Talk:Eyewitness identification

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbaranoski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

International focus

So far this article is very focussed towards the US. I will enter some information about English law and rearrange to allow for information about other jurisdictions to be entered.Dubitante 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible NPOV problem

I marked the article for POV-check, because the article as it stands seems to be more concerned with presenting arguments that eyewitness identification is unreliable than with giving a good overview of eyewitness identification. For example, the article begins with the criticism "Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence," not even bothering to describe what eyewitness identification is and explain how it fits into and affects legal proceedings. Pahan (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point completely. The article needs to describe the elements of proper eyewitness identification with references to relevant statutes and Supreme Court cases as the main part of the text. Criticisms of the reliability of eyewitness identification should follow in a later portion of the article. 123home123 (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Section order

Part of the POV problem of this article, in addition to the content of the "Causes of Eyewitness Error" section, is its placement above the section that explains how such testimony is admitted ("The Law of Eyewitness Identification..."). Can anyone explain why they shouldn't be reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.119.217 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unediting by accolytes

A significant number of researchers in this area also make money by testifying about their academic research. They also have edited out several additions I have contributed that cite to articles critical of the academic studies they rely on. This is both anti-wikipedia, and also shows how defensive these "experts" can be when they are criticized. It is unfortunate to have to continually replace the critical sections because these Eyewitness ID accolytes do not want to acknowledge contrary views. Womenshoops (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Illinois Report

I think that the section on the Illinois report isn't good enough! I may find time to fix it but it needs work. It may even be important enough to write an article about it.RobertHannah89 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Colour

Is there any academic work specifically on the reliability of witness identification of colour (e.g. of clothing, vehicles, etc.)?Gilmorehill (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Presence of a Weapon

I think Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus' research on the weapon-focus effect mentioned very briefly. The description of the study can be more detailed to provide a better explanation of the relationship between the focus shift and eyewitness identification. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)