Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth Loftus/Archive 2

< Talk:Elizabeth Loftus
Latest comment: 2 years ago by MrsSnoozyTurtle in topic Referencing issues
Archive 1 Archive 2

Image:Loftus2003.gif has been listed for deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Loftus2003.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Comment added with signature and timestamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Comment placed with signature and timestamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

All real critiques omitted?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Most wikipedia entries permit cites to critiques in cases of controversial work. I see no such cites here, despite admitted controversies. All controversies are framed from Loftus's point of view. Why is this entry exempted from usual Wikipedia policy of some balance, of course respectfully phrased? Would whoever is policing this entry at least permit some cites to well-documented or peer-reviewed commentary from other perspectives? As a start, I suggest a link to a website that has links to court documents and publications from a different perspective, just to provide a little balance here. Freedom of speech should work both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychMead45 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're claiming that the link you added is "well-documented or peer-reviewed commentary", you need a reality check. In fact, it's an advocacy organization listing links that support their POV that Loftus's alleged infraction of the doctor-patient relationship is more important than Loftus's revelation that that doctor-patient relationship was already broken by the relationship between that doctor and her publications. Listing it would be in violation of WP:ELNO #1 (as pointed out below) and #2 (a number of the links are not described correctly). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Two specific criticisms appear to be about 30% of the article by line count on my screen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External link removed as revert of my edit that was just a format clean up

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The link below was removed from external links in this edit. It was done as a revert of my edit, however my edit was simply a removal of a space at the end of the line, the link was placed in this edit. I agree with the removal of the link, there doesn't seem to be any information not already covered in the article by more reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I reverted your edit specifically, I reverted to a specific revision. Now that you point it out, I'll have to check PsychMead45 (talk · contribs). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No you didn't. I didn't mean to imply that you did. I just wanted to clarify where the material was inserted. As I thought it might be of interest.- - MrBill3 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am setting up archiving on this talk page, using MiszaBot I, old as 180 days, remaining threads 5. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Academic institutions

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the column on the right several academic institutions are mentioned which do not appear in the article, e.g. Harvard, Georgetown Law School, the University of Nevada. I looked up her cv online (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/loftus/loftusCV.pdf) and found that she was a visiting professor in these places. Does that count? If not, delete it. If so, someone should include a reference to her CV in the article. 69.159.115.43 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Reconstruction of automobile destruction

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Reconstruction of automobile destruction is a recently WP:REFUNDed article which contains no independent content. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I restored the article. I'm tentatively supportive of a merger and I suggest waiting a week or so for more discussion here or more material to be added to the article itself. Should we reach a consensus to merge or should the article remain in its current state I'd wholeheartedly support a merge. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to wait for a couple of weeks for progress in making a full article; longer if there are signs of progress in the right direction. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish version of the article

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there somebody who knows about the topic of E.Loftus and false memories, and who also knows the spanish language, who is willing to help in the bad quality spanish version of it? I tried to fix the spanish version but every time I did somebody reverted my changes and restored a misleading version. I wanted wikipedia spanish to have a versions that really represents Loftus' work, but wasn't able to achieve that. I'm not sure if asking this here is adequate. In case it's not, I apologize. Feel free to delete this subject if inadequate. --HuiHai (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elizabeth Loftus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Loftus. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of testimony in trials

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I notice that the "Expert testimony" section includes links to a number of trials in which Loftus is said to have testified, including the "McMartin preschool trial", "O. J. Simpson", "Ted Bundy", "Angelo Buono Jr.", "Willie Mak", "Abscam", "Oliver North", the officers accused in the "Rodney King beating", "Harvey Weinstein" the "Menendez brothers", the "Bosnian War" trials, the "Oklahoma City bombing" case, "Michael Jackson", "Martha Stewart", "Scooter Libby", the "Duke lacrosse", and "Ghislaine Maxwell". The only article about those cases that mentions Loftus is the one about the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Of the others, only the Harvey Weinstein and Duke Lacrosse team links have citations in this article.

While coverage of Loftus's appearances as an expert witness is appropriate, I am concerned about including a list of notorious trials without citations to reliable sources establishing the relevance of those trials to this biography of a living person. I think, in particular, we must be very careful about how we describe trials in which Loftus has appeared as witness. I have seen a couple of recent edits to this list that I think could be interpreted as putting Loftus in a negative light for defending certain persons. Any such characterizations, if used, must be supported by reliable sources, giving due weight to all viewpoints. - Donald Albury 19:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As a heads-up, the Guardian article on Weinstein also mentions her work for Bundy. Raising the concern that "The only article about those cases that mentions Loftus is the one about the Ghislaine Maxwell trial" rings a bit hollow when you personally just reverted an edit which added "Robert Durst" to the list, because the Durst page mentions her involvement in his trial.

What is the alternative viewpoint that is not being duly weighed here? If you're interested in making sure Loftus' work and life is represented neutrally and fairly, isn't it more constructive to see if you can find a reliable source on a point in the article, rather than deleting it? Or better yet, highlight other notable cases, in which her testimony helped exonerate someone found "not guilty"?

WhichDoctor (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is whether linking to all those trials is undue, and how the trials are described in this article. The article says that Loftus has been an expert witness in more than 250 trials (as of 2010). As I noted, the list of "notable" trials linked is largely unsourced, and she is not mentioned in most of the articles about those trials. If those trials are mentioned to show how prominent her role is as an expert witness, that I think there should be citations to reliable sources discussing that role. On the other hand, of the cases linked, the only ones that have descriptive phrases attached mention "serial killers", "mass murderer" and "sex trafficking". If the use of those phrases is to emphasize that Loftus serves as an expert witness in defense of murderers and sex offenders, those connections need to be supported by citations to reliable sources that make that association clear. - Donald Albury 16:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think your concerns are right, it is undue. There are people out there you seem to think that if you are a witness for the defense of someone who turns out to be guilty (or who they think is guilty), you are some sort of accomplice, when actually, the goal of hearing witnesses is gathering relevant facts that help the court decide. Those people hate Loftus, and they have a motive to add such snippets, which, in their eyes, are damning evidence against Loftus' research.
If there is no source for a trial, throw it away. If there is, it could still be undue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
As this is a BLP, I will proactively remove those cases for which no source has been provided, or which have no mention of Loftus in the linked article. - Donald Albury 17:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
User:MrsSnoozyTurtle is trying to slow-edit-war Loftus' accomplishments out of the lede and focus on her expert witness appearances, presumably because the media make more noise about that. But this is an article about a scientist, and we have scientific sources, which are preferred to tabloids, and which paint a more accurate picture than journalists who are either still influenced by the recovered-memory craze of the nineties or unaware enough of it to fall into the same trap as their predecessors back then. -Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Due weight is really the only consideration, because sourcing her participation in the trials is pretty trivial. [2] Ted Bundy, O. J. Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, Michael Jackson, Rodney King, Martha Stewart, and Oliver North–Dr. Elizabeth Loftus has testified on behalf of them all. [3] Harvey Weinstein’s defense team on Friday called a false-memory expert — who has worked on the Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Menendez brothers, and Ted Bundy cases. I'm also not sure there's a negative connotation to that in this instance, as she's written a book (that seems to be well reviewed[4]) about testifying for the defense in those types of trials.
Also, I don't understand the huge amount of third party sources needed templates. Is Psychology Today not a source independent of her, or does the single column she wrote disqualify that? I'm basing that on our article, perhaps she's written a lot of them? Did she also write for the Orange County Register? Or Slate? If there's a general consensus, I'll remove those templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Referencing issues

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper. I think the accusation towards me in your edit summary about drive-by tagging is unfair and not in accordance with WP:AGF. I placed these tags where I am concerned that the text is not supported by independent WP:RS, in order to give yourself and others a chance to find alternative references before the text is changed.

If you disagree with any of the supposed issues with the references, I am happy to discuss of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: If you say you are acting in good faith, I believe you. After reviewing several of the tags, it looked like WP:TAGBOMBING, and I reverted to restore the article to one that will not inevitably turn off readers. I appreciate that you want to discuss the issues here, and am happy to consider any issues you have with the article, and I'm sure others here will, too. But if I may suggest, let's do it in a calm way, one issue at a time. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding and trust. I apologise if it seemed like I was trying to rush things.

To start off with the first tag, which is that a third-party source is needed for the text "...the creation and nature of false memories" in the intro. I believe that this text needs to be supported by independent coverage, rather than an article co-written by the BLP subject. Please note that I am not saying the text needs to be removed (if the statement is supported by other references in the body of the article, a reference is not needed in the intro), rather just that the current reference is not suitable. Originally I was planning to delete the reference, but then thought it best to tag it and give others a chance to find a substitute. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Better start at the body. After that, the lead issue may well be redundant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that would be best to have a independent source there. However, similar to what Hob Gadling said, the purpose of the lead is actually just to summarise information that's already in the body of the text. It doesn't technically need to have a separate citation, because no one's really going to argue that she isn't best-known for that (i.e., it isn't really a "challengeable" claim). --Xurizuri (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, thanks for the advice. I will move these citations to the body of the article and remove the tags from the intro. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, from looking at where the failed verification tags are, I think I've figured out a couple of things. Let me just say, if I'm correct with these guesses, that means you checked so much content - which is incredible. Firstly, I noticed that pretty often they were on the book "Do Justice and Let the Sky Fall" - if you're like me at all, you probably checked the google books version, right? If that's correct, then it may be that you weren't able to verify the source because the preview from there doesn't contain all of the pages. In which case, a more appropriate tag would be {{Request quotation}} (probably the best option because it states exactly what is needed to fix the problem; {{Page needed}} also does that), or {{Verify source}}. {{Failed verification}} is normally only used when someone is certain that no part of the cited text supports the material, which frankly isn't possible if you can't see most of the pages. The other thing I think maybe happened is that sometimes the sources only verify part of the statement. As long as there are other sources on that statement that verify the other parts of the sentence, that's not actually a problem. It's really annoying when that's the case, but generally that would be considered a "successful" verification because, all citations taken together, the statement is verified.
For the third-party source needed tags, as far as I can tell the pattern is this: material written by her and people who know her, or interviews. For the former two, there are some situations where those are still reliable, and for the latter, articles containing interviews aren't necessarily non-independent, and even if they were, they would again still sometimes be considered reliable. There are definitely some parts of the article where a better source is needed, but it's going to take a bit of work to pick those out from the ones where the current source is fine. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Xurizuri. Yes I am accessing the "Do Justice" book via Google Books, however the text search is quite good, so the lack of quotations isn't the issue. However, it is great that you have added many quotes and page numbers now, so thank you for that. My concern regarding the 3rd party tag is that chapter one is written by Loftus, there are several instances where this is fine, but I added the 3rd party tag to text where independent sources are needed.

There are also individual issues with other chapters of the book, and I will now add a "reason" tag for these with more detail about my concern. I hope this helps. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be very helpful. I will note that when I was checking through some of it, the supporting quotes I found would've been difficult to find using search. Would it be possible that that occurred with the other times you weren't able to find the information? Regarding 3rd party inline, I definitely agree that the chapter/s written by Loftus need to be used with caution, however I would like to remove the instances where the statement also has another independent source attached to it. I get distracted so I may mess this up a little bit, but I'll try to remove or address tags in groups based on my reason for removal, so that it's easy to keep track of why I did things. I will also ask just to be sure because you haven't addressed it - do you still consider articles which include interviews to be non-independent? (and was I even correct in my assumption about that in the first place?) --Xurizuri (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome, I hope the extra description was useful.

Interview-based articles are a tricky grey area; personally I think that they would mostly be considered not to be independent, aside from any content that the interviewer has written based off research that is separate to the interview. However, there may be Wikipedia policies about this situation that I am unaware of. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I'm not sure what discussion made you think the consensus was to reinstate all those tags. It's good we're going through each source, but now the page looks like a big mess again with all those tags. Can't we at least do the reader a service and remove some of them while we look for better remedies? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Pyrrho. I'm sorry that the tags look messy, that was not my intention. Hopefully it doesn't last long, as the issues get worked through. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe Pyrrho is referring to the general convention that, when a disagreement occurs, we default to the version before the contested edit (see the essay WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). I'm pretty sure that convention is also mentioned somewhere else, but there's so many pages and I don't know exactly where it is. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
While page numbers are usually needed for book citations, quotes are optional, so is individual editor access to sources. Unless there's a serious reason to believe that much material misrepresents sources, this tagging seems overzealous. —PaleoNeonate – 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello PaleoNeonate. To clarify, the failed verification tags are not due to the lack of quotations. It is because the article's text does not seem to be supported by the reference. I am happy to provide further detail on any specific tag you have concerns about, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Why introduce a stupid sentence like "Loftus's focus shifted to eyewitness testimony in 1974" and adding a "source needed" tag to that same sentence? The text immediately before that makes it clear that she had already focussed on eyewitness testimony before that, although without using the phrase "eyewitness testimony".
"In order to obtain funding from the Department of Transport for studies into car accidents, Loftus and showed 45 students videos of car crashes" is also stupid: since when do you do research "in order to obtain funding" for the very same research? Did she do that research and pay for it herself, to show the Department she could do it? What the source actually said is, The first step was to find a project somebody would pay for. The Department of Transportation was offering money to study car accidents. Getting money for research is part of the process, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, an utterly uninteresting one. The trick in quoting sources is to decide what is important and what is not, and here that trick is clearly not apparent.
The article is steadily getting worse, and the claim that the edits are getting closer to the sources quoted is ridiculous. I think this is a case of WP:CIR: SnoozyTurtle does not understand what Loftus did, why she did it, and what the results showed. Maybe a revert to the pre-Turtle era would be appropriate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Hob Gadling. The aim of these edits has been to address the WP:NPOV issues and have the article represent the sources more closely. For example, I think "Loftus's focus shifted to eyewitness testimony..." follows the source better than the previous text of "Her direct involvement in applying her work to the legal system".
I agree that the text about the Department of Transport funding is badly worded, and I will try to improve that. However I do not agree with the statement that research funding is "utterly uninteresting", since modern probity conventions have shown that it is important to be aware of any third-party funding sources. If you think that the revised wording could use further tweaking, I am happy to work together with you on it, of course. However I would appreciate if you didn't describe the good-faith edits of other volunteers as "stupid". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Loftus/Archive_2&oldid=1152296950"