Talk:Rorschach test

Important notice if you think that the image of a Rorschach inkblot should not be displayed: Extensive discussions and efforts have taken place over several months to balance multiple competing interests. To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking, and page protection, please read this talk page and its archive pages before making any such change to the article. In the meantime, please do not add more images or reposition the current one, and do not remove the image, even if you believe that it should not be displayed. Any such change will be reverted.

Location of the inkblot image

I don't have time to look right now, but I think that during one of the image wars a consensus did emerge to place the image adjacent to the "Methods" section. If anyone can find that in the archives I'd appreciate knowing where. I'll look later if no one responds. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm too busy now to look it up, but the version that produced the Rorschach in the methods section was indeed the results of months of heated discussion. It shouldn't have been changed arbitrarily.Faustian (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The hell with that. The image positioning was the result of months of bickering between people who support the Rorschach test and believe that Wikipedia was somehow tainting the test, and people who realize that Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Just because a large number of people can bully their version through on this mostly unpopular article does not mean it should be so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the location of an image is not Censorship. It isn't suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material.Faustian (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"To hell with" consensus -- and from an admin. This place is falling apart. Ward3001 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just very pissy right now. Don't take that as any sort of indication of the health of the project, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the image from the lead was done because the image was seen to be "objectionable or offensive" by a certain group of editors. That is specifically what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. There is no scientific or even ethical reasoning behind its removal. A fringe pseudoscience is not a legitimate justification for the modification of a Wikipedia article in a detrimental fashion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rorschach is not "fringe pseudoscience" (unless you believe that the field of psychology is a fringe pseudoscience, but that in itself would be a fringe belief) and, again, the image is in a different location rather than removed.Faustian (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is if I'm half insane. Regardless, I think this is bullshit. If someone can provide me a peer-reviewed journal stating that there is damage if someone sees an inkblot, I will support this wholly. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) With [1] catching my eye, good to see Rorschach recognised also in Bulgaria, I thought. But looking at the bg:Херман Роршах page I see all the blots immediately on display. How many other national versions the same, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I suggest we put it right up at the top. Right above the picture of Mr Rorschach would be consistent with how we do most article. That is to say leading with a picture of the subject. Chillum 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but let's get Damien's Skull above his picture first, in due homage to this week's Cartrain? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the test, not the images nor the cards themselves. There is no need to put the blot at the top of the article. Somehow I don't see a picture of the SAT itself on the top of that article's page (an example of an essay is further down in that article).Faustian (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The inkblots are the visual portion of the test. We usually start and article with a picture of the subject. I don't see how the image of the creator is more relevant to the test than a picture from the test. Perhaps we should just swap the positions of the person and the card. Chillum 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed Faustian's point. The article is about the test, not the inkblots. The inkblots are items in the test. Look at other articles on tests. In addition to the example given by Faustian, other articles about widely used tests that do not place test items at the top of the page include: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Thematic Apperception Test, Personality Assessment Inventory, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. There are others. This article properly begins with an introduction to the test, its background, methods, and then the test materials (i.e., inkblot). Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken I suppose. But it begs the question, why not? Especially on such a visual test. Chillum 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Many tests have visual components, including some of those noted above. There is a lot more to the test than the visual part. Ward3001 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think showing the picture up top is contrary to there being a lot more to it than that. Chillum 01:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is contrary to Wikipedia style (not to mention good writing style in general), meaning that an article does not begin with specifics; it begins with more general introductory information and usually proceeds to historical information (if it exists), and then more specific details. That is exactly what this article does, what most (if not all) articles on tests do, and, indeed, what most Wikipedia articles on any topic do. The article on Complete blood count does not begin with "Results"; it begins with overview, definitions, history, methods, and then it gets into results. There's a logical way to write articles. This one follows that logic. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. However I think it is a minor point. I remain unconvinced but am not going to push this matter any further at this point. Chillum 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The other articles that have been listed as examples of tests that don't put an image at the top are irrelevant. Only one of them even has an image at all, and that image has too much text compressed into it to be readable as a thumbnail. That said, this is an inkblot test. Seems perfectly rational to have a picture of an inkblot at the top. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You also missed the point. Faustian and I are not saying the other articles don't contain images at the top. We're saying that the other articles don't begin with specific test items at the top. Articles in general don't begin with specific details at the top. At the risk of repeating myself several times (but I don't have any choice), articles begin with a general overview, historical background, and then more specifics. And again repeating myself, the article is not about the inkblots; it's about the test. To say that the test is only about inkblots reflects a profound misunderstanding of the test. It's equivalent to saying that the MMPI is about sentences. Ward3001 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As English editors I suppose we must restrict ourselves to commenting on this article. But it does seem a litlle inconsistent that other langauge variants, such as the Bulgarian one, may have a whole set of images, even on just the article for Rorschach himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian article is also quite unprofessional and sparse. Should we emulate that, as well? To someguy, the Thematic Apperception Test is also a test based on images on cards. Yet there isn't an image there at all. The Rorschach test involves much more than just cards; placing the image of a card on the top is undue emphasis on one aspect of the test. If this article were about the cards themselves it would be a different story; but it's not.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I doubt that emulatation of anything in that article would be sensible, assuming one could find an accurate translation. We don't see 1812 Overture with a recording of that entire piece at the start. Surely, this is an encyclopedia, not a library - of music, of projective test materials or of anything else? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the Thematic Apperception Test is also a test based on images on cards. Yet there isn't an image there at all." Then there should be. Another article's failings are not a good basis for decisions on what to do in this article. The inkblots are emblematic of the Rorschach test, recognizable to far more people than could even remember the name. Wikipedia articles tend to provide an opening image which helps illustrate, in the best fashion possible, the content of the article. On this article, the most helpful image to begin with is not that of the test;s creator, but that of an example of the centerpiece bolts used on the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For about the fourth time, the article is about the test, not the inkblots. The test is a lot more than inkblots. How many times does this have to be repeated? The fact that this has to be repeated over and over and over epitomizes what happens when people who have no knowledge of the test think they should decide what is best for an article on the subject. Try editing the lead of Complete blood count with the sentence "This test is about blood", insert a photo of a pool of blood at the top of the page, and see how long it stays in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so why can't there be an image that's actually relevant to the article at the top of the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that a test item from the MMPI is not at the top of that page. Read all of the points Faustian and I made above. The image is placed in the appropriate place in the article: Test materials. It is stylistically poor writing to begin the article with specifics (i.e., test materials). The test is first introduced with an overview, then historical information is presented, then more specifics (method and test materials), just like thousands and thousands of other articles are written. Articles begin with the most general and then move into specifics. Does Complete blood count begin with details about various ways the test is carried out? No, those specifics come later. The same is true of this article. An example of a test item, an inkblot, goes adjacent to the specific section about test materials, the only logical place to put it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach created the test, how is he not relevant? The article Annus Mirabilis papers has a picture of Albert Einstein, not the papers he worked on or the instruments he used to develop his theories.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I strongly agree with Ward3001 and Faustian. At the risk of setting the debate back a step, I would remind Jaimeastorga2000 and Someguy1221 that there were plenty of editors who had doubts about there being an ink-blot image in this article at all. This has all been through dispute, edit war, protection, informal voting and seeking consensus. The current postiion was seen as a compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"For about the fourth time, the article is about the test, not the inkblots. The test is a lot more than inkblots. How many times does this have to be repeated?" Unfortunately, we can't include a picture of the methods and analyzes that are also a fundamental part of the test. The best image we can provide, therefore, is one of the inkblots, without which the test could not be carried out. Your argument about them being part of the methods and therefore not worthy of being at the top does not hold water, because the blots would be included because of their value as iconic images without regard for their status on the test. It is like claiming that the main article on Windows XP should not have a screenshot at the top because Windows XP is so much more than the graphical interfaces and that you do not begin an article with specifics about GUI. The point for both that image and the proposed move of inkblots to the top, of course, is NOT to illustrate specifics before their due but to illustrate, in the best manner possible, the subject of the article, even if by doing so one happens to illustrate specifics as a side effect. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You have explained why an image of an inkblot should be included in the article, but you have not provided an adequate rationale for why it should be misplaced (away from the section on "Test materials", which it illustrates) at the top of the page. And I must (again) repeat myself because you, like others, have missed the point, since Complete blood count is a test about blood, why is there not an image of blood at the top of the page? The answer (again) is that the description of blood cells comes later (logically) in the article, so the image of blood cells is adjacent to that section. Similarly, in Rorschach inkblot test, the image about the test materials (inkblots) logically is placed adjacent to the section on "Test materials". If you want a more appropriate image to go at the top, find (or create) an image of a psychologist administering the Rorschach to a patient. That would (in your words) "illustrate, in the best manner possible [or at least as well as an inkblot image], the subject of the article", because the subject of the article is not inkblots, but the Rorschach test. I don't mean to sound like I'm insulting anyone's intelligence, but Faustian and I have repeated that point so many times that it is apparent to me that it is a very difficult concept for some people to understand. So again, the article is about the test, not inkblots. And again, the entirety of the test is not inkblots. Saying that the test is about inkblots (again repeating myself) is equivalent to saying that the MMPI uses printed words on a page, so it is about words. Placing the image away from its logical section implies that the entire test is about one or more inkblots, and now for about the fifth time, the test is about much more than inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When a person thinks "Rorschach inkblot test" they think, and immediately care about the actual inkblots. The face of Mr. Rorscach is not immediately associated with the test, nor immediately relevant. It's not impossible to include an image at the top and in the relevant section, either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding, this is an argument on the basis of "it's the best choice", not "it's a good choice". If we did have one of someone administering that, that would definitely be more suitable up there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles about accurate presentation of the subject of an article, or about "what people think"? So what someone who has no knowledge of the test thinks about when he hears "Rorschach" should take precendence over the facts and decades of research? And now for about the sixth time, when the average person hears "complete blood count", he probably thinks about blood, imagining all the times when blood has been drawn from his arm. So since that is "what people think", does that mean we must include an image of blood at the top of the article, ignoring the fact that the article is about a lot more than an image of blood? A lot of people "thought" Richard Jewell carried out the Olympic Park bombings in 1996, so if we were writing his article in 1996, should we have said he did the bombing just because that's what people thought? Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What does the head of Rorscach have to do with years of research? The only image we have that is relevant to the test itself, and quite relevant indeed, is that of the inkblots used within it. Is Zombie Hermann Rorschach conducting the tests suddenly? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If editors are so hellbent on including an image at the top besides that of Hermann Rorschach, it would be a very simple matter to take a photo of two people sitting at a table, one with a clipboard in his hand offering a rectangular card to the other person, with the caption "An illustration of how the Rorschach is adminstered". Please, by all means, take that photo and place it at the top of the page. I personally think the picture of H. Rorschach is more appropriate, but I will not split hairs. Take the photo, and put it at the top of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If and when we have an image of a psychologist administering the test, we can discuss it's merits as top image in the article (I think I would probably lean for it over the blots if it was a good picture). Until then, we have to make due with what we have, which are a picture of Rorschach and a picture of an inkblot. You brought up the CBC article. Do you think the image at the top of it is a good image to illustrate it? I don't; I think a picture of a blood vial being loaded into an analyzer machine would be much better. I understand that the article is about the test, not the blots, but the blots are the best way to represent the test not only due to being the visual aspect of it, but because they are ingrained in public consciousness as the most prominent part of the test. If someone stumbles into this article without recognizing the name and glances at the picture of Rorschach, s/he is no closer to knowing what the article is about, but if you put the image of the blot at the top, chances are the average reader will immediately recognize the test. That's why the blot should be the top image. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, of the two images already in the article, the image of H. Rorschach is the best way to illustrate the entirety of the test, because if it were not for what he did, there would not be a test. If H. Rorschach had used puzzles instead of inkblots and the article was entitled the "Rorschach puzzle test", it would still be Rorschach (not pictures of puzzles) that would best illustrate the test as a whole. Is your goal to have a logical article with the images illustrating the sections as they are discussed, or is it your ultimate goal to get that inkblot at the top of the page at all costs? Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument just really doesn't strike me as quite relevant. We should put pictures of Mendel at the top of half a dozen articles on genetics; George Washington as the image for United States; <sarc>God as the image for the universe and for the human race</sarc>. It's still boils down to the fact that we have one image that benefits a reader's understanding and recognition of the subject, and one image that doesn't, unless a person wanted to know what the inventor looked like. And also let's keep in mind that this putting a picture or Rorschach himself at the top arose pretty late in the main dispute over a year ago, and the main reason for moving or removing the inkblot was based on the unverifiable claim that it was medically harmful. But I also agree that we're all repeating ourselves at this point. Anyone who still wants to move for the inkblot to return to the top of the article should start an RFC. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That makes no sense. He is not the test, nor is he an element of it. Charles Darwin is not natural selection. Albert Einstein is not the Photoelectric effect. If you want to argue placement in sections, his head is best served being placed in the History section, and is certainly not more suitable for the top than an actual inkblot. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If Rorschach had used puzzles instead of blots and they had become as ingrained in public consciousness as the blots are now, I think a picture of the puzzles would be appropriate. If some other person besides Rorschach had designed the test, would the article be better served with that (wo)man's picture at the top? A picture of even a part of something is better at illustrating it than a picture of its creator, specially when no picture of the whole is available or possible and when this particular part is so widely recognized. As for my goal, it is the same goal that everyone here has; to improve the article. And I think an article is better when it's most emblematic images are not pushed down in favor of images of subject's creators because it also fits with one of the article's subsections. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendel did not create genetics. Washington did not create the United States. Rorschach singlehandedly created the Rorschach test, and he didn't just create the inkblots; he created the initial methods for administation, coding, and interpretation. It is the Rorschach inkblot test, not just the inkblot test. If the test had been called the "Rorschach personality test" (and it could easily have been called that, as are many personality tests), would it be imperative to put a picture of a "personality" at the top (whatever that would be)? No. So if my perspective does not "strike [you] as quite relevant", that probably has more to do with your (lack of) knowledge of the test, not the relevance of my argument. To say that Hermann Rorschach is less relevant to the test than an inkblot is a profound misunderstanding of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And if they had created them, do you think it would be appropriate to have pictures of them as the leading images in those articles? This article is not about Rorschach; it is, as you yourself have reiterated many times, about the test. Neither is the test named merely the Rorschach test, as it easily could have been, but the Rorschach inkblot test. I am sure the test gets its unique structure from the ideas and theories of Hermann Rorschach, but as it's creator he is less relevant than a part of the test itself. A widely recognized part, I might add. Jaimeastorga2000 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeastorga2000 (talk • contribs)

If someone had created a test in its entirety, yes it would be as appropriate to have the image of the creator at the top as it would to have an item in the test. And the article is as much about H. Rorschach and what he did as it is about an inkblot. The article is actually about a massive amount of information that would be more appropriate to include than either of the images, but that information is copyrighted and cannot be included for that reason. Ward3001 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, this article is about the test, which a man named Rorschach just happens to have made. You can counter, of course, that he just chose to use inkblots instead of something else, but the difference is that inkblots are instantly recognized as the hallmarks of this examination. A picture of a blot helps a reader understand what this article is about, if only because they can then recognize the test; a picture of Rorschach does not. Jaimeastorga2000 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeastorga2000 (talk • contribs)

You did not read what I wrote correctly. So let me repeat some things. I did not say the article is about H. Rorschach. I did say that the article is as much about H. Rorschach and what he did as it is about an inkblot. The article is not entirely about H. Rorschach. The article is not entirely about an inkblot. The article is about a test, and the article is not more about an inkblot than it is about H. Rorschach.

As for what the reader can "instantly recognize", readers can instantly recognize printed words, and the MMPI items are printed words. But that doesn't mean that placing an image of printed words at the top of the page would help the reader understand the test more than would an image of the creators of the test (or no image at all, and just beginning with an overview of the test). Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And I point out that even if the article is equally about Rorschach and inkblots (which I alluded to when I stated a possible counter argument to my argument that was completely analogous), inkblots still get the edge for being at the top due to their notoriety. No, readers can't "instantly recognize" words, at least not words which aren't nearly as famous nor remembered as the very idea of putting inkblots on cards as part of a psychological test. A user can glance to the side and know the content of the article in literally one second, if the blot is at the top. Fewer people can do that with the name. Just knowing, right off the bat, that this is an article about "that psychological test where they show you inkblots" is the purpose that the inkblot picture would achieve at the top; the Rorschach picture achieves nothing. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Although expertise carries little weight on Wikipedia, I can safely say as an expert (and if you read the professional literature on the Rorschach this will be confirmed), the test is far more about what Rorschach did than it is about inkblots. Many psychologists would argue that it may be more about what John E. Exner did and thus his image should be at the top instead of Rorschach's, but that would be quite controversial. Ten inkblots (out of dozens that Rorschach created) are really only a vehicle for the groundbreaking work that Rorschach accomplished. And as I have said more than once, if you want to talk about first impressions by the reader, placing an inkblot at the top of the page can erroneously lead the naive reader to the conclusion that the test is only about inkblots. The comments in this very debate provide more than ample evidence for that misconception, and I believe Wikipedia is in the business of creating verifiable truth rather than misconceptions. In fact, the image that should go at the top that would create the least amount of misconception would be no image at all. Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And placing the inkblot on top merely serves to perpetuate that ignorance.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test?

Template:RFCsci We are arguing about whether to use a picture of Hermann Rorschach or an inkblot on a card as the leading image in the Rorschach inkblot test article. You can read our arguments above. Jaimeastorga2000 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For additional discussions and a full history of this issue over the previous two years, see Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#Keeping the inkblots secret, Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2, and Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3. The archives are largely related to this specific issue, although there are occasional irrelvant discussions. Ward3001 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, based on the above, has your position changed to be that there should be no leading image? Should we retitle this section and template? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion was (and still is) that there should be no image of an inkblot anywhere in the article, but that point of view did not prevail in a very heated and difficult consensus that was achieved. So, given that consensus, my position is that if an image of an inkblot must be in the article, it should be in the most logical place: adjacent to "Test materials", and H. Rorschach's image is more appropriate adjacent to the discussion of overview and background, as I have repeatedly pointed out above. I don't see any point in retitling the RfC. The issue here is not whether there should be an image of an inkblot, but rather the most appropriate place to put it. Ward3001 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the test, not the inkblot. Placing the inkblot in the front of the article perpetuates the false idea that the test is all about the inkblot, when it is all about the administration, analysis, relationship, etc. Does the article on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale include cubes from the block design subtest on top? No - indeed none ofthe test materials are pictured in the article. How about the Thematic Apperception Test which also uses cards. Again, no. And no images of the figures of the Bender-Gestalt Test either. The article on the SAT shows an example of an essay which is included an appropriate place in the body of the article, not at the top of it.Faustian (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to respond to this when it's entirely hypothetical. Your negative examples of including images of test materials at the top of an article actually have no images at all, except for one chart that would probably just be confusing before it's been introduced. Show us an image someone wants to put at the top, and then we can discuss whether its appropriate, on the appropriate talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The blots, particularly the first card, are quite iconic. Having it at the top helps readers identify that they found the right article. Put the picture of Hermann Rorschach just below. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about the blots, it's about the test. And when I put "rorschach test" through google images there are all sorts of images besides the first card: [2], suggesting that it is not that iconic.Faustian (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion above, so you don't have to repeat everything. The blots are a central and very visual part of the test. I may be wrong about the first card being more iconic than others. Most people probably don't remember the details. I have no opinion on which card to show. Btw, has this RfC been advertised? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So part of your argument is: "because the test materials happen to be visual images, this gives greater justification for exposing one of them in the visual medium of wikipedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing where to put the image in the article, not whether it should be shown at all. I think it should be at the top, to help quickly identify this article with its common visual image. For that purpose a "fake" inkblot would do just as well, but that would be disingenuous and misleading. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a properly labelled "fake" image would mislead. I think the essence of this article ought to be a critique of technique not a display of actual materials. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Ward3001, Faustian (and others) and for exactly the same reasons. In the original consensus I had (and still have) great difficulty in understanding exactly how scientific evidence could produced to show one way or another that displaying an image here could compromise the effectiveness of the test. But if we were to err on the side of caution, we ought to heed the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect the images. I also suggested that if the point of an image was simply to be illustrative, then a novel new ink-blot could be created for use here. As neither of these points seemed to be agreed upon, I saw the current positioning as an acceptable compromise. Since then, however, more convincing arguments over use of test materials in wikipedia articles have been made. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We should hold to WP:CENSOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to safeguard the sanctity of the test; it's job is to provide informative articles on the subject. This article can be improved by having a picture of an inkblot at the top, and that is all that should matter, not potential "harm" that can be brought upon people who may hypothetically take or would have taken this test at some future point in time. APA guidelines are for it's member psychologists to adhere to, not encyclopedias. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair suggestion for use or non-use, but WP:CENSOR would be a (welcome) backward step? I still think APA guidelines have relevance to this discussion - it seems a little churlish to dismiss them so glibly. Maybe wikipedia can show me how to produce scientific evidence of whether harm is produced or not - but if it cannot, then it should not be making a judgement here but erring on the side of caution, and I will prefer to take the advice of those who actually use the test for real, that's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the images cause "harm," wikipedia is not in the business of protecting it's readers from potentially harmful information. Even if we err on the side of caution and assume this test is very important, that showing the image renders it useless, and that every single reader who stumbles into this article wished to take the test at some point in the future, it would all be as irrelevant as APA's ethical guidelines. We are here to distribute information in the best way possible (where Wikipedia's guidelines and policies have been established by the project as what it believes is "the best way possible"). There is no guideline against moving the image to the top and it would be an improvement to the article. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Greetings Rorschach editors. It is true we had an uneasy compromise to keep the image from being on top of the article however consensus can change. I know that many of you feel that showing the image is a bad thing that can invalidate the test but we have crossed that bridge by observing the fact that it is public domain. Therefore its placement should not matter in this regard. The ink blot is a better example of the article and belongs at the top. Hermann Rorschach's picture belongs at the top of Hermann Rorschach article (which it is by the way) and maybe down in history of this article when talking about him creating it. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, please explain how the image of an inkblot is a better example of the article if the article is about neither inkblots nor H. Rorschach. Neither image is really a good example of the article because the article is about a test. If the test (and hence the article) is not about inkblots (or H. Rorschach), how could either of them be a "better" example of the article. I'll repeat my earlier proposal that someone should create an image of two people at a table, one with a clipboard handing a rectangular card to the other. That would be a "better example" of what the test is about than either an inkblot or H. Rorschach. But in the meantime, please explain how an image of an inkblot is a "better example of the article". Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be many images in the public domain which most of us would never expect or wish to see in wikipedia! Are you are confusing copyright or property issues with relevance and duty of care? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It seems the most relevant image to the article and most recognized. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So your argument runs: "if it does no harm to show the image then no problem, if it may do harm then that harm will have already been done (e.g. c/o Google Images etc) so it doesn't matter if wikipdia does a bit (or a even a lot) more harm"?

How about, if someone's going around the internet searching for "Rorschach inkblot", they shouldn't be surprised when an inkblot pops up in their face? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true Someguy. Besides, If seeing the inkblot invalidates the test, something that is still waiting for a citation by the way, I fear it's much too late to try and put the cat back into the bag. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to make the best articles possible, regardless of who it may "harm." The image at the top conveys more information and makes the article better, ergo it is there that it should go. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaimeastorga, please explain how inkblot image at the top "conveys more information" about the test than the image of H. Rorschach.; and please distinguish between more information about the test rather than more information about an inkblot or a test item. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It can probably be assumed that many readers will recognize the inkblot; the test has appeared in numerous movies, television shows, and elsewhere in popular culture. Seeing the image will make someone go, "Oh, I've seen that before; this is the test where they show you pictures." Also, the claim that the inkblots aren't an important enough part of the test is plainly rediculous. The test is analyzing people's reactions to seeing inkblots. That's about as important as I think it can get. As for the current image, it conveys precisely one thing: "This is what the inventor looked like." Someguy1221 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, first of all, the inkblots are not "pictures", and there are lots of tests with pictures. Secondly, if it is "plainly rediculous [sic]" to say that the inkblots are not the most important aspect of the test, please tell us which aspects of the test are less important and which aspects are more important than the inkblots. Be specific: name each aspect of the test and identify whether it is less important than the inkblots or more important than the inkblots. And for each, please tell us why it is less or more important. And please, please don't say there is nothing else to the test other than inkblots, because not only will that be an embarrassing error, it will show that you have not read the above comments in this discussion. So, tell us: which parts are more important than the inkblots, and which parts are less important. Ward3001 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First, you show me one other part of the test you can get an informative image of. As for the test, OK: 1) Preparing the environment, so the patient can view the ink blots without distraction; 2) Showing the inkblots and letting the patient respond; 3) Showing the patient the inkblots for longer and recording everything the patient does while studying them; 4) taking time to analyze the patient's reaction to the inkblots. If the inkblots are not the most important part of the test, I have no idea what your definition of importance is. It's also insulting to suggest (as you and others have done repeatedly) that everyone who disagrees with you is relying on popular misconceptions about the test. The fact is that the desire to censor the image has clouded every other argument on the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• "show me one other part of the test you can get an informative image ": One example: A patient articulating a response represents something more illustrative of the test than an image of an inkblot, because the responses are the basis for the entire scoring and interpretive process. And again, if you think the patient's responses are less important than the inkblots (as you indicate in #2 above), it is a profound misinterpretation of the test. Now for my replies to what can only be called glaringly vague examples of ... God knows what ... or laughable examples of non-parts of the test:
• "Preparing the environment":Are you seriously saying that the instructions you give the patient prior to beginning the test are less important than the inkblots? The only way I can characterize that is: absurdly wrong. If you present the instructions improperly, you could get more useful information by showing the patient a jar of pickles rather than an inkblot.
• "recording everything the patient does while studying them": You didn't identify this as less important than the inkblots (why is that?), but if that's what you're saying, please explain how recording card orientation or certain gestures the patient might make while responding (and these are only two of a vast number of other things the patient "does") are less important than the inkblots. Give us specifics as to why your opinion should be accepted instead of a substantial amount of research otherwise.
• "taking time to analyze the patient's reaction to the inkblots": The only possible response here is, how can you be serious in saying that the analysis and interpretive processes, the very essence of the usefulness of the Rorschach, are less important than the inkblots, again flying in the face of decades of research? Please explain your position in detail.
• "I have no idea what your definition of importance is": OK, let me try to simplify it. Tell us which aspects of the test are less important and more important than the inkblots in making the Rorschach a clinically useful test that can provide susbstantial improvements in diagnosising, treating, and understanding the patient.
• "It's also insulting to suggest ... that everyone who disagrees with you is relying on popular misconceptions": Then by all means, please give me something in your responses to my question that includes something besides misconceptions, because so far you have not done that. Something with a little science behind it might help. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're really just stonewalling at this point. Alright, let me put it as simple as possible for you: Every part of the test involves the inkblots. Either preparing the patient to see them, or letting the patient see them, or letting the patient see them again, or analyzing the reaction to the inkblot. The inkblots are important for every part of the test. Thus, they are the most important part of the test. As you would know if you read the article, there has historically been more than one way to administer and analyze the test, which would make the inkblots themselves the only non-dispensable part, and thus the most important. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a complete cop-out to claim that I'm "stonewalling" for simply asking for a scientifically sound explanation to your argument that other aspects of the test are less important than the inkblots. "Every part of the test involves the inkblots: Let me try to express this as a comment on the content, not the contributor. That statement reflects an almost complete lack of knowledge of the test except for the knowledge that it involves inkblots. "As you would know if you read the article, there has historically been more than one way to administer and analyze the test": Do you honestly think a psychologist who specializes in the Rorschach is not aware of the various systems? I am quite familiar with H. Rorschach's, Piotrowski's, Klopfer's, and Exner's systems because I have administered Rorschachs using each one. Can you delineate the differences in administration of those systems? And your statement that the different systems "would make the inkblots themselves the only non-dispensable part" again shows a complete ignorance of the many other commonalities in administration, coding, and interpretation among the systems. Do you actually think that Exner, for example, did not draw on techniques and knowledge from the other systems in developing his system? So again, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in your comments that is not mostly based on misconceptions. There is no need for anyone to feel insulted simply because they don't understand something. I don't understand the more advanced details of relativity theory, so I'm not insulted if someone points out a misconception I might have. Where the imagined insult comes into play is when someone assumes he understands something, based almost entirely on misconceptions, then proceeds to tell others who do understand it where they are wrong, and then takes offense when the glaring errors are pointed out. I truly apologize if I insulted you or anyone else, but I will not pretend that you are right about something that I learned is false in the first month of the very first course in personality assessment. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I cannot begin to claim the level of familiarity or expertise that you obviously have in these matters, but your argument is more convincing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward, I think you're reading something I never wrote, and I realize now I was vague about this. I never meant to imply that the inkblots have a greater or even equal impact on the test results as the other major components. When I consistently called it the most important part of the test, as the non-dispensable part of the test, I was referring to its central nature. I'm also aware that the choice of images to show the patient is not of incredible importance compared to the method of scoring, though it does have an impact. I was referring to the fact that as the test has evolved over the decades, you're still using the Rorschach inkblots. If you weren't using the inkblots, it wouldn't be the Rorschach test. As you're allegedly someone who professionally analyzes people, I'd hope you'd realize that subjective valuations can vary between individuals not as a result of misconceptions. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "I was referring to the fact that as the test has evolved over the decades, you're still using the Rorschach inkblots: Just as you are using dozens of other common aspects of the test in addition to the inkblots, aspects that you have yet to identify, despite the fact that I have identified several examples. That point advances your argument exactly ... none.
• "I'd hope you'd realize that subjective valuations can vary between individuals not as a result of misconceptions": If that statement was comprehensible, I would try to respond to it. Are you saying that the components of the test that the psychologist uses are "subjective"? If so, you're wrong. Are you saying the amount of research that has been published on the various components of the test besides the inkblots compared to the amount of research on the inkblots themselves is subjective (for example, 10,000 studies vs. 1000 studies) is subjective? If so, that is laughably wrong. If you're saying something else, it is to be found only in your mind, not in your words here.
• Someguy1221, it has become more than obvious, even to non-experts, that you know nothing about the Rorschach beyond the few details you have picked up in the article. That should not be insulting to you, nor should it be something on which to fault you, except for the fact that you have made comment after comment, with almost no factual basis, all the while refusing to acknowledge that you know nothing about the test beyond what is in the article. If there is any insult to you here, you have brought it on yourself. For that reason, I don't see any point in continuing this particular part of the discussion. Your continuing to espouse baseless points as if they were based on actual knowledge of the test, and my continuing to point that out, does nothing to improve either this RfC or the article. Let me suggest that if you wish to debate your knowledge of the Rorschach with me, we should do it on our talk pages. That having been said, I also don't intend to sit silently, pretending that you know what you're talking about, if you continue making comments based on ignorance of the test Ward3001 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You once again managed to read significantly more from my comment than I ever wrote, although it's getting kind of tiring trying to make my views more clear to you. I have no intention of debating the intricacies of the test. I know full well that I don't know the test at the level of detail that you do. I have never implied anything about the test or its history that you are suggesting I did. My sole point through this entire string of back and forth comments is contained precisely in my comment above. The only subjectivity I was referring to was your own subjective determination of importance, a vague word that has to be strictly defined to have any meaning. I have provided my own, which differs from your own. I never implied that other aspects don't change. I never suggested that the inkblots are the only thing to stay the same. If you have an informative image of another defining aspect of the test, I would love to see it. If you actually want to understand my views, I can only suggest you reread my comments and realize that I'm not hiding any meaning inbetween the lines. Although if you overinterpret this comment as well, there's no further clarification I can provide. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"I have provided my own [subjective determination of importance].": Finally something with which I can agree. Your interpretation that the inkblots are the most important aspects of the test is, indeed, overwhelming subjective and based on an entirely uninformed point of view. So we are left with a choice between making a decision about placment of the image that is based on decades of scientific research, or based on the opinion of someone who admits having virtually no knowledge of the test. My vote is to base it on science.

"If you have an informative image of another defining aspect of the test, I would love to see it.": As I have said repeatedly, either no image or the image of H. Rorschach is a far better representation of the entirety of the test and would not be nearly as misleading as the image of an inkblot. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How about, if someone wants to consult an encyclopdeia, instead of having `all kinds of images popping up in their face', they choose Wikipedia? Just because the cat is out of the bag doesn't mean we all take a hand in killing it off through over-exposure. And how would anyone produce that citation we're all waiting for? Wikipedia's job is to act responsibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How does censoring an image (by removing it or by banishing it from the lead) because of an unverifiable claim of hypothetical harm correspond to acting "responsibly" when Wikipedia's purpose is to be an enyclopedia? We also have a drawing a blowjob right at the top of the article despite the unverifiable claims that viewing hardcore images can hurt children's minds, and we even have the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures right at the top of the article, despite the fact that these did cause a lot of harm when they were seen. It all boils down to the same point, and that's the spirit of not being censored. We do have a responsibility not to bombard people with potentially harmful images. And that's why the images mentioned before are rightfully confined to their articles. Other potentially harmful images are similarly kept from pages on which they are not essential. But it is not our responsibility to protect people from themselves. Anyone who searches for a term should expect to see an image that might be representative or iconic of the term. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your argument extend to a similar proportion of the materials for all other psychometric and projective tests? Are all psychological tests on a par with blowjobs and cartoons? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In all the debates on this matter that I've followed, not a single article on a psychometric or projective test has been presented that has any images. But yes, all psychological tests are precisely on par with blowjobs and cartoons. If the possibility of harm from images has been rejected on articles about sex and cartoons, it should be rejected from articles on psychometric tests as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is analogous to claiming the Santa Claus article should not mention that he is a legend for fear of harming young children's minds. Creating the best article possible takes precedence. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. People aren't going to go around reading articles about various psychometric and projective tests unless they want to learn about and compare such tests. Our job is to provide the best possible information to those to seek it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The jist of my question related to all test materials, not just those tests which use images. Do you see no distinction between sexual preferences or religious beliefs, where an individual may be expected to freely choose what is right for them, and a forensic test which legally requires a trained tester to administer and the result of which may be used, in conjunction with other assessments, to deprive the subject of their liberty? And yes Santa really is a fiction, whether we ever see him or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the end this is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to provide information. What others do with that information, or what the information does, is not our concern. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But where that information comes from, and if and how it is used elsewhere, should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, we have claims that the inkblot image is "iconic" but no proof that this image is "iconic". Indeed, when I google-imaged "Rorschach test" that specific image did not even come up on the first page: [3]. A black outline of it did come in, the third image, but wasn't event he most common. Any proof that the image is "iconic" and has appeared in movies etc.? I'm not willing to base deciions on personal opinions. If we don't have proof that it is iconic or widely known then we cannot assume that a reader will see the image and conclude that this is the article he is looking for. Moreover, just because something is iconic does not make it accurate. The test is about more than the inkblots, and the most accurate image should show what it is about. After all, King Kong is probably the most iconic gorilla, yet it wuld be inaccurate to place him at the top of the article.Faustian (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

? I see the image appear twice in that google link. Googling the name of this article shows the image 4 times in the front page (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ei=HPfwSdWlKZL2tAPgtpHQCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rorschach+inkblot+test&spell=1) along with a bunch of other inkblots. Clearly inkblots are associated with this test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, in the link I gave a black and white version of the image is shown twice. The image we are discussing doesn't appear at all. On your link the image showed up twice and a black and white version also showed up twice. Out of 18 images. It would seem the black and white version is at least as iconic as the real version when one google images "Rorschach inkblot test" and more iconic when one google images "Rorschach test". But in both cases, the image makes up 11% of responses, which doesn't seem to be very iconic.Faustian (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing we need to have the first image because that one, above others, is particularly iconic. I argue that the inkblots in general are iconic of the test. We are discussing the first card because it is the one that is currently in the article and it would be the easiest to move, but if we used another inkblot from the set I wouldn't be opposed. The point both image searches reveal, however, is that inkblots are the predominant image associated with the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't make it correct. The erroneous belief that the test is all about the image leads to outraged, misinformed comments such as "how can child custody be decided by inkblots" that one comes across in various forums involving the test. Indeed, why perpetuate a misconception because it is popular? This is the actually the most realistic image of the Rorschach test that came up: [4]. Either the first image is a realistic depiction fo the test or it is not. If not, it seems arbitrary what you use - an image of the inkblot, a black and white version of the image, H. Rorschach himself. If you want to base the image on sheer popularity, google searches indicate that the nonshaded version seems more popular or iconic than the actual one. If you complain that the more popular nonshaded version is not realistic, though, then you ought to concede than neither such image is a realistric depiction of the test. You can't have it both ways, IMO. Popular "iconic" image = nonshaded version, accurate realistic image = an actual administration of the test or something like that.Faustian (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Upload a good quality such image; either one. I'll be happy to have it at the top of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's place to try and give credibility to the test (I happen to think it is a pile of rubbish, for example) by virtue of shifting public attention to the fact that the test is more than inkblots. Wikipedia's job is to describe the test. The text already goes into detail about the fact that the test is more than inkblots. Inkblots should be used at the top because they are the most visual and the most easily recognized part of the test. If a reader happens to get wrong idea that the test is solely based on the blots, that is due to pre-conceived biases and it is frankly not our problem that the test gets denigrated as a result. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's place is to accurately reflect what the literature says. The literature says that the test is about many things, not just the inkblot, and that the result are based on interpretation, proper administration, etc. So it is our problem if we actively create the article in such a way as to mislead the reader by not following what the literature says and by emphasizing just the inkblot by placing it on top of the article. You have the opinion that the test is rubbish. However, we ought not to spread this opinion (or the converse opinion, or any opinion) and just stick to facts and what the literature says. The literature is quite clear in describing what the test is about. Moreover, your opinion of the test as rubbish is a minority one within the field - perhaps even fringe - as reflected in the scholarly literature. Even the anti-Rorschach zealots led by Lillenfeld et al concede the Rorschach is somewhat useful in differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic individuals.

The fact is that the test is about interpretation, administration, and test materials and emphasizing just the inkblot by placing it on top of the article is an editorial decision that makes the claim that the inkblot image is the most important thing about the test. This would seem to be a violation of the no original research policy. The claim that the image is "iconic" is false because the most common images seem to be nonshaded ones. The claim that it is most recognizable doesn't address the fact that it is also an inaccurate representation. Frankly, if we can't find an acceptable image, I don't understand why any image needs to be on top of the article. A reader will know whether it's the right article or not merely by reading the first sentence: "The Rorschach inkblot test (pronounced IPA: ['ʁoɐʃax]) is a method of psychological evaluation." We do have precedents to go on, btw. On no other psychological tests on wikipedia is there an image at the top of the article. Look at the articles on on numerous other tests such as SAT, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. BTW several tests use cards with images on them, such as the Thematic Apperception Test, the Holtzman Inkblot Test, the Bender-Gestalt Test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. Interestingly, none of them include images on the top of the article; indeed most don't include images at all. Why the exception here?

So, our choices seem to be: follow what the literature says and have either no image on the top of the article or at least one that accurately represents the test, such as an image of two people sitting across from one another with the card held by one of them. Or, go with an allegedly "iconic image" that misleads the reader by emphasizing one aspect of the test. Faustian (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More iconic image, for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned my opinion of the test was to make the point that it isn't Wikipedia's job to push for either direction (that the test is valid or not, and it is therefore not our job to "rectify" the test's standing in public eyes). Since you agree with that, let's move on. I know the literature agrees the test is about much more thank inkblots; I've been conceding this since the beginning. However, as I have kept arguing, there is no picture of those other parts of the test. The inkblots are the test's most visual component and highly iconic ones at that. It isn't an inaccurate representation anymore than the screenshot at the Windows XP article is an inaccurate representation of the OS because Windows contain tons of lines of codes and it is much more than a GUI. We are not putting the image at the top to say "this is the test; this is all there is to it. No need to read the article any further. Go away now." We are putting it to showcase the images most often associated with the test. The idea that the nonshaded ones are the iconic ones are based on two quick google searches, and are focused on the first card of the set (I've already said all blots are equally iconic and any one will do). It seems silly to me that, having agreed to put an inkblot at the top, we should go for a black and white version instead of the real thing. Also, "The Rorschach inkblot test (pronounced IPA: ['ʁoɐʃax]) is a method of psychological evaluation" only lets people know that they've found the test if they already know the name. A lot more people can recognize the test where they show you inkblot pictures than have memorized the name.

Now, in the absence of a guideline from the psychology wikiproject, I can only assume that the lack of pictures on the other test articles are either due to copyrighted images or simply due to them not being as good as they could be. We should strive not to conform to the mediocricy of the other articles, but instead to be better. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you agree that the literature says that the test is about more than the inkblots, the first picture (which I would comapre to the article's lead) which ought to summarize or capture the test should not be about a part of it. It's better to have no picture at all or at least a nuetral one (such as the image of H. Rorschach) than one that sends an inaccurate message - that the inkblot is the most important part of the test.Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My image suggestion was a (rather sarcastic) question, not an agreement, I'm afraid. But I now still suspect your motives here. It seems the "mediocrity" of some articles may be the "scientific complexity" of others. Or do you think that all psychologcal tests are the same and thus should be judged by the same wiki-yardsticks? Striving to inform might involve seeking for, or even, creating new images. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "the scientific complexity" of others? I am afraid I don't understand. No, I don't think all psychological tests are the same. They are obviously based on different ideas, have different purposes, and have different methods. But for their place in wikipedia articles, I think most article are helped by having a good picture at the top whenever possible. I don't know about other articles, but I know that in this one, we already have a good image that we should put at the top. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to draw your attention to the concerns of Ward3001 who obviously feels strongly that the test is `more than the sum of its parts', and certainly more than one of its parts. I recognise that, despite your earlier personal view, you are suggesting an improvement in good faith. It seems ironic, doesn't it, that the one test that has such a recognisable public face generates the most debate about whether that face is a true one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. While I understand Ward3001 concern's, and to some degree agree with them, I still hold the position the change would do more good than potential harm. Tis ironic indeed that such a recognizable face must carry with it such a great dispute, the question being whether it does a disservice to it's body or not. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• As for the unrelated issue of censorship, where does censorship indicate where on a page an image appears? Inclusion/noninclusion are censorship. Location is an editorial choice not having anything to do with censorship. Faustian (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For as long as the claim is being made that the inkblot shouldn't be at the top because it is harmful, the issue of censorship will probably remain in the discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of censorship involves deletion or suppression of information. Since placing an image in a section devoted to that image is neither suppressing nor deleting it, so the word is inapropriate in this context where we are deciding where it best belongs, not whether to remove it.Faustian (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppression. A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test, so the blot will remain undiscovered near the bottom. Furthermore, the only reason the page exist as it is is due to a compromise between people who wanted the inkblot to be the lead image and people who didn't even want the image to be in the article at all, so in a way all this spawns directly from censorship. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that a lot of people won't get further than the top of the article if they don't see a picture of an inkblot, moreover one that they probably won't even be familiar with in the first place (google image only gives that image 11% of the time when one searches under "rorschach inkblot test" and it doesnm't come up at all on the first page of google image "rorschach test".? Reading the sentence isn't enough for them? It seems we ought to fix the first sentence to make it clearer rather than add an image that isn't representative of the test as a whole. Plenty of good articles don't have an image at the top of the article. We shouldn't add an incorrect one just for the sake of having some sort of image there. As for suppression - an image in an appropriate section isn't suppression, unless you believe that, say, anything in a newspaper not on the top of the front page is somehow suppressed and therefore censored. Wes houldn't use the term censored lightlyFaustian (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Google image search for "Rorschach test" gives the original inkblots and/or black and white silhouettes for almost every result on the first page. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of the 18 images on the first page, only two include original inkblots. Three include pure black versions of original inkblots. The rest include "fake" inkblots, "fake" all black inkblots, cartoons, etc. The next page: [5] showed only one original inkblot (on a T-shirt), an all black version, an outlien version, and a black-an-white version of a colored card. This suggests that the original inkblot image is hardly iconic. Actually, the most common image seems to the all-black version, making it most iconic. If the purpose of putting the image first is really to show someone that they're on the right page, that would be the image to place because it seems to be the most common image. But astill it wouldn't be appropriate because it would add undue weight to the inkblots rather than the test, which what the article is about. Frankly, the best image would be this one: [6]. It shows the Rorschach being more or less correctly administered, and shows an inkblot on the card. If the caption could only be changed....

And, again, could you provide any evidence that "A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test"?Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So GoogleImages is our wikiyardstick? Isn't capitalism wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What has a search with GoogleImages to do with capitalism? Anyways, google searches are often good for getting quick ideas about trends (such as the section below about which name to give to this article). It's a good, useful tool. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk)

On this, I agree. And I will largely end on this positive note - I have a rare guest from out of town until next Sunday so will contribute but only sparsely until then....Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Idea: Okay, how about this? We put the inkblot at the top, but include a caption that makes it clear it is a limited part of the test. For example "The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test, the only visual part of the test" or "The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test. While these inkblots are the image most associated with the test, they are represent only a small part of it's administration" or something similar? That way we still get the most iconic and recognizable picture at the top without giving the impression that it is the most important part of the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your idea probably deserves more time than I have right now, but I didn't want to wait a week. Some points (with apologies if they aren't thoguht through much):

1. The need for an iconic image seems to be based on the premise that, as you have said, "A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test". Do you have evidence supporting this assertion?
2. As we both agree, according to the literature the test is about much more than the inkblot. Placing the inkblot would create an inaccurate impression by emphasizing one aspect of the test. Adding a caveat to the image is certainly an improvement over no caption. However, the bottom line is that you still have an inapropriate image there (albeit one with an explanation at the bottom). To make an anaology, it's like placing a picture of the iconic King Kong on the article about gorillas, and then adding the caption that gorillas are actually much smaller than portrayed in King Kong, are not agressive, etc.
3. Whether or not the inkblot from the actual test is truly iconic is far from clear clear. Indeed, Google image search results seem to indicate that the most iconic image is a nonshaded pure black inkblot rather than the actual from the test: [7]. The ratio of pure black to shaded inkblots is 7:4 - almost twice as many. If we assume that the reader needs an "iconic" inkblot to know that he or she found the right article, then a pure black one needs to be the one at the top of the page, perhaps with a caveat stating that the test is about more than the inkblot, and that this is a pure black version of the inkblot with an actual one displayed in the test material section. However, such a solution would still have the exact same problem that I mentioned in point 2, above and implementing it would still seem to be contingent upon the unproven assertion in point 1.
4. The article is it now stands is the result of carefully worked out compromise over many months of heated discussion. The point is still considered controversial, as evidenced in the article's edit history [8] by the periodic and never-ending deletions of the image even from its current location, such as this change: [9]. This would seem to indicate that there would need to be a major need to change the current format. I don't see that need there, particularly given the problems outlined above (and elsewhere in the discussion by other editors).
5. I do believe you are making a good faith effort to improve the article and do appreciate your effort!
6. That being said, you have stated that you believe that the test is rubbish. This is very far from a mainstream belief. Even the Rorschach's harshest mainstream critics (Lillenfeld) do not go nearly that far. In a conflict about the article content, one would think that proposed changes to the article by someone who admits to a far from mainstream belief about that topic (not meant insultingly, but descriptively) should be scrutinized very carefully. It would be comparable to someone who admits to being a follower of the intelligent design theory wanting to make good faith changes against previously held consensus on the Darwinian theory article.

With all this in mind, it seems to me that it's better to just leave the article as it is. The best alternative would be to put in a purely accurate image (which no one has yet created) of two people sitting acrioss from one another, one of whom is holding up a card with an inkblot image on it (which would at least cover 2 of three main elements of the test and would at least show that the test isn't just about inkblots), or have no image on the top of the article.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is only natural to make the lead picture of the subject of the article. Not sure why there is any question. Chillum 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is why the inkblot ought not be the lead picture, as it is not the subject of the article but the test is, of which the inkblot is only a part (as has been discussed quite a lot lately). A seperate article can be made about the inkblots, how they were created, etc. The image would be appropriate at the top of that article. But not this one, which is about the test. Faustian (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, we show a picture of the front of a Dog as the lead even though that is not the whole dog. That argument makes no sense. I certainly don't think the picture of the creator shows the whole test. That argument is very weak to me. It is part of the test, if you can show another part of the test we can show a picture of then let me know. Your arguments lacks a reason why we should not use that image. Chillum 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you assume that people will assume that a dog consists only of its front if that is what is pictured? The image of the creator shows the image of the man who made the test and after whom the test is named. To use a precedent, the article on Darwinism has an image of Darwin at the top. And it at least doesn't convey an inaccurate meaning. Faustian (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No more than someone will assume the card is the whole test. The caption can clear that up. I really can't understand your point. Chillum 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reread all points above. A caption to clear things up seems like a poor way of compensating for an inapropriate image. It would be the equivalent of, say, posting an image of Cerberus at the top of the article for dog and then adding a caption, "Actual dogs only have one, not three, heads." Or on the article for dog, placing a picture of its paw at the top and then writing about what the rest of the dog looks like. The image of Rorschach at the top of the test that he created and after whom the test is named is no more copntroversial than the image of Darwin at the top of the article about Darwinism, or Albert Einstein at the top of the article on the Annus Mirabilis papers which he wrote.

If you read the top of the this talk page, the current version is the result of carefully arrived at consensus to avoid all sorts of edit warring etc. by people with various opinions. It would seem that there should be something seriously wrong with the way the article is now, or fantastically right about the proposed change, to justify making such a change. Enough flaws exist in the proposed change to suggest that it's not worth making it.Faustian (talk)

The idea that having an inkblot at the top makes readers think the test is only about inkblots still makes no sense. Also, we are not here to avoid editwars, but to create the best article possible. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It overemphasizes the importance of the inkblots. I agree we are not here to avoid edit wars but to make the best article possible. The problem is that editors disagree about how to do that. This is why we edit collaboratively and, yes, make compromises. Because my idea of best is not the same as yours. Here we have an article about a psychological test. Hopefully the opinions of actual psychologists are taken into account in the article's form.Faustian (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Support Chillum on this point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the test is showing inkblots (10 of them?) and interpreting the results from answers given. If the test had multiple sections, some of which included inkblots and some that didn't, then I'd understand the argument, but the image is shown, and the result is read, all in short succession [right?]. The article is about the test not the creator of the test. The blot is a better representation of the test than an image of the creator. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The materials include the cards with inkblots, writing instruments (some psychologists use recording devices), etc. The test is not completed in short succession - analysis is a careful and time-consuming process, which takes up far more time than does the administration, and is really the most important part of the test. Your comments, above, are an example of the sort of misconceptions and inaccuracies that are spread by emphasizing the inkblots themselves by placing them on top of the article. Wikipedia shouldn't be int he business of spreading inaccuracies, even if they seem to be widely held by nonexperts. In contrast, the image of Rorschach does not lead to any misconceptions.Faustian (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly fun to see such a spirited discussion about such a simple question! I have a potential solution - While it is undisputed that the image of an inkblot is tightly associated with the Rorschach test (inkbot section), there are a number of arguments against featuring an actual "inkblot" on this page. First, I will iterate the main arguments against featuring an inkblot image:

• The APA thinks it may affect testing results
• It gives the wrong idea about the content of the test - letting readers instantly think that the test is solely about inkblot images
• It is not iconic of the test itself, only a portion of the test

With this in mind, my proposed solution is to show a set of images that may make the content of the test more obvious. While I am not sure what images would be used, one image cound certainly be an inkblot, and others related to other parts of the test. This would allow readers to quickly grasp that the inkblot is part of the test, but not the test in its entirety. As for the APA, respecting their request not to feature an inkblot should be considered, but I would fathom that the outcome of a more indepth discussion about respecting the APA's wishes would lead to - "inkblot images have been shown before in public media, and are closely associated with this test. Due to this, a single inkblot image will be used, to help the content of the test be identified quickly by users browsing Wikipedia." 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Accurate, but wouldn't a set of images at the top just leave it cluttered? Isn't it just simpler to have each image in its appropriate location within the article?Faustian (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true, clutter could pose a problem. Perhaps a simplified flow chart showing the process of the test with images would be more appropriate than just a simple set. This would allow each image to be shown in context with how it fits into the testing process. This would be more of a "center page" item, rather than a simple image on the side. If the image on the side is preferred, then an easy solution would be to have images in a column on the side of the page, ordered according to the flow of the contents of the article. This would minimize clutter and still give a clear "visual index" to the article, hilighting all parts of the article (and thus the test). 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten a good reason why the image of just one inkblot is in any way misrepresentative. I have heard it said a few times, but it has not been explained why. Faustian can you explain why the picture is not appropriate other that it not being "the whole test"? I didn't know what the ink blots looked like, that is why I looked this article up. Please don't say that the test involves more than inkblots, I know, but it does contain inkblots. I don't see any concern that people will think that the picture of the creator will lead people to think that is what the test looks like. I really can't make sense of the arguments against this. Chillum 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you looked up this article you would find the image in the apporopriate section, about the test materials. The issue here isn't whether or not the image is here, but where it ought to be. I also think that you have a somewhat mistaken impression of what the Rorschach test is about. Let me try to clarify this; forgive me if I'm not clear enough. You are correct that the blots are part of the test. However they are a lesser part than what you seem to imply them to be in your reasoning. According to the literature, the test is about much more than the inkblot. Indeed, a much larger amount of time is spent on test analysis and interpretation, using algorhythms based on 10,000s of responses, than is spent on the inkblots. This is because the focus of the test is the subject's perception, not the inkblots! This is a hugely important point. Placing the inkblot at the top of the article would create a grossly inaccurate impression of what the test is about by emphasizing one aspect of the test (and moreover one not central to what the test is all about). The inkblots are essential to be sure - the test can't be done without them (which is why compromising them should not be done lightly) - but they are not what the test is all about, no more than a paper and pencil or computer are what the SAT is all about, or wheels or what a car is all about, etc. The very fact that you see those images as apparently so central to the test that you feel they belong in the lead or top of the article suggests that this point isn't as clear as it ought to be. We shouldn't support this lack of clarity further by putting the image on top of the article.

It's also important to note that the article as it now stands is the result of carefully worked out compromise over many months of heated discussion which can be read in the archives. Some editors felt strongly that the image ought not be included at all, others that readers should be given the choice of whether or not to view it by hiding it and requiring a click to see it (my preference). The point is still controversial, as evidenced in the article's edit history [10] by the periodic and never-ending deletions of the image even from its current location, such as this change: [11], although prior tot he compromise the problem was worse. A delicate balance has been struck, in which the image was placed in the appropriate section (test materials). While not everyone thought this was ideal, consensus was nearly universal that it was at least acceptable. Collaborating and compromising is an important part of the wikipedia project, right? It would seem to me that there would need to be a major need to change the current format. Given the issues described above, I don't see that need there. I don't think that by any standards having the image in the "test meterials section" is such a horrible thing that it ought to be moved against longstanding consensus and against the objection of several editors (moreover, editors who happen to be the ones most knowledgable about the subject, but I suppose that's another point).

I am busy with RL issues this week (out of town vistors) and may not continue this conversation for a few more days, but please let me know if I can add further clarification!Faustian (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is one opinion. I am not convinced though. I am going to go through this page and its archives and see if your opinion is shared by others. Chillum 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, consensus can change. Just because a compromise was worked out before does not mean it is the perfect solution. We can still change that decision. Chillum 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do read the archives carefully so we don't have to repeat the same points again and again, as Faustian and I have had to do several times above. And of course consensus can change, but thus far it has not. Ward3001 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

section break

Thank you for the summary Faustian. Obviously it would be ideal if everyone was up to speed, but conservatively there have been over 30,000 words written on the topic, not including Archives 3 and 4 (I gave up counting). Let me ask one more points of clarification on the RfC. Is this RfC asking to decide the issue of whether there should be an image (or whether it should be hidden), or simply the issue of what the top picture should be?

Image choice issues are all the rage on RfC these days, so this is a wide concern. Shadowjams (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is whether the image should remain where it is currently (adjacent to "Test materials") or at the top of the page. I don't think there's much disagreement in this RfC about the choice of images, just location. Ward3001 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is about whether the image should remain in the Test materials section or whether it should replace the Rorschach picture as the lead image. The reason the idea of not having a picture at all keeps being brought up is partly, I think, because some editors still have reservations about showing the picture at all, and partly because it's current placement (and thus the previous consensus) was arrived as a compromise between editors who wanted the image at the top and editors who did not want the image to appear at all. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're stating (directly or by implication) that those of us who have opposed including the image at all in the past are pushing to have it removed altogether in this RfC, you are wrong, and (if you are) I challenge you to point out any comments we have made in this RfC advocating removal of the image. This issue is contentious enough already without having false accusations created out of thin air. The tactic in debate style of trying to discredit your opponent by falsely representing their point of view and then arguing against it may be effective in some situations, but not here. If you are not making this implication, please clarify because that's certainly how it is expressed. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Ward3001, that is not what I said and I apologize that it came out that way. What I meant was that some editor's opinion that the image should not be included at all were influencing their decisions because, in that case, they might see the issue as one of choosing between not having an image at all and having the image at the top of the page, in which case the current version is somewhat middle of the road and acceptable, instead of seeing it (as was stated in the RfC) as a choice between the image of Rorschach and the image of the inkblot at the top. So it keeps being brought up as a "we didn't even want the image in the first place, so it's current position represents a big compromise already" when I think some other editors (including me) are working from the assumption that the inkblot on the test page is the starting point and moving it to the top is the change sought. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You articulated the point very well. The dangerous with assuming that the current version is the "starting point" is that it sets up a situation that ultimately and inevitably leads to the lack of compromise. On this article, for example, my preference was for the image to be hidden and to require a click to see it, which is how the aticle looked for a while until about a year ago (?). Others wanted no image at all, or a simulated version of the image rather than the real one. However after long and difficult discussion we all settled with an acceptable compromise, the current version. Assuming however that this compromise is the starting point sets up a situation where the starting point changes every few months until ultimately we have the majority's version completely, with no compromise with the minority. This seems to subvert the wikipedia policy on consensus which is all about reaching an acceptable compromise for good-faith editors with various points of view.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the inkblot image as the first one. It's iconic, and it is the image a user would most expect to see. The caption can be used to direct the reader away from misconceptions... but I think that whole exercise is somewhat ill-informed: Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs, it's just a place to convey basic information. Surely, the best way to remove misconceptions is to get the reader interested in reading the entire article, and the best way to do that is to make it clear the reader is at the right article (by starting with the inkblot image) and then encouraging them to read it by not having a preachy caption. This is not an article about Rorschach the man, also -- so an image of him first seems rather out of place, given that we have a more natural choice. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's iconic": Iconic of what? Of an inkblot? OK, correct. Iconic of the test? No, you're wrong, as has been explained in much of the preceding discussion.

"This is not an article about Rorschach the man": It's also not an article about inkblots. It's an article about a test. See all of the discussion above. Ward3001 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read the discussion above. It is the natural image to represent the test. I know test is more than the blot. But it does a good job visually representing the test, much better than a portrait of Rorschach. Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. And again, please read all of the above. H. Rorschach is a better representation of the entirety of a the test than an inkblot. If you disagree, please tell us specifically which parts of the test (and H. Rorschach developed most of them) are more or less important than an inkblot. Name each aspect of the test, and tell us whether it is more or less important than inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward, you don't seem to get it. We have read the discussion. It is not that we are unaware of your point of view, it is that we don't agree with it. You can't start giving pop quizzes to qualify who is entitled to an opinion and who is not. The inkblot is part of the test, Dr. Rorschach is not part of the test. We can't show a picture of the whole test, so we want to show a picture of one of the more visual parts of the test. You have not really addressed the points of others, rather just repeated your point while insisting others don't understand. Chillum 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem that you or Mangojuice gets it. I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify specifically which parts of the test are more or less important than inkblots, and no one has even attempted to present that information. How can you argue that the person who developed most aspects of the test isn't a better representation of the test than one part of the test if you fail to explain why inkblots are the most important? So again. Name specifically the parts of the test that are more important than inkblots, and name the parts that are less important than inkblots. Without giving that rationale for the inkblots being the best representation of the test (more so than anything else), how can you possibly say that inkblots better represent the test than H. Rorschach. So for about the fourth time, please give details about what is more and less important than inkblots. It's not a pop quiz about who can give an opinion. It's a request for an explanation of your fundamental argument: inklbots are the best representation of the test. Anyone can express an opinion. But it seems that no one seems to be able to explain the basis for your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is you have not succeeded in convincing the community of your point of view. You cannot fix that by declaring they don't get it, or by setting your own arbitrary challenges that people must pass before they can have a say. There just is not much support for your point of view. Chillum 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem obsessed with your false assumption that I am arguing against others' being able to express an opinion, let me try to simplify. I did not say others don't "have a say". I have not presented a "pop quiz" for expressing opinions. I have asked for facts to back up others' arguments. Even more simply: anyone can express an opinion at any time. No one has responded to my request for facts. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end, Ward, no Wikipedia policy is going to mandate either outcome. It comes down to consensus. The purpose of an RFC is to gather input from the broader community in order to gauge consensus. I've explained myself already, there's nothing more behind the opinion than this. I understand your argument that the inkblot is an imperfect representation, I even agree that the inkblot is not a perfect illustration of the test. I just disagree with your opinion that the imperfection of this image means we should use the portrait instead. You think it's better, I think it's worse. I can respect that you disagree, please extend me the same courtesy. Mangojuice^talk 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum's analysis of discussion

I have just taken stock of this discussion and it seems to me that Ward3001 and Faustian don't think the image should be at the top. Jaimeastorga2000, Apoc2400, Garycompugeek, Chillum, Shadowjams and of course Mangojuice all seem to disagree with those two. I think it is clear that consensus is in favor of the image being at the top. While Ward and Faustian have produced volumes of text on the subject, they have failed to convince the community of their arguments. We should move the image to the top and put the picture of the creator down below. Chillum 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses. First of all, consensus is not determined by majority votes. Secondly, you failed to factor in all the discussion in the archives. Thirdly, it's too early to declare a consensus. Sometimes consensus takes longer than a few days, and this is a very contentious issue. There is not time limit for conensus. Your declaration of consensus at this point is premature. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not counting votes, I am saying you have failed to convince the community of your point of view. Secondly, consensus can change so archives are merely a reference point for future decisions. Thirdly, too early? This has been going on since December and there are no more supporters of your point of view now as there was then. Just accept that you have not achieved your goal of convincing us of your beliefs. You can continue to argue your point of view. Right now the consensus is that the image goes at the top, if you can change that consensus then we can change the page. Chillum 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"I am not counting votes": You did a good job of naming everyone and their position, clearly making it easy for anyone to conclude the number of votes.

"This has been going on since December": Would you care to tell us the specific date in December 2008 when this RfC was posted, because what we're doing here is responding to the RfC. I don't remember this RfC being up five months ago. If you want to count the amount of time, count the years of archives. But, of course, then you would have to consider the opinions in the archives.

"there are no more supporters of your point of view now as there was then: Counting votes again.

"archives are merely a reference point for future decisions": A reference point that you have failed to consider.

"Right now the consensus is that the image goes at the top": Right now there is no consensus.

"Just accept that you have not achieved your goal": Just accept that you're not declaring a consensus right now. Ward3001 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made this section into a thread of its own. I don't want it to seem like the footer to the discussion. I think that there is no problem with the discussion continuing. That is the nature of WP:CCC. If in the future consensus changes, then the page will change with it. While I disagree with Ward and Faustian I do appreciate contrary points of view. Chillum 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears we are going into itemized discussion mode.

I listed the people involved to demonstrate the people involve. At the very top of the page you can see yourself and Faustian arguing this point on Dec 16th. Since Dec 16th not one person has been convinced of this point of view, rather numerous people came out to disagree.

See the top of the page, discussion is not limited to RFCs.

Care to show me who you have swayed?

I have been involved in this debate for about 2 years, we probably have not overlapped much because my time here is a bit further back in the archives and under another username. I assure you I have considered this.

There is a consensus, two people can't hold back what everyone else thinks it the correct way to go.

If you think that I have misinterpreted consensus lets both wait 2 days and come back and see what other people think. If you agree to this I will revert my change to the page until others can weight in(in the spirit of fairness).

Also, lets not talk in itemized lists anymore, it is difficult and not natural to me. Chillum 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem with someone who jumps the gun in declaring consensus and is hellbent on vote-counting: inevitably, important information is overlooked. And you, Chillum, have overlooked something. Did you bother to consider the opinion of Martinevans123? Apparently not, because you took it upon yourself to declare consensus after incorrectly counting the votes. Look closely at all of the above discussion, rather than just glancing at it and jumping to a conclusion based on your preconceived ideas. Martinevans123 is a legitimate editor; he expressed legitimate opinions. And those opinions happened to favor leaving the image in its proper place with "Test materials", despite your placing him as favoring the position that you prefer. I'll assume good faith, but please read before tell us who favors what. If you can't even count the votes correctly, how can you declare consensus based on vote-counting. As of right now, there is no consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets both wait a couple days and see what other people think. Chillum 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll wait long enough for consensus. If that's 2 days, fine. If it's more than 2 days, that's the way it will be. And please move Martinevans123 to the appropriate place in your analysis above. I don't think you are entitled to misrepresent his opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's review what consensus really means: Wikipedia:Consensus. It is not about majority vote: "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." It is all about compromise: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." As has been noted and seen in the archives, there have been many approaches taken to the inkblot images. Some editors have felt that they shouldn't be here at all and that the articles should only include simulations (and such editors have created simulations), others (such as I) have wanted to have the image hidden, requiring a click to open and view it, thereby giving the reader the choice about whether or not to see it, while others have wanted the image on the top, unhidden. The present version was arrived at through compromise; it was a mutually derived version. Such a compromise was a good example of the collaborative nature of wikiepdia editing. What has changed since then? The number of people espousing particular opinions about what to do with the image seems to be at a similar ratio. But now, rather than compromise, it seems that someone has decided that the majority simply dictates what happens. That's the real change. And it is contrary to wikipedia's consensus policy. We are all editting in good faith here, we had a compromise version arrived at through mutual good-faith efforts by people with different opinions, are there any arguments compelling enough to overturn that?

The other piece I will add is that Ward and I seem to be the only ones involved in this discussion who have actually contributed referenced content to the article and that are most familiar with the test (I choose to contribute anonynmously but would be happy to verify my credentials privately with an admin if that's an issue). While I certainly don't suggest that this means we own the article, I do state that the situation of potentially completely throwing out the opinion of the minority in favor of the majority would also mean throwing out the opinions of the only people involved in this discussion, who are actually experts in the test and who have actually made content contributuions to the article. Dismissing us as "two persistent editors" on the edit summary...we are persistent because we know and care about the topic. Is there something wrong with that? Shouldn't people knowledgable in the field be ones whose opinions mean something, rather than ones whose opinions are simply rejected because they're outvoted 2 to 6 and some of the 6 don't compromise?Faustian (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong with holding your opinions as the only ones that mean something; the whole purpose of an RFC is to gather a wider array of opinions from uninvolved people. In fact, the alternate view may be just as good: editors heavily involved in a topic may be too close to it to see the issue clearly, and outsiders, above the fray, are better suited to help decide difficult issues. Plus, WP:OWN specifically goes against the idea. It's probably best if we just take everyone's opinion as valid. I see your point about this being all or nothing but the debate seems to be, largely, about whether or not to put the inkblot image at the top. I think we would all agree that the image of Rorschach is better than nothing... so if there's a way to compromise between these views please share it, I don't see one. I suppose this may mean abandoning an older compromise, but consensus can change. Mangojuice^talk 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect to holding one's own opinion as "the only one" please see my comments below which are directed at you as well as at Apoc2400. I can't emphasize enough that this conversation cannot be understand seperately from the context of previous discissions, found in the archives. The current version of the article is a compromise, forged over many months. Consensus hasn't changed - the ratio of for and against is the same as before. We can't just keep moving the goal posts closer to what the amjority wants every few months until eventuially the article reflects the majority's opinion while completely ignoring that of the minority.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not just about counting votes, but it also does not mean that you can ignore anyone you disagree with. If we were sockpuppets or people who were recruited to vote a specific way, then you could ignore us, by we are not. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Ward and I are being ignored (or at least outright rejected). And actually when looking at the previous discussion it seems that Marinevans123 doesn't want the image there at all, much less at the top of the page: [12]. If you recall, my preference is for the image to be hidden and to require a click to be viewed, for reasons we shouldn't get into here (it is discussed plenty in the archives). However after a lomg discussion I was willing to compromise and acqiesce to placing the image in the appropriate test materials section, unhidden. Now it seems some editors want to ignore this compromise and just go with the opposing uncompromised version - the inkblot at the top, unhidden. And if this happens, it violates the policy of consensus because the article doesn't take into account other editors' opinions but ignores them completely. Consensus doesn't mean whittling away at a version until, after a few months, the majority's preference is the one used, with all input from the minority removed. It is compromise. Which is what the present version represents. Consensus can indeed change. Has it in this case? I haven't changed my mind, and neither has Ward. A person who wanted the imagge removed completely and who had engaged in this doscussion int he past doesn't seem to be editting anymore. Nevertheless, the ratio of who prefers which version is pretty similar to what it was before, so where is the change in consensus? Should I go back to my original position? Should Ward argue that there ought not be an image at all? So we can end up at the same compromise? Sorry for editting and compromising in good faith.

Another issue is that editors out there other than just us do not contribute to this specific discussion but do periodically remove the image, as was shown here: [13]. This seems to happen every few weeks, and I suspect if you add them up their number will even things out more. These folks are part of the community too, no? Just because they're not voting and discussing here doesn't mean that their opinion does not matter. Community isn't limited to nine people on the article's discussion page.Faustian (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

A thought just struck me - the name "Rorschach Test" is used much more often than "Rorschach Inkblot Test" professionally and in the literature. Google results for "Rorschach Test" show 480,000 hits [14] and for "Rorschach Inkblot test" only 36,900 [15]. Google scholar shows 14,600 for "Rorschach test" [16]and only 1,200 for "Rorschach Inkblot Test" [17]. Google books shows about 5,000 for "Rorschach Test" [18] but only 825 for "Rorschach Inkblot Test" [19]. Since "Rorschach Test" is used many times more often than "Rorschach Inkblot Test" in general usage, scholarly usage, and in printed books, doesn't it make sense for the wikipedia article to follow this and therfore for the article to be appropriately named "Rorschach Test"?Faustian (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the numbers, I agree. Let's move this article to "Rorschach test." Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. All the agreeing gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Faustian I give you the honors since this was your idea. I think I speak for all of us when I say "Make it so". Garycompugeek (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! It's nice to agree for a change!Faustian (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and much healthier, thankyou. Why does this get the small t and the band get the big T? Maybe that's just trivial (with a small t). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin I assume your referring to test not being capitalized in the title? It is per WP:NAME. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was, as in Thematic Apperception Test and Holtzman Inkblot Test? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...At first glance I would say they are incorrect and should be changed per aforementioned policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, like MMPi, perhaps?

They all appear wrong and I have posted notices, Thanks. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have assumed that such tests as MMPI carried some kind of legal protection as registered Brand names or Trademarks which extended into the wikisphere. Who knows, maybe they are considering litigation already. Unlike poor old Herman of course. Isn't capitalism wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to be the exception. If a title is always capitalized then so do we. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive's missing

Could somone with more wikitech sophistication than I have please fix the links to the archives. Right now they don't work. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been moved or deleted. An admin or someone with rollback should be able to retieve them. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not deleted. They're at Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1, Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2, and Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3. It appears they just need to be renamed. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You've found them and I've repaired the links. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)