Talk:Shirley Ardell Mason

message: I am very afraid when read anything like multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia,because I am afraid if I will be the same symptom. And when I read the detail, i sometimes feel more likely I have some similar symptom. My afraid make the feeling stronger. I read Shirley's story, I feel she is just normal woman,she is a teacher,although she maybe has some mental problem in her life. Its just life, relax.
Face the problem is the best way, not to avoid because be afraid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.73.238.36 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I have removed the list of personalities from this article. They were taken word-for-word from the book Sybil by Flora Rheta Schreiber. ("Cast of Characters and Dates of 'Birth'", between the contents and the preface, in my Penguin edition). I do not think that we can call this WP:FAIR. 
Telsa (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as the book was highly tarted-up for publication and the "list of personalities" is probably not accurate anyway, I completely agree with this. I'd wait till Swales' book came out and find out what her selves were really called. --Bluejay Young 22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Swales has the absolute truth in the matter? BTW, I do not see why that isn't fair use. It is less than a page, and it is factual, which is not copyrightable, evidence. Ansell 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list had been taken word for word directly from Schreiber's list, that might be a copyright violation. All you need to do is go through the book and make your own list in a different order (maybe alphabetical, maybe chronological by discovery, maybe chronological by apparent evolution in Mason's life) with a description of your own wording after each name. Doczilla 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the list. It is an *appropriate* Fair use.  Yes we can call it fair use, because it is. As has been pointed out, fair use encompasses a quote, even up to several pages in length. Wjhonson 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use shouldn't be the question.  The issue should be this is the article about Shirley Ardell Mason, not the fictionalize account in a book called "Sybil".  This list should be moved to the book's article (if it's not there already).  If a list is still wanted on this artcle, then link to the book's version.Techsmith 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shirley is famous only because of that book. She said it was correct, by implication saying she'd had all of those personalities. Whether true or not, it's relevant to her life. Without the alters, she's just a woman who taught art. As the basis for the book, the alters make her notable enough for Wikipedia. Doczilla STOMP! 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you should have left the list of personalities in the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.74.216.126 (talk • contribs) 
I feel that a list, or at the very least a partial list, of the personalities of "Sybil" is essential to the article. Regardless of the controversy about whether this is a true case of mulitiple personalities, it is the various (claimed) personalities that gives Sybil notoriety. To talk about her without some discussion of the personalities is like talking about Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War. Mzalar (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A list of Mason's "personalities" contributes to sensationalism and makes it look too much like the article is biased toward believing she was multiple. The case as a whole and its impact on modern psychiatry and popular media are important -- not the individual persons in Shirley Mason's system.--Bluejay Young (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a list of the identities presented in "Sybil" doesn't sensationalize or bias the article.  As the case impacts modern psychiatry, a list seems inclusive of the facts of the case.  Plus, Wikipedia articles are often used as reference for forgotten information, for which a list would be useful.--Forener (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If experienced Wikipedia editors think it is okay to have, it's okay with me. I have to say "names and ages of the personalities" is one of the more frequently asked questions in the emails we get from readers of the Shirley Mason material on our website. We just direct them to the book. I just never thought it was that relevant to the core issues of her story. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuked copyvio (aka "Personalities of Sybil" section)

message: I have added a quote from a Newsweek article about her mother and verified information from the Sybil book. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Suraci book does not appear to exist. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:9780615446004 Doczilla STOMP! 07:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it exists all right. It's self-published. .  We get email from him all the time. Says it's going to premier at Book Expo America at the Jacob Javits Center, NY on May 24. Should I wait until then to say anything here? It's not just a book of the interviews he did with her. He says he had so many full color art plates in there that no publisher wanted to go for it, thinking too few people would be interested in this woman's art to warrant spending that kind of money. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A self-published book is not a reliable source. Doczilla STOMP! 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I won't mention it and you were right to take it out. When I edited his contribution, I thought it was a regular book. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: Debbie Nathan's entry on Shirley Ardell Mason's wikipedia page does not have vaildity.  In a legal statement from Jennifer K. Weidman at Simon and Schuster they state that they will remove the untrue words "first person" from the dust jacket of any future editions of Ms. Nathan's book, "Sybil Exposed".  Regarding other untrue statements Simon and Schuster ordered "that such statements have nonetheless been removed from Ms. Nathan's Facebook page."
"Nathan describes the purported manipulation of Wilbur by Mason and vice versa, going into personal detail about the lives of Mason, Wilbur and Schreiber.", but many of these details are not found in the documents she sites that are in the Flora Schreiber archives.
Another innacuracy in this post is that Dr. Wilbur's paper's were not destroyed, but are in the care of Dr. Leah Dickstein.Drsuraci (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You need reliable sources to substantiate these points.  Your opinion or personal knowledge is not sufficient.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Our reliable source is Simon and Schuster's legal dept.  Here is the link where you will find a portion of their statement - http://members.authorsguild.net/psuraci/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsuraci (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: We see that untrue statement regarding Dr. Wilbur's papers was removed from Dr. Cornelia Wilbur's page, but remains here on Shirley Ardell Mason's page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsuraci (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be a personal webpage, and is not a reliable source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debbie Nathan Contribution 

message: Since there is controversy about the story, there is no "true" version. I have changed "Flora Rheta Schreiber's novel Sybil told the true version of Mason's story" to:
"Flora Rheta Schreiber's book, Sybil, was the first to tell Mason's story."
In the Controversy section I removed the clumsy and superfluous words "which is actually" in the statement: "She cites a well-known 1958 letter by Mason (which is actually reprinted in Sybil)" to:
"She cites a well-known 1958 letter by Mason (reprinted in Sybil)"
Guyburns (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  True(?) version 

message: Why is it added? It's been long since "hysteria" has been declared as a non-existing disease. Is it there only to prove the diagnosis was challenged? Even if it does have a source and it did happen according to the source using it as a could be proof that the patient had no DID means we should recognize hysteria as a valid disease, no? 189.173.96.74 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hysteric diagnosis

message: Ms. Debbie Nathan inserted “purportedly” in the biography section of the Shirley Ardell Mason page on Wikipedia.  She claims there is no evidence that Shirley’s mother Mattie was schizophrenic.  However, Ms. Nathan states that she found evidence that Mattie “received the diagnoses which today would be interpreted as clinical depression.”  In her book “Sybil Exposed” on page 9, Ms. Nathan contradicts herself claiming that Mattie suffered from “asthenia” and “neurasthenia”.  Since Ms. Nathan has no psychiatric qualifications to make a diagnosis, she mistakes asthenia for “clinical depression.” In fact, asthenia is synonymous with anxiety neurosis as described in the “Psychiatric Dictionary [5th edition]” by Robert Campbell, M.D.  
Ms. Nathan mentions that I “protested to Simon & Schuster” that she was wrong in saying she was the “first person” to examine the full Schreiber archives.  Conveniently, she omitted the outcome of the Simon & Schuster’s investigation where they agreed to remove the words “first person” from subsequent editions.  This agreement can be verified by Simon & Schuster’s Legal Department.  They made this correction on the paperback of Ms. Nathan’s book.  In 1998, I was the first person given permission to view the Flora Schreiber archives at John Jay College by the executrix of Schreiber’s will, Helen Vogel.  Simon & Schuster also ordered Ms. Nathan to remove libelous remarks she made about me on her Facebook page on October 29, 2011.  She did so but not before I printed them out.  She could not resist printing more libelous untrue statements about me on January 19, 2012 and again was ordered by Simon & Schuster to remove them, which she did.  I, again, printed them out. 
I met Flora Schreiber in 1973 when I taught with her at John Jay College.  I assisted her in doing research for her next book “The Shoemaker.”  As her friend I was privy to her records from that point until her death in 1988.  After I examined Schreiber’s records in 1998, Robert Rieber did so and wrote “The Bifurcation of the Self” on March 27, 2006 and Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen published “Making Minds and Madness” in 2009.  Ms. Nathan is not omniscient and has no concept of what these men read in the Schreiber archives. 
Ms. Nathan states that she asked me to comment on material that she had about Schreiber and me.  I then sent her an email stating “I am looking forward to seeing the material you are talking about, since I found nothing when I was at the library.  You must have found some material which I never saw.”  I hoped that she would send me this so called material but Ms. Nathan claimed it was too extensive for her to send.  Flora Schreiber gave me all the files mentioning me before she died.  As you will see there is no mention of these so-called documents in Nathan’s book.
Another example of her claiming to have documents that do not exist is her outrageous and irrelevant statements on page 71 in her book: “Completely inexperienced in men, she (Schreiber) had little idea of how to take Gene’s (O’Neill) measure …  In a sheaf of notes she later wrote to herself, she described feeling pain at having his finger inside her, let alone his penis.”  Ms. Nathan cites FRS Box 34, File 1051 as the source.  This entire document is on my website.  There is no mention of O’Neill’s finger or penis.  http://members.authorsguild.net/psuraci/
To bring up this matter of Mattie’s diagnosis a year and a half after her book has been published and all this time the biography has been in Wikipedia, it appears that Ms. Nathan is attempting to publicize her own book, which is in violation of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest statement.
Patrick Suraci, Ph.D.
SYBIL in her own words
Abandonded Ladder
ISBN-13-978-0615560472
Drsuraci (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Patrick Suraci's response

message: Put in commas and it pops out: " whom her psychiatrist Cornelia Wilbur believed had been schizophrenic".  With the commas: " who, her psychiatrist Cornelia Wilbur believed, had been schizophrenic"  The second is correct grammar.  
71.163.117.143 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad grammar