User talk:Plantbug44

December 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Elizabeth Loftus, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! Could you point out the issues with my sources? Am I typing things in incorrectly? Thanks. Plantbug44 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires secondary sources, especially for negative material concerning a WP:BLP. You have been using mostly primary sources, e.g., the law firm "letter", which, by the way, barely mentioned Loftus. Also, the Recovered Memory Project is not a reliable source. It is obviously an advocacy organization in the form of a blog. The section about Hoult was sourced only to Hoult, which is completely unacceptable. Your purpose here seems to add very negative material about Loftus, which is not a legitimate purpose for editing here. Edits to BLP articles must be netural and encyclopedic. Yours are WP:UNDUE and non-neutral. If you persist in these kinds of edits, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Plantbug44 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added one more very small one before seeing this. sorry about that if it's also unacceptable - I'll take out the primary source and leave the secondary Plantbug44 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On the edit history I wrote "removed secondary source." I meant "Primary source." Sorry! the citation is a secondary source as you asked Plantbug44 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * I contend that what you added to the article does not represent a neutral summary of what the source says. - Donald Albury 15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)