Talk:Repressed memory

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smithzorah (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Smithzorah (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Article highly biased and non-neutral in opposition to the "repressed memory" phenomenon

This article is totally biased and probably violates Wikipedia non-bias policy. Suggest for deletion or integral rewriting. 151.28.184.194 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a 'non-bias policy', see WP:YESBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It does have a "neutral point of view" policy, which is what I am referring to.

And this article is very apparently non-compliant with the neutral point of view policy, as is evident from simply reading it. Instead of simply relating about the sides of the scientific debate, it is evident in favoring one of them. 151.28.184.194 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Do click in the link above. NPOV means that Wikipedia follows the cited sources. When they are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The article currently equates dissociative amnesia with repression, which is misleading. According to the APA and WHO, dissociative amnesia is a well-validated phenomenon, and it is recognized as a factor in the diagnosis of PTSD in the DSM. The article appears to give undue weight to the opinion of McNally, rather than reflecting the consensus of leading mental health authorities. This approach compromises the neutrality of the article and risks spreading medical misinformation. The article should be revised to align with reliable sources and established medical guidelines. 2600:8800:601C:AF00:BD40:57BC:2982:6AB9 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Beneath your hyperbolic prose you might have a point. If so, I encourage you to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles and then add information regarding different perspectives.

Yes, learning how to edit Wikipedia requires time and devoted study. If your response is "I don't have time" then you will need to accept the current state of the article as written by many busy professionals who have taken the time to learn how to edit. Frenzied comments on this talk page will accomplish nothing. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I believe there may have been a misinterpretation of the intent of my comment. My goal was to provide factual support for the original commentator's concerns. I'm not sure what was construed as 'hyperbolic' or 'frenzied', and I do not find those general characterizations constructive.

I appreciate your encouragement to engage with editing, and I'll give it a try. 2600:8800:601C:AF00:E1CB:3722:2B04:E536 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I probably attributed a previous unsigned comment to your unsigned comment. By "unsigned" I mean that you have not registered for the site, so your signature consists of an IP address, rather than a registered nickname. (I use my real name, but that is not required.) At any rate, I apologize for calling your comment hyperbolic and frenzied, and I am glad that you will consider editing. I do think you have a point, e.g., some traumatic experiences are split from conscious awareness and emerge only when the person perceives that it is reasonably safe to recall the experience. When therapists allow for this possibility, but do not pressure patients to remember, some people begin to "remember" what happened. I put remember in quotes to indicate that they have, at some level, intentionally forgotten what occurred, and then choose to recall the traumatic event when they feel safe enough to do so. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 11:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Up to date research removed

Why has the up to date research I added to this page been deleted? Much of the research on this page relies heavily on the research of Loftus and McNally which is no longer current and there is a plethora of new information available. It seems that this is being removed. The article also states that Clinical Psychologists have stopped using the term repressed or recovered memories, which is only true in the sense dissociative amnesia would now be used. The article reads however, that the terms are debunked which is simply not true. NpsychC (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Even the summary relies on information from 1998 - over 25 years ago! NpsychC (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole paragraph needs to go. It is based on a letter that was sent to a court. What kind of evidence base is this? There is so much more up to date information about dissociative amnesia that the way the first three paragraphs were reading was spreading medical disinformation NpsychC (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph I'm referring to in the above comment.

Due to a lack of evidence for the concept of repressed and recovered memories, mainstream clinical psychologists have stopped using these terms. Clinical psychologist Richard McNally stated: "The notion that traumatic events can be repressed and later recovered is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry. It has provided the theoretical basis for 'recovered memory therapy'—the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era." NpsychC (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted for good reason. Poorly cited and written like your own essay. False memories are not "pseudoscience", not to mention the uncited conjecture. I think you need to do a bit more research on how Wikipedia articles are written, especially topics as contentious as this.

Richard McNally is a respected Harvard psychologist, and an expert on the topic.

Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Repressed memories are only appear to be contentious in relation to child abuse. I accept that my contribution may have been written like an essay, but I was so alarmed at how it currently reads as this is medical disinfmormation and emotive language. It does not consider more recent research about dissociative amnesia at all. I will take your feedback on board and try again, though this means deleting some of the current content which I was trying to avoid doing. Please also keep in mind that though McNally is an expert who has contributed much to the field, that does not mean that our understanding of the impacts of trauma cannot evolve as new information becomes available. I, in turn, will research as you suggest how to contribute to wikipedia articles. NpsychC (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the mainstream reliable sources, and those sources are quite clear that this is a discredited concept. Most of your charges are unsourced or not properly sourced - relying on sources that are not actually about this topic to try to exrapolate a point not actually supported by the cited source - see WP:OR (particularly WP:SYN) for details. You must gather consensus support for your changes on this talk page to proceed (see WP:CONSENSUS). Kindly stop repeating the same edits over and over now that you have seen others disagree with them, that is edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The resistance I am experiencing to trying to update this page and the understanding of repressed memories is really alarming. This doesn't seem to be run by those with an understanding of mental health or psychological processes at all. Vulnerable people who might be dealing with dissociation, flashbacks or cognitive intrusions and turn to wikipedia to help them understand if repressed memories might be part of the picture are at risk of being further harmed. The theory of repression is not discredited in the way it reads in the article currently, it has been largely replaced by the term dissociative amnesia which is a valid psychological disorder. This is the current mainstream understanding in psychology. As such, the blockages here are perpetuating misinformation. I am not even seeking to replace the disinformation with up to date understanding, I am merely seeking to show balance. I took on board the feedback from Zenomonoz and updated accordingly. My last edits were significantly different. That is not edit warring. Please reinstate my edits. NpsychC (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Attacking the competence of other editors is unlikely to gather support for your position, see WP:NPA. Wikipedia specifically does not seek 'balance', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Are my comments honestly perceived as an attack? Questioning whether there is the relevant specialist knowledge based on my experience in attempting to create a balanced article hardly feels like an attack... NpsychC (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. Telling people who disagree with you that they don't understand the topic is 100% a personal attack. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologise if my comments have left you feeling personally attacked, I will be more mindful about how I phrase things in the future. Will you restate my edits based on the arguments above? It is important that the information is up to date. NpsychC (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I will not reinstate your edits, as they do not meet Wikipedia's policies for the reasons already explained to you above. Even if I were inclined to do so, I am not the only person who has reverted your edits, broad agreement is necessary to make changes. MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Is the DSM-5-TR not considered a mainstream reliable source? I have in good faith attempted to bring this article up to date and bring in the important concept of dissociative amnesia as an adjunct to the understanding of what repressed memories are. My first round of edits were, admittedly, out of line and I accepted the reversal, but my last ones that you deleted were considered and should meet consensus if people are honestly looking at the edits and the research behind them. NpsychC (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

And I would like to acknowledge that I have probably been like a bull in a china shop, but when I saw Freud's seduction hypothesis at the top but no mention of dissociative/traumatic amnesia I thought the page was relatively dormant and so just dove in to make changes. I am seeking consensus for the edits I have proposed and apologise if I have gone about this the wrong way. NpsychC (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Waiting a bit and then continuing to edit war isn't going to work, your edits do not have consensus support. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. I waited for a response but after not receiving one, I thought it prudent to try again. I am providing information both in the article and on here in order to achieve consensus. The changes I am proposing are important, researched and considered, and I can see I am not the first to try to bring balance to this article. NpsychC (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is required to respond on your schedule - you know that people oppose your edits and nothing has changed. Once again, we do not do 'balance' on Wikipedia. If we did articles such as homeopathy would read very, very differently. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not implying people need to respond on my schedule I was merely responding to your assertion that my waiting was somehow tactical. And how are you comparing homeopathy, which does not have any real scientific evidence, to up to date trauma related information from the American Psychiatric Association and the Lancet Psychiatry? I am merely trying to add to what is already there. Only you are opposing. Zenmonoz made some valid points which I took on board and provided a very different edit. You seem like a very experienced editor on here, but the reasons you are providing do not feel that they respond to my position. NpsychC (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am pointing out, that despite your repeated mentions that you want to 'balance' the article, that is a concept Wikipedia has specifically rejected. You have been opposed by 3 editors in total. They are not required to renew their objections every time you post here. Consensus isn't arrived at by filibuster - it does not belong to whomever speaks last or keeps repeating their edit. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

NpsychiC you have been editing Wikipedia for one day. And it is ONLY this article you are attempting to make major changes to. Have you heard the term "red flag" that is what is happening here. Just because you personally feel the article is outdated and dormant does not mean you can jump in and make changes without discussion and without understanding how editing is done. It is far more than clicking the edit button and making the changes. I have not looked at the changes you are attempting to make, they may be valid ones, I don't know. All I do know is that your attempts to make changes to the article without discussion and without you having some sort of editing history make me wary to look into the changes you want to make.

Either take some time away from this article and spend some time understanding the nuances to editing, or make a reasoned calm argument here on the talk page about exactly what you are attempting to change. Then wait and listen to the responses. Lasting changes only happen when we have had a discussion and have come to a decision. Don't waste your time attempting to make changes to the article, discuss them here. OR walk away and become an editor that is here to improve all of Wikipedia, not just this one article. We really could use some extra hands to help. But what you are doing is not help, it is causing other editors to come here and respond to you when we have other tasks. Just because only a couple editors have responded to you does not mean that many editors have this article on their watchlist and we are reading and watching the changes. Sgerbic (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I was not aware that a lack of editing history would be a factor in presenting information, but it makes sense that I would seem like an upstart who is trying to bullying my submissions in (or as you say a red flag). That was not my intention. I really do want to have a conversation about the updates I am proposing and bring this article into line with current understanding as people have memories that were previously out of awareness return for may trauma related reasons and I simply want a wiki search to provide up to date information. The article as it reads states that this has been discredited and that simply isn't true. For yourself and for other editors who are viewing this page, please just look at the resources I am providing and look at my most recent edits, rather than just blocking the edits. This also happened to the last person who tried to bring in more recent understanding about memory. I appreciate that you are busy and are across many articles, but this is an important update. NpsychC (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Two editors were responding to my first edit which I have admitted was substandard and I made significantly different changes taking on board the feedback I received. My recent edits and the attempt to bring the language in to line with current psychological understanding of memory are being blocked without good reason as far as I can see. This is correcting misleading information, using evidence, not trying to create false balance. Are you familiar with the diagnostic criteria for Dissociative Amnesia that is in the DSM-5 (pages 298-302)? NpsychC (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar, yes. But the sources you are citing (such as the DSM) do not actually support the changes you are making. You are extrapolating from those sources to make claims about Repressed memory which are simply not present in the citations. This is basic Wikipedia stuff - I linked you to WP:NOR above. I suggest you have another look at it. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, everyone thinks that they have good reasons and the people on the other side do not. Put yourself in other people's shoes and look at what you're doing here. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe my changes fall under WP:NOR. Repressed memory was the term used in the literature in the 1980's, 1990's and maybe early 2000's to explain the phenomena of how memory may be out of awareness for a period of time. Advances in memory and in understanding of how the mind deals with trauma, means that it is now often explained in the literature by dissociative amnesia. I don't just think I have good reasons, I'm bringing evidence based research so that we can have a robust discussion about the information contained in the article. To say that repressed memory has been discredited is misleading and I am only attempting to bring a more neutral point of view. NpsychC (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You are bringing citations which do not make the same connections you are making on the talk page or in the article. You are of course welcome to believe what you like, but you're not welcome to keep trying to force in these changes over the objections of others. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, we've been monopolizing this talk page for a while. I plan to decrease my rate of replies significantly. Do not take silence to indicate I consent to your changes. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, article number 8 directly links repressed memories to dissociative amnesia, and I am sure other articles do also. But if I try to edit again that will be seen as edit warring. So what do I do to gain consensus? NpsychC (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate your time even if I don't agree with your comments. If you can let me know what to do from here that would be appreciated as my edits are just totally blocked without any meaningful discussion about the actual information I am seeking to revise. NpsychC (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Would it be better to submit one bit of edited text at a time so that each edit can be explained and either accepted or not based on its merits? And is there another process by which to discuss any changes to the article if it seems like I am monopolizing this space? NpsychC (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Would it be better to submit one bit of edited text at a time No. And is there another process by which to discuss any changes to the article not really, no. If you can let me know what to do from here you can wait and see if someone new arrives on this talk page and agrees with you after reading the above discussion. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again for your time. NpsychC (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Repressed memories are only appear to be contentious in relation to child abuse. No, they are also "contentious" (actually: rejected by science) when people remember being abducted by aliens, when they remember having been part of Satanic rituals, when they remember earlier lives or later lives, and when they remember actually being immortal aliens themselves. There is no reason why the same techniques should give reliable memories in one application and unreliable ones in the others. Wikipedia just follows what the science says, and it will not just accept the claims of fans of specific repressed memories.

Regarding "studies": pretty much every pseudoscience has studies backing it up. You need higher-level evidence that summarizes all the relevant studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It is important to make the distinction between people who have psychosis and those with PTSD for whom dissociative amnesia may be part of their clinical presentation. I am not stating that people do not have erroneous beliefs (aliens, previous lives etc.), what I am saying is that this wiki article is misleading as it suggests that the process of delayed recall for traumatic events is 'scientifically discredited' and conflates delusions with recovered memory. The information about aliens is also based on research from 1994 unless you are aware of something more recent? Conflating alien abduction with with disclosures of child abuse is also highly questionable given that the World Health Organisation current states that 18% of girls and 7.6% of boys will experience sexual abuse before the age of 17, while there are few reports of alien abduction. I am also not presenting pseudoscience, I am presenting current scientific literature in the form of peer-reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals. There seems to be a real resistance to considering new and up-to-date evidence though and I am curious to understand why. There is also a significant imbalance in expectations when I am presenting information from scientific journals, and this is called pseudoscience, while the whole entire third paragraph is based on a 20-year old letter that has not been peer-reviewed, albeit by a well-respected proponent of false memories. In Dodier's (2018) bibliometric analysis (systematic review) of the recovered memory literature and demonstrates that recovered memory is still a contentious issue in the literature. I can understand people have strong views on this, particularly given the impact in forensic settings, but the article currently reads like recovered memories are scientifically discredited which is not correct. Please read my next post to understand the changes I am proposing to make to bring this up to date and the scientific evidence for these changes. NpsychC (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

conflates delusions with recovered memory That is what recovered-memory therapists do.

highly questionable given that the World Health Organisation current states This is frankly insulting to everybody who tries to separate between real and fake cases. Whenever someone is accused of child abuse, you could say the same thing with as much (rather, as little) justification as here.

I am also not presenting pseudoscience, I am presenting current scientific literature in the form of peer-reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals That is not contradiction. Pseudoscience has been published in "current scientific literature in the form of peer-reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals" before.

The consensus has not changed. As I said, You need higher-level evidence that summarizes all the relevant studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It is curious to me that presenting data in a robust scientific discussion is interpreted as insulting. Am I right in understanding that the research provided from the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Society, the World Health Organisation and the Applied Cognitive Science Journal are considered pseudoscience?

I agree that it is important to separate out real and fake cases, but how can we do that if we are not even considering both positions articulated in the literature? I have provided an article which summaries the research between 2001 and 2018. Did you look at it before advising that the consensus hasn't changed? It actually shows that there is literature supporting and denying the presence of recovered memories for trauma, including child abuse.

Further down in the wiki article it states the DSM does not list recovered memory therapy as a therapeutic intervention and it is not recommended by mainstream ethical and mental health associations. If you have evidence of this being used to treat patients or being taught anywhere as a therapeutic modality, please provide details because, as you say, this would risk the formation of false memories and could possibly lead to wrongful incarceration.

I respectfully ask that you provide evidence for your assertions in the same way that is being demanded of me. The standard being asked of me is actually much higher than some of the research that is currently in the article (eg. the 20 year old letter referred to above, 30 year old research). I am not the first person to try to bring this article up to date and prevent Wikipedia being responsible for medical disinformation.

Once again I am not seeking to take down all the research critical of recovered memories, merely show there are differing positions in the literature.

Please see the thread I have started below for a detailed outline of the changes I am seeking consensus on. NpsychC (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It is curious to me that presenting data in a robust scientific discussion is interpreted as insulting. This is dishonest. Not "presenting data" is insulting, but your rhetorical tactic of denigrating opposition to your own dubious claims by insinuating that that opposition is somehow opposition to the reality of sexual abuse. I will now stop feeding you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for amendments

I am seeking consensus for amendments. I have started a new thread for clarity and am seeking collaboration on the following changes I would like to make:

1) Removal of the links at the top of the article to Freud's Seduction Hypothesis and Recovered Memory Therapy, and replaced with Dissociative Amnesia. Dissociative Amnesia is a better link than seduction hypothesis or recovered memory therapy as these are not current issues associated with the discourse around traumatic memory, or even false memory. Open to thoughts on this though. In combination with keeping Repression this would reflect current contentions in the literature.

2) In the American Psychological Society Handbook of Trauma Psychology, Barlow et al (2017) argue that people who experience trauma can recover memories of this trauma. This is also a position posited by Chu, Frey, Gandal and Matthews (1999), Radulovic, Lee and Ortony (2018) and Staniloiu and Markowitsch (2012). Full references can be provided. The best current explanation for memories that are later remembered is remittance of dissociative amnesia. This is a diagnosable medical condition put forward by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5-TR, 2022). The idea that memories were repressed reflects the discourse and understanding at the time when the majority of the research in this article was published, but the idea of repression as a psychological process is no longer held by all psychological modalities. It is misleading to state that repressed memories are largely scientifically discredited as it implies that memories that have a delayed recall have been scientifically discredited. The words 'and largely scientifically discredited' should therefore be removed from the first sentence. I also propose that the term dissociative amnesia be introduced so that the distinction between a repressed memory, and the idea that a memory may be unavailable for a period of time, is clear (ie. the difference between the lay term repressed memory and the psychological mechanism of repression). This would require rewording of parts of the 2nd paragraph.

3) In the 3rd paragraph it states that mainstream clinical psychologists have stopped using the concept of repressed or recovered memories. This is not backed up by evidence in the text and once again reads like delayed memory retrieval is no longer valid. The resource for this paragraph is a letter written by a clinical psychologist to the courts twenty years ago, not a peer reviewed article. This whole paragraph is also inflammatory and conflates recovered memory therapy with repressed memories.

I am pressing this issue as Wikipedia is the first point of call for many people and so it is important that the information is right. As Loftus and McNally have shown, people can develop memories that are false. The research above, and the inclusion of dissociative amnesia in the DSM, also demonstrates that dissociative processes can result in a lack of access to memories in circumstances where there has been trauma. This is commonly referred to as repressed memory. Please ask if you would like further clarification for my position or research that supports this as it is important that this article is clear and allows for updated information. NpsychC (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see Dodier (2018) 'A bibliometric analysis of the recovered memory controversy in the 21st century' from the Applied Cognitive Science Journal for further evidence of the need to state that this is a contentious issue and not a discredited scientific theory. Posting this here in response to academic criticism on my above post that higher level research is needed. This criticism is not taken personally, robust discussion is welcome if it is grounded in peer reviewed evidence. I do apologise if I am somehow being offensive, but my errors in trying to update this article do not undermine the research I am presenting or where the current discourse in the the fields of psychiatry, psychology and sociology. It is important that Wikipedia is up to date with current research so that it reflects a neutral point of view, rather than the view put forward in the first three chapters. NpsychC (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. As for Dodier, that's a primary source, and we know the French are big on Freud. There is nothing in his research that provides tangible support for repressed memory. The inclusion of various dissociative disorders in the DSM is extremely controversial, and some DSM chairs have attempted to delete them (e.g. Allen Frances). That's the nature of wars within psychiatry, but that is not evidence. Dissociative identity disorder remains in the DSM, despite the fact that most psychiatrists think it is sociogenic, and fuelled by it's continued validation as an organic phenomena by a minority of true believers. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI

User:NpsychC has opened a Dispute resolution case here, listing only themself as an involved user. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

WOW! I just looked at NpsychC's edit history. Looks like they are passionate about this subject. Sgerbic (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sgerbic. I am passionate about misinformation when it comes to mental health as it has the potential to do a lot of harm. NpsychC (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It feels like these discussions have stalled and the quality does not reflect the quality of a discussion about an area as important as mental health. Can we have a meaningful discussion about the changes I have proposed? And by meaningful, I mean a discussion about the content without conjecture and drawing parallels without providing evidence. NpsychC (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The quality of discussion does tend to suffer when one implies that others are spreading misinformation and doing harm. For what it's worth, I don't think that a meaningful discussion could proceed without taking on board the WP:OR problems pointed out above, which have been addressed by simple denials rather than in any meaningful way. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If we can come back to the research, is your position that the American Psychiatric Association DSM-5, the American Psychological Association and scientific articles from the Lancet would be considered WP:OR? With respect MrOllie, are you actually reading my arguments and the research I am presenting? You keep using WP:OR and it isn't really making sense.... NpsychC (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The question you are asking reveals that you haven't really understood what is meant by WP:OR. The sources themselves are not OR (no source ever is), your application of them to support arguments not actually in those sources is. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where my argument is not supported in the literature? What argument exactly as I have proposed a number of changes. NpsychC (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, one obvious one is that you keep bringing up the DSM-5 to make points about repressed memory, when the words 'repressed memory' do not actually appear anywhere in the DSM-5. MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All the references I have included have been explained in the proposal above for the changes that would bring this article up to date. The DSM wouldn't use the term 'repressed' as that reflects thinking in the literature from over 20 years ago. The current explanation is dissociative amnesia and the other references speak to this change in the psychological literature. This was why I included Dodier in response to this criticism. Is there anything in my proposal that is hard to understand? It is a complex area, but repressed memory needs to be delineated from recovered memory, and dissociative amnesia added to bring it into 2024. NpsychC (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Dissociative amnesia" is just as controversial as repressed memory, and is in many ways serves as a substitute diagnosis. Just because something is included in the DSM does not automatically make it scientifically valid or true. Hypothetical disorders may be included purely because they cannot be definitively ruled out. We know psychiatry is prone to fads, and the dissociative disorders are the most controversial ones.

Wikipedia discusses the claims of both proponents and skeptics. Given the dissociative disorders are rooted in unfalsifiable Freudian theory about mind and memory, they are not going to get much backing in the scientific community. Wikipedia is going to reflect that. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Zenomonoz, for providing some debate about the content and up to date research to support this. The article you provided states in its abstract "that the controversial issue of repressed memories is alive and well and may even be on the rise". This reads that it is a controversial topic, not a scientifically discredited one. The first three paragraphs of the article I am seeking to update does not reflect this. Memory, and particularly the impact of trauma on memory, is a complex area, so it is not surprising there is contention in the literature and that research is continually evolving so that our understanding continues to be updated. People (such as the authors of the reference you provided) may dispute that dissociative amnesia exists, but it is in the DSM which has a rigorous scientific process behind it which strengthens it's validity. NpsychC (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dissociative disorders do have the backing of the scientific community, that is what the DSM-5 and journals like the Lancet Psychiatry Journal are. That there is contention, is right. This conversation likely won't be productive if current scientific evidence is going to be ignored or dismissed, particularly if the counter-evidence is a magazine article or a blog. Psychological science is different to other sciences as understanding is constantly evolving and there are often contradictory positions, as articulated in the Otgaar et al journal article you provided. All I am seeking is for the article to reflect this. NpsychC (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, your comment reads like trolling. We have already clarified repressed memory is not in the DSM, and this is an article on repressed memory. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

These are direct quote from the article you provided that draws the links between repressed memory and dissociative amnesia, advising that they are the same concept:

Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.” and

"We contend, on the basis of striking parallels in definitions, that skeptical arguments against repressed memories should apply with equal force to dissociative amnesia. More specifically, definitions of both dissociative amnesia and repressed memory share the idea that traumatic or upsetting material is stored, becomes inaccessible because of the trauma, and can later be retrieved in intact form."

The literature is littered with these links. Please don't accuse me of trolling. NpsychC (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what that changes. You haven't successfully convinced anybody here to change the state of the lead. The article already discusses the beliefs of proponents in the very first paragraph. That's how this goes. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It discusses the beliefs of proponents but conflates repressed memory with recovered memory and suggests the concept of a recovered memory is discredited (using evidence from 1994) and is not used by clinical psychologists (without any evidence). This is different from the idea that repression is no longer considered the mechanism by which memories that were out of awareness might become available again (remittance of dissociative amnesia). I am finding it difficult to see how we are going to get anywhere on this talk page. People are frustrated and taking my attempts to debate the science personally. It is taking a great deal of my time to keep explaining the science and it is wearing to have to deal with the accusations that are being levelled at me (trolling, insulting, edit warring). NpsychC (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The DSM wouldn't use the term 'repressed' as that reflects thinking in the literature from over 20 years ago. The current explanation is dissociative amnesia and the other references speak to this change in the psychological literature. <---- This is the OR I'm talking about. The plain text of the DSM doesn't support the changes you want to make, so you're building logical reasoning on top of that and/or trying to pull in other sources in combination. That's what OR is. A synthetic example: If citation A wrote 'Eating green things is good for you' and citation B wrote 'Grass is green' I could not then use them to write 'Eating grass is good for you' on Wikipedia. Citations must directly support changes. MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of Historical Context

Hello,

I read this article and thought it seemed inaccurate in some parts, and I checked the talk page and read through the long discussion regarding it. I am not a Wikipedia editor (sorry if I'm doing this wrong), but I think it may help with the perceived bias if historical context were added to the article summary.

By historical context, I mean the context of the Satanic panic and hypnosis. "Repressed memories" is a vague concept that can refer to different things. The DSM lists several disorders that can cause memories to be repressed and are not controversial. In the context of the Satanic panic, however, the repressed memories in question were the result of being heavily coerced by therapists/social workers. There is a large distinction between a completely healthy child suddenly recovering memories of sexual abuse when prompted with leading questions by a therapist and someone with severe dissociation not being able to remember traumatic experiences. However, these concepts could both be referred to as "repressed memories" by a layman. (Opinionated so probably irrelevant, but I'd argue that the fact that false memories can be implanted with relative ease actually supports the idea that memories can be repressed as well; I was taught this in psychology class, so I don't think it's too out-there of a theory.)

The article reads like it's saying amnesia after traumatic events is "largely discredited," which is false. That is how I originally read it, and seems to also be the reading that sparked the discussion over changing it. I think clarifying the difference between outdated, Satanic panic-era repressed memory theory and modern theory on dissociation would prevent this misunderstanding. 2601:483:4B80:F480:1630:BE1B:2DCB:6AAF (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It is largely discredited. Even the modern rebranding of this (at the separate article Dissociative amnesia) is itself disputed. Wikipedia follows the mainstream scientific sources on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Dissociative amnesia is disputed by some, but still largely accepted and given as a diagnosis. One of the sources cited in the article on dissociative amnesia (The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma) itself states "58% (n = 64) of PhD-level clinicians, 71% (n = 74) of PsyD-level clinicians, and 60% (n = 43) of MSW-level clinicians agreed that repressed memories are genuine." Since a significant majority of clinicians believe it true, it seems that the validity of repressed memories is the mainstream belief. As for the claim that the mainstream scientific sources support the idea that repressed memories are invalid, the sources seem to be largely sources from one psychologist. If it is genuinely the mainstream belief, it should be easy to find sources other than Richard McNally.

It is extremely easy to find various papers supporting dissociative amnesia. So yes, it is disputed, but the psychological community is largely split on that and leans towards it being valid. This article leans very strongly towards a perspective that is disagreed with by a majority of psychologists.

As an aside: The article cited in the Dissociative amnesia article doesn't fully support the article's claim. The article defines dissociative amnesia and psychogenic amnesia as synonyms in the first sentence, and then cites "Dispelling Confusion About Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia" as a source for the claim "the concept [of dissociative amnesia/psychogenic amnesia] is scientifically controversial and remains disputed." However, "Dispelling Confusion About Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia" itself states:

"Psychogenic Amnesia Is Not Traumatic Dissociative Amnesia

"Psychogenic amnesia is an unusual syndrome characterized by sudden, massive retrograde memory loss that cannot be attributed to physical damage to the brain.¹⁴ The syndrome sometimes emerges after the person has experienced a stressful event, but these events are often relatively mundane (eg, romantic disappointment). Whether a retrospectively identified stressor that preceded the onset of amnesia was, in fact, its cause is also unclear.

"Psychogenic amnesia should not be confused with a selective inability to remember a specific traumatic event.^1pp186–189 Psychogenic amnesia involves complete memory loss, including loss of one's personal identity. Fortunately, it rarely lasts for more than a few weeks, usually remitting without therapeutic intervention. Finally, it is termed psychogenic amnesia not because we know it has a psychological cause, but because we have not identified an organic cause."

Considering a majority of clinicians believe it exist, and at least one of the sources cited by the article are not in agreement with what they're actually talking about, it seems extremely overconfident to state it is disputed by mainstream sources. 2601:483:4B80:F480:1630:BE1B:2DCB:6AAF (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

All of that is discussion for the Dissociative amnesia. This talk page is for Repressed memory, which is for an older term that is applied to fully discredited concepts. But if you go there, do read WP:MEDRS first. The papers you have linked here do not meet Wikipedia's standards for medical sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is for dissociative amnesia, but the terms are frequently used interchangeably. I think the current state of the two articles, with "repressed memory" being spoken of as largely discredited and "dissociative amnesia" as just controversial but still commonly given as a diagnosis is contradictory and confusing. I would go as far as to say they shouldn't be entirely separate articles and "repressed memory" in should be a section of "dissociative amnesia," but I'm not sure of the protocol for merging articles and wouldn't want information to be deleted.

Like I said in my first post, I think the best course of action to avoid confusion would be to clarify that many cases of repressed memories during the Satanic panic were pseudoscientific and now considered invalid, but the larger concept of repressed memories in dissociative disorders is controversial but still supported by many psychologists and the APA and WHO (considering it is in the DSM and ICD and not considered for removal as far as I know). Retroactively (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not supported by the cited sources, though. We cannot 'clarify' in a way that does not reflect the sources. See WP:OR, WP:V. These are core policies on Wikipedia. And the DSM and ICD do not use the term 'repressed memory' or repressed memories', precisely because the concept was poisoned by pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Another source

This might be a potentially good source, access here. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Capstone Seminar in Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 28 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anewman24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Will2319.

— Assignment last updated by Crupi598 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop adding Jesse Friedman to this article

Maybe I should have been more clear, that is on me. To be quick, Nassau County actually completed the conviction integrity review that the Second Circuit, viewable here: https://web.archive.org/web/20141020120722/http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/NewsReleases/2013/documents/Conviction-Integrity-Review-People-v-Jesse-Friedman-FINAL.pdf. Here is a relevant quote:

"Findings Of Fact: Jesse Friedman’s Principal Claims Do Not Demonstrate a Reasonable Probability That He Was Wrongfully Convicted Insufficient evidence exists to support any of the exculpatory arguments advanced by Jesse Friedman and his counselors in his appeal to the Second Circuit. Specifically:

• There is no evidence that improper police questioning materially tainted the investigation (page 64): Though several witnesses described “aggressive” police questioning, none of the witnesses with whom the Review Team spoke described—and no evidence establishes—that police suggestion permeated the case and influenced witnesses to incriminate Arnold or Jesse Friedman in criminal sexual conduct.

• The Review Team found no credible evidence that hypnosis was used on any complainant (page 77): The only witness to recall being hypnotized was not, in fact, hypnotized. All physicians associated with the case recall that any hypnosis used was performed only after the indictments were filed, on a limited number of non-complainants, and with no effect. Further, though group therapy undoubtedly took place, evidence and interviews prove that it began only after all grand jury testimony concluded.

• Jesse Friedman’s plea was not a product of undue coercion (page 82): The record amply demonstrates that Jesse played a central role in his own defense, received competent and thorough legal advice, and balanced his options intelligently, before entering his guilty plea. Further, the record does not support the claim that Judge Boklan improperly coerced his guilty plea.

• The Friedman case is distinguishable from the “moral panic” cases of the 1980s (page 91): Though the 1980s were spotted with some fantastical, factually impossible claims of sexual abuse, this case does not readily fit that paradigm. Here, the defendants pled guilty; the complainants were of comparatively older ages; the allegations were realistic; the investigation more reliable; and the acts were entirely consistent with those of an admitted pedophile." (pp.63-64)

P.S. No idea where the claim about ordering all previous convictions be reviewed comes from. That is not in the original source.

P.P.S I used the archive.org link because Nassau County geoblocks its .gov site. Why?? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear the first two times.

The Second Circuit was wrong. The judges took Capturing The Friedmans, a poor excuse of a documentary, as fact. They were the ones who made DA Kathleen Rice et al. write the report cited above.

Here's a secondary source saying exactly that:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299732.2022.2028221#d1e137

@Danmakusaur please read it this time. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's a compromise. Please discuss here. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie I would prefer to remove Jesse from the article entirely as off-topic, but come on. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

'come on' is not much of a justification for reverting back content you agree is off-topic. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie What I meant is that it is rude to go through another user's edits and revert the parts you disagree with.

p.s Friedman isn't a repressed memory case. They disclosed as children. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation. Do you have any evidence that I've done that? I remind you that this article has been on my watchlist since I first edited it around 3 years ago. MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

At any rate, I strongly object to maintaining a lengthy off topic digression in the article - which even you apparently do not agree should be here. I have returned the article to the longstanding version from before recent changes, since those changes lack the required consensus support of other editors (see WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS). MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie That version failed verification. Reverting two versions back. Don't touch anything, I know a source for that citation needed tag. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Just butting in to state that you can't just tell an editor to "not touch anything". All content can be edited upon, especially if it is problematic. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@BillionDollarJanitor, please stop reverting and start discussing. It is unclear what you're even attempting to do at this point - you're revert warring to keep in content on one hand and saying it ought to be deleted on the talk page. Slow down and let's figure out what the actual problem is and how to address it. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie Fine. My points of contention are:

1. 1 Is the Friedman case a repressed memory case? (according to anyone except Jesse's lawyers)
2. 2 Does Friedman v Rehal say that? (in reference to all cases being overturned)
3. 3 Is Friedman v Rehal even reliable? It cites Capturing the Friedmans a lot, which left out an entire third defendant.

BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie Fine. My points of contention are:

1. 1 Is the Friedman case a repressed memory case? (according to anyone except Jesse's lawyers)
2. 2 Does Friedman v Rehal say that? (in reference to all cases being overturned)
3. 3 Is Friedman v Rehal even reliable? It cites Capturing the Friedmans a lot, which left out an entire third defendant.

BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources connecting the case to repressed memory. Remember, we are supposed to be following the sources on Wikipedia, not making personal judgments about whether they are correct or not. Besides the appeals court and the Times Ledger article cited over at the main article on the case/documentary, it is easy to find news media commenting on this (Slate is just one example]) as well as as few academic sources (), so sourcing really isn't a problem.

I agree that we should not cite court documents or judgments directly. I would support using the current/long term stable paragraph, or something very like it, with updated sources.

We do have to keep it to only a short statement which is relevant to the topic of this article, though. A lengthy multi-paragraph digression of various reports and legal maneuvers is off topic for this particular article. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Both the news articles either cite Jarecki directly or cite the appeals court which cites Jarecki.

Your "academic" source is not peer reviewed and written by the advocacy group trying to overturn the conviction. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's a source that is peer reviewed. One complainant alleged hypnosis. He did not know what hypnosis was. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheit is a political scientist. He's pretty far outside his field on this one. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

He's also a lawyer, and has been publishing on this topic for 3 decades at this point. He knows what he is talking about. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows what he is talking about when he talks about vaccines. He does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

What reporting or primary source a secondary news report is based on is largely irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. This was important enough that independent sources took note and covered it, so we should summarize that coverage - but only as it relates to the article topic at hand. MrOllie (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I continue to object to adding more about the Friedman case than we already have. Waiting a while and then resuming edit warring is not a substitute for gaining consensus support on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Article heavily biased, and is an outdated duplicate of Dissociative Amnesia

For starters: I'm someone with at the very least one deeply traumatizing, repressed memory that was decades later confirmed by the person involved. That's my anecdotal, personal motivation to write.

This article heavily omits that most skeptical articles seem to be driven by the motivation that defining and confirming the existence of repressed memories is very shaky and therefore hard to use in legal, mostly criminal settings, and also tend to heavily focus on CSA. While there are indeed lots of mentions of criminal cases in it, it reads as if the phenomenon would have been already debunked - which it is most definitely not (see at the very least: Callus et. al 2024). The cited Dodier et al. 2024 article did not say it doesn't exist, it said there are several possible dynamics behind what people may understand under 'repressed memories'. Brewin et. al 2016 showed that in order for people to create false memories, certain conditions have to be present, and its prevalence is still low.

Furthermore, it's a duplicate, as dissociative amnesia is basically the later term for the same phenomenon that people used to call 'repressed memories', which - based on the other talking pages - everyone knows is an actual diagnosis in both the DSM V and the ICD. Salkeld et. al: 'Same concept, different label', 2025. McNally may have been a prominent researcher of the topic in the previous decades, but his current work (McNally: The Return of Repression?, 2023) seems to be suffering from heavy confirmation bias, and snarky, condescending attitude towards anyone who dares to question his decades old conclusions. His own view on PTSD is especially troublesome, as if people would get PTSD from someone explaining it to them that what happened to them in the past was bad: "Although sexual molestation is always morally reprehensible, some people report not understanding what was happening during episodes of abuse and, therefore, not experiencing the terror of trauma. But when they recall the experience after years of not having thought about it, many experience PTSD symptoms when they understand their experience through the eyes of an adult as sexually abusive." This is not how PTSD or C-PTSD works.

I can see that a lot of work has been put into this page, but it's stance on it is very damaging and is actively being used to discredit people who are trying to work through deeply traumatic past experiences. At the very least it should make it abundantly clear that the concept is disputed - and not at all debunked.

I have never edited a Wikipedia page before, and I also saw the heavy resistance towards accepting any and all editing suggestions towards making this page actually neutral. So for now, I will not invest a whole bunch of time to suggest corrections, unless the attitude towards the neutrality changes. ~2026-30809-65 (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

'Repressed memory' is an outdated concept - an article which is clear about that is not itself outdated, it is reflecting the best available current sourcing. It's a relic of the Satanic panic. People involved in it have in fact been discredited - not by Wikipedia, but by the relevant sources. Again, Wikipedia's job is to accurately reflect that. You seem to have arrived at a common misconception of Wikipedia - that by 'neutrality' the site means 'takes no side' - but that is incorrect (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). 'Neutrality' here means 'accurately reflects the view of the mainstream sources' and this article very much does that.

Some folks have been trying to rehabilitate a similar concept as 'dissociative amnesia', a concept which is itself highly controversial. But those folks don't want to be associated with 'Repressed memory' either, as this term has been poisoned by pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie confirmation bias is not 'accurately reflecting the view of the mainstream sources'. The cited articles in the Wiki page are incorporated in a way that fits the narrative of 'it's disproven', completely missing the nuance that the articles actually conclude and no current research is cited that is constructively and substantially disputes that it doesn't exist.

You doubling down on your narrative and blocking out everyone who points out how you're completely ignoring the other side of the dispute shows that the page is for furthering an agenda, and not objectively writing about two sides of a coin. Kastanienn (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

no current research is cited that is constructively and substantially disputes that it doesn't exist. - This is not a reasonable bar. We do not cherry pick sourcing based on what we think is constructive or substantial. It is also worth noting that discredited concepts rarely get 'current' sourcing from the mainstream because the mainstream moves on once a concept is discredited.

you're completely ignoring the other side of the dispute The mainstream is ignoring the other side, this is an important distinction.

not objectively writing about two sides of a coin. Again, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

PS: You wrote The cited Dodier et al. 2024 article did not say it doesn't exist - I assume you actually mean Deferme et al. where Dodier is a co-author. Here's what it actually says: Memory experts generally agree that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of repressed memories. Despite overwhelming evidence showing that unconscious repressed memories are scientifically questionable, such theories retain popularity in academic, clinical, and legal settings ... Yet, there is no empirical evidence that repressed memory exists. Rather, the evidence that people remember experienced trauma relatively accurately is overwhelming. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You are literally cherry picking the studies and their content to give the impression that it has been disproven. Literally both the DSM V and the ICD have dissociative amnesia (which is just the later term for repressed memories and as others have pointed it out already, has been used interchangeably with 'repressed memory') as a diagnosis, and the current Wiki page only has 2 articles altogether from the past 15 years. Without considering and including current research, it is outdated.

There is a block directly before "False Balance", namely WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

Here are a couple summarizing resources from this century to show it is still debated, not simply disputed:

Battista et al., 2023: "We identified three waves of publications (i.e., 1994–2000; 2003–2009; 2012–2021) showing that there is a recent peak of scholarly attention into this topic. 40% of scholars supported the phenomenon of repressed memory while 29% did not. Moreover, although in the last wave of publications, 35% of articles included critical arguments against the existence of repressed memory, a sizable number of publications (21%) supported ideas in favour of repressed memory. Finally, we observed that the term dissociative amnesia is another expression used to refer to the phenomenon. Our results provide additional evidence that the debate on repressed memories (and dissociative amnesia) is far from being over."

Dodier et al. 2024 (you are correct, I misread your citation, I assumed you read and cited this article): "From the “memory wars” in the 1990s till today, controversy surrounds dissociative amnesia and repressed memory, and in particular, their very existence (e.g., Mangiulli, Otgaar, Jelicic, & Merckelbach, 2022; Pope, Schnabel, & Hudson, 2023). The first section of our topic is dedicated to exploring this controversy. However, as the theoretical and empirical debates have been relatively well covered in the literature (e.g., Otgaar et al., 2019), in this topic of repressed memory, we have asked experts from various areas to propose new perspectives on this controversial topic. Specifically, we have invited experts to draw upon evolutionary, philosophical, and legal perspectives to explain reports of long-forgotten trauma.

Staniloiu and Markowitsch (2024) argue in favor of repression, which in their view should not necessarily be considered in the strict Freudian sense of the term, but rather as a consequence of either permanent or temporary cerebral modifications, preventing retrieval of a highly stressful event. (...)

Patihis (2024) explores how dissociative amnesia may be the result of evolutionary cognitive changes. (...)

From a philosophical perspective, De Brigard (2024) proposes that the concept of repression should be excluded from all scientific vocabulary. In his article, he argues that “repressed memory” is meaningless because it is based on a theory that has largely been disproved. (...)

In their article, Deferme et al. (2024) take stock of the use of repressed memory to justify changes to European legal requirements on statutes of limitation for sexual abuse against minors (...) First, the scientific validity of repressed memory is disputed. (...)

What emerges from this first section of our topic is that repressed memory (or dissociative amnesia) is controversial even outside the psychological science. This is why it is necessary to explore alternative explanations for long-forgotten trauma claims and reports of recovering such trauma. One such alternative, and perhaps the most traditional and studied in this context, is that of false memory. (...)"

The current consensus seems to be, based on the papers I read, that first the term "repressed" is already not clear what it refers to. Second, when someone deals with suddenly emerging memories, there are several different possible mechanisms behind what people may call "repressed memories" (psychological or biological). There are definitely the malicious, problematic ones, planted or coerced fake memories, but there seem to be genuine ones, with currently no explanation how and where they come from.

For the first, this book gives a good starting point on what one can understand under "repressed memories" and which type is more in the danger of being falsely planted:

John H. Byrne, 2008, Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference - 2.15 - Memory in and about Affect: "Two clearly distinguishable types of recovered memory experiences have been documented in the literature (e.g., Shobe and Schooler, 2001). In one type, people come to believe that they are abuse survivors, commonly attributing their current life difficulties to their repressed memories of abuse. Here, abuse events tend to be recalled gradually over time, often by suggestions of a therapist. People usually indicate that they have ‘learned’ (e.g., through hypnosis) that the abuse occurred to them. In the other type of recovered memory experience, people are suddenly reminded of events they believe they had not thought about for many years. They are shocked and surprised by their recollection, but not by the content of the memory as such."

More connected to the second point, what dynamics are behind potential experiences with "repressed memories", there is a book about PTSD from Ford et. al 2015, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (Second Edition): "Techniques such as hypnosis that therapists have used to “help” clients “recover” trauma-related memories should not be used for this purpose because of the risk of influencing clients to falsely recall what they do not really remember. In addition, only forensically trained mental health experts should provide evidence in courts of law concerning trauma survivors’ memories. It also is important to remember that the completeness and accuracy of memories are always in flux and that many types of memories can become accessible after periods of being forgotten. Thus, it is entirely possible for trauma survivors to “recover” memories (which may not have been remembered for many reasons, not just repression) from years or decades before. When this occurs, the critical challenge is to determine if the remembering has been influenced in ways that might undermine the accuracy of the memory and how best to help the person use the memory in constructive rather than destructive ways."

However, it has been disputed as well that it would be easy to plant false memories in people, like the Satanic panic suggests. Brewin et. al 2017: "These data are inconsistent with claims (e.g. Conway, 2013) that it is easy to create false memories of childhood in others. Our review indicates that the majority of participants are resistant to the suggestions they are given, despite repeated attempts to remember, the use of guided imagery, doctored photos, the involvement of trusted others and what Hyman and Pentland (1996) noted were the very high levels of demand exercised on college students. Also, it has become apparent from the false memory examples published that those who do have recollective experiences are often cautious and uncertain about them. The data strongly support the source memory perspective that emphasises the complex judgements involved in evaluating truth and falsity in autobiographical memory. Findings that participants also discriminate appropriately in their ratings of clarity, confidence, and so on between true and false memories, and produce more details for true than false events (Qin et al., 2008), also testify to the appropriate operation of source memory judgements."

It is also hard to prove, when a memory is false. If there's no proof it's true, there's also no proof it's false. Muschalla et. al 2021: "False memories of false events can be regarded as phenomena which can only be adequately researched in the laboratory and are only rarely established with absolute certainty in practice but can nevertheless lead to harmful consequences for those involved. In the present review, it was found that false memories can be researched in the laboratory and that it can be assumed that various methods and techniques increase the probability of false beliefs or false memories being induced in, on average, 20%–50% of participants." Kastanienn (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Specifically, I stopped reading when I got to your cherry-picked quotation of Dodier et al. which blatantly misrepresents that source. You should also have a look at WP:SYN. I see no policy-based reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you cannot get out of your tunnel vision. I know it's hard to accept differing opinions and facts. I know it from my parents that once something became an identity level belief, people cannot argue on a logical level anymore.

I hope you are at least aware of the clear damage you are doing to people suffering with trauma.

Have a good day. Kastanienn (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:NPA. Making personal comments like this and accusing others of doing harm will not get them to support your proposals. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you

- literally don't engage in any meaningful way with the whole ass page I wrote about why your conclusion is wrong on several levels, citing multiple current scientific sources,

- just hammer with wrongly used Wiki definitions to try and assert some kind of moral superiority and dominance, and

- then proceeded to say - for the second time - that I'm just cherry picking data, when I actually linked the whole ass source for you to read, plus to make it even easier for you, copied out the relevant parts to make a point,

I am not the one who's behaving in an unreasonable way.

And yes, as someone with trauma, I can tell you that spreading misinformation like this is damaging - whether you like it or not. Kastanienn (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Responding to a link to the policy against personal attacks with more personal attacks is an unusual strategy. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie I just stated facts. No need to take it personally, when people disagree with you, and no need to be surprised that when you engage on a personal level, instead of an intellectual level, people will respond accordingly.

But I really don't like to engage with goalpost shifting just so someone can keep winning an argument, so I'm out. Kastanienn (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

When those 'facts' are about my person how else would I take them? I commented on your arguments, not on your motiviations or your personal beliefs. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There was no substantial engagement with my arguments in this Talk page. Invalidating sources as being "cherry-picked", invoking TLDR, and categorically asserting that the topic is already settled are dismissals of the argumentation on subjective grounds, not substantial engagement with the contemporary literature I actually cited.

If you believe the quotations or interpretations materially misrepresent the sources, then follow the way that scientists engage with contradicting sources, and point it out where I was wrong.

So we can try to revisit the previously linked Dodier paper (Dodier, Otgar, Mangiulli: Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy, 2024) that was claimed to be misrepresented. Again, to make it easier, it has the following abstract:

"Debates surrounding the origin of recovered memories of child abuse have traditionally focused on two conflicting arguments, namely that these memories are either false memories or instances of repressed memories (i.e., reflecting the idea that people can unconsciously block traumatic autobiographical experiences and eventually regain access). While scientific evidence for the first is clearly established, the second is the subject of a controversy in the academic, clinical, and legal fields. This controversy rages on today. In this introductory article to our topic “Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy,” we present alternative and more parsimonious explanations for repressed memories that we sorted into three categories: cognitive, motivational, and biological factors. Our aim is to provide a timely overview to help clinical and legal professionals, academics, and the general public to move beyond the idea that traumatic memories can be unconsciously repressed."

And its conclusion is the following:

"The proposed explanatory framework (see Fig. 1 for a summary - Explanatory framework for long-forgotten trauma claims. Note. Concepts that are centered mean that they can explain both memories that are recovered and those that are not. Infantile amnesia can be classified in both cognitive and biological factors.) in this article is open for further refinement. We may well include in the future other explanations that we might have overlooked during the current topic. For example, we could consider the effects of drugs and alcohol, which can affect the copying of information from short-term to long-term memory (e.g., Mejo, 1992; Segura, McGhee, Della Sala, Cowan, & Pompéia, 2021), or global transient amnesia, which is a form of memory disorder that is very brief and does not require exposure to a traumatic event (Bartsch & Deuschl, 2010). To pursue further avenues, we invite researchers and practitioners involved in these discussions on long-forgotten trauma to propose other alternative explanations accounting either for the phenomena of recovered memories, or for people claiming not to remember an event for which there is evidence of its occurrence. We are convinced that discussions about long-forgotten trauma should move in this direction, expanding beyond the limited debate of repressed memory versus false memory."

Dodier perfectly summarizes the exact nuance several of us have been trying to point out for years now: the current literature is more complex and more actively debated than the Wiki page currently presents.

My point was not that skepticism toward repression is fringe or invalid. My (and clearly many others') point is that if the page wants to follow the Wiki groundrules, and show a balanced (WP:BALANCE) summary of where mainstream science is on the topic, it needs to present a much less closed narrative, that contemporary literature actually appears to support.

As long as the discussion stays focused on the substance of the cited literature and specific points of disagreement, I am willing to continue engaging. If it shifts back towards subjective side-taking, dismissive one-liners or procedural labeling without substantive engagement, then I do not see much value in continuing the discussion further. Kastanienn (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to specify the precise manner in which others are allowed to disagree, and I also "do not see much value in continuing the discussion further" with someone who accuses others of "spreading misinformation" or doing "damage" to others. I doubt I will respond in this section again unless someone else has something to say. Do not interpret silence from me as agreement with your proposals. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't interpret it as agreement at all. I interpret it as "I don't have any actual counterarguments, so I shall stick to my rhetoric and continue criticizing yet another person who dared to point out substantial evidence that my framing is inaccurate, while calling their response a personal attack when they react according to the tone I steered towards in the first place."

Which, honestly, pretty much summarizes this entire conversation.

G'day. Kastanienn (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

the user that was arguing with you has tried to play victim in a (Redacted) comment section saying:

(Redacted)

Seeing the replies on this post, he is definitley the annoying one here. has he heard of good faith? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

As somebody who is familiar with Dodier's writings, Kastanienn seems to have misinterpreted the crux of his work. MrOllie is correct. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Information to be added or removed: Friedman v Rehal only ordered that Jesse's conviction be reviewed.

Explanation of issue: The article currently says that the judge ordered all convictions using "memory-recovery techniques" be reviewed. Claim failed verification.

References supporting change: BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)