From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Polygraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 21 is an invalid link; the proverbial '404.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:4053:F19F:1D1:9873 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I have corrected it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add edit summary[edit]

I removed some unreferenced/possibly self researched information. It might fall under WP:CALC but I'm not sure. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Prior to June 2015, the article stated that “The High Court of Israel, in Civil Appeal 551/89 (Menora Insurance Vs. Jacob Sdovnik), ruled that as the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device, polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial.”

The last portion of that sentence was then changed to “but it has not been clearly decided if polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial”, with the reason given as “correction”.

But no source was given to support that correction, nor was there a source for the original statement.

Based on the rest of the information, the original statement IS incorrect: polygraph results CAN be admitted, though not automatically. Nevertheless, if the court in that case ruled they are NOT admissible, then I think that statement should be included in the article, even though that ruling is not being adhered to.

I conducted an internet search to establish the facts, and found many references to that High Court case. But based on the similarity of wording, they all are just quoting Wikipedia. Which emphasizes how important it is for Wikipedia to be correct. A lot of people believe it.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the legal point of view, in the great majority of countries the polygraph is not admitted on trial (Ben-Shakkar et al., 2002; Saxe & Ben-Shakkar, 1999, see Civil Appeal 551/89, Menora Insurance v. Jacob Sdovnik), though it might be used for security reasons...

— Serena Mastroberardino, Valerio Santangelo, New perspectives in assessing deception: The evolution of the truth machine,  European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 21(7):1085-1099 · November 2009
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Artificial memories?[edit]

In the Alternative Tests section, there are two lines regarding the use of fMRIs in lie detection which state "It could also explain which parts of the brain are active when subjects use artificial memories" and "Recalling artificial memories are known to activate the posterior cingulate cortex". However, absolutely no explanation is given for what on Earth an "artificial memory" is. I certainly couldn't find it by googling "artificial memory" (including in conjuction with polygraph and fmri search terms). The Wikipedia article "Exceptional memory" has a small part saying there's considered two types of memory, natural and artificial, with artificial being at least related to mnemonics and possibly related to learning in general, but it's not very clear either and it's not even certain that's the same contextual meaning of the term "artificial memory". In other words, I'm going to add a "clarification needed" tag/template, and this part of the article really needs someone to go in and fix that bit. Thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)