Talk:False memory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Earenas1 (article contribs).

Mandela Effect

Why does Mandela Effect redirect to this page? Or, more to the point, why isn't the effect explained anywhere in the article? The words "Mandela Effect" do not appear anywhere on it, so anyone following a link that mentions the Mandela Effect will be left completely uninformed. ReySquared^Ⓣ_Ⓒ 09:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Mandela Effect and Talk:Confabulation. The page was deleted and should stay deleted, in my opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the redirect should be deleted too. Or the False memory article should explain what "Mandela effect" is. There was a paragraph in Confabulation but it was deleted last month: [1]

I don't care which, but the current status is dysfunctional and should be remedied. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree! I came to Wikipedia to search about the Mandela Effect, and it directs me to this page. Because one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is "Encyclopedia," I would think the Mandela Effect would have a page or at least a section on this page describing what it is. Although controversial, it would be informative to explain what the theory is. Robynrunkel (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong! There is a smaller article inside this page. I came to wikipedia about the Mandela Effect, and with some research skills, I found the article interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.176.171 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Back in 2015 the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandela Effect, due to insufficient coverage and subsequent WP:RS problems with referencing ... but things change. There are ample examples of good coverage out there now, if you want to take a stab at it.

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/are-you-living-in-an-alternate-reality-welcome-to-the-wacky-worl/
2. https://thewire.in/110359/shared-false-memories-mandela-effect/
3. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/02/16/mandela-effect-false-memories/#.WK5xFDi1_3s
4. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/the-mandela-effect-conspiracy-theorists-believe-were-living-in-colliding-alternate-realities/news-story/ac488ee2426335f09d781f50c26ba33a
5. http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/763194/Mandela-Effect-Conspiracy-theory-parallel-universes
6. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mandela-effect-pop-culture-memories

Poeticbent talk 06:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the redirect has now been deleted.

With regard to those sources, the Discover and Wire articles are identical. In general the sources don't take the theory seriously, using words like "wacky", "WTF", "bizarre" etc, and using headlines like "Conspiracy of the Day: Your Memories of Pop Culture Are Fake and Created by Satanic Scientists".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They describe Broome's purported explanation as "wacky" and such, but the articles document that collective false memories are a thing that happens, and attach the name "Mandela Effect" to them. I'm going to add a brief section to the article about that (since it doesn't seem to fit well elsewhere in the article), so that WP has a place to redirect Mandela Effect to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This violates WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."--Jack Upland (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

They're mentioning it prominently, and some of the articles are serious, even if they don't treat the fringe explanation for it with much credibility. But even if you disagree, the bottom line is that we owe it to our readers to mention it. Like it or not, "Mandela Effect" is out there, being used to refer to the phenomenon of collective false memories. People come to Wikipedia looking for more information about it (the redirect that was recently deleted was getting 30–60K hits/month last summer[2]), and – except for this new paragraph – they'd find nothing. While that makes for some ironic jokes along the lines of "I swear I remember Wikipedia having an article about this", that kind of gaslighting doesn't serve the reader. I started looking at this yesterday when a discussion I was following had someone comment that they couldn't find anything about it on Wikipedia. I consider that a black eye – a failure to live up to our mission – and I tried to fix it. I don't think it should have its own article; that would be totally WP:UNDUE. But a paragraph in an article that acknowledges that it's a thing people talk about, explains where the name comes from, and places it in context of the scientific consensus of the subject... is exactly the right solution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me a serious article. But the key point in WP:ONEWAY is connecting the topics. I have never seen an article about false memories in general that refers to the Mandela Effect. All we have are frivolous articles about the Mandela Effect (or rather about the bears etc). The section here implies there is a phenomenon of collective false memories, that the Mandela Effect is a widely accepted term for them, and that the theory is a valid alternative explanation. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. If you come here looking for information about false memories, the Mandela Effect is at best a distraction, at worst an intellectual wormhole. I don't think viewers is the proper criteria. If it was, Wikipedia would host pornography.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that slippery slope sure appeared out of nowhere. Wikipedia doesn't host porn because arousing people isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to provide people with information, so providing them with information about the so-called "Mandela Effect" falls squarely within that.

Furthermore, I'm confident the paragraph does not do what you imagine it to do. Yes, it does imply that there are false memories that are shared by multiple people; not only is it intuitively obvious that this happens, the cited articles demonstrate that it does. However, the paragraph does not imply that it's a widely-accepted term, but instead identifies the flaky source that coined it (stopping just short of calling it "flaky" for NPOV reasons). And no, it does not imply that the flaky alternate-realities hypothesis is valid, in fact taking pains to point out that pretty much no one thinks so.

But even if the paragraph fails to present the information with adequate academic rigor, then that's an argument for improving what it says, not for removing the only responsible mention of "Mandela Effect" from Wikipedia. Suggestions for how to present the information better would be welcome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So basically we have to wait for the media to stop lying about the Mandela effect before we can improve this article. That is a major flaw with wikipedia. The media is well known now for lying and they will continue lying about the Mandela effect for who knows how long.Arnold1 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Arnold1 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia just needs to apply its policies of citing reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can put up with the off the wall conclusions made in the youtube Something STRANGE Is Happening! The Mandela Effect!!! there are plenty of reliable sources for Oscar Meyer, Looney Toons, and Captain Crunch. You can find your own examples vis Google Newspaper archive. It not so much false memory as it is printing errors that people remember. Heck, one article has "Looney Toons" in the main title but used "Looney Tunes" in the main text ("Coming Soon: Animated look at Looney Toons" Bangor News Aug 16, 1991) The youtuber Perpetual Motion has a host of examples from various newspapers of these typos and misprints.--2606:A000:7D44:100:F0D3:1F4E:FA7D:7810 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

With all the press coverage this (bogus) theory received, I lean on giving it its own article. If Bottle flipping can have one, come on! In any case, I made a slight re-org that may suffice. RobP (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur that Mandela Effect is a significant enough cultural phenomenon to be worth its own article now. Quite a bit has been published on it since the original WP article was deleted. We'll just have to be careful with sources. Note that currently this article (ie the False Memory article) includes in its lede a statement that Mandela Effect is another name for False Memory, but that's not quite correct: Mandela Effect is a specific subset of the False Memory phenomenon. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. No reputable expert on false memories says that.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Mandela Effect as a cultural phenomenon is larger than the "false memories" and should be separate. The Mandela Effect goes beyond simply what people call the Mandela Effect into theories about multiple universes. The X-Files had an entire episode devoted to this. Not to mention a movie called the Mandela Effect that gets its own page. It is ridiculous and embarrassing at this point that the redirect brings you to this morsel of information. C'mon people. 2601:182:4381:E60:711F:F7BF:E057:907E (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That episode has an article. That movie has an article. (Should we mention and link to those in the article?) The multiple-universe conjecture that gets passed off as a "theory" is explained here. I think we've got it covered. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Maxine Berry

I added Citation Needed to this section, but I'd also like to call attention to this sentence, " In February 1997 Jennifer Gerrietts, Argus Leader, South Dakota Maxine Berry, sued her therapists and clinic that treated her from 1992-1995 and, she says, made her falsely believe she had been sexually and physically abused as a child when no such abuse ever occurred." What is that part starting with "Jennifer" and ending with "Dakota"? Is that a poorly-entered attempt at a citation? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. Probably best to just find some reliable sources and rewrite that section based on them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"False memory is often considered for trauma victims"

With this sentence, WP says in its own voice that the people in question are real trauma victims, and their memories are not false memories. Thus, WP embraces fringe ideas.

Also, "often" is WP:WEASEL. There has to be a better way to say this. I think the earlier version, before the IP's changes [3] was such a better way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's attempting to say that actual trauma victims can also have false memories? The "crystal clear recall" of a traumatic incident can potentially be quite inaccurate. Or perhaps it's saying something else entirely. --tronvillain (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It was introduced last month by an IP: [4]. The old version was "False memory is often considered regarding childhood sexual abuse", and the IP added a half-relevant news source relating to the Kavanaugh case and quoting Richard McNally.

Since the case is about abuse, but not childhood abuse, the IP had to introduce the "trauma victim" stuff. I think the edit is botched and should be reverted, or better, we should try to find another wording for "regarding". How about "accusations of childhood sexual abuse"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

When the memory is NOT false

Has any reliable work talked about how some of these supposedly false memories are real...but not in the way people think? For example, in the promotional material Forrest Gump does indeed say "Life is like a box of chocolates" but says "Life was like a box of chocolates" in the actual movie. Then there are articles that use the wrong name (Fruit Loops rather then Froot Loops) (Cereal (continued from page 1) Herald-Journal - Mar 8, 1995 pg 6).--2606:A000:131D:6018:C0AC:AE57:F028:993D (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources used in "Commonly held false memories" discuss this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Commonly held false memories" not longer exists in the article so what sources address this?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Imagination inflation

Consider discussing the imagination inflation effect and linking it to the imagination inflation article. Imagination inflation is an effect that has been proven to produce false memories. Ritapsych250 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC) ritapsych250

Good idea, yes and perhaps cite Garry et al 1996 and Goff and Roediger 1996. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Section name for "Commonly held false memories" vs "Mandela effect"

@JasonAQuest: Is there an actual reason for your revert? Why do you prefer "Commonly held false memories" over "Mandela effect", under which the phenomenon is commonly known and from which there is a redirect? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is an actual reason. It's about Wikipedia procedures. I "prefer" the way the article handled the subtopic (at least before you took it upon yourself to unilaterally restructure it) because that version was reached by consensus. (Perhaps you've heard of that process?) Your changes were made as if the discussion reaching that consensus didn't exist or didn't matter (or more likely: you didn't bother to look at it), and I object to that. For example, there is concern about legitimizing the term and concept of "Mandela Effect", as if it were something other than pseudoscientific nonsense. A top-level section covering the whole subtopic of "commonly held false memories" as "Mandela Effect" would suggest that's a legitimate term for it. But, as an example, the Bologna clock is definitely not an example of some imaginary "Mandela Effect", and thus should not be described under that section header. There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this already, and your inattention to that is a problem. If you think that consensus should change, it is up to you to make argument for why, before making any such changes to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP procedure: lack of prior consensus for a new edit is not a valid reason for reverting and is against the spirit of WP:BOLD, which you should be well aware of. If you have a reason (as you gave above after being prompted), at least have the courtesy to mention it in your revert edit summary or create a talk comment after the revert, lest you come off as status quo stonewalling. Also, please note the distinction between “revert because there is no prior consensus on the new version of ___” (not very valid) and “revert because there is existing consensus on the former version of ___” (reasonable and valid).

Yes, I did not read the prior discussions about the Mandela effect and thanks for pointing them out to me. I don’t see a consensus in the sections above for the current section title, I’m now fine with leaving the section title as it is based on your reasoning. Just give the actual reason next time and tone down the hostility. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above makes it pretty clear that the phrasing and presentation of that section was arrived at via discussion and compromise. That's what a consensus looks like. Before making wholesale changes to an article, one should always check the Talk page for aspects that have been the subject of contention. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussions above don't say anything about the name of the section except for the one about whether "collective" being the correct word (Collective false memories?, 2 years ago). The other discussions are that a few editors think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, one or two think that it shouldn't be mentioned at all (Mandela Effect, 3 years ago), and a follow-up between two of those editors on the same mention-or-not discussion (How common is the "Mandela Effect", 2 years ago).

The Collective false memories? discussion doesn't demonstrate any consensus for using "Common false memories" as a section title, any consensus against using "Mandela effect" as the section title, nor any consensus for anything else except adding research and changing redirects after a title change. In fact, the only discussion about the actual section title is that one editor prefers using "Collective" and one editor prefers not using "Collective". — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think using "Mandela effect" as a heading gives too much weight to a ridiculous fringe theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If it becomes a regularly used term (in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME) for the general phenomenon of commonly shared false memories (not the alternate reality nonsense), then the term has grown beyond the fringe theory from which its name derives. Then undue WP:PROMINENCE is no longer the issue. It’s not clear at this point that this has happened, but it may well happen. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Early Work

The first sentence in this section reads "The false memory phenomenon was initially investigated by psychological pioneers Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud.", but lacks any detail as to how Janet and Freud impacted or investigated false memory. Any insight or information as to the role these two played in false memory would be useful. Luk3lam (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Luk3lam. I teach and have written about Janet's and Freud's contribution to the history of false memory. Their impact was to more excacerbate the problem rather than to identify it in a skeptical way. Hippolyte Bernheim preceded Janet and Freud and he did seem to warn about the problem of false memories in a more skeptical way. Janet's theory of dissociation, and Freud's theory of repression actually led to psychotherapies that tended to dig to recover memories leading to false memories. I can help further if needed. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

DSM

The original article was written around 2009. It says that false memory syndrome is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but refers to it without citation or date. As the DSM is revised from time to time, I think someone should determine what version was the source of the OP's information. If the following suggestion wouldn't be considered original research, I suggest someone check the latest edition to verify whether the claim holds true in 2022.

Cwilsyn Cwilsyn (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have just CTRL-F for "false memory" and "false memories" in the latest (DSM-5) and it is not mentioned once. Memory confabulations and errors are probably mentioned in places, but not the false memory syndrome phrase. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

New study about Mandela effect

Rebecca Watson hits the nail on the head again: Hey, remember when Nelson Mandela died? In 2013? 23 years after he was released from prison? Or maybe you, like “paranormal researcher” Fiona Broome, distinctly remember Nelson Mandela dying while still IN prison, and maybe instead of simply assuming you’re an idiot who just didn’t pay attention to extremely important events in world history that directly impact millions of marginalized people on another continent, you think that this must actually be evidence that you are from an alternate universe where that DID happen, and now you’ve been thrust into this new dimension where everything is pretty much the same except that one thing.

Anyway, she links this preprint: [5]. Not useable for Wikipedia yet but I thought I'd share it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia Talk pages is to discuss changes to the article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling seems an acceptable idea even though it is original research to me 88.110.61.147 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jojo274, Zoejones107 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jojo274 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Weird reference

The article as of 27 June 2023 says, "Another notable case is Maxine Berry. Maxine grew up in the custody of her mother, who opposed the father having contact with her (Berry & Berry, 2001)." Why is that one reference (?) in the format of an inline reference in a scholarly paper, instead of a Wikipedia-style link? What does it actually refer to? There is no reference in the article's References by anyone named "Berry". Maybe it's a book that the original editor forgot to properly link to? IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Mandela effect"

should we make a separate article on the Mandela effect 88.110.61.147 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This article should be factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

YES

I tried editting it a little bit more accordingly to what actually is the mandela effect as stated by the person that introduced this term.

But this is reverted everytime claiming the website from this same person Fiona Broom is not reliable. Sterredag (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information about Mandela Effect and Fiona Broom is not accepted as reliable source?

I editted the page more neutral according to the explanation Fiona Broom gives on her own Blog about what the Mandela effect is.

I didn't diminish false memory in the text. I just made it more neutral because the text does rely on Fiona Broom as a source, but now her own blog is not accepted as reliable source. How more reliable could someting be if it's from the person who came up with it herself?

I don't know what to do anymore to make this page more acurate.

In addition to the previous topic. I also said actually the mandela effect should have it's own page where the explanation of Fiona is used as reference, then with examples of it and to DIFFRENT explanations of the effect including false memory with a reference to the false memory page.

Then the False Memory page could just reference the Mandela Effect within the false memory explanation but with a link to more about it, in stead of putting it here. Sterredag (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The change you're suggesting on Broome's work is for

Specific false memories can sometimes be shared by a large group of people. This phenomenon was dubbed the "Mandela effect" by paranormal researcher Fiona Broome

to become

Specific false memories can sometimes be shared by a large group of people. Some people see this as the explanation of the phenomenon that was dubbed the "Mandela effect" by paranormal researcher Fiona Broome

Is your point that journalists (eg. the 2018 Independent article saying Paranormal consultant Fiona Broome coined the term “Mandela effect” to explain this collective misremembering) misunderstood Broome's initial statement on the effect? Or that she has changed her stance on the Mandela Effect since then, and has clarified this in her blog?

You're also suggesting that Likewise, false memories of Mandela's death becomes Likewise, memories of Mandela's death, and 92% of respondents falsely remembered the clock had remained stopped since the bombing to 92% of respondents stated to remember the clock had remained stopped since the bombing. In both cases the sentence is clearer with the objective fact that these memories were false. This is an article about false memory. Belbury (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Mandela Effect

I propose the creation of a new page about the Mandela Effect. That is, collective/general, commonly held false memories. I know an article covering this topic was deleted back in 2015, but now, in 2024, there are a number of RS mentioning the theory, including the following:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18/world/mandela-effect-collective-false-memory-scn/index.html

https://www.today.com/life/mandela-effect-examples-rcna81130

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/22/alternate-realities-and-trump-mandala-effect-and-what-cern-does.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/585854233/the-mandela-effect

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08gnl5l

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a38349974/mandela-effect/

https://qz.com/emails/quartz-obsession/1769667/the-mandela-effect

Loltardo (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: it would be better than the current situation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I am still looking for other conntributors to weight in before making this change. Loltardo (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I put together a draft Mandela Effect page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Mandela_Effect

It keeps getting rejected though, so I'm ready to pass it on and let someone else take a crack at it.

I've been unable to convince the powers that be that this is a topic worthy of its own page, but perhaps someone else will have better luck. Please share it so others may have a chance. JerseyCurator23 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)