Talk:Afterlife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Afterlife: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2010-11-22

  • Expand the lead section to a full 3 or 4 paragraphs
  • Pinpoint areas to work on
  • Separate fraudulent experiments and research on this subject from that which is considered legitimate, i.e., that which is accepted as valid by the scientific community. The two categories (exposed fraud and legitimate science) should be listed in different sections under different titles. Lumping fraudulent research together with valid research may give the impression that all legitimate scientists reject the existence of life after death or, even worse, consider the very question absurd. If there is a consensus among scientists that the question of life after death is absurd, then research demonstrating the validity of this assertion should be offered. However, it seems obvious to this writer that no such consensus exists or can exist. 184.100.227.172 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Priority 2

Afterlives in American Belief Systems[edit]

I'm not immensely knowledgeable on the topic, but I feel like this article is missing a brief rundown on afterlife beliefs from Native American cultures, especially since the Incan Pacha already has a relatively robust article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8A80:7D00:5CC0:BBEA:3E76:AAED (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Chungis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.25.240 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dangling refs[edit]

I have located some dangling refs and hidden them, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)

I really don't remember that edit, but that information was copied from Reincarnation and that should be available at that article. I'm not sure how to fix the citations and any help you could provide would be appreciated. Editor2020 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on primary sources, and possible OR[edit]

Large amounts of the article depend on direct references to primary texts, often with some level of interpretation of these texts. Examples of these include religious scripture, as well as late-medieval works that are considered primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. Worse, some sections are uncited entirely. In the following, I will briefly review each section, before asking how we should address this.

  • Christianity: The second half of the lede seems appropriately sourced, as does the section on Orthodox Christianity. The rest are either uncited, or are direct references.
  • Islam: The section on Ahmadiyya appears to be appropriately sourced, but the lede and the section on Sufism is not; the former, when sourced, only sources the Quran, while the later references a translation of a work by a mid-medieval Islamic Sufi scholar. Unrelated, but it appears to use more Arabic terms than MOS:FOREIGN would allow.
  • Judaism: Sourcing is better, but relies solely on direct references in the section on Sheol, and heavily in the section on the World to Come.
  • Buddhism: A single suitable source at the start, but the rest is uncited and appears to be interpretation of scripture.
  • Hinduism: Entirely unsourced, and appears to be interpretation of scripture.
  • Jainism: Sourced, but I'm not certain we would classify the source as reliable.
  • Sikhism: First section is sourced appropriately, second section is also sourced but I'm not certain we would classify the source as reliable.
  • Shinto: Unsourced, but the content may be appropriate as it stands with sources.
  • Wicca: Sourced, but the source appears to be self-published
  • Zoroastrianism: Unsourced, and appears to be interpretation of scripture.

I'm not entirely certain what the appropriate action is to do here. I am not sufficiently informed about the vast majority of these faiths to correct the issues myself, but many of the tags have been there for years and since their introduction editors have typically expanded the issue, not rectified it. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to WP:TNT the inappropriately sourced sections, but would welcome other proposed solutions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography/Potential Sources[edit]

  • Fischer, John Martin, and Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin. Near-Death Experiences: Understanding Our Visions of the Afterlife. Oxford University Press, 2016.
  • Shushan, Gregory. Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations: Universalism, Constructivism, and near-Death Experience. Continuum, 2009.
  • Levering, Matthew. Jesus and the Demise of Death: Resurrection, Afterlife, and the Fate of the Christian. Baylor University Press, 2012.

Gravycajun (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Gravycajun

Ah, I now see the context for this. Hi Gravycajun, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note my post above on the sourcing of the section on the aftermath in different religions; given the lack of appropriate sources for many of the sections it would be very suitable for WP:BOLD editing. Best of luck! BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)