Talk:False memory syndrome

Yup, it's plagiarized.

From here TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So time to delete it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought I could use information if it is "copied it from a public domain or similar free resource." The site says "Readers may copy material from this site." If this is wrong, please delete the page. Rationalman (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not that it is wrong, it is more that we prefer to develop our own content, otherwise we would probably just end up as a Wikipedia mirror site. - π 03:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This topis is an obvious fit with us. Would our new friend want to go back to the woodshed and re-write it as something original, and then allow the community to RW-ify it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, give me time to rewrite. Rationalman (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Has not been changed in over a week, and is both lonely and a dead end. On the other hand, it's a real problem that fits well with our mission. I might try to take a whack at it myself. Researcher (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, totally out of my league and I'm not sure how much I buy what is in it. There are many studies that show how easy it is to screw with the memory of full-grown adults, and plenty of cases of extremely improbable sexual abuse claims by children that do not hold water, involving magical powers for both the children and adults involved. (I do not doubt, however, that these are the vast minority of cases-I'm all too familiar with adults and children who have been subjected to this horrible nightmare. I just don't like the idea that it's difficult to screw up and implant these kinds of memories, particularly during the Satanic Panic.) Researcher (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's come along to fix it. This worries me. Researcher (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take a shot at this tonight - if its not better Thursday then get rid of it Hamster (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete?

A random person shows up, throws this up here, claims they will add to it to make it better, and disappears. That user has touched nothing else, other than his own user page. I'm highly suspicious of the content of this page. Researcher (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject is on-mission, but I also don't trust everything this article says, & I really don't like having copy-pasted stuff left around indefinitely. If nobody's going to rewrite it properly, we should either delete it or cut it down to an appropriate stub. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have started False memory syndrome - revised but its going to take longer than I thought :( sorting the good from the crap is gonna take a while. Hamster (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. It seems that both organizations are full of utter crap. Researcher (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

whats policy here on linking out to the original of this article , and making the one here more focused on the crap Hamster (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Researcher (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna move that CAW link to EL section and RW-ify the headers. And I agree we should pare this down and build it back up. ħuman 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamster, that revised thing should be a subpage (/revised) or in userspace, as it is it's in the mainspace. We really need some info on the LC and SMART, if we care to bother about them at all. I think we might just want to ax them, but leave in the one that actually has some content. Thoughts? ħuman 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hamster nevermind I see it's a redirect to here now. We should just delete it... ħuman 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the whole thing is a mess of conflicting opinions by the experts on what is real. Each group has supporters , and the arguments are beyong me. All of it looks credible. I wouldnt object to its deletion, theres nothing definately wooish except maybe the Satanish baby eaters. Hamster (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think each side thinks the other is full of woo. From the Satanic Panic repressed memories to the labelling of "fake" all repressed memories, some people are going to take each side of this and call the other woo. Researcher (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can keep it, but let's strip it down to just things we are confident saying and see where it goes? Perhaps we can section out the pro and con arguers after the intro and leave it at that? ħuman 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

this is actually a subset of recovered or repessed memories, which includes alien abduction, satan worship/ritual sacrifice, child abuse and even into past life experiances. That would make a better article. Hamster (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ħuman 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Title

Should we perhaps move this to recovered memory? I also bumped into this link Recovered Memory at moral panic and these to WP See Wikipedia:Repressed memory and Wikipedia:Recovered memory therapy. at hypnosis. It's also mentioned at satanic ritual abuse, IIRC. ħuman 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) That works Hamster (talk)

Significant rewrite

This is really vague and needs a serious rewrite. However, I would also suggest that pertinent sections from the repressed memory and Satanic panic articles need to be included. False memory syndrome is a misleading term because it's not an illness or a "syndrome." Simply, memory is very malleable and false memory "syndrome" can happen to anyone. The technical term for this in memory is "confabulation." Maybe I can start a new page simply titled "Confabulation" and merge other relevant info from the other articles into that, and then put a link to the confabulation page on the other pages? My undergrad research dealt with memory so I hope I think I can say I can speak with at least an ounce of authority on this topic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)