Talk:Elizabeth Loftus

This article seems more like a fluff piece than a NPOV

Why does it omit her involvement in greater detail defending sex offenders and blaming the victims? Her research is also not peer-reviewed, sometimes criticized and her blaming victims of sexual abuse is a fact. It's completely neutral and factual. Not mentioning and removing it, seems rather strange. Falllant (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

defending sex offenders Are you saying that participation in trials as a witness of the defense is something people need to be chastised for? Or is that only so when the defendants are guilty? Or maybe when you are convinced that they are guilty?

blaming victims of sexual abuse is a fact Source?

Actually, she blames therapists for implanting false memories in clients, who then wrongly believe that they are victims of sexual abuse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, and please do not insert loaded, NPOV violating language into the lead of a BLP, with fake sourcing. The sources you cited did not mention "victim blaming," "continually defending alleged and convicted sex offenders," or "infamy." Please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Read my sources, that I provided. "Are you saying that participation in trials as a witness of the defense is something people need to be chastised for? Or is that only so when the defendants are guilty? Or maybe when you are convinced that they are guilty?"

You seem really agitated, how about reading my sources instead of putting words in my mouth?

" Actually, she blames therapists for implanting false memories in clients, who then wrongly believe that they are victims of sexual abuse." Source for any of your claims? She never proved that such a thing is even possible. Falllant (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Read my sources is a really, really bad response to The sources you cited did not mention [..].

She never proved that such a thing is even possible. Yes, she did. Unless by "such a thing" you mean "exactly this thing". Then, of course she did not prove it because it would be unethical.

Also read WP:INDENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Intro section

Hello SchreiberBike. I agree that "scientific" can be used instead of "academic" if that is your preference.

Loftus is much more widely known that a typical researcher in the psychology field, and this notability comes from her involvement in legal cases. Therefore I believe that the legal work should take precedence in the intro.

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No. That is just your individual impression, from your individual information sources. Everybody who is half-way well-informed about memory research, as well as everybody in the skeptic community, knew Loftus for decades before any of those legal cases started (if they are old enough). Those legal cases are all from the last three years! The article was first written in 2006. Please read WP:RECENT to correct your misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle and Hob Gadling: Loftus's work has been important for many years in understanding how memory works and how fallible it it. Because court cases are so often base on memory, and because the stakes are so high in court cases, it's inevitable that her work would be applied in that field, but she is primarily a research psychologist doing scientific work in the study of memory. She has long been widely known in the field of psychology, but you are right that her involvement in court has made her more well known in general. I'm surprised by the list of people she has been involved in defending; they are some pretty reprehensible people, but even they deserve a defense. I wonder if that list is a fair reflection of the people she has worked with. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Result of investigation

(Copied over from my comment on the user's talk page)

@Plantbug44: In your most recent edits, you selectively used only part of the cited source. Namely, you wrote:

Two of the three IRB committee members at the University of Washington recommended that Loftus be reprimanded, but a dean overturned that recommendation.

The source, however, says:

In the spring of 2001, the three-member investigating committee, consisting of two clinicians and one sociologist, concluded that Loftus was not guilty of the charge of "scholarly misconduct". But the two clinicians recommended to the dean, David Hodge, that she nonetheless be reprimanded and subjected to a program of remedial education on professional ethics. They instructed Loftus not to publish data obtained by methods they regarded as inconsistent with the "ethical principals" [sic] of psychologists-that is, the methods of a journalistic investigation.

On July 3, 2001, ... Dean Hodge wrote Loftus a letter of exoneration. Her work, he said, "does not constitute research involving human subjects." She did not commit ethical violations or deviate from accepted research practices. She was not guilty of misconduct. She would not have to undergo education on how to conduct research.[1]

I contend that what you added to the article does not represent a neutral summary of what the source says. Donald Albury 15:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting my edits?

I added that in December 2022, on video, Loftus admitted to recovering her own repressed memories of child sexual abuse. It's been deleted twice. Why is wiki creating a false narrative? 2600:6C52:6E00:2B1:20FE:C5E2:9965:8DAB (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for this, preferably secondary sources to demonstrate that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if person A and person B disagree, it necessarily follows that person B "creates a false narrative". --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RS

Why is rememberingdangerously.com a WP:RS? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)