| 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: 2 months  |
 | 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective
editJohndoe2230 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)
- Data and sources are so important! I also noticed that there are about 5 sources or so that were published within the last 5 years. There are great articles related to polygraphs and deception that are a little bit more updated. Everything else is from decades ago.. AmarillaAerre (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
"Junk science"?
editEven 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)
An opinion stated as a fact
editThe article says: "Marston's machine indicated a strong positive correlation between systolic blood pressure and lying." This sounds like a fact, while it only describes Marston's claims.
Question
editIn the lede it says "often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector test"; why is this term incorrect? I'm not necessarily against it, but it's not very clear why it's incorrect. xRozuRozu (t • c) 00:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a pretty good explanation at the end of that paragraph. (The machine is detecting physiologic responses that may or may not be associated with a lie.) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)