Talk:International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation

You have done good work FF! :) ~ty (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Declaring conflict of interest

I am a volunteer (student member - paid) for ISSTD specifically looking at updating the Wikipedia entry. I am part of a small working group on this matter. We are looking at other professional organisations pages and seeking ISSTD board approval for proposed changes resembling other similar pages. Significant changes will be an ISSTD approved process. We understand that there have been conflicting views of the work of ISSTD and its members since the 1980's. These updates are not intended to rebut the hostility or to silence critics. I notice that a significant edit was made by an editor who only made changes to this page on one day and has not been seen on Wikipedia again. All were criticisms, and quite dated. There are criticisms that use a single source but list its chapters separately and so it appears that there are several unique citations when there are not.

I appreciatte the bias and wish it to be known that i have an interest in the ISSTD and am making edits on their behalf.

Advice and cautions from more experienced editors are welcome.

Should i be using the sandtray to prepare major edits?

many thanksGljsalkj (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Alerting WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gljsalkj:, when you remove souced information from an article, you should provide at least an informative edit summary stating why the source used is questioned. Edit summaries such as "grammer" or "moved to top of page for context rather than leaving at the bottom" do not let other editors know why a source or the information it supports is being removed. Even better, please state specifically which sources you think are not up to snuff and why here on this talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! i did not notice changes happening to the citations. Should we roll it back and i have another go? I thought i was just repositioning chunks of text in the page without changing or emoving any content. The "grammer" edit was a mispelling. Very much a novice editor hereGljsalkj (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gljsalkj:, I have already rolled it back to prior to your changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Structured list of changes re: last revision

I have rewritten and restructured the article. Here is a structured and detailed list of changes made to the page as per my comment regarding my revision. I was unable to add links to archived conference proceedings, so eventually I will request that they be allowed through the spam filter (ISSD(.)org was blocked.) Update: I have requested that the links be allowed through the filter here, so we will see. If not, I can upload PDFs if that works too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefthandedlion (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Intro/preamble: I have added a note under the intro to add context that while the organization exists as a professional nonprofit and does not completely exist as a fringe organization, significant controversies exist regarding the organization and regarding its promoted fringe beliefs and practices. I have noted that these claims are unfounded as per WP: FRINGE, added a few refuting sources and I do this several times throughout the article in accordance with WP: GEVAL.

Profile: I have removed an unsourced section regarding the name change of DID. I think it is fairly clear that the name changes of DID correspond to the name changes of the organization and moreover, it is tangentially related to the organization article. I have changed the organization of the profile section to start with its founding and then move towards its expansion of focus. I have added criticisms of the published guidelines, yet maintained the original text correctly noting that they are often referenced as per WP: FRINGE/QS. I have added a section regarding the ISSTD’s current programming and training offerings for a more holistic understanding of the organization’s purview.

Criticisms and controversies: The criticisms and controversies regarding this organization are lengthy, and make up a substantial portion of the article. I have started the section with existing text, leaving it as a preamble and divided the section into subcategories for readability. This section could have been much longer, but for brevity’s sake, I have combined several years of happenings into intervals. I included the amount I did plus the historical background to indicate that the fringe beliefs have been expressed from the 1980s onward into recent history. I have removed brief sections that do not in fact, reflect controversial ideas. I have also removed some sections which reflect opinions or speculation. If anybody believes this section is too long and could be condensed further, I invite you to discuss it here.

History: I have added more information regarding the founding of the organization, its name changes and original co-sponsor. ~LHL Lefthandedlion (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Profile: I made some changes regarding name changes. I do not know how to enter the citation and it is in the change comment, if anyone can help. The one source provides the dates and names that preceded the current name of the organisation.

Controversies; I removed a reference attached to the McMaster preschool as the citation made no mention of McMaster. It may have been raised in one of the many presentations that were listed during that conference but there was nothing on that page which was just the conference agenda. The content of each presentation was not accessible. It was a dead-end. I will trawl through looking for a correct citation. I think I have seen one before. Gljsalkj (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This statement has no evidence "2023 president Michael Salter delivered a presentation that included the promotion of the debunked conspiracy theory that there were tunnels found under McMartin Preschool, in reference to the McMartin preschool trial."

The citation is for a presentation summary. It does not mention McMaster.

I spoke with Michael Slater and he says that he never talks about the McMaster tunnels as they are not relevant.

Without evidence, the statement should be removed.

I do recall a statement somewhere about actually finding tunnels during demolition, but cannot find it, and I think it might have been a comment on a podcast that is not linked to ISSTD. Gljsalkj (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick literature search for "Michael Salter" and "McMartin" (not McMaster) and located a reference to the case and the tunnels here. (Salter, 2008) I have not seen the presentation the other editor cited and am not able to confirm its contents, but it does not appear to be true that this author has never mentioned McMartin or promoted the conspiracy theory regarding the tunnels.

I noticed that Michael Salter who you mention that you are in contact with is a former ISSTD president, and you yourself are a paid advocate for the ISSTD as you mentioned above on this talk page in 2020. According to Wikipedia policy, this sort of paid advocacy and single purpose account use for PR or self promotion is not allowed. See here: WP: SPA. Your earlier edits were rolled back by another concerned editor. This seems to be treading closely to conflict of interest issues over a number of years. Please familiarize yourselves with this policy: WP: COI ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 22:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What? "I spoke with Michael Slater ... " We aren't building Wikipedia articles based on what someone told you. Reliable sources only please. Sgerbic (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you saw "student member - paid"? I pay for a student membership. They don't pay me. Gljsalkj (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Lefthandedlion: I am not paid by anyone for anything to do with Wikipedia and have been clear with that my connection to ISSTD is voluntary.

That 2008 citation also fails to mention McMartin. I also cannot find a citation that links Salter to McMartin. Also, apologies for the typo.

Sgerbic: This is a talk, and not a citation and I made no changes as a result of this search for a source to corroborate Lefthandedlions statement. The person denies a link between his presentations and McMartin tunnels. It bugs me that I recall someone saying that tunnels were found, but I cannot link that to ISSTD so far. I think it was in a podcast. I asked the podcast owner who suggested a name. I also listened to that person and another ISSTD member, in case I heard this there but they did not mention McMartin at all. Am not discounting it as possible yet. Gljsalkj (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read pages 247 to 248 of the citation I linked above. The only reason I cited this source was to mention that the author had made the claims before in print since I could not verify the presentation contents cited in this article myself. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah thank you. He does indeed mention the tunnels in that doc. Can we use that link? I don't have the 2019 either as it was not recorded that I can find.

The 2008 reference does not match with the paragraph as evidence of promoting conspiracy theories in the 2020's. Perhaps backdate the statement? Gljsalkj (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see @Jintshire had a go a that section. It still doesn't work though. The 2019 did discuss organised abuse as that is what those authors research, and it is in the title, but the tunnels are not mentioned in what we have, or by MS's account were they. Gljsalkj (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the presentation was recorded and is now available as continuing education so the other editor may have access to it.

You mention you were unable to watch the presentation yourself, and do not have access to it. So, you were unable to confirm whether the presentation discusses the tunnels. You stated my citation by Salter did not mention McMartin when it did. I would prefer the article stay in its current state. If you would like to add the source I provided, go ahead. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 05:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Your citation did not have the tunnels - it was a cover page. You later provided the 2008, which I didn't have. I was commenting on what we had then which made no mention of McMartin tunnels.

I don't have access and am not paying $99 for the presentation in your link. It'll cost you $129 if you want to go over it.

I have applied to link my ISSTD account with the CFAS website, which I have never used. That might take 48 hrs. If that enables me to get free access I will watch and confirm /deny tunnels. Give me a few days to access and watch.

If you search for Salter in the bar top right it is not found, which is the list I was looking at. Site is difficult to navigate. Gljsalkj (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My first link was to the presentation source. You did not appear to know how to locate it from the title and reference page, so I provided a direct link to a PDF and page numbers for you.

You said that the Salter presentation recording did not exist, and I found it for you.

As for the presentation, I of course encourage you to look over the sources thoroughly to confirm them if you wish to do so. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 06:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying to collaborate. Truth matters. Direct links to claims, particularly if they could be slanderous are important. Gljsalkj (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to chime in here. First off, I do not understand how this could possibly be slanderous. Salter is on record promoting the debunked theory that there were tunnels beneath McMartin. Even if the theory was not promoted during the presentation cited here, it is a fact that he has directly said it. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it's quite difficult to slander somebody by stating a fact and merely getting the time and place wrong. But we need not worry about that, because the debunked theory that there were tunnels beneath McMartin was indeed promoted during that presentation, even if Salter doesn't remember and even if he claims to never say these things.

As @Lefthandedlion suggested, I do have access to the recorded presentation from 2019, and I relied on that in making these edits. I do not know of a way to directly link to the presentation as it's a copyrighted work. @Gljsalkj, if you are able to obtain a copy of the recording, you can skip ahead to around 57 minutes and 30 seconds in. Around then, an audience member speaks up during a portion of Salter's presentation in which he discusses ritual abuse and says: "All the hysteria makes… [inaudible]... hysterical and then whatever. And then years later, when the parents paid for the excavation, and they had evidence of the tunnels, and none of that made it into the media." During and following these comments, Salter can be heard verbally agreeing. He then immediately begins talking about the McMartin preschool case, the only case of this type I'm aware of that involved parents paying for an excavation in search of tunnels. Jintshire (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Good, I don't have to watch it then. Agreed that it is not a source you can point at without elaborating, such as with the time and a quote perhaps. The slander would be in the unsupported statement. So fix that and you'll be clear in that instance. Gljsalkj (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Please be specific about what the unsupported statement is. I believe I have just provided substantial evidence that my edits are accurate. It would be helpful if you could also provide a suggestion for alternative wording that also fits the evidence. In addition, I am asking that you retract your accusation of slander as it is inappropriate. See WP: NPLT. Jintshire (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jintshire you have a citation that needs some supporting sentences as it, by itself, does not support the statement. That makes it an opinion, or potentially a false statement that damages a reputation, until you explain what people can't see in the 2019 citation. Gljsalkj (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is an accurate portrayal of the presentation:

Around then, an audience member speaks up during a portion of Salter's presentation in which he discusses ritual abuse and says: "All the hysteria makes… [inaudible]... hysterical and then whatever. And then years later, when the parents paid for the excavation, and they had evidence of the tunnels, and none of that made it into the media." During and following these comments, Salter can be heard verbally agreeing. He then immediately begins talking about the McMartin preschool case, the only case of this type I'm aware of that involved parents paying for an excavation in search of tunnels.

Then I agree the statement made in the article is accurate and neutral. Please see WP:PAYWALL for the wikipedia policy on access to sources and verifiability. As the previous editor stated, if you are able to view the material yourself or provide suggestions as to what you view a more accurate statement to be, then that would be easier to work with to collaborate. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gljsalkj The article in its current form correctly states that "2023 president Michael Salter delivered a presentation that included the promotion of the debunked conspiracy theory that there were tunnels found under McMartin Preschool, in reference to the McMartin preschool trial." As @Lefthandedlion pointed out, this sentence is accurate and neutral. The reference I provided includes an exchange between Salter and an audience member during a presentation in which the audience member falsely claims that tunnels were found beneath McMartin Preschool. Salter can be heard verbally agreeing. Therefore, it is a verifiable fact that Salter's presentation included the promotion of the idea of tunnels beneath McMartin Preschool, and it's something that interested readers can verify for themselves if they so choose. I do not understand the issue here. Jintshire (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The reference is a citation, it has not mention of tunnels at all, so people can only verify this by buying the recording. It works if you explain the words used, ie context. I think it is an exceptional claim which needs careful verification. You've already got the quote ready to insert. At the same time you might alter the start as it could be read to suggest he said this in 2023. Gljsalkj (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gljsalkj Thank you, I have updated the text to clarify that the presentation was in 2019 and that Salter later became president in 2023. Jintshire (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Lefthandedlion, the ISSTD is an extremely controversial organisation and these improvements were warranted. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A suggestion and a concern

This is very strange entry. It purports to be about a respected professional organization (which today, the ISSTD is). But it is almost exclusively focused on various controversies instead. It is true that the research areas the ISSTD addresses -- in particular, the impact and effects of early childhood trauma -- give rise to a great deal of controversy. But that is only to be expected, given the nature of the topic. Why, one might ask, are these controversies the nearly exclusive focus of the Wikipedia entry on the organization? Obviously, some coverage of the controversies is warranted, especially since there was a time when one of the organization's founders was deeply implicated in one of them. But surely the entry itself ought to be primarily focused on the organization's legitimate contributions and functions. Perhaps it was not intended, but as it stands this entry gives every appearance of having been written to discredit rather than inform. PWP1968 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You might not be aware PWP that Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to do original research, we follow the citations that are available to us. What are needed are articles independent from the topic of the article we are working on. And those citations have a standard also. It's complicated to explain but in a nutshell, if the articles available are focused on controversies then that is what the Wikipedia article will reflect. Please post these citations that you say exist on their contributions. Keep in mind that they should be independent from the ISSTD. Sgerbic (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not aware of Wikipedia's editorial policies. But the ones you mention do appear to explain the weirdness: any entry on an organization working in proximity to an ongoing controversy will inevitably be about the controversy, not the organization. I don't expect there ARE many articles about the contributions and work of most small professional organizations that are independent of that organization (I didn't say such things existed; the apparent sarcasm is unwarranted). ISSTD is no exception. So, it appears the distorted impression Wikipedia's policies create in this case cannot be easily remedied. That is unfortunate. PWP1968 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you would call Wikipedia's policies distorted. If an organization wanted to only select the positive articles about themselves and put them on the Internet they can do that. It's called a website. Wikipedia has rules that are long established and applies across the board from unicorns to bumblebees to pop rock bands. Original research is discouraged and the citations used need to be (mostly) independent of the target of the article. Secondary sources from notable places/authors are given top priority. I don't see why there are few or not easy to find positive articles about ISSTD, it would seem that there should be plenty if their goal is to help people or educate or whatever their mission is. Other organizations, even small ones should draw positive attention by the media. I hope I'm explaining myself well, Wikipedia editors must write using the citations we can find, not speculate on what we wish was available. And we just can't take the word of the organization. I'm not sure what you expect? Do you leave the same kind of comment on other small organizations Wikipedia talk pages? Sgerbic (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia's policies are distorted, I only pointed out that the particular policies you informed me about appear to account for why the entry is so oddly focused on controversies the field has triggered in the past (now debunked), rather than on ISSTD as an organization in the present. As I mentioned, it gave me the impression the entry was meant to discredit the organization rather than provide publicly reliable information about it. This is why I made my suggestion and raised my concern. As for what I expected, I expected those responsible for the entry to care about such things. Perhaps even recognize the problem. But the response has been largely defensive and reactive instead. So, if there IS a range of representative, independent references to ISSTD out there -- articles that the editors can cite concerning things other than past controversies and propaganda -- I hope they will be found and put to good use here. PWP1968 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If an organization promotes false ideas, media write about the organization promoting those false ideas, and Wikipedia quotes the media doing that, that is not a problem. It may be a problem for the organization, but it is a self-inflicted one. If there are any sources that portray the organization in a positive light, we can use them and improve the article. If not, we cannot. That is all. In the absence of such sources, there is nothing to discuss, so, can we stop this? This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)