Talk:Recovered-memory therapy/Archive 2

message: 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.  in   
"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. -- Abuse truth (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Childhood

message: 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)
thread_title:  links added to page - rational for inclusion 

message: 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)
thread_title: New section - The Law

message: This has been a hot topic, but I moved as much as I could to archive.  Please move anything back here that you think still needs to be discussed. Daniel Santos (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: This section is just a listing of where the term has been used, all of them are negative references.  It needs to be completely rewritten to provide something substantive.  A time-line is fine, but a collection citations of anti-"RMT" sites and articles from magazines is encyclopedic.  Here is what I think is relevant (please feel free to chime in)
*It's first uses
*The trend of it's use through the years, including how much it gets used, by whom and in what contexts.
*An examination of the significance of the term and the function that it plays in communication (probably this needs to be in a different section).
Happy Dethermberween to everybody! —Daniel Santos (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 'Recovered Memory Therapy' 

message: A list of terms which are related to this topic, and appear in DSM-IV, is SYN unless some WP:RS produces the list.  We, as editors, cannot choose which diagnoses or treatments in DSM-IV are relevant.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYN]] in DSM-IV 

message: Karl Kruszelnicki -Member of the Order of Australia Award in the 2006 Australia Day Honours list-for services to the community through promoting greater understanding and knowledge of the application of science to daily living as an author and science communicator on radio and television." Multiple degrees, Ig Noble prize winner, 25 books, according to the "New Scientist" Magazine Karl's last five books have all hit the position of best-selling Popular Science book in Australia. 
ABC is Australian Broadcasting Commission. Good reputation for fact checking. Australian Academy of Science -"The ABC's Science Unit in particular has a remarkable record of achievement in science programming. It has produced programming in substantial quantity and of a consistently high quality...".  The Australian Society of Medical Researchers - "The ASMR wrote to all federal politicians to support the need for a strong ABC Science Unit. Highlighting that the ABC plays an essential role in the communincation and analysis of scientific, technological and health-related issues and events." Founded 40+ years ago by Peter Pockley (former Australia and New Zealand correspondent for Nature magazine and contributer to a wide range of print and broadcast media on science issues.)
Please show sources stating low reliability of presenter/author, Science unit or broadcaster before removing source. SmithBlue (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No network, including ABC, has good reliabliity for fact-checking except where libel is concerned.  (For what it's worth, among US networks, PBS is among the worst, probably on a par with Fox.)  However, it's possible that the science unit, the program, or Karl, himself, has sufficient reliablility that the program would be a reliable source.  Nothing you've said above supports that conclusion, though.  Only the phrase "consistently high quality" might support a reputation for fact-checking, but it also might only apply to production quality.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your claims are unsupported by sources.  Reliability needs to be sourced.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article about Karl Kruszelnicki, the "Ig Nobel Prize" prize he won is a parody of the Nobel prize, and he won it for "his part in a research project on belly button fluff".   Aside from that, reading through the article used as the footnote shows that he makes a long series of very strongly worded statements that purport to be facts, but he quotes no studies as references.  In a situation where there are no scholarly references, pop culture references can sometimes be used.  But on a topic like this one, where there are plenty of actual peer-reviewed references that can be found, those scholarly sources are the kinds of references that should be used, according to WP:V and WP:RS.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing for the use of this reference - I am questioning the rejection of it on grounds of non-reliability as per the deleting edit summ.. To ignore the statements of the Australian Academy of Science ("consistently high quality") and The Australian Society of Medical Researchers ("essential role in the communincation and analysis of scientific..." supporting the ABC Science unit and Karl Kruszelnicki's recognition (OA - modern version of a knighthood) as a science communicator appears curious. SmithBlue (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to insult him, I was just following WP:RS, which calls for scholarly peer-reviewed sources whenever possible in articles about science, especially when controversial.  This article has a lot of scholarly references; his program was summarizing an overview of a complex topic, and he did it without citing any supporting sources for the studies he mentioned, so there is no way to verify what he said.  So - in this particular situation - with this article, and that particular broadcast, my view is that it is not a reliable source.  But I don't mean to say that he or his organization are unreliable.  I acknowledge that Karl Kruszelnicki and ABC's "Great Moments in Science" could, in some other contexts, be considered a reliable source.  I hope that's helpful.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I question whether 'Science' is relevant to this section or to many other parts of the RMT article. People accusing relatives and then facing them off in court is surely a phenomenon that would come under 'Law', or perhaps 'Sociology'  (i.e 'moral panics of the twentieth century'). I would suggest that the only part of the article that strictly comes under 'Science' are sections covering the veracity of memory.  So I'd suggest there is a case for following WP guidelines for non-scientific subjects, at least in non-scientific portions of the article. MatthewTStone (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC "Great Moments in Science" Kruszelnicki source 

message: I have recently added two sentences from the ISST-D to the article about RMT and two references to the retractor's section from RS's to balance the section.Abuse truth (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent additions to article on RMT and retractors