Talk:Recovered-memory therapy

Nicely done

This is a great start to an artical. Not sure why it wasn't here before. --(Signed: J.Smith) 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Neither am I. Grandmasterka 08:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Ummm no. I think this is notable enough to have it's own articile. (Signed: J.Smith) 17:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Very notable, I created a separate article on purpose. Grandmasterka 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. It seems notable, all right, and I'd move repressed memory to this space. Dan 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

These seem like very different topics to me. This article is about one particular treatment and the other is about the defence function in the brain. ---J.S (t|c) 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The other article mainly talks about this treatment. The debate seems to exist solely because of recovered memory therapy. The references relate to RMT and "psychiatric folklore." Do you know of any research on "repressed memory" that has no relevance to RMT? Dan 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but one article on the "illness" and one on a "treatment" dosn't seem out of line. Perhapse the actual content overlaps, but thats not an indicator that the best solution is to merge the articles. ---J.S (t|c) 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal seems simple enough. Repressed memory has a large section on recovered memory therapy, a section that mainly talks only about recovered memory therapy. Much of that information should be moved here, leaving an intro paragraph with a main tag which links to this page. Radagast83 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion It is worth noting that traumatic events, like any events, can be forgotten - and once forgotten, can be subsequently remembered, possibly with the aid of a trigger. (Eg. Revisiting a place.) Not all memories ‘recovered’ in therapy need be discarded out of hand, and one does not need to be in therapy to experience ‘eureka’ type moments of spontaneous recollection. A healthy amount of scepticism for memories that differ greatly from all other known information seems pragmatic, particularly with what is known about the brain’s ability to for creative thought(See false memory).

Regarding that section, it smacks of original research. I'm gonna remove it until we can cite some sources and change the language a bit to remove the "this is how it really is" kind of tone. (copied here so it's not lost in hussle and bussle of edits) (Signed: J.Smith) 07:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps a better way to phrase this would be under he context of a "critics and supporters" section borrowing from some of the other areas? (Signed: J.Smith) 07:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a way to say to the reader 'we aren't belittling your recovered memory.' I feel some kind of disclaimer/discussion is necessary, because others have a strong opposite take on the reality of recovering memory and this article isn't complete until that is covered (MaxMangel 08:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

• Can you find some citations and support? This actical is really about the specific therapy called "recovered memory therapy" and not about repressed memory in general. Can you refraze it in that context? (Signed: J.Smith) 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Biased!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The DSM-IV recognizes the existence of posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder--all of which are terms describing the fragmentation of memory due to traumatic experience. The DSM-IV is a widely used manual, with high credibility, in the therapeutic community. It is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of patient’s fragmented memories of childhood sexual abuse and the DSM-IV’s recognition that memory fragmentation and repression are possible, that childhood sexual abuse can lead to memory fragmentation and repression.

Finally, should you read the site http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/ you will find evidence that the majority of the psychological community believe that repressed memories are supported as "real." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephimm (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, you've added some useful stuff to the article. Grandmasterka 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously biased article. "Recovered memory therapy" is not a form of psychotherapy at all and it is a term you will rarely find in psychotherapeutic literature or research. RMT is a term that was created by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and their coalition of backlash academics (Loftus, Ofshe) in the early 1990s, and the phrase appears most commonly in their literature, where they place evidence-based treatment for traumatic amnesia into the same category as fringe practices such as 'rebirthing' (etc) in order to discredit psychotherapists who provided care and support to survivors of child sexual abuse.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded by pro-incest advocates like Ralph Underwager who publicly stated that the decriminalisation of paedophilia is a "legitimate goal" and that the current "hysteria" about child sexual abuse was being whipped up by "radical feminists" who were jealous of the "intimacy" of sex between a man and a boy. To see his rhetorical strawman being further promulgated here on Wikipedia is very sad, particularly since the debate has moved on so much since Underwager, Loftus and other backlash activists held any credibility.

This entire article needs to be rewritten, but given the rapid nature of backlash activists on Wikipedia, that can be someone elses fight. --Biaothanatoi 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about both the rewrite and the inevitable backlash nastiness. But this page is basically propaganda, so someone needs to do it. The term RMT is an umbrella term that collects a bunch of different therapeutic practices and tries to argue they are equally in-credible, thus making it sound as though the kind of traumatic memory (yes, often related to incest) which is recognized by the APA, NIH, etc. is as invalid as memories of satanic cult activity or alien abduction. One example: trying to posit rebirthing and Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing as 1) related to each other and 2) similar in reputability, is flatout propaganda. EMDR is sanctioned by the APA, the Veterans Administration, etc. and has been used widely with Iraq vets, Katrina survivors and 911 witnesses. Furthermore, some people have argued that memories of alien abduction, satanic activity, etc. which are (forgive my bias here) almost certainly not memories of actual events may arise from the desire to create images or a narrative that makes sense of real traumatic memories that are not encoded visually or in language. West world 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-Write Proposed

Like the False Memory page, this entry is not ethical. Google the phrase "Recovered Memory Therapy" and within the first 300 hits, after which I stopped checking, you will not find a single positive description of RMT. You will find a coalition of webpages relatd to the FMSF and various other activist groups.

I am not disputing 1) the possibiity of Iatrogenic False Memories or 2) the existence of therapies that were used to unlock Repressed Memories.

However, this page simply must represent the derivation of the term and contextualize it within its cultural milieu. I have not found a definitive historical derivation, though I am looking, but it certainly seems as though the term was coined by Ralph Underwager and/or other FMSF activists. I am advocating that the first usage be identified (ala OED) and that the article be re-structured around the linguistic entity RMT.

Again, this is a very heated page, and I only want to build consensus before making any edits. Perhaps we can get a dialogue going and use the sandbox to reach a working agreement on a more neutral entry.

Peacefully yours, West world 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "Recovered Memory Therapy" was coined by Richard Ofshe, board member of the FMSF, and promulgated through the FMSF network of academics etc. It is an FMSF category created for political reasons (e.g. to undermine claims of abuse that arose in the context of psychotherapy) rather then scientific reasons, and it should be acknowledged as such. It is extremely unethical for WP to claim, as it does here, that RMT is an actual category of psychotherapeutic practice. You have my full support in making some changes and I'll happily contribute.--Biaothanatoi 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chasing you around.... I'll certainly google it, but do you have an academic reference that supports the fact that Ofshe coined the term? Would be very useful....

West world 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no RMT "supporters"

"It is however, a term that is now commonly used by both its supporters and its detractors to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events."

This sentence, from the intro, needs to go. There are, to my knowledge, no self-described supporters of "RMT." I'll give it a few days, but unless AR or anyone else can come up with some examples, not to mention proof this is "common," I will remove that sentence. Furthermore, people who do practice in the field of trauma would argue they are not "retrieving" memories, but re-associating them. This is a crucial semantic difference that needs to be addressed. Thanks. West world 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole has two sections labelled "Supporter" and "Critics", so unless these sections are re-named, I would suggest that this is an indication that people are classifying themselves as "supporters". I put the sentence in, so I will have a go at improving it. As an alternative, how about: "It is however, a term that is used to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events." MatthewTStone 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the full nature of the objections to term.

RMT is not a psychological category of any kind and therefore it does not have "supporters" in the psychotherapeutic community. RMT is a pejorative rhetorical category created and used almost solely by groups of people accused of sexual abuse (e.g. the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) and their supporters to cast doubt on claims of abuse that arise in the context of therapy.

Your attempt create balance by addressing RMT "supporters" and "critics" presumes that RMT is a scientific category, rather then part of a larger political strategy by a particular gorup of people. The article needs to be changed to acknowledge the context in which the term RMT arose, and how it was used by particular people to advance a particular cause. --Biaothanatoi 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The pejoratively named therapy exists, but is not called RMT by its "supporters". (Or at least, that how the article reads now, and what I believe to be correct.) If there's something wrong with that interpretation, please provide sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also now a "Critics of the Term" section in the article to address this issue. It includes a reference to who probably coined it and why. However, I'd say the controversy over the term is pretty much over, as these days it's in use by some quite credible sources MatthewTStone 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The category of RMT was created by a fringe activist group of people accused of child sexual abuse and their supporters. This is a historical fact and it has been excised from this article, making the article itself little more then propaganda for a particular POV. Unfortunatley, it seems that some editors happen to share that POV, and have taken it upon themselves to impose it on Wiki readers. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not historical fact. It may be a scientific theory, but there are certainly a number of credible examples of this "therapy" being applied, with unfortunate results. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The name may have been invented by retractors and their therapists (rather than the accused and 'their counsel), but the category has existed for some time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In its current form, the article states: "The term 'Recovered Memory Therapy' has in the past been controversial, particularly in the USA. It was coined by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which some critics suggested reflected a political motivation." So it explicitly states who coined the term, and the 'political motivation' behind it.
That being said, it must be at least 15 years since the term came into being, and its origins are now less relevant than they were. There are cited references in the article that show it is now in use by lawyers, judges, psychologists, and many other professionals. One psychotherapists' peak body states in its RMT guidelines: "...'Repressed Memory Therapy' (sometimes known as 'Recovered Memory Therapy), or RMT, has been practised in some quarters by psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and counsellors...". Like it or not, the term has entered the English language. MatthewTStone (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

removal of alien section and "hundreds" section, due to rules violations

I have removed the following recent additions to the article due to wikipedia rules violations. The first two paragraphs violate the wikipedia policy of wp:synth

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Policy shortcut:WP:SYN

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Neither of the two articles mention any connection between alien abduction and rmt. The only place I could find where there is a mention at all is between alien abduction and trauma:

Alien Abductions: The Real Deal? By:Kaja Perina Page 6 of 6 For McNally, the most telling difference between abductees and survivors of "veritable" trauma is not physiological but attitudinal. Experiencers unanimously state that they're glad they were abducted. "There's a psychological payoff," says McNally. "This makes it very different from sexual abuse." Trauma survivors of all stripes cite positive spiritual growth, but, "no Vietnam vet says, 'Gee, I'm glad I was a POW.'"

This quote states that they are very different.

The third paragraph removed is from religioustolerance.org No data is cited showing that "hundreds of psychotherapists" or "hundreds of people" were involved. These numbers are original research. Abuse truth 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a synthesis... Each statement used in this section stands on its own, and has it own citation. As for the "hundreds of people" part... The article cited actually says tens of thousands of people were involved. So I would support changing some small things, but I don't think whitewashing half the criticism section is going to fly. Grandmasterka 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article shows no evidence for "tens of thousands or even hundreds" of people doing any of what the article mentions.

"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."

This is definitely original research. I will be deleting these three lines. Please feel free to re-add them as re-written providing sourced data.Abuse truth 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retractors removed from intro

MTS: hey. I removed the retractors examples because they give undue weight. The alternative would be to add a bunch of examples from the recovered memory project at brown, and then the article would get too wordy. One note: there is a key difference between self-described "retractors" and people in the brown study: cases in the Brown study are only included when they have hard corroborating evidence. As such, it would be impossible to "retract" such an allegation. I am not, in any way, trying to remove your added reference to retractors, only saying that examples are not appropriate without examples from the Brown study. Best, West world 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but retractors are a significant factor in this debate and need to be covered in more detail, with names and references. Perhaps in the "Critics" section. Also, they are not specific to the British False Memory Society. I don't know why this is in the intro, and should be removed. MatthewTStone 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed about "retractors" being very important to this page. In fact, if you have any hard numbers on "retractors" and/or lawsuits brought against therapists and the like, I think it would really put to rest some of the ongoing edit warring around this page. Among other things, some of the retractors (esp. with Bennett Braun) actually settled out of court, but are usually said to have won lawsuits. IMportant distinction no matter what one's own POV. Also -- I cannot cite proof but I have read in FMSF literature that they coined the term "Retractor".

Are you open to a change in the page structure which moves from "Critics" and "Supporters" to something more along the lines of: "Critics of RMT" and "Critics of the term RMT?" (rather than "Supporters") In my experience, people who do believe in the underlying ideas and/or science behind repressed memory would describe themselves as very critical of the concept RMT because it is 1) used primarily within the context of False Memory, and 2) because they feel it is a very crude misinterpretation of their work. No dispute, personally, that there are alot of crappy therapists out there. But I would hope there is a way to present that viewpoint, ala the ISSTD, as well as the viewpoint of the FMSF, Loftus, etc. Best West world 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'm certainly open to some restructuring and re-writing of this page, which could involve re-naming sections. There is also new information I am trying to track down at the moment, particularly in regard to professional groups warning against recovered memory techniques being used. By the way, I don't understand why the BFMS has re-appeared in the intro, because retractors have come forward in many countries. I will get my thoughts together and put them here before doing anything major.Should the page be tagged as "Controversial" until it is sorted? MatthewTStone 08:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support a controversial tag. I also want to clarify what you added about statements by the APA, etc. : in my reading of your source, the emphasis of those statements is not a warning that memories may be false but a strong caution to seek external verification and corroboration, plus an acknowledgement that determining objective historical veracity is only possible in that way. Will you approve that change?

Again, I think the strongest addition to this page would be some hard numbers on lawsuits or settlements brought by retractors. Will look into it. West world 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK for the moment, although I am trying track down other statements by professional groups as there have been new ones recently. In fact the intro has become a bit long and some of the material could be moved into main sections. Also I reckon Courage to Heal should be in with all the other references not in its own section.MatthewTStone 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I removed a link to stopbadtherapy.com due to the following text on that page: "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." Sorry, but that is, literally, propaganda rhetoric and I find it tough to imagine defending that site as credible.

I also changed the text describing the film "Repressions" from it being a dramatization of RMT to it being a dramatization of a therapist implanting false memories.

Removed a link to a brief article on memory research that would be fine on the FM page but has no place here. West world 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK that review is a bit over the top perhaps – much as I might agree with some of the criticisms. I will look for one that is a bit more balanced MatthewTStone 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty strong language, no? But I have seen some good ones out there. Possibly on the APA site? I will also look for a reputable criticism site. West world 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is looking more balanced and better sourced now. Thank you both for your work on this.Abuse truth 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Truth - please condense the critics of RMT section

There is way too much info here, and the section needs to be more logically ordered. Do you have time to do so? Great info though. Thanks West world 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that it is about the same length as the "Critics" section. But I am open to making it more logically ordered. Please feel free to post any ideas here. Thanks. Abuse truth 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this page.

Looking over this page, and both the Repressed memory and False memory pages, I have some suggestions.

Firstly, there's little doubt that there are some similarities between the three pages: similar arguments, similar references, the same two camps taking opposite sides. But you could argue that RM and FM can often seem like rather academic debates, and even that those two pages should be merged.

This page however, Recovered Memory Therapy, is quite different, and should certainly remain separate and distinct.

My reasoning is this: both the RM and FM pages tend to have an emphasis on theory (the nature of memory, how it works, how much is re-constructive, etc)

However, this page is more about practice.

Because it is dealing with the 'real world', it embraces a much broader range of issues: How is the psychotherapy industry affected? What are legal professionals doing/saying - how is the law being shaped in response, etc? What is happening in the media, how is it being reported? What are governments doing/saying? How are religious groups affected? etc. Just for starters.

Initially, just re-organising the existing information into a more logical sequence. At the moment there are huge blocks of text, and just a few headings and hardly any sub-headings. Here is some food for thought:
Introduction
Literally an introduction to what the page is about, summing up what follows in 2 or 3 sentences.
History
This could be trimmed a bit from its current form - some info could be shifted into other areas, as it isn't strictly speaking historical.
Controversy over the term 'RMT'
Currently way too long and should be strictly the debate about terminology - whether the term itself is in use, and by whom. A lot of what is currently in this section could be placed somewhere else or in a new section as much of the current content has nothing to do with the terminology debate at all.
Trauma model of psychotherapy
New section. Psychotherapists in the field, and theoretical background etc
RMT and the law
New section. Court cases, as well as legal opinions from lawyers, judges etc. Much has happened in this field, and it varies from country to country
RMT and the psychotherapy industry
New section. Again, because this page is about the 'real world', not just theory, I think it's important to know how different professional groups have responded.
Supporters
Needs expanding somewhat from its current form.
Critics
Existing section. Some of what is currently in this section can be moved around a bit or shifted to other areas
Retractors
New section. There has been news coverage, court cases etc over the years not really represented on the page.
References
Need to ensure that all references in text are of high quality. Minimal use of special interest links except where unavoidable.
External links
Aren't external links sections against Wikipedia policy? Perhaps the ones in this section should be labelled 'For' 'Against' 'Neither'. This will ensure that the section doesn't become unbalanced one way or the other.
Also, I think within some of these sections, subheadings could be used a bit more to break the sections into digestible chunks.
Any thoughts? MatthewTStone 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with format changes, provided they follow wikipedia policy. I think that labeling and separating sections "for" and "against" may be against wikipedia policy though. My major concern would be that all changes made add balance and NPOV to the page. Abuse truth 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks great, MTS. Hats off to you for putting in the time. West world 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing that I personally want to add is this: to some degree there really are "for" and "against" camps here, but as some of us have shared, most of us are just trying to present info here that recognizes our own experiences. I do not see myself as pro-"RMT" in any way. As it is described here sometimes, it sounds like an awful scam. BUT in my own experience and those of many others I care about, repressed memory/dormant memory is just, simply, real. And I worry about people who genuinely were abused and are beginning to deal with now finding bad info on WP that gets in the way of their attempts to get help. That in no way makes me belive that False Memory never happens or that there are not shady snake-oil salespeople who practice RMT, but I really worry that the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. So, I am not biased, per se, but I just want to know that good info is being given here. West world 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool WW, this is intended as a roadmap - a direction - I'm not suggesting an overhaul all in one go, but rather one small step at a time.
Also, I take your concerns on board, re real abuse and dormant memories of it, and can see why you would have reservations. And I agree the quality of the info should be paramount in any fine tuning or changes to the page. Where I am coming from, is that I have direct experience of the snake-oil side of things and the effect it can have on people and their families (and have seen it in my own extended family).
You are quite right to consider the end-user - someone who is finding info on the subject for the first time - this is after all an encyclodedic reference work. Incidentally, it is an interesting exercise to look at other WP topics that are controversial, and see how the pages communicate the info, and manage to include opposing viewpoints e.g : Creation-evolution_controversy , Existence_of_god. There must be many others too. Cheers MatthewTStone 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lede

The lead to the article is muddled and way too long. IT needs to be clear and concise and not use the term "modality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the intro should only be two or three sentences if possible. Will do some work to eliminate the unnecessary verbiage and move specific content into relevant sections.MatthewTStone 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started to clean up the page, and have attempted to do so without deleting any information. The changes made mainly consist of moving things out of the Lead and into relevant sections in the main article. If I have changed anything I have stated clearly in the Edit Summary. Changes have mainly occurred in the Critics of the Term section, which I have altered to more clearly reflect the current situation (RMT is a term that is now quite widely used, and not just by activists and the FMSF). There is other text that I have added along the way, but in most cases a citation has been added to support it.MatthewTStone 22:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

possible new section to add to page

I think it is important to add this section to the page, because the discussion around recovered memory therapy includes the veracity of these memories. Figures on prevalence rates can help readers understand more about veracity rates.

See below :

I disagree that the incorrectly titled and probably incorrect section is relevant to this article. It's only relevant, if at all, to the Child Sex Abuse article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. The abuse of children is certainly an important subject and deserves its own page, but I can't see the relevance to this page. In its current form there is nothing much in the proposed new section about RMT, recovered memories, or even therapy.
Some time ago, I understand that there were one or two cases where RMT (i.e. "coercive memory retrieval techniques") was practiced on teenagers and even quite young children, and this would be more relevant to an article about RMT.
If the intention is to direct readers to information about it, why not just insert a link somewhere in the text where relevant? MatthewTStone (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's completely misplaced in this article and extremely POV pushing, just basically giving "Abuse truth"'s opinion with nothing to back it up and ignoring the other side of the equation. The whole section is an attempt to turn the article into a soapbox instead of a useful encyclopedic reference. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is a soapboax, with dozens of unsourced statements, and a clear bias towards the "false memory" position. The fact that you agree with that position does not mean that it should be pushed onto the reader. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And I could just as easily say that the fact that you are biased in favor of recovered memories doesn't mean your opinion should be forced onto the article. Articles can and should have reliable sources that cites both views from reputable experts while not giving WP:UNDUE weight to one side or another. It looks like you disagree with the major reputable sources on the topic and are upset that fringe groups aren't added as if they were scientists and that you don't get to put your own spin on the write up of other sources and therefore decide that the article is slanted. Keep in mind that when edits are controversial that you need to get a clear consensus of Wikipedia editors to agree with your changes or else they will just get taken out again. If you want to improve the article, discuss your changes. If they are truly neutral then they will get approved and things can move on. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point about undue weight - which is why I'm concerned about that the perspectives of some sources are being presented here as fact, although those perspectives are highly controversial and contested by other sources.

We have already established that much of this article is contradicted by the historical record. If you are interested in acheiving balance, then please assist constructively with the rewriting of this article. At the moment, you are just blocking other editors from improving the article, without proferring any alternative course of action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Childhood

Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. Prevalence figures range between ten to sixty-two percent for females and sixteen percent for males. Denial by others of child sexual abuse is common and its reality is not easily accepted. Questioning the validity of allegations made by children is the most common form of denial. Child sexual abuse has a difficult burden of proof in criminal courts. It is possible that false allegations may be over-represented, because many true victims of child sexual abuse never tell anyone at all about what happened. The frequency of false allegations was found to be six percent by emergency room staff. False retractions are also common. Other studies have shown false allegation rates to be as low as two percent. Some studies break down the level of false allegations by the age of the child. Among pre-school children, the rate was found to be between 1.7 to 2.7 percent. Among adolescents, the rate was found to be between 8 to 12 percent. The average rate was found to be 5 to 8 percent. Higher rates of false allegations are found in custody disputes. Children appear to rarely make up false allegations of their own accord. The denial of offenses is strong among men that commit sexual offenses. Many continue to deny their offenses even after conviction. It is suggested that parents have consistently underestimated the seriousness of their child's distress when compared to accounts of their own children. Adults that were abused as children may be reluctant to disclose their abuse if they are attached to their offender. Adshead, Gwen (1994), "Looking for clues - A review of the literature on false allegations of sexual abuse in childhood", pp. 57–65 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in Sinason, Valerie (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10542-0. "Studies on the truthfulness of sexual abuse reports among children and adolescents as judged by evaluators"show that out of 2169 children and adolescents evaluated 98% of generally younger children and 93% of usually older children were determined to be true. Whitfield M.D., Charles L., Memory and Abuse - Remembering and Healing the Effects of Trauma, Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc, ISBN 1-55874-320-0-- Abuse truth (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement unsourced

The current opening sentence states "Recovered memory therapy (RMT) is the name for a category of psychotherapy not generally recommended by professional psychotherapeutic organizations". This statement is attributed to this source, which does not use the term "recovered memory therapy" once.

The entire article is flawed and needs to be written. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead now with two additional citations - both using the term 'Recovered Memory Therapy'.
To be precise, Scientific American adds a hyphen between the first two words, i.e. 'recovered-memory therapy'. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your citations are of questionable relevance. The first goes to a journalistic treatment of the issue - not a scientific or psychotherapeutic source. The second goes to the Australian Counselling Association, which is not (as you claim) a professional psychotherapeutic body in Australia. The ACA is a fringe "progressive" alternative to the real national peak body for psychologists in Australia, the Australian Psychological Association.

It seems as though you are simply typing "RMT" into google and posting whatever sources you can find that support your POV, without assessing their credibility or relevance. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sources are relevant – and recent, unlike some others in the article. They demonstrate the term is no longer just in use by 'activists'. Most people would consider Scientific American to be a highly reputable publication. The ACA is one of several national peak industry organisations in that country including APA, RANZCP, and PACFA. That it has gone to the trouble and expense of developing RMT guidelines is a clear indication that it is: a) a 'professional psychotherapeutic body' and b) not 'fringe'. MatthewTStone (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific American is a magazine, not a scientific or psychological journal, and the ACA is not a "psychotherapeutic" organisation but rather a counselling organisation - hence the name "Australian Counselling Association". Neither of these sources support the opening statement that RMT is a category of harmful psychotherapy, since neither are psychotherapeutic or scientific sources.

We have established that the term RMT was coined by a zealous activist group of people accused of sexual abuse, and promulgated by a journalist with a clear conflict of interest. This article should be rewritten to reflect the historical record, not the particular biases of editors. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific American makes it clear that the term is now "mainstream", regardless of who coined it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not debating that the term is used by journalists to refer to a category of psychotherapy. I'm debating whether the term is used by psychotherapists to refer to a category of psychotherapy.

Given that the historical record has established that the term originates outside the psychotherapeutic profession, and is used predominantly by journalists and activists to refer, in a pejorative way, to psychotherapeutic practice with people disclosing a history of sexual abuse, then it is misleading for this article to state that RMT is a category of psychotherapy.

It is not a term widely used by psychotherapists, but instead by journalists and activist groups constituted of people accused of sexual abuse. Failing to note this verifiable historical fact appropriately in the article amounts to bias. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of terms that start out being usd primarily by one side or another become mainstream. Pro-life, for example, instead of anti-abortion. It's a term and both sides use it Same here.

And, frankly, the argument that Scientific American's statements are not significant or scientific enough to be given any credence seems to be based solely upon shopping for sources. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and Scientific American certainly is one. DreamGuy (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The historical record and literature suggests that RMT is not a category of psychotherapy, but a pejorative label invented by an activist group and promulated through the media. If you have evidence that RMT is a genuine psychotherapeutic category, rather then a media or political construct, then please post it here.

Otherwise, I'll be rewriting the article over the next few days. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is correct, the pejoratively described therapy was used (with references in the article), by either unscrupulous or incompetent therapists. The only extent that rewriting should be done would be to note (with references) that the therapy is not recognized by scientific or psychiatric organizations. Any attempts to change the tone of the article to remove the POV that RMT was (and possibly still is) being done, will be promptly reverted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, none of this "I will be rewriting the article" tone, because you already know that your edits are opposed and if you do so they will only be changed back. When there is a controversy you should try to work toward a common ground. Insisting that you have your way and that you're going to do whatever you want despite what anyone else says is completely counter to how Wikipedia operates. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is sourced evidence that proves or presents the fact that RMT is "a media or political construct," I believe that should be presented as well. Abuse truth (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The historical facts here are not in dispute - RMT is a term that arose outside the psychotherapeutic profession and is used almost exclusively in a pejorative manner to question the credibility of professionals who work with survivors of child abuse.

It is therefore encumbent on editors here to work to find balance in this article, in accurately presenting the claims of different sources. At the moment, the article manifestly fails to achieve balance, because it promotes the claims of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (e.g. RMT is a harmful category of psychotherapy) without giving adequate air to the historical record, which is that the FMSF invented the term in the first place, or giving adequate coverage to those psychotherapists, social researchers or govt investigators who have pointed out that RMT does not designate a form of psychotherapeutic practice at all.

This article needs to be rewritten to conform to the basic Wiki standards of balance and NPOV. Dreamguy, do we have basic agreement on that? At the moment, you are simply blocking anybody that disagrees with you, without offering a constructive way forward. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The history of the term RMT

I've done an newspaper archive search for the term "Recovered Memory Therapy" and I've found it's earliest use in print.

"Recovered Memorty Therapy"is first used in a series of articles written by journalist Stephanie Salter in The San Francisco Examer over the period April 4-9, 1993. The articles were based on case studies supplied by the False Memory Syndrome Founation and interviews with Foundation Advisory Board members. Salter also disclosed a personal interest in the matter, since her partner had been accused of incest by his daughter. One letter to the Editor stated: “Because of her very close ties to someone accused of incest, she seems to us to be not at all detached. She would have a very big stake in proving to herself that repressed memories are false.”(Examiner April 9, 1993, A-23).

The earliest book to use the term RMT was written by Dr Ralph Underwager in 1993, called "Return of the Furies: An investigation into recovered memory therapy". Underwager founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, although he was forced to step down in 1993 after stating that paedophilia was a lifestyle choice affirmed by God, and that most women raped in childhood enjoyed it and thought it was good for them.

RMT is not a scientific term. It was created by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and disseminated through the popular media. The people responsible for it's creation and dissemination had serious conflicts of interest - such as believing that incest was good for children, or being close to people who had been accused of sexual abuse.

This article is profoundly biased. Most of the text needs to be deleted, and the article rewritten. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article still needs a lot of work. It has come a long way, but has a way to go before being NPOV as required by wikipedia guidelines. "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).Abuse truth (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is absolutely a cornerstone policy. Unfortunately different people interpret it differently. From my understanding of the policy most of your edits to this article (and related articles) seems to run counter to it, because they seem to all be intended to promote a specific view as if it were a fact or more important than other views. Regarding this specific topic, RMT is far and away the most well known term, and it is used by people on both sides of the debate, so trying to claim that its use here is biased doesn't make much sense to me. It'd be different if the term were inherently biased, such as Dreaming Up Fake Memories Therapy, but it isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The historical record speaks for itself, Dreamguy. Even Richard McNally, long-standing False Memory Syndrome activist, notes in this 2007 paper that only critics of psychotherapy use the term "recovered memory therapy".

It is therefore misleading for this article to state that the term is a psychotherapeutic category. It is not. It is a term used by people critical of psychotherapeutic practice.

Withholding that information from the reader amounts to bias. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So Richard Mcally is wrong, or was correct when he originally wrote that and is now wrong as the term was adopted by others. It's not withholding information to ignore info that we already have other sources to show is wrong. Insisting on making the claim is to try to bias the article in general. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits are an attempt to balance pages that appear to be biased and POV. I have no problem with balanced pages where the data on both sides is treated in an equal manner. And I agree with Biaothanatoi above. Abuse truth (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be your attempt, but your results are to ADD not-entirely-accurate pro-repressed-memory sections to any articles related to child abuse, whether or not appropriate. They're getting a little more accurate, now, but they're still not often appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you think you are trying to improve the article, but your edits simply do not meet WP:NPOV rules in the slightest. I think you are so close to the topic that you confuse your opinions with facts and your highly opinionated side with being neutral. All of our edits have been to advance one side at the expense of another, and you have been doing so with sources that do not meet WP:RS criteria and so forth and so on. You're so far to one side that you think balance is compromising on one out of twenty things and having your way with the rest. That's not how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem with the definition of what constitutes RMT, and with the term itself. So I have made some additions to the Definition, and have moved some text out of Critics of the Term – without deleting anything. It now clearly states that some people believe that the term shouldn't be used, etc. Hopefully, this will be a step in the right direction. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that my edits meet WP:NPOV rules. What I have noticed about most of the articles I have worked on is that they don't meet these guidelines. There often appears to be only one side presented, to the detriment of wikipedia and its use as an objective source of information. I do believe that the sources I have presented do meet WP:RS criteria. I have seen many articles with data that don't, sometimes with data not backed up at all, that simply sits there without being challenged, possibly due to its POV. Abuse truth (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above poster. It is particularly concerning that editors here are consistently relying on journalistic treatments of RMT in order to make claims about it's scientific authenticity. If RMT is a scientific category, then please provide us with scientific sources that indicate that RMT is a psychotherapeutic pratice on par with other recognised techniques such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

The research literature that I'm familiar with states that RMT is a pseudo-scientific rhetorical construct coined by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in order to slander professionals who work with children and adults who disclose sexual abuse. The historical record proves that RMT was invented, and promulgated, by activists and journalists, so quoting media sources to justify the claim that RMT is a genuine scientific category is circular.

There are a few editors here who have consistently blocked changes to other child abuse articles that contradict their POV that a significant proportion of abuse allegations are unfounded/confabulated. I hope that they can work constructively on this article with other editors. At the moment, it seems that any attempts to rework this article are being blocked, and the deadlock may require a RFC. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no claim anywhere in the article that RMT is a category recognised scientifically. In the Definition it clearly states "...no professional therapeutic organisation has ever recognised it as a legitimate approach. In the past, this has led some observers to claim that the term should not be used – or even that RMT itself does not exist..." But the reality is the term is in use by High Court judges, forensic psychiatrists, lawyers, and psychologists. Indeed, I would suggest what they are referring to is not a scientific category at all. Rather it is a category of junk science. However, describing it as such would not meet WP guidelines for neutrality. MatthewTStone (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Biaothanatoi, your definition there seems way off for me. RMT was not attacked in order to make professionals stop talk to their patients about sex during childhood if the patient wants to talk about it. What is attacked as RMT is the compulsory force and manipulation used by some therapists and social workers if they think their patients are "in denial" or "repressing" about such, and many original RMT sources write about their long and often aggressive fight and struggle with their patients before their patients "accept" that they must have undergone sex, as you can read in Ofshe & Watters 1996. Furthermore, I'm very skeptical regarding claims that are being made here about Underwager and the False Memory Foundation, as they're basically rendered as some weird, perverted cartoons. If it would be true what people here are saying about them, there would be absolutely no controversy about RMT. There are far better rationales against RMT, in fact your real opponents must be Ofshe & Watters. Also, I read on Arthur Rubin's user page that he has evidence against those ridiculous claims against Underwager and the False Memory Foundation. But most of all, targetting "incest activists" as the only critics of RMT would be like saying the only people opposed to the war in Iraq would be muslim terrorists. --Tlatosmd (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Underwager, here's a url with a transcript of his Paidika transcript.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html

"PAIDIKA INTERVIEW: HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD AND RALPH UNDERWAGER Part I Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will. --Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika, a European pro-pedophile publication."

He was also connected to VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Legislation) and the FMSF before the above speech became public.

On Ofshe : Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy - Spring, 1999 - 22 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 523 The Guilty and the "Innocent": an Examination of Alleged Cases of Wrongful Conviction from False Confessions by Paul G. Cassell -“According to the authors(Leo and Ofshe), in twenty-nine of these cases the false confession resulted in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person.” “examines nine of these twenty-nine cases in detail. Based on review of original trial court records and other similar sources, the part concludes that each of these nine persons were, in all likelihood, entirely guilty of the crimes charged against them.” “Only a relative handful of Leo and Ofshe's cases would satisfy the criterion of undisputed wrongful conviction.”Abuse truth (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1.) You seem to be unaware that paedophilia is completely legal in any modern secular jurisdiction. Some fundamental muslim countries and the likes seem to differ and punish people not only on behalf of their actions, but as said, that's not a secular approach. What you mean is child-adult sexual interactions chronocentrically and ethnocentrically given the legal label of child sexual abuse. Underwager calling upon a deity in a scientific journal subscribed to both by the British Library and the US Library of Congress seems disturbing though. The rest you give about him reads like a confirmation of belief in free speech.

2.) You also seem to be unaware of the fundamental differences between incest and child-adult sexual interactions, a confusion closely associated with RMT supporters, not to mention the more popular lumping of babies, toddlers, children, and adolescents when it comes to sexual activity, especially with adults.

3.) "Original trial courts and other records" but Cassell is not even able to give any exact quotes? That seems very weak, and it makes Cassell seem like he is only giving an unwarranted opinion whether he believes in the existence of "repressed memories". Out of those 29 cases analyzed by Leo & Ofshe, Cassell only looked at 9 of those? Also, who said anything about Leo & Ofshe? The rise of opposition against RMT was due to Ofshe & Watters 1996. --Tlatosmd (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very concerned about Tlatosmd's involvement here, given that s/he is now claiming that paedophilia is "completely legal" and Underwager's endorsement of paedophilia was a "confirmation of belief in free speech". This page needs a RFC. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Underwager did/didn't say is ancient history, and has little bearing on the practice of RMT and related fraudulent psychotherapy techniques in 2007. MatthewTStone (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about "fraudulent psychotherapy". This is an article about the term RMT, and it's history is therefore relevant to this article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

links added to page - rational for inclusion

Below please find the rational for including each of these ELs on the page.

The quote below will show that this page definitely should be included as an EL. False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct by Juliette Cutler Page "Many therapists have become wary of treating clients who appear to have recovered memories of abuse after a long period of forgetting. Among the reasons for this concern are extremely vocal organizations that have come forward in support of accused abusers, claiming that there is no such thing as "recovered memory", and often stating that not only are therapists who treat such clients negligent, but that therapists are in fact themselves creating these memories in their clients."

Research on the Effect of Trauma on Memory "False and Recovered Memories in the Laboratory and Clinic: A Review of Experimental and Clinical Evidence. (2004) -- Clinical Psychology, 11, 3-28. by David H. Gleaves, Steven M. Smith, Lisa D. Butler, & David Spiegel (FULL TEXT)" this has been added as an EL because the rmt debate includes the issue of the veracity of memory and the supposed implantation of traumatic memory

Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events This site contain a perspective that counter the fmsf online sites included in the EL list. If this site is not included, perhaps those sites should be deleted as well. Abuse truth (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New section - The Law

As previously discussed on this page, I have started a new section on the Law. For starters, I have moved the existing text out of the Trauma Model section where it didn't seem to belong, then adjusted it slightly and added an intro sentence. The text only touches on the system in the USA at the moment, but other countries should be represented in this section in future as well. MatthewTStone (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is it accurate to call Recovered Memory Therapy a 'category of psychotherapy'?

The article on "Recovered Memory Therapy" (RMT) currently refers to it as a harmful "category of psychotherapy" and "group of therapeutic techniques" that is based on the presumption that an adult with mental health problems has been sexually abused as a child and/or that adult memories of child sexual abuse are accurate representations of past crimes.

I am concerned that the opening paragraph of this article gives the impression that RMT is a formal psychotherapeutic practice (on par with, for instance, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or other recognised techniques). We have established that the term RMT was first coined in 1992 by an activist group constituted of people accused of sexual abuse (the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) and promulgated through media coverage by sympathetic journalists. It is now a term used almost solely by critics of therapeutic practice (and not practicing psychotherapists or counsellors) as a pejorative term to call into question the veracity of accounts of sexual abuse that arise in the context of therapy.

In my opinion, it is therefore inaccurate and unethical for this article to promote, as fact, the claims of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (that RMT is a harmful psychotherapeutic practice) whilst giving significantly less prominence to the concerns of researchers and academics that RMT is a media-driven rhetorical construct created by an activist group and that it does not refer to a form of psychotherapeutic practice at all. It is also my opinion that the article significantly misrepresents the history of the term by failing to note, from the outset, that it was coined by an activist group of people accused of sexual abuse, and not by the psychological or psychotherapeutic professions.

I am also concerned that we have an editor here claiming that paedophilia is legal and referring to child sexual assault as "child-adult sexual interactions".

What do other editors think? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is not accurate to call Recovered Memory Therapy a 'category of psychotherapy.' I agree with the above poster about this. I also agree that more attention to needs to be given in the article to different points of view.Abuse truth (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is quite legitimate to refer to it as a category of psychotherapy in the Lead section, where the subject is being introduced in simple terms for someone who may not be familiar with the subject at all. Later, where the article gets more specific, in the Definition, it clearly states: "...no professional therapeutic organisation has ever recognised it as a legitimate approach". But some people certainly seem to have formed the impression that it is a type of psychotherapy. For example, Lord Kingarth, a British Supreme Court judge. In a judgment on a case involving RMT in 2004, he described it as "...a therapy which claims to unlock painful memories (which can it is claimed be retrieved through dreams and hypnosis) which the patient has blocked out of his or her conscious mind." Judges usually put quite a bit of thought into the words they use when issuing a judgment, and he would not be using the term lightly. MatthewTStone (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not legitimate to refer to "RMT" as a category of psychotherapy, if it is not a category of psychotherapy, but rather, a term used by people critical of psychotherapy, as the literature on RMT indicates.

At the very least, this article should provide a clear historical overview of the use of the term, and the manner in which it has been contested. At the moment, the article is misleading, in that it promotes as fact the POV of an activist group (the False Memory Syndrome Foundation) whilst failing to give balanced coverage to the view that RMT is part of the propaganda efforts of that activist group.

RMT features in False Memory Syndrome Foundation literature as the primary cause of "False Memory Syndrome", a widely discredited pseuodo-scientific term. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was formed and run by people accused of sexual abuse, or those, like Dr Ralph Underwager, who have since been exposed as pro-incest and pro-paedophile advocates. We should therefore be extremely cautious in promoting a term like "RMT", and the claims that attend it, when the term was invented by individuals clear conflicts of interest in relation to child sexual abuse, traumatic amnesia and psychotherapy.

A reference to a judgement in a legal case does not support your assertion that RMT is a recognised and widespread psychotherapeutic practice. Judges are experts in law, not psychotherapy. At the moment, you are simply Googling the phrase and cutting-and-pasting what you can find from pro-FMSF websites. If RMT is a category of pyschotherapy then it is reasonable to expect that you will be able to provide trustworthy and neutral scientific or psychotherapeutic sources. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RMT is (at least now) discredited, but it apparently had been performed in a number of cases. I agree that the history of the term should be included, but as a secondary matter to the history of the therapy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "therapy" has no history if it is just a straw man, as many academics and researchers have claimed.

This claim finds support, for instance, in a 2005 government inquiry in Australia, in which the Victorian Health Commissioner's office found no basis for the claim of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation that RMT was a practice of psychotherapy at all, nor was there a group of techniques being practiced along those lines.

Treating RMT as a definable therapy is inherently POV in that it fails to acknowledge the findings of researchers and policy makers that no therapy calls "RMT" exists, outside the pejorative claims of activist groups, their supporters, and people accused of sexual abuse. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As Biaothanatoi seems to have problems with my definitions, I encourage him to point me to one single Western jurisdiction where paedophilia itself is illegal instead of sexual acts. It's just like homosexuality wasn't illegal for the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, what was illegal were same-sex interactions (of course same-sex activities had been illegal since much earlier than the 19th century however before Enlightenment, the lack of sufficient secularization in the West placed punishments not only upon sexual activity, but also on desire for such). It's a matter of correct and precise terminology, for instance, you can't speak of thirst if what you mean is actually drinking. In the case of paedophilia, this issue of correct terminology is especially significant because all existing legitimate scientific studies (see for instance Freund & Costell 1971; Quinsey, Steinman, Bergesen & Holmes 1975; Howells 1981; Knight et al. 1985; Wolter 1985; Brongersma 1990; Freund 1991; Freund & Watson 1991; McConaghy 1993; Lautmann 1994; Hall, Hirschman & Oliver 1995; Ward et al. 1995; Hoffmann 1996; Seikowski 1999) find about 1-3, maybe 5 percent of paedophiles among all people reported and/or sentenced for violating AoC laws, the rest are clearly situational offenders or sadists. That goes not only for self-identification but also for the large differences between those three types of AoC offenders in typical mental and behavioral patterns, so it's no use to resort to the unscientific claim of "denial" or the just as unscientific overuse of the cognitive distortion theory. Also, point me to one Western jurisdiction where sexual activity between an adult and a person below the local Age of Consent is not illegal, no matter how this sexual activity is called. About Underwager, what you quoted read like he said that all people, including paedophiles, have the right to say whatever they want.

Also Biaothanatoi, if your Australian source says that RMT is not a professional and legitimate therapy, you can interpret that as them being on the same side as the False Memory Foundation (among many others) by saying that those practicing what was later called RMT were no professionals and/or what they practiced was far from legitimate professional therapy, in fact rather fraudulent "cruel abuse" which is what you in the US can today sue even professionals for if they try to perform on you what is now called RMT. --Tlatosmd (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you are going with the "paedophilia is not illegal" bit, Tlatosmd, or why you are ascribing specific beliefs about "paedophilia" to me. Try to stick to the article.

The Health Commissioner's report is very specific and I suggest you read it. It does not lend itself to the interpretation that you bring to it here. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I could answer the paedophilia question, but I cannot without writing it as a personal attack against one or the other editors, so I won't. I think Biaothanatoi should be able to figure it out from that, though. As for the Health Commissoner's report, it explicitly fails to address the question of whether what the critics term RMT is actually done, as few of the health professionals returned the questionaire. It seems to establish that health professionals, in general, do not use the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:MatthewTStone and User:Arthur Rubin that the article already clarifies these issues to let people know the origin of the term, as well as how it is currently used, and also clears up any potential confusion on this issue. It seem like people are objecting to the term merely as a POV point that endorsing the term in any way somehow supports the side of the people who came up with it. This is not the case.

I think technically "category" is a bit wide-reaching. A (highly discredited) technique within psychotherapy, or practice used by some within it, or something like that, might be a little more clear to readers, but then I don't think that the particular word is really what's trying to be disputed. DreamGuy (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the article as stands is biased and not fully descriptive of all the factors necessary to describe the debate around RMT. As of this point, attempts to balance the article have not been successful. Hopefully this will change. Abuse truth 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You may point to discussions of related topics; you may not include the discussion of related topics from other articles, especially if they're not relevant there either. If I get a chance to stop reverting additions of the above editor, I'll consider summarizing some of the other information which should be in false memory or recovered memory (redirects to repressed memory, which isn't quite correct, either.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that these topics need to be discussed in greater detail in this article, due to their importance to this topic.Abuse truth 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is profoundly unbalanced. We know that the term RMT was created by an activist group in order to characterise psychologists in certain ways, and yet it seems that editors here (who are sympathetic to that activist group, and it's characterisations of psychologists) would like us to ignore the historical record in order to entrench their POV in the article - whilst characterising psychologists who reject the term "RMT as "liars" who cannot be trusted. This is an outrageous breach of Wikipedia policy on balance and NPOV. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association, 1993, 1994: Australian Psychological Society, 1994; American Medical Association, 1994;Canadian Psychiatric Association, 1996; Michigan Psychological Association, 1994; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1997 are listed as "other bodies that have issued statements and guidelines on the topic" by ACA Newsletter Spring 2004 Draft position statement on RMT page 109 http://www.theaca.net.au/journals/ca_archive/ACA%20Mag%20Vol4%20No3%20Spring%2004.pdf If this is accurate then the term - no matter its genesis - seems to have become part of the self-expression of psychotherapists. So (if ACA is accurate) then yes it is OK to typify RMT as a"category of psychotherapy. However further in the article I see greater WP:WEIGHT being given unamed uncited "critics of RMT" than an Australian state government inquiry. Emphasis/space must reflect the reliabilty of the source but instead here we have unsourced material being given great weight. SmithBlue (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Those organisations published guidelines on the subject of recovered memories, not "Recovered Memory Therapy". RMT is a very specific assemblage of words, with a specific origin and history, and it is not a phrase that is synonymous with recovered memories in general.

The point has been made here numerous times, but the ACA is not a psychotherapeutic or scientific organisation, it is a counselling organisation and it is therefore not an appropriate source for a statement about psychotherapists - particularly for the lead statement in the article. A small counselling organisation in Australia is being used to "prove" that a harmful psychotherapeutic practice is being practiced around the world. This is a clear case of undue weight.

The unnamed "critics of RMT" are the authors who wrote this article, and the editors who support them, who have written a profoundly biased article and are refusing to consider changes to it in good faith. Instead, they are relying on research-by-Google and irrelevant sourcing to entrench their POV in the article and block other editors from making evidence-based changes in the name of balance. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So here is how you can prove your point - find the 7 guidlines/statements listed above by psychotherapeutic/scientific bodies and show that what they are addressing is not specifically refered to as RMT and further show that it is not a pseudonym for RMT. (So no reference in the statement to "excesses" or "mistaken belief" etc). These would then be strong sources in favour of your position. At present the ?only professional source given in the article show RMT to be part of the profession's self-expression. (The term "Counselling" in Australia seems to include psychotherapy. The harder science people call themselves clinical psychologists - not psychotherapists.) Am hoping you have access to online journals.

From what I read of the article it is very biased POV. SmithBlue (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. 1993 APA statement - no mention of RMT. 1994 APA conclusions - no mention of RMT. Australian Psychological Society 1994 - not available online, although some quotes here and elsewhere, no mention of RMT. American Medican Association, 1994 - not available online, although some quotes available, no mention of RMT. Canadian Psychiatric Association, 1996 - not available online, although some quotes, no mention of RMT. Michigan Psychological Association, 1994 - not available online, although some quotes, no mention of RMT. Royal College of Psychiatrists - not available online, only through British FMSF, use of the term RMT in quotes, statement that RMT "is not a single or unified therapy...It is a label to describe the practices of a heterogeneous group of clinicians who share a particular set of beliefs".

Of the seven sources quoted in the ACA statement, only one uses the term RMT, and it does not use it unequivocably - it uses the term in quotes. It is therefore wrong to use these sources to suggest that psychotherapists are/were practicing something called "Recovered Memory Therapy" and that this practice has been found to be harmful. These cautions do not constitute recognition that therapists were (or are) practicing a specific set of harmful therapeutic practices. It is more proper to say that, throughout the 1990s, many professional and scientific bodies urged members to exercise caution in relation to memories of sexual abuse that arose in the context of therapy, pending more research. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

large edits recently made

Recently, large parts of the article have been unilaterally deleted by one editor without discussion on the talk page. This section was written by more than one editor and had been on the page for quite a while. These sections pertained to recovered or repressed memory research, and of course are pertinent to the discussion of RMT.Abuse truth (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they were created by only one editor, with significant additional edits by me. I thought they could be improved, but now I see they belong only in the recovered memory article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true. Part of the deletion was written by another editor. Like I said, "These sections pertained to recovered or repressed memory research, and of course are pertinent to the discussion of RMT."Abuse truth (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You unilaterally make edits all the time that you know several other editors find controversial (and violate Wikipedia policies), and a number of editors have agreed with edits of each other here that you don't like, so I'm not sure why you think you have room to complain here. This is a wiki, lots of people can edit. That's how things work. If you want an article that only has what you want, you are free to make your own website and say whatever you want. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits do not violate any wikipedia policies. And the only editors that may find my edits controversial do so because they disagree with the point of view stated. Editors do not have a right to delete large portions of an article simply because they disagree with the point of view stated in it.Abuse truth (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:consensus

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon.Abuse truth (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my disagreements about your edits to this article are because of questionable sourcing (when you don't directly quote someone, you invariably add your POV to the mix), and questions of relevance. If you were to include a relevant source, and described it correctly, I wouldn't revert, even if I was morally certain the source was wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that these sources are relevant to the issues at hand. RMT issues must include a review of RM, since RMT basically is talking about the validity or nonvalidity of RM. Abuse truth (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. RMT is about the therapies which may produce (recovered) memories. The value (if any) of therapy is not dependent on the validity (if any) of the memories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin that it's two different issues a.) whether (spontaneously) "recovered" memories are valid or reliable, and b.) whether memories "recovered" by RMT are valid or reliable. --Tlatosmd (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the point of the debate is that RMT may produce inaccurate (or false) memories, and therefore this type of therapy may be “dangerous” etc. This is why accuracy rates and information on how this type of memory may be stored from both sides are crucial to this debate. It is important to show the levels of accurate or inaccurate memories. Abuse truth 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RMT may have problems other than that the recovered memories may be false; the memories may be helpful or harmful whether or not false. As the question of whether false memories can be produced is controversial, that question should be moved to a single article, leaving the dispute in that article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Another relevant issue which I find mostly glossed over in both articles is that the concept of repressed memories is lumped in with amnesia and other forms of memory loss, maybe even dementia and other biological ailments. --Tlatosmd 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But the debate around RMT is largely around the veracity and technique of RMT. This is where the lawsuits come in. To simply delete large portions of the article that discuss veracity and technique issues is wrong.Abuse truth 15:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Truth, it seems to me that Rubin and others are seeking to remove the scientific studies you have posted here - not because they are irrelevant - but because those research findings directly contradict the POV that they are trying to entrench in the article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above poster.Abuse truth (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Details of User:Abuse truth's improper additions

1. "Research shows that a period of either partial or full amnesia is reported by between 30 and 90% of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse."

2. There are more than 100 descriptions and reports in the literature of recovered memory. These include occurrences during bereavement, natural disasters, concentration camp imprisonment, torture and war. There are also many corroborated cases of recovered memory that are documented of sexual abuse.

3. 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 this 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 excluding it from 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.
4. 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.

Commentary:

1. Biased incorrect summary of another source. (I can see it's incorrect in that it doesn't match the table also quoted from that source.)
2. Source would be marginally relevant, if it were an accurate quote, which it is not. However, there's no claim that the recovered memories were recovered in therapy. And it's probably not a WP:RS.
3. Biased source, not relevant, in that it only discusses repressed memories, not recovery.
4. Biased source, no claim that the recovered memories were recovered in therapy.

Also, all the biased sources were the same. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And the DSM-IV section which I didn't copy is unsourced and doesn't mention whether DSM-IV discusses recovered memories at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Arthur Rubin's incorrect evaluation of my edits.

The Leadership Council - Trauma and Memory

1) Since the "biased incorrect summary" is a direct quote from the article itself, and the quote itself is 100% percent accurate, the highlighted information in the red table there proves this, Arthur Rubin is incorrect in his evaluation and this quote is correct.

False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct by Juliette Cutler Page

2)The point for the inclusion of this quote is to show accuracy rates, which are relevant to the discussion of false memory and RMT.

[1]

3) As stated above: The point for the inclusion of this quote is to show accuracy rates. Which are definitely relevant to the discussion of false memory and RMT. The data in the article represents much of the data in the field. It balances the other resources in the article.

4)[2] This source is included to show rates of RM to balance other parts of the article.

And the DSM-IV is an important source of information when discussing RMT because it verifies the existence of Recovered Memory.

The inclusion of this information in the article makes it more balanced and factual in content. The recent deletions have only been to one side of the argument.Abuse truth 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

All wrong, as usual. But I would like to add that if I didn't have to monitor the articles for your inappropriate additions, I'd spend some time trimming the anti-recovered-memory quotes. They are excessive, also. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits are appropriate. The data is accurate, relevant and belongs in the article. It would be better for all editors to focus more on content, and less on deleting sourced data

from the articles. Abuse truth 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information supports your POV. There is reasonable disagreement as to whether that POV was already overweighted before your additions, even if it were properly sourced from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information makes the page less biased and more NPOV. If there was "reasonable disagreement," it should have been discussed on the talk page first and consensus achieved before large deletions were made.Abuse truth 22:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed above. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was "discussed" above well after the deletions were made, and no consensus was ever achieved.Abuse truth 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin that there are some parts of the Trauma Model section that simply don't belong in this article. It seems to be pushing a POV - I've deleted a couple of quotes, but I think more has to go. The whole quote from the Leadership Council appears to be someone's opinion - whose? - with some very broad generalisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTStone (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that only one POV is being deleted from the page lately. All of the pages were sourced and reliable.

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n9/false-memory.html is a published source with a full bibliography.

Memory repression is a form of amnesia so they have to be related. It would be better if editors would work more on finding their own material to answer the claims in the section, rather than delete the sourced material outright.Abuse truth (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how 'Feminista: the Journal of Feminist Construction' can be deemed a reliable source. The Cutler Page quote is saying that there are "over 100 reports and descriptions of recovered memory in the literature, etc"... but what are the details? 'More than 100' appears to be a very low figure - and how many of the 100+ involved memory recovery in therapy? It needs clarification. Surely there must be a better source than a one-sided soapbox blog website like Feminista? What about linking directly to a source that gives details of the 100 descriptions? MatthewTStone (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong AT, memory repression is not a form of amnesia. Both are inherently different theoretical approaches to memory loss in entirely different situations. Memory repression was a Freudian concept relating specifically to sex during childhood which Freud himself found failed after but a few months in 1897 already, realizing repression is not about memory but about personal impulses which are socially labelled as unacceptable, while there are a number of defense mechanisms affecting and distorting items specifically related to these shunned impulses within a repressing person's mind. Especially modern RMT unbelievably exaggerated about any potential opposition Freud faced with his quite conservative concept of repressed memory, what made people go up in arms against him or made them simply ignore him in contemporary Austria-Hungary was his subsequent theory that what is ethnocentrically labelled as perversions is in fact the repressed polymorphous norm and it's only nurture, education, society, things like that which force a person to learn filtering out all those shunned impulses by repression. Even his subsequent Oedipus complex concept was but a temporary placeholder until he'd fully figured it out with Id, Ego, and Super-Ego. I've added Freud's own German memoirs as the source for that in repressed memory, but if you want a more recent source in English, you might even go rent a b/w American dramatization of Freud's life from the 1950s on DVD whose name escapes me at the moment, I know some time ago it was mentioned either in the German or English article for Sigmund Freud but seems like it was removed.

Matthew, I guess I might be answering your question of whose opinion for instance the Leadership Council utters, or at least uttered at some time, by pointing towards The courage to heal and similar stuff in the same vein written and popularized primarily by laypeople. That related article is wrong to currently assume that it would be supporters of RMT critizizing the book, probably the underlying misunderstanding is to assume that most people practicing and/or supporting RMT, be it explicitly called like that or not, would be professionals. The courage to heal is RMT in its purest, unscientific, fraudulent form. --Tlatosmd (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Courage To Heal is a book, not a form of psychotherapy. There is a realy issue here with editors stamping their POV all over this article, breaking their own definitions when it suits them (How can a book be RMT in its "purest, unscientific, fradulent" form when this article states that RMT is a form of psychotherapy?) whilst others reject an academic journal because it's written by feminists and must therefore be (according to MatthewTStone) a "one-sided soapbox".

This article conforms directly to arguments of RMT from the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, whilst opposing voices and research evidence are suppressed. Editors who try to add balance are insulted, meanwhile, we hear repeatedly read unsolicited statements from Tlatosmd that being a paedophile is just like being thirsty or being gay. We really need to look at our options in terms of dispute resolution, because I can't see us breaking this deadlock any time soon. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Feminista.com" is not an academic journal, and (without necessarily agreeing with Tlatosmd) The Courage to Heal could be RMT in its purest form, as it essentially falls into the category of recommending a particular form of unlicensed psychotherapy.

On the other hand fmsfonline.com is not an academic journal, either, but it does have a reasonable reputation for reliability, if also for bias. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubin, a book does not become a form of psychotherapy if it recommends a form of psychotherapy. It remains a book. And the Courage To Heal does not use the term Recovered Memory Therapy, which raises the question as to why we are discussing it in the first place. Your statement about the FMSF is also contradictory - a source is not reliable if it is biased.

Your arguments here, and elsewhere, are fairly elastic when it comes to justifying your POV and/or dismissing other POVs and sources that contradict your own. I'm not sure how we can work together whilst you work to such floating standards. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we were unable to use a generally reliable, but biased, source, we'd have to delete the recovered memory sections of the repressed memories article. There have been no unbiased sources presented, and I doubt that there are any unbiased sources. (Adding to my previous comment on feminista.com; it's blocked from work, apparently for being a biased political site. I suppose it could also be an academic journal.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Both yourself and Dreamguy have a history of labelling any source that contradicts your POV as "biased", regardless of the expertise or credentials of the source. Sources which express contrary opinions (either in relation to your POV, or that of other sources) are not "biased", they are simply in disagreement. Wikipedia asks us to work to achieve balance between them, and that means working together with other editors to achieve consensus first.

Here, we find you suggesting that a book is a form of RMT, although it was published years before the phrase was ever coined, and suggesting that a "biased" source is also a "reliable" one. How can we achieve consensus when you seem so uninterested in open discussion? You are bending facts and words whenever it suits you.

I presume good faith, but only to a point. It seems to me that you have strong beliefs about forms of professional practice (and, apparently, self-help books) with people disclosing a history of sexual abuse, and you are happy to bundle up those concerns and lump them under the phrase "RMT" whether that accords with the historical record or not. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Biaothanatoi, just a few posts ago we had agreed that RMT was practiced long before the name came about. Now you suddenly complain you can't find that name in the original sources that started the practice. You've got to decide between those two options, you can't have it both ways. --Tlatosmd (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no such agreement with you and I don't know what you are talking about. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this also "have a history of labeling any source that contradicts your POV as "biased", regardless of the expertise or credentials of the source. Sources which express contrary opinions (either in relation to your POV, or that of other sources) are not "biased", they are simply in disagreement. Wikipedia asks us to work to achieve balance between them, and that means working together with other editors to achieve consensus first." This appears to be happening on this page. Consensus is not occurring here. And the Cutler page (with a full reference section) is at least just as reliable (if not more so) than the pro-fmsf sources listed. And it was published, so it is notable.Abuse truth (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Biaothanatoi, you yourself said that the term RMT was invented by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which didn't exist before 1992 while pulp sources like Michelle Remembers and The courage to heal during the 1980s campaigned for what was later called RMT, and such sources and the practitioning of RMT was, beside other means of forceful questioning only yielding forced lies rather than false memories, even largely responsible for the 1980s Day care sex abuse hysteria (however obviously many practitioners of RMT have adopted that term for self-identification since 1992). Though at least since I mentioned the fallacy in it, you're not claiming anymore that "incest activists" would be the only people critical of RMT. Another such fallacy is the claim that only people critical of psychotherapy in general would be critical of RMT, while Dr. Brent Waters stated in 2007 that "most peak psychological and psychiatric professional bodies in the English-speaking world" acknowledge "the lack of scientific evidence for the concept of repressed memory", and that they usually caution against the use of "forceful, leading or otherwise persuasive interviewing techniques intended to reveal evidence of past sexual abuse" which is exactly what RMT is. That's the "POV" we're pushing, that of "most peak psychological and psychiatric professional bodies in the English-speaking world". Dismissing RMT is like dismissing Scientology as they are very much alike in their techniques of manipulating their cult members, including hypnosis, "truth serum", the severing of all contact to people not belonging to the cult, including close and closest famly members, as required of low-level initiates, the systematic suggestion of alternate realities within an isolated area dedicated to the cult ("training" camps, "therapy" hospitals), and the psychological terror and brainwashing directed against dissenting cult members regarded to be "repressing" or "in denial" as soon as they have entered these isolated areas. --Tlatosmd (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I find your contributions to this page rambling, off-the-topic and largely irrelevant. This is a page about RMT and Waters does not even use the term. Now we find you drawing an analogy between RMT and Scientology.

If you cannot find credible sources for your beliefs, then they do not have a place in the article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

References

(Please keep this section at the bottom)

Incivility

I find the edit by User:Arthur Rubin 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) , impling paedophilia by fellow editor/s extremely uncivil. I have left a message on his talk page saying so and asking him to address his edit. If another editor feels the same and also communicates their view with Arthur Rubin we have more options open to us in terms of "Requests for comment/User conduct". SmithBlue (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the message you left on Arthur's talk page, you seem to confuse paedophilia with a behavior, as probably others here still do as well. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are no forms of behavior either, and neither is thirst. --Tlatosmd (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Implying paedophilia is incivil. On this I am clear. SmithBlue (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was intending to imply that a certain editor accused those who remove his edits of supporting paedophilia (again, confusing the inclination with the behavior). But I probably shouldn't have said anything. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be me, then. The quality of discussion on this page is beyond the pale. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if anyone editing this page should have an RFC on them, it's Abuse truth, for consistently ignoring consensus, adding bad sources, edit warring, blind reverting, deceptive edit comments and putting the same (bad) content into several articles at once with the very clear purpose of trying to advance his own personal viewpoints. As far as Arthur Rubin goes, he and I have a history of conflict and do not see eye to eye on most issue, and if he and I can both agree that the edits being made by some individuals here are clear violations of policy, they must be off the scale bad. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Abuse Truth is trying to add balance to a difficult article in good faith. Your arguments here are commensurate with your approach to the articles on DID and SRA, where you take the implicit POV that the subject matter does not exist and that anyone who thinks otherwise has a secret agenda. You then block any attempts to add balance to the article or include sources in which the subject matter is treated seriously, and you invariably go about this by characterising other editors as biased, NPOV, and in violation with Wikipedia policy.

Rather then seek balance and consensus, you take an entrenched position and fire at anyone who disagrees. If we were to consider the time you spent attacking other editors, and the time you spent actually looking for new sources and improving an article, where would we find you expending most of your energies? In the core work of Wikipedia, or in stalking discussion boards and provoking conflict? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Abuse Truth's actions are incompatible with an attempt to add balance to the article, although I now accept his good faith belief that he's doing so. He still seems incapable of paraphrasing, nor in believing that anything related to repressed memory nor sexual abuse of children is inappropriate for this article (n)or SRA. That being said, I don't think User:DreamGuy is seeking balance, either; he's merely removing statements he believes to be false, regardless of whether some of them are adequately sourced.

It should also be noted that AT is unwilling or unable to consider the possibility that his statements, even though he's sure they are true, may be unsourced and/or irrelevant to this article.

I haven't dealt with your edits yet; since most of your sources are books with no online presence, I cannot tell whether you are reporting the information accurately, or channeling AT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the manner in which another editor is making changes, then you simply need to talk that through with them in a non-confrontational fashion in the manner that Wikipedia and basic etiquette requires of you. Instead, you have consistently presumed bad faith on behalf of myself and Abuse Truth, and your manner has been overbearing and hostile. True to form, I now find you threatening to "deal" with my edits, on the basis that I may be lying or "channelling" another editor, whatever that means.

Reading back over your edit history here, it seems that, Like Dreamguy, you contribute very little to the articles that you sit on - you simply delete/remove/undo, all the while insulting the editor that made the change. Is this subject matter that you care about, or know anything about? On the evidence here, it seems that you are more interested in stalking Wikipedia to engage other editors in conflict. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried talking with AT in a non-confrontational fashion. It didn't work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubin, you initially presumed bad faith in relation to Abuse Truth and you were consistently hostile to him. It's not enough to just tone yourself down a little now and expect him to come to the party. You might want to do something that is very rare online - like apologise - and establish a new basis on which to work with him.

I also suggest that you go and look at the history section of this article, and see how often the words "undo", "remove" and "delete" come after your name. What do you have to contribute to this article? If you don't care enough about it to actually do some research, get informed, and contribute to the article, then I don't know why you are here. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did initially assume bad faith in regard AT, because I couldn't imagine how someone with basic knowledge of the English language could so misinterpret the pro-child-abuse (sorry, I meant pro-child-abuse-prevalence) articles he quoted. I am now willing to believe that his competence in English is around {{User en-2}}, which he, of course, denies. I'm not not sure, any more, but I willing to assume he's misstating his competence rather than that he's lying. Since then, we've had a few productive exchanges, although not in this article.

And there are a number of editors who specialize in removing nonsense from articles, even if they're not sure what the sense of the article is. It is quite possible, and a useful skill, which I apparently do not have, at least according to you. (I've also been asked not to get involved with User:DreamGuy's edits, due to some disputes which escalated into WP:CIVIL violations on one side or the other, which would make it difficult for me to make what you would call "constructive" edits.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that one editing style is WP:BRD, rather than WP:BRRRRRR..... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you cast aspersions on another editors competency in English! You are unbelievable. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's required by WP:AGF. Anyone who can quote "100 years" as "100 instances" repeatedly is either lying or non-English-speaking. I choose to believe the latter, at this point, although the possibility didn't occur to me at first. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AR found the ONLY one word mistake I have made in my edits (see above). He has falsely accused me of misquotes. Even when I have produced the text of the article and compared it to the text I used, which were similar in content, he still went on about misquotes. Perhaps he really believes this. But he is wrong. He even accused me of misquoting in one of edits, when they were his edits he had made a month before. See below:

In the false memory history page: 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.)

On the talk page I wrote: 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

Now he states that he knows my level of competency in English. AR states "I tried talking with AT in a non-confrontational fashion. It didn't work." All I have seen from AR for the most part is rv's of my edits, mostly without discussion on the talk pages. To me, this is fairly confrontational.

I do agree with AR here : "That being said, I don't think User:DreamGuy is seeking balance, either; he's merely removing statements he believes to be false, regardless of whether some of them are adequately sourced." Unfortunately, AR has been backing up many of DG's edits. DG has accused me of ignoring consensus. Yet he is the one who has been deleting five or more sourced paragraphs from certain articles without discussing this on the talk page first. And they all disagree with his POV.

Hopefully this will change and editors can again start working in good faith and consensus on these pages.Abuse truth (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just learning my way around here and might make a mistake. Please forgive me. It seems that Abuse Truth is being placed in an impossible situation. To place a fact or perceived fact in more than one location would seem to be normal behavior for any person and not a violation of anything. He seems to be subjected to a barrage of attacks on sources. So much so, that it is hard to know if any sources would be acceptable. This is especially true in this field where not much is being published or available for citation.

Is there a social responsiblity here to allow responsible viewpoints that would be useful to potential victims of child sexual abuse? I can't see collegial acceptance. What is the source of this apparent rage with the notion that not every trauma is recalled or processed by the psyche? What about this idea is so controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelvale (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rachel, this dispute is not about CSA and its potential impacts. It's about what I said in the thread above this one:

Dismissing RMT is like dismissing Scientology as they are very much alike in their techniques of manipulating their cult members, including hypnosis, "truth serum", the severing of all contact to people not belonging to the cult, including close and closest famly members, as required of low-level initiates, the systematic suggestion of alternate realities within an isolated area dedicated to the cult ("training" camps, "therapy" hospitals), and the psychological terror and brainwashing directed against dissenting cult members regarded to be "repressing" or "in denial" as soon as they have entered these isolated areas.

That's why, as I've quoted within the article itself, that "professionals also assert that by employing rather harmful measures, RMT itself produces the psychological traumas that it is supposed to evidence, and that the allegedly recovered memories of childhood abuse are in fact a form of defense mechanism against these traumas as it is such memories that are demanded by RMT therapists". Also note: "most peak psychological and psychiatric professional bodies in the English-speaking world" acknowledge "the lack of scientific evidence for the concept of repressed memory" (such as what you obviously associate with trauma, and the lack of evidence is certainly not there because the issue hasn't been researched by professional psychologist and psychotherapist organizations, the results are that trying to find evidence for the repressed memories concept is like trying to find evidence for that earth is flat), and they usually caution against the use of "forceful, leading or otherwise persuasive interviewing techniques intended to reveal evidence of past sexual abuse" which is exactly what RMT is. --Tlatosmd (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadership council and just some blog are not reliable sources

We seem to have a problem with people readding whole sections making sweeping claims that simply are not supported by cites to WP:RS-compliant sources.

The leadership council can be quoted on it's opinions (as long as it is clear that those are only opinions and that others disagree), but it cannot be used as a source about what *other* sources claims, nor can it be used as a source about research results in general. It is a biased source, and so is not going to give a general overview or full look at all the data, because it only wants its own data out there. There were whole sections making all sorts of claims of fact and attributing it to this group. That's not how things are done.

Similarly, someone keeps adding the fact that some blogger accuses a group of trying to surpress info for nefarious reasons... this doesn't even come close to meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV, as it gives extremely WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a single individual on a website. If there are lots of people making the claim, then find a reliable source that says that. Anyone and their dog can have a blog, that's not encyclopedic in the slightest.

I don't know why those sections keep getting put back in after it's been pointed out several times now that they are unacceptable, but you would forgive me for thinking it might have something to do with an editor wanting to present a certain view but not being able to find any real sources to back it up so going with anything he can think of to try to support himself and specifically avoiding sources that say different. That's not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing your conduct on this page, Dreamguy, and reading back over the page history: All that you do is block. That's it. You just sit on articles, block changes, criticise other editors, and randomly invoke WP policy to justify yourself. You contribute nothing, you add nothing, you do no research and you write nothing. You just bully editors and I'm not the only one sick of it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Biaothanatoi, repeating Arthur here, don't claim DreamGuy would be doing BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..., all he does is conforming to BRD. What use is it to just change the subject from content-related issues such as factual accuracy, reliability, undue weight, authority to mere complaining about that Wikipedia standards are turning out unfavorably for you? --Tlatosmd (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Biaothanatio, most of my edits lately have been to undue changes -- changes that very clear violate major principles here. That's not bullying, it's doing what every editor is EXPECTED to do: if someone makes edits that don't meet our standards, they are SUPPOSED to be undone. And, frankly, your claims about my contributions, research, etc. are simply false. Preventing garbage from getting into Wikipedia is probably one of the most important things that needs to be done here, and certainly with the number of people with inadequate writing skills, desires to merely push their own bias, and strategies to spam their own sites running around here, it's certainly the most frequently necessary duties here. These articles in question have already had years of hard work by a consensus of editors working on them -- like many articles here -- and so it should not be surprising that more work is needed to keep it on an even keel instead of just letting new people not following policies show up and try to take over. DreamGuy (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with using full attribution on some of my sources, provided that this is done consistently throughout the article for all POVs.

I have already shown on another talk page that the Leadership Council meets WP:RS. For convenience, I will repeat the argument here:

Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence: Research on the Effect of Trauma on Memory http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/tm/tm.html

Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence: Summary of Research Examining the Prevalence of Full or Partial Dissociative Amnesia for Traumatic Events

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

Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence: Research on the Effect of Trauma on Memory

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

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS

"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable." "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."

The Leadership Council fits this guideline.

At http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/about.html

"What Is The Leadership Council?

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence (formerly the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media) was founded in 1998 by professionals concerned with the treatment of victims of trauma, both in professional circles and by the legal system.

We are a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts. Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing the public with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society's commitment to protect its most vulnerable members."

This page's executive officers, directors and advisory board lists numerous scientists in the field.

I don't cite opinions from bloggers. As far as how Wikipedia works, it works by consensus, and not by deleting large sourced sections of articles that one does not agree with.Abuse truth (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That feminist claim section you keep adding is a mere blogger. And Leadership council as a realiable source is ONLY a reliable source for what THEIR opinions are, NOT facts as any claims of fact they make are contradicted by other sources. Leadership council is basically an activist organization. The fact tht some members are scientists doesn't make what they claim science as a whole anymore than a scientist on the payroll of some cigarette company makes them a reliable source about the effects of nicotine. Any claims of fact that Leadership council makes MUST be worded as saying that they have those opinions (not stated as facts) and then the opposing claims by all the other relaible sources must ALSO be there. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that you have not even attempted to pretend to follow, as all of the content you added is extremely one sided and agenda-driven. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that some of the sources on this page, like the fmsf online, pendergrast and religioustolerance.org are seen as reliable sources, yet it is clear they have definite agendas, at times without data to back up what they say. The feminista article has a large bibliography section and was published. Leadership council.org has a very large scientific advisory board. If their data needs to be worded that they have opinions, then so do most of the sources in the article.Abuse truth (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullying on this page

Read over the edit history on this article and a distinct pattern comes up. Abuse Truth tries to contribue - DreamGuy and Arthur Rubin delete, remove or undo his changes, with MatthewTStone not far behind. These deletions are invariably accompanied by an insulting or sarcastic remark in the editing comments, or here on the discussion page.

By any standard, the current article is poorly sourced, factually incorrect and biased. It could do with the contributions of an interested and informed editor. And yet all of Abuse Truth's changes are being blocked, regardless of the content of his changes, or the credibility of the source that it is attributed to. Meanwhile, the editors who are blocking Abuse Truth do not attempt to educate him on WP policy or conduct (althoug they often claim he is in violation of it) and they do not seek clarification or consensus before deleting content.

In fact, they have contributed almost nothing to this article. The only time in which they post new sources or content is to protect, defend or rephrase old content that has been demonstrated as incorrect or inaccurate. They have consistently refused to work with Abuse Truth, or myself, in good faith, or to put aside their personal POV to achieve an accurate and balanced coverage of all the sources and positions on this topic. Read Rubin above as he claims he will "deal" with my edits on the basis that I may be lying or "channelling" another editor.

This behaviour is completely unacceptable. If editors here cannot put down their poison pens and actually work on the article (you know - Wikipedia - the reason why we are here?) rather then just sitting on a bad article, blocking every single change, and threatening and insulting other editors, then we are going to need to go to mediation. There are some repeat offenders on this board and a distinct pattern is emerging. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, and all editors except AT have admitted, AT has shown himself incapable of paraphrasing. I have only been removing his edits when they are either clearly unsourced (including being sourced to a personal site), misinterpreted, or irrelevant. DreamGuy and MatthewTStone will have to speak for themselves. As for "not contributing to the article", making sure that unsourced irrelevant misquotes are kept out is contributing. For what it's worth, I fail to see any claim of "factual incorrectness" other than yours, and some indications that the source of the term is not properly included (that's an omission, rather than being incorrect); not even AT is making that claim. Now, if false memory were merged with recovered memory, AT's contributions to this article could be moved there, and summarized here.

I think perhaps, AT could recognize consensus that his contributions are unwanted in this article, and move on to improve the article, rather than adding the same paragraphs to all related articles.

I decline to note the rhetorical fallacies which Biaothanatoi is committing in this section, leaving that to others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Truth's contributions to this article are being made in good faith, and if you feel that he needs some help in making those contributions, then that is what Wikipedia is for - collaboration. Rather then just hit 'undo', maybe you could come here and discuss your concerns and build ATs understanding of WP policy?

Neither AT nor I are advocating that we remove from this article the concerns of the FMSF, and others, in relation to psychotherapeutic practice. We are advocating that all sources in relation to RMT are integrated into the article in a manner which accurately reflects what they believe and why. The article currently promotes the positions of False Memory advocates as fact, and opposing positions as just "positions", which is a failure of balance. Editors are also excising relevant scientific research findings from this article where it contradicts the False Memory (and, apparently, their own) POV.

Please stop attacking other editors, presume good faith, and work to better the article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, AT has advocated removing the concerns of the FMSF from some sections of the article, but that's not entirely relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The concerns of the FMSF should be central to this article because they invented the term in the first place. However, these concerns should be correctly attributed, and that is where the article is inaccurate. It currently claims that these concerns originate with the psychotherapeutic community, and this statement is supported by a single citation to a small counselilng organisation in Australia. This is a prima faci case of undue weight and if it is not adequately addressed by editors on this page then I will take the matter to arbitration.

Your conduct, and those of other editors on this page, has been very poor, and you have been quick to raise WP policy when it suits you, all the while ignoring the most basic principles of balance, consensus and courtesy. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I haven't seen any other editors state that I have misparaphrased anything, except AR. AR states : " I have only been removing his edits when they are either clearly unsourced (including being sourced to a personal site), misinterpreted, or irrelevant." He appears to apply one of these categories to most of my edits consistently. These removals of large data should be discussed on the talk page, not decided unilaterally.Abuse truth (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: why does Biaothanatoi spend so much time on this talk page criticising other editors, yet spend virtually no time at all on the article itself? I have had a look through the edit history and apart from tagging the article and removing a couple of citations on November 29, Biaothanatoi has made no contribution to the article at all - either by way of adding or deleting. I for one, have taken note of his/her criticism, particularly in relation to the definition of RMT. I modified it considerably after Biaothanatoi claimed it was innacurate and was not a category of psychotherapy. I also made it very clear that the term was invented by FMSF. Yet no matter what edits are made, his/her criticism never lets up. So how about it, Biaothanatoi - start making a contribution to improve the article. I will be interested to see what sources you use. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As Rubin and DreamGuy's treatment of AT has made clear, there is no point making substantive changes to this article so that it accords with the historical and scientific record - these changes are being deleted as soon as they are made. Instead, I've been here trying to build consensus on a fairly controversial topic, as any purview of this discussion page makes clear. This includes going back to newspaper archives to demonstrate that the first appearance of the term RMT in print was in a sympathetic journalistic treatment of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

Yes, you've been making some changes to the article, but the article still claims that the term RMT is a term for a "category of psychotherapy" used by "professionals" - rather then an activist group made up of people accused of child sexual assault - and it is therefore inaccurate. The lead sentence needs to be changed, and you've been one of the editors actively preserving it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The recent collection of AT's edits have been, without exception, inlcuded additions irrelevant to this article. After the 10th time an editor makes the same edit against consensus, it's been known for comments to get a little uncivil, for which I apologize. However, he continues to make the same edits against consensus. If, by chance, he makes a reasonable correction in the lead, it may easily get lost among the unreasonable additions of irrelevant material. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What actually happened was one editor deleted paragraphs of the article that disagreed with his POV. Then another editor backed him up. This isn't consensus. And the sections are important to this article.Abuse truth (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - a plan

Unless an editor can show why WP:NPOV is best not applied to this article, I plan to go through article and put after each unsourced claim. Shortly after (a day or so) I plan to remove all unsourced claims/statements. WP:PROVEIT says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If unsourced material is replaced into the article I will follow the guidlines at Disruptive_editing. If you feel you may want to replace unsourced material I suggest reading Tendentious_editing.

Once unsourced material is removed I will then work with my fellow editors to impliment WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Please read these policies if you are unfamilar with them. SmithBlue (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above plan. Abuse truth (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have added to unsourced claims etc. Due to the volume of cites needed I will not be back to remove uncited material till Thursday at earliest. Pls dont remove unless you show why cite is unnecessary. SmithBlue (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea that you'd go through and remove them within only a few days seems to not be practical or realistic. I anticipate a situation here where an editor with a very clear POV has and takes the time to go through and source only those parts he wants highlighted. If other editors do not have the time to go through and source others that's not an excuse for the article to be biased. WP:NPOV must be followed -- one cannot take sections of that policy to ty to justify removing whole sides. Citation needed tags certainly do not have to be responded to immediately. Aggressive ultimatums, especially ones that play into the hands of people with an agenda, are for more disruptive to this encyclopedia in the long run. I agree more source is necessary in the long run and that WP:NPOV is absolute but think the strategy as stated here will have the exact opposite effect. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes 'back on Thursday' does sound a lot like an ultimatum. And SmithBlue clearly has an agenda. Agree wholeheartedly with DreamGuy's statements. MatthewTStone (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at SmithBlue tags and I noticed that they were distributed fairly. I agreed to SmithBlue doing this, because I saw that he was an apparently neutral editor without a specific POV. However, if certain editors feel that they need more time to back up their data, I have no problem with this.Abuse truth (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just went through and looked at the fact tags SmithBlue added and removed one that was totally inappropriate (as it already had a source listed there). The others do seem to be questionable in their distribution. Any attempt to remove all of those sections within a few days here would be a massively bad idea and gut the article of some very solid information, much of which should be extremely uncontroversial (at least in the sense that it anybody who has spent any time reading on the topic knows they can be cited to a reliable source making these claims, even if you don't agree with those claims). Since SmithBlue now can see that he has editors opposed to his plans he knows that this action would be controversial and not within consensus, so I hope he has the good sense to not go ahead and do it. If he still does I think it would be done in bad faith. We're here to solve problems, not make new ones with bizarre unprecedented ultimatums. DreamGuy (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where in the source the material attributed exists. I couldn't find it. I started a section for such discussions below. SmithBlue (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If any of my fellow editors feel my actions step over the line of civility or produce an environment which retards the development of Wikipedia I urge you to read Disruptive_editing and follow the steps involved in it. Specifically the section "Dealing with disruptive editors". If you are unfamilar with Wikipedia I will endevour to assist you in the process of filing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for me. Which, if I am found in serious error, will result in me being blocked or banned. Learning how to use such tools empowers you and makes you a more effective editor IMHO.

For me, leaving unsourced material in an article does not promote NPOV but only confuses readers and dilutes the value of sourced material. I see no possibility of accurately balancing unsourced material from different sides.

The current version with the unsourced material will remain available, as a previous version, for those editors who wish to find relevant cites in the future.

This is a level playing field - Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. SmithBlue (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy, have you ever engaged an editor with a different POV to you without accusing them of having an "agenda"?

According to you, I have one, AT has one, SmithBlue has one - we all have secret "agendas". Maybe you should consider the shocking possibility that people who disagree with you might be acting in good faith? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving unsourced material in a Wikipedia article results in all editors (except the one who inserted the unsourced material), and readers being disempowered and accepting the absolute authority of the single editor who inserted the unsourced material. All content editing procedures are rendered ineffective and all other users are forced to assume infallibility (rather than just good faith). I have left unsourced material in this article too long already. SmithBlue (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem/s with content of existing cite/s?

["|"Description of RMT in court proceedings in the UK, 2004"] is used as a cite for "It is however, now commonly understood to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events". Please show me where in this court document "group of techniques" occurs . The closest? I can find so far is "which can it is claimed be retrieved through dreams and hypnosis". SmithBlue (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add any other "problems of content of existing cites" here. SmithBlue (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Definition, the following needs to be resolved one way or the other: "...no professional therapeutic organisation has ever recognised it as a legitimate approach. In the past, this has led some observers to claim that the term should not be used – or even that RMT itself does not exist...".
I wrote the sentence myself, including the in response to some severe criticism on the Talk page. I anticipated that the critic would him or her self supply an appropriate cite from a good solid source, but to date this has not happened. In fact, the particular critic has been very active on the Talk page, but has made no contributions to any content within the article whatsoever.
So if everyone can agree that RMT exists, and the term is now in use within legal/therapeutic professional circles, then I suggest removing the sentence altogether. MatthewTStone (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the practice "RMT" exists, and, where the phrase has been used in legal and therapeutic circles, it has been limited to critics of psychotherapy. The term RMT was coined, and then promulgated, by professional defence witnesses affiliated with the FMSF (such as Ofshe, Loftus and Underwager) - and they used the term, in court, to undermine claims of child sexual assault.

Given the particular way in which the term RMT has been used, it is not a neutral and accepted descriptor of therapeutic practice, and it would be extremely misleading of this article to suggest otherwise. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In a court case, it is a judge's duty to be the most neutral person in the room. And when he uses the term, it is after presentation by expert witnesses on both sides... MatthewTStone (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to prove that a form of psychotherapy is being widely practiced around that globe, and that it is harmful, based on a single reference in a judgement in a single court case, is a clear case of undue weight.

Please find substantive citations for your opinions, not just random references that you can drum up through Google. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please start editing the page with credible references of your own. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Please read the substantive citations below. I expect that you will not be blocking attempts by myself, Abuse Truth or other editors to make changes to the article to accord with this information. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria" - please supply full cite for book. SmithBlue (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the misleading edit comments when reverting

This is getting just bloody ridiculous. The latest full on revert User:Abuse truth did to push his POV into the article again when clear consensus here is against those additions was marked with the edit comment: "(restoring important data to the article - the DSM is a widely used and accepted scientific document)" -- well, great, but the vast majority of what the edit added back in had nothing to do with the DSM, and the DSM doesn't say anything about recovered memory therapy... trying to claim that other conditions that exist in there are somehow support for the argument that recovered memories are genuine and trustworthy is nothing but original research/wishful thinking, and had nothing to do with all the other nonsense added anyway.

For the number of times User:Abuse truth has shoved the exact same deceptive and unsourced, POV-pushing nonsense into this and other articles with misleading or outright false edit comments, I think something more needs to be done here so that he doesn't hold all these articles hostage with edit warring to his own bad versions. This has to stop already. DreamGuy (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy has totally misinterpreted my edit comments. I wrote that I was restoring important data to the article, and I did. I also made an additional comment about the DSM, which has wide acceptance in the pertinent scientific community.

"The DSM-IV recognizes the existence of posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder--all of which are terms describing the fragmentation of memory due to traumatic experience. The DSM-IV is a widely used manual, with high credibility, in the therapeutic community."

This quote describes "RMT." What has to stop is the constant attacks and deletions of data that doesn't agree with one or two editors POVs.

And there never has been "clear consensus" on the original deletions of this data from the article.Abuse truth (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote does not describe RMT, and your "important data" is entirely about repressed memories, with very little, if any, about recovered memories. Even if there were, the relevance is weak, as RMT could be harmful regardless of the accuracy of the "memories".

There has never been "clear consensus" for the accuracy or relevance of the sections you've been continually adding. In the absence of consensus, we should not have them in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat that amnesia is entirely unrelated to "repressed memories"? They are as similarly unrelated to each other as Creationism and evolution. Also, as it's probably adding to this confusion about that DSM quote, and as offensive as that fact might be for some people here, for about a quarter of century now the popular strong association of those disorders mentioned in said DSM quote with what is legally labelled as CSA has a very large part been supported and backed up by fraudulent, manipulative, and traumatizing RMT which causes all these symptomes in adults that never showed any traces of them before. It's the same problem as with alien abduction therapy where all these symptomes (posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative amnesia, and dissociative identity disorder) can be artificially created by making people believe they have been kidnapped and tortured by extraterrestrials. As sources for this fact I call for instance upon Ofshe & Watters 1996, the professional psychiatrist Dutch source mentioned in the article, and Griesemer 2005, not to mention the vast research done on alien abduction therapy and the lost in the mall experiments, such as those made by Loftus and others. --Tlatosmd (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinctions between "repression" and amnesia is a well recognised straw man in the "False Memory" debates. So too is your attempt to link psychotherapy with "alien abduction therapy", which is an invented term on par with "recovered memory therapy". These are all standard markers of the populist "False Memory" literature that flourished, briefly, a decade ago, although it is clear that you are deeply influenced by it.

The research that you quote - by Loftus and Ofshe - were all published in populist, non-academic books that were co-authored by journalists, and, in academic circles, their methodology, analysis and findings have been roundly criticised as unsound and unethical.

Please find credible sources for your opinions if you want to see them included in the revised article. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any recognition as "legitimate therapeutic approach" in professional psychotherapeutic literature?

re: "RMT is not generally recommended by professional psychotherapeutic organizations, who do not recognise it as a legitimate therapeutic approach". Do we have professional psychotherapeutic source showing any' professional psychotherapeutic organization "recognises RMT as a legitimate therapeutic approach"? Please show cite in your answer, brevity is appreciated. SmithBlue (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to source that sentence, shouldn't you rather be looking for denouncement and statements of caution relating to RMT? That Brent Waters source further down the article would fit fine as a source for this lead sentence. --Tlatosmd (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

- if we have RS source showing statement, "professional psychotherapeutic organizations do not recognise it as a legitimate therapeutic approach" to be false then claim will need to be modified. I cant ask for cites prooving a negative. "Show me a source that G Bush isnt a penguin" isnt reasonable. But if we have a cite showing G Bush to be a penguin .... SmithBlue (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I nominate Biaothanatoi as an ideal person to be answering this question. If you read this talk page, you will see that these words were inserted into the article as a way of addressing his/her criticisms such as "...that the FMSF invented the term in the first place, or (not) giving adequate coverage to those psychotherapists, social researchers or govt investigators who have pointed out that RMT does not designate a form of psychotherapeutic practice at all." Biaothanatoi has dished out a lot of criticism of other editors, but has failed to come up with any sources for his/her assertions at all. Agree also that the Brent Waters source reflects current thinking (as opposed to that of the mid-1990s). MatthewTStone (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SmithBlue, I guess you might be getting your categories wrong, just as the meaning of relevance. Acknowledgement as "legitimate therapeutic approach", or its denouncement as being anything but that, is not quite the same as whether George Bush is a penguin or not. --Tlatosmd (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The penguin thing is an analogy. Please add relevant cites you have available. SmithBlue (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a succinct (and conveniently recent, free and online) summary of the state of play around the term "Recovered Memory Therapy" available here, written by Professor Warwick Middleton. You can read the following at ps 36-37:

"At the latter end of a period which reached its zenith in the mid-90’s in which there were numerous allegations regarding the excesses of so called “recovered memory therapists” who it was frequently claimed adhered to the Freudian notion of “repression” as a core principle of their apparent misguided and outdated endeavours, it is actually difficult to find any therapists who define themselves principally as practicing “recovered memory therapy”. McNally observed in 2003, “As far as I can tell, no one practicing psychotherapy today endorses this term as descriptive of what they do (pg 3).”

It was also hard to find many writers in the field of trauma and memory who placed particular emphasis on the entity of “repression” as the principal construct used to explain the complex phenomenology and amnesias frequently seen, particularly in those who lived through severe emotional, physical, and sexual traumas during formative developmental years and where commonly their abuser was simultaneously a vital attachment figure for which there was no ready substitute."

Middleton also quotes an 2002 article by Frank Leavitt on p 72, regarding the reliablity of the science underlying the FMSF claims of "RMT" and false memories. He focuses, in particular, on Loftus and Ofshe's books in the early 1990s that promulgated the terms "recovered memory therapy":

From the perspective of good science, Loftus’ thesis of what transpires in therapy remains nothing more than speculative theory, yet her vision of therapeutic damage has carried considerable weight in the intervening years and has come to be sanctioned in the literature as if it were supported by science (Pope, 1996). Her views have become entrenched by uncritical professional acceptance and has fostered the dissemination of bad science. That many eminent scholars inadvertently accord false memory theory a veneer of credibility with legitimising speculation without applying the usual criticalscrutiny to questionable theories and conclusions is illustrated in the following excerpts.

Baron (1994;p. 233) elevates the article (Loftus, 1993), that for most part does not rise much above the level of speculation, to ‘an authoritative work in this field.’ Ofshe and Singer (1994; p 393) inform their audience that therapists ‘use group-processes, role-playing, leading questions to classify frankly speculative or confabulated scenarios as memory.’ McElroy and Keck (1995; p. 731) miscredit the article with novel treatments. ‘Recovered memory therapy is a psychotherapeutic treatment based on the premise that a variety of psychiatric symptoms and disorders are due to repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse.’ Read and Lindsay (1994; p. 410) labor under the misconception that the class project involving Chris (an experiment by Loftus) is an appropriate reference point to argue that ‘suggestions can indeed give rise to false memories of traumatic life experience.’ They go on to claim that reviews such as the one by Loftus ‘have demonstrated false memories of autobiographic events under conditions that can by reasonably generalised to therapy situations’ (p. 413). These excerpts illustrate the importance of becoming intimately conversant with the literature before exercising scholarship in the area (p. 31-32).”

In a 1997 article in the journal "Law and Social Inquiry", Lynne Henderson reviews both Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Ofshe's books on "recovered memory therapy". Henderson notes that neither Loftus nor Ofshe define the term "RMT" (p 717, p 724), and that Loftus admits to fictionalising her "case studies" of RMT, as well as including under the umbrella of RMT standard and uncontroversial forms of therapy like group therapy. Henderson critices Ofshe's book for it's extensive logical fallacies and questionable ethics, stating "much of Ofshe's book lacks sufficient credibility to merit the amount of respectful attention and citation it has gained", and she goes on to call it bellicose, distorted and bizarre.

I'm not at my desk at the moment, but I'll post more sources disputing the veracity of the term RMT shortly. For the moment, these quotes should give any editor acting in good faith here food for thought. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In their award-winning boook Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, Brown, Scheflin et al. state:

"False memory proponents have not yet offered any scientific evidence to demonstrate the existence of so-called recovered memory as a type of psychotherapy. Recovered memory therapy is not listed among the schools of therapy in textbooks on psychotherapy. Pezdek (1994) points out that clinincians do not take courses on recovered memory therapy in graduate-level clinical training courses. Olio (1994) criticizes the false memory advocates on the grounds that very few professionally trained therapists use the kind of memory recovery techniques that they have been accused of abusing."

"Of course, a good part of the problem is that laboratory memory scientists, like Loftus and Lindsay, and sociologists, like Ofshe, are not practicing psychotherapists. They rarely cite any of the authoritative literature by trauma experts on phase-oreintated treatment of trauma. Instead of citing professional practice sourcs, these and other false memory advocates have chosen to cite the popular self-help books, like The Courage to Health, as though to imply that the self-help and professional practice literatures are one and the same, and as thought he self-help books were more representative of the standard of care of abused paeitens then professional phase-orientated treatment". p 409

(see Brown, D., A. W. Scheflin, et al. "The False Logic of the False memory Controversy and the Irrational Element in Scientific Research on Memory" in D. Brown, A. W. Scheflin and D. C. Hammond, Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, New York; London, W. W. Norton and Company, 1998, 382 - 435) --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know many counsellors who have used The Courage to Heal as a bible, self-help book or no. Now that is not good enough evidence for Wikipedia, of course, and i'm afraid I don't have a reference fro that, but I do think that it is worthwhile to consider a middle ground position - that some psychotherapists and counsellors have likely encouraged their clients to elaborate on half-memories, or even fantasies while at the same time there are many cases of real child abuse that people push aside from their daily lives and then later recall, sometimes even in therapy. If we can try and move beyond polarized positions and work from a middle ground then we can look at the research more clearly--Vannin (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the reader will be better off with an article that walks a "middle ground" between verifiable fact and speculation. Editors asked me to substantiate my position, and I've done so. I expect other editors here to do the same. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

claims still requiring citations

The assertation that "The term has in the past been controversial" does require a source - how else is a reader able to check it for accuracy?

So to does "due to its association with lobby groups seen to be motivated by political objectives relating to false memories". Edit comment that "editors agree" misses the point - the reader has to be able to check. Who says it is associated? who said thay are "motivated..."?

"The term implicitly groups together an otherwise divergent group of phenomena under the umbrella term RMT, including hypnotism, rebirthing, belief in body memory, the interpretation of dreams as a subconscious expression of memory, regression therapies, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR), journaling, bibliotherapy, and others" is contrary to the source given which say only that a variety of techniques are used. It does not state that these techniques are RMT. The "common knowledge" of editors is not WP:RS. Who ssays that it groups these things under RMT?

"The way it has responded varies according to the legal system of the state or country" - I see variation by state - but cant see source showing for country.

Please read WP:RS and discuss why it does not apply before removing for the above claims.

"It is important to make a distinction between the subject of memories recovered in therapy, and the theory of [[repressed memory]" needs a source to show who says it is important to make the distinction. Or alternatively change to show the distinction - something like "repressed memory theory does not rely on RMT for support" (cite 1), (cite 2)"? I will not be removing this claim as its status seems indeterminate. SmithBlue (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the whole idea of just the "term" being controversial has recently been implanted to this article by AT and Biaothanatoi in order to explain the uprise against RMT started by Ofshe & Watters 1996 as actual support for it.

As for the list of techniques covered by RMT (which reads remarkably similar to those employed by Scientology), I'd offer Ofshe & Watters 1996.

Please supply a quote or 2 showing this group form RMT and also the page number/s of the quotes. (This is a separate and wider claim to "these techniques are used by RMT" ) thanks SmithBlue (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I took the difference between whether the "repression of memory" is possible, and whether such "repressed" memories can be "recovered" as such an instance of "common sense", as those are clearly two different assumptions, both actually equally unfounded, with the second building upon the former, while many supporters of RMT seem to not realize the difference and take each for granted as they think any of the two assumptions would be a proof of the other. Though of course I wouldn't mind if anybody would find a source for this truism that they are two different things.

--Tlatosmd (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I question the notion that Richard Ofshe is a credible source. Not only was his work rejected by the American Psychological Association (whom he then sued for conspiracy, and lost, only to sue his own lawyer), but his arguments in relation to "false memories" and "recovered memories" were thrown out of court after they were branded "bizarre" by the judge. He then promulgated these same beliefs about "Recovered Memory Therapy" through the populist book "Making Monsters" quoted by Tlatosmd above, which was extensively criticised in the academic press - see the reviews by Henderson and Leavitt quoted in the section above.

In those reviews, as well as in the article by Olio and Cornell that I've linked to, Ofshe has been shown to lie about evidence, confabulate research findings, and blatantly misrepresent the facts in relation to "Recovered Memory Therapy" and false memories. In this article, Ofshe is criticised for his role in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation's history of harrasment and intimidation, in which he threatens psychologists through the press, as well as threatening to sue a journalist who wrote a bad review of his book, and later attempting to censor her journalistic coverage of the FMSF.

Ofshe's theories in relation to RMT have been rejected by the courts and his academic peers, whilst gaining popularity primarily through his own populist (and non-scholarly) books and media advocacy. His behaviour over the period of his FMSF membership was widely denounced as aggressive, threatening and bizarre. He should be beyond the pale here as a credible source. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"(RMT) believe that abreaction of the emotions accompanying the alleged sex abuse experiences is necessary for cure. During this process there is often an aggressive use of hypnosis, including age regression, sodium amytal interviews, guided imagery and suggestive dream interpretation. Most patients undergoing such treatment attend group therapy for survivors of childhood sex abuse and read books about and by survivors. Sometimes unconventional techniques such as psychodrama, channeling and neurolinguistic programming-even primal-scream therapy-are used." - Patients Versus Therapists: Legal Actions Over Recovered Memory Therapy and "RMT is a therapy which claims to unlock painful memories (which can it is claimed be retrieved through dreams and hypnosis)" - OPINION OF LORD KINGARTH in the cause JAMES McGREGOR FAIRLIE do not fully support article statement, "The term is commonly understood to refer to any group of techniques applied by a therapist in an attempt to 'retrieve' a patient's memories of historical events [3][4]. In other words, it is not one single therapy – but rather a group of therapeutic techniques deployed to achieve a single specific objective."

All that is supported by these sources as RMT is; abreaction of the emotions, dreams and hypnosis. The concurrent use of "group therapy for survivors of childhood sex abuse" and the reading of books "about and by (abuse)survivors" is also noted. I suggest that "any group of techniques applied" are not referred to as RMT but that these techniques are used in RMT, that RMT is defined by its goal, not the set of techniques used. Suggest rewording ?"RMT is defined by its aim of retrieving memories of abuse. Techniques such as ..examp 1, examp2,.. are used. SmithBlue (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe SmithBlue has a good point here, and this is the right way to approach the definition. MatthewTStone (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't address the question as to whether therapists engage in conduct along those lines. I've posted studies here that indicate that this is not the case.

I've also established that the British Psychological Society is the only professional psychotherapeutic org to have used the term RMT in the world, which is probably why Kingarth is using it as well. Why is a statement from a British judge being generalised globally? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If "Making Monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters. 340 pp. New York, Charles Scribner, 1994. ISBN 0-684-19698-0" is the source for "Critics of recovered memory therapy, like Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters..." then the book needs to be cited as a reference. Or if we are quoting from the book then the article might read, "In their book "Making Monsters:", Ofshe and Watters present the practice of "recovering" memories as fraudulent and dangerous:...". SmithBlue (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - delete entire "Critics of the Term RMT" section

I propose deleting the entire section because in 2007, the issue is pretty well dead and buried. The term is now in quite common use and has well and truly entered the English language.
As it stands, far too much weight is given in the article to a stale debate about the term RMT.
Perhaps just leave one short sentence about the FMSF coining it in the early 1990s. Any thoughts? MatthewTStone (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate is far from "stale", as a range of recent publications on the probity of the term - and it's use by activist groups - demonstrates. You do not have consensus here to delete an entire section of this article, nor the information that it contains. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are skeptics - critics of the science and practice of RMT - included in "Critics of the Term RMT"?

Why are examples of the term RMT being used by Australians and a UK court included in "Critics of the Term RMT" On face value these appear to confirm the usage of the term. It is important that material in a section is related directly to the section header. Please relate , move or remove this material. SmithBlue (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The section title is inherently biased. It should be changed to something like "Controversy over the term RMT" or something similar. Then both sides of the argument can be presented. MatthewTStone (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure that a "skepticism" or "controversy" section is in violation of the Manual of Style. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Open to suggestions: "History of the term RMT" perhaps? MatthewTStone (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - may lead to a consolidation of other sections into "History of the term RMT"?SmithBlue (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving ahead

We have demonstrated that:

- The term RMT was invented and promulgated by the FMSF, an activist group made up of people accused of sexual abuse.

- The FMSF never defined the term RMT and they applied it to all psychotherapy in which memories of abuse were dealt with in the course of treatment.

- The major works on RMT - by Loftus, Underwager and Ofshe - were all non-academic books that have since been criticised for breaching academic and ethical standards by misstating and overgeneralising research findings to advance a political POV.

- The majority of professional psychological organisations have never used the term RMT in relation to recovered memories, or to refer to a category of professional practice.

- A number of authoritative academic sources have rejected the term RMT as an accurate descriptor of a category of practice, identifying it instead as the propaganda of the FMSF.

The article should be substantively rewritten to reflect these facts. Current sources on this issue are manifestly inadequate. Extremely inflammatory statements are sourced to the FMSF, board members of the FMSF (Lief and Loftus), popular magazine articles, radio interviews, random websites, TV documentaries, and a book by a man accused of sexual abuse by both his daughters (Pendegrast).

It seems to me that editors with clear biases on RMT are attempting to cobble together whatever random Google references they can in order to entrench their POV in the article. I hope that they can consider the sources that I've listed above and act collaboratively and in good faith with other editors to improve this article for the reader, regardless of their personal prejudices on this subject. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, at least at first glance. Unfortunately, from your point of view, there have been no edits in that direction. (AT's are adding irrelevant data about repressed memory and probably irrelevant data about recovered memories.) However, regardless of the definition of RMT, there have been therapists who have used it, even without support from professional psychological organisations or from academic sources, and the article should reflect that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with AR. My edits have been about adding data directly related to this topic. Data on repressed and recovered memory help describe the RMT debate and add to the reader's knowledge of the issue. Abuse truth (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add cites to article for what has been demonstrated. The section "Controversy over the term RMT" has many tags. SmithBlue (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Eventually?

I really, really, really hope that this page will someday be even halfway-based in the real world. About a month ago it had a very promising movement towards balance. Now its back to pretty much absurd POV reaction-ism. What a bummer. I tried to dialogue with another user about this and he suggested that I look at entries on creationism as a model. Essentially suggesting that those who believe in Repressed Memory are akin to creationists. Sigh.

Anyways, I don't have the energy (like the ever-so-balanced Dreamguy does) to work on it, but for the record: RMT is *factually speaking* a term created by activists to discredit victims of childhood sexual abuse. Period. Duke it out over and over. Eventually that simple truth will win (if WP works). Or maybe not.

Best, West world (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was created by such activists, but it seems to have reached mainstream usage, even if not professional usages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That is a tremendously selective reading of texts from journals and media. Yep there are some documented examples of term usage from a couple court cases and parliamentary proceedings, but overall the page is very biased and driven by a handful of nasty editors with whom I, for one, do not want to engage. Best, West world (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with West World. Editors here are taking the few scattered examples they can find of relatively nuetral uses of the term RMT to suggest that the term is used generally by professionals and psychs. This claim ignores the clear fact that the term is used, primarily and overwhelmingly, in literature written by board members of the FMSF and critics of psychotherapy.

I don't understand why editors are clinginging to the claim that RMT is a general and nuetral term - we've demonstrated this to be factualy incorrect numerous times and in numerous ways. Having met the burden of proof here a number of times over, I expect editors to work with us in reforming the article accordingly. Anything less is a clear demonstration of NPOV and bad faith.

I'll be back in a few days to participate in this - swamped with RL work at the mo. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with West world and Biaothanatoi on this.

Hopefully the page will become more balanced in its views in future edits.Abuse truth (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Total crap

This article is total crap and I'm glad it's flagged as POV because it saves me the trouble of doing so. This is going to take a lot of work. Please keep in mind that the term its self was invented by alleged perpetrators of abuse detractors by alleged abuse survivors, there is no real therapy modality called RMT. I think a little research into the first use of this term is in order. The use of this term outside of accusations of false memories, untrue allegations of abuse, etc. is virtually non-existent. Here's is a cut & paste from another talk page of an interesting experiment that demonstrates this:

• "recovered memory therapy" - 24.6k googles
• "recovered memory therapy" -malpractice -fraud -"false memories" -"false memory syndrome" 1.2k googles

A difference of 1950%, as opposed to

• "cognitive therapy" - 1.31M googles
• "cognitive therapy" -malpractice -fraud -"false memories" -"false memory syndrome" - 1.28M googles

A difference of 2.3%, or

• "music therapy" - 1.6M googles
• "music therapy" -malpractice -fraud -"false memories" -"false memory syndrome" - 1.56M googles

A difference of 2.6% or

• "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing" - 71.6k googles
• "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing" -malpractice -fraud -false-memories -false-memory-syndrome 68.9k googles

A difference of 3.9%.

This is by no means an "end of point", but I think it gives a general indicator about the use of this term. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)