Talk:The Courage to Heal

message: How is this categorised under "memory"? This should be under "child sexual abuse" or, at the very least, "self-help." That it's categorised under "memory" shows that the critics are manipulating this entry. Memory is merely one aspect of the book, and although the criticism has been addressed in great detail in the latest edition, there is plenty more there to the book than a discussion of survivors memories.
The reference to the Australian critical study was to page 2 of the study instead of page 1, so the reference was out of context. It should be made clear that the "study" was a survey conducted among an organization of allagedly falsely accused sexual abusers, which is why the link needs to be made page 1, not page 2.
___________________________________________________
Just a suggestion--perhaps the "negative review" listed in the external links section should be removed, since it's not a review by any established reviewer of note (like, say, the Times Book Review) but rather by a guy with a pret-ty big axe to grind, judging by not just the "review" itself but by the rest of the site which is unabashedly anti-feminist.  Thoughtful criticism is one thing but the "review" reads like an angry teenage boy pissed off at his ex-girlfriend--he manages to bash lesbians, survivors of sexual abuse and all feminists in one fell swoop.
64.132.218.4 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add this information to the article. MaxMangel 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noting Changes in Current Addition

message: This article has gone bad due to poor edits from people probably ignorant of wiki policies. Firstly, if you are going to do masses of edits, get a login name.
Second, sign your edits on the discussion page using four tildas - it really isn't that hard. 
Thirdly, let's try for a little less bias and POV statements in the article. Keep sentences factual. I haven't had the time for the wiki for a while and it is very disappointing that so many of the articles I have started or worked on have gone so bad. MaxMangel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When, and under what name did you make the edits?  This user name has only made one edit.  Here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As for the POV, the book has been discredited.  A don't know about your claimed "backlash slander", but there's no libel in this article.  (Defamation in permanent form is "libel"; temporary, such as unrecorded speech, is "slander".)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to throw around accusations of bias, you should be prepared to back them up with sources.  Most scholars seem to think the book is a hateful bit of trash that has no scientific basis for its claims.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: Currently there is a long list of external links to "Other references relevant to recovered memories". WP:EL has clear guidelines on what external links should or should not be added to an article. Specifically, it recommends against including
:Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
I recommend this extra section of external links be removed, since none of them seem to be about The Courage to Heal. First, thought, I thought it would be a good idea to float my proposal on the talk page. This is a controversial subject and perhaps things have been worked out this way for a good reason. If no-one objects I will eventually remove the section. Anyone who believes the links are good references, but not directly related, could perhaps move them to another more relevant article. Katherine Tredwell 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess another editor agreed with me. The article looks better now. Katherine Tredwell 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Katherine's comment that the list of links is not helpful.  To improve this, I have added relevant external links to the list.  I have added these several times and they are continually removed.  To WLU's point (above) the links are not extraneous or unrelated.  I added links to "child abuse," "incest" and "self-help."  These should not be controversial additions as all of these issues are referred to throughout the article.  I recently joined Wikipedia and am very excited to be part of this community.  This is the first article I have worked on and no doubt there is a learning curve.  I am quite,however, disheartened, by the approach of some editors in writing this article.  Wikipedia stresses collaboration and the fact that no one person owns an article.  Removing these links, which represent a very small change to the article, makes collaboration and consensus building quite difficult.164.67.8.162164.67.8.162 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment is nigh three and a half years old, and it's extremely unlikely that the article strongly resembles the version referred to.  The page currently has no external links.  You appear to be referring to the "see also" section; for guidance on that, please review WP:ALSO.  Links that are found in the body generally are not repeated in the see also section.  One links was inappropriate - false memory - because it was to a disambiguation page.  Removed.  No person owns the article but we are all bound by the policies and guidelines, such as the ones I have cited here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

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

message: I have removed the category pseudoscience, since the topic does not qualify under the wiki-definition of this. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure... See this book review by Robert Sheaffer (I read it originally in Skeptical Inquirer). —Cesar Tort 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed miscategorization 

message: * 1993 Recovered Memories article by Elizabeth Loftus
Should be an embedded reference, not an EL.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I removed the cleanup tag, in addition to being a probable sock, added no actual suggestions on what to clean up.  
In other words, suck it, ResearchEditor.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: The FMSA source that claimed “The book was linked to nearly 50% of the cases in which a false allegation of child sexual abuse was made based on recovered memories.” Is not reliable. How was this research done? Through a “Family Survey undertaken during late 1996 to early 1997 amongst the members of the Australian False Memory Association (AFMA).” As the report notes in the footnotes “Only current financial members of the AFMA in 1996 were surveyed for this study.” This source is biased and should be removed. MorningGlory3 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: FMSA is an acceptable parity source.  It's not like The Courage to Heal is a scholarly volume.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Australian FMS Study