This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Martha Beck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a freely-licensed image or photograph be
included in this article to replace copyrighted images in order to better comply with our
policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at
Wikimedia Commons, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may
request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the reviewer on Amazon who says he is John Beck really is Martha's ex-husband? Considering that his review only picks a few minor nits instead of challenging the fundamental premises of the book, is it really noteworthy at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.11 ( talk) 23:21, 16 June 2005 (UTC)
she hasn't claimed to use self hypnosis to recover her memories. But she is accused of it, I removed reference to it because it made it seem as though had came out and admitted use of it. Perhaps some one could add reference to it by her sibling's response. Care to discus? I think it should be added but not worded in a way that implies a claim to it's use.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but the entry about Martha Beck seems unbalanced and unfair, not exactly what Wikipedia is all about. There are too many stories about abuse of children where siblings gather around the patriarch and defend them. The Polygamist culture of Mormonism seems to have a lot of incest, so I guess I'm not overly surprised. And listen to numerous lectures from Hugh Nibley in the 1970's while studying at the University of Utah, I must confess that I was taken aback by his rather cavalier treatment of historical facts, using them to convince us about certain Mormon historical beliefs. At any rate, I believe that this article is unfair, and a more balanced portrayal of Ms. Beck is required.
I didn't imply that Nibley was a polygamist, but the Mormon culture seems to have an undue amount of incest. I believe that Krakauer's book, Under the Banner of Heaven, outlines the culture of incest in good detail. My point about the unfairness of the portrayal of Martha Beck is that the article seem unduly hostile, which may result from a bit of defensiveness about what she wrote. And turning a novel into a biographical memoir--I'm unconvinced that's a sign of any ethical conflict. I'm not a big fan of hypnosis, I think it's not very scientific nor medically sound, but I do believe in repressed memories, a perfectly normal psychological response to trauma. Nevertheless, I just don't think this article is balanced. OrangeMarlin 10:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
First, it's important to state that there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it. Concerning the issue of a recovered versus a pseudomemory, like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known. But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later. However, these leaders also agree that it is possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for events that never occurred.
The mechanism(s) by which both of these phenomena happen are not well understood and, at this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one.
A somewhat robust critique on defence of Beck, there, Mike, and bold defence of Hugh Nibley. Useful message? Read accounts of stong claims against a person with balanced judgement. But, perhaps it would pay not to hug too tightly to Nibley as a near spotless character, himself. I must say I'd admired Nibley's writings for many years, until I took a step back and found he tended to fudge many areas, such as over-generalising with cliches, like "ancient people" this/that in less than justifiable cases. But, without turning this into a treatise of Nibley (See the wikipedia article on him for that), my real point is more general - let's not begin taking this personally - it seems we need to lace our critiques with more balance, something hard to do when fear-stricken by a potential expose on someone we hold in high esteem, or more likely, when our belief system might, even potentially, begine to look less sound than we believed. That aspect is more suited for a wikipedia article on investigative review of LDS history, etc. But, as in this commentary on the author, yes, it's easier to start from the premise (even is unconsciously formed, that the author has indirectly threatened my faith -> therefore, she MUST be "wrong" -> therefore, I will bring here down. It's almost has if the charity taught by the LDS Church belongs on the shelf. This is not spoken merely of Mike, but a clear trend we see from a clear majority of active Latter-day Saints who actually speak out on critiques of the LDS faith or LDS history. While using a somewhat plausable line of logic (sometimes rightly disproving unsound theories or claims against LDS history, etc) but, ending up undermining the approach they rely on - "objetive" view point is clearly tainted by preconceived position that the person making the exspose or counter-claim against LDS claims is always "wrong". While the author may well have stretched or smudged points background (perhaps she takes after her father in roling some actual insights and experiences with theories), she has also produced medical evidence fairly pointing to sexual abuse. Her memories might rest on the fence, they might be baseless, they might be actual. For someone who finds too much falsehood in Joseph Smith's/LDS Church's current claims, would still say critique the falts in her story, but let it rest where it falls - we may not have suffered abuse that she may well have suffered. Let's not send her to hell just yet. Like the Catholic church, the Jehovah's Witness movement and LDS Church need brave (albiet not misleading) people to come forward about sexual, mental and physical abuses, especially by those in leadership positions. It's all part of the balancing process - dark secrets melow their claims to superioty/altimate Truth (www.mormon.org). Let's not charge our comentary with religiously motivated hate speech of "anti-mormons". Balance is the aim, not rubbishing all, along with residual merit. Likewise, Mike provides a meesage, those with bias against the LDS movement, lets not read such accounts without weighing in the balance. (redundant disclosure: I'm not an active LDS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lllewelll ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
why is this article so unbalanced and filled with Mormon cant and propaganda? It ids appalling that this cult can use Wiki to cover up their criminal sexual misconduct and antisocial practices with obfuscation and propaganda. Should be reviewed. NaySay ( talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors involved in editing this page should read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. - Visorstuff 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
A discussion about private correspondence regarding the article though email is had here. User_talk:Bjgmb - Visorstuff 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the references point to a page that seems to have nothing to do with the topic (those that refute Martha Beck's claims and defend her father). They point to defendhughnibley.com, but this website seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Am I missing something? - anonymous coward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.2.124.251 ( talk) 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm trimming this article right down for now, having identified the following issues with sourcing:
I'm removing the unsourced or poorly sourced sections. The section on Leaving the Saints seems to be reasonably well sourced, so I'll leave it for now. -- Tony Sidaway 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your edits, but it's late and I want to think about it. Biographical information about Beck does indeed come from her own website--if there is a Wiki-rule against that, then I'd appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, it may be the best we've got about certain aspects of her more recent life. The O column reference was retrieved this month, and apparently it went bad. I found the correct url. My mistake. As for the homosexuality, the reference was a review on a pdf document. I retained it from a much earlier edit, which probably was due to laziness. However, they are both gay, and there are numerous references out there for that. I will add it.
I don't think you should make wholesale edits and deletions that change the substance of the article on your own without gaining consensus from at least one or two other editors who have invested some time in this article. If a reference is missing or incorrect, it is better to through a citation tag on an unsourced statement rather than deleting it. IMHO. Orangemarlin 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As I should have done many months ago, I have completely rewritten the article, following both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies for Biographies. I actually spent time rereading Leaving the Saints, because I did not recall what was written in the book as being what was described in this article. In fact, Martha Beck does not base all of her allegations against her father based on repressed memories, but in memories that came to the forefront prior to her engaging in any type of therapy. In addition, hypnosis was not the exclusive therapeutic technique used by her to uncover these memories, standard diagnostic and therapeutic techniques were used. However, I have made certain to include articles from "both sides" of the discussion, including family members. Setting aside what may or may not be "allegations" or "the truth", the point of this article is to discuss Martha Beck's life, a part of which is her publication of Leaving the Saints, but also of many other aspects of her life. As a published author, one who is now a homosexual, despite writing a well-known book showing how to fight homosexual feelings, she would be notable without the Leaving the Saints book. Her notability in Utah and amongst LDS faithful is probably much higher than in the "gentile" world (of course, I'm neither a Gentile nor a Mormon, but growing up in Utah, I do read these articles and books). Well, that's my soliloquy for today. Orangemarlin 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Martha Beck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a freely-licensed image or photograph be
included in this article to replace copyrighted images in order to better comply with our
policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at
Wikimedia Commons, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may
request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the reviewer on Amazon who says he is John Beck really is Martha's ex-husband? Considering that his review only picks a few minor nits instead of challenging the fundamental premises of the book, is it really noteworthy at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.11 ( talk) 23:21, 16 June 2005 (UTC)
she hasn't claimed to use self hypnosis to recover her memories. But she is accused of it, I removed reference to it because it made it seem as though had came out and admitted use of it. Perhaps some one could add reference to it by her sibling's response. Care to discus? I think it should be added but not worded in a way that implies a claim to it's use.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but the entry about Martha Beck seems unbalanced and unfair, not exactly what Wikipedia is all about. There are too many stories about abuse of children where siblings gather around the patriarch and defend them. The Polygamist culture of Mormonism seems to have a lot of incest, so I guess I'm not overly surprised. And listen to numerous lectures from Hugh Nibley in the 1970's while studying at the University of Utah, I must confess that I was taken aback by his rather cavalier treatment of historical facts, using them to convince us about certain Mormon historical beliefs. At any rate, I believe that this article is unfair, and a more balanced portrayal of Ms. Beck is required.
I didn't imply that Nibley was a polygamist, but the Mormon culture seems to have an undue amount of incest. I believe that Krakauer's book, Under the Banner of Heaven, outlines the culture of incest in good detail. My point about the unfairness of the portrayal of Martha Beck is that the article seem unduly hostile, which may result from a bit of defensiveness about what she wrote. And turning a novel into a biographical memoir--I'm unconvinced that's a sign of any ethical conflict. I'm not a big fan of hypnosis, I think it's not very scientific nor medically sound, but I do believe in repressed memories, a perfectly normal psychological response to trauma. Nevertheless, I just don't think this article is balanced. OrangeMarlin 10:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
First, it's important to state that there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it. Concerning the issue of a recovered versus a pseudomemory, like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known. But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later. However, these leaders also agree that it is possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for events that never occurred.
The mechanism(s) by which both of these phenomena happen are not well understood and, at this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one.
A somewhat robust critique on defence of Beck, there, Mike, and bold defence of Hugh Nibley. Useful message? Read accounts of stong claims against a person with balanced judgement. But, perhaps it would pay not to hug too tightly to Nibley as a near spotless character, himself. I must say I'd admired Nibley's writings for many years, until I took a step back and found he tended to fudge many areas, such as over-generalising with cliches, like "ancient people" this/that in less than justifiable cases. But, without turning this into a treatise of Nibley (See the wikipedia article on him for that), my real point is more general - let's not begin taking this personally - it seems we need to lace our critiques with more balance, something hard to do when fear-stricken by a potential expose on someone we hold in high esteem, or more likely, when our belief system might, even potentially, begine to look less sound than we believed. That aspect is more suited for a wikipedia article on investigative review of LDS history, etc. But, as in this commentary on the author, yes, it's easier to start from the premise (even is unconsciously formed, that the author has indirectly threatened my faith -> therefore, she MUST be "wrong" -> therefore, I will bring here down. It's almost has if the charity taught by the LDS Church belongs on the shelf. This is not spoken merely of Mike, but a clear trend we see from a clear majority of active Latter-day Saints who actually speak out on critiques of the LDS faith or LDS history. While using a somewhat plausable line of logic (sometimes rightly disproving unsound theories or claims against LDS history, etc) but, ending up undermining the approach they rely on - "objetive" view point is clearly tainted by preconceived position that the person making the exspose or counter-claim against LDS claims is always "wrong". While the author may well have stretched or smudged points background (perhaps she takes after her father in roling some actual insights and experiences with theories), she has also produced medical evidence fairly pointing to sexual abuse. Her memories might rest on the fence, they might be baseless, they might be actual. For someone who finds too much falsehood in Joseph Smith's/LDS Church's current claims, would still say critique the falts in her story, but let it rest where it falls - we may not have suffered abuse that she may well have suffered. Let's not send her to hell just yet. Like the Catholic church, the Jehovah's Witness movement and LDS Church need brave (albiet not misleading) people to come forward about sexual, mental and physical abuses, especially by those in leadership positions. It's all part of the balancing process - dark secrets melow their claims to superioty/altimate Truth (www.mormon.org). Let's not charge our comentary with religiously motivated hate speech of "anti-mormons". Balance is the aim, not rubbishing all, along with residual merit. Likewise, Mike provides a meesage, those with bias against the LDS movement, lets not read such accounts without weighing in the balance. (redundant disclosure: I'm not an active LDS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lllewelll ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
why is this article so unbalanced and filled with Mormon cant and propaganda? It ids appalling that this cult can use Wiki to cover up their criminal sexual misconduct and antisocial practices with obfuscation and propaganda. Should be reviewed. NaySay ( talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors involved in editing this page should read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. - Visorstuff 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
A discussion about private correspondence regarding the article though email is had here. User_talk:Bjgmb - Visorstuff 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the references point to a page that seems to have nothing to do with the topic (those that refute Martha Beck's claims and defend her father). They point to defendhughnibley.com, but this website seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Am I missing something? - anonymous coward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.2.124.251 ( talk) 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm trimming this article right down for now, having identified the following issues with sourcing:
I'm removing the unsourced or poorly sourced sections. The section on Leaving the Saints seems to be reasonably well sourced, so I'll leave it for now. -- Tony Sidaway 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your edits, but it's late and I want to think about it. Biographical information about Beck does indeed come from her own website--if there is a Wiki-rule against that, then I'd appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, it may be the best we've got about certain aspects of her more recent life. The O column reference was retrieved this month, and apparently it went bad. I found the correct url. My mistake. As for the homosexuality, the reference was a review on a pdf document. I retained it from a much earlier edit, which probably was due to laziness. However, they are both gay, and there are numerous references out there for that. I will add it.
I don't think you should make wholesale edits and deletions that change the substance of the article on your own without gaining consensus from at least one or two other editors who have invested some time in this article. If a reference is missing or incorrect, it is better to through a citation tag on an unsourced statement rather than deleting it. IMHO. Orangemarlin 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As I should have done many months ago, I have completely rewritten the article, following both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies for Biographies. I actually spent time rereading Leaving the Saints, because I did not recall what was written in the book as being what was described in this article. In fact, Martha Beck does not base all of her allegations against her father based on repressed memories, but in memories that came to the forefront prior to her engaging in any type of therapy. In addition, hypnosis was not the exclusive therapeutic technique used by her to uncover these memories, standard diagnostic and therapeutic techniques were used. However, I have made certain to include articles from "both sides" of the discussion, including family members. Setting aside what may or may not be "allegations" or "the truth", the point of this article is to discuss Martha Beck's life, a part of which is her publication of Leaving the Saints, but also of many other aspects of her life. As a published author, one who is now a homosexual, despite writing a well-known book showing how to fight homosexual feelings, she would be notable without the Leaving the Saints book. Her notability in Utah and amongst LDS faithful is probably much higher than in the "gentile" world (of course, I'm neither a Gentile nor a Mormon, but growing up in Utah, I do read these articles and books). Well, that's my soliloquy for today. Orangemarlin 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)