This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance). Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Statistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The content of Reconstruction of automobile destruction was merged into Elizabeth Loftus. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Harvey Weinstein#Conviction and sentencing|Harvey Weinstein's 2020 trial for rape and sexual assault]] The anchor (#Conviction and sentencing) has been deleted by other users before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

I added that in December 2022, on video, Loftus admitted to recovering her own repressed memories of child sexual abuse. It's been deleted twice. Why is wiki creating a false narrative? 2600:6C52:6E00:2B1:20FE:C5E2:9965:8DAB (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources for this, preferably secondary sources to demonstrate that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if person A and person B disagree, it necessarily follows that person B "creates a false narrative". --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is rememberingdangerously.com a WP:RS? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this reads like a fluff piece, especially as there are some very disturbing issues around the over-application of her research.

[1]https://www.thecut.com/article/false-memory-syndrome-controversy.html 75.164.136.4 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, false memories does not mean that people who remember being sexually abused are lying. It only applies to memories "recovered" through hypnotherapy or similar therapeutic approaches. So, yes, it has a very narrow meaning, and it does not apply to sex abuse in general.

The gist: if you have learned from therapy that you have been sexually abused, that therapist is a quack. Or, if you recover on your own "long forgotten memories", such memories are probably bogus. And, yup, there is a way to tell: people with recovered memories often tell fantastic accounts of how they have been sexually exploited by a Satanic cult which killed their babies and some of their members, stories which are completely out of touch with reality, e.g. expressing torture acts which are physically impossible. E.g. one Romanian woman claimed that her husband performed fellatio on her 5-years old child, and she made a penal complaint about her husband. I told her to ask a dentist if such thing is physically possible, since policemen will be merciless with her if they find out it is physically impossible. That was because the child told her her husband did that. So, yeah, read the stories of those with repressed memories of sexual abuse, and if they give five details which are absolutely impossible, you know it's all a fantasy. E.g. they claim they remember clearly one man raped them on New Year's Eve 1969. Problem? Then that man was already dead and buried. Or: that man spent all that day in prison for drunk driving.

Being sexually abused, except in early childhood when one does not form memories, is not something that one forgets (even if it does not lead to trauma). It's not like "where have I put my keys?" tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the section where a selection of the legal cases she has served on, all are cases in which the person was probably guilty. She has also served on just as many where the person was wrongly accused (e.g. George Franklin, Gary Ramona). My suggested fix is give three probably-guilty examples, and three probably-innocent examples. I worry that this was deliberately done by Loftus critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newacademic90291 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this was deliberately done by Loftus critics Obviously. But "critics" is a euphemism for those people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling Seriously? Loftus is demonstrably not a member of the APA. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to imply otherwise [[2]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do not seem to say she is a member (or ever was). Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven This is about her resignation from the APA under suspicious circumstances (multiple ethics complaints). BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs: [[3]]

[[4]] BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials are not appropriate sources for contentious statements about living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:blp. And (again, even if we find RS), why does her resignation matter? Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven It would show a pattern of behavior that led to Taus v. Loftus. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The case was news, but Loftus did not name Taus. Taus spilled the beans that Loftus' research was about Taus. Taus overwhelmingly lost the case, and Loftus' insurance paid Taus a small fee. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu I didn't say that she did. I meant in a more general sense of being investigated for ethical misconduct. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the source for being investigated for ethical misconduct is weak. It is essentially speculating about what her reason might have been. Wikipedia is inherently biased against WP:FRINGE authors. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Found one! From Nature too. Search for "resign" and you should find the relevant paragraph.

^[1] BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states it's speculation about her reason to resign. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Leaving out any implication of wrongdoing, we get this: she got two separate ethics complaints, then resigned for unrelated reasons. That good? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The narrative that she resigned due to the ethics complaints is a conspiracy theory, peddled by authors who badly lost the scientific dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu "Conspiracy theory" is a bit much. Even Loftus agrees with the general order of events. The only point of contention is why she resigned. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not even suggest that she resigned due to incoming ethics complaints.

You're trying to suggest that she knew then about those ethics complaints. Well, there is no evidence for it. All we know is that later she was aware of them.

WP:BLP has draconian rules, which we have to obey. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu

Here's Gerald Koocher, then APA treasurer, saying he was told exactly that by then president Fowles.

^[2] BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he said that. He also said that Loftus violated no enforceable ethical rule. While that would have been a scandal for APA, Loftus could not get reprimanded for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu So what? It still happened. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something happened does not mean it has to be included in Wikipedia. In this case, it is not clear that we know why Loftus resigned from the APA, and we cannot use speculation or hearsay evidence to add a reason for that resignation to the article. Donald Albury 23:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had many attempts at attacking her reputation before, with reasoning just as flimsy, and it will not work this time either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling Seriously? Nobody disputes that she got two ethics complaints and then resigned. It's hard not to. How about this, keep the ethics complaints, and put the resignation several paragraphs down, or if all else fails, leave it out entirely. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they still publish her work. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven So what? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That shows they still respect her work. And do not know why she resigned, and she was not disciplined or fired. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven At least admit that the fact she received multiple ethics complaints is notable, and should be in the article. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? we do not generally put in allegations of wrongdoing in a BLP, unless they are widely covered by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven What is widely in this situation? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:blp, and stop pining me, its anoying. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. How's this? Removing mention of the APA entirely:

In 1995, two successful plaintiffs in recovered memory lawsuits had alleged that Loftus misrepresented their cases in the press. BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did they sucessfuly sue her? Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did Taus? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did Taus? BillionDollarJanitor (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enough time waisting, out of here with a no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]