This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hmujo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
G'day. I just put a NPOV tag on the page. It is written from a very obvious POV believing that it is some sort of real event. There are numerous examples such as:
This is pure NPOV bull. Infact, having a large amount of the LRs points towards it being a common result of the brain dying or whatever the circumstances of the situation is, that is beside the point though. Needs a lot of work, and I know it is rude to expect someone else to do it, but I'm busy :P. Cheers. Rothery 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The frequency of an experience says nothing about whether it is hallucinatory or not. We all hallucinate nightly during REM sleep and no reasonable scientist assumes that dreams are anything other than hallucinations. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the article. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We know from the history of this entry that it was "parked" on for a long time by a strongly religious person, who aggressively attacked anyone who tried to change the content. I am happy to see that the entry now has a more secular, scientific basis. What surprised me about the behavior was that it was going on here even though this is not a " Afterlife experience" or even a " Near death experience" (both rely on the loss of consciousness), this is an actual (still conscious) phenomenon that appears to happen to human beings sometimes when they are in extreme danger. A reasonable evolutionary explanation is that the brain is quickly reviewing all of it's "contents" at once for vital information to help it get out of the situation. It is a perfectly acceptable explanation that it is likely that the brain would need to go into a mode where it has to make decisions based on a few seconds or a fraction of a second, in which case there is only one last possible conscious act for the human being to make before they will die (or survive.) People in dire peril like war or melee combat or muggings feel "more alive" and their thinking has "greater clarity" in those moments. It is very likely the brain is simply doing what it needs to do, based on how it evolved... the mammals that had brains which went into this temporary mode of operations were more likely to survive in situations of dire peril than those that did not.
Removing religious explanations from this entry is NOT an attack on religion and is not POV, regardless of anyone's personal opinions about religion (mine included) .. I implore people to please understand this. Religious people who wish to write about the review of life after death should simply edit the appropriate entry about Christian (and other religious and spiritual) proclamations, suspicions and assumptions about life after death such as the entry about Saint Peter or the Pearly gates, and so on. I really do hope people can come to a reasonable resolution and no longer fight over the content of this specific Wikipedia entry. This entry is about a physical phenomenon and should be handled the exact same way as Déjà vu.
It is inappropriate to claim that the article is POV if a scientific explanation is given and not a spiritual/religious one. This is an entry about an experience that is related to the conscious mind, and does not deal with "the afterlife". The entry being scientific does not constitute an attack on religion or spirituality.-- Radical Mallard ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources that acknowledge the term "Life review" in reference to this phenomenon? I think a more common name would be Life flashing before one's eyes. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hmujo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
G'day. I just put a NPOV tag on the page. It is written from a very obvious POV believing that it is some sort of real event. There are numerous examples such as:
This is pure NPOV bull. Infact, having a large amount of the LRs points towards it being a common result of the brain dying or whatever the circumstances of the situation is, that is beside the point though. Needs a lot of work, and I know it is rude to expect someone else to do it, but I'm busy :P. Cheers. Rothery 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The frequency of an experience says nothing about whether it is hallucinatory or not. We all hallucinate nightly during REM sleep and no reasonable scientist assumes that dreams are anything other than hallucinations. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the article. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We know from the history of this entry that it was "parked" on for a long time by a strongly religious person, who aggressively attacked anyone who tried to change the content. I am happy to see that the entry now has a more secular, scientific basis. What surprised me about the behavior was that it was going on here even though this is not a " Afterlife experience" or even a " Near death experience" (both rely on the loss of consciousness), this is an actual (still conscious) phenomenon that appears to happen to human beings sometimes when they are in extreme danger. A reasonable evolutionary explanation is that the brain is quickly reviewing all of it's "contents" at once for vital information to help it get out of the situation. It is a perfectly acceptable explanation that it is likely that the brain would need to go into a mode where it has to make decisions based on a few seconds or a fraction of a second, in which case there is only one last possible conscious act for the human being to make before they will die (or survive.) People in dire peril like war or melee combat or muggings feel "more alive" and their thinking has "greater clarity" in those moments. It is very likely the brain is simply doing what it needs to do, based on how it evolved... the mammals that had brains which went into this temporary mode of operations were more likely to survive in situations of dire peril than those that did not.
Removing religious explanations from this entry is NOT an attack on religion and is not POV, regardless of anyone's personal opinions about religion (mine included) .. I implore people to please understand this. Religious people who wish to write about the review of life after death should simply edit the appropriate entry about Christian (and other religious and spiritual) proclamations, suspicions and assumptions about life after death such as the entry about Saint Peter or the Pearly gates, and so on. I really do hope people can come to a reasonable resolution and no longer fight over the content of this specific Wikipedia entry. This entry is about a physical phenomenon and should be handled the exact same way as Déjà vu.
It is inappropriate to claim that the article is POV if a scientific explanation is given and not a spiritual/religious one. This is an entry about an experience that is related to the conscious mind, and does not deal with "the afterlife". The entry being scientific does not constitute an attack on religion or spirituality.-- Radical Mallard ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources that acknowledge the term "Life review" in reference to this phenomenon? I think a more common name would be Life flashing before one's eyes. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)