Talk:False Memory Syndrome Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub This page has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Warning to Pamfreyd — severe conflict of interest

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)

[edit] False Memory Syndrome Foundation

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 555 Kininvie Drive London ON Canada N6G 1P1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.113.221 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] comment moved from top of page

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)

  • 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)

[edit] Small but significant change

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikitionary for definitions. It's not false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
“ To find fault with or attribute blame to. ”

—wikt:accuse
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)
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)