Talk:Jennifer Freyd

Untitled

Note: Changed links: Instead of »http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/« now read:  »http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/« retrieved 2014-03-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.183.61 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate omission of references

Quite a big deal was made in the media of the subject's accusation of childhood sexual abuse by her father.

I have zero opinion on what actually happened. But it is highly inappropriate to mention that controversial accusation (under Personal life) and include solely one link to anything about that accusation (the link to the Wikipedia article about the False Memory Syndrome Foundation founded by the subject's parents. Surely there were articles in respectable media (e.g., the New York Times published a review of a book that the subject wrote; see http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/01/26/reviews/970126.26bickert.html ). The case has been discussed in prominent psychology journals.

Whether or not the subject prefers to have such references in the Wikipedia article about her is 100% irrelevant. They belong here. Surely there could be at least several references besides the one to her parents' foundation.Daqu (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to that, her work and this case are closely related. Since she is notable for either her work or this case, that makes a more detailed treatment relevant. 79.231.211.207 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Freyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706010651/http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/vita.html to http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/vita.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

COI? Also citation issues

I noticed a lot of proper citations are being removed without using the talk page, particularly by new users or IP users. Also many of the citations added here are primary sources from the university she works at and/or related to studies published. Please work to clean up the citations, and do not remove the primary tagging prior to doing so. Possible COI has occurred on this page due to the nature of the edits.Jooojay (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Freyds-two-dimensional-model-for-traumatic-events.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Abuse dispute with parents (Was: Administrator help, please)

I would appreciate Wikipedia administrator input on this apparently controversial edit. The issue at hand is about whether it is appropriate to remove content about Dr. Freyd’s personal history of being sexually abused by her father when she was a child (see recent edit history). I strongly disagree with several fellow Wikipedia editors who are repeatedly asserting their belief that Dr. Freyd’s page needs to include this content.

The issue at hand is not about “neutral tone,” as the most recent editor asserts. I will reiterate Wikipedia policy: “contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion....Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.”

The reference to Dr. Freyd’s parents was removed because the (deleted) content directly suggests that Dr. Freyd lied about being sexually abused in childhood. It also violates her privacy, which compounds the original harm by which her parents “outed” her abuse allegations without her consent. This is a matter of public record.

I would appreciate arbitration on this point. Dr. Freyd deserves some semblance of control over how this painful aspect of her family history is shared on this bio page about her scholarship. Her parents’ FMSF Wikipedia entry exists independently, which preserves the relevant facts at hand. Thank you for administrative input on this sensitive issue. Senor Crocodile (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

COI

Firstly this topic (accusation of childhood sexual abuse by her father) is already on this talk page from 2014 (see above and see WP:BLP) - and there was a decision to keep the information since it's relevant to her current work - therefore not "controversial topic". Important to note here that this WP article has had a history of COI edits (by many new users to WP) and has used many self-published sources too. In regards to citations used for this information - all were published in mainstream publications so nothing is questionable. Additional other information with reliable citations have been removed by this editor, without reason.Jooojay (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

What constitutes a worthy “controversial topic” that is valid to keep on a Wikipedia page? I don’t care about a discussion from 2014 on this talk page. Wikipedia users circa 2014 are not the arbiters of rightness. I demand a review of this matter, and there should be women administrators involved in the arbitration. hate to ring the irony bell, but Dr. Freyd’s work is *literally* about the compounded harm by which institutions (such as Wikipedia) hurt victims of violence by amplifying harmful propaganda. Speaking of which, the FMSF is defunct as of 12.31.19. Their credibility is non-existent. Senor Crocodile (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Senor Crocodile

Here is the issue, you @Senor Crocodile: personally added that citation to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation using a primary sources, the website for the foundation - this is an issue of itself and it should be deleted it's not considered reliable, see WP:RS. Freyd or her research doesn't get to decide what does and doesn't belong in her WP article, are you implying you know Freyd personally? You still have not responded to your COI notice on your own talk page. Jooojay (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I did that before your post. I am starting to see why Wikipedia has little relevance these days. It is nothing but a hassle to make contributions. ………… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Crocodile (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Senor Crocodile: I am sorry you feel that way, I am not trying to "hassle" you in your edits. I am genuinely concerned about the impact these changes made and when I tried to ask you on your talk page, you essentially ignored my request and continued to revert the edits. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, I am happy to show you around here if needed - I am an experienced female editor and I know it can be scary here at first. There are a lot of "new-to-you" WP rules to learn in order to make a positive impact, it takes some practice. Jooojay (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Joojay. There is so much to learn. I didn’t realize I was not attending to your request on my talk page because I am just learning how to check all the different pages. I will take this feedback and read the links so that I can become a better contributor. Happy new year Senor Crocodile (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrative process, application of BLP policy

(posted after an edit conflict with the most recent comments above)

Hi Senor Crocodile, first a general note on process and policies: A talk page comment such as this is not likely to attract the attention of administrators. Wikipedia provides a venue to ask for administrative actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But disagreements such as this, over content, or interpretation of content policies, are usually not considered in its scope, so I would not recommend posting your request there. I would instead suggest reviewing the options described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

After noticing your edit-warring about this content, I took a look at the issue myself, not as an administrator but as an editor who has had this page on their watchlist for a while (however, without having been involved with writing the passage in question). A few notes:

• The passage you object to has, in one form or another, been present in this article since around the time of its creation in May 2009, over a decade ago.
• You are quite right that sexual abuse is a sensitive issue and that the subject of this article deserves it that we make sure the article adheres to WP:BLP. However, this does not mean that she deserves "control" over how Wikipedia presents this much publicized controversy with her parents. It may be useful to take a look at WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, also regarding your apparent assumption that Wikipedia must never mention statements by third parties who contradict statements by the article subject.
• Specifically, your above quote from the BLP policy (also put forward as the rationale for your edits here) is incomplete and misleading - it does not refer to any contentious information, but to information "that is unsourced or poorly sourced".
• And on inspection I agreed with Proofbygazing who stated that the "material is thoroughly sourced so it complies with guidelines" when restoring it (like Jooojay beforehand [1]) after you had first removed it wholesale with a rather deceptive edit summary ("improved writing on page").
• I also added a third source myself after looking into the issue, and rewrote the passage a bit to make sure it reflects the citations accurately.
• For similar reasons, your accusation that Wikipedia violates Freyd's privacy does not hold. Rather, the dispute was publicized long ago already by multiple parties, including (although indeed not as the first) by Freyd herself in public statements (which, according to [2], also included "reveal[ing] intimate details about her parents' private life").
• Beyond formal policy considerations, it's impossible to deny the relevance of this dispute both for the development of public discourse about alleged false memories since the 1990s and for the article subject's professional work areas. (To quote your own revision: "... best known for her theories of betrayal trauma, DARVO, institutional betrayal, and institutional courage" - and if we take her side in the dispute, and assume that it was her parents who did not tell the truth about the abuse, it would be hard to argue her father did not engage in DARVO or that a mother denying such an abuse by their spouse would not have risked to cause betrayal trauma.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have to say, as a new contributor, I do not think it is fair to characterize my communications as “incomplete” “misleading” and “deceptive.” I am acting in good faith, though may make some tactical errors along the way as a new wiki contributor. I am happy to learn from people who will teach me. But this response strikes me as super unfair. Ugh. Senor Crocodile (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I had no doubt you acted with a genuine intention to improve the article, and am sorry that you felt you were being treated unfairly with the above characterizations of your edits. I have spent a bit more time explaining the general problems with them (i.e. not specific to this article topic) on your user talk page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you HaeB, I wrote you back on my talk page. Senor Crocodile (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)