Talk:Repressed memory/Archive 1

Redirection

Why does Traumatic amnesia redirect here? Traumatic amnesia is amnesia caused by physical trauma, meaning injury. And unlike repressed memories its existance is not debated. AbCarter 14:18 CET, 9 september 2006

Just a Note

People who wish to assume that repressed memories don't happen still need to educate themselves on both sides of the debate, There are numerous college professors and praticing psychologists- mind you VERY intelligent people who really have nothing to gain by supporting or not supporting repressed memories, who believe delayed recall exsists. I think it's dangerous for anyone to assume that it doesn't, it's like saying all illnesses is fake because several people call into work sick when they aren't. I know- someone is going to say that's a bad example, but I've been working for the last 16 hours and haven't slept for 24 hours, so be understanding.

Until our neurosciences develop further and better studies can be conducted we have no conclusive evidence that repression doesn't exsist and that all cases are pseudomemories or people lying. If it does exist, and say a 16 year old girl all of a sudden remembered being molested by her father when she was an 8 year old child would you want her to read that she is lying or making it up? (oh- and this exact situation has happened, so don't argue the validity of it. I am not arguing the validity of false memories, i believe they happen. I am also not saying I have evidence that this girls memory isn't a psuedomemory, I just know she had no exposure to The Courage to Heal or any therapy. Unless they there were subliminal messages in her N'Sync Music I have no clue how they were "implanted"...)

CelticLabyrinth

Both sides or the debate are represented here. People who believe repressed memories don't happen would probably resent your talk that they 'assume' this is the case, as if they were idiots. Your Weak Analogy, Appeal to Consequences and Argument from ignorance was not compelling. MaxMangel 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

a.) Just because there's the psychological established fact that repression does exist, it's no evidence that repressed memories do exist. Repression is based upon personal wishes and desires that are getting repressed as demanded by social taboo, as those are much more taboo than any potential events. b.) Your "N'Sync music" analogy is not common in the scientific literature, what is common is years of persuasion, coercion, hypnosis, and maltreatment under the name of a "therapy". --TlatoSMD 00:25, 1 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Article

Should there be a seperate article about the Repressed Memory Debate? This article does a poor job of defining the theory of repressed memories because it talks about the debate surrounding it so much as to be annoying.

CelticLabyrinth

The article in its current form is not excessively long, so seperating out the debate isn't necessary. I find the debate informative, rather than annoying. MaxMangel 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Repression DOES NOT equal "repressed memories"

I think this article is starting to suffer of the common misconception of equalling the psychologically acknowledged fact of repression on the one hand and the theory of "repressed memories" debunked during several instances in history already on the other. Just because mental repression exists, it's no evidence that "repressed memories" do exist. Therefore, I'm specifying further a few captions according to this. Furthermore, using the term "denying" is far from being NPOV, especially since we're dealing with what is a controversial issue at best, or rather a largely abandoned theory. --TlatoSMD 10:24, 24 June 2006 (CEST)

Okay, now I've also sharply distinguished the established psychological concept of repression from the theory of repressed memories on a more accurate terminological level. --TlatoSMD 10:58, 24 June 2006 (CEST)

I changed traumatic amnesia to dissociative amnesia. Traumatic amnesia is shorter term and often occurs along with brain injury, dissociative amnesia is longer term and typically does not involve brain injury

There's quite a LOT of evidence that repressed memories do exist (including personal first-hand experiences). Ding 04:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's also quite a lot of evidence that at the very least they are not reliable, including several studies that show it is possible to make someone "recover" nearly any "repressed memory" you choose to concoct by seeding them with the proper suggestive cues (see also false memories, which is currently painfully short). There's very little evidence of which I am aware correlating recovered repressed memories with provably real events. --Delirium 10:55, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Seperate Article for Recovered Memory Therapy

I believe that although this is related to repressed memories it seems to deserve an article in and of itself, especially considering the great pain it has caused many individuals. -Celtic Labyrinth

It does have its own article. But the information here seems relevant to be included in the discussion of the existence of repressed memory. MaxMangel 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree it is relevant, Recovered Memory Therapy has largely been put aside by the treating community, even by those who believe in repressed memories. Current therapies for Dissociative Identity Disorder and people who have "memories" of satantic ritual abuse or have memories that are probably confabulated or possibly false involves more of a psychosocial model like incorporative therapy or dialectical behavior therapy. People who have, what I would call, more valid delayed recall often undergo EMDR, cognitive therapies, or exposure therapies- the same therapies used for people with continuious recall. For the most part the only people really practicing RMT are people who believe there's an underground society of satanists killing children left and right or people who believe in alien abductions. Clearly, this is not practiced by the mainstream treating community! -Celtic Labyrinth

Perhaps the best thing to do then would be for you to write a paragraph or two on exactly what you mention here - how the therapist community (the ones who believe in repressed memory) have altered/evolved their practices so as to not fall into the traps of the past. MaxMangel 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

Wikipedia is suppose to speak from a neutral point of view. There is evidence of repression or traumatic amnesia, and this article does not speak of it. There is also limited sources cited to support this view that are not biased, and no academic articles cited

Please elaborate and provide this evidence, remembering to cite your sources, or your tag will just be removed again. MaxMangel 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sidran.org/refs/ref2.html This site refers to 13 different studies or case profiles of various populations that presented with amnesia. Also, this website http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Murphy_Memory_Article.html#7. provides additional resources pointing towards imperical evidence traumatic amnesia exsists. In fact, Amnesia is part of the DSM, widely considered one of the most researched and agreed upon sources. Please edit to include differing opinions, as this is not a black and white issue. Ever considered the fact that both false memories and true memories may exsist? I know it's difficult for some people to believe. Our neursciences are in their infancy and have yet to develop techniques to test the reliability of memories. This website http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmt_ofte.htm also provides sources. As I have a day job I do not have the time or resources to fully research this and I am not the person who WROTE this, who is ultimately responsible for the contact.

Also, please site academic resources in your articles so that I can find proof, and please write without a preconceived notion in your head. This is suppose to not be biased.

Oh, and Max, you don't have to be a jerk and delete things or play an intellectual game with people. This is a controversial subject and this does have a very biased view and tone. - anon user 24.15.127.96

Well, as for my jerk status and intellectual games - sorry. I will change my ways. You have shown me what a lie my life has been and now I will make amends as best I can by trying to be a logical unbiased editer of articles prone to psuedo-scientific ranters.

Moving on, I checked your first cited source. Firstly, they support, at least implicitly, repressed memory therapy. More fool them. The head of the organisation has a book on MPD and one reader had this to say "It was my first exposure to MPD. I hadn't been diagnosed yet, but I read and read the different pieces and somehow from within, I felt like I understood exactly what they were saying. A year later, I was diagnosed with DID and my life took a turn for the worse." Oh wow, what a surprise. The Courage to Heal anyone? Someone reads a book about 'healing' personality disorders and then somehow gains a personality disorder and their life goes to the gutter. Join the long line honey.

Their little brochure on 'What are Traumatic Memories' is clearly biased and even throws in the line 'the body doesn't lie.' Fantastic. So, anyhow, I could go on and on, but I think I've seen enough. Maybe I'll look at your others.

In the meantime, might I suggest you read some of the editing guidelines of the wiki - for example, no one 'owns' this article - it is a collaboration. MaxMangel 08:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/ This is actually cited on the article. Yes, I will edit the article once I have done more research, I just believe that the neutrality of this article IS disputed and I would like for the people who read this article to be aware and explore all sources. The Sidran Institute, although it does believe in DID (which, as with repressed memories, has yet to be disproven- although there are cases in which people were diagnosed with MPD or DID and did not or do not have it, there does appear to be validity to the dissociative expereince so I do not believe it is complete "psuedoscience"). I agree with most of what the article says- yes, false memories or pseudo memories do exsist. Unfortunately there is not enough evidence to say that they are the only phenomina, and there is imperical research and case studies pointing towards psychological repression or another phenomina happening to trauma survivors, especially those who have indured long term repeated trauma. At the very least there are anecdotally confirmed cases of "repression" or "delayed recall" or just plain forgetfullness. As our brain sciences advance we will find more conclusive answers, but it is dangerous to look at any issue as one sided, especially when there is, at the VERY least, anecdotal evidence.

reply:

I support the idea that this article is not neutral. I will not participate in this discussion regularly but wanted to offer some citations from psychinfo:

Clinical Characteristics of Adults Reporting Repressed, Recovered, or Continuous Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse. By: McNally, Richard J.; Penman, Carol A.; Ristuccia, Carel S.; Clancy, Susan A.. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, Apr2006, Vol. 74 Issue 2, p237-242, 6p, 2 charts;

"The authors assessed women and men who either reported continuous memories of their childhood sexual abuse (CSA, n = 92), reported recovering memories of CSA (n = 38), reported believing they harbored repressed memories of CSA (n = 42), or reported never having been sexually abused (n = 36). Men and women were indistinguishable on all clinical and psychometric measures. The 3 groups that reported abuse scored similarly on measures of anxiety, depression, dissociation, and absorption. These groups also scored higher than the control group. Inconsistent with betrayal trauma theory, recovered memory participants were not more likely to report abuse by a parent or stepparent than were continuous memory participants. Rates of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder did not differ between the continuous and recovered memory groups."

~

Dissociative symptoms and how they relate to fantasy proneness in women reporting repressed or recovered memories. Geraerts, Elke; Merckelbach, Harald; Jelicic, Marko; Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 40(6), Apr 2006. pp. 1143-1151.

" Women with repressed or recovered memories have raised levels of dissociative symptoms. There are two interpretations of this. One emphasizes the defensive function of dissociation, while the other emphasizes the overlap between dissociation and fantasy proneness. This study aimed to investigate these two interpretations. Women with repressed (n = 16), recovered (n = 23), and continuous memories (n = 55) of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and control participants (n = 20) completed measures of self-reported childhood trauma, depressive symptoms, trait anxiety, dissociation, and fantasy proneness. Women reporting repressed, recovered, and continuous CSA memories did not differ in self-reported childhood trauma, depression, and trait anxiety, but all scored significantly higher on these measures than the control group. However, contrast analyses revealed that women reporting repressed and recovered CSA memories also scored higher on dissociation than did those reporting either continuous CSA memories or no history of abuse. Our results further revealed that women who report CSA memories, whether repressed, recovered or continuous, have raised fantasy proneness levels. Hence, we found no support for the idea that dissociative symptoms can be fully accounted for by fantasy proneness."

~

Remembering the past, anticipating a future. Middleton, Warwick; Cromer, Lisa De Marni; Freyd, Jennifer; Australasian Psychiatry, Vol 13(3), Sep 2005. pp. 223-233.

" Objective: To provide an overview of the phenomena of recovered memories and false memories of past traumas and to provide illustrations with clinical vignettes as well as historical observations. Conclusions: The questions concerning the recovery of memories of trauma do not readily reduce to simple dichotomies. Whatever the terminology applied, be it repression, dissociation or forgetting, humans have a capacity to not consciously know about aspects of their traumas for extended periods of time. The nature of memory is reconstructive. Memory is not a digital recording that provides for a totally accurate replay. Multiple factors including the age at which traumas occurred, the relationships to the person responsible or the nature and extent of the traumas influence what will be accessible to memory. In regard to those patients who describe recovered memories, it is important that clinicians take an individualistic approach and remain open-minded. They should not feel pressure to validate or reject the claim; rather, they should respect and empower patients."

~

Traumatic Memories Recalled Differently by PTSD Sufferers

http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/ptsd11404.pdf

"The study, “The Nature of Traumatic Memories: A 4-T fMRI Functional Connectivity Analysis,” led by Ruth Lanius, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario, Canada and an affiliate of the Robart's Research Institute, found that in people with PTSD, traumatic memories are associated with regions in the brain's right hemisphere, compared to the left in traumatized people without the disorder. The right hemisphere influences nonverbal memory recall, and the left influences a verbal pattern of memory recall. These differences explain why PTSD sufferers experience traumatic memories as flashbacks, and traumatized people without PTSD recall traumatic events as ordinary autobiographical memories. Ordinary autobiographical memories are usually recalled as personal narratives whereas flashbacks, unlike verbal narratives, are experienced as fragments of sensory stimuli, such as visual images, sounds or physical sensations." --Survivor 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

~ References on Freud and Repressed memory

Recovered memory: Historical and theoretical foundations of the debate. Cerri, Mark M.; Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 65(9-B), 2005. pp. 4820.

"False memory syndrome is a current topic of extensive debate, but as yet there has been no systematic study of its historical foundations. Such investigations might shed new light not only on recovered memories and whether or not these memories are true or false, but also on how they are inextricably entwined with other phenomena, such as dissociation, trauma, multiple personality, and childhood sexual abuse. Beginning with a discussion of its historical context, a review of contemporary research on recovered memory, both pro and con, is then presented. However, while the question arises, whether or not the current literature adequately accounts for the phenomenon of recovered memory, the focus of this dissertation is on the nineteenth century foundations of the debate. Freud's recantation of the seduction theory, which postulated that his female patients had been sexually victimized as children but then had repressed their memory of the event, is reviewed and provides one theoretical viewpoint for understanding recovered memory. Pierre Janet and French dissociationism provide a second historical-theoretical line of inquiry. Janet has had a strong influence upon contemporary dissociationists, traumatologists, and researchers in multiple personality, such as Hilgard, Putnam, van der Kolk and van der Hart, and Herman among others. While Freud viewed repression as the primary mechanism by which childhood memories of abuse were forgotten, before Freud, Janet postulated that dissociation, which often caused a split in the personality, was the primary cause of this amnesia. However, in reviewing the history of dissociationism, it is apparent that F. W. H. Myers, a British psychical researcher, offered an alternative theory of dissociation that took issue with Janet's strictly pathological conceptualization of the subconscious. Myers, followed by William James and Theodore Flournoy, postulated that what he called the "subliminal consciousness" might also have superconscious aspects. Hence, the question arises, why is this subliminal point of view, which could be conceptualized as a precursor of transpersonal psychology, absent from the current debate, when it was so obviously influential during the nineteenth century discussions of the same problem? At present, the question remains unanswered. "

Please don't troll this page with massive slabs of text. I've now removed the POV tag, seeing as the article clearly now has sections on support for and against. MaxMangel 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That comment does not deserve a reply. I don't talk to people who can't be civil so please do not send me a message either. --74.130.65.25 18:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)survivor

As long as you stop trolling the page then that's fine. Thank you for that. MaxMangel 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while some content has been added showing that this subject is highly controversial and much disagreement exists with the basic arguments and facts cited, the two "Research and Theory.." sections emphasis a one-sided presentation, and are in part factually untrue. For example, it takes only a little research to come across many studies that refute their assertion that no evidence of recovered memories has been found in empirical and retrospective and peer reviewed studies. I have added one such source and will ask colleagues to contribute too. To present as fact an opinion piece on such a emotionally sensitive subject if to risk not only clouding a difficult issue, but to do actual harm to the most vulnerable victims of the abuses referenced here. I will get back shortly, but I wish to strongly disagree (if as a newcomer I understand the above comment by MaxMangel), with removing a POV tag. This article even with the few edits and additions remains clearly biased on a most controversial and heated subject. Further, the population most dramatically effected by the history of this debate is the least able to protect itself from the effects of denial of their experiences. As rare as it may be, to say as the article implies, that dissociative identity disorder (MPD) doesn't really exist, is to the people experiencing dissociation, like saying to people who have experienced discrimination, that it really isn't so bad since most people were not discriminated against. More later, wdteague

Incidence of sexual abuse

Actually, the incidence of sexual abuse, beatings, bullying and other forms of torture to children is very high among the general population.

This may or may not be an accurate statement — I'm not qualified to judge either way — but, if it is to stay in the article, some attempt needs to be made to provide supporting evidence. Such wild claims do not belong in a serious encyclopedia, and therefore I've removed the sentence until someone can turn it into something a little less incongruous. R Lowry 21:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you need sources, really? Okay, I'll start with RAINN's data on child sexual abuse. http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html RAINN, widely regarded as a leader in sexual assault research and treatment, sites studies stating that sexual abuse and rape are prevalent. There are some freudians who disagree with this, mostly because they have their heads under rocks.

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, but I'd really, really, like to comment on that first sentence of your's. "Do you need sources, really?" What a terrible way to start a comment. The number of things we think we know, but which turn out to have been wrong, is quite large. So, yes, even if we "know" we're right, we need sources, even on things which really are well established.

In 2003-2004, there were an average annual 204,370 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30. Because of the methodology of the National Crime Victimization Survey, these figures do not include victims 12 or younger. While there are no reliable annual surveys of sexual assaults on children, (pdf) the Justice Department has estimated that one of six victims are under age 12.

How about bullying? http://www.atriumsoc.org/pages/bullyingstatistics.html RECENT STATISTICS SHOW THAT:

1 out of 4 kids is Bullied. The American Justice Department says that this month 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth. Surveys Show That 77% of students are bullied mentally, verbally, & physically. In a recent study, 77% of the students said they had been bullied. And 14% of those who were bullied said they experienced severe (bad) reactions to the abuse. 1 out of 5 kids admits to being a bully, or doing some "Bullying." 8% of students miss 1 day of class per month for fear of Bullies. 43% fear harassment in the bathroom at school. 100,000 students carry a gun to school. 28% of youths who carry weapons have witnessed violence at home. A poll of teens ages 12-17 proved that they think violence increased at their schools. 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month. More youth violence occurs on school grounds as opposed to on the way to school. Playground statistics - Every 7 minutes a child is bullied. Adult intervention - 4%. Peer intervention - 11%. No intervention - 85%.

What else do you need? It to happen to you???

Shouldn't there be a disambiguation for political/military repression?

Nobody's disputing the statistics, just saying that meaningful assertions should have statistics there to back the up. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that I love statistics, especially when they're integrated into an article to improve it. I'm less enthusiastic about them being pasted in a slab for the purposes of trolling. You want to include all that in the article, that's fantastic, and I fully support that. But to actually question whether or not it is necessary for an encyclopedia to provide evidence and sources for the information contained in it is quite a concern. Gregory j 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Portrayals in popular entertainment

I've added a stub section on the portrayal of repression in pop culture. Right now there's just one example, Tommy. I also thought of the character Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII, but I can't quite figure out how to work him in. If you can, or if you have other good examples, please add to the section. —RadRafe 20:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture

I'm not a doctor/psychiatrist/psychologist and as such don't really know what I'm talking about but it seems to me that some of the pop culture examples might more accurately be called amnesia. The one where the person was unable to remember a significant portion of their life rather than just specific traumatic memories just seemed incongruous to me. I am hesitant to change it not really knowing anything about it but might in a few days. -orizon 15:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

We should merge this article with False Memory

This is the same topic as False memory. Why two pages? We should merge these two. RK 19:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They're closely related, especially according to certain POVs, but they are not the same topic. A "false memory" is an imagining of an experience that is mistaken for a memory of an actual experience. A "repressed memory" is an actual memory that is, because of trauma, lost to conscious recall and then made available to it again. Now, to say what a thing is is not to say such a thing exists; there are people (like myself) who think that repression is a logical theory which happens to be completely wrong, and that recovered "repressed memories" are actually false memories. However, a) this does not make the two concepts the same thing, and b) it would break NPOV to merge articles on two different things just because one POV considers them the same. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My only criticism of this article is that it's clearly not current. Alas, neither am I. But some notation should be made that studies from various angles have shown that memories, imagination and suggestion can all result in equally real and plausible-seeming records.

To put this in context, nobody had the slightest idea that was true, or that one could so easily create answers by asking questions and this has caused an amazing cascade of new research and investigation.

From what I understand at this point, accepted clinical practice is to now say "I believe that you believe that" and then get onto treating the trauma. Because a suddenly appearing memory of trauma is traumatic, and you don't need to know whether it's real or not to do that, once it's esablished that it's a long ago, far away, not happening now sort of thing.

The only time the question of whether it "really" happened or not arised when there may be danger to someone, in which case "Manditory Reporting" laws kick in.

And again, it's my understanding that, as a direct result of the fiascos of the eighties, interview styles have changed entirely - a fact that's certainly worth noting.

I found this in a quick google that may well merit inclusion - but there's much more here that is worth reading first.

| The Issue of Recovered Memories of Abuse

There is some evidence that suggestibility can be enhanced and pseudomemories can develop in some individuals when hypnotic techniques are used as a memory enhancement or retrieval strategy (Pope & Brown, 1996, p. 59). Hypnosis and guided imagery techniques can be used to ehance relaxation and teach soothing strategies with some clients, however, it is recommended that they not be used in the active exploration of memories of abuse.

Traumatologists should maintain a critical stance in relation to their assumptions, theories, research, and assessment procedures/instruments (Pope & Brown, 1996).

Recognize and minimize as much as possible imbalances in power within the therapeutic dyad. Recognize and respect the adult autonomy of clients. Strengthen the client's critical thinking skills through the use of open-ended questions, and strengthen their abilities to resist suggestion. The risk of creating pseudomemories or of avoiding real traumatic memories will be reduced (Pope & Brown, 1996).

When clients are highly distressed by intrusive flashbacks of delayed memories, assist them in regaining their power to move beyond their confusion, however do not provide premature certainty (Pope & Brown, 1996). Encourage and model a tolerance of distress and ambiguity

Inform clients they are free to make their own decisions regarding their intrusive symptoms, without being pushed in any particular direction. Support them in coping with their anxiety from not having immediate or certain answers.

The thing to note here is that this entire field of Traumatology is quite new, and has arisin in response to the failures of the 80's and 90's, with no doubt added pressure from insurance companies and natural disasters for responses that are immediatly helpful and enabling, rather than disabling. --Firewheel 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created Traumatologist after seeing the reference to Traumatology here. (MaxMangel 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Recovered memory therapy

I have now created an article on Recovered memory therapy. I do not think it should be merged here, but I encourage anyone who's worked on this page to perhaps have a go at my article. Grandmasterka 08:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Theories"

currently this paragraph appears in the article:

"One popular theory on how repression works is that traumatic memories are stored scattered about in the amygdala and hippocampus but not integrated into the neocortex. Also, it could be possible the right brain stores the memory but does not communicate it to the verbal left brain. But evidence suggesting repression can sometimes be a continual active effort by the unconscious which can be dropped at a moments notice should the unconscious decide to. For example, one possibility might be the anterior cingular actively inhibits the memory from reaching consciousness."

The phrasing "it could be possible" and "one possibility might be" gives me the uncomfortable suspicion that we are seeing the original research speculations of Wikipedia editors, rather than scientific theories with any notability to them. Also, the third sentence, even if we make it an actual sentence by converting the "suggesting" to "suggests" -- well, then we have to ask, what evidence is this which suggests this? Whose word are we taking that this evidence exists? Can we get some citations on these claims? -- 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Body Memory

Well, there is no article for Body Memory, so I'll go ahead and make one. Feel free to contribute if you guys know anything about it.

I did a major cleanup and added a reference. Fremte (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Freud?

What about Sigmund Freud? He was the one to originate the concept of repressed memory of traumatic sexual events in early childhood during the 1880s, after all. I think it should be duly noted that Freud abandoned this theory himself even before WWI when he'd found out by his psychoanalytical practice that it is not in fact memories of traumatic events that are repressed but tabooed personal desire that is considered (and thus, by social communication and socilization, made) far more taboo than any other person's acts, one's own acts, and even any sensually received input event at all. His arguments for this change of attitude were

• a.) that he increasingly found evidences in individual cases even logically outruling any potential possibility the 'recovered' events could have occured,

• b.) that to a degree he found himself able to 'direct' his suggestible patients into any recollection of memory he wanted to, even moreso in an entirely boundless manner when he turned to sexual matters, and

• c.) linked aspects that had not been repressed were not perceived by his patients as alarming or frightening on themselves but in fact frequently even were connoted with positive emotions, partly even very intensely so, that the patients themselves could not explain.

Freud deduced from a.) and b.) that the unconscious mind actually knows no distinction between memories and imagination and therefore easily becomes subject to manipulation of memories and imagination, and by combining this analysis with c.), he concluded that it's personal desires and fantasies that are getting repressed as demanded according to social taboo.

Ever since Freud's original publications, we have seen a continous desexualization of psychoanalysis, psychology, and psychotherapy. He was initially rejected from the beginning in Europe for saying that which was considered lecherous and perverse was in fact the repressed norm in humanity. It were Americans that popularized him since the 1920s as from their reductionist socio-hygienical point of view, all they understood from his theories was that accordingly to traditional views and believes, demonized sexuality was closely tied in with behavioural deviance and madness and that Freud seemingly had found a way to 'cure' all this. However during the following decades, psychoanalysis and psychology increasingly proved to be far from 'curing' these sins just as their creator had never projected them to (which becomes obvious when you analyze the etymology behind the two terms, there simply is no 'cure' in there, at best one can hope for personal awareness), especially since the fact of 'perversions' and 'deviancies' being normal was only furthermore denied by artificial classifications of 'mental illnesses'. Thus, interest naturally drifted away from Freud's methods to that of pharmaceutical psychiatry and other physical means of control such as lobotomy, stereotactical anterior hypothalamotomy, electrocution, or just plain old intimidation from the established forces that be and the socio-economical, socio-cultural, and socio-psychological facts they create, aka cognitive behaviour therapy.

However by this factual resexualization as apparent in 1980s sensationalist Repressed Memory Therapy and its disillusioning aftermath, an optimistic mind might hope for that after just now having passed Freud's stages of a.) and b.) mainstream scientific research might get ready to walk that path at last that Freud himself had gone all the way where at its deep end he found the three-fold concept of Id, Super-ego, and Ego, what each of those, especially the Id, are comprised of, and how they interact with each other. I consider it to be beneficial linking Freud's stages of a.) and b.) to contemporary trends in this article. -TlatoSMD 00:08, 10 May 2006 (CEST)

Well, you seem to know a lot about it. Give it a go. MaxMangel 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

c) is very wordy, and I think the meaning of whatever you are trying to say is lost. Please rephrase, perhaps by splitting into more than one sentence. Also, your final summary is a bit POV, so you might want to consider revising it before someone else does. MaxMangel 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

Today's method doesn't seem compatible with psychology, It's almost the science OF subjectivity. Have you ever found yourself crying for someone's death some time AFTER they died? When I read about the controversy...It's not that digital.

Small edits needed

Quickly, while skimming through this article, I noticed two things:

1) There are no sources listed, and none of the end notes actually link to anything.

2) In Section 3, paragraph 3, it is stated that people can force themselves to forget trauma, like in (Elizabeth Loftus's) "Lost in the Mall" experiments. This is factually inaccurate, as Loftus's experiment actually demonstrated that people can "remember" events that never actually happened. (In the experiment, subjects "remembered" details about being lost in a mall when they were children after having been prompted by someone they knew; see Loftus's book, The Myth of Repressed Memory.)

Feminism

The section on Freud says he abandoned his theory of repressed memory not "during his later years in life" and not due to social pressure, as some feminist schools of thought claim today. That seems awkwardly phrased to me. More importantly, we need a reference, and a fairly recent one if we keep the word "today". And while it doesn't seem strictly necessary, I'd also like to see evidence of mainstream feminists accepting any supposed "feminist" beliefs. Dan 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

criticism (-> "false memories") should be mentioned in the introduction

I agree that this article should be neutral. As criticism that "repressed memories" are in fact "false memories" is so central to this topic, neutrality means that the criticism should be mentioned already in the introduction. (Nothing long, obviously, just mentioning it.) Right now, I have to scroll before I even get the link to false memories for the first time. Not good... :-) [And again, this does not mean that the article should favor one view or the other. It's just about a fair representation.] --71.232.94.99 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious implications

I'm sorry but the section entitled "Religious implications regarding the failures of RMT" does NOT belong on this article. It is poorly sourced and almost entirely irrelevant. I could see this being discussed on a Christian forum of some sort but it does not belong in this article. --Ubiq 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Wikipedia and science I am appalled at the obvious slant of this article, which maintains mainstream ideology feeling safe. Despite various substantiated cases of traumatic amnesia, not only in sexual abuse but combat, the Deniers still exists. Just as the holocaust is too ugly for some to believe there are still deniers of this historical event.

   Until the mainstream ideology realizes that children are being 
   abused on a regular basis we will not be able to protect them. 

What has the above comment got to do with the repressed memory definition? Child abuse, in its many forms can cause repressed memories, but it doesn't define it.

    What is it about this topic frightens people that they have to deny it.

Who is frightened? There will be those who say it doesn't happen, those that say it does, those such as yourself who get all emotional about it and try to suggest anyone who still doubts it is a moron who is also helping to NOT protect children, how easy it is to use children in order to try and make people feel guitly for not agreing with what YOU believe to be fact, and those who keep an open mind.

Nigel-UK 23:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are scientific studies and cases if anyone is interested. http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/traumapapers.html http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/#de http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/arch_legal.html

repression/suppression

If someone referrers to suppressed memories, is that different from repressed memories? In the Repressed_memory article there are a few time 'suppressed memories' are mentioned. From what I can tell, there is no psychological definition of suppressed memories. (69.88.112.114 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Supressed memories are those that have been in the conscious memory of a person, then subsequently consigned to unconcious memory through any means available to that person. The purpose of which maybe to avoid dealing with the memories. An example is forced forgetting. Repressed memories appear to bypass the conscious memory and end up in unconcious memory automatically as a defense mechanism. My opinion of course.

Nigel-UK 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Nigel-Uk

Discussion of recent edits

I have made some recent edits to the page to add balance and NPOV to the intro and page in general. Please feel free to add comments about these below. Here are some wikipedia guidelines on balance and NPOV:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

Balance

When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Abuse truth 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. What you are doing is replacing material that contradicts your POV with your own material. Instead of replacing text you should add your material in a different section (eg. evidence for..). Your current approach is against WP policy, you are not letting "competing approaches exist on the same page", but trying to obliterate material that you don't like. If you put your material in a different section, without removing contradictory material, your edits will be much more welcome.MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was adding data to the appropriate section “Research and hypothesis supporting repressed memories” and trimming two references. Their data should either be in the article itself or not included. Abuse truth 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored your deletion of material, and added your material in the proper place, i.e. evidence supporting repressed memory. You are welcome to add more material, provided it is properly sourced and reputable. But please do not violate the following policies:

From WP:GFCA

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.

From WP:NPOV

The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"

From WP:EP

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to: rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; request a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

Thank you MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved some data to the intro, to give it balance. I will follow the above policies. Thank you. Abuse truth 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a much better way to go. Both sides of a controversy must be represented. Just be a little bit careful, the idea of an intro is that it should be a short summary of what follows. Don't overload it with too much detail, that is better kept in the body of the article. It is quite obvious that you have strong feelings on this subject. That is fine as long as you allow other viewpoints to exist and be expressed. If you do that, your contributions will be welcome. Thanks MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the intorduction as it stands is too long, and is confusing. The intro should be clear and concise and summarise what follows. In that spirit I suggest the following changes:

Intro

Repressed memory is one of the most controversial subjects in the history of psychology and psychiatry. A repressed memory, according to some theories of psychology, is a memory (often traumatic) of an event or environment which is stored by the unconscious mind but outside the awareness of the conscious mind. Some theorize that these memories may be recovered (that is, integrated into consciousness) years or decades after the event, often via therapy or in dreams. They may also reoccur in dreams. The theory of repressed memories must not be confused with the established psychological concept of repression in general which stresses impulses instead of memories.

to be moved to evidence for....

The theory of dissociative amnesia makes the assumption that memory repression is possible. Conservative estimates show that at least ten percent of all people sexually abused in childhood will experience periods of total amnesia for the abuse they suffered. This will be followed by delayed recall experiences Peer reviewed and clinical studies continue to document the existence of recovered memory. There are over one hundred corroborated cases of recovered memory in legal, clinical and scientific case studies. There are more than 100 descriptions and reports in the literature of recovered memory. These include occurences during bereavement, natural disasters, concentration camp imprisonment, torture and war. There are also many corroborated cases of recovered memory that are documented of sexual abuse.

to be moved to the controversy....

The repressed memory concept was popularized during the 1980s and partly the 1990s by the popular press, some feminist groups, and some psychological schools of thought; however it is suffering a retreat in popularity with professionals and the public during recent years after a series of scandals, lawsuits, and license revocations concerning it. The concept was originated by Sigmund Freud in his 1896 essay Zur Ätiologie der Hysterie ("On the etiology of hysteria"), however Freud himself abandoned his theory between 1897-1905, and during 1920-1923 replaced it with his impulse-based concept of Id, Super-ego, and Ego. Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to suggest an active, conscious thought management method in the second essay of his On the Genealogy of Morals as a necessary fundament of efficiency, responsibility, and maturity.

Any objections or suggestions? MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this change. Abuse truth 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I suggest interested parties review their own sections to ensure readability. All I've done is cut and paste. MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of three sentences from the RMT section

I have removed three sentences from the RMT section, because they were unsourced and appear to be original research. They are:

Thousands of patients’ families were torn asunder by allegations of abuse produced in therapy. The recovered memory movement was ultimately decimated by a wave of successful malpractice lawsuits....

Following a series of high profile litigation losses, many of the professional leaders of the RMT movement suffered licensing prosecutions, license revocations, disciplinary actions and even criminal prosecutions.

Please feel free to put them back into the article with proper sourcing and research data.Abuse truth 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Research and hypothesis supporting repressed memories - verification tags

Recently, verification tags were put in this section. I believe they should be removed, because the data in the section is accurate. I have removed them myself at this point. They were added because the other author's POV, not due to a problem with the sources. Abuse truth 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the tags, as AT seems unable to understand the subject. See, for example, the history of False memory#Quotes supporting the prevalence and accuracy of recovered memories, as AT was unable to provide accurate summaries. Diffs can be provided on request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I recounted, and restoring the tags would be a WP:3RR violation. You've already violated it, but I can find no evidence you've ever been warned, so you're home free. This time. I must ask you to restore the tags, and to remove the additional section you've added to every Wikipedia article relating to child sexual abuse (which this one, actually, isn't related to). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, please provide exact quotes from those references, so we can all see whether you're interpreting them correctly. If not, I'll correct the article again 25 hours after the last relevent revert (which is about 15 hours from now). I miscounted, and your edits are not vandalism, merely probably misguided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, the last reference in the False memory section I mention above says "100 years" and you reinserted "100s of incidents" a number of times before it was converted to a quote. That's not the same. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have provided accurate summaries all along. One can check the relevant talk pages to see I am correct. I can provide details upon request. I have only added the false allegations section to a few articles where it belongs. It talks about false allegations of child abuse, which relates to the topic in this article. No one else is asked to provide exact quotes, because their POV agrees with AR's. As I have stated before : You have falsely alleged I have misinterpreted articles and statements, with no evidence of this. You have made ad hominem attacks against me on talk pages. You have accused me of lying on talk pages. All because of your POV against the data I present. None of the other data on these pages has been put up to the rigorous test and mistatements that my data has received.Abuse truth 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In false memory you have failed miserably in providing accurate summaries of the references on the web; it's possible that you've accurately summarized the underlying paper document, but that's not what you claimed. Perhaps the other data should be subject to intense analysis and search for misstatements that I've done on your "quotes". Add the appropriate detailed tags, such as {{or}} or {{dubious}}, and I'll check those out, also. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If one goes to [1] they will see AR’s ad hominem attack against me and AR’s accusation that I was “lying”(which he later admits was too strong),

If one goes to [2]

one will see my correct interpretation of the articles, including my quotes. One can also see another ad hominem attack by AR against me. And one can see by looking at the article that [3] I allowed for a compromise solution, which was my acceptance of one of AR’s edits, namely changing the section to quotes, because the content was very similar to the original section I had written. This proves that I accurately summarized the data in the articles. And as I have stated before, I believe that this debate is occurring due to AR’s disagreement with the POV I present. There appears to be two standards for research data by some editors. All research data should be held to the same standard. Abuse truth 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Organization of research section

I see that there is disagreement over the verification tags, but I think that a bigger issue is the organization of this entire section. It consists of a series of points - and often one sentence paragraphs. The sentence in question actually is confusing and seems to be arguing against the idea that memories can be implanted during therapy, but this idea has not actually been raised at this point, so rather than being debated may need to go altogether. Are there better ways to organize this material? How about 1. research in support, 2. theories about how this could happen and research in support of that, and then get into the criticism section.--Vannin 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this idea further. Thanks. Abuse truth 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

well, the whole section seems to be trying to do too many things. Only the first paragraph really provides research in support of repressed memories. The rest of the section consists of a) theories about how repressed memory works, and b) a series of statements that seem to be a rebuttal of criticisms of repressed memory. Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense at this point in the article, as the criticisms have yet to be made, because these are in the following section. I think both the theories part and the rebuttal should come out, and if necessary you could add the rebuttal section following the critique part. I don't find the sentence that is the subject of the current debate to be particularly informative, and I think it should probably come out all together, or be fitted into a brand new rebuttal to criticism part---- Vannin (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am open to this idea as long as all the data is retained in the article. Please explain in greater detail, using the section parts if possible, how you think this could work. -- Abuse truth (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go then at moving things to better fit, but now some of what is there does not fit as well. This part - "Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory. Three relevant studies state that repressed memories are "no more and no less accurate than continuous memories." Therapists and courts should consider these repressed memories the same as they consider regular memories. [14][verification needed]" does not seem to be related directly to research and seems to be opinion, and therefore does not fit a section on research. If you feel it has to stay in, I would suggest putting it somewhere else--Vannin (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) -no information removed --Vannin (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I added a clause to the section you mention stating it is from a specific author. IMO, it does belong in that section, because it is his analysis of the research. Abuse truth (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

new section on false allegations

Although I understand what you are trying to achieve here - to explain why there may be denials of repressed memories, I think that this section really should be moved to an article on child sexual abuse, as it it one step removed from the actual topic of repressed memories, and it is beginning to make this into a defence of repressed memories rather than an encylopaedic description of the topic. It really should be moved--Vannin (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

removal of two tags rational

I am removing the tag "not in citation given" for footnote 10. The information below proves that the text in the article contains the text in the article.

text in wikpedia article now: A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on dissociative amnesia has been conducted by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond in their book, "Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law" (New York: Norton, 1998). Brown, Scheflin and Hammond reviewed 43 studies relevant to the subject of traumatic memory and found that every study that examined the question of dissociative amnesia in traumatized populations demonstrated that a substantial minority partially or completely forgot the traumatic event experienced, and later recovered memories of the event. Dissociative amnesia can occur after any type of traumatic event. [10] not in citation given

from http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/prev.html actual text: Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events

The most comprehensive review of the scientific literature on dissociative amnesia has been conducted by Brown, Scheflin and Hammond in their book, Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law . (New York: Norton, 1998). This book is viewed as setting the standard in the field after receiving the American Psychiatric Association's 1999 prestigious Manfred S. Guttmacher Award for best book in law and forensic psychiatry.

Brown, Scheflin and Hammond reviewed 43 studies relevant to the subject of traumatic memory and found that every study that examined the question of dissociative amnesia in traumatized populations demonstrated that a substantial minority partially or completely forget the traumatic event experienced, and later recover memories of the event.

Dissociative amnesia can occur after any type of traumatic event.

--

In regard to footnote #24, the quotes directly from the book below should verify the data in the r.m. article which reads : Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts. The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven. 24 - verification needed

Quotes from : Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law - Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D. Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5

"Occasional unwitting misleading suggestions (Yapko, 1994a), even the suggestion of a diagnosis of abuse, cannot adequately explain illusory memories of child sexual abuse." (p. 379) Occasional suggestions about abuse are not generally effective, except in highly suggestible people.

"The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis.Abuse truth (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The first section appears to be adequately sourced, although clearly biased. The second is not, as some of the phrasings are quotes, and some are not. And "not been proven" is considerably different than "untested". Although I disagree with your POV, I'll try to rephrase the claims in way supported by the sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

removing forcing to forget

I think this rephrasing is much clearer about who is saying what. The next part I'm wondering about is the statement that starts "Some people believe that people just force themselves to forget" . Do we now who the some people are and what their theory is? It does not seem to be in the reference at the end of that section as this leads to a web with what appears to be some slides for a talk --Vannin (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than a talk, it looks as if the reference is to a course outline, but in fact the prof seems to be saying just the opposite - that the idea that conscious repression is later recalled is not supported by research, so it looks as if these sentences should be taken out. --Vannin (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I double checked the lecture notes and they do seem to be stating the opposite. Given that the statement "some people" is pretty vague, I have gone ahead and removed that piece. If there is a better reference, or reason for keeping it in, please let me know.--Vannin (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Brown et al reference

I gather from the history that the Brown Scheflin and Hammond piece has been the subject of some disagreement, and I hesitate to jump in but I would suggest that the sentence "The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts" is redundant with, and vague relative to the next one "The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been tested" . The whole passage would read better without that sentence, and I do not believe that any information would be lost by removing it. --Vannin (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me, provided there is consensus. Abuse truth (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Both statements are POV-pushing and false. Elizabeth Loftus has shown that false memories are extremely easy to generate whenever memories are discussed. The idea that they would not be equally (or even more so) in therapy is a baseless rationalization come up by people with a particular axe to grind and clutching at straws in the process. If anything like this statement is going to be in the article, it needs to respect both sides' views and just basic reality in general. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually both statements are true and are backed up by research. Neither Loftus, nor anyone else has proven that false memories can be generated in therapy. And her work is controversial and has been criticized by several sources. Both sides of the debate need to be in the article, not just one, and unilaterally deleting portions of the article without bringing them to the talk page is inappropriate. Abuse truth (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both statements are clearly false. However, they are backed up by (at least marginally) credible research, so some reference to that research should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

They should be mentioned, but they should be mentioned only as the OPINION of a particular source with a particular point of view, not as if they were factual. And when these things are claimed they must also be accompanied immediaely in the same section (not back and forth sections) with what other reliable sources have to say. It's a fundamental aspect of WP:NPOV policy to cover the overall topic nuetrally and make sure that mere opinions are portrayed as opinions. DreamGuy 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Abuse truth misquote

This edit by Abuse truth shows he was misquoting the source before. Thanks for fixing it, even though the reliablity of the source is still in question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a lengthy quote fits in there at all. It doesn't read well. Given that there there is an entry on recovered memory therapy, that section really should just be a summary, and a lengthy quote that has little in the way of new information does not fit. I suggest that the whole quote be removed. --Vannin (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at AR's assertion that I misquoted the source.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Repressed_memory&diff=174065204&oldid=174051457

I changed :

There are more than 100 descriptions and reports in the literature of recovered memory. These include occurences during bereavement, natural disasters, concentration camp imprisonment, torture and war. There are also many corroborated cases of recovered memory that are documented of sexual abuse. False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct by Juliette Cutler Page

to

Juliette Cutler Page in her article False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct writes:

"Many therapists have become wary of treating clients who appear to have recovered memories of abuse after a long period of forgetting. Among the reasons for this concern are extremely vocal organizations that have come forward in support of accused abusers, claiming that there is no such thing as "recovered memory", and often stating that not only are therapists who treat such clients negligent, but that therapists are in fact themselves creating these memories in their clients....However, there are over 100 years of reports and descriptions of recovered memory in the literature, including instances from times of war, torture, bereavement, natural disasters, and concentration camp imprisonment...Many corroborated cases have been documented in instances of recovered memory of sexual abuse, as well."

False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct by Juliette Cutler Page

I added part of the article in the first part of the quote to make it fit the section. Nope, no misquote. The data is identical. The quote was added to the section to make the section more balanced. As it reads it only presents one side of the story. I have no problem with the quote being changed into a couple of sentences. Abuse truth (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How did "100 years" from the quote become "100 descriptions" from the "paraphrase". No match. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think that a big long quote is appropriate there anyway. This is a summary section, not a place for a lengthy discussion of therapy. --Vannin (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A summary of the Page article should be in the Research supporting section, not in the RMT section. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we just use the piece from the RMT page instead? It doesn't give a whole long quote, but just gives a nice summary - "In the late 1990s, one feminist writer criticised the activities of organisations such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, suggesting it had led to many therapists becoming "...wary of treating clients who appear to have recovered memories of abuse after a long period of forgetting..."[16]. But it should be noted that by late 2007, in a paper by Dr. Brent Waters, he states that most peak psychological and psychiatric professional bodies in the English-speaking world had issued guidelines to their members outlining the lack of scientific evidence for the concept of repressed memory. He also states that such guidelines were usually coupled with a caution against the use of "forceful, leading or otherwise persuasive interviewing techniques intended to reveal evidence of past sexual abuse"[17]"--Vannin (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am open to the above compromise. Abuse truth (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK to me; at least these relate to RMT rather than RM in general. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put the piece back in, given that there is some consensus on its value. --Vannin 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Research supporting

Reading through the research section, the quote from the leadership council really is repeating the previous paragraph stating that people can later recall something that they did not remember earlier. How about adding this reference to support the earlier paragraph and removing the lengthy quote?--Vannin (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe the quote should stay where it is. But, perhaps we can work out a compromise on this. Abuse truth (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well let me have a go at incorporating it into the various sections. It adds to the statement about the documentation of the existence of repressed memories, and maybe part of it can be placed under mechanisms as well--Vannin (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can't quote the leadership council as if it confirms that mere claims of fact are outright fact when they are a highly POV group actively promoting one side. NPOV is not saying "this is how something is" and adding a footnote to a partisan group, it's saying "so and so argues that" and linking to a reliable source.

Also, why on earth were we linking to leadership council for what some other book says? Or for basic definitions? That's like quoting what the Right to Life national committee has to say about what some court case concludes as if it were neutral.

And there shouldn't even BE a "research supporting" section, as WP:NPOV policy explicitly forbids letting partisans take over sections to argue against other sections. DreamGuy 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Research and theories critical of the theory of repressed memories" section. So unless both sections are combined fairly somehow, they both need to exist to create a balanced article. I have also noticed there have been no objections to the "Recovered memory therapy" section in this article. Yet it discusses a side topic. We should be fairly looking at all sections of the articles, not just the ones that support the existence and veracity of RM.Abuse truth 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right that the theories need to be combined in the same section, although we need to avoid WP:SYN in actually noting that the theories are completely incompatible. However, RMT is a relevant side issue (given that recovered memory redirects here), and should be summarized. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal merger request

See Talk:False memory#Informal merger request. I'm not using the merge templates, because this would be particularly controversial, and I'd like to get a partial consensus before making a formal proposal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of this proposal as well as the process being used to explore this process. Though the topics are related, I believe that there might be reasons why this proposal might not be a good idea at this time. First, both of these issues are contentious ones, on these pages, in the research and in the media. Trying to come to some consensus as to how to merge these pages might be very difficult. Second, these topics both have large volumes of data in the media and in journals. To combine these topics into one single topic might not do the topics justice and might not be an accurate portrayal of the research. But I am open to ideas on how to address these issues. Abuse truth 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the content of these two articles duplicates each other -- especially with edits added by Abuse truth. A merger would be a good idea at least in the sense that we don't have to repeat the same thing in multiple places and argue over it across lots of talk pages. The two topics overlap, and it'd be easier to follow NPOV policy if it was all handled all at once, fairly, instead of having separate battelfields. DreamGuy 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits have been an attempt to balance the articles. IMO, others edits have been an attempt to promote a certain POV only. As stated above, I am open to the idea of a merger, provided that other editors have ideas on how no research will be lost and it is done fairly. Abuse truth 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to Recovered Memory Therapy

I am very disappointed that DreamGuy has removed the piece with Dr. Waters statements. I thought we had some consensus that this piece was deemed appropriate by both AT and AR. Rather than reverting the whole thing because he does not like one reference, perhaps he could suggest an alternative? It might be more productive. May I suggest that we all stop reverting, and start talking in an effort to reach some compromises? To begin with, I am not going to revert DreamGuy right away, but suggest that we discuss this edit - again--Vannin 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion

The decline of RMT has not been universally viewed in a positive light. Kenneth Pope, in an award address for the American Psychological Association's Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service, reprinted in American Psychologist, 1996, vol. 51, no. 9, pages 957-974 Memory, Abuse, & Science: Questioning Claims about the False Memory Syndrome Epidemic, argues that the false memory movement may have affected treatment and diagnosis and access to services for some clients. But it should be noted that by late 2007, Dr. Brent Waters states that most peak psychological and psychiatric professional bodies in the English-speaking world had issued guidelines to their members outlining the lack of scientific evidence for the concept of repressed memory. He also states that such guidelines were usually coupled with a caution against the use of "forceful, leading or otherwise persuasive interviewing techniques intended to reveal evidence of past sexual abuse"[21].--Vannin 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am comfortable with this compromise, provided that the Page article url is left in as a reference.Abuse truth 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can leave the Page article URL in unless we use it, and it doesn't (at first glance) seem to be anything but Page's opinion, so we'd need to claim that Page is an expert in the field. I don't know if that's the case. Otherwise, I have no objection to the Vannin's suggestion as modified by AT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on this and agree that the Page article url be an EL instead. My question is where did the information for Kenneth Pope come from. Abuse truth 22:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a "Kenneth Pope". Are you referring to Harrison Pope? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

no Ken Pope [[4]]. He puts a whole bunch of stuff on his website, keeps it all disability accessible, and has an e-mail listing where he summarizes things in the research and news in psychology. He is tremendously generous with all this (and the only "advertising" is his discussions about the cats he has rescued!)--Vannin 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your research on finding an alternative source. I agree with the above version, provided the Page article is listed as an EL.Abuse truth 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

leadership council as a reliable source

Recently on the page tags were placed on three sources from the Leadership council at http://www.leadershipcouncil.org .

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable." "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."

The Leadership Council fits this guideline. At http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/about.html "What Is The Leadership Council? The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence (formerly the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media) was founded in 1998 by professionals concerned with the treatment of victims of trauma, both in professional circles and by the legal system. We are a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts. Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing the public with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society's commitment to protect its most vulnerable members."

This page's executive officers, directors and advisory board lists numerous scientists in the field. I will be deleting the tags for now, since it appears that the three sources fit the guidelines for RS.Abuse truth 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. That suggests reliablility, although still indicates a clear bias in favor of the accusers, rather than the accused, regardless of accuracy. Their name must remain in the site, rather than being an unadorned title, until a full citation template can be added. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this compromise. Thank you for your work on this.Abuse truth (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadership council is a reliable source ONLY for sections listing what their opinions are (which must by WP:NPOV policy be accompanied by what the other reliable sources disagreeing with them say) and NOT for claims of fact. Most of the content Abuse truth is trying to source to this group is simply not following these rules of sourcing. Presenting claims from a very biased source as if they were a neutral commentator or presenting uncontroversial information is simply unacceptable. This has also been discussed on the talk pages of some three or four other articles Abuse truth is trying to put the exact same text on, which is a major violation of the prohibition on content forks. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem stating in the article that they are part of the source of the data in this part. However the data they state in the article is also backed up by another source. You also state that I am in violation of the prohibition on content forks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Content_fork

"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." I have not created separate articles.

It appears that you have misinterpreted what content forks are:

"What content/POV forking is not - There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter....Related articles - Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." Abuse truth (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopper quote

I'm having trouble tracking down the quote from the hopper site "conservative estimates show..." Hopper's website is a gathering of other research, so I'm wondering where the quote actually comes from as it does not seem to be on the site itself. I would think it would be very difficult to prove that amnesia had actually occurred, to demonstrate that people had no access to that memory, so I wonder about the wording of that quote and who said it. Does anyone know exactly where it came from?--Vannin (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the quote from the web page:

"At least 10% of people sexually abused in childhood will have periods of complete amnesia for their abuse, followed by experiences of delayed recall. (Conservative estimate based on published research. See below.)" Thanks for your research on this. Abuse truth (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it is misquoted. But it is a secondary source derived from other original, published research, so I suggest that rather than correct it and put it back in, it would be better to get a hold of some of the original stuff and give some brief summary. This would be more interesting, for a start, and would also allow people to evaluate for themselves what the statement is based upon. The Widom & Morris or the Williams studies would be particularly interesting because they are prospective rather than retrospective. If we can redo these sections altogether, then perhaps we can move away from the reverts. Anyone have access to any of these journals?--Vannin (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So far I've found the Williams study [[5]] and suggest the following:

"Linda Williams conducted a study to determine whether women who had been sexually assaulted as children could all remember the abuse. The women had been taken to hospital as children as reported victims of sexual abuse. Between 15 and 18 years later, the women were interviewed and 38% did not report that particular incident. Williams noted that many of these women did disclose other very personal events and other incidents of sexual assaults". Now, the study can be critiqued for a lot of reasons, but I suggest that we neither over-interpret her results nor get into slamming the study, but keep it simple and stick to reporting her findings not her conclusions.--Vannin (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your research on this. I agree to the above. Abuse truth (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done, so now we've got the original source data we can leave out the secondary Hopper quote--Vannin (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadership Council

With the leadership council piece, why don't we take it and move it to the theories section and take the core from it - like this - "The avoidance of conscious acknowledgement of traumatic experiences has variously been labelled dissociative amnesia, repression, dissociative state, traumatic amnesia, psychogenic shock, and motivated forgetting ."--Vannin (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. But I think that this will take too much meaning out of the quote. As a compromise I have shortened it some though. I will move it to the “Hypotheses regarding repressed memory” section. I am also putting the Hopper EL back in, since in the last compromise we deleted this reference for another reference. Hopefully other editors will work with us in the spirit of this compromise, so we can continue to improve the page.Abuse truth (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hopper reference is no longer necessary as an original source has been added. Hopper is just a collection site. Similarly, the leadership council piece does not really say very much - what research? how does the research measure the "push out of awareness". It does not really add content or meaning to the article, other than providing the list of different names for the repression/forgetting process --Vannin (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hopper reference contains a variety of scientific abstracts and links to several scientifc articles on the topic. It appears to be as strong or stronger scientifically speaking than several of the links from FMSF and religious tolerance. The Leadership Council statement provides a theoretical basis for why the theory of RM occurs. I am open to editing the paragraph down a bit further, but would like to keep the gist of it to help readers understand the rational for the theory.Abuse truth (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Leadership Council fails WP:EL as a clearly biased source. Pages may be used only when it's clear they are reference pages, rather than statements of opinion. I'm not sure about Hopper, but I think it might survive WP:EL as a pointer to a list of references. I'm not at all sure about the books, but I think they fail under WP:UNDUE, as there are credible sources which deny the existence of repressed memories, and we need to list those, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By that criteria, these four cites IMO also fail WP:EL as clearly biased sources.

Summary of recovered memory debate by ReligiousTolerance.org

UK false memory website

USA false memory association

Recovered Memory article by the Skeptic's Dictionary

So either we need to also delete these or keep all of them to avoid bias.Abuse truth (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am very serious. We need to apply the same criteria to all ELs and sources.Abuse truth (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody

Well, it looks like this article is wildly inaccurate, biased, full of crap, etc. as well as all of the the other articles on child abuse-related issues I've ran across in the past month. This is going to need a lot or work. Daniel Santos (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the page. We have been working hard on this page to bring in more reliable sources. Any additional additions along these lines are welcome.Abuse truth (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That last is an abuse of truth. You have been working hard to bring in unreliable sources.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources I have brought in fulfill RS requirements, though they may disagree with your POV.

Please refer to the section below as a guide for talk page interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another....

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

Rudeness

Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")

Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (cite as WP:SKILL)

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)

Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."

Lies

Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.....This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community. Abuse truth (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Calling someone a liar" is exactly what you did during the first phase of my adding {{verify source}} and {{verify credibility}} tags. I accepted it as hyperbole. However, your "quotes" are still frequently incompatable with the quoted text, and you introduce sources which undoubtably would lie if it served the purpose of their organization. Continually quoting "over 100 years of evidence of" as "over 100 instances of", and the reverse, after the errors are pointed out, is not something I can conceive of occurring accidentally. Given that, any source for which you provide the online content becomes very questionable. If DS, or some other credible editor, even if he has a POV significantly diffrent than mine, will confirm the quotes, I'll accept the removal of the verification tags. Otherwise, not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, did you read the response to my previous [complaint I filed against you] from December 17th? They had some criticism for me as well, but I hope that you also read the response. If you continue with these kinds of attacks I am going to file an RFCU on your behavior. This type of mud slinging is absolutely not helping Wikipedia and I urge you to stop it. I also urge both of you to consider taking a break from this edit warring. If this back and forth keeps up on Satanic ritual abuse, I may ask for the page to be locked again myself. Daniel Santos (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm also new to this page and concur with Daniel Santos that a lot of work will be needed to attain solid WP:NPOV and accurate WP:Verifiability on this group of pages. Considering the heated tone of the conversation here, it seems it will be a good thing to have more editors involved who are not part of the prior dynamic. I sincerely request that we all focus on the content of the articles and not the editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with users Jack-A-Roe and Daniel Santos above. We need to focus on the content of the article. However, I never called anyone a liar. This is a total mistatement. The one error AR mentioned above is the only one he has ever found amongst my hundreds of edits. Yet, he self admittedly follows me from page to page and tags many of the edits I make.Abuse truth (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a number of other errors which you've committed; I've reported two others on the respective talk pages, and you've denied there was an error without explaining why my explanation of the error was incorrect. Nonetheless, we need to go forward with reliable sources, whereever they come from. It's clear that AT is not a reliable source on his own, so we need true cites for his scans. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AR has not proven what he states above. I denied it because it wasn't true. I believe that due to your POV, you are unable to clearly decide the accuracy of my edits. The cites are obviously pictures of what they are and anyone that looks at these will know this. And I have explained why your criticisms were incorrect. I stated that the data I presented in the articles was a clear paraphrase of the sections from the article and I showed both, one next to the other. However, AR has continued to assert what he does above. AR follows me from page to page and often reverts or tags my edits. It would be better if AR focused on actual research, instead of detrimentally editing.Abuse truth (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We're obviously in different realities. I'm willing to leave it to consenus as to which of our versions is closer to the truth. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be true. IMO, any major deletions should first be discussed and agreed to in a compromise form on the talk page.Abuse truth (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major additions require discussion, or at the very least, credible sources. Major deletions which are at least arguably against consensus do not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that major additions require discussion and credible sources. Major deletions

require consensus, which means all agree. This would entail a discussion on the talk page.Abuse truth (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have started a new section for the History and moved some of Freud's stuff from the Debate to there. The Debate section still needs a lot of help, both from a standpoint of flowing well & making sense to the facts. There is a lot of misinformation, most of which is not sourced or is an incorrect synthesis. Daniel Santos (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit much improves the article, although I believe at least one of your sources in the lead for "amnesia" only covered "failure to spontaneously recall", rather than true inaccessability of the memory. It also appears to me that the lead is contradicted by sourced information in the "Debate" section, but I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are right. A lot of the data in the Debate section is out of date and some is unsourced or improperly sourced, so the lead doesn't properly reflect it. Let's examine "amnesia" vs "failure to spontaneously recall" more closely, I want to make sure that what we have is accurate and supported by the sources. Also, I think the "Christian inner healing" section should be removed entirely. I got 57 googles on the phrase "Christian inner healing" and I'm just not feeling the relevance of notability. Thanks for looking at it. Daniel Santos (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur and have removed that section. It was referenced only to a personal webpage and was off-topic and not notable. I also removed the rest of the Freud section because it read like an essay, had no references, and went off-topic. If anyone feels that section or some of the info from it is needed, please provide references to go with it. (For convenience, here is the link to the content that was there: [6]) in case anyone wants to retrieve it.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

←The way the article comes across, much of it appears to be about the controversies related to the the Recovered Memory Therapy issues rather than the science of "Repressed memory". But that's a separate topic with a separate page. Much of the content of the legal issues on this page would be better addressed on the other page.

In addition, the overall structure of the article is a bunch of POV forks. The topic should be addressed in an integrated manner, with an overview, a history section, and a section for contemporary research, with all the POVs intertwined in the text in a balanced NPOV fashion. If there is a section called "Debate", that should not be a place for the topic to be debated by Wikipedia, but rather, descriptions of debates that have happened or are happening, as they have been reported in the news or journals, that we can cite.

The controversy about Recovered Memory Therapy should be mentioned only in passing, and the discussion of the legal issues and controversies related to that form of therapy should be moved there. There would still be legal issues discussed here, but not regarding malpractice, just focused on cases that have involved delayed memories (and there have been some, even that do not involve "Recovered Memory Therapy").

Most of the research regarding repressed memories does not involve that form of unproven therapy. "Delayed memories" of trauma can be recovered spontaneously and not as a result of manipulative therapy methods. Most mainstream methods of therapy for addressing symptoms of PTSD do not focus on recovering memories, they emphasize the creation of a safe therapeutic environment and relationship, to allow the patient to make progress in the direction they choose themselves. A skilled psychologist or psychiatrist does not manipulate memories to appear; then, if delayed memories arise, the question is less controversial because the recovery of the memories were not directed or "invoked" or even suggested by the therapist; there is no preconceived idea that the person's symptoms were caused by a repressed memory. (Unlike in methods of Recovered Memory Therapy).

It seems to me if we separate the two concepts and keep Recovered Memory Therapy in its own article, then this article can explore the historical and current scientific views of the topic, and leave the controversies about those groups of techniques that were used in the 1980s and 90s to be addressed in the other article. There would still be controversy in this article anyway, and some mention of court cases that have involved repressed memories, but there would be less distraction by the political/economic issues of that particular form of therapy that is not at the center of this topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I'm reviewing some of the sources used in this article as well as recovered memory therapy and I want to post here so we can have a forum for discussing these changes in case anybody disagrees with my assessments and as a means to share ideas for sources and hopefully reduce independent research time. These topics are so closely related, that I think it'll be easier to just do it once, here. Daniel Santos (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Removing: Skeptic's Dictionary: repressed memory therapy (trauma-search therapy) by Robert Todd Carroll because it is not a reliable source. The book is not a peer-reviewed medical or psychiatric publication and the author is not a medical or mental health professional. I am removing it from all related articles.
• Possible source: "Consider This, Skeptics of Recovered Memory"
• Further reading: Is Traumatic Memory Special? This isn't suitable as a primary source, but it has some interesting examinations and a lot of relevant references (I don't particularly agree with their conclusions either). If you want to use some data from here, please use the sources they reference and not this article its self.
• Possibly related: Commentary: How, when, and whether to use informed consent for recovered memory therapy. no abstract available, and written by a known FMSF supporter Luftus (whom I'm not a fan of :)

Daniel Santos (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Further reading: Battle Tactics of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation by Noel Packard. Also not suitable as a primary source. --Daniel Santos (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Further reading: A REPLY TO THE FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME FOUNDATION Also not a primary source, good info and references on the Paul Ingram (SRA/SA) case. Daniel Santos (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Removing: Skeptic's Dictionary: repressed memory therapy (trauma-search therapy) by Robert Todd Carroll because it is not a reliable source. The book is not a peer-reviewed medical or psychiatric publication and the author is not a medical or mental health professional. I am removing it from all related articles."

I think this article "Possible source: "Consider This, Skeptics of Recovered Memory" should be used as a reference.Abuse truth (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally concur with DS, except that Battle Tactics can be used, at most, in an article on the FMSF, with careful consideration of WP:BLP, and as the FMSF board presumably has living members. I'm not sure about A REPLY...; it may require the same consideration, or might possibly be suitable for SRA or an article on the Ingram case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I haven't dug into the Battle Tactics article very far yet, I was mostly hoping to mine sources for the statements and such I was looking for. If it's used in an article, I would encourage taking into account the FMSF's response in their newsletter (can probably google it, I ran across it a few days back). I hope everybody had a wonderful holiday! Daniel Santos (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote some sections

I've re-written mostly the 'overview' section - retitled to 'research' as the lead is supposed to overview. Citation templates and ref name tags were added, and I removed all mention of "X article, Y person and Z organization said..." - this information is in the citations, and unless the person is quite notable (having their own page is the usual rule of thumb), it's pretty much irrelevant. (think of why it is important that it be known who said what - what information does it add to the page?) The section is now shorter, and I've placed more emphasis on the opposition to RM in mainstream science as well as the differences between psychogenic amnesia (a recognized diagnosis) and repressed memory (scientifically, politically, socially, legally and culturally suspect).

I've also dug out the first couple sentences of legal issues - the DSM talks about psychogenic amnesia, not repressed memory. They are different - you wouldn't be able to put a disease infobox at the top of this article. Also, who is paige nichols and why do we care about her opinion? Who is Phil Bourgelais and why do we care? Is the "Institute for Psychological Therapies magazine" a reliable source or a non-peer reviewed, self-published magazine, and should it be in the page? The first two I have deleted, the third I have commented out pending discussion. The final section on the specific court case I have reduced to a single line as the rest was a long quote; is this ruling still current? Has it been overturned? WLU (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The RMT section also shortened, it's got a main and should therefore be only a tiny summary. WLU (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WLU, thanks for your work on this. I vote that the IPT source be deleted. It is not a reliable source, nor is it peer reviewed. At times it makes claims without sources.

In regard to my recent edits, my reasoning is below.

I have changed this phrase :

Repressed memory syndrome, the clinical entity used to describe repressed memories, is often compared to psychogenic amnesia, though the latter is a medically recognized diagnosis while the former is not

to :

Repressed memory syndrome, the clinical entity used to describe repressed memories, is often compared to psychogenic amnesia, and some sources compare the two as equivalent.

Neither source back the first statement, while both sources back the second (see below).

Although most children remember their abuse all too well, in some severe cases a child may develop "dissociative amnesia," or memory loss for important aspects of the trauma.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/pr.html

In fact, by definition, every memory is recovered.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html

grammar edit (adding the word 'believe'):

The theory of repressed memories is supported by many clinical psychologists, while many research psychologists believe that there is little support for such a theory.

adding these phrases with sources to reply to a comment about retractors:

The number of reported retractions is small when compared to the large number of actual child sexual abuse cases. Some have suggested that a child may retract their story of abuse due to guilt, a feeling of obligation to protect their family or may be reacting to the familial stress brought on by their allegations.

I have added three additional references after "corroborated."

added the Cheit case in the legal section

Jennifer Freyd writes that Ross Cheit’s case of suddenly remembered sexual abuse is one of the most well-documented cases available for the public to see. Cheit prevailed in two lawsuits, located five additional victims and tape-recorded a confession.

added this phrase after the betrayal trauma part:

The Betrayal Trauma Theory states that psychogenic amnesia is an adaptive response to childhood abuse.

changed the McNally phrase to "One author states" since he is the only one stating this

added this at the end of the research section: "Researchers have stated that repression can operate on a social level as well."

and I deleted this EL:

Recovered Memory article by the Skeptic's Dictionary

It is not peer reviewed, appears to be self-published, and IMO is not a good choice for an EL.

Abuse truth (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I had reverted the change to the first sentence in research, but a closer reading of the sources demonstrated you were correct so I've reverted back. Here, the statement is kinda silly - society does not forget because society does not have an organic memory, only people do. Plus, it's sourced to an editorial in a questionable journal. Freyd is making an analogy to prove a point about how it is good that the journal is being kept in an electronic version, not a research or historical study.

The lay summary of Bowman 1996 should be linked as part of the Bowman citation - it's interpreting the article, not adding anything new (or if it is, it should not be a source). I've re-linked the citations and fixed the ref name tag to allow for the second citation in the article.

Here I've removed mention of Betrayal Trauma Theory - it's not the Theory of Evolution or Relativity theory - it doesn't have universal acceptance, it doesn't have it's own wikipedia page, so retaining mention of it is essentially meaningless when the theory itself can be summarized in terms of a linked entity.

Here I've removed the 'one author' comment. As discussed on your talk page, despite being a single author, publication in four different journals, over three different years, plus the the amicus brief plus the APA statement demonstrates that repressed memories have not been accepted. They haven't been rejected either; I initially read the version I reverted to as representing this fairly, but have adjusted the wording to make their equivocal nature more clear.

I really, really hate the use of the phrase "... and any study that has looked for evidence of traumatic or dissociative amnesia after child sexual abuse has found it." First, any gives the impression that it is universal. That there has never been a case of CSA that has not resulted in traumatic amnesia. Second, the page is about repressed memories, not pyschogenic amnesia, which I still believe are different things. Third, memory is inherently failable, so any forgetting of any detail could be claimed as psychogenic amnesia when it is just routine forgetting. In children this is particularly problematic given the failure to integrate memories from early childhood. Fourth, this is a very, very different statement than the original, "...with a larger proportion of victims reporting that some of the abuse had been forgotten, and a smaller proportion reporting the loss of a significant amount of memory."

Finally, I'm seeking an opinion on Skeptics Dictionary as a reliable source, and possibly an external link. [7]. WLU (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is looking better. I have made two minor changes in the spirit of compromise. I have combined the two Freyd sentences into one. I have restored the "social" sentence, changing the verb to "proposed" which is more accurate and does not connotate proof. This phrase "... and any study that has looked for evidence of traumatic or dissociative amnesia after child sexual abuse has found it." is what the research shows. Maybe there is a better way to phrase it, without losing accuracy. It would be good to get more opinions on skepdic. Abuse truth (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied with a comment about Skeptics Dictionary at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic's dictionary and there is a continuing discussion there if anyone else wants to join. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Repressed memories in popular culture

Is there any reason NOT to just delete wholesale the "Repressed memories in popular culture" section? I mean really... if we wanted to mention every single repressed memory usage in the history of "popular culture", we'd have a page just for that... List of Repressed memories in popular culture. Not. • VigilancePrime • • • 02:04 (UTC) 27 Mar '08

recent edit - fixing ref and deleting OR

I have wikified a ref and fixed the url, deleting OR from the ref on "The reality of recovered memories." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

deleting unsourced material

I have deleted recently added material without a source. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

remove old tags

I propose we remove the old tags from the top of the page. Other than the "trivia" section, the article is well referenced. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article still needs work, but as there are references and no active dispute, I've removed the tags. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

defective reference

I removed the following text based on defective referencing:

...nor unequivocally proven to exist, and many experts in the field of human memory feel that no credible scientific support exists for the notions of repressed/recovered memories.<ref name=amicus>Amicus Curiae brief in {{cite court |litigants=Taus v. Loftus |vol=|reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=Superme Court of California | date = 2006-02-21 |url=}}</ref>

I did not remove it because the text is wrong, just that the reference is incomplete and does not identify any specific document. All of the identifying fields in the citation templates are blank. The text is controversial though, so a valid reference is needed to support it.

User:ForesticPig reverted with this edit summary:

(The reference is satisfactory for what it states. Is there conflicting evidence from other briefs/souces?)

• A question for User:ForesticPig: how do you know the reference is satisfactory for what it states? Did you read it? There were many amicus briefs filed in this court case and the footnote does not identify the brief or its author. If you did read it, then please provide the missing detail to identify the correct amicus brief. If you can't supply that correct citation, then on what did you base your revert of the edit and your edit summary indicating that the reference is satisfactory?

• Without verification the text should not be used. I have not been able to find this information in the briefs that I've been able to locate for the case. If someone can locate the correct brief and provide a citation, preferably with a quote to support, then we can use this. As it is now, it's too vague, so if no-one is able to clarify it, soon it will need to be removed from the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was automatically assuming McNally, although on closer inspection, I agree so far as the details would need expanding, and the text would need changing a little bit (McNally only implies that so many agree with him). forestPIG 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence and footnote again. The McNally brief does not support the text as it was stated. Also, the McNally brief is basically a duplicate of one or two of the existing McNally references that appear in the preceding sentence in the same section. When the same author repeats the same statements in more than one publication, there's no added value for us to footnote that same statement multiple times, it's strong enough with four McNally footnotes in a row already. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

unclear statement from dubious document

I've removed the following because (a) the sentence is unclear, (b) it doesn't accurately relate the content of the reference, and (c) the reference itself includes dubious content:

The theory of repressed memories is supported by many clinical psychologists, while many research psychologists believe that there is little support for such a theory."Questions and Answers about Memories of Childhood Abuse". American Psychological Association. 1995-08-01. Retrieved 2008-02-07.

Usually, I would not question a document from the APA, but this page reads like a political/legal position statement intended to protect their constituency from malpractice suits, etc. Consider this rather extreme statement of rarity about repressed memories: " one experienced practitioner reported having a recovered memory arise only once in 20 years of practice". If it were that rare, there would be nothing to report in this article - all the studies and other sources reporting the existence of the phenomenon would not be present. Since there are such studies, why would the APA ignore them and make such a silly statement? The whole APA Q&A page is written so it doesn't say anything at all. Every one of its statements is balanced by an opposing one. Also, the page has no author. It states "This document is being released at the direction of the APA Board of Directors. " Why, if not for some financial reason, would the board direct the release of a document that has no author's name on it? It certainly does not read like a scientific paper,and it certainly presents no insight on the topic at all.

I suggest that we leave this reference out of the article. If we do use it, we would have to use it for both sides of the controversy, so it would have no value anyway. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the one that put it in the article :) I'd say that there's value in using it, even if it is to say that both sides might have merit. RMT is a polarizing issue and there's an inclination to present it as binary - totally true or totally false. From my loose recall (haven't re-read in entirety) the document didn't take a position because the consensus is that there is no solid evidence either way (which is why it's so controversial) and I'd say there's value a document that steps away from partisan bickering of all or nothing. IMO it's strong point is that it doesn't take a position. I could have sworn that somewhere on WP:RS I saw something about governing body's position statements were considered reliable but now it's not turning up (or on WP:V). It's not like the veracity of RM/RMT has been settled, so having an authoritative body that states this is good for the page. Though I'd have to review for how the document could best be represented. WLU (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, and the APA in general is certainly reliable. (Sorry if I implied your writing was anything other than exemplary!) I did read the whole document and it just seems to have problems. Sometimes organizations can make a mistake, or put out a release for internal reasons, maybe because the membership is in conflict. They don't call it a position statement though, it's presented as a FAQ of sorts, and it ends up with info on how to choose a therapist. What it looks like is a response to the then-current (1995) concerns about Recovered Memory Therapy, however, it avoids the use of that term. If you still want to use it after you read it, I'm willing to collaborate on a fair representation of what it says, however, I'd advise leaving it out because it dances around the issue with the apparent intention of soothing peoples worries about going to a therapist. It's hard to leave out a reference because they're hard to find, but in this case I don't think that page is helpful. As I said though, if you think it's important, I'm willing to go along with its use assuming we can accurately represent its content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur

I concur with ForesticPig on this edit - the scholarly opinion on repressed memories is far from clear or settled. Repressed memories are not the same thing as memories forgotten through amnesia or biological trauma. The idea is controversial and I've two docs on my hard drive criticizing the concept. WLU (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

recent edits

I have restored a few lines of text that accurate portray the opinions of the sources. As editors, we can't pick and choose which edits back our opinions, but we must accurately portray the sources as written. The Whitfield quote definitely belongs in the article, since he is RS and he is discussing RM in some detail. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of consensus that you appear to be promoting is patently false, (obviously) cannot be sourced and goes against what the majority of editors here are saying. You are far more likely to have success with a more moderate editing style. forestPIG 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no majority agreeing with you here, ForesticPig. It would be best for you to take your own advice about moderate editing style. Whitfield is a reliable source and there was no basis for you to remove that footnote or the text it supported. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"and that any study that has looked for evidence of traumatic or dissociative amnesia after child sexual abuse has found it" seems ridiculously strong for a statement sourced to a single, 1994 prospective study on only 129 women (PMID = 7860814). Even if a verbatim quote, I would only support this statement if it was from a review article, not a prospective study. From my knowledge the evidence is equivocal and hotly contested. References such as PMID = 17852721 suggests the debate is ongoing and I'd rather see a statement on the debate coming from something like PMID = 17521996. I'm satisfied with JAR's recent edits but there's still lots of space for expansion and sources to be mined. IMO that the term is not listed in the DSM is appropriate to be included, particularly since it is sourced, and nicely illustrates that the idea does not have mainstream acceptance (or conclusive disproof). WLU (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I was not referring to the first sentence you listed, and I did not restore that one. I was referring to the second sentence removed by ForesticPig as part of the same edit: '"The term is not listed in DSM-IV or used by mainstream formal psychotherapy modality." - That's directly sourced and not controversial, as you noted --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding the ongoing debate regarding repressed memory, I agree that we need to explore that further in this article, but I don't think the section on Recovered Memory Therapy should be expanded here, because that topic has a separate article. All that's needed here is a tip-of-the-hat to acknowledge that RMT as a controversial topic has been involved in the discussion of repressed memories, and for context that it does not exist as a separate entity in the therapeutic community, because there is no such form of therapy. The topic of the past controversy about RMT is a political one and does not assist with understanding the topic of repressed memory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In regard to FP's comment, I was not discussing consensus, but I was discussing accurate editing and reporting sources accurately. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammond et al. 1998

I've a copy of Hammond, D. Corydon; Brown, Daniel P.; Scheflin, Alan W. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393702545. for two weeks via the magic of Interlibrary Loan (wikipedia owes me $2 and that's not counting overdue fees). If anyone would like verification of how this source is represented on any of the pages, please let me know in the next two weeks. WLU (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the entire book. Let's work out a version on the talk page that all can agree with. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I moved a bunch of sentences around and created a couple section headings. Please let me know if this makes it easier to read the article or not.

I have no position on repressed memories. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. All I want is an article that lays out the evidence for and against but avoids telling the reader which side is right. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with those changes, other than a question about the increased prominence of the obsolete term "motivated forgetting". That term is not used today and should be returned to the history section.

Regarding this section heading "NPOV dispute" - and the related tag in the article - the topic is controversial, but I don't see a dispute in progress about the article, so I wonder why it's tagged... ? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it up for a couple more days, and if no one protests we can mark this dispute settled. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely not settled. The article is still primarily written from a viewpoint of trying to push the idea that such memories are real and widely supported. The only controversy section is one sentence. Pioneering and well accepted studies by Elizbeth Loftus and others are minimized, glossed over, and left to only minor footnotes. A person who doesn't know much about this topic and who read it would leave with an entirely slanted view of the topic. It's a pretty major violation of NPOV, and a pretty obvious one to anyone who knows much about the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I suggest we outline the dispute. The two main positions seem to be:

1. that such memories are real and widely supported
2. various objections to position #1, as described in the Recovered memory therapy article

Is some sort of merge needed? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "recovered memory therapy" is a non-scientific term coined by the advocacy organization False Memory Syndrome Foundation, describing something that does not exist - there is no such form of therapy. "Repressed memory" is a scientific term, with ongoing debate about what it is and how it works. They are separate topics. One is political/legal activism, the other is scientific. The scientific topic does include some controversy, that needs to be covered, but the two topics need to be kept separate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no official designation in, say, the APA that it's called that, but everybody in the world knows what it is being discussed when those words are used, and it has become the default description of therapies that try to recover alleged repressed memories. To try to limit the controversy to one article only is a blatant attempt at POV-pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, most of Ed Poor's edits are good ones. I agree with JAR about the term 'motivated forgetting' and his discussion of RMT, FMSF and RM above. The reality is that the majority of the research on the topic shows that recovered "memories are real and widely supported." There are a few theorizers incorrectly extrapolating data from nontraumatic memory studies and claiming they can apply to RM. But the research shows that traumatic memories cannot be easily suggested, if they can be suggested at all.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You just keep making the same incorrect arguments to multiple pages. It's not up to you to decide what "misapplying" is, and it's absolutely false that research shows that traumatic memories cannot be easily suggested... The studies show that memories are very easily manipulated, studies on mildly traumatic incidents also support the same conclusion (See Loftus' "Lost in the Mall" induced memories), and of course studies on creating hugely traumatic memories cannot be done by current standards. All the evidence shows that memories of all types can be easily suggested, you're just trying to weasel your way around that by claiming that because no tests on full on major trauma have been conducted (and can't be) that you choose to believe that suddenly memory will start working a completely different way. That's not sciences, that's rationalization, and a pretty silly one at that. DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not decided that it is misapplying, reliable sources have in several places. Loftus' study has been seriously criticized by several reliable sources. There is no evidence that suggests that traumatic memory can be suggested, to the contrary, Pezdek shows it can't. Crook, L. (1999). "Lost in a Shopping Mall--A Breach of Professional Ethics". Ethics & Behavior. 9 (1): 39–50. Although the mall study has been cited to support claims that psychotherapists can implant memories of false autobiographical information of childhood trauma in their patients, the therapeutic implications of the study appear to be limited to a narrowly defined and perhaps even unlikely situation....Notably, a similar study (Pezdek, 1995) found that although 3 (15%) of 20 participants recalled a plausible false memory of getting lost in a shopping mall, none of the participants accepted an implausible false memory that they had received a painful enema as a child from their parent.

Please remember WP:NPA "comment on content, not on the contributor" and WP:CIVIL. ResearchEditor (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there is a dispute between us Wikipedia contributors. Is it that we disagree on what it is that the scientists have said? Or is it more that we disagree about the truth of the theory itself?

We need to agree on how to describe the memory theory (and related matters such as a kind of "therapy" based on the theory, along with lawsuits or prosecutions on the basis of newly remembered "abuse".)

Ways to describe these:

1. Assert that the theory is true, and that it is widely accepted by the scientific mainstream; or,
2. Assert that the theory is true, but that it has been ignored, dismissed, or repudiated by the mainstream
3. Report fairly that certain advocates (whom we name) say variously that the theory is or not true; and mention any scientific or legal pronouncements on the theory and its implications.

Please, DreamGuy, ResearchEditor, Jack-A-Roe (and anyone else on these talk pages whom I forget to shout out to!) let's discuss how we want to present this information to our readers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ed, this is degenerating into a fight over truth rather than verifiability. Find sources, ensure they are reliable, cite them and summarize. WLU (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pezdek is more than 10 years old, is it really the last gasp in the recovered memory debate? The pubilcation list in her bio suggests that there's more to it than that, just based on the titles. Crook's assertion that Pezdek's study disproves all of Loftus' work, in a rather minor-seeming journal, nearly 10 years ago, in an article that focuses mainly on ethics, seems like a bit of a stretch to me for representing the current scholarly consensus. It takes a program of research to reach any firm conclusion for scholarly consensus; it is not determined by single studies. WLU (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Crook's article is in a peer reviewed journal. Therefore her opinion is citable.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how things work. "Peer reviewed journal" is a term that applies to a wide range of publications and contributors. What makes something citable is whether it is a reliable source for the topic under discussion and for the kind of claims trying to be supported AND whether its inclusion fits within the standards of NPOV policy. A nonscientist in a nonscientific journal is NOT anywhere close to being a reliable source for questions of scientific reliability. By your argument I could just start randomly putting claims of anything at all in any article as long as some peer reviewed journal says something. RELEVENCY to the article matters. RELIABILITY matters. NOTABILITY matters. And, especially, whether it is being used in a way to make the article objective or if it's being used to mislead people and give undue weight to an opinion by someone whose expertise on the topic is nil. You absolutely cannot use it to support the claims you are making. Period. And if you continue to do so I will use it as evidence of POV pushing in an official report you to the admins who disciplined you previously to get you blocked until you are willing to follow policy. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no "current scholarly consensus" on this topic. The controversy is alive and well, with many respected scholars on both sides of the debate. There should be no decision by Wikipedia to determine which side wins; all must be reported with due weight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite to a reliable source that claims that there is no currently scholarly consensus on the topic? It sounds like you are just expecting us to take your word. My understanding of the field is that there is a pretty strong consensus. The APA says that there's no way to tell if a recovered memory is true or if it's a complete confabulation, which seems to me to be a major nail in RMT's coffin. The only sources I see arguing against Loftus et al are in rather minor journals that are easier to get into, especially ones discussing ethics and which people from outside of science are allowed to wax philosophical in. Loftus is still a shining star of the field and highly respected by her peers. I suspect your personal opinions on the topic color your acceptance of what the current consensus is. DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to get a copy of Crook through my alma matter's library, but the comments reported suggest that he attacks Loftus's methodology and ethics, but does not dispute the conclusion that memories can be implanted. Furthermore, although peer-reviewed, it's unclear whether it's in the same field as the subject of the article. An ethicist can be expected to provide scholarly analysis of the ethics of a procedure, but not necessarily of its effectiveness. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to go to the library for this, the full text is online here. The paper is not limited only to discussion of ethics; research methods, results interpretations and peer-review concerns are discussed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Crook does not even come close to meeting WP:RS for questions of research methods, etc. Her claim to fame is not for scientific research, it's for claiming to have been abused as a child and having recovered memories of such through therapy and getting into conflict with her family over it and being quite miffed when Loftus used her as an example of someone with fake memories. That does not make her anything other than an agitator and, frankly, a stalker. She's being trying to ruin Loftus' reputation for years with libelous comments and outrageously false accusations. Psychology Today ran a report on it, as have several other media sources. She is a source to support that she does not like Loftus' methods, but not a source for any scientific claims. In fact, I would think that by the Biography on Living Persons rules that we have to be EXTREMELY wary of repeating any claims Crook has made about Loftus. DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

←Here's an except of a paper by KS Pope (Harvard/Yale degrees, over 100 peer-reviewed articles, APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service) that includes a section on the Lost in the Mall method:

Despite Loftus's assurances, it is worth questioning whether this line of experiments, which do not involve the therapy, therapist, or patients, can be reasonably and validly generalized to the therapeutic process. (For reviews and discussions of this line of analog experiments that have been generalized to therapy, see, e.g., Freyd & Gleaves, 1996; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995; Pezek, Finger & Hodge, 1997; Pope, 1995b, 1996, 1997; Zaragoza & Koshmider, 1989). Stated more powerfully, does leading a subject in a psychology experiment to provide a self-report that he or she now remembers an event that did not occur, such as once becoming lost in a shopping mall, constitute sound and adequate scientific evidence that a therapist can implant a memory of abusive sexual events such as a patient's having been forced to perform felatio and having been anally raped for several years when these events never occurred?

...

Moreover, it is scientifically inappropriate to conclude that a few questions or comments or other behaviors by a therapist can implant a false memory of a sex abuse history solely based on research using a different set of factors with a different outcome measure (i.e., not an implanted memory of sex abuse) in a different (i.e., nontherapeutic) situation with a different population.

• Pope, KS. "Pseudoscience, Cross-examination, and Scientific Evidence in the Recovered Memory Controversy". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. vol. 4, issue #4. American Psychological Association: pp1160-1181. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

This seems useful for providing perspective that the lost in the mall method does not have wide consensus regarding generalization to therapy or traumatic sexual abuse memories. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is one rather minor individual (he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, is not well respected in the field) supposed to be a reliable source that something "does not have wide consensus"?! Come on, get serious here. At best all that does is support that HE has a view that Loftus' work is not correct, but it IN NO WAY demonstrates any consensus against the idea. DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you've interpreted my words as meaning other than what I wrote. I do not claim there is consensus against the Loftus study; I said there is not wide consensus that it is generalizable to traumatic memories of abuse. Lack of consensus is not the same thing as consensus against.

Regarding the notability of KS Pope, you may not respect him, but his 100 or so journal articles have been widely cited, so there are plenty of scholars who don't have the same opinion on that as you do. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack-A-Roe above. Pope is RS. And Loftus' work has been critiqued by several peer reviewed journal articles. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal regarding RMT & FMS pages

In consideration of the above discussion, I've entered a merge and rename proposal regarding the RMT and FMS articles, on the RMT talk page.

This article on the repressed memory is not proposed for merging, but it is mentioned in that discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit made by Arthur Rubin

This edit here was made without any explanation. It entirely reverted my edit. I will AGF that this is not edit warring, for now. The edit I made added to a statement with no reference and restored a ref and deleted the courtesy tag that DG objected to.ResearchEditor (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So, when I and Arthur Rubin agree on an edit and make changes, you insinuate that it is edit warring but are afraid of saying it outright, but yet when you entirely revert other people's edits you insist that it's not edit warring? If you want your opinions to be taken seriously you should at least follow the policies you pretend to warn people about. If you are oppposed to edit warring, stop editing this article back to prior versions, and discuss each new edit as it happens and do not do anything until a consensus about the new version can be reached. You constantly edit war on all the articles I've seen you edit, you just seem to either think you are being sneaky about it or somehow have deluded yourself into thinking somehow that when you revert everything it isn't edit warring but when others make any changes, including new ones, it must be. DreamGuy (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)