Talk:Recovered-memory therapy/Archive 4

Merge & rename proposal (closed)
In comments on this page, both DreamGuy (20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) and WLU (20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) have mentioned the phrase memory wars and indicated that they see that controversy as central in importance to the topic of this page.

On the FMSF page, Uncle Ed (20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)) indicated that that several related topics contain overlapping information, and the result is a lack of clarity.

After considering these comments, I propose a merge, rename and focusing of topics, as follows:


 * False memory syndrome
 * Recovered memory therapy


 * Merge and redirect both to new article: False memory controversy

(I considered the title Memory wars, but that seems too sensationalistic for an encyclopedia article on this topic, since it's not actually a war. It could be an additional redirect, though.)

The above article would describe both of those related terms, and cover the memory wars, to include the issues listed by DreamGuy and WLU above, such as for example, the social, political, activist, legal, and media "battles" regarding false memories, recovered memories or recovered memory therapy.

The terms FMS and RMT are best redirected to this merged article, with a section in the defining each of the terms. Those two ideas are central to the controversy and in the literature, every time those terms are mentioned, it is in regards to the controversy.

There would be some science in the article, as needed to discuss the memory wars, but in a WP:Summary style fashion, with the main article on the science of the issue located at:


 * Repressed memory

On that page would be the academic information defining the concepts of repressed memories as they have been presented by various scholars, both pro- and con- of the question of whether they exist or not and how they work if they do exist.

This is not a POV-fork, it's an organization of content areas - with plenty of controversy described on the repressed memory page also, focused on academic/scientific rather than social/political/legal/media/activism issues. There is lots of information on all of those areas of controversy, but it's not helpful to the understanding of the scientific debate to interweave those other forms of controversy that don't add to the science.


 * False Memory Syndrome Foundation

No merge is needed for that page. Although the FMSF is central to the false memory controversy, it is an entity, not a concept; as a notable organization a separate article is appropriate.


 * Summary

I propose the above page reorganization to benefit the process of editing the articles by providing increased clarity of focus on each of the topics, and to improve the understanding of the topics for the readers. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a suitable solution. There is a great deal of overlap, and these two concepts are closely related and a merge would keep it in perspective of the "big picture."Legitimus (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge proposal. It appears that it would solve a lot of problems and remove overlap. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am 100% opposed to a merge and rename, or a rename of either without a merge, or a merge with no rename at his time. Typically moving discussion of a controversy to an article with "controversy" in its name has been used an excuse to try to make such information more difficult for the average reader to find, because readers go to the "main" article and POV-pushers with a view try to move important information off the main page to the subarticle... which in effect is actually a content fork for POV purposes. I am not saying that's necessarily J-A-R's intent with this proposal, but it would almost certainly be the end result. And considering J-A-R and RE were just within the last couple of days trying to claim that even discussing the controversy at all was giving it undue weight because they wanted people to believe there wasn't any and that their views were basically almost universally accepted by scientists, it's bizarre for J-A-R now to turn around and suggest that it's so important it needs a whole new article. Let's have some consistency, please.DreamGuy (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never said that any of this is "universally accepted by scientists" - obviously it's not. At the time I wrote that there was not a dispute, I was referring only to the talk page discussion - and when I wrote that, there had been no argument for a while.  Now, obviously there is; if this discussion had been happening then I would not have written that.
 * There is no "sub-article"; there are actually two different topics: the scientific debate, and the social/media/legal issues that are only distantly related to the science, since media often misinterprets what is being reported; activism on both sides distorts the issues; and testimony in lawsuits is focused on getting the desired results, not on discovering the science.
 * There would be no trouble for people to find the controversy article, that's a red herring, because the two terms would be redirected there. Anyone looking for RMT or FMS would find it instantly.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Dreamguy, I am not convinced of your concerns. You are making this a fight with users, not an attempt to make change for the better.  There has been some pushing, yes, but your pursuit of this issue is certainly no less POV-pushing, more so I would say.  This is not how to conduct a discussion.Legitimus (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that's just an unwarranted assumption of bad faith on your part, and it certainly is not at all accurate to my intentions. I have not done any POV-pushing, except for the pushing the view that Wikipedia's NPOV and Reliable sources policies must be followed, which is what editors are supposed to do here.
 * On top of that, your last edit to the article either seems to be a major violation of policy (intentionally leaving a misleading edit comment suggesting that your edit consisted of one trivial change while really making many quite substantial changes) or a very unfortunate mistake on your part. I trust that in the future there will not be a repeat of this, and that is this was an accident that you will demonstrate good faith by reverting your changes and then doing the edit you claimed you did. DreamGuy (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I misread the diff page. But there you go again, making accusations and being combative.  You must be aware that NPOV policy is not a perfect and objective ideal.  It is frequently used as a bludgeon in many articles to either further an agenda, or subject every source and statement to an almost solipsist-like scrutiny.  Further, you are one user, you could not possible be the sole authority on what is neutral.Legitimus (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the sole authority, but it looks like Arbitration Committee agreed that USer:ResearchEditor was pushing a POV, and he got banned for it. So between me and the people who call the shots around here, yeah, we know what neutral is. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean against a merge. It seems to me the topics are distinct enough to warrant separate articles.  Both are terms in wide usage, whereas I'm not sure that's true of "False memory controversy."  I also think Wikipedia has a tendency to overuse the word "controversy" in article titles and section headings, and that this can also end up overemphasizing the degree to which there actually is any controversy.  It does seem apparent that the articles have problems, certainly POV being one of them. Шизомби (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the merge tag since the idea did not gain traction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Article focus
This article is not about "recovered memories", it's about the term "recovered memory therapy" - that is a term that is not recognized by the medical establishment as a form of treatment and is not based in science. I suggest that we remove the sections about the science of memory from this article and deal with that science in the Repressed memory article, a page that centers on the science. This article should be focused on the political, activist, legal and cultural/historical uses of the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia
Please see info sheet on 'Recovered memory therapy' just issued by Victorian Government in Australia at http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Recovered_memory_therapy?open. It might help.

This sheet was created by a Professor of Counselling with the following qualifications BA (Qld), DipSc (Newcastle), M Clin Psych (Macq), PhD (Macq). The sheet was reviewed and edited in collaboration with the Aust Psych Soc, the RANZCP (Psychiatrists), ACA, PACFA and members of the public associated with false/recovered memory issues.

The sheet was created in reaction to the recovered memory therapy inquiry.124.191.89.84 (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Reference
Hey, I can't find my Whitfield, although I'm pretty sure treatment modalities are covered in Memory and Abuse. Can somebody with this book help me out with a good reference for this sentence fragment I've added please? The information its self is truly a no-brainer, but we still need good references. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recovered_memory_therapy&diff=next&oldid=450334576 Thank you Daniel Santos (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE states that the lede should be a summary of the article. The information needs to be added elsewhere, possibly in the "Professional guidelines" section.  Regardless of whether it is approved, something much like RMT was used in the McMartin case, and probably in many present police investigations of abuse.  That should also be noted in the lede, if this is, and sources can be obtained.  We have sources for McMartin.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point. I guess the question is about how important the fact that the therapy modalities the term RMT describes are actually rarely used, given the context of the FMSF's assertion that it is the cause of FMS and the sexual abuse accusation of it's members by their children.  And if it is important enough for the lede, is this wording clear and concise enough.  I'm not sure, but I promise I'll get back to this soon. Daniel Santos (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, we need to either remove the word "presently" or "responsibly" from that sentence, as they don't work well together. I would suspect that these therapies were used more in the past than in the present, because they are frankly not very effective!  Got any references on that one though?  None the less, the research I've studied showed very little evidence to link even those therapies to the occurrence of false memories.  To date (in my awareness) false memories (for traumatic memories) has never been properly studied and documented (and traumatic memory is very different than normal memory).  So I don't think we have a really good profile of an actual "false memory syndrome" to understand what does cause it when it occurs (i.e., the real occurrence of false memories of abuse as opposed to the propaganda from FMSF et al.).  I would be willing to bet that it has to be the right combination of pathology in both the patient and therapist, however. Daniel Santos (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal issues
I recall another such lawsuit in California roughly 5 years ago. Sorry I don't remember any more details than that. Daniel Santos (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in law school, so I have access to some data. (The case I just added is in California, actually, and was apparently not appealed; probably malpractice on the part of the therapist's lawyer, it being the first case covering that theory, but....)  Searching for the words "recovered", "memory", and "therapy", the only reported California case was in 1999 where an appellate court overturned a trial court decision finding the therapist guilty.  Again, since I have access, please let me know if you want details.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, that's pretty cool. I have to visit a local uni to get access to anything like that (and it's a 45 minute drive).  It's possible that it was 12 years ago, time seems to fly, but I thought it was in the mid-aughts.  If I can find a reference to it, I'll post it. Oh yeah, from what I remember of it, it sounded like the patient was associated with the perpetrator (possibly a Stockholm type of thing?) and it didn't sound like the therapist had actually committed any real wrongdoing, except perhaps to not have been careful enough to CYA. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

An oversight of the mess
Articles with overlapping content and their respective sections:

Repressed memory
 * History / Research / Hypothesis / Controversy / Legal issues / Recovered memory therapy (with referral to the main article)

Psychological repression
 * Freud's theory / Later developments / Related concepts: repressed memories

Recovered memory
 * Authenticity / Medico-legal issues / Neurological basis of memory / Amnesia / Effects of trauma on memory / Professional organisations

Recovered-memory therapy
 * Terminology / Research / Professional guidelines / Legal issues

False memory syndrome
 * Definition / Recovered memory therapy (with referral to the main article) / Evidence for / Court cases

Overlapping sections
Legal issues/Medico-legal issues/Court cases
 * → False memory syndrome
 * → Recovered-memory therapy
 * → Repressed memory

Controversy/Authenticity (of recovered memories)/Research (about recovered memories)
 * → Repressed memory
 * → Recovered memory
 * → False memory syndrome

Evidence for (the existence of false memories in general)/Neurological basis of memory
 * → Recovered memory
 * → False memory syndrome

Hypothesis/Effects of trauma on memory
 * → Repressed memory
 * → Recovered memory

If you I missed a significant overlap, please create a new discussion topic to discuss this there.

Vote

 * Vote for each of these topics which article should be their main article.


 * Vote per topic whether the topics in the other articles should
 * (a) have a brief summary and a referral to the main article, or
 * (b) be referred to in the See Also section.


 * And please vote yes or no to adding info-tags to the respective talk pages outlining the results of this vote.

To keep things central, please cast your vote at Talk:Repressed memory.

JGM73 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
"...post-traumatic stress disorder and other dissociative disorders—conditions which most commonly lead to loss of traumatic memories."

Do we really need to leave something so blatantly farcical in the article? It's saying that PTSD, a condition well-known for the unwanted intrusion and ugly persistence of traumatic memories commonly leads to a loss of those very memories. That's not just a citation needed and dubious claim, that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Can't we just pull it unless someone comes up with damn fine sources that contradicts one of the mainstream diagnostic criteria for PTSD? --76.180.172.75 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Currently, the lead doesn't explain what RMT is. How about we kill two birds in one shot, something like:


 * "...post-traumatic stress disorder and other dissociative disorders. Proponents of RMT claim that traumatic memories can be buried in the subconcious and affect current behaviour, and that RMT can recover them in order to heal the individual.
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty flexible about however you'd like to revise it. My primary concern is the unqualified claim about memory suppression for a disorder that is in significant part defined by the inability to forget. As a suggestion, I'd replace the first RMT with "memory recovery" and the second RMT with "therapy". Really though, as long as we're not making naked claims that PTSD commonly leads to suppressed memories in contradiction to the mainstream understanding of the disorder, I'm all good. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I made the edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good deal. Thank you! --76.180.172.75 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bump but mainstream understanding of the disorder seems to refer to common perceptions rather than medical understanding. PTSD can, counterintuitively, lead to the suppression of some of the traumatic memories as a defence mechanism. They are still intrusive, just not consciously accessible; you can’t remember them when you try but they can still be triggered. Not everyone experiences this but it’s not uncommon. Tbh I think that sort of therapy is pseudoscience but that is in no way an extraordinary claim, someone is extrapolating their existing knowledge rather than sticking to what they know. Check:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150817132325.htm

https://presse.inserm.fr/en/ptsd-resilience-after-trauma-the-role-of-memory-suppression/38240/amp/ Editor/123 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben8142 (talk • contribs)


 * You will need better sources than that. The first one is primary source about mice, and the second one does not mention anything about recovering memories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)