Talk:Sybil (Schreiber book)

refs added, deleted OR
I have added refs and data from existing refs and deleted OR from the page. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about Sybil, or the Two Nations? Surely a more important book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.206.16 (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Easily dealt with via a page of Sybil, or the Two Nations. It already exists, but I'll put in a footnote.  ResearchEditor you shameless sockpuppeter, I've removed your stupid "Wah, Sybil was real and all people with MPD were abused".  I think I've managed to find most of the entries you've sockpuppeted on.  Huzzah!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sybil Exposed
I've not read the new book by Debbie Nathan, but here's a Salon.com review. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She was on NPR Science Friday today - they archive these on NPR's site, so it should be available as a source soon. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the NPR & Salon coverage alone, it's probably appropriate to write a Sybil Exposed article...Here's further coverage from the NYTtimes & MSNBC. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At the very least this book should be added as criticism to this page. I've read the book. It's fascinating. Cap020570 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fiction or Nonfiction?
The article says it's fictional, but the disambiguation sentence at the top of the page says it's nonfiction. 68.99.219.147 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the same issue that brought me here. In the body of the article, the dispute is discussed in a roundabout way, but perhaps there could be a more direct statement about how the book is presented versus how it has been criticised. Kirby777 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Kirby777, 15:33, 17 May 2015 (CST)

Wiki editor, please
I am the author of Sybil Exposed. It was published in 2011 by Free Press and was on the New York Times Best Seller list for a few weeks. The book has been reviewed by, among others, the Wall Street Journal, Salon, and People. There have been no reviews questioning the research.

A psychologist in New York City, Patrick Suraci, was a friend and employee of the author of the book Sybil. He conducted a telephone relationship with the psychiatric patient who was Sybil, from the early 1990s to the woman's death in 1998. Recently he self-published a book about his telephone relationship with the woman. It has received no reviews.

Suraci and others are on a mission to discredit Sybil Exposed. They spent over a year posting on Amazon and Goodreads book reviews, filling up comments sections -- and on Twitter as well, and on Huffington Post, where anyone can publish an opinion piece -- suggesting that my work is careless and dishonest. After almost two years during which time there's been ample opportunity to check my research, none of these negative assertions have been taken seriously by any professional media person, or any serious researcher, for that matter.

I am therefore at a loss to see these baseless published on the current Wikipedia page.

As for family members of the patient questioning my work, some comments have appeared on Goodreads. I don't know if you consider this a Wiki-qualified source.

I am also puzzled as to why Sybil Exposed is not referenced in the Wikipedia article, especially given that it is being so extensively discussed.

My sense is that the piece you editors have edited was originally posted by a highly biased individual. That is certainly the individual's prerogative, but I hope that Wikipedia editors will give this posting the attention it deserves in order to make it conform to your exacting guidelines, and also to clean up what are, to my mind, assertions against me -- published by Wikipedia -- that are libelous.

Yours, Debbie Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.152.250 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Truth in “SYBIL in her own words”
In May 2011, I self published “SYBIL in her own words: The Untold Story of Shirley Mason, Her Multiple Personalities and Paintings,” because no publisher would print the 100 Sybil paintings in full color. Later in 2011 Abandoned Ladder published the paperback in color.

The book was reviewed by: Philip M. Cooms, MD, Prof. Emeritus of Psychiatry, Indiana Unv. School of Medicine, Biography Book Review, Goodreads, Eassurvey’s/Wordpress, YouTube: MPD DID THE MOM SERIES. The Huffington Post requested that I write an article about my book.

On June 26, 2013, I joined Twitter and have never tweeted about any book other than mine.

In my book I report evidence to back up my claims exposing the untrue statements by critics of the Sybil case, such as, Dr. Herbert Spiegel saying he hypnotized Shirley Mason. On page 272 I wrote: “Shirley’s cousin Naomi Rhode discovered an audio cassette of a conversation between Shirley and Dr. Wilbur which took place on February 18, 1977.” Shirley complained that she did not trust Dr. Spiegel and therefore he was unable to hypnotize her.

Drsuraci (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Patrick Suraci, Ph.D.

1890?
How is it possible for someone born in 1923 to have developed a new personality in 1890? I have no clue as to when "Ruthie" DID develop so have not edited the article.96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)