Talk:The Courage to Heal

Noting Changes in Current Addition

How is this categorised under "memory"? This should be under "child sexual abuse" or, at the very least, "self-help." That it's categorised under "memory" shows that the critics are manipulating this entry. Memory is merely one aspect of the book, and although the criticism has been addressed in great detail in the latest edition, there is plenty more there to the book than a discussion of survivors memories.

The reference to the Australian critical study was to page 2 of the study instead of page 1, so the reference was out of context. It should be made clear that the "study" was a survey conducted among an organization of allagedly falsely accused sexual abusers, which is why the link needs to be made page 1, not page 2.

___________________________________________________

Just a suggestion--perhaps the "negative review" listed in the external links section should be removed, since it's not a review by any established reviewer of note (like, say, the Times Book Review) but rather by a guy with a pret-ty big axe to grind, judging by not just the "review" itself but by the rest of the site which is unabashedly anti-feminist. Thoughtful criticism is one thing but the "review" reads like an angry teenage boy pissed off at his ex-girlfriend--he manages to bash lesbians, survivors of sexual abuse and all feminists in one fell swoop.

64.132.218.4 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

______________________________

The current addition of "The Courage to Heal" uses different language and recognises the occurance of false memories or confabulation of memories. Older additions did use very bold and misleading language, however it has been remedied. This is a text used by many survivors who have continious memories of Sexual Abuse and the techniques used in the current addition, specifically writing about the trauma, are shown to be helpful in healing (similar to exposure therapies used with survivors)

This is a 600 page book, false memory syndrome should not be the only notable feature although it may be pop psychology's favorite topic.

Feel free to add this information to the article. MaxMangel 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just want to add that I feel that this article does a disservice to the book. While I think the anti repressed memory people have a point, even the fact that this article is filed under "memory" and not another topic tells the story of its hijacking. I wish the RMF people would build their own page and simply offer a link from the CTH page to theirs for people who wanted to learn more about "repressed memory."

Mijames 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This article has gone bad due to poor edits from people probably ignorant of wiki policies. Firstly, if you are going to do masses of edits, get a login name.

Second, sign your edits on the discussion page using four tildas - it really isn't that hard.

Thirdly, let's try for a little less bias and POV statements in the article. Keep sentences factual. I haven't had the time for the wiki for a while and it is very disappointing that so many of the articles I have started or worked on have gone so bad. MaxMangel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made numerous edits, signed them and found them nowhere on the article when I returned. The article is a massive POV and inappropriate with backlash slander that has nothing to do with providing factual info about the book, including the millions of copies sold. Oncesaid20 09:44, Feb 24 2010 (USA) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

When, and under what name did you make the edits? This user name has only made one edit. Here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the POV, the book has been discredited. A don't know about your claimed "backlash slander", but there's no libel in this article. (Defamation in permanent form is "libel"; temporary, such as unrecorded speech, is "slander".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to throw around accusations of bias, you should be prepared to back them up with sources. Most scholars seem to think the book is a hateful bit of trash that has no scientific basis for its claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

Currently there is a long list of external links to "Other references relevant to recovered memories". WP:EL has clear guidelines on what external links should or should not be added to an article. Specifically, it recommends against including

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

I recommend this extra section of external links be removed, since none of them seem to be about The Courage to Heal. First, thought, I thought it would be a good idea to float my proposal on the talk page. This is a controversial subject and perhaps things have been worked out this way for a good reason. If no-one objects I will eventually remove the section. Anyone who believes the links are good references, but not directly related, could perhaps move them to another more relevant article. Katherine Tredwell 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess another editor agreed with me. The article looks better now. Katherine Tredwell 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Katherine's comment that the list of links is not helpful. To improve this, I have added relevant external links to the list. I have added these several times and they are continually removed. To WLU's point (above) the links are not extraneous or unrelated. I added links to "child abuse," "incest" and "self-help." These should not be controversial additions as all of these issues are referred to throughout the article. I recently joined Wikipedia and am very excited to be part of this community. This is the first article I have worked on and no doubt there is a learning curve. I am quite,however, disheartened, by the approach of some editors in writing this article. Wikipedia stresses collaboration and the fact that no one person owns an article. Removing these links, which represent a very small change to the article, makes collaboration and consensus building quite difficult.164.67.8.162164.67.8.162 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment is nigh three and a half years old, and it's extremely unlikely that the article strongly resembles the version referred to. The page currently has no external links. You appear to be referring to the "see also" section; for guidance on that, please review WP:ALSO. Links that are found in the body generally are not repeated in the see also section. One links was inappropriate - false memory - because it was to a disambiguation page. Removed. No person owns the article but we are all bound by the policies and guidelines, such as the ones I have cited here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

reverting recent additions of OR and synthesis

I have reverted the 4/9/08 additions to the page of OR without sources and synthesis of ideas.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

removed miscategorization

I have removed the category pseudoscience, since the topic does not qualify under the wiki-definition of this. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure... See this book review by Robert Sheaffer (I read it originally in Skeptical Inquirer). —Cesar Tort 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

External link

• 1993 Recovered Memories article by Elizabeth Loftus

Should be an embedded reference, not an EL. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

The article reads like a piece of propaganda from the all-recovered-memory-is-false-memory crowd. It also contained factual errors. I have performed several revisions, which I believe are only the beginning of cleaning up the mess.

The first paragraph was at best misleading. Recovering memory is not the "primary thrust" of the book at all; the book is 600 pages long and only a couple of chapters out of that deal with memory at all, let alone the recovery of it. I have removed that sentence and replaced it with one that more accurately describes the book's purpose. Following that was a claim that the book created a false-memory industry. No citations backed up the claim. I removed it.

The second paragraph did not do justice to the controversy surrounding the book, as it spoke only of the negative reaction and not the positive. I added a couple of sentences to the paragraph to amend that.

The Overview section sought to give the impression that there is no evidence for the claim that traumatic memories may be repressed. In fact, the authors provide multiple references. I have edited the Overview to include this.

The list of chapters given included "Honoring the Truth". In fact, that chapter does not exist in the 4th edition. I removed it from the list, and added a missing chapter: References.

Also in the Overview, there was the following statement: "The Courage to Heal was part of the vision that childhood sexual abuse could be discovered with no corroborating evidence beyond a vague set of symptoms." This reeks with bias. "Part of the vision" doesn't really mean anything. The "vague set of symptoms" were never defined; as far as I can tell, the authors are in fact extremely specific. A reference to a book about "moral panic" was included; that belongs not in this article but in the article about moral panic. I decided that the sentence was irredemable and removed it. The article also failed to acknowledge that the authors have come to recognize the reality of false memory syndrome; I have included a quote that shows that in fact they have, in the most recent edition.

That's all for now; I hope to tackle more of the problems later.Feeline (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the See Also section and the box about Satanic Ritual Abuse. The See Also section was full of stuff about false memory syndrome and was not relevant. The book is not about Satanic Ritual Abuse, and mentions false memory syndrome only indirectly. Both sections were inappropriate and being used to mislead.Feeline (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved and titled per WP:TALK

The first paragraph is a lead. It should summarize the whole article. Citations in the lead are optional. The "caused an industry of false memory" is discussed extnesively in the Criticisms section, which is where the sources are. I have adjusted the content per your comments above regarding the relative weight given to recovering memories. When "cleaning up the mess" please ensure that you rely on reliable sources.

If sources can be found that discuss positive impact, please add them to the page. The sources you added are certainly not reliable - amazon reviews can't be used for anything and to aggregate them is original research. The overall rating in stars is also meaningless and inappropriate. Please get real sources that are appropriate for use in this page. Familiarizing yourself with our guidelines on reliable sources and verifiability (WP:RS and WP:V) would be the first step. The reaction in the scholarly community, particularly with experts in memory, is that it's a scientifically inaccurate book that primarily causes damage, not healing, by forcing patients to attribute all symptoms and problems to a nonexistent set of memories, and then cementing their identities on these memories. Lots o' sources agree, so that certainly can't be removed.

Regards the evidence that traumatic memories are always or even routinely repressed, it is verifiable that the "science" and discussion behind memories and repression in the book is flawed, if not outright false. Bass and Davis have acknoweldged they have no training and not updated the book to keep pace with what science has learned about memories since its original publication. Again, this is verifiable in reliable sources.

The overview section is clearly about the 2008 20th edition, not the 4th edition. Honouring the truth is therefore an appropriate chapter inclusion.

"Part of the vision" is sourced to Philip Jenkins, an eminent scholar on moral panics. The inclusion of SRA and Michelle Remembers is part of Jenkins' criticisms, sourced to the same book and should remain. That it focused any attention on SRA, thus feeding the panic, certainly should remain, as should it's change in nomenclature from satanic to sadistic.

Given the invovlement with the SRA moral panic, the template is appropriate. TCTH was part of the phenomenon, and a considerable contributing factor. Given its inaccurate focus on and summary of memories, the see also links were also important and appropriate. I've reverted your changes, bar the few that had merit. Please use sources, rather than your own experience, to adjust the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that one of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars is "neutrality?" Where is the neutrality in this article? You have nothing but a mass of negative press, and when someone tries to redress the balance, you simply remove what they have written. The opening paragraph may summarize the article, but the article itself is a blatant, shameful violation of Wikipedia standards.

Have you read the first edition? I have (just yesterday in fact), and there is nothing in there that encourages people to create false memories. To the contrary, it says that remembering will happen on its own timetable, not yours. How does that encourage false memories?

Are you aware that your version of the article contains no information about the actual book? Can you show me which parts of the book encourage false memory creation? How about some quotes? I would be very interested, not to mention surprised, if you can produce anything whatever.

What does "Michelle Remembers" have to do with "The Courage to Heal"?

"The overview section is clearly about the 2008 20th edition, not the 4th edition." What? The 2008 edition IS the 4th edition. Do you know anything about this book at all? You don't, do you? As a matter of fact, the 20th anniversary 4th edition does NOT contain "Honoring the Truth", and I can state that with confidence as a copy of it it is sitting right next to me.Feeline (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean "ignore the criticism", though that's a common misperception. There's a lot of criticism. It's all sourced and linked. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to represent the opinion of the scholarly majority - which is mostly negative. The APA "reference" that you put in the article was a dustcover comment - see here. That's not a reliable source. I was going to integrate the "source" until I couldn't figure out where it was published - it wasn't the APA.

I certainly wouldn't waste time reading the first edition. If I was going to read anything I would read the most recent edition, but even that is unlikely. What I have read is the extensive criticisms written about the book in secondary sources, which is what we are urged to use. The discussion of Michelle Remembers occurs in Moral Panic, as I've said before. Note that this indicates that Honoring the Truth is indeed part of the book, apparently the 3rd edition, though the 4th edition does not seem to [6]. I'll correct accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality means "Ignore the criticism." I don't believe _anybody_ thinks that neutrality means that. I didn't even remove the criticism; surely even you have to admit that. I left it very much intact. I simply tried to present the opposite point of view. That's what neutrality means--presenting both points of view. I will do more research, but I find it hard to believe that there is complete consensus among all experts that this book is (1) primarily about recovered memory (especially since the merest perusal shows otherwise) and (2) somehow written so as to encourage false memory.

Thank you, at least, for not reverting my corrections to the table of contents. I had been under the impression that you simply revert every change that is not made by you; now it looks as if that may not be the case 100% of the time.

I have restored the POV tag. Please leave that in place. Isn't it obvious that we are having a dispute?Feeline (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the criticisms are sourced while your efforts to present the opposite point of view are not. Undue weight means presenting the POV as representative of the relevant scholarly majority - who are critical. I've found lots of critical commentary, so find and add sourced praise. The book doesn't encourage false memory, it recommends techniques and a perspective that are likely to produce false memories.

The NPOV template is not a badge of shame. It only gets to remain until the dispute is resolved. Based on the lack of sources demonstrating a non-critical point of view, I consider the dispute resolved. I'm willing to leave it up for a short period, but if there is positive scholarly reviews, it should be easy to find them. Though frankly, if you can find sources and integrate them, I am unlikely to change anything so again I believe the template should simply be removed.

Please review WP:RS to ensure it's not random web pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"A short time" indeed--one day! Shame on you--I think your behaviour is disgraceful. You might want to become aware of the fact that some of us have lives and don't have every minute of our day to spend combing Google Scholar and updating Wikipedia. And by the way, this article isn't your personal property--are you aware of that?

I have added a reference. It is not a "random web page"--it is a page about child sexual abuse on the web site of The National Center for PTSD, a sub-domain of the Veterans Affairs page. They should certainly know a thing or two about PTSD. The piece was written by Julia M. Whealin, Ph.D., who, as you can see by the author link I've supplied, has qualifications up the wazoo.

If you revert this edit, it will demonstrate that you are only interested in pushing your own POV. I fully expect you to do so.Feeline (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I am submitting an edit-warring report.Feeline (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what you think. If you can't support your changes with sources, you shouldn't be making them. Adding "X site recommends the book" to the lead is inappropriate. So far all you have managed to turn up is amazon reviews and a bare mention that requires interpretation to make anything out of. On the other hand, I've managed to turn up several more critical sources. This suggests that in fact, criticism is the norm - there are far more sources that address the book in a critical manner than a positive one and the approach of memory mining adopted by Bass and Davis has been thoroughly discredited. Your WP:3RR report will be rejected by the way - read the instructions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Frankly, I don't care what you think"--Really!?! I never would have guessed!
I've been told to try dispute resolution. That means attempting to figure out a whole other page replete with mysterious lingo and their links, and filling out another confusing form, and frankly, I'm worn out. It seems to me that the Wikipedia editors don't especially care if somebody decides to hunch over a particular article like a vulture and prevent anyone else from editing it. If that results in an article full of misinformation and hysterical or nonsensical rhetoric, oh well. So this has certainly been an enlightening experience, and I have lost much regard for Wikipedia. But this is absolutely not worth the aggravation. So I give up. You are victorious. Go, WLU, entertain yourself with your false memory and satanistic obsessions. I may give this another try in, oh, a month or two. Or not. Whatever. Enjoy your life, as much as a person in your condition possibly can.Feeline (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Misinformation according to who? Hysterical and nonsense rhetoric seems more appropriate to describe a book that advocates for breaking up families with no proof (rhetoric, in fact, is an argumentative technique that appeals to emotion rather than facts - rather like The Courage to Heal). I have justified my edits according to wikipedia's policies, while you have not. There's a lot of policies, but they're not that complicated. If you're unwilling to put in the time to learn the rules and edit in accordance with them, why do you think your edits deserve to stay up? If you can't find real, substantive sources to justify what you think about the book, why should they stay? I have never put my real opinion of the book on the page - everything I have addded has come from a reliable source. What other wikipedians really don't care about is new editors who think they know the The Truth and ignore the rules to promote it. I would suggest you use that month to brush up on the policies and guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag, in addition to being a probable sock, added no actual suggestions on what to clean up.

In other words, suck it, ResearchEditor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am attempting to improve this article by adding a more neutral tone and improving accuracy. I removed the paragraph titled "Philosophy of the Authors," because it seems more appropriate for a book discussion site then an encyclopedia. I would like to help improve the article, but if my edits are continually reverted this is difficult. I also added additional see also links, related to the topics addressed in the book which were removed. Chikurda (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved to bottom per WP:TALK

You have removed sourced statements and added unsourced ones, which isn't neutral. Though popular, it has been criticized for scientific errors if not outright misrepresentation; professionals on the subjects of memory have criticized it for being wrong; many have noted its propensity to create false memories and break up families. Obviously other editors, particularly me, have issues with your edits. I would like to know what your policy and guideline-based reasons are for your edits, because right now it looks like you are simply adjusting the page based on your own personal preference and taste i.e. you like the book and want the page to reflect this.

See also links should directly relate to the topic of the article. What does the grooming of children for pedophiles have to do with the book? Self-help is linked in the lead now, as is child sexual abuse. Post-traumatic stress disorder is dubious given one of the objections to the book is that it probably creates abuse where none occurred. I've re-linked incest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for putting back in some of the links. This is a good start at compromise. Stating how many copies of the books have been sold and translated is a statement of fact, not an opinion. I actually do not have a positive or negative opinion on this book. I am aware of the book from a professional standpoint. I have not used it myself and do not have people close to me who have used it. It is quite clear from your pointed language that you do have a strong opinion about the book. While I respect your perspective, I think it can be difficult to write from a neutral perspective when we feel so strongly about something. I know this is the case for me. I am attempting to provide a more neutral perspective, which many editors have attempted to do in the past.

Currently many of the statements in the article are opinion, all opinions are valid, but the article reads more like a book review than an encyclopedia article. For example, "the primary thrust of the book is that individuals (mainly women) with a vague set of symptoms have been abused." Making a statement about "the main thrust" of any book is an interpretation. This statement also cannot be backed up, as the mass majority of the book does not deal with memory. A more neutral statement is "This self help book focuses on supporting women survivors of sexual abuse. It sold X amount of copies. Was translated into X amount of languages and has been released X times." I can work on getting sources for these statements if that would help. Further, stating "The authors' philosophy" is pure opinion. No one can purport to state another's "philosophy" Pulling out one section of the book and calling it the philosophy is not proper citation, which is why I believe this statement should be removed. I am not suggesting removing the discussion of controversy or the debate over false memory, I am simply making the point to state that memory is the only thing the book is about is misleading.

I would like to continue to improve this article and appreciate your willingness to create a collaborative, neutral article. Chikurda (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a fact, you need to source it to a reliable publication.

My opinions, like my edits, are informed by and referenced to numerous reliable, secondary sources. My opinion is worthless unless there is a source which says the same thing. As far as I know, pretty much everything on the page is drawn from a reliable source. We do not get to edit the page according to opinion. The lead is an exception provided all the information in the lead is found and sourced in the body. The "main philosophy" point is sourced to Tully, 1996, pmid 15335613. That's a peer-reviewed journal and quite reliable. It is explicitly on the recovered memory event. It discusses the impact of the book. It stays. If you wish to add something, you require a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As you point out, Tully's quote refers to recovered memory. In fact, his entire article is about recovered memory not the book or recovery from sexual abuse. Thus, the quote is not accurately represented in the article, which presents this quote as the authors' complete "philosophy." The statement would be more fitting in the criticism section, but needs to be edited to more accurately reflect the source.164.67.8.162 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The full quote from Tully is

In 1988, Bass and Davis published what was to become the bible of the 'survivors' movement, namely The Courage to Heal.⁵ Originally teachers of creative writing, these two feminist writers came to believe some of their students were trying to tell them something in their writing. They ran workshops and developed methods to help recover memories of childhood abuse so they could be acknowledged and healed. Subsequent editions in 1992 and 1994 have made this volume a best seller on both sides of the Atlantic. The philosophy of these practitioners is best appreciated from their own words:

What follows is the exact block of text incorporated into the article. Tully is inarguably discussing TCTH. At best, the statement requires qualification (done). I'd rather do without, but I don't mind including it. It's not a criticism, it's a statement. The fact that Tully's article isn't solely about TCTH is irrelevant, as it makes statements about the book in the article, and it is appropriate to include this information in the article. We have to use third-party sources to discuss the book itself beyond its basic contents (that means any general statements about its contents, such as its overall philosophy). Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you or I believe about the book. What matters is what sources say about it. The statement is a direct quote from the source; with attribution, there's not much else to be said from Tully bar that it's a "bible" of the survivor's movement (added).

Again, I come back to the need for sources to discuss the book. Without sources, there's little that can or should be substantially altered on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph that you quote is under the heading "memory recovery techniques" in Tully's article. It is clear in reading the entire article, that Tully is referring to what he sees as the author's philosophy of memory recovery, not on their general philosophy. This is a misuse of the quote and it is not appropriate to have this in the overview section. It should be in the controversy section or the section of recovered memory. A citation does not necessarily make a quote verifiable. Quotes must be used in the appropriate context. I highly doubt that Tully himself would write that he believes this quote to sum up the philosophy of the authors or that of the entire book itself. If he would do this, this is not what he does in this article. What he does do is make a strong case for this books place in the history of false memory. Making this change does not take away from the point you are making, if anything it strengthens it by making the article appear more credible. Many people will disregard articles that appear to be biased even if they are well researched. Even if they agree with the perspective expressed in the article, people are turned off by Wikipedia articles that appear to try and make a point. This has been a criticism of this article and I believe all the editors who have contributed to the article benefit from making it as clear and robust as possible. Part of this is proper citations, part of this is tone and language. 164.67.8.162 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explanation does make more sense. I have moved the quote to the criticisms section and noted that it refers specifically to their philosophy on memories. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This is more fun now. I am entertaining guests for a week or so. But will be back soon. Cheers Chikurda (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Undo

I have undone the recent changes to the article, here are my reasons:

• The lead section is meant to summarize the body, and does not require citations. The particular set of criticisms removed to the body were then redundant below, and missing above. Citations are found in the body and do not need to be repeated.
• Per WP:STRUCTURE, criticisms should ideally not be ghettoized to a specific "criticisms" section, but are better juxtaposed as much as possible with relevant text. In this case there is a criticisms section, but the specific criticisms of the authors are best placed in the "authors" section.
• The quotes, which represent the majority of the additions, are unnecessary and atypical.
• The "basic errors regarding the science of memory" point is sourced to Mistakes were Made, page 263, note 40. No {{cn}} tag is needed and the text shouldn't have been removed.
• The changes to the wording, particularly in the lead, suggests that the book is part of a healing process (independent criticisms suggest that it is not). The only real bit of information the edit added was that the book is based on Bass and Davis' experiences working with "survivors" (itself a popular and political term, not a scholarly or scientific one, and particularly questionable given the book's propensity for promoting false memories) which I have attempted to integrate.
• The note that the "honoring the truth" chapter was removed is already included (now twice).

I'm not sure about how much information to include on the contents of the actual book and how it has changed over several editions. WP:BOOK might be a good place to ask. My preference is to keep it relatively minimal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The basic errors regarding the science of memory" makes it sound like there is uncontested agreement about "the science of memory" which is misleading. I think it makes more sense to point out that this is an argument put forth by Tavris and Aronson in the book “Mistakes were Made”
• Since there have been some changes in editions it makes sense to include the latest edition (2008) and note the removal of Honoring the Truth. My intention with adding some description for each section was to include information about what is included in the book rather than only reactions to the book.
• As far as the lead, the line that "the primary thrust of the book is that individuals (mainly women) with a vague set of symptoms have been abused" is misleading. The book is focused on providing advice to women who have been abused. This makes it sound like the symptoms came first and then the abuse. Also, the use of the word vague seems non neutral. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bass and Davis are not even wrong about memory. They included no facts, are not scholars, are not scientists, review no literature, and got it flat-out wrong. It's not an opinion, the book does not align with how memory works. The Courage to Heal is not one end of a continuum within the scholarly debate on memory, it's not on the continuum.

"Vague" is from Jenkins, a scholarly source, but feel free to suggest alternatives. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of the page is to convey a sense of the content of the book, who wrote it and why. It makes sense to note the controversy and link to False Memory Syndrome/False Memory Institute. I think for the lead it makes sense to convey what the aim of the book is, and then in the criticism section there can be further information as to whether the aim was achieved, but for neutrality there should be a line like “The aim of the book is to act as guide for women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse by providing a detailed explanation of the healing process.”

• I took out the line "The book also states that in some cases the memories of the abuse have been forgotten but are responsible for the individual's current problems" because a few lines later recovered memories are mentioned MorningGlory3 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of the page is to give an encyclopedic context to the subject and coverage reflective of the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the changes I tried to make that were undone: In the Manual of Style it states that the lead should 'establish context.' Establishing context would be first specifying what the content of the book is rather than only focusing on the controversy surrounding it. To say that the 'primary thrust' of the book is that women with a 'vague set of symptoms have been abused' without specifying that this is coming from a source other than the book itself is misleading. If that line were to stay it makes sense to source it, since Bass or Davis have never claimed that that is the 'primary thrust' of their book. In turn, doesn't it makes sense to include a line summarizing the contents of the book (the resource guide, the 'stages of healing' and the inclusion of first person narratives)?MorningGlory3 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagging NPOV

I noticed in this last edits that all of the sourced content that provided information not referencing False Memory has been significantly paired down to one line, while all other criticisms of the book have been left alone. I am tagging the page for neutrality in the hopes of bringing in other voices/editors. Also,

Should this go in the criticism section rather than in the overview?: " The Courage to Heal was part of the vision that childhood sexual abuse could be discovered with no corroborating evidence beyond a vague set of symptoms.[9] Psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson state that basic errors regarding the science of memory have never been corrected between editions."

Examples of non neutral language: "Bass and Davis have also been criticized for leaping to unwarranted, implausible conclusions with significant consequences and for scientific errors found in the first edition that were not corrected in subsequent reprintings."

"This lack of training may have resulted in Bass, Davis and others who adopted their approach leaping to conclusions that caused considerable harm, irrespective of their intentions. Bass and Davis also never acknowledged that their basic claims of how memory works were flawed or outright wrong." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorningGlory3 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:NPOV doesn't mean that all points of view are treated equally, no matter what they are. It means that articles must fairly reflect the scholarly consensus about their subjects. In this case, the consensus is that Bass and Davis got it wrong - so naturally the article reflects a critical view of their work. That's as it should be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is not scholarly consensus that "Bass and Davis got it wrong" and the tone of that false assumption is permeating the entire page. The page reflects Tavris, Aronson's and a few other perspectives but that does not mean that they reflect all scholars. Susan Contratto, Judith Alpert are just as reliable sources that are being sidelined. This isn't resolved so the tag should stay up. MorningGlory3 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Tags are only useful in situations in which more than one user thinks an article is not neutral. You are entirely by yourself in claiming that this article is not neutral, so the tag is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

as another take, POV tags are fine if placed by a single editor if that editor is able to identify something that is inappropriate per the NPOV policy. however, what MorningGlory3 has identified is NOT an NPOV policy issue- it's a reflection of how NPOV is supposed to be applied to content- and so there is not a POV issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite the scholarly consensus that the proposed mechanisms of memory that Bass & Davis describe don't exist, are flat-out incorrect, and are based on little more than their desire to justify a pre-existing conclusion - that anyone with some sort of adult problems in functioning was caused by abuse. TCTH is seen as a poisonous, inaccurate and damaging. So long as the claims are sourced to reliable sources, they are perfectly acceptable. Neutral doesn't mean conciliatory or positive, it means representing the topic of the page as it is perceived by the relevant experts. The relevant experts think it's an awful book. Neutral doesn't mean nice.

Contratto and Alpert both published their opinions in the early or mid 90s, during the height of the memory wars. Since that time, considerable work has been done on the reliability of memory and the ease with which false memories can be created. Giving weight to 20-year-old sources after the sea change in opinion that took place is rather like discussing ulcers using only sources from the early 80s and representing the involvement of H. pylori as "controversial". Giving their 20-year-old, obsolete praise the equivalent text to Tavris' and Aaronson's more recent, highly contextualized and historical commentary is undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

Sturunner recently made this edit to the lead. I consider the edit destructive and highly inappropriate and believe it should be reverted. The edit summary given was "delete unsourced summary in intro", but the point of the edit seems to be to censor criticism of The Courage to Heal and portray the book in a more favorable light. Notice the way in which it changed, "The authors claim that individuals (mainly women) with a general set of symptoms are assumed to have been abused, but the memories of which have been repressed" to, "The authors write about people who have symtoms of childhood sexual violence", thus effectively endorsing the dubious claims of the book's authors. It should be obvious that the material removed was not "unsourced", as Sturunner falsely claimed. It is a summary of material in the main body of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sturunner has removed "unsourced" text from the lead in the past, but I have informed him before, this is unnecessary per WP:LEAD. As long as the sources are in the body, they are unnecessary in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Saying that someone's work has lead a whole generation of false abuse memories certainly falls under the umbrella of content that both BLP and LEAD say should be sourced even if also sourced in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WLU, do you have any comment on MorningGlory3's latest edits to the lead? Specifically, do you think they should be reverted? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the addition to the lead was mostly redundant to the succeeding sentence. I think the addition of "challenge who gets to be an expert about sexual abuse" added to the reception section is unnecessarily detailed and doesn't add much that wasn't already there. But far worse is the addition of Williams' comment to the criticisms section, which is basically a very old source that attempts to refute or hamstring all the critical sources that substantiate the harms the book has done by insisting all problems are sourced in child sexual abuse. I would very much like to see it removed as undue weight on an old source that ignores much subsequent research showing the types of techniques used in TCTH are indeed pernicious, even if used with the best of intentions. Williams is one 16-year-old source, and a single person's opinion that bizarrely homes in on a single bit of minutia. Is that really all Williams said about the book? "Nuh-uh, it totally didn't set off an epidemic"? That's quite the damning with faint praise.

I'll try to source-up the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited the lead, and removed Williams' comment, in accord with your suggestions. Aside from anything else, it isn't a criticism of the book and really doesn't belong in a section called "Criticisms". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Victims of Abuse use Courage to Heal

Missing from this article is neutrality/fairness. The bias of the article is towards the invalidation of the book's usefulness to survivors and validation of the fabricated "false memory syndrome" -- as unscientific a 'syndrome' as there ever was one. The Courage to Heal does not offer a complete 'cure', of course, but many survivors of incest and sexual abuse have read it and found it to some extent helpful. Why would it have sold so many copies? Why is it still in print? Think about it. Blue55horses (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See the discussions above. The Courage to Heal is a thoroughly discredited work. The scholarly consensus on memory rejects its claims, and the article must reflect this. The fact that some people may see the book as "useful" doesn't make its claims correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality on wikipedia doesn't mean "we're nice to the subject of the page". It means "represented according to the relevant expert consensus", which quite clearly finds TCTH is a fundamentally flawed and harmful book. If there are recent reliable sources that praise the book, feel free to include them.

How do you know that people found it useful? Do you have any scholarly article to back up your opinion, or is it based on Amazon reviews? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Australian FMS Study

The FMSA source that claimed “The book was linked to nearly 50% of the cases in which a false allegation of child sexual abuse was made based on recovered memories.” Is not reliable. How was this research done? Through a “Family Survey undertaken during late 1996 to early 1997 amongst the members of the Australian False Memory Association (AFMA).” As the report notes in the footnotes “Only current financial members of the AFMA in 1996 were surveyed for this study.” This source is biased and should be removed. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FMSA is an acceptable parity source. It's not like The Courage to Heal is a scholarly volume. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

New comment

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is not a scientific organization. It is an advocacy group. I do not think we should be using their newsletters as neutral or reliable sources (WP: Neutrality), (WP: Reliability). The editors here might not like the approach of the book but that doesn't mean they should use biased sources to discount another they find problematic. Debate false memories on the talk page or on other forums. See: WP: SOAPfemmebot 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs)

TCTH isn't a scientific book either, and the FMSF is generally making factual claims as well as stating opinions that are clearly attributed to it (acceptable given the topic per WP:PARITY). There has been no scholarly praise for nearly 20 years, and quite a bit of scholarly criticism about how inaccurate and harmful the book is. The FMSF, while definitely partisan, is also an enormous player in the false memory debate, much like the book itself is.

Neutral doesn't mean "nice" or "one-sided", it means representing what the majority of relevant experts say. And they align with the FMSF - it's an inaccurate, damaging book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If experts agree with the FMSF, it should be easy for us to cite the experts instead, no? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you review the scholarly sources and what they say about the book - you will note that they do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest citing them instead of the FMSF. That should avoid any contention. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The FMSF dedicates itself to solely citing and debunking false memory issues, and are a tremendous research here (as well as having a board composed of well-respected academics. They supplement the scholarly sources nicely, and make a point of discussing the book. I don't think there is any issue with using them as a parity source, and the objections raised above indicate a failure to understand our core content and manual of style policies and guidelines. If anyone has a genuine objection to the source, I would rather take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for external input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page about FMSF suggest otherwise: "The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized for lacking any evidence, and disseminating inaccurate statistics about the alleged extent of the problem.[2] Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality.[21][22] Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy.[2]"

- so how come on a page that isn't about the FMSF, it gets to be reliable, but on it's own page, it's credibility is questioned? That doesn't make sense, nor does it seem very balanced to me. Mr. Granger is right. Use primary sources that are actually scholarly and peer-reviewed to offer criticisms. This helps keep the content more neutral and the sources actually reliable. Poor quality sources devalue the information provided.femmebot 21:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, ironically. Primary sources can be used judiciously, but that is old, flawed, and the balance of the scholarly community has concluded that TCTH is wrong and damaging. But given that there is now a RSN posting, we might as well wait until that has concluded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)