Talk:Elizabeth Loftus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"famous" removed from article

I have removed the word "famous" from this section. This change is unsourced.

One of her famous studies includes the reconstruction of automobile destruction study, which was an example of the misinformation effect. She is also famous for developing the Lost in the mall technique for creating false memories in the laboratory. Abuse truth 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Famous" is a bit of a peacock word. She wouldn't have a biography in Wikipedia if she wasn't famous. She's known for these things, among others, and there are better ways of stating it. However, when you remove a single word you should correct the whole sentence to make it flow. The edit itself is appropriate, but you still have to leave a grammatically structured sentence.

You also need to edit under just one account if you're not going to be communicating with other editors, and if you're going to be putting in unsourced information in BLPs. Thanks.

And you can source the information, don't game the system by putting unsourced information on the talk page of a BLP instead of in the article itself. KP Botany 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Please stop spamming the page with articles on "recovered memories" this is a biography of Loftus, not a coatrack to put tangential information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not spam. It is important information connected to Loftus' work. Abuse truth 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The books only mention her, they aren't biographies of her. Wikipedia isn't a directory or a bibliography. Google is. If the books are important use them as sources, and they will show up in the reference section, otherwise your just adding your personal reading list to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that this section can develop into a resource for readers with both sides of the argument presented.Abuse truth (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Material removed January 16, 2008

After reviewing this article and the sources it cites as the result of a request to Wikipedia:OTRS, as well as reading the article co-authored by Elizabeth Loftus, "Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Remembering and Repressing", Psychology of Women Quarterly, v18 n1 p67-84 1994, I have concluded that the material in this article concerning the 1994 article was giving undue weight to the views of one self-published critic. I also removed two citations to self-published material per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). As the sentences those self-published sources were supporting had no other sources cited, I also removed those sentences. Per the policies at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, everything in this article must be verifiable from reliable sources, especially if it is at all controversial. -- Donald Albury 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the removal of journal article above. It is a reliable source and the data from the article was accurately represented and in no way controversial, since the information came directly from the abstract. I believe the article is part of her research and should be represented somehow in the wiki-article.Abuse truth (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article itself, and not just the abstract, I do not see the relevance of the source to a biography of Elizabeth Loftus. This apparantly was added to the article because someone misrepresented what the article was about in a self-published rant. -- Donald Albury 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it is relevant because it shows that her own research may contradict itself. This can't be stated in the article unless sourced, but it is important to show all sides of her research via RS's. To answer the complaint of undue weight, I will add another study which shows her disagreeing with research on memory recovery.Abuse truth (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the 1994 article? She and her co-authors argue that memory loss of childhood abuse is nowhere near as prevalent as advocates of "repression" theories have argued, and that a "repression" mechanism is not needed to explain reports of 'lost' and 'regained' memories. Your conclusion that her own research may contradict itself sounds like original research to me. -- Donald Albury 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But how does she explain the 19% that "regained previously forgotten memories?" Abuse truth (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They (there are three authors) note that the questions they used did not elicit details of what respondents meant by "forget", and speculate that some respondents may have meant that they had managed not to think about the abuse for some period of time. In any case, they did not see any evidence of a "repression" mechanism. The main point for this article, however, is that any attempt to show inconsistency in Loftus's research must be supported by citations from reliable published sources. You cannot use your own observations, and you cannot use self-published sources or other questionable sources. The standard for sources in articles about living persons is set quite high by the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- Donald Albury 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I agree that the standards are quite high for BLP's. This is why I used RS's and direct quotes in my recent edits. I had no intention of stating any inconsistency in her research. Readers can draw their own conclusions from the data presented.

In terms of relevancy, I went to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance and have extracted some quotes. “is important that the focus of an article remains on its main subject” The information presented in the edits was on Loftus and her studies about memory.

“Articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth.” The studies in these edits are part of her life and research.

"All of Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context." Both edits used scientific journals and quotes from abstracts.

"Biographical details" Loftus is famous partially due to her work on memory. It would appear prudent to mention some of her research on this topic.

I will wait to revert the edit to allow for further discussion on this.Abuse truth (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance and interpretation of the conclusions of that paper seem to be only from one non-reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The "interpretation of the conclusions" comes directly from www.eric.ed.gov's abstract. The relevance of her work on memory is obvious.Abuse truth (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the references to the article, deleting the quote from the first abstract from the article paragraph.Abuse truth (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your commentary in the article isn't supported by the abstracts, but it's nearly appropriate. I shouldn't have reverted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

format tag added

I have never seen this format tag before "reprint of questionable provenance." The website appears to be run by William Calvin. From http://williamcalvin.com/ William H. Calvin, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, is the author of 14 popular books on science, mostly about brains, evolution, and climate change....They have been translated into 14 languages. He won the Phi Beta Kappa book prize for science as literature and the Kistler Book Prize. His occasional magazine articles include an Atlantic Monthly cover story, "The Great Climate Flip-flop." ResearchEditor (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Change it to "unverified reprint", if you will. Calvin is the author of 14 popular, contraversial, books on science. He doesn't seem to be above stirring additional contraversy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Loftus abstract quote

I have reverted the quote change, because the ERIC article abstract has this exact quote. I believe it would be OR to change the quote. I am open to compromise on this. Please feel free to suggest one. I found the actual article on the web at [1] I will change the reference to this.

Their abstract is similar, but may be more acceptable : "Women involved in out-patient treatment for substance abuse were interviewed to examine their recollections of childhood sexual abuse. Overall, 54% of the 105 women reported a history of childhood sexual abuse. Of these, the majority (81%) remembered all or part of the abuse their whole lives; 19% reported they forgot the abuse for a period of time, and later the memory returned." I have changed the quote on the page to this one. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Simpler is to remove the quote completely. I've normally only seen quotations used when the statement cited is extremely controversial or of an unusually equivocal nature and a verbatim description is clearer. I don't see this being the case here, but I do see a variety of quotes used that reflect negatively on Loftus and her work; curiously, quotes about the positive aspects of her works are missing. Rather than get into a back and forth about what quotes to include, barring a pressing need for verbatim statements I've simply removed. Quotes present the temptation or accident of quote mining to support a specific point of view; also, the length of the quotations seemed to place undue weight on the sources. So, it's easier to remove them. Template:Cite_journal states that the quote field should include a "Relevant excerpt from the journal." Also note "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it", Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations and Wikipedia:Quotations#When_to_use_quotations. WLU (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced two very short quotes that dealt with potentially controversial statements as per Wikipedia:Quotations#When_to_use_quotations. If you disagree, please feel free to delete. I have slightly adjusted the Crook study critique to make it more accurate to the source. I have added a url ref back that was a compromise instead of adding the second citiation from the url page. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted. I fail to see the reason to include the quotation, the only result is that Loftus ends up looking bad. She appeared in Libby, that's notable, but without further context and discussion, what's the point? What's controversial, potentially or otherwise? WLU (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section discussing the 'failings' of her research. The page is about Loftus, those articles criticized a concept that she worked on. Put them in the appropriate page, perhaps confabulation. And I've removed quotes. And there's another message on your talk page. WLU (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, in part. If her research was faulty (and being criticized as being faulty in peer-reviewed scientific publications would be evidence of that), that criticism should should be noted in this article. However, I don't think RE has done adequate research, though, and I don't think his reliable sources claim the research was faulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing!)The sections I removed from this version were sourced to Crook and Pope. Crook is in Ethics and Behavior (not a journal of psychology or neurology or other article that can be expected to have expertise in the nature of memory, and I wonder about the impact factor), focuses on the apparent ethical and scientific failings of this one study (I believe just the pilot, not subsequent studies) of which Loftus pioneered, but is not the exclusive person to perform. It's also a discussion that's less about Loftus, and more about the experiment, and criticisms of the technique should be siloed in the (currently quote-stuffed) main for lost in the mall technique, not here. I see the author as quibbling more with the resutlts and implications, my skim didn't turn up anything about Loftus specifically (barring selective representation of results, and I don't think there's enough here to really call Loftus a liar). I don't see an extensive criticism of her work, so much as a criticism of one pilot study. Pope is also criticizing the method, not Loftus, and this should be siloed to the main. There's a whole set of pages on the false memory controversy, so they should be linked, sourced and expanded. I don't like the pattern of 'every single page that is remotely connected to the false memory debate having a coatrack installed'. At best, I would put that Loftus' techniques and conclusions have been challenged, but if half of an article in Ethics and Behavior is the best that can be done, I don't know if it's worth it. American Psychologist OK and particularly multiple references to criticisms (and defences if possible) in peer-reviewed journal, but not if the criticisms are the minority. And irrespective, there's no need for quotes in my mind. WLU (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, that's a big 'if' - criticism in one second- or third-string journal isn't enough in my mind; Pope makes the case more credible but it's something I'd need to look into more myself. It's a big debate, but I don't see it relevant that it should be played out here unless Loftus' own traits or behaviors are relevant; the dismissed law suit suggests that they're not. WLU (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored three sections to the article with modifications. I have restored the PDF of the legal decision. If religious tolerance and csicop are RS, then certainly a picture of a legal document from the leadership council is RS.

I have restored the crook and pope refs with modification as per WLU's suggestion on my talk page, ("At best, make it short in terms of 'her work has been criticized").

I have also restored the Libby section. If the Washington Post and the New York Times state the facts, they are notable and it is not up to us as editors to decide what "makes her look bad" or what makes her look good and pick and choose data. We report what the reliable sources state. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'error in a figure' is trivial, the fact that she's met the attorney before is also trivial but the rest is OK. That her work has been criticized is silly if you don't also say why it has been criticized. I had thought the pdf you re-added was just a press release, as a pdf of a legal doc it's legit and my apologies for not checking more closely. WLU (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the grammar in two places and added a few words of detail to one section. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Diana Napolis

Loftus was stalked/harassed by Diana Napolis, currently an orphan. Is it worth putting in a link? Where should it go? I'm not sure but would love some suggestions. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The first step would be to locate reliable sources that make this connection. Then we would need to review what those sources say to determine what (if anything) merits mention in this article and how to include material deemed worthy of inclusion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the Napolis page, there are two reliable sources documenting the connection and I'm guessing the news links from 2000 and before would mention it. The sources are reliable, I'm just not sure about the notability and integration. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite

This article includes the following passage,

"Perhaps one of the most unusual signs of recognition of the impact of Loftus’s research came in a study published by the Review of General Psychology. The study identified the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, and not surprisingly Freud, Skinner, and Piaget are at the top of that list. Loftus was #58, and the top ranked woman on the list."

I think that this should be rewritten to be more straightforward. I do not see any reason for articles to say what is "perhaps" true, when this seems to be simply editorial opinion. The "not surprisingly" part seems dispensible also. I propose that this passage be rewritten as follows,

"One sign of recognition of the impact of Loftus’s research came in a study published by the Review of General Psychology. The study identified the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Loftus was #58, and the top ranked woman on the list." Taste of Tears (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest:

"The importance of Loftus' research was highlighted in a study published by the Review of General Psychology, identifying the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Loftus was ranked 58th on the list, and was the top ranked woman."

I just think it reads better. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll rewrite the article accordingly. Taste of Tears (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Critiques of her work

Lost in the mall is one of the more famous experiments, particularly in memory work. I'm not sure that Crook and Dean have much of a case to criticize it, and Pope is blatantly partisan. I'm going to see what I can dig up for counter-references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth rewriting all the critiques of her approaches and research into a single section? Is it appropriate to include the lost in the mall technique on this page rather than pointing to the techniques she has pioneered with a set of {{main}}s? To me it's a dubious conflation of criticisms of Loftus and Loftus' experiments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Honors and Awards

Everything in this section that is unreferenced or referenced solely the subjects CV or an org assosiated with the subject needs to be removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)