Talk:Michelle Remembers

Criticisms

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)

Disagree. Details of criticisms of this debunked book are extremely germane.199.127.252.195 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey Show dates

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)

Edits made to page 2/10/08

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)

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)

Pazder and truth

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aquino quote

I am wondering if this quote:

Regardless of the veracity of the allegations made by Smith, the book's veracity was described by Michael Aquino:

On September 30, 1990 London's Mail on Sunday newspaper, as the result of extensive investigation into Smith's background — to include interviews with her father, her first husband, her neighbors, and Canadian occult historians of the 1950s — exposed the book as a fraud. But in the intervening ten years Michelle Remembers inspired a devastating epidemic of copycat accusations directed against legitimate Satanists, non-Satanic occultists, and many other innocent people who had nothing whatever to do with the occult. Aquino, Michael (1994-01-01). Witchcraft, Satanism & Occult Crime: Who's Who & What's What, a Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator. Phoenix Pub. ISBN 0919345867.

comes from a reliable source. It appears to be giving undue weight to this source. Maybe a brief mention of the source, if reliable, could be made in another section. The publisher appears to be a small publisher of Wiccan books. Abuse truth (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing it seems to be justifying is that MR set of the satanic panic. I think that's probably true, but a firmer source would be nice. WLU (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, we delete the quote and reference for now, and when a reliable source is found, we can cite that one with a shorter quote. Abuse truth (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you find a reliable source first?Herunar (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm content that on a page like Michelle Remembers, where reliable sources are scarce, this one is adequate. Michelle Remembers is an ideal place for Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources to be invoked - MR is a fringe flashpoint for the fringe theory of satanic ritual abuse, so I think we're OK if its not Oxford University Press.

A reminder, please keep discussion civil. This page is primed to generate friction and it's only by being polite that no-one will end up blocked. WLU (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the revert of the OR posted by the user above, I don't agree with the argument that editors should lower the bar for sources on this page. The fringer_theories page states: "If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review."

IMO, this book and the debate around it is well known. Aquino's book is clearly not a reliable source and the quote should be deleted. Furthermore, SRA is not a fringe theory. When defined as the occurrence of ritual abuse in a satanic setting there are many news and peer reviewed journal articles that conclusively prove it exists. Abuse truth (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

MR is hardly a well-known and frequently discussed topic - it's a nutter book based on the induced memories of a severely disturbed woman and her memory-implanting therapist/husband. SRA is a fringe theory AT, no credible person thinks it's true. There is no proof of SRA beyond isolated incidents with ritual elements. I got MR from the library, and sure enough, in the last couple chapters, Satan appears, as does Mary, the Mother of God. MR has no credibili ty, and it's been debunked thoroughly. You believe that it is well known and well studied because of your intense focus on all things abuse related. To the world at large, it's an unfortunate period in the 80s and 90s that is now ignored if not remembered in embarrassment. There's a couple books that discuss it in theory, a lot of credulous therapists, and not much else. For God's sake, SATAN appears in the last couple chapters. SATAN. WLU (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am amused by WLU's quick decision to assert authority with a "reminder" of civilty after one innocent question. In my humble opinion, it is ridiculous to ask for the removal of a passable source and wait until a more "reliable" source could be found, except in extreme cases. How do we know that a "reliable" source could be found at all? How do we know how long it will take? And what defines "reliable", except that it doesn't convince you? It is an obsolete topic and I do not prefer to take sides in this discussion, but I find Abuse truth's suggestion to be foolish at best. Herunar (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I have removed my additions as well as the short paragraph before it, which is pretty much the same in its degree of OR. I decided to add instead of removing initially because I disagree with a strict policy of citing sources in an obsolete topic, but I see the problem with too much OR as well. Herunar (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In a text-based medium, it is very easy to read into the tone of posts. This topic and related ones have produced a lot of friction, and based on nearly twenty thousand edits, I'm trying to head off a pattern I've seen before many times. That is the source of my comment, but you are free to ignore it. I'm not asserting authority as I am not an admin, so I can't block anyone or lock the page. You may be interested in the parity of sources link above, which essentially agrees with your point. WLU (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with WLU's reminder of civility. It is important that the page be factually accurate. Civilty will keep the focus on the data, not the editors. Respectfully, I disagree about WLU's statements about SRA. There are several sources that state it exists, some peer reviewed or from the media. I have put several of these on the SRA talk page. I have seen no evidence of memory implantation. The credence of this theory in general is very weak. I agree that there should be no OR on the page. All data needs sources and all statements on the page need to be accurate. I have restored a phrase to the page that was previously agreed upon as accurate. No source states "Pazder did not state whether the allegations were true" so this is OR and needs to be deleted. I have also made a minor change to a sentence at the beginning of the article. I have added "some of" to "The events depicted in Smith's therapy sessions have been investigated, and found to be false." Two of three sources used to back this statement are weak at best and normally would not be RS. I appreciate the edit on the last paragraph. Though the sources are not strong and I feel the data should probably be deleted, I will compromise and accept this edit. The article states "the book inspired copy-cat accusations throughout the world." If this is true, it must have had a great deal of influence worldwide to do this. Therefore it must be well known. Abuse truth (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the deletion of "Pazder did not state whether the allegations were true". I don't believe it is necessary for the exact wording to be in the source - otherwise, every sentence on Wikipedia would have to be cited, no? Herunar (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I may disagree with virtually every edit AT makes, but civility is one area I can't fault. And ideally every sentence should be cited or verified in some way, but it's not practical or possible. Pazder very carefully never said that MR was accurate, or inaccurate. I read this as a cop-out, he knows he's on shaky ground so he craps out. I think this might be one of the rare situations where a direct quote might be the best solution - because it is such a sneaky wording, the horse's mouth could be used fruitfully. Regards the truth of the book, once again I cite WP:REDFLAG and the Daily Mail. Taken together, it's not hard to refute a book that claims the direct intervetion of Satan and Mary, Mother of God. WLU (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I read "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:REDFLAG is that if a source wants to make an exceptional claim, then an exceptional source is needed to back this. I don't read this as allowing editors to drop the bar to bring in weaker sources. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." I do not believe that this guideline applies in this case. We may want to read into Pazder's words, but as editors, IMO, we are not allowed to. This is OR. I do appreciate the returning of the original quote that was previously deleted. This helps clarify the source and Pazder accurately. I will be changing the quote on the page slightly to this. "there has been no known corroboration of the events depicted in the book beyond Smith's therapy sessions and the book is now believed by some to be discredited." I am adding the word "known" because there may be one we don't know about. And actually even that is not entirely accurate. The publisher of the book in the forward does attempt to corroborate the story. I also added "by some" because not all sources have discredited it, and most of the ones that have are not RS. And in reference to "claims the direct intervetion of Satan and Mary, Mother of God." In some cases of ritual abuse, there have been instances were the abusers have used theatre tricks to confuse children and costumes have been used to discredit their stories if they told later about what happened. Tamarkin when discussing the McMartin case states: "What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch." Tamarkin, Civia (1994). "Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part I and Part II". Treating Abuse Today. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Abuse truth (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the quote. The publisher's corroboration consisted of listening to the tapes made of Pazder's hypnosis sessions. This doesn't corroborate anything. Was anyone involved in McMartin in British Columbia in the 1950s (aside from putative satanists)? Because that's a bit of a red herring to post on this page and would probably violate WP:OR if we said 'but the insanely bizarre events documented in the book could have happened if there were a massive, underground special effects studio to give the impression that Satan himself descended upon the world to torture Michelle Smith'. Barring a reliable source documenting a massive, buried special effects studio in Victoria, I think that's out. Unrelated to MR, the existence of a friend working in special effects and a horse ranch does not mean that the friend put a lot of work into generating special effect to convince a bunch of kids or that a horse was killed. To me, it means that children integrated what they knew into the stories squeezed out of them by lengthy interrogations. But this page is about MR, not McM. WLU (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points above. I agree with the version of the new phrase as it stands. It is a good compromise version. The publisher also discussed the interviewers talking to those that knew Michele as a child as well as other local sources. These interviewers had learned from news and police sources that Satanism had existed in that region for many years. I gave the quote as an example as to how she could believe in things that do not appear to be real. With a small child, theatre is easily possible, especially if the child is drugged or in a maleable mind state. McM is unfortunately a very confusing case and the total truth may never be totally known, but it does appear that some abuse was going on there. Abuse truth (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

from "hoax" to "discredited"

Please excuse the length of this explanation, but IMO it is needed to show that the word "hoax" is OR.

There is no evidence of a “hoax” or an attempt to deceive shown in any of the three references. http://www.answers.com/topic/hoax hoax (hoks) n. An act intended to deceive or trick. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.tr.v., hoaxed, hoaxing, hoaxes. To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

Only the first source (skepdic.com) mentions a source that supposedly listed three investigators show the book to be a hoax. This source (religious tolerance.org) only listed one source and this source does not mention the word “hoax” or that the book is fraudulent.

The second source does not mention a “hoax” or fraudulent means.

The third source does not mention the word “hoax” or the fact that they meant to deceive either.

IMO, the quality of these sources is poor at best and probably not RS. Skepdic.com is self published, so is religious tolerance and the third source is an opinion piece from the Daily Mail with a courtesy link from the Temple of Set. Fortean Times is a magazine about paranormal phenomena in Britain.

Though I personally disagree with the use of these sources, I realize that this opinion is controversial and will defer to consensus on their use. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

I agree that hoax is not supported, but "debunked" is more accurate than "discredited". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree re:hoax, I'm not torn over the other wording as long as it's clear that the book is considered false. Parity of sources applies. The Mail on Sunday is the strongest reference, where the link comes from is irrelevant. Skepdic provides a skeptical viewpoint, one which I think meets the criteria of 'expert' for something as absurd as this. Fortean times is also a RS for debunking a claim like this. The claims in the book are ridiculous, unbelievable, and far more easily explained as improper therapy than the presence of Satan on earth.

Apologizing for a long explanation doesn't make it shorter or reduce the repetition of previous arguments. WLU (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "debunked" is better than "hoax."

debunk - To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

“We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately” In other words, debunk has an emotional charge, it may "ridicule" the claims made.

discounted - To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.

"Discounted" may be a better word. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As per the above, I have changed the one word in the phrase. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

May be agreed to above, but it doesn't make sense in that sentence. "Generally considered to be discounted" is hopeless. Perhaps just "generally discounted". but discredited makes sense. I think "debunked" is more accurate; certainly with "generally considered", but I'll accept discredited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the change to "discredited." ResearchEditor (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:30 section

I am bringing this for a third opinion, as I believe it is unlikely that we will come to agreement on any of the issues below.

I believe that these three sources are not reliable and should be removed from the page. WLU believes that these sources can be used.

A 2002 article by Kerr CuhulainCuhulain, Kerr (July 8 2002). "Michelle Remembers". Pagan Protection Center. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Carroll, Robert Todd (April 6 2006). "Satanic Ritual Abuse". The Skeptic's Dictionary. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Medway, Gareth (2001-11-01). "Satan in suburbia". Fortean Times. Retrieved 2007-10-23. A previous Fortean Times headline stated "Did NASA hoax the moon landing photos?" WLU has stated that one headline is not enough evidence.

WLU believes this web page can be used as an EL, I believe that it should not.

http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/michelleremembers.htm Webpage containing pictures of the locations discussed in MichelleRemembers ResearchEditor (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to section

Michelle Remembers is a fringe topic that makes extreme claims (such as Satan appearing on earth, physically, and Mary Mother of God healing and removing scars from Michelle Pazder), which require exceptional sources to be considered true. It does not take exceptional claims to debunk this, and I think it's legitimate to include sources that have investigated this area and debunked it thoroughly. Kerr Cuhulain is an occult author, Canadian (i.e. the country where MR was alleged to have taken place) detective and former child abuse investigator; all three make him a good person to pronounce on the contents of MR. Robert Todd Carroll is a retired philosophy professor, the author of Skeptic's Dictionary and has made a point, if not career, of investigating and debunking pseudoscience, fringe topics, the paranormal and related bizarre claims, which MR is one of. Both of these authors are notable and experts in this area. The Fortean Times is a magazine that is dedicated to examining the unusual. That the Fortean Times published one article on the moon landing being faked (which was met with considerable opposition from its readership) is not a reason to discount it as a source; were this true, then the absurd claims of Michelle Remembers would render all other Pocket Books unreliable. The point of external link is that it contains photographs of the areas where Michelle Pazder's alleged satanic rapes (by Satan himself) were supposed to have occurred - readers can see the actual sites discussed in the book. I believe this makes the site suitable per WP:ELYES point 4 - meaningful content that can't be integrated. The pictures are not fair use and can not be integrated with the page. Were Michelle Remembers to become a Featured Article, it would still not contain these pictures. It could be used as a source as well.

Comment on editor

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)

3O reply

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)

Response to reply

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)

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)

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)

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, ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Cuhulian synopsis

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)

Nathan and Snedeker

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)

how were "the Devil", "the Virgin Mary" etc thought to truly have appeared by seculars?

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)

Beats me. You bring up good points, but I don’t have any answers. It's possible, though, that the skeptics were just ignored in the beginning. First off, anything related to the supernatural and/or paranormal, whether it’s certain religious beliefs, local ghost stories, or psychic activity, is going to be criticized by those who don’t believe, so when people said they were skeptical, a lot of people probably thought, “Oh, a skeptic has doubts about a story about demonic possession? Somebody call Ripley! (referring to Ripley’s Believe It or Not!, in case you didn’t know)” That brings up another issue. When you bring up doubts against something controversial, some people assume you have ulterior motives or are bringing up charges because of personal bias. For all we know, many people who questioned the validity of Piltdown Man may have been painted as hyper-religious “Bible thumpers” even if they weren’t at all religious and their doubts were for purely scientific reasons. Also, with some stories the will to believe is enormous. Years ago members of Duke’s men’s lacrosse team were accused of raping a woman. The media painted them as guilty before the case even went to court, and many people who expressed doubts were painted as coddling college athletes and disregarding the basic human rights of women. Then the evidence that the girl was lying became so enormous that the case was dropped and the story turned into one about victims of false accusation. Finally, there are people who just don’t care whether or not a story is real as long as it’s an entertaining read. Evernut (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Publication information

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)

PR not NPOV

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)

Please correct citation: Philip Jenkins not James R. Lewis

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)

Article languishing

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 13:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the link (20) for the reference "Michelle Remembers: Fiction, not Fact" (http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/michelleremembers.htm) has gone dark, so please replace it with the web archived version, http://web.archive.org/web/20130324024950/http://members.shaw.ca:80/imaginarycrimes/michelleremembers.htm 24.77.16.7 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)