This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Remembers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 am wondering if this quote:
Regardless of the veracity of the allegations made by Smith, the book's veracity was described by Michael Aquino:
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)
<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)
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 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)
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)
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)
I was a bit puzzled by the following text:
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)
In reference to the 1995 book by Nathan and Snedeker, there is the following statement:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michelle Remembers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 am wondering if this quote:
Regardless of the veracity of the allegations made by Smith, the book's veracity was described by Michael Aquino:
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)
<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)
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 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)
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)
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)
I was a bit puzzled by the following text:
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)
In reference to the 1995 book by Nathan and Snedeker, there is the following statement:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
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)