Talk:Polygraph
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polygraph article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Polygraph. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Polygraph at the Reference desk. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TV episodes
[edit]A lot of space in this article - most of the section “Society and culture” - was taken up by recounting TV shows in which a polygraph is used to supposedly solve a case or reveal the truth. IMO this coverage was way excessive and added little or no relevant information to the article - and most of it was unsourced to boot. I have provided sources for a few of the more directly relevant items. The others were detailed retellings of a particular episode of a TV show in which a polygraph is featured, either to reveal the truth or to fool the machine. None of them was referenced and I have deleted them all. Anyone object? If so, please explain why you think they are significant and provide references. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Effective
[edit]Johndoe2230 I don't know what you mean by "are 98% effective". Effectiveness is neither reliability nor validity, so I don't know what you mean. I cannot make heads or tails of it. How do you define effectiveness? How do you measure it? What are WP:RS for it? What you wrote is grammatically correct, but it does not have meaning. In plaintext: tell us where did you read that polygraph examinations are 98% effective. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Uncited material in need of citations
[edit]I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Quickfix1: It is true what you say, but it needs a source. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Service: That refers to this reinsertion of one of the paragraphs below. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
"Junk science"?
[edit]Even though a few sources are cited, should it really be referred to as "junk science"? This doesn't sound very neutral. 2601:49:8400:26B:F89F:F8CE:B532:A6BB (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Neutral" does not mean "some say this, some say that" on Wikipedia. It means "follow where the sources go". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Technology
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Technology
- C-Class vital articles in Technology
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Law enforcement articles
- Top-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Physiology articles
- Mid-importance Physiology articles
- Physiology articles about an unassessed area
- WikiProject Physiology articles