Talk:Jane Doe case

Consequences
This sentence slightly fails NPOV

"The university started an investigation about the research, which went on for nearly two years hindering the publication of the findings that had great importance for the public."

Also in what is now the subsequent section the phrase "considerable evidence" is used like a delimiter of fact.

I'm not going to change anything, but whoever wrote this can do better. Saying that publication was 'hindered' isn't a fair representation if facts are disputed. You have to use a neutral word here. And using the phrase "considerable evidence" like a hammer to drive home a point is sloppy or at least orig research.Createangelos (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article has NPOV issues. The language and section titles treat the position of Loftus et al. as incontrovertible fact rather than covering alternate perspectives (from Corwin, Nicole Taus, etc.). Editors could incorporate information from Taus v. Loftus, since both articles essentially cover the same subject.
 * In the meantime, I have tidied up the references, adding archive links in a few cases. This article would benefit from some additional references that don't rely so heavily on 'Skeptical Inquirer' and a single issue of 'Child Maltreatment'. Gardimuer (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! the article did need some attention.Createangelos (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Victoria University of Wellington supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)