Talk:Anneliese Michel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anneliese Michel article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Anneliese Michel as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Copyvio debate

I deleted the article because of copyright violations. It was copied 1:1 from my original i wrote in September 2004. And yes, the English is crappy, but thats because English it is not my first Language.. ;)

Did you read the supposed "original webpage" or what ? It gives credit to Wikipedia at the bottom : Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel"

Edited again by MacReady: Thats correct, because someone took it from the sites listed below and posted it here without my knowledge and without giving credit. Of course when sites take it from here they don't know the origin if the person that posts it doesn't name his source!

EVERY SITE that took it from here took MY article from the origins listed below. And it really gets annoying that people call ME a thief, when i wrote it in September 2004.

If you want to read it (in the meantime the MoviesOnline article has been editied by someone whos English is not as bad) you can do it by clicking one of the links below.

At this time only Movies Online and Horror-Movies have the permission to use my articles.

If you see this article in the original version or the new edited version it has been copied without permission !

Best Regards, MacReady 11:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)



I don't know whether or not there is a copyright violation here or not. Going through the history it would appear that way. However, consider these things:

  1. The poor quality and incredible number of grammar errors.
  2. The fact that the article doesn't mention the movie a single time, and moviesonline.ca is supposedly a movie site.
  3. Consider this excerpt off of moviesonline.ca 's page about the movie supercross:
Supercross is a very competitve sport where people race high performance off-road motorcycles on dirt tracks complete with jumps and obsticles
and compare it with the opening line from the Wikipedia article about the sport:
Supercross is an exciting, highly-competitive sport in which athletes race high-performance off-road motorcycles on man-made dirt tracks consisting of steep jumps and obstacles.

Who is stealing from who here? I seriously doubt moviesonline.ca holds any enforceable copyright on this material, but wherever it is from I agree that the Anneliese Michel article is probably not original Wikipedia material and, considering it's poor quality, should just be removed. 66.68.101.3 18:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Can I just replace the whole thing with my own entry? I've been reading two library books about Anneliese and hope to put together a top knotch post, but I didn't want to erase that copyright infringement notice without asking.

I believe you can,just reference your sources.Also with the movie coming up,I believe this page will see alot of viewers soon.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can there be a copyright on something that ACTUALLY happened? It's really Wikipedia's duty to report on this. Pfft. Copyright infringement my ass.

Reporting something that has happened, and publishing somebody else's report of something that has happened, is not the same thing.
Indeed. Copyright law protects the expression, not the facts and ideas contained therein. You can write your own story about a boy going to wizard school and riding brooms, but you can't cut and paste Harry Potter and send it in for publication. ~AbM Oct. 5, 2005

No one has rights to the original article; it was poorly translated then re-written for Wikipedia. Now, it has been deleted for no reason, there is no possible copyright violation.

The copyright violation (assuming for purposes of argument that it was a copyright violation) was added after there was a valid (short) article. I reverted to the earlier version (before the questionable material was added), according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The material from the /Temp article can be merged in. (Or whatever the writers of that article decide to do.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether copyrights are broken or not, I thought it would be good form to at least correct the grammatical and spelling errors in the article. -andrewjc ("Andrew") 11:30, 29 August 2005 (EDT)


Not cool dude. She died.

[edit] Subpage

I'm currently working, by stages, on the temporary subpage. Hope to have a finished product today, 15AUG2005 by about 11h00 GMT. -Aku

needs a lot of work and cleanup - please see the WP style guidelines and citing sources pages. Also, it should definitely discuss the new movie based on her story, The Exorcism of Emily Rose — ceejayoz ★ 22:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the problems with this article it's ridiculous and rather childish to just "blank" it. --Bumhoolery 02:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not childish. It's wikipedia policy. If copy violations are allowed then wikipedia becomes nothing more than an elaborate copy and paste site. --Dysepsion 00:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

On the Motocross definition topic...here's a good question and a point. I want everyone who reads this to rewrite the fact, "The sky is blue" in as many different ways as possible. You'll find that just in writing "Blue, the sky is" or anything of that nature, if the Wikipedia definition of Motocross is copyright infringement, then nobody can post anything stating that the color of the sky is, indeed, blue without succumbing to copyright infringement. Simply saying that restating a fact cannot be copyright infringement.

[edit] Anneliese Michel/Temp

Please do not insert possible copyrighted material. Please use Anneliese Michel/Temp until the issues can be cleared up. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I brought what I had so far in the Temp page over, just pasted it in basically. But I had to sort of splice it with what was there last, I hope I didn't offend its owner with the way I did that. I'm not sure what's going on with the copyright question, I'm new so the history page confused me. But I thought mine would be fine in that respect and that we needed something up since I think the movie came out. -Aku 16:03 EST 31Aug2005

[edit] Würzburg

What is the relivence to Würzburg concerning Emily Rose? I don't see any connection. --Admiral Roo 16:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry for the confusion Admiral. Seems a handful of legitimate edits (interspersed with purely expletive or ridiculous edits) were followed by a deletion of the bulk of my contribution. For the record, I included the Wurzburg witch hunt as historical background for Anneliese's posession (which occurred at the University of Wurzburg) and the subsequent trial of the priests, which I understand comprises the bulk of the new movie. That said, once I restore what's been deleted is there a way to lock the content? I would really like that, I worked too hard on this to have the f-word put in by some loser. - Aku 1301 EST 9-1-2005

I don't think you need to apoligize for anything. This is not your fault. Now that I have the scope of the relivence of Wurzburg, I understand the connection now. If you want this page protected, ask for it to be protected by going here.  :) --Admiral Roo 13:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A bit confused...

Many claimed that her body could not have been at rest after such an ordeal, leading officials to exhume her corpse eleven years after her death. When it was determined that it had, in fact, decayed at the proper rate for one dead eleven years, she was recommitted to the ground.

I don't quite understand this portion of the article. They dug her up, looked at her body -- yes, it's rotting properly -- and put it back in the ground. This means she's at rest? What's the alternative, exactly? That she hasn't rotted at all or she's rotted too much?

Some clarification would be nice.

It is a very old Christian belief that supernatural infestation prevents a corpse from deteriorating at a "normal rate." As the belief went, if the corpse was unusually well preserved, it was proof that a supernatural entity was inhabiting the remains. The exhumation of corpses suspected of vampirism was practiced by legal authorities in Europe through the 18th Century. It is a little disturbing (and very hard to believe) that it occurred in this case in the 1980s...or since someone saw fit to remove the passage you quoted, perhaps it didn't happen at all and was just another attempt at article vandalism. Canonblack 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


She was not exhumed in the 80's. She was exhumed before the start of the trial which was 1978. There have been a couple of documented cases where this actually happened(which I will research and find references for). This may have been the base for exhuming her. However, the cases documented were not proven to be preserved due to possessionn but to utter closeness to God. People considered to be a Saint or deserving of Sainthood who were spiritual beyond most peoples comprehension were found to be the ones who were preserved many years after death. (GoGoGhost) 21Apr2006 0115

The "preservation = saintliness" interpretation is, I believe, post-Enlightenment, and isn't what the quoted passage is referring to. Note the final sentence: When it was determined that it had, in fact, decayed at the proper rate for one dead eleven years, she was recommitted to the ground. You seem to be indicating that the exhumation was to check her saintliness, which seems not to fit with the facts of the case — she was claimed to be the victim of demonic possession, not a candidate for sainthood. The passage currently in the article, about the Carmelite who claimed the body's state of preservation was "proof of the supernatural character of her case" does not imply anything about saintliness; in fact it jibes with my original explanation that an unusual state of preservation might be considered "proof" of supernatural interference. If the state of preservation was proof of saintliness, it wouldn't prove anything about the case at all; it would only prove that she had been saintly. At any rate, both modes are based on archaism, not science, and have no place in a forensic investigation in the 20th Century. An occurrance as late as the 1970s can justifiably be considered bizarre regardless of who was conducting the investigation. The explanation about wanting a better coffin is probably the real reason for the exhumation, and restricting the defendants' access to the corpse was probably to prevent tampering in case a secondary autopsy was needed. Canonblack 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Its very pre-enlightement. Like second century. If it could be seen that she was "fighting" then it could be a step towards sainthood. The "Trial of Emily Rose" implies that she told the priests she had seen a vision of Mary and that she had the choice to continue the fight. I have no idea whether this is part of the "true" story (I came here to find out) but it would fit in nicely with why they felt the body hadn't decomposed.

[edit] I don't believe this is a copyright infringement.

The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below:

http://virginiaghosts.com/exorcism_of_emily_rose.php


If you click on the link and go to the bottom of the article it says the information was taken from Wikipedia. That tells me that the text on Wikipedia was not copied from that article, the text from the link above is copied from Wikipedia.

Yes, and if you look at the history of this article, you'll note that the information in question is taken from another website without authorization, making both that and the VAghosts.com information copyright infringement.--Mitsukai 08:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
While looking at this issue because of a request on WP:RFPP, I noticed something interesting on the history: this article was deleted before, on 17 September, as a copyvio. This means that the article on virginiahosts.com could be a copy of an older copyvio. A further analysis of the older versions might be required. --cesarb 20:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit by MacReady: It is my article, and yes they also got an email from me. MacRaedy 08:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Man, ya'll care too much about copyright BS. -Alex 12.220.157.93 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Recent Edits

Okay, so what's the deal with recent edits? Everything post Splash's edit seems vandalism (one accidental) (or minor tweaks post-vandalism). Can we revert to Splash's edit without a copyvio? And how do we go about cleaning up this talk page mess? --Steven Fisher 03:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American?

I thought she was German.

[edit] Bishop Josef Stangl

As a powerful figure within the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Stangl successfully promoted a certain Joseph Ratzinger... who later became Pope Benedikt XVI... Maybe it's time to write an article about Josef Stangl?

[edit] External links

The "Real Emily Rose" site (www.fotofetch.com) was heavily ad-ridden. I believe it has been linked here mainly to help generate traffic for ad impressions. I have boldly removed this commercial link. Mecandes 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild swings

Various people including myself keep reverting the wild editting swings this article is receiving. However, some of those edits are actually good. I think that if the anonymous person making the wild edits would like to get an account and start discussing them here, we could probably find an acceptable middle ground. For instance, "devout" makes more sense than "strict," and "apparently became convinced" is too far swung towards the skeptical (whereas "understood" is too far swung towards religion). It's just that viewed as a whole and without someone to discuss the changes with, the changes definitely worsen the article. Can't we find a neutral POV here? --Steven Fisher 18:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I agree with you Steven that some consensus would be good for this article. I have made some contribution to this page, although not all of it, so I can talk with you on my own behalf. I base my corrections on the book written by an objective scientist, anthropologist Felicitas Goodman. I believe the facts presented in her book are credible and make sense. There have also been some corrections to this article made by other people, sometimes also very true. Anyway, I see the version currently online as containing more facts than the versions before. For example, the girl gave evidence to be possessed by six demons - she never gave the names of Legion and Belial. My aim in the contributions is to present the real story and I am aware it is so different from the popular version given some time ago to the media. I am ready to discuss this matter, so if you want, just tell me what you see wrong or not acceptable in the current version and hopefully we will be able to find the common ground with no harm to the facts. --MichelAngelo 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editorializing

I just removed a bunch of obvious editorializing. Please refrain from entering your opinions of the facts, just stick to the facts. e.g. Stating positively that the doctors' analysis was "quasi-scientific" is innappropriate, as is stating postiviley that the causes were supernatural--of course it would also be innappropriate to state positively that it was notsupernatural. This is a encyclopedia, not a tract on some editor's religious philosophy, stick to the facts, not your interpetation of them. --Brentt 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Vs. Supernatrual

Editors of this article need to be careful about pushing either the natural or supernatural POV. Looking at the page history its clear that there has been problems with both in the past. The last version which a major change was made to was clearly pushing the supernatural POV so I tried to delete some postive assertions that added no factual content (in this case coming from the supernatural POV). I'll deal with that edit below (its a copy I sent to the discussion page of the user that reverted a couple of my edits, I think a compromise will be reached on that although he hasn't responded yet). But I just want to remind editors of this article that there is no reason to assume natural or supernatural causes, and try to be aware of both sides as your adding to the article so as not to be pushing either, and avoiding positive assertions or assumptions about either. There was some egregious examples of POV pusing in the last version. Just be careful.

This is the contentious edit I made that was reverted (removals I made are in italics, the "according to witnesses" part of the second removed section I think was added by the user who reverted it--I think, I'm not positive--and somewhat mitigats the POV pushing I was concerned with I suppose.):

Eventually, Anneliese's knees were destroyed through obsessive genuflection forced by the demons' orders, which she couldn't defy. She died at age 23, acording to witnesses finally freed from the demons, after the last exorcism made on her. The autopsy report said that her death was caused by the malnutrition and dehydration that resulted from almost a year of semi-starvation. Other theories suggest she might have suffocated due to side-effects of the powerful drugs she took.

There are apparently two main POVs in this story which we need to avoid pushing. The "natural cause" POV, and the "supernatural cause" POV. The first removal I made,i.e. removal of the phrase "forced by the demons orders which she couldn't defy", is clearly needed as it implies that she was in fact possessed, and therefore is supernatural POV pushing.

The "according to witnesses" mitigates somewhat the POV pushing of the second edit so I suppose strictly speaking its not contentious that the people thought they saw that she was "freed".

The last sentence I got rid of because it sounds like original research. The only reliable source we have of the natural, or from the supernatural POV the way in which the demons apparently killed her, cause of death is the autopsy report. If there is a reliable source for that speculation then it should be included. Otherwise it sounds like original research. That being said, I'll leave it for now since it is controversial whether the fact that a piece of information is unsourced is enough reason to delete it. Although its a bit of a superflous speculation as the natural cause of death seems to be established.

So I'll leave the last two contentious sentences, and get rid of the first "forced by the demons, which she couldn't defy" as it seems to be pretty clear that it is supernatural POV pushing, and doesn't really add any information which can't be inferred by someone predisposed to the supernatural POV. I hope this is a good compromise. --Brentt 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You got to be kidding. By the same reasoning History of Earth should be full of Young Earth "facts" to balance the scientific "bias". OR should be left out, obviously, but supernaturalist beliefs shouldn't be presented as factual in the same way as scientific evidence. The NPOV is the naturalist POV, because supernaturalists never ever bother with such things as cause and effect or consistency to be able to present any facts a supernaturalist NPOV could be based on. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
exactly. As existence of deamons, spirits or deities of any kind has NEVER been proven, all that a truth-loving wikipedian is able to write about supernatural explanations is, that some people BELIEVE deamons caused her condition. Nobody forbids them to have beliefs, but they are not legitimate explanation of facts. PERIOD.
it was proven by the Court that Anneliese died from malnutrition and dehydration. There's no reason to deny this. In my view, she's another victim of pseudotherapy, and her case can be compared with that of Lisa McPherson, who died from the similiar causes; in both cases there was NEGLIGENCE from those, who were bound to care for the victim and didn't cope with that. Critto (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towards a consistent article

I agree with the things you have said here and hope to find so reasonable compromise, too. I also think that while looking for the compromise between the natural and supernatural POV here we must not ingiore the point of view of the most important person here, i.e. Anneliese herself. I believe that, along with exorcism tapes transcripts and the eyewitnesses’ testimonies, it is the most important part telling us what actually happened there. Therefore I don’t think we should push either POV here because of our subjective impressions, just stick to the facts as presented by Anneliese and her nearest, that is her family, her boyfriend and priests involed in exorcism. Their testimonies are about many unusual phenomena, such as speaking in languages the woman never knew, presenting extreme stregth and aggression or lending her mouth to what she said were demons. These things are not common and impossible to explain using the traditional materialistic reasoning. Some people, including past authors of this atrticle, have been presenting supposedly rational explanations to the case, but all they usually get is ridiculing Anneliese, her family and helpers, presenting them, to put it mildly, as uneducated simple people, professing some primitive, pre-rational set of beliefs (the article removed from the links was a good example of this). This attitude is obviously wrong and harmful to the good name of people involved in the case. I suggest that instead of favouring any POV we present just facts and experiences of persons closest to the case. This was my intention in the recent contribution. It’s still a very concise version of the events, as it’s difficult to present several years' story in a short article, but hopefully editors, including myself, will manage to complete it with more important and interesting facts soon. OK, that's it from my part, hope we’re getting closer to the final version. --MichelAngelo 14:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "POV of the people involved". That would be PPOV, participant POV or WPOV, Witness POV. When writing do not assume she was or wasn't possesed, no matter what your position is--which is obvious from your edits. If it is clear what your position is from the nature of your edits then you are doing a poor job at writing in a NPOV manner. This also applies to the naturalistic POV editors, which there have been problems with too. Because somebody comes and makes a edit thats obviously from the naturalistic POV, that doesn't mean you should replace their edits with supernatural POV. Revert their edits to NPOV, if they contributed any good information, keep it, but represent it in a NPOV manner. --Brentt 01:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Exhumation

The exhumation section is written from a conpiracy theory POV. It gave the only source of information for how much her body had decomposed--the official report, but dismisses that report as unreliable by prefacing the paragraph with "no reliable information exists...". Let people decide for themeselves if the official report is reliable--the author should not be dismissing the information because they think the "official report" has some sinister agenda behind it. There is enough speculation in the paragraph implying a sinister conspiracy, you don't need to positively state it (which calling the official report "unreliable" is tantamount to). --Brentt 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foolish comment

From the article: After the third seizure in June 1970, during her stay at the psychiatric hospital, the girl was prescribed her first, unknown anticonvulsant. The medicine did not cure her of seizures; she also continued to see what she described as “devil faces” at different moments through out the day. It also causes brain cells to lose sodium, which might have been the cause of her absenteeism.

It is foolish to say that the anticonvulsant caused brain cells to "lose" sodium (there are many interpretations as to what this actually means) especially considering the drug is, quote, "unknown". Whoever added this information needs to clarify what they meant. -- FirstPrinciples 11:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually, that statement is wrong but for another reason. From my Bio-Psychology courses I recall that, in the human (probably all mammalian) body, Sodium controls the amount of H2O molecules outside the cell, while Potassium controls the H2O molecules within the cell. Which is why low sodium diets and diuretics are prevalent as lower sodium will not hurt the body but low (or too high) Potassium can be very dangerous. Cherchez la Femme 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Cherchez la Femme


[edit] NPOV paragraph

Where it reads "July 1, 1976 – on the day that Anneliese had predicted as the day of her liberation", something else should read.

The whole article appears to be a bit biased towards the supernatural POV, though that shouldn't come as extraordinary; the references to medical attention and its effects are greater cause for concern - I took it seriously where it said the autopsy found no signs of epilepsy-causing brain features, only to learn later that the latter are not necessary for the former.

Stating that the subject 'predicted the day of her liberation' strikes me as going way too far. She passed away on that day, a fact; the cause of death is reported on official documents, true or not, that's also a fact. That she passed away 'exhausted but peaceful' is a statement that doesn't belong in here.

I propose this paragraph be edited to avoid tipping the scale completely into supernatural POV. Rdrs 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be no dispute about that. Its a case of a editor not focusing very hard on presenting information in an encylopedic fashion. Brentt 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If she did indeed say that July 1, 1976 would be the day of her "liberation", it should stay. It is important. In a Catholic rite exorcism, one of the things the exorcists make sure they elicit from the very beginning is the date the possessor(s) will leave the person's body. Whether one likes or believes in it or not, this IS a story about paranormal claims, and for those who are open (even if skeptical) to the paranormal or the Devil in actuality, this may be an important and needed item to include. Cherchez la Femme 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Cherchez la Femme

[edit] Facts and fiction

This article should have been split in two. One part describing the case by scientific facts, the other describing it by super natural view.--Neitakk 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that would work out. I think it could be written so that both the supernatural beliefs and possible natural explanations are included here. The "Exhumation" section seems especially problematic POV-wise, given that it lists demons who "possessed her" (not "were said to have possessed her" or the like), and lines such as "Some speculate that..." I'll work on cleaning it up a bit later, but I've flagged NPOV for now as there are some pretty evident problems.Seraphimblade 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I think splitting articles into different POVs is almost always a poor solution to an NPOV article. NPOV isn't accomplished by writing in several different POVs, that would be a multiple POV policy, not a neutral POV policy. There is a difference. But yea Seraphimblade, you make some good points Brentt 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad Defense

first off one lawyer?! second, defensenever argued that emily thought she was crazy, according to the doctor, crazy people don't think they're crazy. third defense should have objected at one point Iforgot now but when I watch again I will bring it forth.--Howmee 06:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Very first paragraph is confusing

"Although the faith-based treatment was performed at her own request, *the* hospitalization and intravenous feeding could have saved her life."

~ ~ What hospitalization? No hospitalization is mentioned proir to this sentence. Perhaps *the* is extraneous?


[edit] Medication reference

Article states "November 1973 – Anneliese started her treatment with Tegretol (carbamazepine), which, according to Physicians Desk Reference, should not be prescribed to women of childbearing age due to its dangerous effect on red blood cells..."

Documenting that Tegretol was one of the medications tried I have no problem with, but for this article I fail to see how the danger on "women of childbearing age" is relevant. First, the medication does have an impact on red blood cells on both males and females as it's effication is not linked to estrogen or progesterone content nor even on the presence of the XX gene; it has the same dangers to men and to women who are pre or post childbearing age -- the warning is put in place solely for the danger towards pregnancy and the fetus in the drug crossing the placental barrier; NOT epilepsy nor audio or visual hallucinations. Secondly, Anneliese was not pregnant, not trying to become pregnant, nor (unless the priests around her took a lead from some unsavory U.S. priests who seem to prefer boys anyhow) nor was she having sexual intercourse; thus could not become gravid whether intentionally or no. It seems to be at best extraneous, unneeded information; at worst, illogical for her case. Now if the actions of Tegretol on epilepsy, seeing visions or hearing voices &/or the effect of the drug on one's overall mental state were put in its place, I see no problem with that. Put simply, I completely fail to see how the inclusion of this tidbit is cogent in any way to her story. Cherchez la Femme 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Cherchez la Femme <---Ummm, how do I remove the redundant name past the tag indicating editor (as it shows in the preview)? Apologies, but everybody is a newbie at one time or another.

== Avoiding Bias ==

It appears to me that the main argument here is whether or not to support the medical versus the supernatural interpretation of the incident. Where ever controversy exists, supporting EITHER viewpoint represents bias. Would there be a problem in telling Annaliese's story from each perspective, stating that the incidents themselves (i.e. period of hospitalization, starvation & dehydration, etc.) are not questioned by either side -- but that the INTERPRETATION of the root causes are where the controversies reside? Obviously, at this late date, we're not going to get any further than that -- we can never personally know what went on, and we can only "see" through the eyes (and interpretations) of the witnesses. Why not let each side give its perspective, and then let the reader decide??? Alevangel 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Alevangel

[edit] Medical treatment

According to the court report, all medical treatment ended 11 months before her death. And the autopsy report said that her death was caused by the malnutrition and dehydration that resulted from almost a year of semi-starvation during the rites. I think that was worth mentioning... --Camptown 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

  • the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
  • the article has multiple overlapping problems.
  • the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Bias/Qualifiers needed

There are many sections in this article that are not objectively presented. For instance, when the article states that Anneliese suffered from epilepsy and then, "Having centered her life around devout Catholic faith, Anneliese began to attribute her condition to demonic possession. She grew increasingly frustrated with medical intervention as it did not rectify what she perceived as her "real problems," it undermines the possibility that Anneliese was actually possessed. In other words, the opinion of the author enters the text of Anneliese's life. This shouldn't be the case (In addition, the period after "real problems" should go within the quotations marks. The article is riddled with errors of this nature).

Overall this article, in its current state, presents a complete account of Anneliese's life but in a completely biased fashion. The tone/intonation and word usage within different passages can't be construed any other way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.72.41 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Contradiction

This text (Exhumation) is both self-contradictory (Hitler?) and in contradiction with The Exorcism of Emily Rose:

The six demons who supposedly possessed Anneliese Michel allegedly claimed to have been Osman, Tariq, Judas, Laima, Nero, who may have been the shamed 17th century priest Valentin Fleischmann. One of the demons claimed to be Lucifer, the devil himself.

In the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Hitler and Fleischmann are replaced with Belial and Legion, two demons who were mentioned to possess people at various points through some religious texts.

By the way, is "Nero" the name of the demon? Of the emperor? Moreover (Trial and courtroom charges):

[...] experienced observers believed the effect would be the opposite - that merely bringing charges of negligent homicide against priests and parents would provoke changes and more caution. This never really happened.

What happened and what did not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.205.82.99 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Detailed Story of The Exorcism Of Anneliese Michel?

This section contains the same information as of the article. It should be removed and any new information put into the the existing sections. The same information does not need to be repeated twice in the same article. Looking for a consensus before we change it... Bagpipeturtle 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolette Kochanek

Who is Nicolette Kochanek and why is her name mentioned in the article?

Lonely Mountain (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)