Talk:Ramona false memory case

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ramona false memory case. per discussion and WP:NPOVTITLE. Neutrality in article titles is important, but the reasoning in the original move proposal is also persuasive to most discussion participants. So I am closing in favor of a move, with the most consensus-favored NPOV title as the closing title. (non-admin closure) Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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 says The 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)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.