Talk:Polygraph/Archive 2

WikiProjects
I am surprised at some of the WikiProjects this page is supposedly related to. I can see no justification for including this article in "WikiProject Discrimination". I can see very little justification for listing it under "WikiProject History of science" or under "WikiProject United States/Government". Anybody mind if I delete those three listings from the top of this page? That would leave Crime, Law Enforcement, Skepticism, and Physiology as appropriate Wikiprojects. I am open to persuasion if someone thinks those other classifications make sense. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

When did who GSR to the polygraph?
The article current reads, A device recording both blood pressure and galvanic skin response was invented in 1921 by Dr. John Augustus Larson of the University of California and first applied in law enforcement work by the Berkeley Police Department under its nationally renowned police chief August Vollmer. Further work on this device was done by Leonarde Keeler.[76] As Larson's protege, Keeler updated the device by making it portable and added the galvanic skin response to it in 1939. His device was then purchased by the FBI, and served as the prototype of the modern polygraph.[77] One of those statements may be correct, but not both. If Larson's machine had GSR recording, Keeler could not have added it 18 years later. Slade Farney (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. fixed it.  it was keeler. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN’s removal of content on 12/25/2014
It was predictable that she would suppress the truth because of her POV on the subject, but I wondered what excuse she’d use. The extract was short, so fair use applies, and there were some changes to it. The source is the science magazine of one of the best universities in the world. And the facts quoted about the Westerfield case are correct and can be verified.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:Copy-paste is absolute; please read it. You CANNOT simply use the words of a source, or closely paraphrase them. People can have their editing privileges revoted if they persistently copy-paste material into Wikipedia. 2) "Fair use" only applies if the copied content is in quotation marks, and is subject to many other limitations which do not apply here. 3) Imperial University may be one of the best universities in the world, but this is a student-published magazine, not a journal. It appears to be anything but picky about what it publishes. Quoting from their masthead, "We’re always on the lookout for potential new contributors for both the magazine and the website. If you are interested and would like to get involved as a writer, editor or illustrator please don’t hesitate to get in contact." This gives the impression that they will post anything submitted by anybody. 4) The article you cited contains no footnotes or other normal academic verification, and the author is listed merely by name, with no indication of what his expertise is or where he gets his information. Thus, the author cannot be used as any kind of source for factual information about Westerfield. He is presumably getting his information from somewhere, but we have no idea where. 5) If the facts "are correct and can be verified" about the actions of the polygraph operator during Westerfield's examination, fine - then cite the verification directly, from some other, reliable source. Not this nobody-knows-who-he-is-or-where-he-is-getting-his information source. --MelanieN (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) This wasn’t a simple copy-paste: as I pointed out, there were some changes made. “Closely paraphrase” is vague. The rules you refer to do not quantify these aspects, and neither did you. This was just a short extract from the source, and I would argue that the de minimis rule applies.
 * 2) Fair use: you could easily have just added quotation marks.
 * 3) So the university is one of the best in the world, but the students aren’t? And your quotation implies that articles are edited. Not picky?  Students writing for the magazine are largely drawn from the MSc Science Communication course at Imperial. I, Science was awarded runner-up in the category of Best Magazine at The Guardian's Student Media Awards in both 2006 and 2008.
 * 4) and 5) Newspaper articles don’t normally have footnotes or verification, yet they are acceptable.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add edit summary
I removed some unreferenced/possibly self researched information. It might fall under WP:CALC but I'm not sure. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Polygraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709092823/http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2001/fall/wonderwoman/ to http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2001/fall/wonderwoman/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Footnote 21 is an invalid link; the proverbial '404.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:4053:F19F:1D1:9873 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have corrected it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel
Prior to June 2015, the article stated that “The High Court of Israel, in Civil Appeal 551/89 (Menora Insurance Vs. Jacob Sdovnik), ruled that as the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device, polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial.”

The last portion of that sentence was then changed to “but it has not been clearly decided if polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial”, with the reason given as “correction”.

But no source was given to support that correction, nor was there a source for the original statement.

Based on the rest of the information, the original statement IS incorrect: polygraph results CAN be admitted, though not automatically. Nevertheless, if the court in that case ruled they are NOT admissible, then I think that statement should be included in the article, even though that ruling is not being adhered to.

I conducted an internet search to establish the facts, and found many references to that High Court case. But based on the similarity of wording, they all are just quoting Wikipedia. Which emphasizes how important it is for Wikipedia to be correct. A lot of people believe it.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Concerning the legal point of view, in the great majority of countries the polygraph is not admitted on trial (Ben-Shakkar et al., 2002; Saxe & Ben-Shakkar, 1999, see Civil Appeal 551/89, Menora Insurance v. Jacob Sdovnik), though it might be used for security reasons..."

- Serena Mastroberardino, Valerio Santangelo


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Artificial memories?
In the Alternative Tests section, there are two lines regarding the use of fMRIs in lie detection which state "It could also explain which parts of the brain are active when subjects use artificial memories" and "Recalling artificial memories are known to activate the posterior cingulate cortex". However, absolutely no explanation is given for what on Earth an "artificial memory" is. I certainly couldn't find it by googling "artificial memory" (including in conjuction with polygraph and fmri search terms). The Wikipedia article "Exceptional memory" has a small part saying there's considered two types of memory, natural and artificial, with artificial being at least related to mnemonics and possibly related to learning in general, but it's not very clear either and it's not even certain that's the same contextual meaning of the term "artificial memory". In other words, I'm going to add a "clarification needed" tag/template, and this part of the article really needs someone to go in and fix that bit. Thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)