Talk:False memory

message: I added Citation Needed to this section, but I'd also like to call attention to this sentence, " In February 1997 Jennifer Gerrietts, Argus Leader, South Dakota Maxine Berry, sued her therapists and clinic that treated her from 1992-1995 and, she says, made her falsely believe she had been sexually and physically abused as a child when no such abuse ever occurred." What is that part starting with "Jennifer" and ending with "Dakota"? Is that a poorly-entered attempt at a citation?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Probably best to just find some reliable sources and rewrite that section based on them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxine Berry 

message: Has any reliable work talked about how some of these supposedly false memories are real...but not in the way people think?  For example, in the promotional material Forrest Gump does indeed say "Life is like a box of chocolates" but says "Life was like a box of chocolates" in the actual movie.  Then there are articles that use the wrong name (Fruit Loops rather then Froot Loops) (Cereal (continued from page 1) Herald-Journal - Mar 8, 1995 pg 6).--2606:A000:131D:6018:C0AC:AE57:F028:993D (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sources used in "Commonly held false memories" discuss this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Commonly held false memories" not longer exists in the article so what sources address this?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the memory is NOT false 

message: Consider discussing the imagination inflation effect and linking it to the imagination inflation article. Imagination inflation is an effect that has been proven to produce false memories. Ritapsych250 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, yes and perhaps cite Garry et al 1996 and Goff and Roediger 1996. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagination inflation

message: Is there an actual reason for ? Why do you prefer "Commonly held false memories" over "Mandela effect", under which the phenomenon is commonly known and from which there is a redirect? — MarkH21talk 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is an actual reason. It's about Wikipedia procedures. I "prefer" the way the article handled the subtopic (at least before you took it upon yourself to unilaterally restructure it) because that version was reached by consensus. (Perhaps you've heard of that process?) Your changes were made as if the discussion reaching that consensus didn't exist or didn't matter (or more likely: you didn't bother to look at it), and I object to that. For example, there is concern about legitimizing the term and concept of "Mandela Effect", as if it were something other than pseudoscientific nonsense. A top-level section covering the whole subtopic of "commonly held false memories" as "Mandela Effect" would suggest that's a legitimate term for it. But, as an example, the Bologna clock is definitely not an example of some imaginary "Mandela Effect", and thus should not be described under that section header. There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this already, and your inattention to that is a problem. If you think that consensus should change, it is up to you to make argument for why, before making any such changes to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding WP procedure: lack of prior consensus for a new edit is not a valid reason for reverting and is against the spirit of WP:BOLD, which you should be well aware of. If you have a reason (as you gave above after being prompted), at least have the courtesy to mention it in your revert edit summary or create a talk comment after the revert, lest you come off as status quo stonewalling. Also, please note the distinction between “revert because there is no prior consensus on the new version of ___” (not very valid) and “revert because there is existing consensus on the former version of ___” (reasonable and valid).Yes, I did not read the prior discussions about the Mandela effect and thanks for pointing them out to me. I don’t see a consensus in the sections above for the current section title, I’m now fine with leaving the section title as it is based on your reasoning. Just give the actual reason next time and tone down the hostility. — MarkH21talk 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above makes it pretty clear that the phrasing and presentation of that section was arrived at via discussion and compromise. That's what a consensus looks like. Before making wholesale changes to an article, one should always check the Talk page for aspects that have been the subject of contention. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussions above don't say anything about the name of the section except for the one about whether "collective" being the correct word (, 2 years ago). The other discussions are that a few editors think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, one or two think that it shouldn't be mentioned at all (, 3 years ago), and a follow-up between two of those editors on the same mention-or-not discussion (, 2 years ago).The  discussion doesn't demonstrate any consensus for using "Common false memories" as a section title, any consensus against using "Mandela effect" as the section title, nor any consensus for anything else except adding research and changing redirects after a title change. In fact, the only discussion about the actual section title is that one editor prefers using "Collective" and one editor prefers not using "Collective". — MarkH21talk 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using "Mandela effect" as a heading gives too much weight to a ridiculous fringe theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it becomes a regularly used term (in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME) for the general phenomenon of commonly shared false memories (not the alternate reality nonsense), then the term has grown beyond the fringe theory from which its name derives. Then undue WP:PROMINENCE is no longer the issue. It’s not clear at this point that this has happened, but it may well happen. — MarkH21talk 23:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section name for "Commonly held false memories" vs "Mandela effect" 

message: The first sentence in this section reads "The false memory phenomenon was initially investigated by psychological pioneers Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud.", but lacks any detail as to how Janet and Freud impacted or investigated false memory. Any insight or information as to the role these two played in false memory would be useful. Luk3lam (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Luk3lam.  I teach and have written about Janet's and Freud's contribution to the history of false memory. Their impact was to more excacerbate the problem rather than to identify it in a skeptical way. Hippolyte Bernheim preceded Janet and Freud and he did seem to warn about the problem of false memories in a more skeptical way. Janet's theory of dissociation, and Freud's theory of repression actually led to psychotherapies that tended to dig to recover memories leading to false memories. I can help further if needed. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Work 

message: The original article was written around 2009. It says that false memory syndrome is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but refers to it without citation or date. As the DSM is revised from time to time, I think someone should determine what version was the source of the OP's information. If the following suggestion wouldn't be considered original research, I suggest someone check the latest edition to verify whether the claim holds true in 2022.
Cwilsyn Cwilsyn (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: DSM

message: Rebecca Watson hits the nail on the head again:
Anyway, she links this preprint: . Not useable for Wikipedia yet but I thought I'd share it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Wikipedia Talk pages is to discuss changes to the article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @Hob Gadling seems an acceptable idea even though it is original research to me 88.110.61.147 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study about Mandela effect 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jojo274 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

message: The article as of 27 June 2023 says, "Another notable case is Maxine Berry. Maxine grew up in the custody of her mother, who opposed the father having contact with her (Berry & Berry, 2001)." Why is that one reference (?) in the format of an inline reference in a scholarly paper, instead of a Wikipedia-style link? What does it actually refer to? There is no reference in the article's References by anyone named "Berry". Maybe it's a book that the original editor forgot to properly link to? IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird reference