Talk:Monster Study

The Study

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikification template belongs here, not in the article

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

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)

Groups IA, IB, IIB

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)

Story Origin

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.

External links modified (February 2018)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

Who conducted the experiement-- Johnson or Tudor?

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