Talk:Pam Reynolds case

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pam Reynolds case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It is requested that an image or photograph of Pam Reynolds case be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Atlanta may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Near-death experience#Afterlife claims|near-death experience]] The anchor (#Afterlife claims) has been deleted by other users before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Paranormal Low‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Parapsychology (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arizona Low‑importance Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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

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

open question and comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumption

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

Arguments about Critics

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

Split / Move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singer songwriter

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

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

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

Balancing Woerlee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Time line"

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

Balancing Woerlee (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment comment

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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