hasn't?Smkolins (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

More importantly you seem to be commenting, User:Johnuniq, without actually reading what I said - i did NOT say "As can be observed by researching online..." - so that's a spurious argument at best.Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Spurious? The text I quoted ("As can be observed by researching online") is in the diff I gave just before the quote. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were commenting on my edits rather than one line out of hundreds that were excised. But i agree that should not be in the text any more than well cited content should have been removed. Smkolins (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The WP:LEAD should summarize the important points in the article, as opposed to introducing personal reflections and original research. To that end I have made some copy edits broadly summarizing the scientific view that NDEs are a subjective experience of the mind and a component of religious beliefs in an afterlife. I have also added a sentence about how the spiritual views has been promoted and popularized in modern culture.

What is still missing is a summary of other scientific models, historical cultural experience—some shared across cultures, and current research. Is anyone aware of any other major points in the article that should also be summarized in the lead?- MrX 13:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The spiritual view has always been the popular one, modern culture is nothing unusual, so I see mentioning it as editorial opinion/OR - unless you can provide RS for its significance.

As far as I know, the mainstream science view is that NDEs are physiologically based illusions, but I am open to persuasion by reliable sources. The less said about other theories the better, especially as psychology has a historical habit of edging off towards pseudoscience. It might be worth looking for a one-liner about the after-effects of experiencing an NDE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

I am moving this section off the article and in here because there are no reliable sources to the signficance of any of these mentions. Can any be found for some of these or or can they all be be forgotten? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Near-death experiences have been a theme in several films, like Hereafter by Clint Eastwood (2010) and Stay by Marc Forster (2008). It has also been a subject in fantastic literature, for example in the novella The Baron Bagge by Alexander Lernet-Holenia (1936). It is also part of books written by Karl May in his novels with the names 'the Hereafter' ('Am Jenseits',1899) and in 'In the Realm of the Silver lion III'('Im Reiche des silbernen Löwen II', 1902).

Films

• Flatliners (1990), film starring Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, and William Baldwin
• Ghost (1990), film starring Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg; the film received several Academy Awards nominations.
• The Dust Factory (2004)
• The Fountain (2006), film by Darren Aronofsky starring Hugh Grant
• Enter the Void (2009), film by Gaspar Noé
• Hereafter (2010), film directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Matt Damon
• If I Stay (2014), film directed by R.J. Cutter, based on Forman's 2009 novel
• Heaven Is for Real (2014), film directed by Randall Wallace and written by Christopher Parker, based on Pastor Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent's 2010 book of the same name.

Literature

• "The Little Match Girl" (1845), a short story by Hans Christian Andersen
• "To Build a Fire" (1902, revised 1908), two versions of a short story by Jack London
• Left for Dead: : My Journey Home from Everest (2000), memoir by Beck Weathers and Stephen G. Michaud, recounting Weathers' near-death experience during the 1996 Mount Everest disaster and its aftermath
• If I Stay (2009), novel by Gayle Forman
• "The Beggar Boy at Christ's Christmas Tree" (1876), a short story by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Television

• Ghost Whisperer (September 23, 2005, to May 21, 2010), CBS television series
• Proof (2015 TV series) (June 16, 2015, to August 18, 2015), TNT television series
• The OA (2016 TV series) (December 16, 2016 premiere), Netflix Original Series

Article structure and focus

Transcendental models

I have rearranged the lead to describe the mainstream science view before mentioning the transcendental. While the latter approach is not tenable on any verifiable grounds, it is notable enough to deserve coverage in this article.

Using verifiable in a wikipedia context usually means about the quality of the sources. There are plenty of sources that are reliable sources about the transcendental view.Smkolins (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but really we are trying to say the same thing, that both the scientific and the transcendental views need treating properly. Or, do you think I was wrong to put the current scientific view first? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is important to note reliable sources need not be scientific ones for their respective domains of research. Smkolins (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

List of researchers

The list of researchers strikes an odd note, is it usual to provide such lists for medical topics? Should it stay, might it be best to delete it or, if there is anything noteworthy about any individual's NDE advocacy, can that material be worked in elsewhere?

Elsewhere in the article? So blending in material rather than isolating content is the way to go?Smkolins (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That is my instinct. I can see no value to the subject in a list of people taken out of the context of their research findings. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Research section

Should this section really include such things as explanatory models or afterlife claims, or would it be better to promote them to sections in their own right? The afterlife section might form the basis of the transcendental section I suggest above.

Why separate them? Why push them farther down page?Smkolins (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream science does not recognise their validity, so I think separating them from the scientific research section helps. It wouldn't be any further down the page as it already follows all the scientific subsections, it would actually be a promotion to a higher section level. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with separating the scientific research from the cultural beliefs. That said, there is lot of detailed content under explanatory models and clinical research that should be shortened some. I think we should only include studies if they are cited by secondary sources, per WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 15:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Any views? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Personal experiences" section

This section contains a boatload of unsourced stuff that is editorializing.... WP:OR. There are also a bunch of very flaky primary sources. Needs to be carefully reviewed before whatever is useful is restored.

Just a note that some work is being done way below on finding good secondary sources on specific cases and that work can be advanced while removing the chaff. Smkolins (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal experiences

• Return from Tomorrow by George G. Ritchie with Elizabeth Sherrill (1978). At the age of 20, George Ritchie died in an army hospital. Nine minutes later he returned to life. Ritchie's story was the first contact Raymond Moody (who was studying at the University of Virginia, as an undergraduate in Philosophy, at the time) had with NDEs. It inspired Moody to investigate over 150 cases of near-death experiences, in his book Life After Life, and two other books that followed.
• Embraced by the Light by Betty Eadie (1992). One of the most detailed near-death experiences on record.
• Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley. Brinkley's experience documents one of the most complete near death experiences, in terms of core experience and additional phenomena from the NDE scale. Brinkley claims to have been clinically dead for 28 minutes and taken to a hospital morgue, but some of his claims are disputed.
• Placebo by Howard Pittman (1980). A detailed record of Pittman's near-death experience.
• The Darkness of God by John Wren-Lewis (1985). Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Psychical Research No 5. An account of the effects of his NDE after going through the death process several times in one night.
• Three have associated their experiences with their decision to join the Bahá'í Faith: Reinee Pasarow, Ricky Bradshaw, and Marie Watson. Pasarow's published her story as early as 1981. At least one extended talk was video taped and is available online in a couple places. There are also extended partial transcripts. Bradshaw's experience has been reviewed in several books. Watson, author of Two Paths in 1897, says she suffered a car accident in 1890 in Washington DC and reported having a vision and met a guide. She converted to the religion in 1901 and identified the guide as `Abdu'l-Bahá.
• Dying To Be Me: My Journey from Cancer, to Near Death, to True Healing by Anita Moorjani, an ethnic Indian woman from Hong Kong, experienced a NDE which has been documented on the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) website as one of the most exceptional accounts on their archives. She had end-stage cancer and on February 2, 2006, doctors told her family that she only had a few hours to live. Following her NDE, Anita experienced a remarkable recovery of her health.
• Kiki Carter, a.k.a. Kimberli Wilson, an environmental activist and singer/songwriter, reported a near-death experience in 1983. The day after the experience, her mother, Priscilla Greenwood, encouraged her to write it down. Priscilla Greenwood published the story in September 1983 in a local metaphysical journal. For 24 hours after the experience, Kimberli had an aftervision which was a catalyst for her interest in quantum physics and holograms.
• 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper, is Piper's account of his own near-death experience. EMTs on the scene determined Piper had been killed instantly after a tractor-trailer had swerved into his lane, crushing his car. Piper survived, however. In the book, he wrote about seeing deceased loved ones and friends as well as magnificent light; he felt a sense of pure peace. Piper had a very difficult and painful recovery, undergoing 34 surgeries.
• Heaven Is for Real by Todd Burpo, is a father's account of his son, Colton, and Colton's trip to heaven and back. After discovering that then-four-year-old Colton's appendix has ruptured, he was rushed to the hospital. While unconscious, Colton describes having met Jesus, God, his great-grandfather whom he had never met, and his older sister lost in a miscarriage.
• Parallel Universes, a Memoir from the Edges of Space and Time by Linda Morabito Meyer is a NASA scientist's account of several near death experiences at the hands of her parents and William Franklin Mosley of the Temple of the More Abundant Life in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. She explained that during these experiences, she visited Heaven, saw Jesus, and was in the presence of God.
• Eben Alexander, M.D., born December, 1953, author of Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, which made The New York Times Best Seller list for nonfiction. In the book, Alexander describes how he had an intense NDE while in a seven-day coma brought on by an attack of meningitis. Inconsistencies and other issues in his story have led to questions about its veracity.
• Howard Storm. In 1985, Storm travelled to Europe with his wife and university students. After suffering from severe stomach pain, he ended up in a hospital in Paris, where he had a near-death experience. He converted from atheism to Christianity in its aftermath.
• Josh Homme of Queens of the Stone Age elaborated on his near-death experience in an interview with Marc Maron in October 2013. He told Maron that he contracted a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection in 2010, which his immune system could not fight due to stress. Due to unexpected complications during knee surgery, the doctors could not oxygenate his blood, and Josh suffered a near-death experience due to asphyxiation. Doctors eventually had to use a defibrillator to revive him. Following this, he was confined to bed rest for three months. The experience left him weakened and unable to produce music for almost two years.
• The Friend From Mexico, a True Story of Surviving an Intensive Care Unit by Apostolos Mavrothalassitis (2012) is the author's near-death experience account. Following a mid-air collision while participating in the 2009 Paragliding World Championships, he suffered extensive blood loss during surgery and was put under induced coma for two weeks. During these two weeks he lived a different life, and was not aware of his predicament. The experiences of this period are described extensively in the book.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

one subsection

What's your problem here Jytdog?

* Three have associated their experiences with their decision to join the Bahá'í Faith: Reinee Pasarow, Ricky Bradshaw, and Marie Watson. Pasarow's published her story as early as 1981. At least one extended talk was video taped and is available online in a couple places. There are also extended partial transcripts. Bradshaw's experience has been reviewed in several books. Watson, author of Two Paths in 1897, says she suffered a car accident in 1890 in Washington DC and reported having a vision and met a guide. She converted to the religion in 1901 and identified the guide as `Abdu'l-Bahá.

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smkolins (talk • contribs) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that entry in particular is the big whopping use of WP:PRIMARY sources and the editorializing, interpreting the primary sources. That is one of the most blatant policy-violating entries in the list. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it - editorializing? What - that they associated their experiences with a religion? It's in the sources. They said it. Most of the verbiage is just outline the fact the stories were documented - "published as early as 1981" , one talk was video taped and is available in a couple places - that's not editorializing. Bradshaw's experience were reviewed in several books. There they are. I'll give you some credit - at least you are returning to look at various sources, after some hrs, to clean things up. At first it looked like a drive by edit where you chop things up and leave a mess for others to clean up. For pete's sake, as you say. Smkolins (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

O - and it's pretty clearly a mix of various classes of sources. And I'd say there was little dwelling on the stories. Smkolins (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to the library tomorrow and will look at the Almeder book. The other sources are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty late here too but "Vital Signs" is not ok? It's the original journal of the subject. I'll grant the other reports of her experience are not academic but they aren't self-published and they aren't trying to get rich. But on the basis of the Vital Signs journal it was an example of her story actually published by someone rather than the very hard to find journal and not making elaborating on her experience. Primary - stating something was said. So far the closest I can come to "editorializing" is the last one that says she identified the guide as Abdu'l-Baha. But the language was neutral - she claimed, as a primary source can do. No? But if that's the stickler, I'm not hung on it. I just thought it was ok. Smkolins (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And did you even see "Oxford University Press" ? Pete!Smkolins (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry didn't make it to the library yesterday. The only useful source there is the Almeder book. The others are primary and the "Oxford University Press" book is a confessional religious book, not a scholarly one. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If one is proposing theory vs personal narrative and a body of experience of individuals and groups there might be some basis for your "scholarly" challenge. But it isn't. It is conveying experience in a scholarly review. It's a good source. It seems to me you are the one being argumentative and throwing policy around instead of actually checking sources. Nothing I put up lacked one good source, some you cleared, and the additions were for convenience and obviously not stand on their own (though again they are not making claims of theory but of experience.) Smkolins (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps here but we should not be relying on personal accounts, however important they may be - we should be relying on secondary sources which verify how important those account are. For example, do Atwater and Barnes both explain that Bradshaw's experience is significant, or do they just catalogue it in passing? Do the secondary sources highlight a religious association as something significant? If not, then we can't use it here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear this whole discussion is over a section of the article Jytdog removed.Smkolins (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of the reason why every policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources is to deal issues of WEIGHT; relying on primary sources often leads to OR and UNDUE problems. We let the experts in the fields tell us what deserves weight and we follow the experts. That is how we arrive at articles "summarize accepted knowledge" and are neutral per policy NOT and NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thus if there are acceptable published sources that creates weight. Most published works do not recount case after case - they decided what accounts to present - that's what I'm trying to present. Smkolins (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, please actually read WP:NPOV. We determine WEIGHT based on what secondary sources say about X. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to address this source - since it is not seeming to be understood - here's some references to the reference of Pasarow's original publication in Vital Signs [4], and here's the professional newsletter itself [5]. Smkolins (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• And again to be clear Pasarow is not the owner or publisher of Vital Signs. Smkolins (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Again per every policy and guideline we should use independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is right. Parasow's account in Vital signs is a primary source. We need secondary-source confirmation of its importance before we use it, and even then we could use it only to illustrate the point/s made in the secondary source. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

I will say that my understanding had been that a professional journal is not itself a primary source. I understand it is a first hand account, but that it was the editorial decision of the publishing institution to do so. However, the fact that Pasarow saw the religion in her experience is referenced in this work - is it a secondary source? [6] Smkolins (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And even within the definition of a primary source the wikipedia article says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Was not what I did exactly that? Smkolins (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP which makes it clear that this is at best a "primary research paper". However I can find nothing about any journal called Vital signs on Wikipedia or through Google, is it listed in academic databases or is it an alternative/religious publication? If this topic is deemed medical, then WP:MEDRS applies, and that is even stricter. Yes a primary source can be used to verify specific facts but you need that secondary source to verify that the facts are significant in the first place. A primary source can never verify its own significance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see [7] for a collection of references that might cloud things up here because of length of detail. I welcome comments. Anything worthwhile can be copied back here at need, and when there is concensus into the article. Smkolins (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

rebuilding as "notable people"

rebuilding using independent, reliable sources...

not including

• Return from Tomorrow by George G. Ritchie - nominated both for deletion.
• Placebo by Howard Pittman (1980). A detailed record of Pittman's near-death experience. - WL in the entry above is fake, and there is no source for this.

Agreed. as I saw it about half the sources were just wikilinks and probably more about advertising than citing.Smkolins (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

including;

• Betty Eadie
• Dannion Brinkley as described in the book, Saved by the Light
• John Wren-Lewis

References

Thanks - that's what I mean about coming back and actually checking things rather than drive by editing. Smkolins (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah garbage should not stay in the encyclopedia. this is a working space, back here. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope your work continues on fixing things up here looking for useful content to be included. I noted on the Betty Eadie entry you used the identical reference I refer to in the Pasarow list at present in a sandbox page mentioned above.Smkolins (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

personal experiences

There was an attempt started on restoring reports of personal experiences. I think some of those editors have dropped the issue of fixing content and moved on to other work. I'd like to propose adding this content back. Please note the referencing:

• Betty Eadie
• John Wren-Lewis The article, relative to Wren-Lewis' experience sourced from a "diskus" comment, describes elements like and unlike the common NDE characteristics, and that as someone who believed such experiences were a sign of a neurosis before the experience, he came out of it deeply believing in them and with new spiritual beliefs.
• Howard Storm originally published in a book about his experience, and has been commented on in two issues of the Journal of Near-Death Studies. the commentary related to it is of an atheist that experienced a hellish situation in his experience and on returning to life converted to Christianity.
• Reinee Pasarow is a southern California business woman with experience back to the 1980s. Pasarow's initial report of her NDE was published in 1981 in an IANDS newsletter,Vital Signs. It was soon mentioned in various peer reviewed journals. These refer to Pasarow's experience as one that causes humanitarian and spiritual values to take on more importance, that her specific experience exemplifies a class of NDEs about "prophetic vision", and also of not seeing the physical body as the self. Additionally two scholarly works exploring the religious aspects of NDEs noted Pasarow's experience. These noted Pasarow's experience of a divine judgement to return to every day life, and, from another presentation of her experience on youtube, notes that Pasarow references concepts of her religion, the Baha'i Faith, in her experience. There have also been a variety of less scholarly media mentions.
• Rick(y) Bradshaw's experience was reported in a 1979 edition of Anabiosis, a precursor of the IANDS newsletter Vital Signs. It has been reviewed in several books, mostly by P. M. H. Atwater, but also a more scholarly book examining the religious perspective of NDEs noting Bradshaw's lack of fear of death, and intention to love those who loved him, after his NDE as of special importance.

References

The problem is, mention of each person can only be hung on the reason why their experiences are significant. That reason needs to provide the main focus of the item and the person who experienced it is of secondary importance. And it's that reason that requires adequate sourcing. I don't see anything in either the original material, the subsequent discussions, or your latest proposal, which addresses that. It's probably why we all walked away, because we just don't see any encyclopedic value in this stuff, it's just fanboy trivia. At the moment, all it could support would be something like, "NDEs have resulted in many religious conversions.[cites]" — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

significance is measured by sources. That's why there are some independent articles as well as some that might yet qualify for such articles or not, but if there are significance sources then it is up to the editors to craft the article after the sources. Smkolins (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So, why didn't you? Or perhaps you did, in which case, so much for those sources. But, I fear this conversation has nowhere left to go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean that I didn't do something. There are peer reviewed secondary sources and the descriptions provided are based on them. One could expand on what those themes mean I suppose. More to be done. And some of the above was originally gather by Jytdog in his "rebuilding as "notable people" and then "including;" section. I'm sure more could be done to see what other secondary sources cover other experiences. If there are a number of them then the article would be improved by referencing them.Smkolins (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• an additional account with peer-reviewed secondary sources: Howard Storm - [8], [9], both Journal of Near Death Studies. Commentary related to it is of an atheist that experienced a hellish situation and on returning to life converted to Christianity. Smkolins (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced commentary to each of the bullets. That is one of things that led me to move this list here in the first place. You cannot comment on them like that; everything has to come from reliable secondary sources. This for example: "These refer to Pasarow's experience as one that causes humanitarian and spiritual values to take on more importance, that her specific experience exemplifies a class of NDEs about "prophetic vision", and also of not seeing the physical body as the self. " is WP:OR Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually everything comes from the sources listed. Please actually read what I do rather than what you think I do. Smkolins (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

On the very first bullet, you have proposed: "The article dwells on the fact that Eadie included LDS theology in the book and the LDS and Anit-LDS community's responses, rather than commenting on her experience itself." This is your commentary on something.. the antecedent of "this" could be the Wikilinked article or the source cited (most likely the latter), but in either case this is a clear violation of WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smkolins, Jytdog is right. Depending on what "LDS" is and its relevance to NDE, which you have not explained (and I have no idea what LDS is), you might be able to actually explain that and to write a little about LDS theology and the LDS and Anit-LDS community's responses, and to cite Eadie as one of your sources. If you really wanted to comment that "Eadie says" then you would have to reliably source the explicit view that what Eadie themself says is significant. None of this would be justification to mention Eadie in a section on personal experiences. If you still struggle to understand the correct use of sources, I'd suggest that you stick to less contentious edits until you get the hang of things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if all of you would actually read the sources and decide if the language follows the sources. Please note Jytog originally, and separately, presented the source in part discussing the existence of Beade's experience. To the extent it discusses the fact of her presentation having such an experience it is useful but nothing else relative to stating there was a personal experience. So can we move on to other points in the list?Smkolins (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I restored your deleted comment, please see WP:REDACT for how to do that. I also moved your new comments to the correct places, as per WP:INDENT. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the redact suggestions is about comments such as these I'm typing now. In developing a block of text for inclusion it seems best to me to edit it towards concenses. People criticised that entry specifically and I'm fine with dropping it so lets let it drop.Smkolins (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok - I'll grant that that entry is a possble OR - I think it is just a common sense summary of the source and is in no way controversial, but let's strike it. This is a discussion seeking concensus after all. Shall we move on? Smkolins (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the list is the shot through with the same. This whole article is still full of the same. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As a draft of what to possibly include I feel free to edit the blockquote entry. So for Wren-Lewis I refer you to page 404-5:

• • Bocking (2006) discusses an NDE narrative by mathematical physicist and psychologist John Wren-Lewis, writing that the author differentiates the experience he described from an NDE because it “had none of the classic NDE features of tunnel, light etc.” and because “it stayed with him permanently.”… (so my summary of "describes elements like and unlike the common NDE characteristics,")
  • and "Bocking (2006)" is Bocking, B. (2006). Mysticism: no experience necessary? DISKUS 7, http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/diskus7/bocking.htm [accessed June 6, 2013]. (The article, relative to Wren-Lewis' experience sourced from a "diskus" comment.)
  • Before his experience Wren-Lewis was highly skeptical, and regarded mysticism as a form of neurosis. Not only did his experience run contrary to his expectations, it also resulted directly in new spiritual beliefs. (that as an atheist before the experience, he came out of it with new spiritual beliefs.) So maybe "atheist" is going a bit far - would a direct quote be more satisfactory? Smkolins (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• For Howard Storm I refer to
  • "the commentary related to it is of an atheist" (see Bush, p. 105, self-described as an angry, hostile atheist) "that experienced a hellish situation in his experience" (see Bush, p. 105, before a harrowing experience that transmogrified into one of affirmation and transcendence…, and Mays p. 33, its being a "hellish" NDE at the beginning., ) "and on returning to life converted to Christianity."( see Bush, p. 105, went on to a career of full-time parish ministry in the United Church of Christ.) Smkolins (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• yet more WP:OR. Smkolins your lack of understanding of this very basic WP policy continually surprises me. The primary source cannot be the source for a claim about the source, such as what you wrote there. That is pure WP:OR. Summarize sources, do not add commentary about sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You are objecting to the characterization that the 1979 mention was first? Fine. Smkolins (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So anyone else got more to add? Other sources to contribute? Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Smkolins - yes I have sources/suggestions to improve the page. I will submit them on the talk page for approvalJosezetabal (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Jytdog remove garble; most likely our blocked socking user back again after your comment I tried to make lemonade out of lemons and carefully read through the policy on WP:SOCK and surely I would encourage anyone to steer away from it since the misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. I personally have only this account. In anyway, it is was an interestng read.

Also, I have seen that you have had more than a few mishaps yourself, that have translated in several editing restrictions. …. Sooo, let’s all diligently follow the policies.

Now going back to the second part of your comment “remove garble” – I would appreciate if you could expand on that and provide some explanation. Thank-you Josezetabal (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources, Organic theories

Hello User:Smkolins I have identified the following (recent) secondary sources and these are the ones I would use for most changes on the page:

French, Chris (2005). "Near-Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest Survivors". Progress in Brain Research. 150: 351–367.

Olaf Blanke, Sebastian Dieguez. "Leaving Body and Life Behind: Out-of-Body and gfstjagngsNear-Death Experience" (2009).

Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4

Greyson, Bruce (2015). "Western Scientific Approaches to Near-Death Experiences". Humanities. 4: 775–796. doi:10.3390/h4040775.

And possibly Parnia, Sam (2014-11-01). "Death and consciousness--an overview of the mental and cognitive experience of death". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1330: 75–93.

Any other secondary sources you feel worthwhile using?

As per these sources I would split up the PHYISIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS (ORGANIC THEORIES SECTION) in the following sub-sections: (1) Altered Blood Gas Levels (2) Neurochemical theories (i.e. neurotrasmitters) and (3) neuroanatomical models/temporal lobe (=the neuroscientific approach)

Though the above subsections could be subject to further fine-tuning, they should be about right. Your thoughts? Josezetabal (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Forteana

@Lancebretthall: on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Forteana page one can read : "This category lists Forteana, also known as Fortean phenomena, that are related to the works of Charles Fort, which he described as a "distinctive blend of mocking humor, penetrating insight, and calculated outrageousness"". I really do not think this applies to near death experiences. Josezetabal (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal

@Rp2006: on the [10] paranormal page one can read "Paranormal events are phenomena described in popular culture, folklore, and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described to lie beyond normal experience or scientific explanation". Now, I do not see how that applies to the near death experiences given the number of scientific explanations provided, coming from mainstream science (neuroscience for instance) - Josezetabal (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Expand the Wikipedia Paranormal banner I added back and read it. NDE is in the list! If you successfully win a fight to remove it, we can leave it off this page. Good luck with that because the scientific consensus is that is is bunk. Note on Talk (at the top) the Top-importance classification for WikiProject Skepticism, as well as the WikiProject Paranormal banner! RobP (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure NDE should be included in the Paranormal WP:NAVBOX and I tend to agree with Josezetabal's reasoning. The Pseudoscience navbox is definitely not appropriate.- MrX 14:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

After looking into it, I agree with the Pseudoscience Navbox removal, but as Near Death Experience is actually in the Paranormal Navbox list, that one is certainly appropriate! RobP (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation

Hello Jytdog - regarding your edit [11] why did not you delete all citations of "The Handbook of Near Death Experiences" if the source is non-MEDRS?

In the MEDRS policy they say that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [12] don't you think? The authors are some of the best known names in the field, for instance Greyson is either author or co-author on more 27 publications mostly related to NDEs (in Pubmed)

Anyone's thoughts and comments are appreciated Josezetabal (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the section on Cross-cultural aspects

A reference is made in to Keith Augustine's "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" at the very end of the article. It reads:

"Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture, except for the identity of the figures seen during the experiences. For example, a Christian may see Jesus, while a Hindu may see Yamaraja, the Hindu king of death."

I've read the entirety of the reference, and I can unequivocally say that the citation contradicts what is written in this paragraph of the Wikipedia article. In fact, Keith Augustine discusses the marked dissimilarities between Western NDEs and those of Eastern cultures (e.g., India) reported by cross-cultural studies. While meetings with various religious figures have been reported in the NDEs of different cultures, it is not merely the identity that the NDEr perceives that differs. Augustine, as well as the cross-cultural studies that he cites in his essay, actually indicate the content is quite different across cultures. In the studies that he cites, several themes common to NDEs reported from western cultures (E.g., a tunnel with a light at the end of it) were not universally present cross-culturally.

Until then, we should delete the known offending section of this article. Furthermore, for any user(s) who took part in writing the section that references Keith Augustine's "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences", I recommend that we scrutinize all other contributions that they have made to this article. If they have cited a source so blatantly incorrectly once, their other contributions to this article (and any other) become highly suspect.

24.44.23.186 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

I wonder what ref you are reading. The section in the ref on cultural differences exactly says that Christians from the West see culturally-determined images of Jesus, which somebody from india sees " recognizably Hindu religious figures." Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that, but the section implies that that is the ONLY difference of note, that otherwise the experiences are highly similar. The section in this article specifically reads: "Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture". If you'll re-read my original post as well as the Keith Augustine reference, you'll note his discussion on various studies that conclude completely the opposite of what this Wikipedia article claims.

Whether that's the final word or not from the academic community is not for us to decide. However, as it stands, the reference cited contradicts the claim made for that section of this Wikipedia article. I'd correct it so that it properly reflects the analysis in the Keith Augustine reference, but I'm not familiar with the writing guidelines for articles.

24.44.23.186 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

Edit: Quotations from the Keith Augustine reference, taken at many different points throughout his section on cross-cultural comparisons: (1) "Studies that have investigated cultural differences in NDEs have argued that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture", (2) While deceased friends and relatives are sometimes encountered in Thai NDEs (in 4 of the 10 accounts), rather than greeting the NDEr (as in the West), they inform the NDEr 'of the rules governing the afterlife'", (3) "Tunnels are "largely absent in Thai NDEs" (with one exception unlike Western tunnel experiences), and feelings of peace or euphoria and experiences of light have not been reported at all", (4) "Unlike Western cases, life events are not viewed or relived as flashbacks. Landscapes are common in Thai NDEs, but typically unpleasant, as in the tours of the various hells.", (5) "Given such stark phenomenological differences, Murphy concludes: 'The fact that Thai (and Indian) NDEs do not follow the typical Western progression reflected by Kenneth Ring's temporal model seems to rule out the possibility that there is an ideal or normal NDE scenario, except within a particular cultural context'", (6) "He nevertheless concedes vague cross-cultural commonalities 'in which individuals commonly use culturally-derived patterns to confabulate individualized death-process phenomena that serve common psychological functions' [emphasis mine]", (7) "Despite a few core elements—such as having an OBE, going through a tunnel, encountering a light, and meeting deceased relatives—descriptions of the world encountered during Western NDEs are nearly as variable as dreams.", (8) "Of the 8 prototypical Western NDE elements, only 'meeting others' is truly universal in non-Western cultures. Landscapes are nearly universal, but quite variable in their details.", (9) "...existing cross-cultural studies suggest that any cross-cultural core consists of a very small number of elements", (10) "Since far more differences than similarities have been found between Western and non-Western accounts, the commonalities between different Western NDEs require a special explanation."

24.44.23.186 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Zed

You are providing your own analysis of Augustine. This is not valid. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User 24.44.23.186 is right - if I understood him/her correctly. Keith Augustine's article is geared towards showing that NDEs are hallucinations (which they may be after all - but that is not the point) hence he is repeatedly insisting on the fact that there are important cultural differences. So citing this reference to support the fact that "that the content of the experiences do not vary by culture" does not make sense. Have I understood you correctly User 24.44.23.186? Josezetabal (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP is providing an interpretation of Augustine instead of summarizing what Augustine says. This is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation; it's exactly what he says. But feel free to pretend it says whatever you want, I won't be trying to fix your work on this article anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.23.186 (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

I took a look over sourcing here. Way too much reliance on primary sources and poor sources like MDPI. Will be doing some serious trimming in the coming days. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Did some this morning. More to come. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for the trimming - a bummer for me because of all the work gone up in smoke, but good catch nonetheless 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Josezetabal (talk)

Good thing, too. We can't go around depending on primary sources for subjective experiences! OakMiner (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs to get worked over

The content below consistently attributes things to French or other people and doesn't cite the source. I started fixing it and got fed up. The actual citations need to be provided.

This whole thing verges very hard on SYN and OR in selecting arguments to discuss and where to go into depth with quoting sources cited in the reviews and then citing those primary sources.

Spiritual explanations - afterlife claims and skeptical responses

See also: Consciousness after death

Many individuals who experience an NDE see it as a verification of the existence of an afterlife, and some researchers in the field of near-death studies see the NDE as evidence that human consciousness may continue to exist after death. The transcendental (or survivalist) interpretation of the NDE contends that the experience is exactly what it appears to be to the persons having the experience. According to this interpretation, consciousness can become separated from the brain under certain conditions and glimpse the spiritual realm to which souls travel after death.

The transcendental model is in some friction with the dominant view from mainstream neuroscience; that consciousness is a product of, and dependent on, the brain. According to the mainstream neuroscientific view, once the brain stops functioning at brain death, consciousness fails to survive and ceases to exist.

Van Lommel said that the NDE poses a major challenge to current scientific thinking regarding the relationship between consciousness and the brain: "How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?... (the) NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

Other NDE researchers such as Parnia, Fenwick and Greyson, have expressed similar questions and concerns.

These arguments raised by several researchers have been criticized by some scientific skeptics and scientists on several grounds. Chris French (2005, 2009) noted that, "it is clear that the argument that recent findings present a major challenge to modern neuroscience hinges upon the claim that the NDE is actually experienced "during a period of clinical death with flat EEG" as claimed". With respect to the former point he pointed out that it is not at all clear that NDEs actually do occur during a period of flat EEG. Assuming that the patients in question entered a period of flat EEG, French argued that the NDE may have occurred as they entered that state or as they slowly recovered from it. Parnia and Fenwick (2001) had rejected the idea that the NDE may have occurred as the patient is becoming unconscious because they argued that this happens too quickly. But French points out that it is unclear how much time would be required to experience an NDE and that a common feature of altered states of consciousness is time distortion. He argued that this is well illustrated by the life review component of the NDE itself which, although involving a review of a person's entire life, only seems to last a very brief time. And that therefore, "who can say, therefore, that the few seconds of remaining consciousness as an individual enters the state of clinical death is insufficient for the experiences that form the basis of the NDE?".

Chris French, a notable skeptic of the afterlife claims of NDErs

Parnia and Fenwick (2001) also claimed that the NDE could not occur as a person slowly regains consciousness as this period is characterized by delirium and not by the lucid consciousness reported by NDErs. French again argued that the attribution of confusion is typically made by an outside observer. The subjects themselves may not subjectively feel confused at all. He quoted from an article by Liere and Stickney where they noted that, "Hypoxia quickly affects the higher centers, causing a blunting of the finer sensibilities and a loss of sense of judgment and of self-criticism. The subject feels, however, that his mind is not only quite clear, but unusually keen", and that the subjective claim of great clarity of thought may therefore well be an illusion. French (2005) also noted that "it should be borne in mind that we are always dealing with reports of experiences rather than with the experiences themselves. Memory is a reconstructive process. It is highly likely the final narrative will be much more coherent after the individual has reflected upon it before telling it to others, given the inherently ineffable nature of the experience itself".

And with respect to the latter point, the survivalists have also been criticized by scientists like French and Braithwaite of placing undue confidence in EEG measures. French (2005) and Braithwaite (2008) claimed that survivalists generally appear to assume that a flat EEG is indicative of total brain inactivity and that therefore the experience of an NDE during such a flatline period would completely undermine the core assumption of modern neuroscience that any complex experience must be based upon a functioning neural substrate.

Even assuming that NDEs actually occur during such periods, the assumption that isoelectric surface EEG recordings are always indicative of total brain inactivity is according to Braithwaite and French wrong. Braithwaite noted that "unless surgically implanted into the brain directly, the EEG principally measures surface cortical activity. The waveforms seen in cortical EEG are largely regarded to come from the synchronistic firing of cortical pyramidal neurons. As such, it is entirely conceivable that deep sub-cortical brain structures could be firing, and even in seizure, in the absence of any cortical signs of this activity." Braithwaite also noted that Gloor (1986) reviewed evidence indicating that inter-ictal discharges in the hippocampus or amygdala can produce complex meaningful hallucinations without the involvement of the cerebral cortex. B

Another argument which, according to Braithwaite (2008), relies upon misplaced confidence in surface EEG measurement was put forward by Fenwick P. and Fenwick E. (1995). B According to Braithwaite, they argued that, in cases where the surface EEG recording was not flat, if the NDE was a hallucinatory experience based upon disinhibition, evidence of this disinhibition should be visible in the surface EEG recorded at the time. However, Braithwaite argued that data from a recent study comparing EEG recorded at the scalp with EEG recorded from electrodes surgically implanted in deep sub-cortical regions show conclusively that high-amplitude seizure activity can be occurring in deep brain regions and yet be completely undetectable in the surface EEG. Braithwaite also discussed a study comparing surface EEG recordings with the fMRI blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) response showed that the surface EEG could fail to detect seizure activity at the level of the cortex that was detected by the BOLD response.

NDE researcher Janice Miner Holden found 107 anecdotal reports of patients being able to see and recall detailed events occurring during the cardiac arrest that are afterwards verified by hospital staff in the NDE literature as of 2009, out of which approximately 91% were accurate.

According to French (2005) and Blackmore (1993), when serious attempts at corroboration are attempted, the evidence often turns out to be nowhere near as impressive as it initially appeared. And such cases can possibly (since they had not been ruled out) be accounted for in terms of non-paranormal factors including, "information available at the time, prior knowledge, fantasy or dreams, lucky guesses, and information from the remaining senses. Then there is selective memory for correct details, incorporation of details learned between the end of the NDE and giving an account of it, and the tendency to tell a good story."

According to French (2005) a similar claim to the argument from veridical perceptions are the cases of blind people that during NDEs are able to see even though, in some cases, they may have been blind from birth; that paper says: "initial readings of such accounts often give the impression that the experience involves seeing events and surroundings in the same way that sighted people do, but closer reflection upon these cases suggests otherwise." French quoted from an article by NDE researcher Ring where he noted that, "as this kind of testimony builds, it seems more and more difficult to claim that the blind simply see what they report. Rather, it is beginning to appear it is more a matter of their knowing, through a still poorly understood mode of generalized awareness, based on a variety of sensory impressions, especially tactile ones, what is happening around them." French (2005) concluded that, "NDEs in the blind are certainly worthy of study but do not merit any special status in terms of evidential support for spiritual explanations of the phenomenon."

Nevertheless, according to French (2005) future research in the near-death experience should focus on devising ways to distinguish between the two main hypotheses relating to when the NDE is occurring. If it really is occurring when some NDE researchers claim that it is, during a period of flat EEG with no cortical activity, then modern neuroscience would require serious revision. This would also be the case if the OBE, either within the NDE or not, could be shown to be veridical. Attempts to test the veridicality of OBEs using hidden targets (e.g., Parnia and Fenwick (2001)) should be welcomed.

References

--Jytdog (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog - instead of going crazy about attributions, I would first make a list of all the resources we wish to use. There are more recent articles - for instance Prof Parnia has published other more recent review articles and like you wrote in the comments, the article by Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watt has not been used enough (though it is not classified as a review article in PubMed)

Also, I think we should create a sub-section under Explanatory models - for the Transcendental Theory - even French (a skeptic) has a whole section (in his review article) dedicated to this model. A lot of the above information could go in there whilst using more recent (review) articles and better attribution Josezetabal (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing is the foundation of Wikipedia. Being mindful that content is actually supported by sources is essential here, not to mention just basic acceptable scholarship. The content above would flunk a high school composition course and it is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog I have read Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watts article. It is not classified as a review article by PubMed, although it is one. Same comment for the most recent article by Sam Parnia [13]. I propose we use both. Do you agree? Josezetabal (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

why do you think PMID 21852181 is not classified as a a review by pubmed? Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

you are right Jytdog, I double checked again and it is a review article indeed, so we should definitely use it - Josezetabal (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"The content below consistently attributes things to French or other people and doesn't cite the source. I started fixing it and got fed up. The actual citations need to be provided."

I am basically the author of the whole "spiritual explanations" section, and sources were cited at first. But as more people started editing... i don't know what happened.

The Van Lommel quote in the beginning is from "Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” The Lancet.

The 2005 Chris French source is: "Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7578454_Near-death_experiences_in_cardiac_arrest_survivors

I'm not so sure what the 2009 source was. Probably "Near-death experiences and the brain. In: Craig Murray, ed. Psychological scientific perspectives on out-of-body and death-near experiences. New York: Nova Science Publishers"

The Parnia and Fenwick source is "Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness" (2001).

The 2008 Braithwaite source is "Near death experiences: The dying brain". Skeptic magazine.

Since then, in addition to the source from 2008 Braithwaite released a new (similar) paper "Occam's Chainsaw: Neuroscientific Nails in the coffin of dualist notions of the Near-death experience (NDE"; http://www.academia.edu/10060970/Occams_Chainsaw_Neuroscientific_Nails_in_the_coffin_of_dualist_notions_of_the_Near-death_experience_NDE_

And in addition to Braithwaite, French, Blackmore, etc. Keith Augustine is also someone who is worth mentioning. There's a whole chapter on NDE's in The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death (2015) which seems to be a version of his "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" article from infidels.org. Ironrage (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ironrage thank-you for the initial work you put in. Much appreciated. I will try to check the sources you listed here above, see if they are review articles or solid university press books, add few more sources (using same criteria) and then submit them here on the talk page Josezetabal (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ironrage Here below a first attempt to draft a list of articles that could be used:

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already) French, Christopher C. (2005-01-01). "Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors". Progress in Brain Research. 150: 351–367. ISSN 0079-6123. PMID 16186035. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50025-6.

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already on the page) Parnia, Sam (2014-11-01). "Death and consciousness--an overview of the mental and cognitive experience of death". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1330: 75–93. ISSN 1749-6632. PMID 25418460. doi:10.1111/nyas.12582

REVIEW ARTICLE (used already on the page) Almost 40 years investigating near-death experiences: an overview of mainstream scientific journals. Sleutjes A, Moreira-Almeida A, Greyson B. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014 Nov;202(11):833-6. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000205. Review. PMID 25357254.

REVIEW ARTICLE (not used) Near death experiences in cardiac arrest: visions of a dying brain or visions of a new science of consciousness. Parnia S, Fenwick P. Resuscitation. 2002 Jan;52(1):5-11. Review. PMID 11801343.

REVIEW ARTICLE (not used) Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Oct;15(10):447-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010. Epub 2011 Aug 17. "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them." Mobbs D1, Watt C. PMID 21852181. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010

Other Articles

"Occam's Chainsaw: Neuroscientific Nails in the Coffinof Dualist Notions of the Near-death Experience (NDE)" by Dr Jason J Braithwaite. It shows 1 citations in Google Scholar [14]. Not indexed in Pubmed. I would reject this source. However Dr Jason J Braithwaite seems like a solid guy with lots of publications [15] - can you please check which of the publications are review articles covering our subject ?

I will continue the work to identify more articles and also start working on making a list of books Josezetabal (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Towards a cognitive neuroscience of the dying brain" (http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/-(53998d2c-d2a6-47aa-ae6a-ccd590e06ff5).html) is included in the list of publications and it's the same as the 2008 source but under a different name.

There is also a reply from NDE researchers on the "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences.." article; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868045

In the Journal of Near-Death Studies there are also some relevant articles from Keith Augustine and other NDE researchers (https://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/keith-bio.html). Ironrage (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We need secondary sources expressing "accepted knowledge". This is an encyclopedia article, not a page where we track blow-by-blow debate in the literature. We don't use "comments". Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree Josezetabal (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As promised, here below a list of Books we could use

BOOK (already used on the page) Chapter "Leaving Body and Life Behind: Out-of-Body and Near" By Olaf Blanke in the book S. Laureys & G. Tononi (Eds.) The Neurology of Consciousness. © 2009, Elsevier Ltd. The book is cited 52 times in Google Scholar [16] Elsevier being one of the top providers of scientific, technical, and medical information, this is a no brainer

BOOK (currently not used on the page) Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence, Second Edition – edited by the American Psychological Association. More especially chapter 12 by Bruce Greyson : Near Death Experiences Bruce Greyson has authored or co-authored [17] 45 articles on Near Death Experiences The first edition of the book has been cited 435 times in Google Scholar [18] Again, this book should be a no brainer

I would reject BOOK (currently not used on the page) “The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death (2015)” is published by Rowman & Littlefield Although Rowman & Littlefield publishes scholarly books and journals -- the book only shows only 7 citations in Google Scholar. [19] Also, I did not find any articles by Keith Augustine in Pubmed so I would reject this source because of the lack of authority of the book and author

Any thoughts Ironrage and Jytdog ? best Josezetabal (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)