Talk:Recovered-memory therapy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nicely done 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re-Write Proposed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Retractors removed from intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abuse Truth - please condense the critics of RMT section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions for improving this page.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Lede