Talk:Cryptomnesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Music industry cryptomnesia 2 related link 3 What The F? 4 Table 5 Legal Implications 6 Helen Keller 7 NPOV rewrite 8 RE: NOPV rewrite 9 Validity

[edit] Music industry cryptomnesia

This extrapolation needs a reference. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cryptomnesia is also applicable in modern times. It can be found, quite easily, in the music industry. This is not to say that those who suffer from it are in any way aware or in control of this, and therefore they should not be criticized. For the sake of pure example, the modern band Jet, represents this phenomenon beautifully.

Are You Gonna Be My Girl? CD cover

Jet released the song "Are You Gonna Be My Girl?," which almost identically matches the music of Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" and the lyrics slightly resemble Lenny Kravitz's "Are You Gonna Go My Way?." (It also resembles many other songs, but for the sake of summary, only these two will be mentioned.) Jet released their song on the album Get Born in 2003, Kravitz in 1993, and Iggy Pop in 1977. Some consider the similarity blatant plagiarism, or sometimes quoted as "a shameless rip-off," but those who make these accusations are unaware of the cryptomnesia phenomenon, which they have most likely encountered in their own life.

Oh please. This doesn't sound at all like cryptomnesia. Jet are part of a trend in rock music at the moment to go back to the roots of rock, alongside bands like the White Stripes, the Hives, the Strokes, etc. A stylistic choice to return to an earlier period isn't the same as unconciously mirroring the work of others.

I added a couple more examples of actual legal cases that have involved cryptomnesia. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] related link

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-do-we-still-believe-in-group.html

[edit] What The F?

This article is crap. an explanation of the etymology is NOT a definition. Please define fully what Cryptonesia is, and what kind of a theory/phenomenon/etc it is. And please take out the "explained quite expertly". If an expert's explanation is insightful and informative enough to be used here, of course it is going to be explained "quite expertly". And the rest of the article is just completely lacking in wikipedic style, structure, and sometimes grammar.

And how come the only references to Cryptomnesia I could find were on sites music and art sites and the only ones that I have found that have tried to explain it describe themselves as sources on psuedoscience, the paranormal, spirituality, etc? And do you realize how modern phychology discredits Jung? Why is there no mention of Cryptomnesia's status in the modern world? Where are the sources? Where are the citations? Why does this seem like 100% made up crap? Blueaster 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

To put it bluntly, this article needs a table of contents box. It'll flow better, also, if it's separated into subtopics. Template:Unsigned:0dd1

You can split the article into sections and add a table of contents by adding subheadings. == Subhead2 == makes a subheading, while === Subhead3 === makes a sub-subheading. Be bold and add subheadings, and MediaWiki will build your TOC. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Implications

"Legal Implications" should be deleted...it is impossible to prove "cryptomesia" and the argument is not valid. Cryptomnesia is a theoretical phenomena not an excuse for plagiarism...

Then why did the court in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music establish infringement through subconscious copying, and why did Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton follow this precedent? If not in the article Cryptomnesia, then where does this information belong? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Keller

The paragraph of Helen Keller does not seem appropriate to the article. I suggest it be deleted.

[edit] NPOV rewrite

I have decided to be bold, and have made a major edit. I've added an intro which I think is more NPOV, and a section about validity that acknowledges the lack of scientific support (or disproof). Please feel free to comment on my edits here if you disagree, rather than engaging in immediate revert. --Leperflesh 00:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: NOPV rewrite

the new intro is a definite improvement...

yea, it is an improvement, but who are the proponents mentioned? what are some names of people who back this theory up?Blueaster 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity

The middle, italicized section is completely POV, and impossible to justify. Therefore, in accordance with WP:Be Bold, I'm deleting that section. DrExtreme 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)