This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

After reviewing this article, which I first discovered through an inappropriate linking from Covert_incest, I have become further convinced that there are people exploiting this issue to gratify their own personal biases. I fail to see how this article even meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia at all, as a small two-person front group for an accused child molestor and his complacent wife, hardly seems a legitimate organization at all. In addition, I'd advise any prudent individuals here to carefully review and verify the references used, as the "criticsm" section of Covert_incest is a hatchet job of of false references created by someone to legitimate their own pro-incest leanings. The only valid reference used there led back to this organization, founded by accused child molestors, so I find it likely that same person has been at work here, as well. Makes one doubt the neutrality somewhat. 71.63.45.9 ( talk) 08:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That is a a lie. (I'm not saying that you are lying; you may just not have adequately researched the matter.) It's not a "front group" for a (falsely) accused child molestor. Now, I haven't looked at covert incest, so that could be worthy of deletion, but false memory syndrome is probably real, and the Foundation appears to be generally a reliable source for information about it. There may be a personal vendetta involved, but it's from the unreliable oppostion to this organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed, it's much more than a "two-person front", and it covers much bigger issues than one single case. It developed after the epidemic over-diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder in the 1980s, in which MPD always either progressed or first developed during the course of therapy. The number of diagnosed cases from a few dozen to tens of thousands in the U.S. It was generally believed to be the result of child abuse, but the stories told by the alters became more and more outlandish, speaking of ritual abuse by satanic cults of which no evidence could be located. Eventually, the stories also began to include alien abduction. None of this is acknowledged by the author, and that is the neutrality problem: the author is presenting this as a front for a couple of accused child molestors, and ignoring the larger scope of the group's activities. Were the Freyds guilty of what they were accused of? I have no idea, and it's a valid point for the article, but it shouldn't be the central point of the article. The FMSF has played a good part in combating the hysteria surrounding MPD, eventually helping to curb the ridiculous overdiagnosis of the disorder by changing the way it's treated, and that needs to be reflected in the article. GuySperanza ( talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you did not see the notification that I posted to your talk page User talk:Pamfreyd. Here is a repeat:

Your attempt on 21 Feb 2007 to edit the Wikipedia article on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation violates numerous Wikipedia policies. Please read the following very carefully:

1. Wikipedia has a policy against editing or writing articles about subjects in which you are personally involved. As the Executive Director of the FMSF, you are personally involved, and have a serious conflict of interest. If you persist in editing this article this dispute will be taken to a higher level for action or arbitration. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography.
2. Your changes violate the Wikipedia policy which requires a neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. You cannot simply delete sections that deal with a real controversy, as if to pretend that the controversy does not exist.
3. It is Wikipedia policy to report both sides of any controversial topic, with negative material usually placed in a section entitled "Controversy". See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.
4. I have tagged the discussion page for the article on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation with the "controversial" category, so that it will be monitored by other Wikipedia editors and administrators.
5. Please refrain from any more edits to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation article. You have a severe conflict of interest, which by Wikipedia policy disqualifies you from editing these particular articles. — Aetheling 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

There are errors in the article.

For instance the opening line should read.

"The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded by a group of parents and professionals who gathered on the 1st of March 1992."

I could go into more detail, and point to other errors, but at this point would like to add that the article contains material that is perhaps the result of changes made, perhaps by people who disagree with the aims and objectives of the organization.

Adriaan J.W. Mak member since 1992 of the FMSFoundation Canadian contact for victims of suggestive therapeutic practices DO NOT POST PERSONAL DETAILS ON WIKIPEDIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.113.221 ( talk) 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC). reply

Edited by OrcaLvr with correct info on the FMSF. I am not related to the organization in any way, shape, or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcalvr ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Before making such a drastic change to a Wikipedia article, you should discuss your proposed changes first, on this page. By Wikipedia policy, every article on a controversial topic or organization should have a section named "Controversy", in which opposing statements are aired, with references to publications. By deleting the Controversy section from the FMSF article, are you trying to imply that no controversy exists? What information do you believe to be "incorrect", and what are your sources for that? Why do you think the Wikipedia article on FMSF should parrot that organization's own website? Wikipedia guidelines suggest the opposite: articles should be original compositions, not quotes from official (and self-serving) sources. I have reverted your edit, but I encourage you to make your case here for each of your proposed changes. It might be a good idea for you to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well. — Aetheling ( talk) 16:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The intro stated that J. Freyd had accused her father of sexually abusing her. I've corrected it, because this is not what J. Freyd reports in Betrayal Trauma or any of her interviews or presentations.

Peter and Pamela Freyd became aware that their daughter believed her father had sexually abused her when their son-in law, J. Freyd's husband, confronted them with the fact during a fight. At no point did J. Freyd "accuse" her father of anything.

Peter and Pamela Freyd made this private matter a public one against their daughter's wishes, and it is important that Wikipedia reflects this accurately. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Does "accused" imply "publically accused". I don't think so. I'm considering reverting, as the new statement doesn't seem to have the appropriate weight, and both are clearly correct. But I'll consider more reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

To state that "Freyd accused her father" is to infer that Freyd confronted her father directly with the charge that he had sexually abused her. This confrontation never took place. Rather, the Freyds became aware of their daughter's belief that she had been sexually abused during a confrontation with their son-in-law.

To suggest that the formation of FMSF was catalysed by the actions of Jennifer Freyd is false and misleading. If you feel that the current wording is inadequate, then I suggest that you consider altering it in such a way as to ensure that it does not mislead the reader in the manner of the prior statement.

And, frankly, if you do not feel that an altercation with their son-in-law was an "appropriately weighty" reason to form the FMSF, well, that's an issue that you'll have to take up with Pamela and Peter Freyd. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You are apparently using the word "accused" in a way I was previously unfamiliar with. I see no basis for inferring that an accusation must be made publicly (my interpretation of your previous argument) nor to the subject (apparently your interpretation).

To suggest that the formation of FMSF was catalysed by the actions of Jennifer Freyd is a rational interpretation of even your statement, unless you want to imply that her husband lied in stating she made the statement (accusation, or not). If you want to avoid that interpretation you're going to have to lie, I'm afraid, as there is no evidence to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thinking about it, though, the edit you made seems acceptable, although slightly biased. I'm not going to revert, although the errors in your reasoning, and that you think there's a difference between the statements and that you make incorrect inferences from your proposed wording may lead others to revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

To state that "Freyd accused Peter", when all she did was discuss her memories with her husband, is a false statement, Rubin. And your argument otherwise is just bizarre. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

See Wikitionary for definitions. It's not false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

How ridiculous. Read the "usage notes" on the page you've just linked to, Rubin. "To accuse is a somewhat formal act". The requirement of a "formal act" of accusation is hardly met by J. Freyd expressing a belief to her husband, who then communicates this belief indirectly to her parents.

If you actually read J. Freyd's account in Betrayal Trauma you'll find that she does not accuse or charge her father with a crime. Rather, she expresses a belief about her past, but she acknowledges the ambiguities of recovered memories, and the impossibility of ever knowing what really happened.

More uncooperative and unconstructive editing from you. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 05:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Nonsense again. More lies misstatements from you, as I've been expecting. As long as it only manifests in the talk pages, I can put up with it. When it starts appearing in the articles, user RfCs will start appearing, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Couldn't "after their adult daughter...accused Peter Freyd of sexual abuse" simply be changed to "after they learned their adult daughter...believed Peter Freyd sexually abused her"? It's less ambiguous. I have no direct interest in this controversy and didn't know of FMSF's existence till I searched the phrase "induced memory" today. Don G Taylor ( talk) 19:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

This article was nothing but a slash job on the organization, providing claims by very biased sources as if they were facts and presented without full context. This group has Elizabeth Loftus as a member, a hugely respected psychologist, and the facts that the group supports are widely embraced in the field of psychology. A regular person reading this would have come away with the idea that everyone involved in it was a child molestor who had a group to defend themselves with lies.

I've tried to improve the article by getting rid of some of the most outrageous bias and WP:UNDUE weight, but what it really needs is more material to put the topic in overall context. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The FMSF is a controversial political/social activist organization; the information in the article is based on reports of their actions by reliable sources. If you have concerns about those sources, please discuss the specifics. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would agree with Jack-A-Roe's assessment above. As editors, our edits need to accurately report what the sources state and our edits should not pick and choose which sources fit a certain POV. ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

DreamGuy: Let's be clear, this is an article about a particular foundation, its history, and its leadership. It is not an article about false memories. If you want to add material about false memories, please go to false memory syndrome, recovered memory therapy, repressed memory, body memory, or some similar article. On reviewing this article I have decided to downgrade its importance with respect to the Wikipedia Law and Medicine Projects, and to upgrade its quality assessment to Start. It still needs work. For example, it needs a History section, with a description of the projects funded by the FMS Foundation since its inception. — Aetheling ( talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC). reply

Of course it's an article about false memories, by extension, because that's the entire reason for the group's existence. But it's absolutely clear that this article has been written by those who oppose the group and have a problem with the basic concept of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The same issues regarding the recovered memory theory seem to be addressed reduntantly in multiple articles:

• repressed memory, a redirect from recovered memory
• recovered memory therapy
• false memory syndrome
• False Memory Syndrome Foundation

Near as I can tell, there are two opposing views:

1. a minority view, held by activists, that these memories are largely real
2. the mainstream view, that these memories are largely "false"

What's not clear to me at this point is:

• the relative size of the mainstream and the minority: is it just one tiny group, and a scattered bunch of court decisions?
• how much evidence there is on each side: have any studies been published by scientists?

This doesn't look like it's as big a controversy as Mind Control (aka Brainwashing), but I recall it took a few decades for the popular version of the theory to be checked out by scientists; now, courts no longer accept expert testimony by theory proponents. I'm not sure where RM is at this point.

Should I read all the article word for word, or what? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Uncle Ed, thank you for your comments on the page. I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of the opposing views. The majority view in the literature is that recovered memories can be real and at times verified. There is a minority view that recovered memories can somehow be created, but this is largely unproven with data misapplied from nontraumatic memory studies and from rectractor statements. These retractions can be due to various causes. "The number of reported retractions is small when compared to the large number of actual child sexual abuse cases. Some have suggested that a child may retract their story of abuse due to guilt, a feeling of obligation to protect their family or may be reacting to the familial stress brought on by their allegations." ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

And I would strongly disagree with ResearchEditor's claims on the what the science says. In fact I'd say it's wholly at odds with the accepted scientific understanding, and focusing on twisting certain key points (like claiming that studies on "nontraumatic" memories -- the studies also include "lost at the mall" scenarios, which are arguably traumatic, but of course real honest to goodness traumatic scenarios cannot be tested for memory conflation without being labeled abuse -- have been "misapplied" by his opinion) to give entirely the wrong impression. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The reality is that there is no evidence that a traumatic memory can be implanted. On the contrary, there is research, like Pezdek's study, that shows that this is impossible. Traumatic memory is stored differently than nontraumatic memory, this is shown in van der Kolk's work. This is why studies showing possible memory confabulation in nontraumatic memories cannot be applied to traumatic ones. ResearchEditor ( talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. There's evidence that memories can be implanted, and for good reason, little research of any sort on traumatic memories. van der Kolk's theory that there's a difference is marginal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That's right, there's little research on implanting traumatic memories because it would be unethical to do so; any conclusions about that are just assumptions. There are ongoing debates about whether or not non-traumatic memory work can be generalized to traumatic memories, and nothing even close to a scientific consensus about that. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

In consideration of the above discussion, I've entered a merge and rename proposal regarding the RMT and FMS articles, on the RMT talk page.

This article on the FMSF is not part of the merge proposal, but it is mentioned in that discussion. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Rather than hypothesis in the statement "The FMSF coined the term false memory syndrome to describe their hypothesis that some adults...", with it's scientific and testing implications, how about simply "belief"? I don't think FMS has ever been tested. Thoughts? Also thoughts on the use of the full quote? And finally, "Underwager's statements in that interview have been portrayed as demonstrating he believed pedophilia was acceptable and not necessarily harmful." is sourced to the same reference as the interview itself - is this legit? Presumably the interview and the portrayal would not be combined, what with the linearity of time and whatnot. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Concur about the belief term, i've made that edit. Regarding the quote and reactions being from the same source, that's because the wrong reference was used for those responses. I don't know the correct source of those statements so I swapped out the footnote and added fact tags. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This is an equally biased, Pro-FMSF version of the article. May include material relevant to balancing the current study. 82.27.229.138 ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Can we remove the NPOV tag? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed the tag, it was put on in July, 2008 by DreamGuy and has changed substantially since then. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I've blanket reverted to my previous version. The changes by the anon on September 26th were a mix of good, extra sources, really terrible sources, really terrible partisan sources and the elimination of some formatting, pro-FMSF sources and what I think was neutral wording. I'm trying to work through and re-integrate the good stuff. Among the sources I'm reluctant to use are the Journal of Psychohistory, Treating Abuse Today and a Mindcontrolforums post. I also didn't like the "they claim 18,000 members but the truth is it's only 2,000". The wildly different dates and dubiousness of the sources makes me reluctant to include this at all, and I don't see it as terribly relevant. There's a lot of coatracking for other issues (the Freyds =/= FMSF), but there are definitely some valid points that should be integrated. Assistance is welcome and appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the "Scientific criticsm" section is adequately sourced. Most of the references certainly wouldn't be adequate under WP:BLP, and the founders and probably most of the people named in the references are living, so we need to be careful. It's certainly cherry-picked, as there is also some scientific support. Also, the claim that "the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories actual sexual abuse" is disputed among reputable scientists, so probably shouldn't be stated as fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Looking at the editoral statement of the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, it's a peer-reviewed journal of an advocacy group. Difficult to say whether it should be considered a reliable source. In fact, that issue's editorial statement reports that it is designed to counter the FMSF. It being a statement made by editors about the journal, I see no reason not to include that fact in the article if the journal article is used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It's such a contentious area, it's hard to get anything resembling balance from either side. My concern is that the article can quickly turn into a coatrack for false memory syndrome itself, or recovered memory therapy. Also, the FMSF side of thing kinda won the debate - no-one bothers to refute the nutter claims of abuse recovered during hypnotherapy any more, so the FMSF is less prominent and necessary. Ergo, the only publications about them any more are axe-grinders.

I agree with your points, but there's also many, many criticisms of the FMSF and they really should be included. I don't really have any problems with your suggestions, so feel free to edit accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This article seem rather tilted towards the children's pov. I see, above, that this his gone around before. I think it would be best for outside eyes to have a look-see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

It's odd that the article is up for deletion with the claim that it is extremely biased because it was original created by someone with a COI, when the actual article itself had sections horribly slanted against the organization. So horribly slanted that they needed to be removed completely. Having the article outright say that the group misrepresents science, etc. is not acceptable, and for crying out loud the experts like Elizabeth Loftus are the consensus views of the topic on academia right now. The fact that some critics of the group can come along and find a journal run by people who support recovered memory therapy and who then write an article declaring themselves right and that everyone else is anti-scientific just because they say so in no way supports Wikipedia taking their side in the article. Psychology journals and many psychiatrists often come with major amounts of bias. Of course the very people research suggests were using bad therapy techniques to invent memories out of thin air has bad things to say about that research. Wikipedia does not take their side, especially when they are a clear minority and have an obvious agenda. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The disputed section was surreptitiously added back months ago by a brand new WP:SPA editor who appeared on Wikipedia solely to make those edits, created a talk page for its account to make the red link next to the name go away, added some highly suspicious edits that were probably to hide the controversial edit from editors' watchlists and then disappeared again. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a tactical sockpuppet of banned user ResearchEditor, since that would fit his pattern. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

ResearchEditor is still at it? Amazing! MatthewTStone ( talk) 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Based on the discussions here, it appears this page had a lot of NPOV violations. As it stands now, however, it appears fairly neutral. Am I missing something? Or, it is perhaps time to remove the tag? JoelWhy ( talk) 15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Came across this article organically and feel that it smacks of bias against the FMSF. I see from the page here that I'm not the first to feel this way.

A few of the many problematic points:

The goal of the FMSF expanded to become more than an advocacy organization, instead attempting to address the issues of memory that seemed to have caused the behavioral changes in their now-adult children.

This presumes that all members or participants in this organization have experienced this issue first-hand with their own children. It's also unclear and poorly written; after several reads I am still unsure what exactly it's trying to say, and can see several potential anti-FMSF interpretations. It's problematic.

In 1990 Jennifer Freyd (with the support of her grandmother and uncle) privately accused her father of abusing her throughout her teenage years after memories surfaced during treatment by a therapist for issues unrelated to sexual abuse. In 1991, Pamela Freyd published an anonymous first-person (and extremely unflattering to Jennifer Freyd[2]) account of the accusation in a non-peer reviewed journal that focused on false accusations of child sexual abuse.[11] The article was reproduced and circulated widely, including to Jennifer Freyd's department at the University of Oregon. Jennifer Freyd later stated that there were numerous inaccuracies in the article, including the circumstances in which the original memories of abuse and the portrayal of her personal life.

This does not include Pamela's response to Jennifer's claim of inaccuracy, it includes an opinion statement that the articles were "extremely unflattering", it emphasizes that Pamela's publication was anonymous in an attempt to make it appear less credible/authoritative, and includes the statement "including to Jennifer Freyd's department at the Univeristy of Oregon", which is most probably redundant with "wide" circulation and seems to have no relevance to the events as a whole other than to make it appear that Pamela was intentionally seeking to damage her daughters' reputation, which assertion is not sourced or supported in the text of this article.

Generally speaking, the article also seems to include primarily negative episodes and events, while I'm sure an organization of this age has some successful moments to recount (one could, for instance, mention that Paul Lutus has referenced the FMSF multiple times in his writings). It includes criticisms without giving place for response.

Serious rework of the whole thing by qualified, unbiased editors is likely needed. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 00:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Almost all the article is about the Freyds, the initial claim and denial of abuse, and Underwager, and a little about FMS. There's hardly anything about the FMSF. I would say that all of NickBryant's edits make that worse, even though not all are negative (or positive) about the FMSF. And not all are sources quoting the editor's book. Even most of the criticism is about FMS (which should be in that article, not here) and is no longer considered mainstream. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Specifically, the lawyer is talking about false memories of abuse, potentially relevant in false memories, recovered memories, or false memory syndrome, not to this article, unless the lawyer (or possibly the article author) was talking about the FMSF. It's synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Confirmed. No mention of FMSF or FMS in the article, so it would be synthesis to state that the NYT article "contradicts" the assertions of the FMSF. Furthermore it is impossible to determine whether he meant false as in "incorrect", or false as in "lie". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Consider adding to Criticism/Controversies in the article.

Columbia Journalism Review July/August 1997 Mike Stanton

"Pamela Freyd seems more like the mother and grandmother she is than a revolutionary. But as a founder of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, she has in fact helped revolutionize the way the press and the public view one of the angriest debates in America -- whether an adult can suddenly remember long-forgotten childhood abuse....

....Rarely has such a strange and little-understood organization had such a profound effect on media coverage of such a controversial matter. The foundation is an aggressive, well-financed p.r. machine adept at manipulating the press, harassing its critics, and mobilizing a diverse army of psychiatrists, outspoken academics, expert defense witnesses, litigious lawyers, Freud bashers, critics of psychotherapy, and devastated parents. With a budget of $750,000 a year from members and outside supporters, the foundation's reach far exceeds its actual membership of about 3,000. The Freyds and the members know who we are, but the press knows less than it realizes about who they are, what drives them, or why they've been so successful."

rest of the article at the link.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 13:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111035204/http://www.fmsfonline.org:80/about.html to http://www.fmsfonline.org/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207141854/http://fmsfonline.org:80/advboard.html to http://fmsfonline.org/advboard.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725201949/https://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Position_Papers/Adult.asp to https://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Position_Papers/Adult.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111042322/http://www.fmsfonline.org:80/fmsffaq.html to http://fmsfonline.org/fmsffaq.html#Practices

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I have read some of the refs. At least some are non RS as not peer reviewed, or even edited for grammar. Read e.g. this:

..." As a nonprofit charity, the FMSF's [!] is required to file it's [!] a tax form every year ..." 

Let us review all of these and amend or remove. Zezen ( talk) 08:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply

So, the previous source for the foundation's dissolution was very POV. I went searching and only found equally position-pushing articles. In lieu of a better source I've defaulted to the Foundation's page for now, but as a primary source it's strictly speaking not great. If anyone with better search-fu than me knows of some NPOV secondary sources, I'd be grateful. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 14:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's controversial or self-serving for the foundation to report about their closure so a primary source seems acceptable. — Paleo Neonate – 21:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, so since Wikipedia is the reflection of mainstream science, I am curious why this article does not emphasize more that this syndrome may have been pseudoscience or was, in fact, pseudoscience. Despite the fact that the idea that it exists may be popular as well as controversial, is it mainstream science? RoseSuna ( talk) 01:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Replying to myself. Maybe it's just a bad idea for me to ask anything about this article... RoseSuna ( talk) 01:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The entire intro puts focus on Americans and American society until it reluctantly admits in regaard to false memories and false memory syndrome that"Neither term is acknowledged by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." The DSM enjoys international collaboration but even it is an essentially American publication, manuscripted, and published by an American Organisation.

Yet in a strained attempt to refute the lack of acknowledgement of False Memory Syndrome's MERE EXISTENCE in the DSM, the intro goes on to cite a "public advisory guidlines relating to mental health" from Canada. The intro does not even pretend to recognize any discrepancy here, which is extremely misleading.

So if the APA refuses to acknowledge the existence of FSM in its DSM, why is this aticle intro pretending trivial public advisories issued in canada are endorsed or even known to exist by the APA?

If this was any other article about any other topic refuting a scientific body as ubiquitously authoratative as the APA, it would be submitted and approved for speedy deletion in less than a day.

If the APA refutes the possibility of false memories being recovered in psycotherapy, and the FSMS organisation exists to refute the veracity of "false" memories, while acknowledging the "behavioral problems" of those who hold "false" memories, the only way this articles insane deliberation in favor of FSMF beliefs to APA's authority can be justified is if this article acknowledges that the "false" memories brought into question by FSMF are not falsely "recovered" in psychotherapy, but are in fact lies being perpetrated by the accusers. without acknowledging this, the "anti-science" nature of this article is both hypocritical, detestable and disinformative.

To say the quiet part out loud: this article and the FMSF as a whole, exist to ensure their accusers are never acknowledged because according to them, they're accusers are lying.

imagine applying this logic to an adult woman who decides to seek justice following a psychtherapy for a sexual assault endured in her recent past, and if wikipedia had an favorably written article about an organisation composed primarily of men, but headed by one of their wives, claiming that some of these women's memories were "falsely implanted" by their psychotherapists. Wikipedia would never allow this, but for some reason, if the abuse alleged by an adult woman is said to have been suffered as a child, its ok for wikipedia to give weight to an organisation, with no scientific backing whatsoever, calling that woman a liar!

This discrepancy is GLARING. It is unexcusable. Wikipedians need to address it. 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:F505:42DE:1872:F9D7 ( talk) 20:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply

They never will because some of the people who are editing these articles have glaring COI problems and nobody cares to do anything about it. Even New York Magazine published a devastating overview of the sordid history of this organization in 2021, and that gave a far better idea of where the FMSF fits in history than anything on this page. If I was to point someone to an educational resource on the topic I certainly wouldn't link to this worthless "encyclopedia" entry. I strongly suspect that official advocates of false memory theories (i.e. affiliates of The Satanic Temple et al, mentioned in the New York Magazine article) are involved in editing anything FMSF-related. There could not be a more glaring example of malicious editing behavior when you take the time to try to dig into the relevant history yourself and see that everything about FMSF has aged horribly. Now let's make sure not to mention that their scientific advisory board had multiple CIA contractors as members, including the absolutely notorious "Jolly" West. It takes some real blinders on not to see what is happening here, hence my strong suspicion of malice. 173.88.77.65 ( talk) 04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

What a mess this article was, I see that some editors have been picking away at it, but it was still a mess. This badly needed someone to be bold and remove all the gossip and drama. This is an article about the FOUNDATION and not False Memory Syndrome which is what people keep trying to put into the article. I removed the extensive list of board members and if they were dead or not. It was overly complicated and with the format style (don't mess with it as it is nice and clean now) it is less confusing. Enjoy and please discuss on the talk page if someone wants to make extensive changes. Sgerbic ( talk) 07:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The grammatical edits are appreciated, and the changes to the board members section seems fine to me. However, both removing the multiple issues tag and rewriting the entire history section require consensus and as such I have reverted them. Happy to work together to make this article better, as I agree that it is not of a particularly high quality. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 02:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I look forward to seeing the changes you think I didn't address. Adding back the primary source and neutrality tags seem excessive when your issue seems to be just to the history section. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well (1) the False Memory Syndrome Foundation existed to promote the idea of False Memory Syndrome, so of course the article includes significant material about FMS. Personally I think the FMSF and FMS pages could be merged, but I'm not sure other editors agree. And (2) the personal history of the Freyd's, as tawdry as it may seem, was central to the formation of the foundation and therefore relevant to its history. Similarly, controversial statements about pedophilia by early board members like Underwager and Wakefield are very much relevant to understanding the history of an organization making claims relating to child sexual abuse. These issues aren't "gossip and drama", they are important and well documented aspects of the organization's history. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 03:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry, no, not buying that. This article is about the Foundation. It is not necessary to discuss the tawdry personal history, all that needs to go. There are plenty of non-primary great citations here, why did you leave the primary tag on? I made the article as neutral as possible and yet you added the neutral tag back on. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Freyd's explicitly created the foundation in response to that personal history, which is covered in multiple scholarly works on the foundation and the broader controversy around it. Your comments also fail to address why the Underwager quote was removed, which has nothing to do with the personal history stuff.

As for the tags, frankly I'm not sure the article meets PoV even as is (pre your edits) and I believe those edits mostly exacerbated PoV issues by downplaying the controversies which have surrounded the org. Regarding the primary tag, I simply put the whole block of text back. I didn't add that in the first place and don't have any particular problem removing it. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 04:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am disappointed to see the recent major changes reverted. I had been following and editing this page for a while making changes to clarify this organization's purview and the latest bold edit was a major improvement.

In my eyes, the Underwager quote was massive, lengthy, and took over the entire article. Would it be appropriate to take an equally long quote from subsequent explanations of the quote from him per NPOV? No, probably not. Perhaps a mention like other criticisms have been covered would be appropriate (ie, a one or two sentence summary of what happened).

The FMSF was not founded by the Freyds to singlehandedly point a finger at their daughter; it had widespread academic support of researchers, psychologists, concerned researchers, etc. The deleted dog and barking story should have been removed. It is inappropriate to classify gossipy conjecture as relevant. I don't think it is contested that the accusation was the catalyst for the FMSF, but it certainly did not exist until 2019 solely for this purpose given the tens of thousands of contacts through the years. The summary of the beginnings of the organization was sufficient and detailed in the bold edit. I even think it hedges closely to playing with fire with regard to BLP as these are unproven accusations.

Controversial or not, this organization was a major factor in making psychotherapy safer and less dangerous for patients. False memory as a valuable concept would not have come as far as a science without it. There is space for both criticism and praise for the FMSF, and both exists. Ideally, neither would prevail, and a neutral appraisal of the foundation would be possible. I hope we can achieve this. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Controversial or not, this organization was a major factor in making psychotherapy safer and less dangerous for patients. False memory as a valuable concept would not have come as far as a science without it.

This is very much up for debate and is precisely the POV I am worried has been pushed on this page. I agree that the page should remain as neutral as possible, that means including relevant history about the FSMF's founders and the controversies the org has been involved in. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree that this is up for debate. Prior to the FMSF, there was little public awareness that using things like hypnosis, automatic writing, guided imagery or trance work could cause false memories. It is erroneous information that recovering memories through this sort of work is safe, effective, or even works to capture accurate memories.

I am confused — are we talking about different things? Are you saying that the false memory problem would have ended by itself or that it was not a problem or that therapy was not made safer?

I wholly disagree that the dog barking story is relevant. It adds nothing to how the Foundation was formed or its history. The accusation is a necessary inclusion, but the removed content? I do not think it merits inclusion. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about the Foundation. This is an encyclopedia. If readers want to know the gossip details they can look them up by clicking on the citations. This Foundation article is not for debating beyond what is necessary about what FMS is or is not. Including the details is not necessary and insisting that they remain is clearly POV. Sgerbic ( talk) 04:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm now rereading the history section and I can't see anyone with a straight face say that sentences like this should remain ... "In 1990 Jennifer Freyd, with the support of her grandmother and uncle, privately accused her father of sexually abusing her throughout her teenage years after allegedly recovering memories that surfaced after treatment by a therapist for issues related to severe anxiety regarding an upcoming visit from her parents ... Peter Freyd said that someone in the Freyd household would have been aware of the alleged abuse, because the Freyd's dog would have barked due to the commotion elicited by his alleged abuse."

I have dealt with this over detailed content before on many other articles I've rewritten, lately UFO related articles. There is always a POV behind wanting to include such details. Sgerbic ( talk) 04:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Again, the personal history of the Freyd's played a significant role in the foundation's creation. I'm happy to work on how that history is being represented if you feel that it violates NPOV in its current state. Attempting to remove it entirely however strikes me as a clear attempt to advocate a pro-FMSF POV by obscuring important facts about the founders. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree that this is up for debate.

Whether "false memories" is a useful psychiatric construct very much remains debated in the scholarly literature to this day. See for example: Brewin et. al. 2020; Dalenberg et. al. 2020; Blizzard and Shaw 2019; Crook and McEwen 2019; Loewenstein 2018; Andrews and Brewin 2017; Brewin and Andrews 2017; Becker-Blease and Freyd 2017; Brewin and Andrews 2014; Brewin 2007; Colangelo 2007. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 05:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe it is debated in fringe circles, but this is very much not up for debate in terms of whether false memories happen. It is pure science denial to claim otherwise. Regardless, those articles are not about the FMSF. If you want to debate false memories, I think False memory would be more appropriate.

Parenthetically -- some of your sources do not address the debate of false memories, and instead defend repression. Others debate FMS, not false memories. Nearly all point to the variability of participants' formation of false memories in lab studies as an indication that not all people form false memories in lab studies. 3 of the papers are written by the same 2 authors and half have Brewin as an author, perhaps indicating an insular group surrounding this fringe argument. Indeed this has been shown to be the case in dissociative identity disorder research from which I recognize many of the authors cited (see Boysen 2024). ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 13:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

They are peer-reviewed secondary sources. Your personal perception that they are "fringe" doesn't change that. And the idea that a group of experts publishing multiple papers on their topic of research expertise is indicative of some kind of conspiracy is, quite frankly, laughable. The same could be said of Loftus, McNally, Olio and McHugh, all of whom have published multiple papers on the topic, frequently together.

As for the actual content of the papers: a single one discusses "repression" and the discussion of "false memories" in them is very clearly tied to the controversies surrounding False Memory Syndrome. Finally, both Dissociative Amnesia and Dissociative Identity Disorder are, unlike False Memory Syndrome, actually included in the two major diagnostic texts - the DSM and the ICD - indicating significant scientific consensus among psy-discipline professionals. You don't have to like that, and of course articles on any of these diagnoses should discuss controversies surrounding them. But "fringe" they are not.

Either way, I agree with @ Sgerbic that "[t]his Foundation article is not for debating beyond what is necessary about what FMS is or is not." As far as this article goes, my point is simply that we should avoid framing the Foundation as representing scientific consensus given that their proposed diagnosis never made it into any diagnostic texts and there remains significant scholarly disagreement about the status of "false memories" as conceptualized by the FMSF. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 14:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We are in agreement that the article should remain about the organization.

I maintain my position that @ Sgerbic's edits significantly improved neutrality within this article.

I never implied that DID/repression publishing groups are conspiratorial, just that they are insular. Just because a source is peer reviewed does not make it credible or the information contained therein trustworthy. The FMSF never claimed consensus about FMS as a diagnosis, and many clinician or researcher members debated its existence as a diagnostic syndrome, as I noted in my edit here -- so notions about "their" proposed diagnosis is painting with broad strokes.

If you want to know my personal stance, I don't believe FMS is a valid diagnosis, nor do I believe it should be diagnosed or have effort expended to be put into the DSM, but I do believe it was a first effort at explaining what was happening when patients did things like hypnosis or trance writing and came out claiming memories of things like birth or of nonexistent satanic cult activity or recovered entire decades worth of unknown abuse histories. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

things like birth or of nonexistent satanic cult activity or recovered entire decades worth of unknown abuse histories Or abduction by aliens (see John E. Mack and Budd Hopkins), or previous lives (see Ian Stevenson), or even future lives (see "Der Wiederverkörperungsweg eines Menschen durch die Jahrtausende. Reinkarnationserfahrung in Hypnose" a German book by Werner J. Meinhold). Whatever crazy ideas the therapist has, they can make people gain false memories of. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

so notions about "their" proposed diagnosis is painting with broad strokes.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation existed to popularize and advocate for the idea of False Memory Syndrome. I'm not sure how that is painting with a broad brush. Whether every scientist on their board fully agreed with the official stance of the organization is another question, and I have no problem with the edits you indicated clarifying that some did not. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

So, which parts of the edit that you reverted do you disagree with and why? Perhaps we can focus on reaching consensus there instead of debating issues we are opposed on. I think that would probably be a good way forward, and seeing as we both feel strongly, it is probably good that there are strong viewpoints to try and reach a balance.

I will refer back to something you said before about the Underwager quote. Including a massive quote like that is inappropriate. If you feel the event merits inclusion on the page, I said before that I would not be opposed to a mention of it, but a giant quote? As I said before, NPOV would then merit inclusion of another gigantic quote from Underwager's explanation of the quote and his stances. I will look at the article again and come up with something and of course I welcome your thoughts. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 15:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Trying to work on an edit that combines both versions of the History section, will share asap. As for the Underwager quote, I don't necessarily disagree. I am the one who included that a while back, and my thinking was that - given his claim of being taken out of context - the larger quote with that context might be better for NPOV. That said, I am happy to shrink it down to the few sentences that made the rounds in media at the time. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright, this is a work in progress but here is what I have so far. I think to keep the History section manageable much of the criticism/controversy material should be moved to its own section. We could then probably move much of the material in "Reception and Impact" to that section. Conversely, the "Reception and Impact" section could be expanded to include the criticism/controversy material. Let me know what you think. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia articles don't need a devoted criticism section. Everything should be in the body of the article. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't say Wikipedia articles in general need devoted criticism sections. I said this particular article, about a very controversial organization, would be helped by having one. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 22:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You have expanded your sandbox 4X's since I looked at it hours ago. The more I reread what you are proposing the more I have to say, Absolutely Not. You are attempting to bring in far more than an article on an organization should have, it is laughable what you are asking for. THIS is what I think the article should look like [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation&oldid=1217672768] and not as a starting place, it is neutral and tight. NO "accusations" NO drama. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am continuing to work on it. I continue to believe the version you are proposing violates NPOV. Just off the top of my head, it is extremely odd that the quote from and citation to Mike Stanton reads as if the article were praising FMSF, as opposed to being extremely critical of the organization and the media's coverage of both the foundation and the issue of traumatogenic dissociative amnesia. And again, the accusations and "drama" are an inextricable part of the foundation's history. It is literally through those accusations, and Peter and Pam's response to them, that the two got connected with several of the academics who would form the scientific advisory board and help recruit other academics. There is no way to discuss this without discussing the accusations.

Constructive criticism is more than welcome and I will happily incorporate it. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Donna's Cyborg I appreciate your interest in extending the article, however additions of subsections Accusations, Paidika and Criticisms are unnecessary. The mention of each SHOULD be included, but they merit 1-2 sentences each, not entire subsections. If a reader is interested in the specific subtopic mentioned, they will take the liberty of reading the sources. The encyclopedia must be written in a neutral way without the use of scare quotes or editorialization. It helps if you write as if you are bored with the facts and consciously write in the most boring way possible, the opposite of writing an argumentative essay. Readers should not feel like they are being pushed to think something.

As for the parts regarding the issue of RMT being widespread or common or used at all, RMT was widely outlined in treatment manuals published by massively influential clinicians such as Colin Ross and Frank Putman in 1989. These manuals summarized years of existing experimental treatment modalities and inspired many more books on how to recover memories. They detail automatic writing, hypnosis, and even detail suggestive therapy dialog.

Regardless, the article is about the FMSF, and arguing the existence of well-documented modalities on the page is not within the purview of the article. They were increasingly common for the time, and they were a large part of why the Foundation was founded.

I support the suggestion by @ Sgerbic for the rollback. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. The best way to deal with this article is to go to the last known revision of the article which I think was the one I posted above. It is the most neutral. THEN we can point by point discuss the changes that might be added. Keeping in mind that we are focusing on the Organization and not the topic of FMS. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"additions of subsections Accusations, Paidika and Criticisms are unnecessary"

Agreed, I am trying to work them into the History and Reception/impact sections.

As for the RMT issue, those are large books and I would need page numbers to check your claim. The question of whether FMSF's claims that such modalities were widespread is accurate requires empirical verification (peer-reviewed secondary sources researching this) or it needs to be framed as just that, a claim made by an advocacy organization. One of my primary issues with this article is precisely the way it has tended to present FMSF claims as empirical fact, ignoring both that they are an advocacy org and the many academic criticisms of those claims. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 03:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no need to get into page numbers for an RMT issue. Let's stick to the Organization please. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree! My point was simply that claims made by FMSF need to be framed as just that, claims, and not as empirical fact or academic consensus. I am currently working on material covering FMSF research attempting to prove these claims and academic critiques of that research. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 17:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well ... in the mean time while you are working on it, the article should be reverted to the last most neural edit, then we can discuss what gets put back in. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's fine with me so long as the POV tag remains. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 19:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Go to phase 2 of the treatment section or access the books through your institution and CTRL+F "hypnosis" or "memory" or "recovery".

Regardless, 219-270 should give you enough context of Ross' book and 245-252 of Putnam's. These books and authors were and are extremely influential.

If you need more direct intervention than Putnam and Ross, there was always clinical psychologist Frederickson:

Another patient exclaimed during a session: “But I feel like I’m just making this up!” Fredrickson ignored her concern. “I urged her to continue, explaining that truth or fantasy is not of concern at the beginning of memory retrieval work.” (Fredrickson, Repressed Memories, p. 17).

Surviving Secrets, by Moira Walker, influential psychologist (UK, 1992) is another.

Secret Survivors, by E. Sue Blume (1990) was known for its 34 item checklist meant to tell you if you had incest in your past but didn't remember it.

All were written by clinicians, and all sold widely. I presume these clinicians all had clients and were not making up the stories of memory recovery they detail in their books.

As for academics who dispute that RMT was a widespread problem, I encourage you to read pages 341-346 from this textbook which documents several studies of exactly how widespread the problem was (and is). It cites several surveys of clinicians. I suppose you could also look at this nationally representative study from 2018. You could also read the Ken Lanning 1992 report detailing how the FBI spent nearly a decade and unspeakable amounts of money researching repressed SRA memory cases. You could read chapter 8 of Science and Pseudoscience In Clinical Psychology. (Lilienfeld et al., 2015) If you want, even widely known ethicists NOT opposed to RMT have commented on the denouement of lawsuits and recommended informed consent measures. (Cannell et al., 2001)

That said, again, I agree with Sgerbic. It was easy for me to quickly reference these things because the common argument of certain academics make is a flimsy one of "There is no official modality called RMT!" or simply denying reality when there is a well established history of these events. It is not contentious or debated amongst reputable sources that this was an issue. Denying it would be like denying that lobotomies happened.

I disagree that it wasn't necessary for me to provide references and pages, because it is inappropriate to insert an essay in this article debating if it was ever a popular treatment to recover memories in therapy and I strongly oppose its inclusion. It is quite frankly ridiculous to debate something that is widely warned against and taught as a mistake of modern psychotherapy. I understand your feelings surrounding the organization, it is never a nice, fun thing engage with subjects that seem to be denying abuse. It does not give me warm fuzzy feelings to do so. However, the nuance required to engage with such subjects necessitates an objective look at how RMT influenced the cultural landscape: it came from a REAL denial of abuse where academics claimed S.A was GOOD for women and that incest was "1 in a million". It was an over-correction of this flawed and chauvinistic academic stance "of the times" and there are psychiatric/historical textbooks detailing this progression (like the RMT one I cited).

We need to get to the point of the article -- which is the FMSF. If you want to stick a single sentence in there about how "Researchers have challenged the claim of widespread recovered memory techniques" I am absolutely not opposed to it. But anything other than that, or going on about how we don't know if RMT or false memories happened at a scale they did, the facts disagree. I even think the sentence is pushing it, because it is false balance, presenting ideas as if they are equally balanced on the scale. These are not "claims made by the FMSF", they are just topics of ethics that a Critical Thinking in Psych class would cover.

More specifically, I propose something like this for the tone:

Underwager, in an interview for Paidika, made comments that were later widely distributed and interpreted as support of pedophilia. Underwager later criticized these interpretations as misrepresenting his views ( Which would use this citation).

We are writing an encyclopedic précis, not an argumentative essay or gossipy Page 6 article. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 22:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"I understand your feelings surrounding the organization, it is never a nice, fun thing engage with subjects that seem to be denying abuse. It does not give me warm fuzzy feelings to do so. However, the nuance required to engage with such subjects necessitates an objective look at how RMT influenced the cultural landscape"

I wrote and recently successfully defended a MA thesis about precisely this topic. I am perfectly capable of approaching the issue with nuance. I genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism, but condescendingly implying that I am simply too emotional and lack nuance is extremely unhelpful.

We clearly disagree, and that's fine! Negotiating those disagreements is how wikipedia strives for neutrality, and I will continue to do my best to incorporate your constructive criticism. But please recognize that those who disagree with you about this topic may do so for perfectly rational and empirically grounded reasons. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 23:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

When I said what you blockquoted, I was not implying you are emotionally unable to engage with the subject. Rather, I was acknowledging the complexities and delicate nature of the discussion of abuse and RMT.

I supported my perspective with detailed evidence from the literature and am motivated to ensure our discussion is anchored in facts. My argument was structured to emphasize widespread acknowledgement and historical implications of RMT and to defend my positions.

Your response underscores a desire for recognition of your efforts and an appeal for mutual respect which I can understand and I certainly acknowledge. But an appeal to your (anonymous) authority is not empirical and I encourage you to engage directly with the content and either attempt to refute what is currently on the page or work with the other interested editors and I to achieve consensus on what SHOULD be there.

I have offered a first proposal of an addition re: Underwager; we could start there, as it seems to be a point of agreement that this topic should be included. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 23:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You're more than welcome to add the Underwager bit. I still think this article needs a significant rewrite to achieve NPOV (not to mention style and citation issues) so I'm focusing my energy on that for now.

And just to be clear, I was not attempting to make an argument from authority. My point was simply that I am well educated on this topic - which isn't to say you aren't! - and that it would be helpful to avoid assuming that the only reason someone might disagree with your position is a lack of knowledge about the topic. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 01:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please keep the {R} Style citations. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh I have been, that is absolutely much better and easier to read! I will also try to go through and move {cite}'s down to the reflist and replace them with {R} citations. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️( talk)( contribs) 06:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply