User talk:RoseSuna

Hi, sorry for the revert on Recovered-memory therapy, but it was not the correct way to incorporate the information into the article. I initially saw the Pope article was on his own website, but later found it was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, American Psychologist. That makes it a good source! What you need to do is if you want to try again is explain what the article says in the context of the wikipedia article, instead of just link to it. I've formatted the Pope article using the citation template for you here:

Cheers, Legitimus (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Legitimus, I question many of the reference for this page and the one about "false memory syndrome". A a lot of the information is dated. But I don't have time to figure Wikipedia out. Wish I did. Even the link to the Pope article above leads to a site where you have to pay $15 for the article. The abstract draws no conclusion. I've started not to trust Wikipedia on anything, even basic info that seems like it should just be data. I've just seen the site be mistaken too many times. I tend to donate because I do use it but perhaps should stop. I just read a page about Wired magazine. It has a section called "Criticism". All that is in that section are ratings from ratings websites = 2 and 2.35 stars. That's not criticism. It's just ratings. And if you go and read the ratings, they are mostly complaints about subscription issues and people who claim the magazine is anti-white, sexist, leftist "woke" with a bunch of insults added. It's criticism that just reads like a rant. Whoever set up that section does not like Wired I gather. But I have no idea how to fix citations or remove and entire section because it adds nothing to the article. And who's to say whoever put it up there won't just keep reposting it? I don't think that Wikipedia can really claim to be neutral on subjects. Oh well. Thanks for reading. Disappointed and wish it weren't so hard to help. Rose RoseSuna (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)