User talk:PsycProf

August 2022[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Canadian Psychological Association. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Wug·a·po·des 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling an academic researcher that their academic research is a "personal analysis" or "point of view"? Wugapodes, it seems more like you are acting on your own personal and political viewpoints, by making that claim.

What about Robert Jay Lifton's book The Nazi Doctors; how is that any different? Was that research just his own point of view? Or what about the Wikipedia page on APA, in the section on Warfare and the Use of Torture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture). Is that historical fact -- that (like CPA) APA had secret policies allowing psychologists to harm people, while pretending that their Code of Ethics prevented it -- just someone's commentary or point of view also? The Washington Post, a New York Times reporter, and the US Senate Intelligence Committee didn't think so.

This is not a personal opinion about CPA; you deleted an actual letter from their Ethics Committee stating that CPA would not be taking any ethical position on healthcare workers developing or using nuclear weapons. That must make psychologists who are CPA members the only employees in any hospital who have official policies allowing them to kill other people without consent. In what way is that a personal opinion?

Just because CPA (like APA) got away with these deceptions for decades does not mean that the deceptions and secret policies are insignificant.

Rather than simply deleting entire sections of other people's work, Wigapodes you should constructively try to improve and correct any details that you think need more attention, or add a note asking the original contributor to. That would be helpful, not destructive. PsycProf (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PsycProf, one key policy to remember here is that we do not allow original research. Yes, you might be doing academic research in Wikipedia, but what we do here is write content that has already been published in reliable sources. We do not post about our own research here. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-

Yes, of course. But for the record, Wugapodes deleted entire sections containing 28 references from a wide variety of reliable sources: The Washington Post, CPA policy documents, reference books, academic journals etc. Out of the 28, there was only 1 that included the "submitted" original, and it included the full citation of the later publication too.

Out of the 28 different sources in the large history sections Wugapodes deleted, no author was used more than 3 times in different publications by the same author.

Wugapodes seems to have confused formal material about professional ethics with personal points of view. But in good faith I will go back and make a new revision based on each of their specific comments in the View History section. It is not professional or appropriate that Wugapodes already threatened to block me before I even make a change. But if either of you wants to help in a constructive way to improve the contributions, I would welcome that.

Neither of you appears to be saying that there is a problem with the history of misleading professional ethics and secret policies that is similarly documented on the APA page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture), so the intention is to ensure that the same kind of reliable sources are used for the Canadian parallel. PsycProf (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi PsycProf! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Editor threatened to block me before I even made any changes, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

-- Maxim_(talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]