Talk:Monster Study

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

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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementWikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementTemplate:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementAdoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement articles

This article doesn't really have an explanation of what was done in this study. It makes a lot of references to the ethical considerations, but never actually says what the experiments entailed. If there is someone who feels familiar enough with this to add a competent summary of the tests, it would be greatly appreciated. CharacterZero | Speak 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a profound error on behalf of whoever wrote the article. Please, whoever you are, expand the article to explain what took place during this study!--Peter Knutsen 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are no reference citations for some pretty big statements and there are many quotes without sourcing. An article that makes such claims needs to be tightly sourced. --Mattisse 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to write it up now, but some detail about the study's method can be found here [1] (amongst some storytelling) Anjow 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info on the study, but it really needs cleanup, I will work on finding further sources and cleaning up any non-neutral statements.130.86.102.79 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the template. EdJohnston 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the tag back but in the form of more specific templates that belong in article space. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it doesn't appear that the article contains info on IA, IB, or IIB. Does anyone know where this info might be found? Tigerthink (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a mess. It blames the lawsuit on the newspaper rather than the underlying study, it claims that the subjects testified but that they weren't eyewitnesses, and somehow that their parents had magically resurrected. It does point out that, other experiments were even more unethical so, you know, fuckum.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monster Study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122003906/http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/writing/CUNY1213.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/writing/CUNY1213.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on this needs to be re-worded. JointCompound (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]