Talk:James Vicary

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Besides this article being very blurry, what does it have to do with the article title? -- Zoe

Have a look at the German de.wikipedia 78.49.17.143 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC). --[reply]

CIA report led to ban in the US?

Snopes seems to imply subliminal messages weren't banned in the US -- at least not after the CIA report. Joriki (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC issued a "policy statement", on subliminal perception techniques in 1974, but at least according to one commissioner's press statement this is not an enforceable rule and thus cannot be called a "ban", although broadcasters have been admonished with reference to it. Mbethke (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove fraud accusations in intro?

This could maybe be placed later in the article, but I feel that accusing the experiment of being fraudulent in the introduction to the person's article is a little out of place. Not a big deal, but I would like to hear from others before deleting it. 74.194.153.185 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he isn't known for his experiments - he is known for the "gimmick" of his experiments. The majority of the sources are about the "controversy" and the "myth". I don't think it is WP:UNDUE to reflect that in the lede. Happy to discuss ideas for rewording it though. "Fraud" has a particular meaning - a criminal offence with which he was never charged - so if you want to suggest an alternate phrasing, I would think there would probably be WP:CONSENSUS for that. Good call discussing it here either way - a great approach! Stalwart111 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Vicary. 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/20130921110410/http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/findaids/Vicary/MSS19980320.html to http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/findaids/Vicary/MSS19980320.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) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Rate

"moviegoers were repeatedly shown 1/3000-second advertisements". That has to be 1/30-second, I think. Projectors of the time would have been 24 frames per second, and I have no idea what kind of equipment you could even get in 1958 that would show a frame for 1/100th of that time. It's confusing, since it apparently never happened anyhow, but Vicary was likely claiming to have inserted single frames. –75.145.68.90 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]