Talk:Ramona false memory case
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Related
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-05/books/bk-28121_1_sexual-abuse-false-memories-marilyn-van-derbur seems to be about a similar book. I may write about this later... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 28 July 2021
It has been proposed in this section that Ramona false memory case be renamed and moved to Ramona repressed memory case. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Gary Ramona → Ramona repressed memory case – This is clearly a BIO1E who is only known for one thing in his life. The article spends as much time discussing other people as Mr. Ramona (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Should it be "false memory" rather than "repressed memory"? — BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I favor repressed memory as a more neutral title because (as far as I can tell) it has not been conclusively proven that the memories were false. Rublov (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Ramona false memory case: It has certainly not been conclusively proven that "memories" had been "repressed". The trial was about an allegation of false memory generation. A jury agreed with the plaintiff, reaching the conclusion that the so-called memories were false and had been stimulated, not repressed. Usually, on Wikipedia, I think we would consider the jury outcome to be the presumptive conclusion. Even if we don't necessarily want to assume the jury was correct, the case was a false memory case. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say
A jury... reach[ed] the conclusion that the so-called memories were false
, but I do not think that is true. The New York Times saysThe jury foreman, Tom Dudum, a textile company employee, said the jurors had focused mainly on the issue of negligence and had not broadly explored the efficacy of recovered memory or whether or not incest had genuinely occurred.
Rublov (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)- Whatever one of the jurors later said and however the newspaper reported what he said, the jury ruled in favor of the side that said the case involved false memory, not in favor of the side that said the case involved repressed memory. Even if we don't necessarily want to assume the jury was correct, it is certainly not more neutral to call it a repressed memory case than to call it a false memory case. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Moreover, any reading of the articles about false memory and repressed memory (as well as others such as Satanic ritual abuse and McMartin preschool trial) will illustrate the fact that there is a much stronger scientific consensus for existence of false memory than for the existence of repressed memory. Repressed memory is somewhat of a fringe topic. The article about repressed memory starts with "Repressed memory is a controversial, and largely scientifically discredited, claim that ..." — BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I did not realize that. Rublov (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say
- Move to Ramona false memory case: It has certainly not been conclusively proven that "memories" had been "repressed". The trial was about an allegation of false memory generation. A jury agreed with the plaintiff, reaching the conclusion that the so-called memories were false and had been stimulated, not repressed. Usually, on Wikipedia, I think we would consider the jury outcome to be the presumptive conclusion. Even if we don't necessarily want to assume the jury was correct, the case was a false memory case. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- I favor repressed memory as a more neutral title because (as far as I can tell) it has not been conclusively proven that the memories were false. Rublov (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Rublov (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- BarrelProof's suggestion of Ramona false memory case would also be acceptable to me. Rublov (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)