Talk:True-believer syndrome/Archive 1

message: The True-believer syndrome "is not a disorder that is accepted or treated by psychiatrists". Could someone please add why? <KF> 15:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is because the true believer syndrome is just a selective blindnedfss like most people have. It doesn't harm the functioning of the patient. I know, because I used to be a patient myself too. Andries 19:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disorder 

message: I believe the link to this enmtry at Shroud of Turin was suppressed. Is this True-believer syndrome in operation? Wetman 21:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shroud of Turin]]

message: Oh, I see the True believer refers to this article. That may be wrong. The true believer syndrome refers only to belief in the paranormal as far as I know. Hence I think Sam's edits are not good. I have to admit that I haven't read Eric Hoffer's book The true believer: the psychology of mass movements. Does he use the term true believer syndrome or just true believer? Andries 07:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Hoffer ever said "true believer syndrome." --Gary D 20:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
The term is widely used, and not just for situations involving belief in the paranormal. I understand the original intent of the term, and I understand how terms evolve. Sam Spade Arb Com election 20:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sam, Which term true believer syndrome or true believer? ? Personally I prefer to have this article confined to the paranormal but if this is in contrast to common usage then I have no choice, I guess. Andries 20:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sam, I did a google search on true believer and true believer syndrome and the latter only refers to the paranormal. Andries 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Sam Spade, the true believer syndrome refers to  the paranormal

message: Isn't immunity to cognitive dissonance pretty much synonymous with the True believer syndrome? -- 212.10.235.140 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunity to cognitive dissonance 

message: It is my intent to remove the following paragraph: "For example, skeptics generally agree there is sufficient proof to conclude that the alleged miracles of Uri Geller and Sathya Sai Baba are or were false; they therefore have often reasoned that believers who have been given the extant evidence of fraud in these cases, and yet continue to believe in these men, are described by this condition." Unless this paragraph can be referenced by reputable sources, it is going to be deleted. No original research allowed (a precedent set by Andries). SSS108 talk-email 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can re-word it using the original entry by Robert Todd Carroll. I wrote this when I was new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for making generalizations unsupported by reputable sources.  Andries 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, you edited the article as recently as April 4th 2006 and you never removed the original research of Tony O'Clery and Paul Holbach Ref (even though this edit of yours was to remove unsupported references). So although you might not have known better when you first started the article, you should have known better 2 days ago. SSS108 talk-email 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal Pending

message: It is my intention to add the relevant information that Keene has no credentials or education in psychology or any other related field. Therefore, the definition of "True Believer's Syndrome" was coined by a layman. SSS108 talk-email 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with the term "layman". Keene was an expert in psychic fraud, so he was not a layman. Let's us simply confine the description of Keene of a reformed psychic. Andries 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I continue to disagree: let the reader decide if he is a layman. Some other people will think he is an expert by experience. Andries 12:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keene's Credentials

message: Reputable references are needed for the following sections:
:"Skeptics see this as a form of self-deception caused by wishful thinking in which a believer continues to accept paranormal explanations for phenomena or events, or denies the relevance of scientific findings, even after the believer has been confronted with abundant evidence that the phenomena or events have natural causes. The term is mainly used by skeptics in the debate over the existence of certain sorts of paranormal phenomena and the persistence of belief in these phenomena.
:The key is the "true believer's" unwillingness to admit that he is gullible. As evidence of the fraud or fallacy mounts, the "true believer" will make wilder and wilder claims to defend his beliefs. As evidence against his beliefs becomes more compelling, his claims become less convincing. Even if he admits that some of the evidence has been hoaxed, he will claim that the evidence which hasn't been proven false must be true. UFO enthusiasts dismiss the tens of thousands of photographs that have been debunked and claim that the few which haven't yet been disproved are "proof" of extraterrestrial visitors. Dismissing skepticism, they search for supernatural or pseudo-scientific solutions to natural phenomena.
:"Another tactic used by true believers is the appeal to authority. The true believer claims that his beliefs are beyond question because some alleged higher authority backs them. To wit: the Gospels say that Jesus had several brothers and sisters, but the doctrine of the Catholic Church is that Mary was allowed to keep her virginity. UFO believers frequently refer to alleged statements by American astronauts." 
Where did all this information come from? SSS108 talk-email 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph is based on the original entry, but may be inaccurately worded. The other two paragraphs have sources unknown to me. Andries 05:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keene says basically the same thing as the first part of second paragraph on page 151 of his book.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable References Needed

message: Andries, how is it "redundant" to say Carroll is not a psychologist? Where is this fact already stated? Carroll made a psychiatric assessment of true believers. He does not possess the credentials as a psychologist and this fact should be stated to maintain transparency. If a person said apostates suffered from blame and victim mentality and displayed characteristics comparable to neurotics, and this person did not possess credentials in psychology, I think it would become apparent why it is important to mention he does not possess the proper credentials to make psychological assessments of others. Why are you trying to withhold this fact? SSS108 talk-email 07:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We normally write the credentials of a person. We usually do not write what credentials a person does not have. Andries 12:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not A Psychologist

message: Andries, where are the reputable references for the following comment: "Carroll holds the opinion that the True Believer's Syndrome fits the psychiatric definition of a delusion." This comment is not on Carroll's entry for "True Believer Syndrome". SSS108 talk-email 06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You overlooked it. It is here " Such people are by definition deluded in the psychiatric sense of the term: they believe what is false and are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error." Andries 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: May be I miss something, but I still think that I paraphrased it correctly. Andries 19:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, I continue to hold the opinion tht Carroll did write this, but if there is a dispute about the interpretation of what somebody wrote then I think the best solution is to quote somebody completely without summaries and interpretations and then let the readers decide what Carroll wrote. Andries 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delusion?

message: Does this mean that people who have had strange experiences, paranormal experiences happening to them are nuts ? And this is a simple, honest question, no more, no less. Someone who has had these weird experiences, investigate paranormal matters may actually get the idea from this article that they are to be ridiculed, insulted as pursuant to the Robertson Panel protocol, Project Grudge if the encounter was a UFO, alien. This article may offend those that are religious, be they Christians (someone may E-mail a copy of this article to Pat Robertson, the famous TV/radio preacher who is on the 700 Club if they see it.), Moslem, Jewish, citing that this article is "The work of Satan". I am NOT accusing, etc. anyone here at all. Just stating some major concerns. Martial Law 06:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MartialLaw, to answer your question, No. That is why there is a heavy emphasis on the fact that "True Believer Syndrome" is not a medical term. The term was coined by a person who has NO credentials in the medical or mental health related fields. According to Carroll (who similarly has no credentials in the medical or mental health fields), viewers of the 700 Club would also be suffering from "True Believer Sydrome". As a matter of fact, it appears everyone who is not a skeptic or atheist may be suffering from it, according to Carroll. It is a skeptic's term. SSS108 talk-email 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I asked is that I'm in "The Bible Belt", and you ought to hear some of these preachers. One Preacher says that Political Correctness is a tool of The Devil and is Satanic, another says that buying a Lotto ticket is a ticket to hell. I figured that if someone had seen this article, it'll get splashed all over the religious talk shows, like the 700 Club, and unlike me, would be extremely rude about asking similar questions. Some of the Preachers here are "Hellfire and Brimstone" Preachers. Martial Law 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article does a fairly good job describing the phrase in a neutral way.  The person who coined the phrase may think your nuts. but this article never sais "Your nuts for thinking X" it said "Person Y sais your nuts for thinking X" and that is completely different. ---J.Smith 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this mean... / Sacrilege/Blasphemy ?

message: Well, I finished the book, The Psychic Mafia, last night. The only references to "True Believer Syndrome" are the 2 cited earlier. I also found only one reference to "True Believers" on page 75: "Eventually he would become one of the true believers who felt a pride in belonging to such a church and - the name of the game - gave feely." That's it.
Strangely enough, the forward to The Psychic Mafia was written by the Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher who openly professed belief in mediums and paranormal manifestations even though The Psychic Mafia discussed "true believers" and how they persist in believing mediumship and other paranormal phenomena despite "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary! Here are some gems taken from the forward to "The Psychic Mafia", by Rauscher: "This may sound strange coming from one who accepts the reality of paranormal manifestations (as attested in my own book, The Spiritual Frontier, an account of my psychic exploration)...Now I believe  that 'good mediums' exist. I believe I have met some of them. Not all mediums are dishonest, and this book is not intended to discredit those who are legitimate. Nor will it do so. The honest psychic or medium has nothing to fear from this book...The only medium threatened by this book is the fraudulent one." After reading this forward, and taking into consideration this discussion about "True Believer Syndrome", the entire book left me rolling my eyes. SSS108 talk-email 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this entry for "True Believer Syndrome" needs to include the facts that Keene stated that he believes in God, life after death, psychic phenomena, ESP and even hinted at believing in communication with the dead! Even more reasons why this book left me rolling my eyes. The following quotes were taken from the conclusion, pages 162 + 163: "I believe in God. I believe that God is the sustaining power of the universe and that everything expresses this power. Even evil, I believe, is potential good - a learning experience...Life after death? I believe in it. I belive that human beings maintain their individuality after death. I believe that we go on to higher and better expressions of ourselves than those which we are now expressing. I believe that evolution, growth, is the whole thing: mankind evolves, it doesn't regress. I belive that, in spite of all I've seen and experienced...Extrasensory perception and psychic phenomena? I believe that the individual can have his or her own private psychic experience - that there is such a thing as ESP...Communication with the dead is something I would urge you to avoid - I mean even the idea of it, the possibility of it. At least through a professional medium...Find your own uncertainties of life. With God's help you can do it." Wow, who would have guessed? SSS108 talk-email 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't beleve that Keene's religious beliefs are relevant to this article.  It is OK in the article about him.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Stuff

message: In light of the new information about this entry, and Carroll's objection about too much inclusion of his info in this entry, I propose the deletion for the following section:
:Although not a psychologist, Carroll stated: "Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are by definition deluded in the psychiatric sense of the term: they believe what is false and are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error." [5] "Carroll also stated in his book that his opinions are not meant to present a balanced view on occult subjects and is not intended for "true believers". Carroll stated that when confronted with arguments or data critical of their beliefs, true believers will consider this information to be "insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational and/or diabolical"
This information is redundant and irrelevant as it has already been described by Keene. It would make the article more direct and succint, in my opinion. I'll wait for consensus first. SSS108 talk-email 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing at least the last part of it, and I have no objection to removing all of it.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to removing the first part that I think is not redundant i.e. "Carroll stated: "Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are by definition deluded in the psychiatric sense of the term: they believe what is false and are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error." " Andries 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need to reread the whole article in context.  Usually I just follow changes.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Removal (1)

message: I propose the last two paragraphs be deleted. I have rewritten my Skeptic's Dictionary article on this topic and both quotes from me are no longer in the article cited. Also, the editorial comment that concludes this article is gratuitous and irrelevant to the article. I apologize to User:SSS108. I would have contacted you if I had known how. Andries, I think those who have moved this article in the direction to be about Keene are going the right way. He is the one who suggested that true believer syndrome be studied scientically. However, his religious views seem irrelevant. His concern was with people who use mediums to contact dead people and who, even when presented with clear evidence of fraud on the part of the medium, do not give up their belief that the medium really did contact the dead. Keene's concern was not with the paranormal as such but with spiritualism. 165.196.235.45 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OK with me, especially the last paragraph.  On another note, I don't see "true believer syndrome" used very often, in contrast to "true-beleiver", which I encounter fairly frequently.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Removal (2)

message: I chopped out the following paragraph because the link seems tenuous and like Original Research. Could someone provide a 3rd party who has made the link including a WP:CITE before readding? 
:Similar belief processes were studied by Thomas Kuhn. In his study on the sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn demonstrates that scientists can hold onto beliefs in scientific theories despite overwhelming prevailing counter-evidence, and suggested that social forces, as much as ones purely concerned with rationality, are a strong influence on the beliefs we hold. This is an area studied by the sociology of knowledge where the social function of paranormal beliefs has been a focus of research. No clinical evidence has been provided for its links with demonstrable cognitive impairment or psychopathology.
Ashmoo 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is a cite to Kuhn, but the link between TBS and Kuhn's work need a cite too, otherwise, making the link between psychic-believers and the scientific community is OR. Ashmoo 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking for a citation to justify the fact that two things are similar? Sounds bizarre to me. - Vaughan 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chopped paragraph

message: Two of the examples listed have NPOV problems. They make implications not supported yet by available evidence or currently not provable one way or the other with current science. First, the example of crop circles is not written in an NPOV way. To me, it implies that all crop circles are hoaxes something that I believe is not yet proven. While this might be true, I believe that that possibility that aliens did indeed create some crop circles can't be completely ruled out based on lack of evidence as to how in fact they where created. Thus we need to rewrite the example to be clear that we are not talking about all crop circles but only those in which their is solid evidence of them being a hoax. Second, the example about The Heaven's Gate Cult implies that the cult leader's claim that suicide would have sent his soul to a passing comet is provenly false. While I don't believe this claim is likely true, I can't prove it to be false either. Thus the example needs to be rewritten so at imply such an unproven claim. One problem with trying to give examples of true believers syndrome within religion is that atheists would likely argue that many devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, Etc. are suffering true-believers syndrome as the atheist would hold such religious views to be irrational beliefs. --Cab88 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I think the cult example will not survive since deception has never been admitted or proven, so I've removed it. Also updated the crop circle example, improve at will. AvB ÷ talk 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the npov section tag. OK? AvB ÷ talk 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. Feel free to remove it. Or perhaps it can still serve a purpose: as an illustration of the generic use described in the article as "belief that lacks evidence"? AvB ÷ talk 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment, at any rate, I've removed the Crop Circle example in its entirety, as I'm not sure exactly how it can be used properly to indicate "belief that lacks evidence". No doubt there are people who will believe that obviously fraudulent crop circles are of paranomal origin, and these are "true-believers" in the proper sense; but as the example stood in this article it portrayed all believers in a paranormal origin for any circle as "true-believers" - and is therefore not NPOV. Ottershrew 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzul seems to have done a pretty good job of rewriting the Crop Circles example - as fas as I can see, there don't seem to be any non-NPOV issues here now. Ottershrew 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I put it back because not all examples need to be perfectly supporting some viewpoint, we can use this example to demonstrate that it is a difficult and loaded term. --Merzul 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues with "Examples" section 

message: Looking at the South Park example, it seems to have the same problems as above. It seems editors will be interested in adding more and more examples here, which is of course nice, but considering that many people are sensitive on this issue, I'm thinking of maybe adding a warning to the top of the page, by the time you read this, it is probably already there :) Feel free to edit the warning or move it... --Merzul 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the warning.  It suggests the point of view that certain (elite?) editors "own" this page, which of course couldn't be further from the truth.  Please see Wikipedia is not censored;  this doesn't mean only that WP is allowed to discus matters of sexuality, warn, and violence, but also that a limited few cannot act as gate-keepers of content on behalf of the masses.  FireWeed 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely nothing elite about me or anybody else here; but what we have had here was the result of a long series of edit wars, and what seemed like WP:CONSENSUS; this of course includes your opinion too! Maybe I was stupid to act preemptively, because people might not feel so strongly about fictional examples as they did about crop circles. But if anyone of the above editors do object, you will have to provide some sources to back up this claim that this episode was about the "true believer syndrome". --Merzul 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not saying you were stupid to act pre-emptively ( or bold ) ... just giving my opinion for the groups' consideration.  I think it's a bad idea, but without knowing the context behind the crop circle edit wars ... I can see why you would feel this way ... take my opinion with a grain of salt.  The eating disorder page seemed for a while like it might need special protection;  somebody kept vandalizing it, ranting about fat women.  ( An IP block solved the problem. )  FireWeed 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  PS - I read a fascinating article yesterday about Nigerian "419" scams - the emails we all get about the $50 m somebody wants to share with us.  The article centers on an American psychologist who was conned out of $80,000 of his own money, and tricked into passing about $600,000 of fake checks.  In fact the guy is serving two years in prison for what he let the scammers convince him to do.  At the very end of the article, while the man realizes what has happened, and called the people who conned him "You evil bastards" he also still believes the original story is true, and something got confused along the way.  I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a real life example or not - is a confession from the hoax master part of the definition - but I'll dig up the URL and post it to the talk page for consideration when I get the chance.  FireWeed 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about the example section... 

message: For your consideration:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060515fa_fact
This is a bit of a long read, but a fascinating one nonetheless.  We've all got the emails before:  there's a fortune locked up in foreign banks, somebody needs our help rescuing it, and came to us because they've heard about our honesty and discretion.  Most of us click the spam button and are done with it.  This article is the story of a (very intelligent) man who fell for the trick.  Ultimately, he was swindled for $80,000 (USD) of his own money, and into passing bad checks totalling more than half a million;  today he's serving a two year sentance.  And yet, the article ends with the man telling us he can't explain why, but he still believes in the story that fooled him.
: Is a confession by the "believed" a defining part of the true believer syndrome?  This is the one aspect lacking in the New Yorker story.  If a person only has to be shown that things are what any reasonable person would consider false than this is a good example, but if an actual confession is required, then this doesn't exactly cut the mustard.  FireWeed 19:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the crop circle example, this was exactly what was demanded, at least that is my interpretation... but this example is indeed interesting, you can simply add something like this to it "In this example there is no confession, but the contrary evidence is so indisputably overwhelming that it remain a mystery how belief can be sustained." or something like that, it's actually not so much about whether some example can be included, but how it is formulated, and any example can be expressed neutrally. So I was very wrong to put the sign up there and scare you from adding new stuff. Just go ahead, we can fix them afterwards! --Merzul 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $150 m USD for you in [[Nigeria]] 

message: How about mentioning televangelists in the list of scammers as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrHaney (talk • contribs).
:True-believer syndrome, by Keene's definition, requires that the victim continue to believe in something despite being presented overwhelming evidence that it was fraudulently staged.  Simply believing in something odd, skeezy, or snake-oily doesn't cut it...  there must simply be no rational way for the beliefs in question to be true. --Aquillion 19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "False prophecies. Numerous televangelists have issued false prophecies, for example Benny Hinn’s claim that Fidel Castro would die in the 1990s. Many other televangelists have made false prophecies of the Second Coming." (copied from Televangelist) This is a good reason for citing.SuperElephant 13:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Televangelists and religious people

message: Article could stand a few more links. Solid Start-Class article. Improvement might entail adding a separate section on the cognitive disorder aspect, and how if at all it can be addressed to be overcome. Details of how it was contributed to the success of mediums would be welcome as well, as that is just mentioned in passing. Perhaps some sort of reference if appropriate to The True Believer could be added as well. John Carter 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, be bold. :-) —RuakhTALK 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comments 

message: Notes.
Sketics' dictionary links TBS with Carlos.
419-TBS link
1Z 12:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes 

message: The dispute is over whether aspects of the article are OR, and certain aspects of the article which I consider POV.  The disputants are myself and fyslee.  Here are some significant diffs:
I tried to resolve the issue by removing the section to the talk page , but Fyslee put it back without having achieved consensus on the talk page 
I then noticed that most of the sources used for several of the sections did not mention True-believer syndrome (making the sections WP:OR), and so I removed the sources and put in citation requests.  Please see the edit summaries for other changes, and their reasons.
Fyslee has also been edit warring over part of the summary, and refusing to use the talk page to reach consensus.  Because of this post on the talk page, I decided to seek outside opinion.  Fyslee also just reverted all my edits - an edit in which he uses the edit summary to also accuse me for the second time of vandalism . 
For anyone who thinks there is any substance to Fyslee's reference to my having been in trouble before, the ArbCom result came out decisively in my -our- favor.  Though I did do some things wrong, my understanding of NPOV and policy was very much confirmed. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rundown for dispute resolution

message: Martin, this method (finally done by you) is a much better way to do it. By placing tags you call other editors to come and look at things. Unilaterally deleting and totally revising an article that you don't like raises suspicions based on your past track record of attacking such articles and eliminating what you don't like. That violates many policies here, even if wikilawyering is used to justify it. It's much better to do this in cooperation with multiple editors, especially including those who hold opposing POV, IOW scientific skeptics. I am not interested in policing this or any of the multiple other articles which you regularly attack, so I'll let others participate and see what they will do while I back off. Good luck. -- Fyslee/talk 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the article, and I agree with everything it says- except a bit about crop circles, which I think is unfair.  It's just that it violates policy.  And I have perfect right -and duty as an editor- to do everything I did.  You, on the other hand, edit warred, violated NPOV, and were highly uncivil. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much better to get others involved 

message: Alright. I did a little research.. It seems there is at least one website which talks about this extensively, so if mostly everything in this article can be sourced using that website, we won't have to worry about original research. I suggest everything that can't be, be removed (unless there's another source that talks DIRECTLY about true-believer syndrome). However, since the term isn't that widespread, some of this potential OR should be pruned off. I could even suggest merging it to the spiritual founder's article, but that's just a suggestion. Bulldog123 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr..what is the website? 1Z 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting... yes, what is the site? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Why don't you go ahead and do some editing? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The source Faking UFOs, Roel Van der Meulen (Self Published, 1994) doesn't meet RS because of the self-publishing bit, and should probably be take out. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3O

message: I'm putting a merge template on it, as suggested above. Discuss here. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The synthesis tag should be explained, so everyone knows what it's about. I'm assuming it's because the example doesn't mention the subject directly?  Dreadstar † 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone- I believe Bubba has fixed things. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't do anything with the synth tag - I don't even know what it is.  I did add an important example.  Also, making the main article "true believer" and "true-believer syndrome" a section in it is probably a good idea.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well, I think you took care of the problem the synthesis tag was there to point out.  We do need an article on true-believerism.  I'm not sure if that would be a good title or not.  Dreadstar said True believer (psychology). –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There may be a problem with the True believer (psychology) title bacause I don't know if T.B. is a standard psychology term.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I thought too- but don't know what to do. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge to Keene?  :)  Maybe get more opinions on it.  RfC?  Dreadstar † 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe just leave it as is.  I'm not sure I understand the fascination with it, since it's a pretty limited-use syndrome. Maybe that's its notability...an unused non-syndrome.  But then...it should be a section under Keene.  I keep coming around to that. Dreadstar † 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why was it dropped as a syndrome?  Mebbe that's notable...Dreadstar † 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bring this up from the dead. Are there articles that directly discuss a relationship between true believer and True-believer syndrome or is it just the nomenclature that makes them similar? Right now the article seems to assume the relationship. Ward20 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Synth

message: Much is made of the claim that Wikipedia is evidence based and has as its foundation reliance on cited reliable source material. This is of course a worthy ideal. However we live in the real world. So often in Wikipedia it is a case of a point of view winning out against citable evidence purely because of the greater numbers of "true-believers" who will stick to their viewpoint regardless of the fact that present knowledge does not support their stance. Call it compensated cognitive dissonance if you will. True-believers infest all spheres of society in science (pseudoscience, paranormal), healthcare (quackery), politics (fanaticism) and religion (I won't go there). Obviously Keene is an authority only in the stage craft of the paranormal, but little else. I have searched for other useful, citable uses of the term True-believer syndrome and have come up with fewer than a handful. This is a shame since I believe that the world sorely needs a fuller understanding of this phenomenon which has so much deleterious effect upon the state of human society and which is so well described as the True-believer syndrome. Anyway, enough of my ranting. As the perpetrator who created the category:True-believer syndrome, I concede that the term has not yet received the notability that I think it deserves and unless others can put forward some convincing support that I have failed to find, then I will remove the category in due course.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: KC I don't think anyone thinks there is anything that is wrong in what you did, and I hope that "perpetrator" was in jest. Anyway a suggestion. Surely this topic must have a name in psychology and have been studied in a more rigorous fashion with better references. Maybe that is a different way to approach a similar article or category. Ward20 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The influence of the True-believer on Wikipedia 

message: A particularly good illustration of this phenomenon would be the story of the Angels of Mons, a legend of fairly recent vintage (1914) that has a very specific source authored by a man who made every effort to subsequently clarify its fanciful nature.  The ever-growing resistance to his efforts must have astounded him.  Asat (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machen & Mons 

message: Substituted at 16:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment