Talk:Wendy Maltz

Explanation for removing controversy section
EXPLANATION FOR REMOVING THE "CONTROVERSY" SECTION

The section called Controversy that Istarninwa attempted to add is inaccurate and simply not true. The post implies Maltz currently "employs" and "suggests" certain imagery techniques with patients, when she does not. While the quoted phrase did appear in the first edition of her book, "The Sexual Healing Journey", published in 1991 it was removed from the book by Maltz when she corrected,revised and updated "The Sexual Healing Journey" for a second edition in 2001. The 1991 edition of The Sexual Healing Journey is NO LONGER IN PRINT. Maltz revised her book a second time in 2012, and again left that phrase out of the book. No where in her book is there mention of a "imagery technique." Thus it is FALSE and damaging for her Wikipedia page to report this specific suggestion currently exists in "The Sexual Healing Journey" when it does not. In addition, Maltz did not coin, nor use a term "mental imagery technique" --nor does she encourage or endorse such an imagination technique in any of her writings, therapy practice, and trainings. Thus, it is false to say she does. The second paragraph of Istarninwa's attempted controversy section entry discusses Elizabeth Loftus' research was also removed since it has nothing to do with Maltz. This paragraph appears to be promoting Elizabeth Loftus and her work in the field of memory research. No controversy exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmaltz (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As far as "controversies" go, this one is stale to say the least. The controversy seems to exist mainly in the opinion of the user who insists it be added to the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of the criticism seems to be concerned with the coinage of the term, while in fact it is irrelevant what to call it. If she has no longer advocates the practice, it warrants an explicit mention and should be cited properly. If Maltz advocated the practice, research on false memory is of crucial relevance and cannot be left out -- although it probably is best to provide a link to the False Memory page instead of providing the second paragraph. However, stale or not, the public has to be informed about this issue. That said, I would like to thank you for your information. I am glad that this dangerous technique is no longer promoted by Maltz. -- istarninwa 11 October 2013