Talk:False memory syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality of this Article

Why has the list of subjects that are commonly "recovered" as "memories" been removed? I guess it's too awkward for a proponent... --- Uncovering Hidden Memories, a number of techniques used by different brands of therapists, is thought by psychologists to be actually planting false memories. Among the things people allegedly remember in such therapies are:

• Sexual abuse
• Satanic ritual abuse
• Alien abduction
• Reincarnation
• Multiple personality disorder

--- On seeing that list, one either has to accept that

• all those things are real, or that
• the techniques used are not a reliable tool for finding the truth.
• (Is there a third possibility? I can't think of one. Can you?)

So, once you know what you can do with Recovered Memory Therapy, you will recognize that it's unreliable, unless you are really really gullible. I guess this is why 67.164.203.46 wants to hide that information.

This page has turned into a Recovered Memories Advocacy Page - the unconvenient information is gone and was repaced by a lot of "you can't prove me wrong" weasel talk.

Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. (As opposed to absence of proof, which is not proof of absence.) As far as I know, there has never been a case where someone has regained memories that are truly and evidently memories of real events. But thousands of people have had their memories recovered! One should expect that at least a few of them found real evidence of the things they remembered. Hob 20:45, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

a view on Hob's objections

I believe I can explain some of the thinking behind 67.164.203.46's recent changes to this entry. Hob listed many objections which touch on several of the hot points in the debate over false memory and false memory syndrome, and I feel like this should be discussed now before any editing or flame wars start.

I agree with Hob's concern over information being taken out of the entry, but I agree more with the intent it seems 67.164.203.46 had in making the edits. The section was entitled "Uncovering Hidden Memories." A new term "hidden memories" was introduced to the entry, but not explained. It then mentioned "a number of techniques" which were not mentioned nor explained. Also, which brands of therapists were being referenced? It then pits therapists against psychologists when stating that psychologists believe the unreferenced techniques of the unreferenced therapists cause memories to be implanted. I agree with 67.164.203.46 in editing out this whole part because it was grossly underwritten. I agree with Hob that the treatment methods should be included. But I would rather have the relevant information included properly, especially when it gets to this controversial stuff.

I have read a lot about this, and have experience with it. But I know that there are many many other who can do a better job at fleshing out this topic fairly. But, as it gets written, I want to see what I like in other trustworthy Wikipedia entries - flatly presenting the issues of the topic.

Hob was upset with the list of things people have remembered from the unreferenced therapy techniques. I don't think anything like that should be included unless the various treatments are mentioned and explained appropriately as they relate to the entry of false memory. Hob then went on to try to convice readers of his point of view. I sincerely hope that the discussion and editing is not geared in this manner. Rather, everyone should focus on what the issues are, what knowledge currently exists in the professional knowledge of the subject, and what should be included. I personally think that "false memory" should be separate from "false memory syndrome" because the current science of memory explains why false memories happen, and the entry should center around the issues of memory and the dynamic assimilation of information that creates our memories and processes which contribute to the correct of incorrect formation of memories. I appreciate 67.164.203.46's inclusion of ideas like rehearsal, short-, and long-term memory because I feel this should be the main direction of this entry. False memory syndrome is a vastly different topic, and rather multifaceted. The issue of treatment should be discussed, psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, etc. And the realities of the two sides - that people really do have traumatic experiences and forget that they happened, and that false memories also do happen.

I think it's entirely possible to get this right. I really love Wikipedia and think the world deserves information, not bias. Oh, and Hob, you can add me as the first person you know that has had a recovered memory confirmed by external sources, "real evidence" as you put it. Nice to meet you. --08:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)gnureality

Whoops - I didn't respond to that back then! My answer to the last sentence: I do not know you, and for me this is just unconfirmed information that may be true or not. --Hob Gadling 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus mentions an example of a recovered memory that is confirmed by external sources. "Claims of corroborated repressed memories occasionally appear in the published literature. For example, Mack (1980) reported on a 1955 case involving a 27-year-old borderline man who, during therapy, recovered memories of witnessing his mother attempting to kill herself by hanging. The man's father later confirmed that the mother had attempted suicide several times and that the son had witnessed one attempt when he was 3 years old. The father's confirmation apparently led to a relief of symptoms in the son."

Maybe an example of recovered memories being confirmed as correct should be included in the article somewhere. --MaxMangel 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, fine. But that sounds like hearsay to me if it happened in 1955 and Mack (this is probably John E. Mack, who uncovered memories of alien abductions) published it in 1980. Also, it's very meager if put in relation to the hundreds (thousands?) of recovered memory cases in the nineties... Well, better than nothing. --Hob Gadling 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it is pretty old isn't it. Okay, bad example. I've been looking to find some evidence for an opposing view to balance things out. If anyone knows of a verifiable case where someone repressed severe childhood memories, recovered them later in life, and had them confirmed as correct via physical evidence, then that would be good to add to the article, I would argue. I know the topic is 'false memory' but it is encompassing 'False Memory Syndrome,' which is a recently created term and worth keeping things NPOV as much as we can. --MaxMangel 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for recent edit

I edited this article with the sole intent of cleaning it up in terms of style, removing unclear language, and recasting some of its more uncautious statements into less inflammatory, more objective forms. I have made every effort to retain the writer's intent.

That said, I do think the article lacks substantiation and largely remains an opinion piece. Perhaps the writer will consider reinforcing the most glaring instances of questionable support. For example, regarding false memory syndrome, the writer asserts that "this condition has been studied" and that "sufferers have confessed to 'entirely made up stories'" but does not say how often or rigorously FMS has been studied and provides no references. The article's validity could be shored up tremendously with such support.

I chose to edit this piece because I find the subject matter interesting. I claim no expertise in the field of memory, although I do write and edit medical and scientific works for a living and have performed such related work as helping to line-edit the DSM-IV. Of course, such experience does not qualify me to rewrite this piece--hence my attempt to confine my changes to the issues mentioned. If anything I have done has in fact altered the author's intent, I hope someone will contact me so that I can address the matter.

Jack —This unsigned comment was added by 68.121.218.223 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 March 2005.

I agree that this entry comes across as an opinion piece or an essay on skepticism more than an encyclopedia entry. This first sentence - "A false memory is a memory of an event that did not happen or is a distortion of an event that did occur as determined by externally corroborated facts" - is biased in itself because "False Memory Syndrome" is first and foremost a tactic used by skeptics or abusers to cover up the memories of their victims. This thing reads like a college thesis. It needs to be re-written. Statements like "Ultimately, it is undeniable that true memories are often forgotten. The difficulty comes in deciding whether a memory which has been recovered or spontaneously recollected, is accurate and correctly interpreted, or not" are nebulous, and it is worrisome that an information source such as an encyclopedia would have opinions rather than facts. This article strikes me as very biased. Joyan 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are responding to a comment from 2005! Numerous edits have been made since then, some more helpful than others. Furthermore, you are wrong; the definition of a false memory as a memory that is false can hardly be biased. We are careful to discuss the difficulty of deciding whether a memory is false, which is a different question. And we have taken care to ensure that this article is not entitled, nor exclusively focused on, False Memory Syndrome, and to treat that topic without undue bias. --KSmrq^T 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether i'm responding to a comment from 2005 or from two days ago doesn't make my opinion any less valid. What's more - i would appreciate if you didn't tell me that i'm "wrong" - a "false memory" cannot even be proven to exist and it is an extremely biased, hurtful and harmful "theory" that flies in the face of psychotherapy. You have completely erased everything i added to this article, including demands for citations on "studies" that could very well have been invented in the imagination of the person who wrote this article. The article repeatedly states that "many individuals" and "many studies" have "proven" memories recalled from childhood trauma are "false." This is not only extremely harmful for individuals in therapy, it undermines the very purpose of therapy. The nebulous language in this article must be changed. This article is doing a terrible injustice by invalidating memory recollection. The opinions - yes, opinions! - of this article must be changed to impress the controversy of this subject. As it is now, it is more a article from "Scientology Today" than one from Wikipedia! And as i see below, KSmrq, someone in April of 2006 felt the very same way as i do about this article, and you changed it back even then! In fact there are numerous comments on this Talk page that urge similar changes to this article - why are they not being heeded? Do you have some kind of agenda here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joyananda Gi (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Context and balance

I have a personal interest in this topic, which I will explain below, so I scanned the existing text curiously. Although there were some efforts at NPOV, the external links in particular did not seem properly balanced.

There are sufficient well-documented cases, like those involving satanic rituals and alien abduction, that clearly suggest false memories and those who instill them are a serious problem. The article is a reasonable attempt to describe this.

My own bias — and we all have one — is towards skepticism, though perhaps more moderate than CSICOP. But that also means I'm uncomfortable when I know there are two sides of a story, and only one presented. One of the prominent researchers affirming suppressed memories of trauma is someone I met many years ago, psychologist Jennifer Freyd. Her personal story involves a memory of sexual abuse by her father; this memory arose after I knew her. Two of the founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation are her parents, whom I later came to meet independently. They deny the abuse. All three are remarkable, intelligent people; Peter Freyd is a respected mathematician, an expert in category theory. What is the truth? Who should I believe? It is a very uncomfortable position for me; I can hardly imagine what it must be like for them. Were I a juror in a court case, however, I could not in good conscience entirely rely on anyone’s memory. I would want more tangible evidence.

It seems important to explain that false memories can seem as real and compelling as accurate memories. It also seems important to remind people of what we all know, that memory is fallible. What most people do not realize is how complex and creative memory is, and how easily it can be manipulated. For example, one magician can [http://www.skeptic.com/archives03.html watch another perform], see the “dirty work” clearly, then hear a rapt audience member later describe impossible events that were not what they truly witnessed — but it’s what they remember. Finally, it is important to understand how upset people can become when their memory is challenged, reacting with considerably less aplomb than the central character in Total Recall.

I think the police lineup example is instructive, because more careful control of procedure has had benefits for everyone (except perhaps the guilty). And when DNA evidence conclusively overthrows a rape conviction based on the victim’s mistaken eyewitness identification, it also overthrows a common illusion that such testimony is reliable. Inadvertently, the police were “coaching” the witness, then reinforcing the victim’s belief to support their own. This is exactly what can happen in therapy.

Psychologists use double-blind experimental protocols because they know they cannot trust themselves, a fact well-documented in the history of the field. We should be no less careful about inadvertently creating false memories, because the consequences can be far worse.

This is not the same as declaring which memories are true and which are false. It is more like putting on a jacket when we know it’s extremely cold outside, a common-sense measure to avoid hypothermia.

I have tried to emulate the respect Ray Hyman shows serious researchers in parapsychology, even though he does not agree with their conclusions. With any luck, all sides here will be happy with the additions.

KSmrq 2005 July 1 04:26 (UTC)

As a person who admits to having a personal interest in this topic, i hardly think it is appropriate for you personally to change every edit to reflect your own skepticism.

Can we rename to False memory syndrome?

Guys: FMS is the TLA for this thing. Let us rename the entry to "False Memory Syndrome" Amorrow 22:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's not. They are not at all the same thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read the previous talk page discussions for an explanation of the chosen title. Essentially, it comes down to NPOV. False memory syndrome is controversial and disputed, false memory alone is not. Fear not, links are provided, for example, to the FMS Foundation web site, and FMS is also well-represented in the article. Since Wikipedia redirects False Memory Syndrome to this article, we have the best of both worlds. Of course, a subject does not have to be uncontroversial and externally validated to have a named page; depending on your views, we have both Invisible Pink Unicorn and Machine Elves. :-) KSmrq 16:14, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

I added a False memory syndrome subsection, so articles can wikilink directly to [False memory#False memory syndrome] --Muchness 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that false memory alone is much less controversial. False memory syndrome also has the conotation that it is something specific to certatain people when in fact it can be shown to affect everyone. Why then has the article been changed back to syndrome. I'm new too this page so I will wait awhile but unless someone gives some reason I will change it back. Ralphmcd (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Very vivid"

Please do not insert the sentence about "very vivid" again. When this was done before, I deleted it as redundant (and said so), because the article already said:

• … false memories can seem as vivid and real as accurate memories

Please read more carefully. Also, please write more carefully. It is not more effective to say "big super giant enormous". The word "vivid" is a superlative needing no amplification; the relevant AHED definition [1] is:

• Perceived or felt with the freshness of immediate experience: a vivid recollection of their childhood.

Guides to strong writing agree that a single powerful adjective like "vivid" works better than "very vivid"; likewise, "mistaken" works better than "simply mistaken". Beyond that, there is a logic, a sequence of exposition, flowing through the three paragraphs; the inserted sentence is out of place where inserted. The idea is good (which is why it was already stated); the insertion, not good.

I hope this clarifies my objection. (And I'm sorry if I sound like a schoolmarm.) Also, I have revised the section to make it stronger still. --KSmrq^T 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'd buy the "very vivid" with this reservation, its not "super giant enormous". One modifier is sometimes not excessive. A person's own evidence that a memory is true, is often that it is seems very real to them. It is important I feel to make the point, even if it feels exceptionally real, this is not evidence. Just "vivid" alone doesn't (for me) capture that. But its borderline and if you prefer not, then I can accept that.

As for the rest though, I think a full revert isnt in order. The initial sentence of that paragraph, compare:

• Whether a memory is true or false cannot be determined by whether it is vague or vivid, once forgotten or always remembered.
• Whether a memory is true or false cannot be determined from how vague, vivid, or emotional it is, or whether it has been newly discovered or always remembered.

The first of those is harder to read (the "once forgotten or always remembered" bit). The second is clearer for me.

And the final sentence:

• Thus we also need to understand common ways false memories can arise — bad police lineups, poor therapeutic practice, the misinformation effect — and seek to avoid creating them.

For me this lacks a "so that...". Whats this about? Hence I added: "so that the memories which are recalled are as accurate as possible, and are not accidentally made more traumatizing or damaging than they would otherwise have been." Which is the purpose of doing so.

Unless you object, I'll add those back, less the "very" and "extremely" unless you want to discuss that too. FT2 02:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Given the drama that can surround this topic, I'm glad to see we're not so far apart. For me, the sentence "Whether a memory is true or false …" was awkward to compose, and apparently that shows in the result. A previous editor had written:

• "Continuity of memory is no guarantee of truth, and disruption of memory is no guarantee of falsity."

It's not a bad sentence, but I wanted to move it to a more appropriate spot, and combine it with the "vivid" idea. I don't want to change the meaning, and "newly discovered" is not the same as "disrupted"; it's also sure to be seen as a loaded phrase. (Likewise, underlining "cannot" is provocative of emotion — the last thing a disputed article needs.) The form of the sentence is about duality: false/true, vague/vivid, disrupted/continuous. The content of the sentence is that the veracity of a memory is independent of its quality (but said in plain English). The position of the sentence threatens to interrupt the logical progression of the three paragraphs:

1. We know memory is unreliable.
2. Yet false memories are controversial; also traumatic and consequential.
3. Thus seek corroboration, causes, and prevention.

I want every sentence, every claim, every conclusion of this opening material to be undisputed. The intent is not to argue cases, but to establish a common ground on which a civilized and fruitful discussion can be held. Unfortunately, editors wander by, are inspired to make a point they feel is vital, and just stick it in where the mood strikes them. That's (apparently) how we got this sentence tacked on:

• "For example, studies have shown that false memories can arise through the misinformation effect."

I don't object to the content; quite the contrary: come one, come all, say what you have to say (documented, of course). Just wait your turn; don't try to cram all points, especially provocative ones, into the "Background" section. For that reason I'd really feel more comfortable moving the whole sentence about "true or false", which is really part of an argument, into a later section. I have resisted that temptation because history shows that yet another impatient editor will soon come along to "fill the vacuum".

I know, this is a long-winded response, a stream-of-consciousness description of the work I invest in writing. To be more concrete:

• Definitely no "very".
• I'd like a better wording for the "true or false" sentence, but not the one you propose.
• The last sentence doesn't need a "so what". The second paragraph has already introduced consequences, the third paragraph is about avoiding them.

One last thought: Rewriting others' words to everyone's satisfaction is a challenging (and thankless) task, especially when the topic is controversial. We need good will and good luck. --KSmrq^T 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. I think you're mistaken to full-revert. We are looking at two sentences.

The first sentence, we agree, needs a rewrite, the question is "what is a better wording". We can work that out on the talk page.

The other I understand your logic, but I think either you are mistaken, or this is alluding to a missing piece of information in the 2nd paragraph instead. You say, The second paragraph has already introduced consequences. But there are two aspects to consequences: the direct issues to achieve or avoid, and examples what can go wrong if those fails.

Para.2 describes how false memory can have the effect of traumatic situations arising, pain, hurt, etc etc. But it's not saying the purpose of what is advocated is to avoid trauma etc etc. That would indeed be a repetition. It says that the purpose is to ensure accuracy and not accidentally causing them to become exaggerated... that is "means" whereas para.2 is "end". I hope that kind of clarifies the point as I see it.

What I see as the flow is therefore:

1. We know memory is unreliable. (para.1)
2. False memories can be disturbing and traumatic if they occur. (para.2)
3. Personal belief is not evidence that a memory is accurate.
4. The preferred solution is to seek corroboration and other evidence.
5. Since this is not always available, it is important to use careful handling, and be aware how false memories can arise, to help ensure accuracy of recall and that existing memories are not accidentally (or recklessly) degraded.

FT2 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the one sentence was struggling to carry too much weight, I have made it a paragraph. I just hope it does not provoke additional controversy about what research does or doesn't show. Also, I'm still of the opinion that the last sentence is adequate, but I have amended it a bit nevertheless. --KSmrq^T 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad at all. I'd go with that as a fix. Couple of tiny edits but overall, it works better for me than the version which was being reverted to. FT2 21:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We should merge this article with Repressed Memory

This is basically the same topic as Repressed memory. In Psychology books they are discussed together. So why do we still have two separate articles? We should merge these two. RK 19:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

While it is understandable that a psychology book might place these topics near each other, they are distinct. A memory can be false yet never "repressed". The existence of false memories is well-established; but there is controversy over specific memories and specific methods of "recovery". Experts disagree about whether memories can be repressed. False memory and repressed memory are separate topics that need separate, albeit linked, articles. --KSmrq^T 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Its better to cite POV

this should be reverted or rewritten. Sam Spade 19:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The article needs better citation all around. I added a few citation tags. --DanielCD 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a group of edits (diff) that compounded the problem of unsourced assertions. --Muchness 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced what you wanted for The Courage to Heal. Hopefully our anonymous contributer will get themself a login so some productive discussion can occur. I looked over the mass revert and pulled out of it a salvagable sentence, and I sourced it. If Body Memory is to remain out of the article then it must at least stay in the 'See Also,' as it is now. MaxMangel 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Remembering which way to change the clocks

A mysteriously common example of false memory seems to be which way round daylight saving time goes. Both the Guardian's TV guide and the Loughborough Echo told thousands of people to change them the wrong way, proving (among many other cases) that there are enough people out there who vividly remember that it's the way round that it isn't.

That said, if my memory is serving me right, then every single instance I've seen of this mistake is of people turning the clocks back in the spring. Why have I seen no sign of people thinking that the clocks go forward in the autumn? -- Smjg 12:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-FMSF sites

I understand the sentence on AFMSF sites to be an accurate reflection of their views, having visited many myself. I have provided one such site as a source that has dozens of links to others sites and articles that, for at least some of them, are specifically AFMSF. The sentence represents fact and the link supports that fact. I do not see why the link needs to be from an academic source to summarise information which can be gathered directly, in this case, seeing as the sentence is about the opinion of a group of people. If you dispute the sentence, then say so. If you dispute the link, then provide a better one. MaxMangel 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to exercise care with sources. The site in question is replete with dubious content. On the web, anyone can create a site saying anything they like, but that does not mean we should repeat what they say and link to them as support. Given the highly charged disputes that this topic can provoke, it seems unnecessary and unwise to bring in a deliberately inflammatory site. There is no danger that the FMSF view will be seen as uncontested; the article already clearly states differing views. We want to provide a factual article on false memory, not an unfettered discussion of all the things people say and do around it without scientific grounding. Unless you can provide a good argument to the contrary, I will revert again. --KSmrq^T 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Elegantly put, but, I contest two points, plus one issue.

1. I contest that the site can be characterised as 'deliberately inflammatory.' The purpose of the page, at least the one that I linked to, seems to be about providing information of their point of view. From what I can see the information comes from doctors, reporters, similar thinking sites, research papers, and some opinion letters and speeches by various people. Yes, at the bottom it does state 'If you have facts, figures, information which will serve to discredit the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, please let us know!' but, the wording itself is a request for facts. Notably absent is such things like mindless slander, which would discredit this link.
2. I contest your contention that the content is dubious. The link is to a page with a point of view, plus many links that purportedly support that view, which seems a logical way to structure a perspective on a topic. Whether all the links from the page themselves are dubious is not strongly significant, seeing as the purpose of my link is mostly to show that my sentence on a perspective is accurate.
3. Finally, I point out that a significant amount of material against FMS has been reverted in this article just now, and I think it is reflective of the point of view of the editors that there is such a hard time getting anti-FMS material into this article, even when that material is, for the most part, simply stating that opposing views exist, and what those views are, within a single sentence. Importantly, those views are held by not a small amount of people within the community that discusses FMS. It seems to me that you wish to dismiss views against FMS as dubious, which exceeds your grounds as an editor. MaxMangel 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the last point: On the contrary, long ago I added much of the balance that exists in the present article, for reasons discussed above on this talk page in the section entitled "Context and balance". Among other things, I added the link to Jim Hopper's page, which represents the kind of solid material we should cite.

As for the site in question, I think the first paragraph alone is anything but a dispassionate consideration of facts. It seeks to arouse through words and phrases like "taking advantage", "society of would-be skeptics", "rudely pokes fun", "dismiss out of hand", and "prepare to get mad". If such a paragraph were inserted into Wikipedia, it would be immediately reverted as not being neutral in tone, nevermind content.

Going once, going twice, … --KSmrq^T 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the link is not to provide access to a body of evidence that opposes the FMSF, but is there to demonstrate the accuracy of the sentence in the article – which is in regards to the opinion of the people who oppose FMSF.

Does it fail to do this? Is the link to a site that is unclear, or non-representative in conveying the opinion of Anti-FMSF people?

Yes, the first paragraph at the site wouldn't be used in the Wiki and it does indeed use emotive phrases(which doesn't mean they are untrue), but I think you overstate the importance of this with regards to the context of the linking. Let's keep this in perspective, the sentence in the article is more important than the link providing supporting evidence, as another link can simply be used as necessary. Do you have a problem with the sentence, or simply the link for the sentence? If you don't have a problem with the sentence, but are worried about the link, then find a better one. If you are against the sentence, then you should say so, rather than just attacking the supporting link. The link seems like a good choice to me because it provides further links to a lot of sources of similar opinion, to which the article sentence is referring to. MaxMangel 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, if you cannot find a science-based non-inflammatory site, we don't care what ones like this may say. It would be like quoting a delusional schizophrenic, namely totally without merit in a factual article. Again, we don't need this sentence, and we certainly don't need this citation. And don't bother telling us how many anti-FMSF sites exist; it's as irrelevant as the number of schizophrenics. Rumor-mongering is no substitute for research. (By the way, does the schizophrenic analogy rankle? For those in the anti-FMSF camp it likely does. The material cited is far more inflammatory, and not in the best interests of this article.) --KSmrq^T 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A weak analogy and a Straw man argument with exactly the kind of emotive language you were critising just before. You've misrepresented my case in multiple ways. I'm not even sure what you want. If I provide a link that you deem suitably 'non-dubious' - a citation of someone academic critising the FMSF, is that enough for the sentence to stay? With the source no longer the equivalent of a ranting schizophrenic...

I want to be clear about this - is all you're looking for is a better link?(The link would have the same opinion as the current link)--MaxMangel 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The emotive language is part my point. It is not appropriate, neither in cited sources, nor article, and preferably not even on this talk page. As for the content, remember that this page is about false memories. We mention the False Memory Syndrome Foundation only for the limited purpose of introducing the proposal of a syndrome. Frankly, I'm inclined to strike all but the first paragraph of the FMS section, but append a sentence to it that says the name was popularized (but not coined) by the FMSF, as documented on that site. If someone wants to start an article on the FMSF, fine; but this article is about false memory. --KSmrq^T 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not terribly interested in any criticism of the FMSF nor its founders nor its board — not for this article. I am interested in scholarly discussions of the validity of a False Memory Syndrome, however the term "syndrome" is interpreted. (And note that FMSF itself discusses differing interpretations of what it should mean in this context.) The concept could have been popularized by raving lunatics, yet still be scientifically valid, or promoted by respected academics, yet ultimately found to be without merit. --KSmrq^T 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I will start the stub. --MaxMangel 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Great; works for me. And just in time — the indents were getting deep! :-D --KSmrq^T 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New edits

I am the one who made the major attempt at editing this article tonight. While I am not totally happy with it as it stand, I am proud to have made a difference in what was a heavily biased piece. I approve of your attempts to keep it neat, and hope that this article can either be massively rehauled to remove all the pro-FMSF editorial, or given many, many additional citations. One major source (Loftus) is not enough to ground such a long piece. —This unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.104 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 April 2006.

I have added several Citation Needed to demonstrate that well...um, citations are needed. To begin your sentence with "Research suggests" - this phrase is seen FOUR times with no supporting evidence- you MUST have some sort of research link, or else the sentence should read "I speculate that.." or "Some people believe that...". 130.194.13.104

Unless responding to a prior comment, please add new comments at the bottom of the talk page. The "+" button provides a convenient way to start a topic with a new header. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to force us to append a citation to every statement. We have numerous references and links at the bottom of the page for just this purpose. Furthermore, many of the tagged assertions are uncontroversial in the standard scientific literature. There is even a helpful episode of Scientific American Frontiers called "Don't Forget!" in which Alan Alda not only discusses many of these matters with memory researchers, but shows the viewer what it's like to be a subject in a memory manipulation experiment. --KSmrq^T 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

uncontroversial?!??!! you have got to be kidding!? —This unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.104 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 April 2006.

Use of "we", caps

It is not necessary to eliminate all use of "we". The sentence about sense of identity is a particularly good place to use it. For some reason many technical writers either use it too much or too little.

The terms Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder presumably are capitalized to link them to their abbreviations, e.g. PTSD. However, this is not essential, and earlier use of the former eschews caps (and hypenates). --KSmrq^T 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the use of personal pronouns was not recommended in WP articles, but reviewing the Manual of Style guidelines you're correct, this is a legitimate exception. --Muchness 11:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Passing comment

Just some feedback from a first time reader of this article: it doesn't seem to achieve a NPOV. It attempts it; but it doesn't achieve it.

Ironically, the article seems to question the emotionalism of FSM enthusiasts...only to replace that emotionalism with the equally faint-praise damnation of cool scientific skepticism. "There does seem to be such a thing as repressed memory, but [with all the problems with RMT and other pollutants] one can't rely on such evidence without corroborating facts". That statement might be true but it isn't NPOV. The correct expression, it seems to me, is that skeptics distrust such evidence without corroborating facts, while advocates are concerned with justice for what may be victims.

Can an NPOV be achieved? Methinks the problem stems--as one reader has already pointed out--from the starting negative assertion in the title: you're playing with fire. Why create difficulties for NPOV? Yes, this may be a recognizable topic in scientific circles but the goals of Wikipedia are not necessarily best served by having a separate topic here.

IMHO this issue can be better discussed as a subheading of Repressed Memories--evidence for, and problems in reassembling without corruption of those memories. The 'heated debate' generated by the rage of abuse victims at having their evidence questioned, and the equally justified rage of unjustly accused parents...can be mentioned without being indulged. 207.81.127.107 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)John

Thanks for stopping by. A firm decision has already been made to distinguish false memories from repressed memories, both as facts and as articles. --KSmrq^T 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

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.

Please elaborate and provide this evidence, remembering to cite your sources, or your tag will just be removed again. MaxMangel 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Please add new comments at the end of the talk page, as always.) The tag will be removed anyway, because this article is perpetually disputed, as noted at the top of this very talk page. Besides which, the beginning of the article specifically contradicts this claim by mentioning PTSD, as just one example. --KSmrq^T 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge from

The article Synthetic memory seems to be just a stubbed version of this article. I would like to suggest merging that article into this article. But before that happens, I suggest some of the more active folks on this article discuss the issue and reach a conclusion. Thanks. WVhybrid 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything to merge? I think not. I suppose a redirect would be OK, but I'd prefer a speedy deletion. Why? Because research suggests that all (long-term) memory involves synthesis. Is there any evidence that "synthetic memory" is a term that professionals use? --KSmrq^T 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This Page is Ridiculous

This discussion betrays a serious lack of factual and/or scientific integrity. There are many examples of traumatic memories that were first disclosed years later but *were* confirmed. "The Recovered Memory Project" at Brown University is devoted to disseminating information about proven cases in which "traumatic events were forgotten and then remembered later in life." Befitting of this Talk page, that project notes that these cases have been "ignored or overlooked by self-described skeptics of various sorts."

West world 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, and theirs. You can't take one study, especially one that other studies contradict, and then try to declare it right and ridicule others ("self-described skeptics" -- boy, they sure don;t sound like they care about facts or scientific integrity). That's a huge violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 05:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have the WP:NPOV policy misunderstood - this is a discussion page so I thought what I had written was appropriate. I will read more the policy more closely and edit to comply with the rules. Nonetheless I think what you have said is not factually correct. I am not championing a POV. I am saying that carte blanche there are documented examples in which what is being referred to as Traumatic Memory or Repressed Memory and therefore assumed to be subjective/uncertain/etc. has been confirmed as having an objective basis in real events. On this very page, a previous poster and literally a "self-described skeptic" challenged anyone to come up with a single case in which repressed memory had been verified. Thus, the statement I have posted above is not a POV. Clearly that poster had overlooked these cases. West world 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "there are documented examples in which what is being referred to as Traumatic Memory or Repressed Memory and therefore assumed to be subjective/uncertain/etc. has been confirmed as having an objective basis in real events" is not a fact, that's opinion. Just because somebody somewhere comes out with some paper making that claim doesn't make it true. People can dig up various studies making all sorts of claims. We can certainly mention that some study by so-and-so made claims to that effect, along with all the studies that show the opposite, but you can;t say that it's fact. That's not how things work. And if it turns out that this study is small and disputed by nonrecognized authors, then even mentioning it at all violates the "undue weight" clause of the NPOV policy. 12:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not referring to a clinical study of, for example, cognitive processing. I am referring to a collection of court proceedings etc. in which claims made by adult survivors of sexual abuse who had not consistently remembered the abuse were corroborated by the confession of a perpetrator, clinical evidence previously unavailable to the adult survivor, etc. Surely there is a way to frame the factual aspect of this archive in a way that does not violate any policy. West world 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to what I have written, the following quote is a "critical review" of a controversial workbook for survivors of sexual abuse: "The Courage to Heal is the most harmful work of slander, ignorance, and lies since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Malleus Maleficarum." This text is from a website [2] that is linked here in the section on "retractors." Curiously, none of the conscientious editors of this page have questioned the neutrality of that site and whether or not it is an appropriate source of reference for WP. West world 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How to appropriately represent other "opinions" on this page?

There are serious problems with this page. It does not reflect a neutral, unbiased source of information about "false memory." I have tried to add facts or to clearly name and describe "opinions" several times. Each time I am told that I am "seriously" in breach of wikipedia policy. I do not want to violate that policy. I *do* want to help make this page more neutral and honest. The way it stands it makes numerous claims that are biased. Regarding the section on "retractors", there are numerous, legitimate studies that empirically conclude that "retracting" allegations of sexual abuse after the fact is very common. One study found that 90% of children who did so later made the same allegations again. There also simply needs to be a way to represent here, on WP, the findings of studies which have concluded that many "retractors" are responding to family reactions to their disclosure. I am happy to phrase this as carefully as possible to ensure it is stated as neutral, but it needs to be here. The message one particular poster keeps sending me is that by its very nature, psychology is opinion and therefore impossible to cite without violating policy. That seems like it violates the spirit and mission of WP.West world 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read your edit history, but I think this page should be *describing the theory/concept* of False Memory Syndrome. It shouldn't be trying to support and oppose it, but listing arguments that have been put forward to support or oppose it, with references to papers that make those arguments... in other words, this article, like all others, shouldn't itself have any point of view, though it is okay to list and describe what prominent points of views exist. Treated like that, it shouldn't matter whether the article, or any psychology article in general, is an opinion, a rock solid science, or a field full of both, as the wikipedia would be simply documenting. 203.214.83.75 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized the page is called, and thus about, "False memory". Most of what I just said still stands. 203.214.83.75 08:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits did just that. I added two referenced lines saying that some researchers have found people who retract allegations of familial abuse are responding to the stress of family reactions. Stated as such, this is not an opinion, it is the description of an opinion. That this was removed (feel free to check the history of the page) and described as being a wild violation of policy is really suspect. Reading the page history, it is clear that other people have also tried to document the opinion that False Memory is more complicated than it is presented here. Those people have also had their edits removed as violation of policy. At the same time, there are links to pages from within the content here that are very biased and poorly referenced. Those links are ones which support the controversial and non-majority position that False Memory is an accepted and common phenomena. West world 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a re-write

This article needs a fresh start. False Memory as a historically contingent phenomena related to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is an entirely different animal than memory experiments conducted in laboratories. West world 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No response yet? I think this page should be split into two separate entities, at least. The first being a logical description of a memory that is not true. Although that seems rather redundant, ie having an entry called "false statement" or "false positive". That article would probably read little more than "A False Memory is a memory of something that did not actually occur." But the second entity would contextualize the phrase FM as part of a social movement that began in the early 1990's. In order to truly reflect NPOV, that article would need to acknowledge the 1) derivation of the term FM, 2) the currency of that phrase within its cultural milieu, etc. I am advocating that this page be re-written with careful attention to the fact that this term is very emotionally charged, both for advocates of adult survivors of child abuse *and* for dedicated skeptics and activists against pseudoscience. Those groups are capable of co-existing here wih a shared commitment to WP. Wikipedia should be able to accommodate both groups while maintaining integrity. I propose that the way to do this is by modifying the page to present FM as a linguistic entity, allowing *both groups* to describe what that entity means and how it works in the world.

I wholly acknowledge that my intent is to modify this page so that it more accurately represents scientific evidence for repressed memory, dormant memory, etc. That is not a bias. I am fighting for the inclusion, by *consensus* of information that has not been welcomed here. And I think people who have scientific evidence otherwise should *also* be allowed to present that here.

But this page and even more so Recovered Memory Therapy has got to stop being a debate between extreme fictitious arguments: ie False Memory = propagandad by perpetrators vs. False Memory = adults who remember anything contentious.

Is there any possibility of a dialogue here? Thoughts? West world 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are an interesting study [here] on the increased frequency of the term "false memory" in the research literature throughout the 1990s, particularly since the term was being used to describe memory phenomena that had previously been called "memory flaws".

As you say, "False Memories" are a historically contingent category. I would argue that the use of the term has been promoted by certain claims-makers (people accused of sexual abuse, and those sympathetic to them) in order to advance certain beliefs - in this case, that adult women are unreliable witnesses to their own lives, and their memories of sexual assault in childhood are untrustworthy.

It is difficult to have an evidence-based discussion on the fallibility of memory using a term like "false memories". The malleability of memory has been well recognised in scientific literature for decades, and quite uncontroversially so. Lumping that data under the term "false memory" gives credence to the position of the False Memory Syndrome movement, and I think we should avoid it altogether.

Then again, I think this page is inherently biased and POV, so any attempts give it some balance would be good - perhaps a 'history' section outlining the terms of the debate in which "false memories" emerged? --Biaothanatoi 05:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I was trying to propose -- an attempt to document the derivation of the word as it is used by FMS activists (and their friends). The argument being, as you suggest, that there is a popular conflation between a term that signifies a very specific argument located in a very specific cultural milieu (FMS, RMT, etc) and a term that has to do with non-traumatic memory, cognitive experiments, etc. When I have a chance, I intend to draft this section and place it in the sandbox, then come back here and request constructive criticism from all sides before attempting an edit.

West world 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove paragraph from the Alien Abduction section

I am proposing that the paragraph below be removed from the article:

"In the United States, in the 1980s, a wave of false allegations erupted as a result of the use of recovered memory techniques in cases of Satanic ritual abuse.[9] Hundreds of psychotherapists began teaching that adult stress was a sign that a person was sexually abused by their parents and neighbors. Using putative techniques to "recover" these lost memories, hundreds of people eventually were convinced by their therapists that they were abused by Satanic priests, these Satanists being their own family or kindergarten teachers. Hundreds of people were convicted of these "crimes" and put in jail. From the late 1990s onward a skeptical reappraisal of these recovered memory techniques has shown that these were not recovered memories at all, but rather created memories. Most of the people convicted on such charges have since been freed.[10]"

I am proposing removal for two reasons: 1) it does not belong in the alien abduction and past life therapy section and 2) it violates wikipedia’s policies on balance, bias and NPOV.Abuse truth 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Point one is a no-brainer that noone can argue. As for point two, I agree with your assessment but am sure others will not. What about drafting a more neutral and well-referenced version of this paragraph that acknowledges the belief in this phenomena -- ie documenting the opinion that there was a "moral panic", but adding cited sources that contextualize that opinion? The sandbox would be a great place to test that paragraph and get approval before submitting the edit. West world 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph makes several sweeping statements without backing them up (such as the use of the word "hundreds.") Due to the number of violations of wikipedia's policies occurring in the paragraph, it may be simply be better to delete it in its entirety. Below find several sources that discuss the effects of trauma on memory.

• Research on the Effect of Trauma on Memory Research has shown that traumatized individuals respond by using a variety of psychological mechanisms. One of the most common means of dealing with the pain is to try and push it out of awareness. Some label the phenomenon of the process whereby the mind avoids conscious acknowledgment of traumatic experiences as dissociative amnesia . Others use terms such as repression , dissociative state , traumatic amnesia, psychogenic shock, or motivated forgetting . Semantics aside, there is near-universal scientific acceptance of the fact that the mind is capable of avoiding conscious recall of traumatic experiences.

• 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.

• Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate, by Alan Scheflin, Psychiatric Times 11/99, Vol. XVI Issue 11 The appearance in the DSM-IV indicates that the concept of repressed memory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. This satisfies courts following the Frye v United States, 293 F.1013 (1923) or Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence in court.

Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories.Abuse truth 01:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All of thes refs are valid and should be included here, on the RMT page, the Repressed Memory page, etc. But there is a fundamental problem -- there is a lot of data against Bennet Braun and others. Disputing the existence of False Memory altogether makes no sense. And factually speaking, there is good reason to believe that some of the daycare cases really were wrong. I have had alot of frustration trying to include, on WP, the same type of info you are, but still, until this page is just a neutral entry which allows people to incorporate divergent research, its going to stay a battleground and noone will be able to get good info here. I am going to take a pass at neutralizing the offending paragraph and posting it to the sandbox, if that is ok with you. Thanks! West world 01:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What can be disputed is the prevalence of false memory and the level of accuracy of repressed memory. I believe it would better if the paragraph is deleted. The idea of presenting both sides of the concepts in it could then be presented. This would ensure balance and accuracy. Abuse truth 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with my sense of your intentions. However, the popular influence of False Memory is *very* strong. Removing the offending paragraph will raise peoples' ire and cause a backlash. Alternatively, things like: requesting citations for subjective claims (ie. "some" vs "many") and presenting good information are a much more likely avenue towards progress in the article's quality. Just my opinion, though....

West world 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not as convinced that the popular influence of false memory is strong. The important thing is that the article contains accurate unbiased NPOV information in an encyclopedic manner. Removal of the above paragraph moves the article a bit closer toward that goal. Once the paragraph is removed, it can be re-written in an objective manner covering both sides of the data. Abuse truth 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My hope was that a drafted replacement paragraph on the sandbox might avoid an editing war. West world 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am open to this idea, provided that the paragraph is temporarily removed from the article, pending necessary revisions.Abuse truth 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, do as you see fit, but I'm pretty convinced that is going to create another backlash and a bunch of the anti-pseudoscience activists waving their hands around crying injustice and labeling us both conspiracy theorists. Wish it were otherwise.....

West world 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the important thing to focus on is accuracy and NPOV. Once you put it on the sandbox, I will delete it and we can work on it there and discuss it here if necessary. Abuse truth 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Data on recovered memory

Not all the assertions in the new section are supported by the references, and some that are supported are WP:SYN violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&diff=166877810&oldid=166842533 added a new section. I'll insert the additional tags that should be there, but I don't want to clutter the article with them in case it's recoverable.

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. The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community. This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.} 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. Research has shown that traumatized individuals respond by using a variety of psychological mechanisms. One of the most common means of dealing with the pain is to try and push it out of awareness. Some label the phenomenon of the process whereby the mind avoids conscious acknowledgment of traumatic experiences as dissociative amnesia . Others use terms such as repression , dissociative state , traumatic amnesia, psychogenic shock, or motivated forgetting . Semantics aside, there is near-universal scientific acceptance of the fact that the mind is capable of avoiding conscious recall of traumatic experiences. Research shows that individuals that are traumatized will deal with pain by pushing it out of their awareness. Some people call this repression. There is almost a universal acceptance in the scientific community that one’s mind can avoid the conscious recall of a traumatic experience. 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). 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. Brown, Scheflin and Hammond in “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law” (New York: Norton, 1998) reviewed 43 relevant studies involving traumatic memory. They found that all of the studies that looked the idea of dissociation and amnesia in trauma victims showed that a large minority completely or partially forgot the event that included trauma. These people later remembered memories of what happened.

In summary, there are a number of sentences not reflecting the references or reflecting a syntenesis of the references, and none of the online references even suggest the statement that recovered memories are normal, although one suggests that recovered memories are as reliable as continuous memories. I'm using the tag to indicate irrelevant statements, as well as those which are basically meaningless. If these issues are not resolved, I'm going to trim the tagged statements. Unlike some of the FMSF people, I accept that repression of memories can occur. However, the studies I've seen suggest that recovered memories are as reliable as reconstructed memories; i.e., if I remember going from Los Angeles to Chicago in 4 hours, I must have been on a plane, even if I don't remember any details. Of course, as Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not truth, published statements to the contrary should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AR. May I ask how you have determined that Brown, Scheflin and Hammond have given the most "comprehensive review" in a book now almost a decade old? West world 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed that tag. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

<clear>

This data :

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.(not in citation given)

is in the article. See [3]

This is duplicate information and will be deleted:

Dissociative amnesia can occur after any type of traumatic event. Brown, Scheflin and Hammond in “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law” (New York: Norton, 1998) reviewed 43 relevant studies involving traumatic memory. They found that all of the studies that looked the idea of dissociation and amnesia in trauma victims showed that a large minority completely or partially forgot the event that included trauma. These people later remembered memories of what happened. [not in citation given][4]

This information :

Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse.[original research?] The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts.[original research?][dubious – discuss] The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven.[improper synthesis?][dubious – discuss] [1]

comes from P. 370 - 381 of the book “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law” (New York: Norton, 1998) Critical Evaluation of Research on Emotion and Memory - What do we know about Memory Suggestibility?

is derived from their analysis of the research. There is no synthesis going on in the paragraph above. All three facts have come from the chapter.

This section

The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community.[not specific enough to verify] This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.[not specific enough to verify]} Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory.[not specific enough to verify] 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.[opinion needs balancing] [2]

[4] The first two sentences are statements of fact. They are specific and are backed by court decision cited in the article. The last two sentences need no balancing. They balance the statements made in the “Discussion,” “False Memory Syndrome” and “Criticisms of...” sections.

AR states:

“none of the online references even suggest the statement that recovered memories are normal, although one suggests that recovered memories are as reliable as continuous memories.”

There is no mention in the section that recovered memories are normal. Abuse truth 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse truth is definitely abusing — if not the truth, at least Wikipedia policies. I'm removing the statements which are conclusions unless they can be sourced, as written, to a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to AR's deletions:

Source 1: Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. (Reply : the source for this line is Yapko, M.D. (1994a) Suggestions of Abuse. New York: Simon & Schuster - see p. 379 of the reference Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (1998). Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law (W. W. Norton) ISBN 0-393-70254-5) The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts. Qoute from source : “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. (Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D. Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)

Source 2: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate, by Alan Scheflin, Psychiatric Times 11/99, Vol. XVI Issue 11 The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community. This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence. Quote from source: “The appearance in the DSM-IV indicates that the concept of repressed memory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. This satisfies courts following the Frye v United States, 293 F.1013 (1923) or Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence in court. Opponents of repressed memory are what the law considers, at best, a respectable minority under the two schools of thought doctrine (Jones v Chidester [1992]; Kowalski, 1998). The burden of proof is on the minority school of thought to demonstrate that it is respectable, not on the majority to prove that it is right.”

Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory. Quote from article : “Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories.”

Source 3: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/tm.html There is almost a universal acceptance in the scientific community that one’s mind can avoid the conscious recall of a traumatic experience. Source above listed numerous studies that accept the above.

Source 4: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/prev.html 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). Quote from the source: “ 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.” This quote shows that this book has the most comprehensive review to date.

I will be reverting these edits. I have shown these sources to be reliable and the article data to be properly referenced. Abuse truth 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted again, but you wrote this comment after you reverted my edits. Still, each of those sentences requires an inline cite, and "scientific community" is clearly intended to provide improper weight, even if it is a quote.

Summary of the sources above

Source 1:

• Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse.
  • Even if an accurate quote, and sourced, it's biased in this context. "Occasional" makes it irrelevant to the article, as well.
  • It also requires a note that hypnoticly recovered/enhanced memories are not presntly considered admissible in court, possibly because the Courts don't accept the statement as written. Perhaps the courts are wrong, but....
• The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts.
  • It would be an acceptable paraphrase, except that "facts" must be replaced by "data", as in the quote. There's a POV problem there, as well. I see an implication that studies have been performed showing it's not easy, while the quote, in it's context, implies only that no studies have been performed.
• The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven.
  • Restating the SAME statement. (I picked the wrong tag. Should be undue weight through repetition.)

Source 2:

• The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community. This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.
  • Only acceptable as a quote, without a reference stating whether the courts accept that it satifies the court rules (which I don't think is the case). It might be acceptable, in this context, to rewrite the second sentence as: "This means that recovered memories may acceptable under the Frye standard for admissibilty of evidence." (I still think the DSM-IV entry indicating that memories can be suppressed is completely irrelevant to the question of whether those suppressed memories can be recovered accuately, but that approaches OR on my part. On the other hand, relevance of a statement to the article should be clear to anyone who understands the statement and context, so....)
  • As an aside, so far, none of the sources you've quoted speak to recovered memory, only to suppressed memory, except for the last metastudy.
• Science is limited on the issue.
  • Clearly wrong in context; needs to have (existing scientific studies) replacing "science" to recover context. Or you could make it a quote, but you'd need to quote more than you have to recover the context.

Source 3:

• There is almost a universal acceptance in the scientific community that one’s mind can avoid the conscious recall of a traumatic experience.
  • Undue weight through repetition.

Source 4:

• • "Best" is POV, even if a source says it's the most comprehensive. Let it go, or source the statement accurately.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the repetitions of the same concept, and converted two of the repetitious sections to blockquotes, which seem accurate. (One of the blockquotes seems to be incorrect as to the content of one of the references it uses, but that's their problem.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now converted all but one of the sections to a block quote, as it's clear that what was put in the section wasn't a fair description of what was in the source; some paraphrasing, some WP:SYN, and a few clauses not supported at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it looks pretty good now. Since I am assuming we have consensus, I will be removing the tags from the section. If someone doesn't agree, you put them back in. Abuse truth 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Alien abduction and past life therapy" section

I am proposing the removal of the above section. On the Satanic Ritual Abuse page it was removed because :

"The Alien abduction section looked like a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, so I removed it. WLU 02:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)" There was no objection this. This seems to be the case here also. Comments are welcome. Abuse truth 23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would object to the removal of this section. Unless alien abductions and past life memories are actually happening, then the memories are obviously false. Some of the techniques used by therapists (i.e creative visualisation and bibliotherapy etc) are the same. Just because it was removed on another page, does not mean that it should be removed on this page. MatthewTStone 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Most of the people convicted on such charges have since been freed." should definitely be removed. This is original research.Abuse truth 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

deleting original research not backed up by source

I will be deleting the following statements from the article:

"Hundreds of psychotherapists began teaching that adult stress was a sign that a person was sexually abused by their parents and neighbors. Using putative techniques to "recover" these lost memories, hundreds of people eventually were convinced by their therapists that they were abused by Satanic priests, these Satanists being their own family or kindergarten teachers. Hundreds of people were convicted of these "crimes" and put in jail."

and

"Many of the people convicted on such charges have since been freed."

These statement are not backed up by any research shown on the source page. Please feel free to re-add them using sourced data. Abuse truth 02:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Many..." is (or was, yesterday) properly sourced. I'll see if I can find it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, rather than start another section, I am going to take this moment to ask Mr. Rubin for any credible reason why the source he removed (fmsf.com) is not itself "credible"? Yes, AbuseTruth clearly believes in repressed memory and, forgive me for jumping to conclusions, you do not, but deeming that source in-credible at whim is a major NPOV violation. www.stopbadtherapy.com is a far, far less "credible" source with its proclamation that the courage to heal is equivalent to the protocols of the elders of zion. Why, Mr. Rubin, is your removal justified?

West world 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Abuse truth is still abusing the truth by lying about the contents of the source in this edit. As for stopbadtherapy.com, it should be removed as well as fmsf.com. Is it time to remind us of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aside,

the edits I made in the above link were valid. There is NO evidence in either url cited that backs up the terms "Thousands or tens of thousands" or "many." Changing the terms to "some" was a good compromise.

The fmsf.com cite is a good one. It provides sourced data and a variety of scientific abstracts, see http://fmsf.com/scientific.shtml. A more appropriate cite for wikipedia on the book "The Courage to Heal" is at http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/Nws_Views/articles/Reviews_Books/courage_to_heal.html Abuse truth 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AR. AT seems to be acting in good faith. Accusing AT of "lying" about something that is a bit ambiguous seems destructive. Regardless, I am not sure that WP:OSE is relevant to my own objection. What I was trying to point out is that the site I mentioned: stopbadtherapy.com has been sitting on this page for months, and I take it as evidence that editors who are very eagle-eyed about anything they deem questionable which *supports* the theory of repressed/dormant memory generally do not apply that same care to the other side.

West world 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid he's lying as to the content of sources, both favorable and in opposition to "recovered memory". The specific source I was referring to says "thousands of ... therapists", and he didn't consider it adequate sourcing for "hundreds". If he wants to say that the web site is not a WP:RS, I could accept that in good faith, but not misquoting both that site and the ones favorable to recovered memory. I had to reduce the section covered by those sites to a collection of quotes, because he kept misquoting those sites, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AR. I do not want to participate in an edit war and I have always tried to acknowledge my bias to present referenced and reputable info which supports repression, etc. However, I think AT does have a point about that site. The phrase tens of thousands and later use of the phrase thousands is not referenced on the site in question. Rather than deeming it an unreliable source altogether, could we all compromise on an issue that has haunted this page: as far as quantifying things here, can we agree to use neutral terms (or assume good faith on others' parts) except in circumstances where there are hard numbers to cite or reference? Perhaps we could try to find good data collected by researchers who have actually tried to come up with *specific* numbers? Respectfully, West world 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

West world is right. I have not found any data on the site that backs up the use of the numbers above. This means that the numbers are original research. The sentences in the section I wrote were correct. I proved this in a previous section of the talk page above. I accepted the re-write as a compromise. Since we all agree that stopbadtherapy.com shouldn't be on the page, I recommend the source be deleted.Abuse truth 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not supposed to verify that (generally reliable) sites have data to back up their conclusions; we're supposed to report their conclusions. Reporting the data would almost certainly lead to a WP:SYN violation. I converted the section above to quotes because AT was interpreting the statements in way not supported by the articles, although it may be supported by the raw data referenced in those articles. That's not the Wikipedia way. We can question whether a site is reliable; but if it is, we report their conclusions, not their data. I can now see that "lying" is too strong, but there's no really appropriate one-word description for the Wikipedia-inappropriate interpretations you've been making. You may paraphrase references, but you may not reinterpret them.

WW is correct as to my bias; a person close to me has some recovered memories which could not have been accurate in detail, and never forgot the actual abuse. She now accepts that the "recovered" memories are inaccurate, which has (at times) led her to doubt her actual memories of abuse. This cannot be placed in the article unless properly sourced, but it shows where I'm coming from. I'm trying to be fair in regard; in fact, I've included some statements from pro-recovered-memory papers which I believe to be both incorrect and harmful to living people. I ask that AT not attempt to interpret articles which he believes mistaken, if he cannot do so fairly.

As for "original research", that's something we (as editors) are forbidden to do; if a reference does it, we may consider it unreliable, but using the term "orginal research" to refer to it is wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AR. Thanks for the candor -- this page is controversial for a *very* good reason. I actually support most of your revisions to AT's edit. The one I take issue with is the "thousands or tens of thousands." Not just because of the RT page, but because I have looked very hard for a good, hard number on this and found nothing reliable. I support leaving the other 3 edits you made, but propose that we change that one in particular to something like: "some sources have speculated that thousands or tens of thousands...." Does that work for you? I would add that I think a strong case could be made for deeming the religioustolerance site's info on RMT as unreliable, but overall I think the rest of the site's content is reputable, so I will not be making that argument.West world 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite acceptable. I'd prefer that to making it a direct quote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AT changed the citation to the specific source-name. Works for me and is probably a good compromise. No?West world 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made two slight changes to AR's changes.

1) I changed "Some sources have speculated" to "The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance has speculated." This is more accurate. The page itself does not cite other sources stating the same concept. Please feel free to change this if other sources are found and cited.

2)"crimes (in quotes)" to "crimes (without quotes)" The page itself does not discuss the veracity or non-veracity of the convictions. A source is needed to back up the fact that these were not actual crimes. And since they were convicted, the courts believed they were crimes. (Some people of course were later released on technicalities.)

West world states "I would add that I think a strong case could be made for deeming the religioustolerance site's info on RMT as unreliable." I would agree with this. It appears they have only looked at one side of the data and only present one side of the issue. According to wikipedia guidelines, see below, they are not a reliable source on this issue.

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

In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

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

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

In regard to AR's comment, I tried to approximate the articles' information in the section I wrote as closely as I could. AR did not agree with that interpretation, and a compromise was found.

My personal experiences with recovered memories have been different than AR's. I have seen people revictimized due to the fact that their accurate memories of abuse were not believed, due to the FMSF, etc. Abuse truth 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for activists hoping to use articles to advance their opinion. Your edits have been highly biased. The problem here is you keep referring to WP:NPOV and demanding balance while you make the article far less balanced than it was before. It's starting to look like you are simply too close to the topic to look at it at all objectively. DreamGuy (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, much as as Abuse truth is abusing the truth, some of those quotes, properly paraphrased, belong in the article. The reason they were in as quotes is that he refused to accept my (clearly correct) interpretation of the sources, and I refused to accept his. Perhaps a content RfC might be helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits have been an attempt at balance. IMO, data that should have been in the article was not.

I am fine with the compromise previously achieved about these quotes. Abuse truth (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensing and streamlining

I made a series of major changes that were NOT intended to change the content or argument on this page, but to clarify it. I did cut out some specific stuff about RMT and replace it with a link to that page. I would argue that the "criticisms of rmt" section does not belong on the FM page, but on the RMT page.

If you disagree with any of my changes, please let me know and/or talk about them with me before reverting and/or accusing me of some wild violation of plicy.

respectfully, West world 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

accusation of misquotes

On the edit history page, AR states : Revision as of 13:29, 27 November 2007 (edit) (undo) Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (I'm afraid, although I don't fully agree with User:DreamGuy, that AT's misquotes are worse.)

These were not my quotes added to the page. They were his, added on 10/26 and 10/27. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&diff=167342938&oldid=167342482 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&diff=prev&oldid=167289894 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&diff=prev&oldid=167289348 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_memory&diff=prev&oldid=167286093 Abuse truth (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Informal merger request

Perhaps this article (False memory) should be merged into Repressed memory. This would solve the problem of sections suitable for one artical and not the other being placed in both. Both recovered memory and false memory seem to relate to repressed memory. A possible lead would be:

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. The memory is then called a recovered memory. However, in some cases, the memory recovered does not reflect the actual event, in which case it is known as a false memory.

The theory of repressed memories must not be confused with the established psychological concept of repression in general which stresses impulses instead of memories.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was beginning to hope that there was a chance that repressed memory was becoming stable. Of course that's not necessarily a reason not to merge--Vannin (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's just that certain editors are adding information about recovered memories to this article, and I thought it might simplify matters to combine them so that the matter doesn't come up again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the problem is that the two topics are intricately connected, so it would be impossible not to discuss one without the other, yet there is so much data in the field and media about both topics, that both topics probably deserve their own page, as we see by the volume of data on each page. But I am open to ideas as to how to address these issues.Abuse truth 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see how it might deal with the repressed memory/false memory with regards to sexual abuse, and the on-going reverts that have been going on. I think, though, that there is a risk that other false memory issues would get lost in the shuffle. False memory is so many more things and ties in with the reconstructive nature of memory, and problems with eyewitness testimony, the very poor relationship between confidence and accuracy and topics such as alien abductions etc. I am open to merging as a solution - I don't know how this actually happens, though, but suggest that if possible the repressed memory material takes precedence simply because I think it is a little more stable.--Vannin 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I support a merger. the topics largely overlap, and there's not a compelling reason to keep them separate. The whole shebang can be covered all at once, using the fundamentals of WP:NPOV and WP:RS policy. DreamGuy 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I could agree to the concept of a merger, I would want to be certain that the combined article will be fairly written and not emphasize one POV over another. I do agree withVannin above, that we should be sure that no data gets lost in the shuffle. Perhaps before we begin the merger process, those promoting the idea of a merger should lay out a basic outline for the new article with possible sections and subsections. Abuse truth 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a merger would be a bad idea. At the moment this article talks too much about the contriversy surrounding specific instances of false memory and not enough about the psychology behind why false memory happens (as it does all the time). I think merging this with repressed memory would simply exaserbate the problem as it would just become a counterpoint to theories of repressed memory (which are not necissarily disproved by instances of false memory). Ralphmcd (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitfield

Charles Whitfield, MD, in his 1995 book Memory and Abuse states he had found that all critics of studies of the studies showing support for the validity of delayed memories are members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation advisory board.

Even if an accurate paraphrase and accurate in fact, it's still biased, as there's a clear implication that only members of the FMSF board support the theory, ignoring the alternative that all supporters of theory were placed on the board (possibly without their consent). I don't see a neutral phrasing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to present his comment in a neutral way. That's why I included the date in the paraphrase, and why I wrote "he states he had found" - rather than listing it as an established fact. It was his educated opinion, based on what he was aware of at the time he wrote the book, so that's how I related it.

Here is the exact quote from the book:

"it is interesting to note that all critics of these studies I am aware of are members of the FMSF professional advisory board"

This field is his specialty and as a published author and part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, he is clearly a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking closely, that's not quite the same, "(I) found that all critics ... are members of the ... board" and "all critics that I found ... are members of the .. board" are not the same thing. The latter paraphrase still has the implication, but it's probably the one he was intending to make. It allows, as an additional potential inference, that he only looked at the FMSF for information on critics, which does seem possible. It's grammatically difficult to rephrase the statement he actually made, but I see those as quite different statements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and certainly the paraphrase should not introduce anything he did not write. On the other hand, it's clear in the book he did not only look to the FMSF for critics. The book is well-referenced and stays on topic per its title, Memory and Abuse; of its approx 380 total pages, around 30 pages are devoted to the question of false memories. It's not a self-help fluff book though he includes some suggestions for abuse survivors; his approach is scholarly, based on research and citations. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I just saw your new paraphrase in the article, I hadn't noticed that before I replied here. The rewording looks OK, thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Page split proposal

This page seems to be about two separate topics, so I propose a split, to two pages as follows:

• False memory - this page would be about the medical / psychological topic of false memories, with a clinical, medical approach: what is a false memory? how does it affect a person's life? what diseases or events an cause false memories? how does memory work and how can false memories be formed? This page could include a short mention of False memory syndrome with a link to that page. Alternately, this title could be redirected to Memory and a section added there to address memories that are false.

• False memory syndrome - this page would include most of the content of the current page. The major focus of the page as it is now is FMS and its relation to accusations of abuse and other crimes or strange phenomena like UFO abduction. This page would include a short section about False memory, with a link, nwith an emphasis on how false memory can result from unusual questioning techniques using suggestion, or from RMT, as noted in the FMS literature. Using the title False memory for the page as it now exists, seems not to match well the content of the page. So if the pages are not split, at least, the title of this page should be changed to False memory syndrome.

Comments invited. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think the False memory component needs to be merged with repressed memory, under the circumstances. There's too much overlap, at least in AT's mind. Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The "overlap" is permissible under wikipedia policy :

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

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.

And it is necessary to have some overlap, since the topics are closely related.

I respectfully disagree with the use of the title "false memory syndrome." There is no such syndrome, at least in terms of the DSM-IV TR and according to the opinions of many researchers.Abuse truth (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, when I suggest an article about FMS, that does not convey any endorsement of the term as a syndrome per DSM. The phrase is used in enough sources that it's notable enough for an article. Some sources call it a syndrome; other sources argue to the contrary. When more references are brought in, it will become more clear how the FMS term is viewed by mainstream medical science. We don't need to try and impose our ideas on it; the literature will provide everything that's needed.

My point in splitting the page is that it's a different topic than "False memories" in general. There are ways that false memories can form or affect a person that have nothing at all to do with FMS or RMT or even abuse. Those are functions of how memories work, and there are references about that topic too. The article as it is now though is almost exclusively about FMS. So, we should either split the two pages, with most of this one staying int he FMS page, and leaving "False memories" as a stub for possible expansion, or, if that is not done, then this current page should be renamed "False memory syndrome" so FMS can be addressed as a topic, including both what its proponents say, and those who state that it is not a real syndrome. There is a huge reservoir of reliable sources available for this topic; it will take some time, but in the long run, the article will be accurate. Because it's controversial, the finding of solid references are particularly important here.

All that said, I recommend the page be split or renamed pretty soon. We just need to decide whether or not we want to retain a stub article for "False memory" or just rename this one. I think that can be done in the next few days, then it will be easier to proceed with developing the article. As it is now, the focus is unclear and it's making the editing difficult. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the duplicated paragraphs, even if they were relevant, they take the point of view that there is no such thing as a false traumatic memory. This is clearly not the case. What should be done is to summarize the relevant sections of the RM article, not copy paragraphs which support your POV, even if it were the scientific POV. Biased copy is worse than nothing. I think the split needs to be done, regardless of what is to be done with the resultant FM component. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We agree about the split being done, good. But really, I have no idea what you mean about my POV. Are you confusing me with a different editor? (No offense, just wondering). For example, this comment you wrote: " they take the point of view that there is no such thing as a false traumatic memory. This is clearly not the case. " - I've never taken that position so I don't know why you're addressing that to me. Regarding the duplicated paragraphs, I'm also not sure which ones you're referring to. That's one reason I suggested splitting the page soon, so each topic can be developed with solid references. I agree that summaries of sections from related articles are appropriate to include. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That was supposed to be directed to AT, as the edit summary indicated (I hope). Sorry about the confusion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. No worries. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

←Per discussion, I've done the page split and this page is now titled False memory syndrome. Instead of starting a new page for False memory, which would have been a stub of only a few sentences, I moved the relevant information about that to the already existing page Confabulation after researching the terms and finding they are closely related. The confabulation article was a stub anyway, so although it will need cleanup and organizing, and definintely needs references, the added information is helpful there. This article here is now much more clear and we can focus our attention on the issues of this topic without the distraction of the off-topic content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1