Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA		3	4	11				18
FL			1	1				2
GA	5	14	27	70			10	126
B	28	179	299	295			88	889
C	28	322	1,073	1,873	1		421	3,718
Start	5	172	861	3,231		1	2,247	6,517
Stub		5	122	1,365			1,871	3,363
List	7	10	47	98	1		10	173
Category					2,895			2,895
Disambig				3	26			29
File					35			35
Portal					100			100
Project					23			23
Template		1			225			226
NA		8	43	145	679			875
Other				1	169			170
Assessed	73	714	2,477	7,093	4,154	1	4,647	19,159
Unassessed			1	13	1		415	430
Total	73	714	2,478	7,106	4,155	1	5,062	19,589
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 70,551			Ω = 4.82

Criminal Psychology

Kia Ora koutou. I have made a few suggestions on the Criminal Psychology talk page , including that it be flagged for multiple issues. I have proposed that Correctional psychology be merge into that article to assist with some of these issues, at least until the amount of information about Correctional Psychology increases enough to warrant a separate article.

I would also like to propose that the Criminal Psychology page be raised in importance within the psychology project (current importance: Low), due to use of the term to describe a broad discipline which includes Forensic Psychology and Correctional psychology as well as having important implications for correctional and criminal rehabilitative practice generally.

For the same reasons I would like to propose that Criminal Psychology be considered as a higher-level category which includes Forensic Psychology and the above areas. As a category Criminal Psychology has the potential to include other areas not currently connected into Psychology but relevant to forensic and correctional practice such as recidivism and risk assessment.

New here, so prioritising etiquette over action for the time being. Thoughts? Thanks! Anterelic (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this User:Anterelic. On your second point, I agree: areas of the psychology discipline need to have high priority for the psychology wikiproject, so I've gone ahead and changed the article importance assessment. For decisions of an article's importance, I recommend being bold and changing them to what you think they should be, and if it turns out to be controversial, inviting discussion here. As a rough guide, areas of the subject would be top, individual theories and phenomena as mid, and pop cultural references as low. Individual psychologists might be at any level depending on their significance. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review for Proxemics

Hi Everyone, I am currently editing the page on proxemics for a Communications graduate course and I could use some help. If anyone wouldn't mind reviewing the article I'd greatly appreciate it. User:ebrock818 9:43 April 2, 2012

Article on Social Sharing of Emotions

Hello,

I am an undergraduate psychology student at Cornell University, and am currently working at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium with a graduate student here as part of a class to write an article on the Social Sharing of Emotions. We started the article in French as we're at a francophone university, but finally decided to write the article in English because French is not our native language. We will be continually adding content to the article over the next several months, and would appreciate any feedback you may have! The article can be found here: Article: Social sharing of emotions, and my partner is Paulinushk.

Astrss 8 March 2013 at 9:27 (CET)

Hi Astrss and Paulinushk, and welcome! I will copy this text to Talk:Social sharing of emotions, and recommend everybody to write their feedback there. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, could someone please re-review this article on the WikiProject quality and importance scale? It has undergone major revision and expansion since the time it was given this rating. Also, I have made the article a good article nominee, so if anyone would like to do the review that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Astrss 2 May 2013 at 9:46 (CET)

This is still seeking a Good Article reviewer. Good Article criteria are here and instructions for reviewers are here. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Bullying

Hi. I am completely uninvolved, but there is a discussion going on at the Bullying template's talk page. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm seconding this request for assistance from this WikiProject's members on this template. Technical 13 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely still an issue here. Like the problems with Template:Narcissism, this focuses on a Template whose main author is User:Penbat, a template which links to a lot of articles of questionable relevance to the topic, and even to articles outside of Wikipedia. In each case, the effect has been to place links to an article whose main author is Penbat across a range of unrelated articles. Where legitimate criticism has been raised, Penbat has not engaged with the Talk page debate, and, it appears, has only interacted with the article to undo edits by banned users, including legitimate users as well. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review for Artificial Grammar Learning

Hello all! I recently made some edits on the article for artificial grammar learning and I could use some feedback. User:Amylynn0815 3:42 April 23, 2013

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenoten. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We face here the generic Wikipedia problem in dealing with obscure things. The sources are primary studies published in obscure journals. "Tenoten" is a homeopathic remedy consisting of antibodies to S100 protein diluted to such an extreme degree that there is essentially nothing left but water; see http://materiamedicacompany.com/en/2eng.pdf. Even without the dilution it's very hard to see how it could be effective for cognitive problems, since antibodies generally don't cross the blood-brain barrier to any appreciable degree. In short, this is goombah. It might be useful to the community for us to have an article that describes the substance and explains to the reader why it is goombah. However, because this substance has drawn zero attention from reputable sources, there is no easy way to explain that it is goombah without committing OR. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone involved in the editing of psychology articles should be intimately familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources on medicine and should feel free to nominate for speedy deletion any article that mentions medical issues that has no such sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel free to do it, but I sometimes don't like to, because there are many people who are curious about these things, and it seems like a shame to deprive them of the only reliable source of information they might get. (In this case the article doesn't even exist yet, so the issue doesn't arise.) Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Somatoform disorder and DSM V

An IP user comment on the talk page of the above article suggests that the DSM V no longer uses this exact term. Could someone elaborate on this please? Lesion (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is now called "Somatic symptoms and related disorders" in dsm-5. It includes

• 300.82 Somatic symptom disorder
• 300.7 Illness anxiety disorder
• 300.11 Conversion disorder (Functional neurological symptom disorder)
• 316 Psychological factors affecting other medical conditions
• 300.19 Factitious disorder
• 300.89 Other specified somatic symptom and related disorder
• 300.82 Unspecified somatic symptom and related disorder Farrajak (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binding_problem

On the color part of this discussion. Please see page 20 Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps, by Barbara and Allan Pease, ISBN 0-7679-0763-9

"The retina at the back of the eyeball contains about 130 million rodshaped cells called photoreceptors to deal with black and white; and seven millino cone-shaped scells to handle color. The X chromosomes provides these color cells. Women have two X chromosomes, which gives them a greater variety of cones than men, and this difference is noticeable in how women describe colors in greater detail. A man will use basdic color descriptions like red, blue, and green, but a woman will talk of bone, aqua, teal, mauve and apple green."

This book is not well indexed, but is 250 pages long and has 120 references at the end.

Suzi2sticks (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved to the talk page in question?

WIthout another reference for these claims, that book does not make a good source. Also, I find the explanation oversimplified at the least. For a primary source, you can see this article: http://www.bsd-journal.com/content/3/1/21. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission might be of interest to you. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review on Cultural Divide

Hello! I'm looking to improve the stub page on Cultural divide, and would appreciate some feedback on the tentative article on my Sandbox here before I expand the actual page. I'm still new to editing and have tried to follow the style of similar wiki articles - please tell me if there are any obvious conventions or procedures I've overlooked or should be aware of. Thank you! Musketeer 13 (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made some minor tweaks and given more feedback on the draft's Talk page. Look forward to this being in article space once it's improved. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PD images of psychologists

I've written some biographical articles on psychologists, particularly past APA presidents. For most of them, copyright status on their photos hasn't expired yet. Does anyone know of a good source for public domain images of psychologists? I'm particularly looking for one of Donald N. Bersoff since I've just written the article and have a pending WP:DYK nomination on it. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see progress on this. Have you tried a polite request to the individuals concerned, or the APA itself? They may well want there to be photos on Wikipedia but be unaware of the requirement for free content. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please have a look at this submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now approved. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

EMDR

I've made a proposal at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing to delete a number of issues relating to that article. It needs some input from you. It clearly is a controversial topic but the article has been improved considerably from what it was a couple of years back. At the beginning of this month the article was redirected to the article for the author by an editor who specializes in deleting articles and this seems to sum up the polarization the topic causes. Yet by one account there are 20,000 people trained in the technique worldwide so it does not seem appropriate to suppress the article. Please read it and give your comments. Chris55 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've commented on the Talk page. More voices always welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're not Jung's Archetypes, whose are they? They weren't co-discovered or rehashed. The Archetype by Jung is clearly defined in every case so that if you only say Archetype you would have to differentiate it on your own. I prefer a change by discarding once and for all the word "Jungian" Nicole Mahramus (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing name of Jungian Archetypes to Archetypes

Given that the word 'archetype' is virtually synonymous with Jungs use of it, or at the very least dominates our conception of the word, I think that the title of this article is a bit redundant and suggest that the current article on 'archetypes' and 'Jungian archetypes' be merged. Any comments re: this and suggestions as to how to get it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.3.222 (talk)

To clarify, we have separate articles on the topics Archetype and Jungian archetypes; we also have Archetypes which is currently a redirect to Jungian archetypes. Looking at the contents of the articles, I don't think that a merge is appropriate, but it would make sense for the Archetype article to more prominently point out the existence of the Jungian one. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about merging 'archetypes' and 'Jungian archetypes'. I don't know what you mean by 'looking at content' as the article 'archetypes' has no content. The 'archetype' article is a bit of a hash job and in a poor state, but sure I think it should retain that place as a marker for the consideration of the term 'archetype' in a wider context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.3.222 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not keen on archetype and archetypes giving different articles at all, as I think about it. It seems unlikely to me that readers will expect anything like that or know how to make sense of it. Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see what you're saying now and I agree. I've re-done the archetype page - meaning edited and removed some extraneous stuff. I think the archetype page had a lot of amateurish assertions that were more thoroughly explored in the main articles anyway. So I've deleted those and added main article links. I envision this page as a landing page which describes the 4 primary connotations of the word 'archetype' which can then be further explored by looking at the main article links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how we can justify archetypes and archetypes being different articles (sic! See the wikicode.) So I've set the redirect so this is no longer the case. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probability Request Sequence

Dear psychology experts: I rescued this abandoned article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence which had been declined at Afc months ago, and I have been simplifying the text to make it more intelligible to the average reader. It has been declined as being too essay-like as per this discussion: User talk:Bonkers The Clown#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence. Can anyone here give me suggestions as to how to improve it so that it seems factual instead of essay-like, or, if this is indeed not an established technique, please let me know? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic is potentially interesting and notable, but the problem with that article draft is that it's written partly as a "How to". I've commented in more detail on the draft page. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

After Anne's further edits, I've now approved this as a new article. It now needs categories and wikilinks from relevant other articles. Thanks User:Anne Delong for working on this article repeatedly and patiently to bring it up to standard. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Albert Laszlo Haines is up for deletion. The main issue is whether his case is notable or not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

IQ classification extensively updated today

I've been receiving help from other participants in this WikiProject as I did sandbox drafts of a new version of the high-priority, start-class IQ classification article. My revisions have just gone live in mainspace. Please let me know what you think. I'd be happy to collaborate with other editors active in this WikiProject to bring that article up to good article and then featured article quality. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Other editors who are active in this project were very helpful in providing suggestions for updates of IQ classification. I'd be very grateful if you took a look at the current condition of the article, or at the DYK nomination of the article, as I would be happy to see the article further improved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of navigational templates

I have been putting this off in the hope that @Penbat: would get involved in these discussions, but in the absence of that, I invite discussion here.

Background

As seen previously on this Talk page, there are multiple discussions around a couple of psychology navigational templates. These templates seem to be largely the work of one user, and while being useful in lots of respects, there seem to be problems, in particular with directing traffic from arguably unrelated articles to articles that have been heavily edited by that user. Although this is a good-faith user who brings a huge number of real improvements to the encyclopedia, there may have been a loss of perspective in this case. There are also possibly issues about how that user has reacted to the existing consensus on the relevant Talk pages, so I'm not convinced that my and others' attempts to fix the problems won't be undone. The situation is complicated by the fact that some participants in the discussions were behaving badly and have since been banned from Wikipedia.

Rather than have the same discussion again and again, we should build consensus here and apply it across all possibly affected templates. We should keep in mind Wikipedia:Navigation_templates, particularly the points "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia" and "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles".

Template:Narcissism

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: Listed at Template_talk:Narcissism#Problems_with_this_template. This is the template at the time of the complaint. Links off-Wikipedia, links to many articles that don't mention Narcissism. Clearly not serving the function of a template for navigating across a related group of articles: instead it seems to be an attempt to summarise the theme article. Multiple links to the same articles, especially to the theme article.

Behaviour issues: Penbat undid some changes that fixed these problems with an edit summary which wrongly stated that a banned user's edits were being reverted. Where the inclusion of Control freak in the template has been challenged, Penbat has provided a link to Google Scholar results which on the face of it seems to lack suitable sources.

Template:Bullying

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: See this version before recent changes. Long, complex discussion on the Talk page focusing on similar issues to the Narcissism template: links outside Wikipedia, linked articles with no sourced connection to the topic, multiple links to the same article.

Something seems excessive when an article like self-esteem has dozens of links related to bullying (via the See also section, two of these navigation templates, and categories). Are people reading about self-esteem expecting it to be "part of the topic" of bullying?

Behaviour issues: Consensus was built up on the Talk page to remove certain links as excessive, but Penbat reverted the changes with an edit summary that wrong implied that only the work of banned users was being undone. However, some of the discussants have been banned. Then again, the arguments stand on their own merit, the consensus involved editors who are still in good standing, and new arguments have not been presented since to change the consensus.

Template:Abuse

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: arguably irrelevant inclusions. Incivility ("lacking in civility or good manners") has been listed as a type of abuse. Exaggeration and Lie were deleted for lacking a sourced connection to the topic, but the deletions were reverted.

Template:Psychological manipulation

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: relatively minor. Over-broad interpretation of "related topics" (Fallacy, Self esteem, Sycophancy). Note that a certain range of articles, including Setting up to fail and Mind games come up repeatedly in the above templates.

Template:Domestic violence

Content issues: relatively minor. Are Embarrassment, Superficial charm, Mind games, and Setting up to fail related topics to domestic violence?

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the banned user in question is User:Star767 and User:Farrajak, both of which are apparently sockpuppets of User:Zeraeph. According to a list provided by Penbat:

• Both had an interest in editing psychology articles and both seemed to edit with supreme confidence and divisiveness.
• Both edited at a rapid speed in a flurry of activity, often jumping around from one article to another.
• Both did some good work but much of the time it was divisive and destructive, often deleting cited text with the excuse that it isnt relevant.
• Both had a similar naive dismissive understanding of psychopathy.
• Both were destructively critical of psychological manipulation.

Fladrif was also constantly wikihounding Penbat to the point where he felt he was unable to do any significant editing. Fladrif actually supported some of these changes, but the main issues were that he was being disruptive and attacking other editors (including myself), and he was blocked in April as a result. So, I think we should get a discussion going between the psychology project. Consensus can change, so I think we should go ahead and the template is what we should be really discussing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if we're being asked here to comment in detail. I commented earlier at some length on one of the templates, Template_talk:Bullying#This_reversion, and I can say that in general I believe we should be conservative, and that the templates as I saw them at the time were waaaaaay to full of inappropriate/incorrect article links. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm happy to comment, but I only worked on a couple of these templates if I remember correctly. I know I discussed the content of one at great length with Fladrif who, at least with me, worked well and in a spirit of co-operation. Others were involved with that discussion, We cut a great deal from the template, seeking to form consensus for each item's inclusion or exclusion. I feel this type of discussion is an appropriate mechanism to pruning large templates, and would support it in each one. Fiddle Faddle 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: detailed commentary is helpful, but thanks for confirming my perception that there is a problem with inappropriate links. :@Timtrent: seems like you agree too that there has been a problem with templates needing to be cut down, but that we need to apply it carefully in each case- fine with that. :@Sjones23: unlike the other two you haven't commented about the templates, but you say "the template is what we should be really discussing". "we should get a discussion going between the psychology project" - this is the discussion. We're having it now. What is your input on the topic of the templates? Do you agree that they need to be cut down? As regards the behaviour issues I've raised, are you confident that Penbat will not undo the changes we make as a result of this discussion? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: You have summarised my thinking perfectly. Overburdened templates should be pared down with care and consensus, not with a hatchet. I would argue strongly against a Bold, Revert, Discuss on this set of templates. Some elements are obvious candidates for removal (external links etc), others need discussion on the template talk page to show with precision the consensus that has been achieved. I have noticed my own thinking was challenged by the discussion and I found I was persuaded towards removal of items. Equally I was able to persuade others to retain some.

We should most assuredly discuss the templates and ignore any personalities, good, bad and indifferent, in the templates' histories. Prior conflicts are amusing but unimportant history. @Penbat: is an editor who works with consensus, or so I have always found. They have strong opinions, and are susceptible to well reasoned argument. When discussing this material with them other editors should be susceptible to their arguments too. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the templates, I would personally prefer the versions before the edits by Star767, Farrajak (both of them which are believed to be sockpuppets of the banned user User:Zeraeph, and bans apply to all edits good or bad) and Fladrif. I think Penbat would agree with some certain ideas since he is a well respected editor. According to a discussion, he is apparently trying to keep a low profile due to the events of March and April 2013. I am filing an RFC on this matter if no one objects to get a new consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Navigational templates

There have been some wikilink issues (such as coat-rack links that have no significant relevance to the primary subjects, related topics, off-WP sites) with the following five templates:

• Template:Narcissism
• Template:Bullying
• Template:Abuse
• Template:Psychological manipulation
• Template:Domestic violence

These stem from issues with Star767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Farrajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), two disruptive suspected sockpuppets of a banned user who have a long history with Penbat (talk · contribs), an established editor and primary contributor to the psychological articles. In these cases, should some of these wikilinks be removed to prevent bloating in these templates? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the templates list above appeared to be bloated. Links to off-WP sites including Wikitionary should be removed and also the many coatrack links that do not have direct relevance to the primary subject. Also I don't see any need for a Related Topics section in any of the templates.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Sjones23: for doing this the proper way (I'm new to RFCs as you can tell) and thanks @Keithbob: for specific input. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I might add that it is traditional to place a neutral summary at the top of the RfC section here and to ask specific questions or statements that participants can agree or disagree on. If you don't do that, participation will be less and the results will be muddled.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All right. I've refactored it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree Yes, please clean up the templates. Mateng (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree with many of the concerns by MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) above, and there indeed ought to be some clean-up of these templates. But I still think this RfC isn't very specific because it just vaguely waves to concerns like WP:COATRACK and loose relevance without actually proposing specific changes. This would be a much, much more productive discussion with concrete proposed changes. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have been randomly selected to offer an RFC opinion on this and I also must agree that the proposed templates be removed. There are two problems, however, with the RFC (1) which has been addressed already about the need for neutrality in the RFC summary but also (2) some history of the contention (usually between two editors) which has led to the RFC being requested. The editor requesting the RFC might examine a bit more the procedure for requesting an RFC if only so that volunteers can get a little bit of background in to the contention and perhaps evaluate the various faction's reasoning behind wanting to keep and behind wanting to eliminate or change text. Damotclese (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My aims in raising this here were 1) to get discussion on whether there is a problem to be addressed (clearly one of the editors involved in these templates does not think there is a problem; I do, and am willing to hear opinions either way); 2) to make editors who were discussing the problems in detail on one template Talk page aware that there were almost exactly the same issues with other templates, and hence avoid a problem being fixed on one template but not another. From that perspective then, this request for comment has been a success even if it hasn't fit a common model for RFCs. It's clear that the templates do need to be swept with a stiff brush, but the exact removals (or readditions) can be debated on the respective Talk pages. MartinPoulter (talk)

Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors

Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Socializing - Socialize, not even a lemma? Article?

Hello all, I'm new to this forum and I hope (not yet quite sure) this is the right place for rising this subject or that someone could kindly point me there.

To briefly introduce myself (just if someone would want to know), I'm a non-psychologist interested in the subject and I've been contributing to Wikipedia in what languages I can from the times before the Seigenthaler incident (when exactly I've lost track of), mostly by spontaneousy wiki-gnoming (courtesy link just for those not caring about wikiese, no offense) both in small corrections and facts, digging deeper or creating the occasional article or quality stub from time to time. There's no need I'd currently feel for much discussing my inclination towards being an "ethical IP", though.

As to the subject I would like to raise, I recently looked up "socialize" or "socializing" in both Search and Advanced Search just to find plain nothing short of a few indirect hits on "socialization". Specifically, there isn't even remotely such a thing as a lemma on socializing, if I'm not utterly mistaken.

To be exact, there is a redirect for "socialize" which immediately took me to the article on "socialization" which in turn mentions socializing, in the meaning I'm talking about, in one single phrase under "Other uses". All other (and comprehensive) content of the "socialization" article seems to be about the usual technical term and its aspects, again leaving out socializing as we know it from daily life, with that even including how its patterns are acquired. That's very surprising to me.

There's also a disambig with a lot of numerous aspects of socialization, but again, socializing is utterly missing there. There seems to be nothing in the least conspicuous (by search for its name at least, that is) to be found for "socializing" or on the behavioral patterns we call socializing or the development thereof.

This seems even more astonishing to me as socializing, as you may agree, is not only a social concept of the most important kind, it is even a concept that has its own proper name in English while this isn't the case in a number of other more-or-less major languages, which seems to make it very distinct. Non-native speakers of English brought up speaking these languages have to be taught that there is even such a word in English, and to properly value and connect that word with its meaning. This often doesn't even happen at school and comes as a cultural surprise later in learning the language (the lot of you who have travelled abroad to immerse into a foreign language after some school learning will know the effect from experience, I doubt it's any different whatever language border you cross in which direction).

Now with all those Wikipedia users just mentioned in mind, English being a dominant language in large parts of the world, that makes another strong point for having a proper lemma here, in my opinion.

For the language thing specifically, if you're interested, consider French and, for that matter, German (I don't know about Spanish and Mandarin). Just for a striking example of contrast to English language and culture, consider the lengths a person would have to go to verbally to only mention socializing in German (see here and eclectic discussion here).

Having a proper article, not just lemma, should (or so I suppose) be interesting, to say the least. Where are all the aspects of a healthy and sound practice of socializing hidden in the WP? In the realm of the self-understood that is never mentioned? That's precisely not a reason not to be talking about it, to me (and I do recognize I may well be preaching to the choir here for the lot of you, being psychologists and such). Or where else could it be hiding? Social disorders, anyone? It seems to me that it should have a proper place.

I'll be happy if this may help create some fruitful discussion, or even the article in question. Thanks out to everyone caring, --217.81.163.66 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Cross-posted short text with a link to this at Wiki Projects, Anthropology and Sociology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.163.66 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't generally have articles about verbs. I agree with you that this concept deserves an article -- an appropriate title might be socialization (sociology) or socialization (psychology). Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for your support and suggestion. I'll be waiting for some other users to show up and comment, for the moment. Apart from that, I haven't read up on the current stub creation philosophy for a while so I don't know if it would be wise to start from a bare stub. Looking for participation in writing the article from some users with a sound theoretical/empirical background and/or mentoring practice on the subject. --217.81.180.22 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (original poster)

These articles should be more or less interesting in this context:

• Social relation
• Interpersonal relationship
• Social group
• Social contact
• Social behavior
• Social actions
• Social network
• Social sharing of emotions
• Social support
• Social communication
• Community building

Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, in sociology, the process of "socializing" is called Socialization, for which there is an article. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. It occurs to me that you are referring to the process of building Social networks. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment request

Hi! Our Wikipedia team has made edits to the Big Five personality traits article. This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. But rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. I hope anyone could review this article and see if it is eligible for higher class article or not. Saehee0908 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this is still C class. The text contains errors and a lot of it will be incomprehensible to most readers. Also the article badly needs some background on the "factor analysis" approach to personality, and also an explanation of how the Big Five emerged as an extension of the "big two" of introversion and extroversion, or the "big three" of introversion-extroversion-psychoticism. There's a lot of good stuff in the article, but I can't yet regard it as clearly written and comprehensive. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles on average IQ in specific countries.

A new user has started an article about the national IQ average in Iran. I wonder if there is any precedent for articles on IQ in specific countries -and whether the project think such articles are relevant, or alternatively if there is some other articles the content could be merged into? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Any new such article should probably be under strict scrutiny by other editors, in light of the Arbitration Committee decision in the Race and intelligence case. There are not actually good data on the IQ level of most countries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Child, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for three scientific papers

I am currently working on the article on the T puzzle. This puzzle has been used in quite a few psychology experiments, so I would like to have that covered too. I have most of the papers, but still missing three which my university doesn't have access to. Direct links are: [1] [2] [3]. I would be most grateful if anyone could send me any of these papers. My email is at gmail with the first bit of the email address being voorlandt. Thanks a lot in advance, and I hope this request isn't too blunt. --Voorlandt (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. I could not find the last article-- although it appears to be listed in Google Scholar, I can find no record of the title appearing in Psychological Science nor does the author's name appear in the entirety of the journal. It is possible the title was redacted or pulled for some other reason, but I really have no idea. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Regards, --Voorlandt (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New psychological Good Article

Good news everyone! Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been promoted to Good Article status. Many thanks to the nominator User:MrADHD, the reviewer User:Zad68 and other editors who have brought the article to this important milestone. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! I just perused the article and through the improvements made through the GAN, and I am very impressed. Excellent work to all involved. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delighted to be a part of the process! Zad68 02:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment request for IQ classification.

I appreciate the suggestions from other editors active in this project that have prompted extensive edits to the article IQ classification (formerly, IQ reference chart ). That article received a rating from this project quite a while ago, when it was much shorter and cited hardly any sources. I am continually updating the article now, as a way to digest a much larger professional research project I am engaged in, and any suggestions any of you have for improvements to IQ classification will be taken very seriously as I continue to revise the article. If an editor who has rated articles for this project before could please kindly rate the current condition of the article, that will be a reality check on how much more revision needs to be done before, say, nomination for good article or featured article status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

With the caveat that these ratings don't actually mean all that much, I've rated it B class, as high as it can go without a GA or FA process. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start educating myself about the GA criteria. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP Psychology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article in this WikiProject, Pangender, has been proposed for a merge with the article Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Psychology - Skysmith (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry

I posted on Project:Medicine, but maybe this is a better place to raise attention about the newly created article Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, the closely connected, newly created bios Maria Luisa Figueira and Mario Di Fiorino, as well as edits made by the same four users in e.g. Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Ganser syndrome, and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [4] and left a note on the editor's page,[5] and subsequently tried to add info from the .it article Leonetto Amadei. (It appears that the Italian Leonette Amadei has had additions similar to the ones made to the English.) The English version has now had the same material re-added.[6] I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti.[7] Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Progress monitoring

Resolved

Dear psychologists: This article has been waiting for over two weeks in the Afc. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mental retardation

Category:Mental retardation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Intellectual disability. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

EysenckPersonalityTypes.gif

image:EysenckPersonalityTypes.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology

Hi to fellow psychology editors. There has been an ongoing discussion about the Occupational Health psychology article for a number of months, without dispute resolution. The discussion has become very insular and at times hostile, and would benefit greatly from some fresh opinions on the psychology topics under discussion. Given the use of the terms psychology and psychologist throughout the article it is a particularly relevant article to this Wikiproject. I have concerns that the article has been originally written in a non neutral style and there may be some promotional interests at play. Getting any changes or additions to the article based on strong reliable sources, has been very difficult. There seems to be major overlap between occupational health psychology and organizational psychology. Comments from interested editors would be very welcome. ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also see above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Help arranging a dialogue with Mrm7171 regarding changes bearing on occupational health psychology. Kind regards, User:㓟 - (pi) (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Occupational Health Psychology on Wikipedia 2008-2011

I only joined Wikipedia in 2013, however if we are to take it right back to the beginning, to gain an objective perspective, editors should firstly read the these discussions between 2008 and 2011. They were between iss246 and at least 6 other psychology editors. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 These heated discussions between iss246 and numerous psychology editors between 2008 & 2011 ensued and culminated in iss246 placing occupational health psychology in the sidebar against all other editors consensus not to do so. I was not involved in these discussions between 2008 and 2011 however my reading is that iss246 falsely placed OHP in the sidebar, where it still falsely remains.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topic discussions about meat puppetry which do not belong hereMrm7171 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for taking up so much space on this page but the full excerpt below bears on Mrm7171's above criticism of Psyc12 and me. The following is a verbatim transcript from the Wikipedia:Editor assistance request page (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 118). Iss246 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I just waded through that whole talk page and I see 1 (one) instance where 1 (one) of the two editors you are complaining about claims to be a professor. I don't see any instance where they attempt to use this to "assert authority/control over other editors". I would strongly recommend that you start listening to WhatamIdoing and start concentrating on sources and such, instead of continuing the highly emotional discussions on that talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I have been looking at the edit history of this article and I have to say that some of your edits are very troubling. This one], for example. A professional society is not a "club", their newsletters are generally considered reliable sources, not "self published". I would recommend that you familiarize yourself more with WP policies and guidelines before continuing editing that particular article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Mrm7171 needs to chill out and grow up. It appears one of the other editors is, in fact, a professor, who displays professional competency and demeanor. That is hardly "asserting control", as Mrm7171 asserts, and who seems broadly clueless. WhatamIdoing has given him some advice, but I suspect he needs across the board mentoring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Further evidence here of iss246 using Wikipedia:Canvassing techniques, on top of his Wikipedia:Meat puppetry, to prevent the truth coming about how he went against the consensus of 6 very experienced psychology editors between 2008 and 2011 and placed OHP in the psychology sidebar against clear consensus not to do so. Iss246 has become very aggressive toward me as a relatively new editor who has challenged him on why entered OHP in the sidebar against clear, definite consensus not to do so.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology placed in sidebar against consensus?

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Occupational health psychology was placed in the psychology sidebar by iss246, against the consensus of at least 6 other psychology editors. Heated discussions between iss246 and numerous other psychology editors between 2008 & 2011, culminated in this statement by DoctorW 3 March 2011 in reference to iss246 placing occupational health psychology in the sidebar against the consensus of all other psychology editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 "Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you iss246 doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

It appears that the only reason occupational health psychology remains in the sidebar is because all other editors between 2008 and 2011 'gave up' in desperation as it sound like what DoctorW has done from his comments above, after iss246 went ahead and jammed it in the sidebar anyway! So now other 'genuine' areas of psychology have been displaced, erroneously, by iss246 putting OHP in their place?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy you need to read is WP:Consensus can change. The short version is nobody really cares what somebody claimed to be the consensus two and a half years ago. We care about what people say the consensus is today. AFAICT, most people except you would rather keep that item in the sidebar than remove it.

There's no space limitation. Including OHP does not result in anything being "displaced". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topic relating to meat puppetry investigation and canvassingMrm7171 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry whatamidoing. I appreciate you are friends with iss246 and iss246 has used Wikipedia:Canvassing of you and others, on occasions, to support his point of view and build consensus, Correction. Mrm7171 wrote above about user:WhatamIdoing, "I appreciate you are friends with iss246." I am not WhatamIdoing's "friend." I don't know who she is. She once, a long time ago when I was relatively new to Wikipedia, chided me for including external links within the OHP article. I was upset by her criticism but got over it within a day or two because I quickly learned that she was right and I had made a mistake. I corrected my mistaken edits. Later I observed that she helped other Wikipedia editors; I, therefore, on rare occasions, asked her for advice about edits. That is the extent of my connection to WhatamIdoing. Iss246 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC) That's just not true and you know it iss246, and I could easily prove Wikipedia:Canvassing and your Wikipedia:Meat puppetry that other editors also concluded iss246, by pasting names of all the 7 individual meatpuppets, including psyc12, you used,to support your point of view, and exactly how you actually canvassed whatamidoing on more than one occassion? However this page is NOT an appropriate place for these topics. I do not not want to talk about these issues here please iss246. Please focus on this important topic I have presented. The only reasons I included your posts between 2008 and 2011 Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 forcing OHP in the psychology sidebar against consensus as DoctorW pointed out in 2011, relates to my discussion for others in the psychology community to consider. A side issue was how you placed a field like OHP in the sidebar when so many other areas of psychology should also be included. Mrm7171's accusations are based on minimal information. Sock puppets. Meatpuppets. Friends. Becoming something like the Joe McCarthy of Wikipedia is not a good idea. Yes, I asked WhatamIdoing about a not-so-fully-formed plan I had regarding how to approach Mrm7171 and many of his counterproductive edits on Wikipedia. I inquired with her because she has considerably more knowledge of Wikipedia than I have, and she has been an honest broker, including when she informed me of my mistakes on Wikipedia. After reading her response, I decided to do nothing. But I can say this. As much as I disagree with much of what Mrm7171 has been doing on Wikipedia, at least I agree with him about one idea, namely, that this page is "NOT an appropriate place for these topics." Iss246 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC) It was not me accusing you of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and pointing out the 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology who were all 'directly solicited by iss246,' to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all joined up on the 'same day' in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Don't wrongly attack me for mentioning the term Wikipedia:Meat puppetry I did not bring it up, although I did agree with the editor who did, ie. who rightly said this: "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" Given there is new evidence which has now come to light, it should now go back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than discussed further on this page? I hear violins playing. Mrm7171, you wrote, "It was not me accusing you." "It was not me, it was not me, it was not me." Thou doth protest too much. You repeated accusations against me right here on this page. If you are going to repeat accusations, no matter how spurious, then own them. If not, don't repeat them, particularly with the pathetic refrain "it was not me." I remind you that Wikipedia looked into the matter of the phoney sockpuppetry allegation only to discover (and it was pretty easy to discover) that Psyc12 and I are different people, working on different ends a continent. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Iss246 I think you are missing the point Kww made. It was not sockpuppetry it was meatpuppetry, with these 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology involved psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Please drop it. It is going back to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations area with new evidence that has come to light.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Mrm7171, you just repeated an old accusation, a mossy old canard that has no merit. I interpret your parroting the old canard that you own it although you hide behind someone else's skirts. To quote, Robert Welch, "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" Iss246 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Again, apologies to other editors. I will not reply to your sarcastic abusive remarks iss246. The issue of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and the 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology involved, was stated by Kww, NOT ME. Okay! Stop attacking me iss246! Editor Kww said this about the matter: "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that." Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" So please desist from your personal attacks on me. Wikipedia is not about you iss246? You are not in control! This is not the place for these discussions. So please stop the abuse.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is the applied psychology article, and the psychology sidebar and what areas of psychology are included and which are excluded. I believe there should be an objective set of criteria, not who can 'force' an area into the sidebar against all other editors like what was done with the occupational health psychology entry by iss246! What about all the other areas? Absolute discrimination not to include every single one of those areas below or at least establish an objective criteria as to which are included and which are excluded. That discussion is very relevant to this page, your comments and the 'off topic' issue of meatpuppetry and your abusive, sarcastic comments are not.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to other editors, the only reason I mentioned this and very much regret it now, is that iss246 falsely placed occupational health psychology in the sidebar while 'genuine areas of of psychology are left out. On a constructive note, any comments please iss246, on my proposal to include all of the other areas of applied psychology mentioned below on the sidebar also?

It is purely discrimination against those areas of psychology not to include them also. Many of those areas I have listed actually do have Doctoral programs in countries around the world. Whereas occupational health psychology for instance, has no doctoral programs anywhere in the world, even though iss246 actually used the 'false claim' as an argument between 2008 and 2011 Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 with other editors even counting the number of OHP doctoral programs, when the truth is, there are none.

What areas should be included in the applied psychology article & sidebar?

My point is that all of the fields of psychology listed below need to be included in the applied psychology sidebar and applied psychology article. Either that, or we need an 'overhaul' the sidebar and base it on a pre-set and objective criteria, as to which areas of psychology are included and which are excluded, which was never done in the past. That seems to me the only way to avoid total discrimination by arbitrarily placing some areas in the applied psychology sidebar and completely, based on no evidence or reasoning exclude all of the others.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

pasted from last section "....most people except you would rather keep that item in the sidebar than remove it. There's no space limitation. Including OHP does not result in anything being "displaced". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)"

Sorry whatamidoing, but you are clearly 'off the mark' on a number of points made above in relation to what should and shouldn't be included in the very important psychology sidebar. These areas below and many others, should also be included in the psychology sidebar, and the applied psychology article, if as you say, there is no no space limitation. These other fields of applied psychology which are equally, if not more important to include than a 'multidisciplinary' area like OHP.

Why are these areas listed below not included? Second, you say no-one cares? I'm not sure about that? I think a lot of people are just as protective and passionate about psychology as I am. I agree with this statement made by a similarly concerned group of psychologists.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"The general public frequently turns to Wikipedia when seeking information about psychology, therefore psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative

I'm also not sure Whatamidoing, that the sidebar has the space to include every applied psychology area as you have said? I think some of those areas which are currently in the sidebar, have been placed there arbitrarily, or whatever? with no proper criteria established for which areas of applied psychology actually should be inncluded in that important sidebar? I think 'some' of these areas should also be included in the Applied psychology article and Applied Psychology Sidebar

• Counseling psychology
• Ecological psychology
• Aviation psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Media psychology
• Marketing psychology
• Operational psychology
• Traffic psychology
• Rehabilitation psychology
• Pediatric psychology
• Addiction psychology
• Police psychology
• Trauma psychology
• Mathematical psychology
• Criminal psychology
• Positive psychology
• Coaching psychology
• Medical psychology
• Economic psychology
• Music psychology
• Biopsychology

Not including all of these very valid fields and subfields of psychology is plain discrimination. Pure and simple. Why are the current list of psychology fields in the applied psychology article and the applied psychology sidebar? Surely as psychological scientists and psychologists we can come up with a better way of representing our international profession on Wikipedia? Readers would surely wonder why those areas are listed in the sidebar and applied psychology article while all others are left out?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) and many more.....

Where do we draw the line. I think 'blindly' quoting no space limitation whatamidoing, in this case is ridiculous. We would end up with at least '50' or so areas of applied psychology in that column! You could easily place every one of the 54 'official' APA Divisions, which have earnt their place in psychology. Surely the first criteria of being placed in the psychology sidebar, should be a American Psychological Association (APA) division. At the minimum? What do other editors think?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank

A discussion is underway as to whether Second Circuit judge Jerome Frank is the primary topic of that name. Please feel free to provide your opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the judge, but another Jerome Frank wrote an important book bearing on clinical psychology and psychiatry. The book is Persuasion and healing. Iss246 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank was a psychiatrist who advanced the view that many people who seek psychotherapy do not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. He terms their problem "demoralization." Bruce Dohrenwend used Frank's work as a point of departure for further research. Although I am writing about Frank, it is important to note that Dohrenwend found that many psychological symptoms scales (measures of depression, anxiety, self-esteem, psychosomatic complaints, etc.) correlate as highly as the scales' reliabilities permit. Dohrenwend advanced the view that the scales are largely measuring the same construct, nonspecific psychological distress, another term for Frank's demoralization.

I add this point. In two-stage epidemiological studies of mental disorder, studies in which a screening instrument like the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) is administered in stage 1, every individual with a high score on the screen (a score above a pre-determined cutoff) and a random sample of individuals with low scores would be seen at stage 2 for a diagnostic interview. A sizable fraction of those with high scores on the screening instrument do not meet criteria for a mental disorder. What is troubling them? Well, they are still experiencing distress. That is the kind of distress Frank meant when he identified demoralization as a force that motivates individuals to enter psychotherapy. We have a debt to Jerome Frank. That is a good reason for including an entry on Frank in Wikipedia.

Finally, I add this note. I observed that there is a legal scholar with the same name who already has an entry in Wikipedia. If a reader of this talk page were to create an entry for Jerome Frank, the author of Persuasion and Healing, the reader would have to differentiate the two men with the same name. I don't feel that I have the time or an extensive enough knowledge base to create an entry for this Jerome Frank. Iss246 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I read over his book after writing the above, and note that this Jerome Frank is Jerome D. Frank, enabling a contributor to instantly differentiate him from the legal scholar named Jerome Frank. Iss246 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual disability affecting Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities

What are we doing here? We have an article titled Intellectual disability. It's rather lengthy, but about half the page discusses the term "Mental Retardation" and how it used to be used a lot, but not so much anymore, but still is here and there, etc., etc. Then we have another article titled Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities, which is a start class, with not a great deal of info. These articles has recently been renamed and moved around. I've tried reading thru the talk pages, but can't really determine just how this all came to pass. First off, who came up with "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" ? Surely we find a better name than that, but the real question is why should have to in the first place? Instead, couldn't we just;

1. Remove all the non-medical info from the "Intellectual disability" page that only discusses the previous usage of the MR term, as the article should focus on medical content, instead of outgoing terminology. Then move this content to it's own page, perhaps titled "Naming Conventions in Psychology & Psychiatry" ...or something like that.
2. Then, we could take the content from "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" and merge it with the remaining content of the "Intellectual disability" page, would be clearly to the benefit of the reader, allowing them to peruse, compare and contrast all the content in one place.
3. We could then do away with "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" title altogether. (sorry, but it's a not-that-great-of-a title)

Wouldn't this make sense? - thewolfchild 21:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Why would you want to remove all non-medical information from an article whose very title was changed this year due to strictly non-medical social pressure? We don't normally create content forks to "hide" non-medical information. There is a sizable section on non-medical information at Disease and Breast cancer and thousands of other medical articles. I don't see why this should be any different. (In this case, tracing the changing names allows you to trace the changing social attitudes, too.)
2. Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities covers what used to be called Mental retardation, as well as Dementia, Traumatic brain injury, Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment, Specific learning disabilities, and all the other forms of Cognitive deficit. If you don't understand the difference between the one relatively famous developmental condition and these others, then you need to do a lot more research before you edit the pages.
3. I agree that it's a lousy title, and I'm the person who came up with it. It exists because we're required to have a title, and all of that information was previously located at the page title now wanted for the-condition-formerly-known-as-mental-retardation. It had to go somewhere; if you've got a better idea, then WP:MOVE it. But I do strongly suggest that you understand the difference between Alzheimer's and "MR" (now "ID") before you try to do that. Alzheimer's is only supposed to appear on one of those pages, and it's not the page about the developmental condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get into a pissing contest over who-knows-more-about-what. I'm well aware of the differences between genetic-, pathological-, and trauma-based intellectual disabilities. I was just of the opinion that;

1. there are too many references regarding the usage of the term RM, spread all over the page and especially in the lead. If not split off, then it should at least be confined to one section.
2. there is still no reason to not merge that content together.
3. yeah, that title is lousy. I would have no problem moving it to something better, but I figured; why not try to discuss it first? That's usually not a bad idea. - thewolfchild 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see any compelling reason to merge these subjects. They get different ICD-10 codes, and many of them are specifically defined as excluding the others. Why don't you explain why parents with Down's children should have to wade through an article that is mostly about irrelevant conditions, like senile dementia and traumatic brain injuries, instead of going straight to a page that is entirely about the separate medical condition that they care about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just reading through this discussion I think it is very worthwhile considering combining these subjects. I agree that the title is poor. We need something more succinct. I don't see any rationale for your opposition whatamidoing? Your somewhat ;off topic comments regarding Down syndrome are not helpful to this discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand why it's relevant, then you don't understand the proposal, which was to remove the articles about specific intellectual conditions, and just have one large one about all the stuff that causes intellectual problems—treating Alzheimer's and the mental effects of Down syndrome and many other problems as being exactly the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely understand. It's just that I don't agree with your point of view on this issue. Your points don't make sense in many ways, that's all. I think you should probably reconsider thewolfchild's very sensible suggestion that's all. No big deal.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had better jump in here with some history. As Wikipedia was founded, some parts of the English-speaking world used the term "intellectual disability" (now the current term) to cover the conditions designated in my childhood as "mental retardation," and editors weren't united in a plan to merge the former Intellectual disability article (the one we are talking about here, under its new name) and the former Mental retardation article, which was renamed to Intellectual disability just before the discussion here began, as all the current sources now prefer that term. For want of coordination on this project page beforehand, it has been difficult to find a suitable term for an article on, what?, perhaps all the conditions that limit cognitive ability (including but not limited to intellectual disability, formerly known as mental retardation). IF, and only if, there is a general term for such a category in the reliable sources for articles on medicine, then it would be a good idea to build up an article titled with that term, by digging into the sources. If there is no such category in scholarly discourse, we could simply let this troubled article be deleted (or merged) by consensus, and go on editing the articles on actual encyclopedic topics with renewed vigor and attention to sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Courage article

I have posted this on the article's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Psychology banner.

For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 (As a strength in psychology) and 6 (Bravery), based on the 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per WP:UNDUE, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA).

Also to be noted is the fact that these parts have been added by a single-purpose account, I love courage. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The term SPA is usually used for an account that edits repeatedly but always on the same topic, not for an account like this one that made a sum total of three edits. In any case those edits were made back in 2010, and if you feel like reducing that material (the first paragraph might be suitable, the remainder seems UNDUE), I don't see any reason for holding back. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, I am not enough of an expert to feel confident about making those changes myself - I just thought those parts looked promotional while reading the article. Peterson & Seligman are not the only people who have looked at psychological courage in recent times - there are many other sources that can be found from a search on Google Scholar, so I don't see why Peterson & Seligman's work should be represented (even as a single paragraph) and not others'.

The Moral Courage section also seems promotional to me, but I would rather leave the actual editing to an expert. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

is Relief (emotion) a psychology article?

Hello,

This article has the Psychology template at the bottom of the article, so I added it to this project on the talk page. Hope that's ok. If not, what project does it belong to? It's in dire need of help. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

engrams

The word engram is a definition in college dictionaries as a mental condition that happens when a person is unconscious (the subconscious takes over at that point) and negative images are formed in the subconscious and stays there because the subconscious doesn't interpret good from bad or negative from positive; it simply takes in the information and hold on to it. For example, if a boy gets hit by a car and is knocked unconscious and people are standing around him making statements like "is he dead," or "he's not moving," or "I don't think he's going to make it." The list of negativities goes on; now I'm going to focus on the negative statements I just mentioned. When the boy pulls through he has no recollection of statements being made around him because he was unconscious. If he is playing football and is trying to catch a pass, a mental thought may come from his subconscious to his conscious mind and say "I don't think he's going to make it," and then he drops the pass. Another example; if someone gets arthritis, it could very easily come from the engram statement "he's not moving," because the subconscious feeds the mind and the mind controls the body. Engrams is simply a word that was looked up in the dictionary and through research with different cultures by Ron L. Hubbard (founder of Dianetics Foundation)and broken down into simple terminology in his books, but he tried to use semantics (a way of putting his words to persuade others)to make readers think that his "auditing" sessions was the only way to get deep enough into the time frame of the mind (going back into puberty)in order to catch engrams and erase them all the y up to the present time of the minds functioning,which is the here and now. Scientology should not be a source of discussion when talking about engrams because the term engrams is a true fact (otherwise it would not be defined in the dictionary) that was not created by Scientology. The main focus should be on "how do you rid yourself or someone else of engrams?" Many people (I have met)laugh about engrams, or play it down, or they simply don't understand it. Well, that means many people don't understand why they can't be successful or why they have a hard time saying no, and end up saying yes. Many people don't understand where depression comes from and why they have a hard time trying to the right things in life instead of doing drugs and committing crimes. Engrams would probably be a natural discussion when patient's visit psychiatrist's, counselor's, and psychoanalyst's; the questions will always remain, how many in the medical field really understand engrams and how to eradicate them from the minds of patient's?