Talk:Recovered memory

Appropriateness of external links; pattern of introducing content

I would ask Citizens to look at the article, which deals with neurology and psychology, and then to look at the External Links page. Are the external links consistent with the scientific approach of the article, or are they a way to have CZ pointing to ritual abuse advocacy sites? How many of them are neurological?

Do also look at the article, which starts on general neurological aspects, but, without emphasis, focuses on repetitive child abuse.

There is unquestionably child abuse. Oddly, the existing article on the subject is not being edited, but new articles, on possibly controversial theories, keep getting introduced. What would a search engine see as the growing amount of CZ material focused on repetitive child abuse? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the links are about ritual abuse. All are directly related to the topic. All of the articles are accurate as written. (reverted by user: It appears that you are following me around on Citizendium now, which feels like harassment.) Neil Brick 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Harassment? Perhaps concern with CZ: Neutrality Policy, which is reasonably within my scope as both a Citizen and a member of the Editorial Council.

I certainly don't object to someone "following" my contributions. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to strike the comment, but you replied first. Will do so now. Neil Brick 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've done a swift PUbMed search and placed on the Bibliography page details of all recent reviews on this area that seemed relevant, as a start. Some of those I've worked into the Introduction. The main problem with this article is the apparent presumption that recovered memories are reliable; this is deeply disputed. Accordingly a) the fact that it is disputed must be stated unambiguously at the outset. To handle a complex literature in a controversial area neutrally, perhaps the best way is with an objective survey of peer-reviewed reviews in the academic literature - reviews are better for this than primary reports anecdotal reports or books as they are or should be balanced syntheses. It is especially important to give proportionate weight to the skeptical views that seem indeed to dominate in the academic literature. I'm not sure that mechanisms of memory are really relevant here; the issue is simply one of reliability; frankly, current theories of memory are not sophisticated enough to help here. On external links, again it is obvious that there must be an attempt to be objective about selecting links and not use only links that support one side of a controversy. Gareth Leng 11:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth. Your improvements do help in the short term, but they also address part of what I see about the problem. Even though you have properly qualified the first sentence, the first sentence does not restate the article title, but generalizes it; this is a problem with the rest of the article. Would the title sentence "Neurological theories of recovered memory has been defined as the phenomenon of partially or fully losing part or a specific aspect of a memory, and then later recovering part or all of the memory into conscious awareness" work? That rephrasing into CZ style no longer makes sense.

Recovered memory is a redlink; the article should begin with a lede of neurological theories of recovered memories, and limit itself to that. Alternatively, setting this context would require an article truly about all views of recovered memory. It can't be a way to introduce the broader term as accepted, and then go off into some aspect. As with several related articles, the discussion here of a technical subject, or of a publication/survey related to it, operating under the assumption that the phenomenon is generally accepted. I also note that the "definition" is not sourced. I certainly don't insist on the lede sentence being sourced; it can be quite good for the first sentence to be a readable synthesis but the next few sentences need to be sourced references to sides in a controversial position.

While, as yet, we do not have a formal policy on orphaned articles, this certainly is one. Had there first been an article on recovered memory, with comments from both sides, then there would be a much stronger basis for this article. As you know, in other articles on controversial topics, I have worked them into a hierarchy to make them self-defining: first, for example, define a topic as generally as possible, using international law and other definitions, before getting into specific national discussions or case reports. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Suggest renaming this Recovered memory with redirect from False memory?Gareth Leng 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tightened the text somewhat but am uncomfortable about the degree of speculation. I'm a neuroscientist, and this is a neuroscientist's distaste for neuropsychologists who use the words of neuroscience but don't dance the dance; not getting at you Neil at all - but for instance GABA - well half the cells in the brain use GABA, saying it's involved is like saying you need air to breathe. The opioid link is nearly all junked science. Gareth Leng 16:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, i agree with Gareth's suggested move and redirect and went ahead and did it. I hope this is OK. Chris Day 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Context of "trauma"

"Trauma" is a very general term, and the usage here needs to do one of two things:

1. Narrow the definition to specific forms of psychological events, which are certainly things presented in therapy. "It is important to separate the role of the mental health professional as therapist from the role as an expert witness in court." [1]
2. General physical and psychological trauma from accidents, combat, etc. I'm active, for example, in the Trauma and Critical Care [2] online forum.

Without touching the issues of ritual abuse, there is obviously a huge knowledge base dealing with the second sort of trauma. The military has an immense interest in combat-related stress. Physical trauma medicine is multidisciplinary, and a survivor of multisystem trauma from an automobile accident is apt to get psychological evaluation, and treatment if necessary. While the methods are controversial — Critical Incident Stress Debriefing is now deprecated — emergency response workers also are monitored for psychological trauma.

So, given the amount of data on trauma of the second sort, which is noncontroversial, why are the examples predominantly related to child abuse? The second sentence of the first paragraph introduces the first case" "People sometimes report recovering long-forgotten memories of, for example, childhood sexual abuse." There is one mention of "Vietnam combat veterans with PTSD, and in patients with PTSD related to early childhood sexual and physical abuse. ", but all of the other trauma examples appear to be child and sex oriented. There are explicit mentions of child neurology but much more vague references to all populations.

This emphasis makes me about the article being a way to introduce content about patterns of child abuse, rather than seriously addressing the broader subject. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes; but this is an interesting topic and one that needs to be handled properly. I'm not suggesting for a second that it's OK by me; I've just made a start with the first 3 sections and most importantly the bibliography. We could think about structure : subsequent headings might be Trauma; Post-traumatic stress disorder (with related text on effects on memory). Other headings? Laboratory studies on false memory; Suggestion; Legal cases; Media coverage?Gareth Leng 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gareth, you know that I like to approach subjects from a top-down standpoint. We certainly could use an article on trauma; I can speak fairly well to the scope of emergency/trauma medicine. Psychological trauma is a subset.

I can also come up with a fair bit of data on combat trauma and trauma in emergency service workers, as well as the still-difficult diagnosis and management. If, however, child abuse trauma is to be considered separately, let's identify it as such. Note that there is already an article, which definitely could use work, on child abuse. Again, a top-down approach might start with the well-documented areas of physical abuse and individual pedophilia, before leaping into ritual matters with much less documentation.

It's also an interesting question how this topic meets family-friendliness. When I was 7 or so, I saw an artist's reconstruction of an unidentified child, beaten to death, in a police request for information posted in a public place. I had nightmares for years. I had some rough personal experiences as a child, but there is a large difference in making family-friendly safety warnings available, and creating vivid imagery, even in words. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Medicolegal

Looking at the Boakes and Porter quotes, I wonder if they really should be relegated to a footnote. Rather, perhaps their quotes, and possibly accepted testimony on recovered memory, might be the start of a section on medicolegal aspects of recovered memory. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes fine in a section, but that would be too much for the lead?Gareth Leng 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What would you think of having a sentence in the lead that essentially says the area has much controversy, especially in the U.S., in balancing the rights of the accused against testimony that may either be imagined or a very bad experience? Such a sentence would then wikilink internally to the section, where the quotes could live. I'm open to suggestions about internationalizing the controversy; I simply don't know to what extent it's been an issue outside the U.S. Apparently, it is of note in Germany. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Style issue

It really isn't CZ style to put four and five sources after a statement. If the sources say essentially the same thing, pick a good one, or, even better, quote a peer-reviewed meta-analysis or review.

If they say different things, then the differences need to brought out. For sheer readability, it is possible that a point that needs five references may need to be in a separate section or subarticle.

Numbers of references alone proves nothing. It would be, however, extremely informative to have impact metrics on the references. Impact metrics, I recognize, are evolving, with both citation and view measurements suggesting different things. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is sometimes good to have more than one source back up a controversial point. Being an encyclopedia, it also gives readers more resources on the topic. But I will keep your idea in mind and think about the style angle more.Neil Brick 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Again purely speaking to style, pick the best source if there is no review, and then put the rest in bibliography/external links. We aren't trying to give readers "more resources" in the main article. That's the role of subpages. An encyclopedia is not a bibliography, but a place of synthesis and summarization. Right now, it's almost impossible to scan up and down between the text and the reference list, because the list of citations gets so long.

I have written articles with a great number of citations to primary document sources. Nevertheless, there was almost invariably enough differences betweenthe cited documents that each valid reference had a sentence about its point. Physically, that's much easier to understand than five footnotes in series. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this and pretty much agreed with Howard's point here in a section below. There is one small paragraph that has up to 15 references. This is not helpful to a reader, IMO. As writers we know the material and should limit our cites to the most pertinent. As writers it is our responsibility to reduce the redundancy for the readers. More often than not, more is not better. Chris Day 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

On references, I think we need to distinguish between accepted points and disputed points. I think it is generally accepted that:

• a) some recovered memories are memories of real events and
• b) some are not,
• c) individual witness reports of recent traumatic events are unreliable,
• d) ordinary memories of long past events are unreliable, particularly in being often heavily embelished,
• e) false memories can be quite easily induced in some subjects by suggestion, especially with hypnosis,
• f) memories of traumatic events are sometimes suppressed by unknown mechanisms, and
• g) false memories seem absolutely real to the person remembering. I
• h)there is no way of telling which recovered memories are reliable and which are unreliable except by external evidence of the events.

What is disputed I think is

• A) exactly how reliable recovered memories are
• B) whether recovered memories are generally as reliable as ordinary memories,
• C) whether (and if so which) therapy techniques themselves are responsible for implanting false memories in some cases.

I'd welcome agreement/disagreement on this list, so we know where we are exactly. If we can construct a list of what is accepted and what is disputed, perhaps it might be helpful to but this in the article as a summary box?

I'm afraid I don't know what the following statements mean exactly, (so I guess that will be generally true for naive readers like me) "The base rates for memory commission errors are quite low, at least in professional trauma treatment. The base rates in adult misinformation studies run between zero and 5 percent for adults and between 3 - 5 percent for children"

Is there a primary source so I can try and understand this? The book referred to is clearly a strong text and I've added text from a review to explain it as a source (Bibliography), but don't have ready access to it.

Many professional organisations seem to have made formal statements and I'm trying to track these down on the web - I've added a list on the external links, though haven't found links for many yet. I think in trying to construct an objective overview of the topic these need to be given due weight in the article. Any help in tracking down web sources on these would be welcome.Gareth Leng 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gareth, The quote above is a synopsis of a section from the book. As to your statement above, I haven't seen any evidence that some recovered memories have been shown to be false. I also haven't seen any evidence that false memories can be induced easily and i am assuming you mean nontraumatic ones. And I also haven't seen any evidence that "individual witness reports of recent traumatic events are unreliable." But the rest of what you state seems possible. Neil Brick 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I think these are things that seem to be generally accepted by professional organisations (see policy statements in extenal links) and by academic reviewers (see abstracts of review articles). There are in these, many examples of acknowlegement of "some true, some false". Here I'm asking for any examples of dissent from these "consensus" statements. On inducement of false memories see Loftus' work (as an early example) and for tramatic memories Porter's work, (both extensively covered in subsequent secondary sources and very highly cited). Unreliability of eyewitness reports has been very extensively studied in experimental conditions.

On the quote, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove it unless it's rephrased in a form I can make some sense of. Gareth Leng 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

intro too long

Seems far too detailed with too many references. It seems like a mini article in its own right. For example, hypnotism material should be in the body of the article. Chris Day 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added a new heading titled Authenticity. Feel free to change the heading but lets keep all the content out of the intro. As an aside, the second to last paragraph in that section has far too many citations to be useful (at present this includes the citations in the twenties), we should be focusing on the best references. To a reader, too many references become bewildering an is not helpful. I would go through and weed out the redundant or weak ones but i do not have enough background information to begin the task. Chris Day 16:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First attempt on unifying context

Fully understanding that not all trauma or recovered memories are suggested to be sexual, I created a preliminary article, medicalizing sexual offenses. In no way am I committed to that specific title, although the subject is important. It needs a parent topic of sexual offenses, as well as on sexual offenses against children, child abuse (which isn't always sexual), and criminalizing consensual sexual activities. I offer it in the goal of establishing context for a number of difficult articles.

In this case, there needs to be a parent topic of trauma, including purely emotional, physical (i.e., multisystem trauma medicine is an interdisciplinary centered around surgery but not limited to it), and interactions: if there is recovered memory and trauma, it certainly could apply to an accident victim just as much as to a crime victim.

The issues raised are relevant here, and in recovered memory, since the topics are at the intersection of law, health sciences, ethics and social sciences.

If some of these redlinks can be filled in, remembering family friendliness, and the articles (or Related Pages) be well-linked, it would be a start on taking individual studies and books and putting them into broader and — dare I say more encyclopedic' — contexts. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apropos "this is not specifically about sexual abuse"

Agreeing with your concern, Chris. In my experience with multisystem trauma medicine, it's certainly recognized that patients may have retrograde amnesia about the key events. Sometimes, there's some clinical importance to getting the best possible understanding of a forgotten memory of flying around in a tumbling car; recollections of the exact circumstances and mechanism complement examination and imaging in the treatment plan.

In other cases, especially when the retrograde amnesia is prolonged and interferes with activities of daily living, psychotherapists may well get involved in the rehabilitation.

I'll simply note that I have never heard the term "recovered memory" used in these context, or in stress prevention debriefings for emergency workers and combat veterans. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So maybe the term is specific to sexual abuse? And a small circle of professionals at that? Or possibly a new upcoming term? It certainly "seems" to be a general term from my perspective of ignorance. Chris Day 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the references cited in this article seem to address recovered memories other than sexual abuse too, which is why I assumed it was a more general term. Chris Day 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Without judging the merits, the term seemed to come into use in a legal context, associated with child abuse allegations. I've just glanced through several trauma medicine textbooks and it doesn't appear. My guess is that it's more legal and the applications of social science to law.

Gareth should have the definitive word here, but my impression is that the more general literature focuses on amnesia and the treatment of amnesias from traumatic, organic brain damage, chemical, and other etiologies. This article should certainly have amnesia and memory as parents. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]] Please note that I am in no way denying that children are abused. I question is why the article does not address traumatic amnesia secondary to combat, adult accidents, and experiences of rescuers. I question when the article addresses therapy, it seems to emphasize evidence-gathering rather than treatment.

Certainly in war-related PTSD, the gold standard of treatment is cognitive behavioral therapy, possibly with pharmacologic adjuncts. There are other, more experimental, psychodynamic methods such as EMDR and EFT. In none of these is recovery of the memory the goal, but the management of feelings triggered from things that remind the patient, even indirectly, of the trauma.

What is this article really about? Perhaps traumatic amnesia needs to be in its own article, and the references that only discuss traumatic amnesia need to go there. There are articles on stress disorders and their treatment. Are recovered memory techniques primarily forensic or therapeutic? I can't tell. The sources seem to focus on what was recovered, not what the recovery did or did not do for the patient.

If it is therapeutic, why is this article not clearly linked to other articles on stress disorders, or even merged into them? If it is forensic, why not make it clear? There do seem to be quite a few articles on topics related to cult and ritual abuse, and I cannot help but think this article is here to reinforce them.

Again, there is general discussion, but the preponderance of the examples are from children, and, of those, sexual abuse. The examples include both cases where the abuse was, and was not, validated. Do note that I am in no way denying the existence of traumatic injury.

Many of the examples below only mention the amnesia, a subset mentions recovery by undefined means

• Porter: childhood animal attack
• Brandon: childhood sexual abuse
• Kihlstrom: childhood sexual attack
• Widom: "childhood victimization"
• Williams: child sexual abuse
• Chu: childhood abuse
• Duggal: childhood sexual trauma
• The Recovered Memory Project: "traumatic childhood abuse are said to have been corroborated." (not in title)
• Van: childhood trauma
• Corwin: child sexual abuse
• Sheflin and Brown: "CSA" removed twice as apparent essay, not peer-reviewed scientific paper
• Freyd: childhood abuse

No, I don't think it is my job to develop "recovered memory" with respect to other areas of trauma, as my knowledge of trauma medicine and military stress disorders doesn't reveal it being used. I'd like to see a strong case made that recovered memory has a significant role outside the prosecution of child abuse. This article doesn't tell me anything else. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on neurological basis

The difficulty with this section is a) that it puts excessive weight on a few rather old papers and b) it's about PTSD rather than recovered memory. There's no doubt that acute stress affects memory processes, and there are reports of long term structural changes that are generally in line with many other findings. Bremner has several more recent reviews, van der Kalb also. My suggestion is to start an article on PTSD and move the current text there and then update and broaden the coverage? I'll get back on the points aboveGareth Leng 17:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apropos PTSD, I definitely can mention that both in the U.S. military and civilian disaster preparedness, there is much emphasis that not all stress disorders are PTSD; see Posttraumatic stress disorder/Related Articles. There are recognized acute stress syndromes, and at least three MeSH-recognized PSTD types. Recognition of all is very critical, especially the earliest signs of PTSD, where interventions may be most useful. In like manner, while it's controversial (one technique, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing was found harmful for some people), there are proactive methods of dealing with emergency service workers and soldiers who have just gone through a sitution likely to be traumatic. In fire services, for example, it appears there must be time soon after for team discussion and mutual support, in casualty situations and especially when they've lost some of their own. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Editorializing (I think) in a footnote!

Footnote #27 begins, "Consider this, skeptics of recovered memory...." Do my eyes (and brain) deceive me, but isn't that a clear exhortation to "skeptics" to straighten up and fly right? Or am I misreading something innocent? Hayford Peirce 22:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the link reports temporarily available, and looks like it might be paid content. That seems to be the title of the article, however, and rather strongly makes the point that appearing in a journal doesn't mean it was peer-reviewed. Journals certainly have editorials.

Occasionally, when dealing with current politicomilitary matters, I may on rare occasion quote a reputable editorial commentator who appears to be confirming a primary document, but that is an extremely rare need. Some other references may also be opinion pieces; their validity as sources really needs close examination if there is scientific content. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the medical people here ought to look at this footnote and decide if it's worthy of inclusion. Hayford Peirce 23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, it may be moot. Clicking on the note gives "informaworldTM is currently experiencing some technical difficulties, which we are working to fix. We apologise for this downtime and hope to restore access to the site as soon as possible." It appears to be a publisher site, so if it's paid content, there would have to be an awfully good argument to have it at all.

Second, look at it in context "and in some cases recovered memories of traumatic childhood abuse are said to have been corroborated.[27]"  ??? "said to have been corroborated" ??? what kind of assurance does that give?

On hunting around for the text, it's by a political science professor. Here's a secondary quote from [3]

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 8(2). 141-160 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Consider This, Skeptics of Recovered Memory - Ross E. Cheit - Department of Political Science - Brown University - Some self-proclaimed skeptics of recovered memory claim that traumatic childhood events simply cannot be forgotten at the time only to be remembered later in life. This claim has been made repeatedly by the Advisory Board members of a prominent advocacy group for parents accused of sexual abuse, the so-called False Memory Syndrome Foundation. The research project described in this article identifies and documents the growing number of cases that have been ignored or distorted by such skeptics. To date, this project has documented 35 cases in which recovered memories of traumatic childhood events were corroborated by clear and convincing evidence. This article concludes with some observations about the politics of the false memory movement, particularly the tendency to conceal or omit evidence of corroboration. Several instances of this vanishing facts syndrome are documented and analyzed.

Maybe it's a personal prejudice, but as soon as I see an author say "so-called", I stop reading as an assessment of his or her ability to write. If the citation above is accurate, it's a political statement. What is it doing in an article supposedly about science?' I'd pull it out, and check to see if any other of the sources are political opinion and yank them.

Just out of interest, I went to the journal site [4], and found it has both peer-reviewed and "essay" content. The next, #28, does look like a true research paper, but I'm just looking at the first page on Questia. Maybe more source checking is in order here; essays and editorials from scientific journals need to be clearly identified.

If someone wants to do an article about the politics of this matter, it might belong there. Otherwise, Howard C. Berkowitz 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie, so why *don't* you pull it out? Hayford Peirce 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do so; just be around for the expected complaints. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be your back. Not as a Constable -- this is just an author's editing, as per the way a Wiki is supposed to work. Hayford Peirce 02:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been reverted, with some additional argumentative text.

I'm not sure if this can be solved without E-I-C intervention. Nevertheless, I'm about to take a bold step for readability: wherever there are multiple consecutive citations, I'm going to move them to a bibliography subpage. They won't be lost, and I will even keep them in groups. Right now, however, there are so many citations that it's impractical to go through and find any "essays." Howard C. Berkowitz 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I moved the reference to another more appropriate section, using a different idea from the article. This is not a revert. It was in a peer reviewed journal. Neil Brick 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just having looked at the bibliography, there seems to be confusion about the purpose of that subpage. It's fairly unreadable, first because of unneeded indentation, and second because it's a mass of abstracts, not "annotated in a user friendly manner" as called for by the page. I will put things in a separate section. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Gareth was/is using it as a storage zone for papers he found in a pubmed/medline search. Chris Day 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, nothing is lost. I reformatted the first, but then just gave up and moved inline cites. Nevertheless, they are in a separate section. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Neil, can you state, with certainty, that the article was peer-reviewed, which is not at all the same as an essay or editorial in a journal that contains peer-reviewed articles? It seems unlikely; the article is by a political scientist but in a psychological journal, and has language rarely found in objective scientific papers. If the article itself is not peer reviewed, and it indeed is described as a "commentary", it has to meet a much, much higher bar. I still recommend it be removed. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It was published in a peer reviewed journal.

PAIS International Peer Reviewed Journals List

http://www.csa.com/factsheets/supplements/paispeer.php

Ethics & Behavior. (1050-8422) http://www.leaonline.com/loi/eb

Their peer review process:

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1050-8422&linktype=44

The burden of proof is for you to prove that a peer reviewed journal does not have peer reviewed articles. Neil Brick 04:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you that, in the discussion that led to the Cold Storage of Extreme Abuse Survey, the Editor-In-Chief made exactly the point that appearance in appearance in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that an individual article was itself peer-reviewed? Quoting from the link you gave, which is not their peer review process but their Instructions to Authors, "Perspectives are occasional essays describing challenging dilemmas in ethics and behavior." Many journals containing peer reviewed articles contain just such opinion papers, which are interesting from the perspective of the editors, but are emphatically not peer-reviewed. The New England Journal Medicine has some of the toughest peer review, but it periodically prints anecdotal Letters to the Editor that may be hysterically funny, but certainly not authoritative ("Thigh Trimmer Tenosynovitis", "A Case of Extreme Hypernatremia in a Young Woman of Mediterranean Origins" (i.e., Lot's Wife), and the detailed surgical report of removing a pediatric group's office manager's tie from the paper shredder come to mind.)

I can, of course, communicate with the journal. If they deny it was peer reviewed, what might that do to credibility of other citations? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the author lists it on his CV as "refereed" - see http://research.brown.edu/pdf/10061.pdf Shamira Gelbman 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent] The editor journal confirmed it went through peer review. I'd be interested to see an impact analysis; I don't think I have access to a database of such.

I was wrong in suspecting it by the title, but I maintain there is no "burden of proof" to establish a paper is peer-reviewed. The E-I-C has stated that appearing in a journal that contains peer-reviewed articles does not guarantee that a given article is peer-reviewed; it is a legitimate question to ask when dealing with controversial material. Impact is still a legitimate issue for any source, including both the quality of journal and how many external papers cite the article. Not all CZ sources need be peer-reviewed, but when they are not, some indication of validity is relevant. A news item from the Washington Post or Christian Science Monitor tends to be a bit more trustworthy than Weekly World News.Howard C. Berkowitz 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope of what U.S. District Courts do.

I thought I changed this sentence before, but, for the record, I just changed:

"A decision in U.S. District Court accepted repressed memories as valid."

to

"A U.S. District Court accepted repressed memories as admissible evidence in a specific case."

In the Federal court system, the District court is the lowest level; it is not an appeals court. While District court decisions may indeed be accepted all the way up to the Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS may decline to review a Circuit Court of Appeals acceptance of a decision and the District level becomes an established precedent for stare decisis, the sentence I changed was confusing at best.

The "Court" accepting can refer to the judge permitting evidence into a jury trial, with the jury decision opposed to that piece of evidence. If it was not a jury trial, and the judge cited that piece of evidence as supporting a decision, a much stronger level of acceptance exists. There is insufficient information in the article to evaluate the interpretation.

On going to the website, more detail becomes apparent. "This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Repressed Memory Evidence." The opinion is about admissibility of evidence, not a decision to accept the evidence. In U.S. legal practice, there is a wide spectrum from rejecting evidence as admissible, to allowing it into trial, to getting a jury decision that does not explain what evidence it considered valid, to a judge-only opinion that may or may not agree with the specific evidence. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Examining some text just reinserted.

The citation of Herman, below, was just added. Let's look at the sentences of the paragraph:

1. Some studies have concluded that recovered memories can occur in victims of trauma[17] and that memories of child sexual abuse and other traumas can be forgotten.[18]
2. Herman stated that "the ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness."[19][20]
3. There is evidence that traumatic memories can be recovered spontaneously.[21][22] and in some cases recovered memories of traumatic childhood abuse are said to have been corroborated.[23][24]

Sentence #2 was inserted, but what does it add to the paragraph other than two consecutive footnotes? Sentences 1 and 3 indeed speak of recovered memory. Sentence 2 speaks, using dramatic language, not of recovered memory, but of traumatic amnesia. How does Sentence #3 build on Sentence #2?

Sentence #2 should go. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just moved some references around to answer some objections about too many references in one place. Herman's work is pivotal to the debate and well researched. As long as her book is included backing the idea stated, I have no objection to its being moved. Neil Brick 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not made it clear that Herman says anything except that traumatic amnesia exists. Sentence 2 does not address recovered memory. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we try a clear English paraphrase of Sheflin and Brown?

Sheflin and Brown are quoted to say:

a total of 25 studies on amnesia for CSA now exist, all of which demonstrate amnesia in a subpopulation; no study failed to find it...no study has surfaced that refutes the dissociative amnesia hypothesis by failing to get reports of inability to voluntarily recall repeated childhood abuse.

Huh? Before the ellipsis, it says (presumably traumatic) amnesia exist in (undefined) subpopulations. The existence of traumatic amnesia is not in dispute here. The dispute is about techniques to recover the traumatic memories.

After the ellipsis, I am simply confused. The "dissociative amnesia hypothesis" is not clearly defined well to know whether refuting it would support, disprove, or be neutral about recovery. After that, I have great difficulty in parsing "failing to get reports of inability to voluntarily recall repeated childhood abuse." Not knowing, or frankly caring because it's not my job to make your argument, what was omitted with the ellipsis, what does this convoluted phrase actually mean?

It rather clearly assumes the existence of "repeated childhood abuse". If I were to assume the reports are of recovering such reports, there needs to be validation:

• they reflected independently verified abuse OR
• the patients recounted their memories of abuse that they had had difficulty in discussing, but without evidence of whether it happened or not

The title of the article, incidentally, "Repressed memory or dissociative amnesia: what the science says", is rather argumentative for a scientific journal, although this is a law journal. One wonders about its review process. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to propose a re-write on the talk page. But let's agree before it is changed. Neil Brick 04:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't work, unless it was the intent of the author to be incomprehensible. I can't propose a rewrite of what I cannot parse.

I raised specific points that I could not determine from reading the quote, points which are highly relevant to the justification to include the text. It clearly wanders and brings in material about traumatic amnesia, but I honestly can't make heads or tails of what it is saying about recovery. On occasion, I have been credited with a reasonably decent ability to read and comprehend English.

Neil, when others tell you not that they disagree, but that they literally can't understand the point, I suggest you consider that your opinion about portraying the author's intent might not be universally accepted. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have simplified it.Neil Brick 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that took out the incomprehensible part, but all that it is left is additional material about the existence of traumatic amnesia. No one is disputing that traumatic amnesia exists. Many are disputing that there are special techniques of recovered memory, distinct from what comes from associations and interaction in conventional psychotherapy. The remaining text does not address the disputed points and should be deleted. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is in a peer reviewed journal citing scientific research. It backs the existence of amnesia in CSA and should stay. There is no requirement that it address a disputed point. Neil Brick 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the first mention of "CSA" in the article, and I really don't understand what the Confederate States of America have to do with recovered memory. If CSA has something to do with the recovery of information affected by traumatic amnesia, such a point is not, in the slightest, made.

I don't know what you mean by "no requirement it address a disputed point." First, one of the requirements of collaborative editing is when other citizens (not "editors"; lower case e is a WP term and a CZ Editor has not ruled) observe something appears irrelevant, simply insisting it must stay is not collaboration. Second, what I meant was that if all it did was establish that traumatic amnesia exists, it's superfluous; no one is disputing the existence of traumatic amnesia. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) Howard -- you made some pertinent points here that *should* be addressed by Neil. However, your manner of presenting them was unprofessional. I would appreciate it if you would reword your comments and reinsert them here. Thanks, Constable Hayford Peirce 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to put a sentence, "Traumatic amnesia, or the suppression of painful memories from any cause, is an accepted concept" into the lead. Those matters are not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether there are specific techniques of memory recovery, as opposed to regular psychotherapy, for things suppressed by traumatic amnesia. It is also strongly disputed that traumatic amnesia, separate from its recovery, is unique to child abuse. Traumatic amnesia is well documented in combat stress, in the experiences of emergency service workers, and in the victims of multisystem physical injuries. The treatment of the the latter three types of patients certainly does include psychological support, but the medical literature in those fields do not address unique "recovery" technique.

In those situations, the standard for treatment of the emotional problem is cognitive behavior therapy, with some experiments with eye motion desensitization reprocessing and emotional freedom techniques. Those techniques do not focus on the details of the memory, but on helping the patient learn to recognize those events that trigger the highly emotional response, and both to desensitize the triggering, and to reassure the patient and damp the panic response that may result from triggering. They are widely used, sometimes with the assistance of drugs during active therapy, for adult victims of rape and other sexual trauma.

These therapies are always interactive, with a therapist usually with additional training, who can cope with extreme reactions to the stimulus. Their techniques try to identify just enough of the memory to characterize its triggering properties, do not try to extract evidentiary material, and their goal is to create a functioning adult or child.

Unfortunately, many of the citations you produce keep coming back to child sexual abuse, and sometime ritual abuse. An apparent overemphasis on these etiologies may be distorting the broader therapeutic issues, and ignoring other types of victims. Bringing satanic and government conspiracies on top dilutes any core message that might establish recovered memory techniques as treatment alternatives. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed groundrules

If we're going to make progress here I think we're going to have to follow some ground rules. I think these must include:

1) We must ensure that the article represents an accurate account of the balance of current scientific opinion, while identifying areas of disagreement. In representing the evidence we should use peer reviewed secondary sources - i.e. peer-reviewed review articles in the academic literature, and not primary studies (unless an exceptional case can be made that a study contains important point that, for an acceptable reason, is not covered in a secondary source). (see Bibliography page). We should prefer reviews in major journals over minor, recent over old, avoid multiple citations to the same authors, and try and cover the span of views they represent. In a disputed field any choice of primary articles will be biased (unless we can make an objective case for notability e.g. by citation count), so we should avoid it. Academic books I think we should include if we can cite a published review (as evidence that it is academically noteworthy, don't care whether the review is favorable or not).

2) We must ensure that it is clear what the opinions of relevant professional bodies are. In representing consensus of professional opinion we must go by formal policy statements. (see external links).

3)The article must be comprehensible to the reader, so any statement in it that is not clearly understandable must be rephrased.

Gareth Leng 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)