Talk:Michelle Remembers

message: The criticisms section needs a massive trim.  It's far longer than the rest, and I'm guessing could easily be summarized.  WLU (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I suspect the source for the Oprah reference muddles the dates for the broadcasts.  It looks like Stratford was interviewed in an episode titled "Satanic Worship" on Feb 17 1988:
http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/The_Worst_of_Oprah_Daytime_Talk_Queen_Ends_Biased_Reign.html
10. OPRAH WINFREY SHOW - ASH WEDNESDAY - "SATANIC WORSHIP" 
	Guests: Micheal & Lilith Aquino - Temple of Set 
		Lauren Stratford - author Satan's Underground 
		Johanna Michaelson - author The Beautiful Side of Evil
		Larry Jones - File 18 
		Tom Wedge - author The Satan Hunter
http://photos.bapho.net/bbs/h-drive/texts/file/videolst.txt
This doesn't mention a Michelle Remembers interview which I suspect aired on a different date.  Can anyone shed light on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.121.11 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oprah Winfrey Show dates 

message: I have made several edits to the page. Some to add accuracy, others to restore material that 
can be summarized further, but should be mentioned. 
I have deleted the phrase below. The book does not conclude with this statement.
"The book concludes with Smith waking up without memories of the abuse, and finding her parents telling her she had the measles."
I did not delete this phrase below yet, but this was not the final ritual documented in the book - see pages 305 - 310.
"and the final ritual documented in the book was an eighty-one day ritual in 1955 that summoned the devil himself and involved the intervention of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and Michael the Archangel, who removed the scars received by Smith throughout the year of abuse and removed memories of the events 'until the time was right'.
Do any of the sources mention where in the book this is?
I have added the section below to add NPOV to the criticisms section.
"The book itself describes Dr. Pazder's "impressive" "credentials," including being made a fellow of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and his membership in  three Canadian professional associations and the American Psychiatric Association. The book also states that the book's source material was scrutinized and researched by two experienced interviewers." 
I have restored part (about half) of the summary section. I think it should be edited down further, but not totally eliminated.  
I have replaced the part below for accuracy.
old section
In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Pazder conceded that Smith’s abuse may not have occurred and that it really did not matter whether or not the allegations were true.
replacing section to make it more accurate (old version)
Mail on Sunday: "Does it matter if it was true, or is the fact that Michelle believed it happened to her the most important thing?"
Pazder: "Yes, that's right. It is a real experience. If you talk to Michelle today, she will say, 'That what I remember.' We still leave the question open. For her it was very real. Every case I hear I have skepticism. You have to complete a long course of therapy before you can come to conclusions. We are all eager to prove or disprove what happened, but in the end it doesn't matter."
I hope that a compromse can be worked out, to make the page NPOV and more accurate. Abuse truth (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WIkipedia is not a plot summary, an extensive review of everything that supposedly happened is unnecessary; the basic details are sufficient and the summary is of far less import than the rest of the article.  I've de-quoted some of the aspects.  Pazder's credetialling is not impressive - to be a member of most professional associations generally consists of paying the dues; even fellowship at the RCPS doesn't seem particularly noteworthy.  The credentials of the reviewers would have to be presented in greater detail, and still don't prove that the events took place, only that Smith spoke of them in therapy.  Others have reviewed the tape and found them to be full of leading questions and projections from Pazder and Smith.  The Cuhulain reference discusses the Satan/Michael stuff, second page.  I've not access to MR as of yet, I've requested it from the library and will see if I can find the section.  Though I'm not looking forward to reading it.  WLU (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made to page 2/10/08

message: Compare:
Pazder did not state whether the allegations were true+, only that Smith believed it is real++, that for her it was a real experience and real memories, but ultimately proving the events true or false was irrelevant.+++
Mail on Sunday: "Does it matter if it was true, or is the fact that Michelle believed it happened to her the most important thing?" Pazder: "Yes, that's right. It is a real experience. If you talk to Michelle today, she will say, 'That what I remember.++' We still leave the question open.++ For her it was very real.++ Every case I hear I have skepticism. You have to complete a long course of therapy before you can come to conclusions. We are all eager to prove or disprove what happened, but in the end it doesn't matter+++."
+ = no correspondence, therefore he does not say the events were true.
++ = the same thing; "For her it was very real" = Smith believed it is real (should be was)
+++ = ...in the end it doesn't matter" = proving evens true or false was irrelevant.
I see this as an accurate summary.  We can go to a WP:3O if you're interested AT.  Should be a quick opinion.  WLU (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the statement "Pazder did not state whether the allegations were true" as OR, since wikipedia editors are drawing the conclusion of this and not the article. Abuse truth (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pazder didn't state the allegations were true and I think it's splitting a hair, but I see your point, and I've adjusted accordingly.  WLU (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. OR is a conclusion drawn by editors that endorses one side of a disputed fact. OR is when we write something like "Pazder did not state whether the allegations were true, perhaps because..." The fact that Pazder did not state the allegations were true, however, is not disputed at all and could not be disputed. Any charge of "OR" is quite ridiculous - if this is OR, we'll have to cite every sentence in every article in Wikipedia. WLU's edit is perfectly okay.  Herunar (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pazder and truth 

message: :ResearchEditor is a POV-pushing editor who is currently under re-review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic-ban for violating the terms of an unblock; the original block was for POV-pushing.  ResearchEditor is unable to tolerate sources that contradict his/her problematic position, and has soaked up many editors' time with multiple requests on 3O, RFC and various noticeboards, none of which I have seen have come back endorsing ResearchEditor's actions - Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Third opinion, Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Straw poll, Talk:Multiple personality controversy#Third Opinion 2, Talk:Multiple personality controversy#Third opinion.  We are generally not to comment on the editor, in favour of focusing on the edit, but in this case it is the editor who is the problem.  WLU (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on editor

message: Absent any specific reason why any of those sources are too unreliable for a WP:FRINGE topic, I find that WLU's arguments are compelling.  Sure, they're not the NYT, but the NYT doesn't report on this stuff.  I specifically looked at them in the context of the article, and do not find them being used in an NPOV manner.  It's a book, that in retrospect seems suspect.  Fair enough.
I looked at the EL. Granted that it's created by a single person, but it is not a Personal web page: "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature."  It contains pictures which claim to be of the area in question, rather than personal content like the author's resume. I find it helpful to illustrate the topic, and see its inclusion as reasonable and supported by WP:EL.  Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the EL discussion at talk:SRA came down against you, and I'm not the one banned from editing SRA for 6 months.  Consider perhaps, that you may actually be incorrect in your interpretation of NPOV and UNDUE, as well as allowing your extremely strong POV to influence the pages you edit.  And may I remind you that I was formerly much more sympathetic to the position that SRA had credence?  My skepticism came from the vast wealth of skeptical sources, forming the preponderence of the scholarly opinion (i.e. due weight to the mainstream) and I have since edited to insert these reference into the page.  My POV comes from reliable sources, not a personal belief about the truth status of satanic ritual abuse.  WLU (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ban on his editing SRA is not binding on his editing this article; it's only relevant as a "precedent" if his disruptive edits on this article are similar to those there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say that without a doubt WLU does his editing with a strong knowledge and opinion of core policies here.  He edits all kinds of articles and edits them the same way with his knowledge of policies and his strict requirements he feels towards all policies.  I just wanted to comment on this because I read the above and ANI brought me here.  Thanks for listening, play nice, ;)  --CrohnieGalTalk 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to point out that RE's ban (at the time) didn't apply to this article, and that RE would be welcome to make constructive edits, if he is able to do so, although I have my doubts as to his ability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3O reply 

message: I will abide by this decision. 
In reply to WLU's comments, 
The NPOV discussion on the SRA page did not include one neutral editor, only those backing the extreme skeptical position at the SRA page. I have not had time to reply there yet. 
The discussion at [here] did not take an opinion on either side of the issue and asked for a reorganization of the page.
This opinion actually came down against those skeptical here
The Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Third_opinion here was about the deletion of a single EL, which I did not argue about after the decision was made. 
The "Straw Poll" only included those skeptical of the existence of SRA and myself and one neutral party who abstained.  So WLU's description of these proceedings is biased and incorrect.
He calls me a "POV-pushing editor." But if one looks at WLU's edits, they will that they are strongly on the skeptical side. I do believe that wikipedia in general should have higher standards than allowing the use of the Fortean Times and skepdic.com .  ResearchEditor (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the EL discussion at talk:SRA came down against you, and I'm not the one banned from editing SRA for 6 months.  Consider perhaps, that you may actually be incorrect in your interpretation of NPOV and UNDUE, as well as allowing your extremely strong POV to influence the pages you edit.  And may I remind you that I was formerly much more sympathetic to the position that SRA had credence?  My skepticism came from the vast wealth of skeptical sources, forming the preponderence of the scholarly opinion (i.e. due weight to the mainstream) and I have since edited to insert these reference into the page.  My POV comes from reliable sources, not a personal belief about the truth status of satanic ritual abuse.  WLU (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ban on his editing SRA is not binding on his editing this article; it's only relevant as a "precedent" if his disruptive edits on this article are similar to those there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say that without a doubt WLU does his editing with a strong knowledge and opinion of core policies here.  He edits all kinds of articles and edits them the same way with his knowledge of policies and his strict requirements he feels towards all policies.  I just wanted to comment on this because I read the above and ANI brought me here.  Thanks for listening, play nice, ;)  --CrohnieGalTalk 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to point out that RE's ban (at the time) didn't apply to this article, and that RE would be welcome to make constructive edits, if he is able to do so, although I have my doubts as to his ability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to reply

message: I was a bit puzzled by the following text:
::Finally Cuhulain also looked at what might have been the motivation for Smith making such allegations in the first place and why Pazder might have been so willing to believe them.
Why so coy?  Why not mention these motivations explicitly?  And, what does "looked at" mean?  Does he suggest some possibilities, or does he evaluate others' discussions of motivations?
Sorry, I don't know the book so I can't fix the text.  I hope someone else will. Phiwum (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuhulian synopsis 

message: In reference to the 1995 book by Nathan and Snedeker, there is the following statement:
::Ultimately the book's authors were unable to find anyone who knew Smith in the 1950s who could corroborate any of the details in her allegations.
I find this a bit ambiguous; it could mean that the authors could not corroborate the allegations because they found nobody who knew Smith, or it could mean that none of the people the authors found who knew Smith could corroborate the allegations.  After several re-readings, I assume it has the latter meaning, but my initial reading was the former.  I hope someone who has read the book can clear this up.
TakashiToyooka (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan and Snedeker 

message: How come claims that "the devil", archangels, the virgin etc. personally appeared during these events didn't trigger alarm bells in just about any secular - or even non-fundamentalist religious - person right at the beginning? Especially in professional scientists? Or didn't the book make such actual claims? This needs clarification from somebody who has read the book. -- 77.7.159.248 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  how were "the Devil", "the Virgin Mary" etc thought to truly have appeared by seculars? 

message: The ISBN (and publisher) in the infobox is for a 1989 paperback edition; I believe the book was originally published in 1980, but, if so, that original book is not available on (for example) Amazon.com.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication information 

message: Quote:  A pagan group has called for Winfrey and other media figures to publicly apologize to the West Memphis Three for the damage that the moral panic surrounding satanic ritual abuse has caused.
This doesn't belong into the article.  Maikel (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR not NPOV 

message: Sorry, while browsing I noticed an error, but am still a bit wonky with the citation template. Could someone please correct the citation for this quote:
"must be treated with great skepticism, not least because literally all the charges involved seem drawn from accounts of West African secret societies from the 1950s, imported to Canada."
If you check the link, the quote's author is actually Philip Jenkins, not James R. Lewis (who's the book's editor). The quote is from Chapter 10: Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Everything else in the citation looks okay to me. Fencingchamp (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct citation: Philip Jenkins not James R. Lewis 

message: I see that the article is not being maintained very well. The HolySmoke web site has been moved, I will find where it has gone to and correct the link. For now I put it at the Wayback Machine. Damotclese (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article languishing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Remembers. 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/20071019003110/http://forteantimes.com/features/articles/258/satan_in_suburbia.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/258/satan_in_suburbia.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040511131253/http://xeper.org/pub/lib/xp_lib_wh_DebunkingOfAMyth.htm to http://www.xeper.org/pub/lib/xp_lib_wh_DebunkingOfAMyth.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified