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 without consensus on this talk page, and do not remove the image without consensus, even if you believe that it should not be displayed. Any such change will be reverted.

Location of the inkblot image

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#Location of the inkblot image

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

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test?

section break

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#section break

Interpretation of discussion

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#Interpretation of discussion

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)

fyi I've moved these to a subpage of this page, leaving redirects behind. –xeno^talk 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• First, I must apologize for dropping an additional 106 kb onto this page (not counting the 33kb generated thus far in #The discussion). Together that means the page is 437k. Would it be OK if we archived at least everything above this point? (There's nothing newer than 21 May 2009). –xeno^talk 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've been bold and archived some threads, leaving the headings in place with a pointer to where they went, reducing the size of this page from 335k to 171k. Hope that's ok. This is to make it a bit easier on people who may come here to discuss after I notify them they've been mentioned in the review. If you need to continue one of the discussions that was archived, perhaps copy the comment to which you are replying back here, and continue from there. –xeno^talk 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Consensus?

We are proposing changes allegedly based on a shift in consensus, yet there has been no clear discussion on what consensus means and no detailed discussion of it when I mentioned it earlier. Since my earlier mention has been buried in a discussion, I'll repost it here in homes we can have a conversation limited to this topic:

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 wikipedia editting. 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; it seems that the various opinions of what is "ideal" are exactly the same as they were before. A majority wanted the image to be presented one way; a significant minority disagreed strongly. Working together, we made a compromise that was acceptable to all. 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.Faustian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have some kind of compromise to propose, go ahead. Because it seems to me that your position is that since you have already compromised, you are opposed to compromising any further, despite the clear feedback from the broader community. Myself, I have a hard time thinking of how to compromise between having an inkblot image at the top of the article and not having it there. You're right, this isn't a vote. But you two proclaim yourselves to be experts on this subject and yet have been unable to provide a convincing argument for your point of view. I don't mean that in an absolute sense, I mean it empirically: your arguments have not been convincing. In the end, when there's a decision to be made that is binary, the minority has the right to be listened to, but at some point will have to accept that they are in the minority and the community wants things another way. In other words, yes, majority does rule, in the end of it all, but no, that doesn't mean Wikipedia operates by voting. If this debate isn't over, please tell me where the debate is going to go that's new, because otherwise we just go around in circles and get hung up endlessly on this issue. Mangojuice^talk 06:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "compromising further?" Does that mean that, according to you, the minority must "compromise further" every couple of months until, eventually, there is no compromise left at all but the article purely reflects what the majority wants? That process would seem to violate wikipedia policy with respect to compromise as outlined above. The only reason that the choice is presently binary is that we have compromised to the point where the final step now seems to be that either the majority gets its way 100% (no compromise) or the article stays the way it is, which is the compromise version. If you look at the article history, you will see that originally there was no image. Then there was a simulated (fake) image. Then there was a black and white version of the real image. Then the real image, but hidden (requiring a click to see it). Finally this version. Every time there was a compromise with the majority until we've gotten to the point where the only thing left to do is ignore the minority's opinion entirely. Wikipedia policy is clear: 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." By gradually changing the starting point little by little were are reducing "consensus" to purely majority vote, i.e. clearly violating wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To add a point: one other editor has decided that it's better not to have any image. Coming back to this heading, consensus - the minority have failed to convince the majority (and likewise the majority have failed to change the views of the minority). This is not in doubt. SO what do we do with this fact? Do we follow wikipedia consensus policy and stick with the compromise already in place, or do we ignore the policy and just go with majority vote.Faustian (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia policy dictates that the previous version was consensus should remain until the minority is convinced. I think we go with the majority version, which is not "a vote" nor is it "ignoring policy." I looked back through the archives: what was basically under discussion was whether or not to directly display the inkblot image. Is there really that big of a difference to you between having it at the top and having it at the bottom? If it's in the article, people will get exposed to it. Instead you've picked a bad style argument that doesn't convince anyone to suggest that the image should not be on top. If I'm understanding you, it's really the issue of exposing people to the image that you have a problem with, but that debate has been settled and you didn't prevail. This just feels like sour grapes, frankly. You should realize that this is still a compromise, after all, we are only showing one of the blots. Mangojuice^talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not better to ask about this on the consensus page? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems applicable here. Unless you mean you want a discussion about possibly changing wikipedia policy on consensus to mean strictly majority vote. Are the experts, specifically, on consensus policy whom we can turn to in this case?Faustian (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that there should be an inkblot at the top of the page, as that is the most iconic image people have of the test. However, to address the concerns raised, can't it just be any old ink blot? I can make an inkblot, scan it, and upload it. Would that satisfy everyone? LK (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading over the archives to understand this compromise Faustian refers to. Basically, my summary is that there has been a long-standing dispute over whether to include the inkblot images. Proposals to use a substitute image or an "outline" of one of the blots have consistently been rejected because such images are not relevant to the article to nearly the same degree (any more than, say, having a picture of some other car on the Honda Accord page, to repeat an argument from the archives). Sure, I think we can all see it would be better than nothing, but frankly, nothing is not on the table any more. Mangojuice^talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it's not on the table anymore is that I and others agreed to compromise and accept placing it in the test materials section (which is the most appropriate section anyways). We can reargue this again and end up with the current version as a compromise, or we can just leave the current version as it is. What I object to is using every compromise as a new "starting point" which necessitates a new compromise that becomes closer to what the majority wants. Eventually, after a series of "new compromises" every few months this approach will take us to the point where the final result is 100% what the majority demands with no compromise to the minority at all. And clearly this final result violates wikipedia policy on consensus.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not on the table because it's incompatible with Wikipedia's core principles to not include the image. What actually happened during the discussion is barely relevant -- how the discussion played out here does not actually explain why the decision went that way. The more independent, established Wikipedia editors commented, the more clear it was that the community believes strongly in the principle of no censorship and views this as no exception to that principle. The fact that eventually, a user came up with a compromise because they had been worn down by unending debate and demands does not mean that everyone agreed on the outcome. Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mango, I for one was certainly "worn down by unending debate", which, unsurprisingly, srill shows no sign of ending. That's why I went along with what I thought was a compromise, but now seems to be the new norm. I think LK's idea about using the most popular fake Google image may not be such a bad one. Although using a completely novel one seems much better. If you have a few basic materials (I seem to remember from my early school days), it takes about 30 seconds to make one, and then a few more minutes for the ink to dry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another compromise

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#Another compromise

Too much James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld et al?

I noticed a huge number of references to articles, critical of the Rorschach, written by those guys. Their opinion is a minority one within the field [7] and much of their claims have been debunked. Per WP:UNDUE shouldn't the extent of their use here be toned down?Faustian (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Critics should only recognized here to the extend that the public at large has recognized them. Chillum 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

James M. Wood's book seems to be well-known criticism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's well known but a minority view within the field. His criticisms certainly should be included in the article, but they seem to be much too prominant the way they are now. Much of his work was debunked in the scientific literature. For example, the very highly regarded forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy, probably one of the top experts in the study of stalkers and psychopaths, wrote a brief critique (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346), of just one part of Wood's book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" where Wood attacked the claim that the rf response was linked to psychopathy. Wood ( on page 251 of his book) wrote "ten replication studies examined the relationship between rf responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship." (in psychological research, statistical significance means it is statistically unlikely that the difference was due to chance or random error. Typically the threshold for significance is .05 or 5% - meaning there is only a 5% chance that the difference found in a study was random and not caused by the variables being studied).

Woods initially impressive claims fell apart under scrutiny. Eight of the ten studies tauted by Wood as contradicting claims about the Rorschach's effectiveness in differentiating psychopaths from nonpsychopaths were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those eight dissertations, but he was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between rf responses and psychopathy. The particular dissertation Meloy was involved in dissertation did not have enough participants who were psychopathic to make comparisons. It did not show a relationship because it could not show the relationship even if there was one, not because there was no relationship. This fact was ommitted by Wood.

Of the ten studies cited by Wood, only one was peer reviewed and published, and this one found a significant difference. A second study was a non-dissertation study that although not peer-reviewed was published as a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on rf responses. However, the psychopaths produced three times as many such responses, and the results just barely did not meet significance (p value was .07, slightly above the .05 threshold required for significance, meaning that instead of a 5% chance that the difference was random, there was a 7% probability that the rsults were the result of randomness or chance). None of these details were mentioned by Wood et al.

Basically Woods comes off as a crusader who bends the truth a little bit, ommits facts that don't agree with what he tries to say, etc. After his work was debunked by many articles in the scientific literature he took his criticism to "laypeoples" magazines such as Scientific American. I would generally compare Woods to the minority of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. Yes, the views are out there and their work has some merit (I am not comparing Wood to the intelligent design people) but it's clearly a minority view within the field and accordingly shouldn't be overemphasized in the article.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Which parts would you keep and which parts would you remove? As a layman it is hard to tell which parts have legitimacy. Chillum 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms certainly ought to be mentioned, they should just be summarized more briefly so as not to have undue weight in the article. The reliability, validity, and tester projection subsections of the controversy section ought to be trimmed significantly.Faustian (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"the field" here should be all of psycology, not just Rorschach research. What are the common views of the Rorschach test then? Scientific American is a well respected popular sciene magazine, and not like global warming deniers going to the tabloid press. A counter-example is cold fusion, which most physicists think is bunk, but a small minority believe in and work on. Cold fusion journals and cold fusion researchers all say it exists, while more general science publications show the mainstream scientific opinion.

Now, I do not know whether the Rorschach test is more like global warming or cold fusion. However, I do not think you are neutral and it is not our job to analyze the research in detail. What has been published about the validity of the Rorschach test in peer-reviewed jounals that are not dedicated to Rorschach and similar tests? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The facts that the Rorschach is the second most commonly used test by psychologists who specialize in personality testing (the Society for Personality Assessment), the second most commonly used test in forensic assessment, is used by 80% of psychologists who work in assessment and is taugt in 80% of psychology graduate programs tells us that it is indeed widely used and accepted within the field (these facts are all referenced in the article's lead). The anti-Rorschach ideas of Wood, Lilienfeld et al are more comparable to cold fusion. They are a minority in the field. A vocal minority that has gotten some publicity and has prompted some waves within the field (as I suspect the cold fusion guys have done in physics), but still a minority. Why do you suggest I am not nuetral with respect to this test? How do you define nuetrality in this context? If I support the consensus of the majority of the scientists within the field, does that make me not nuetral? Is a scientist who claims that global warming is man-made not nuetral because he has taken a stand on the issue? Your question "What has been published about the validity of the Rorschach test in peer-reviewed jounals that are not dedicated to Rorschach and similar tests?" seems, with all due respect, somewhat odd to me. Info about psychological tests tends to be published in journals dedicated to psycholgical testing. It's a bit like asking, what has been published about cold fusion in journals not dedicated to physics? Faustian (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the test being very common and used by many who specialise in such in such a field in any way discredits criticism. If the criticism has gained notoriety then it should have mention, if a specific community of professionals disagree then that should also be mentioned. The idea the we should leave out criticism because the field does not accept it seems contrary to neutral coverage of a topic. We should base our content on how much notoriety the sources have. We should however be very clear what the context of the information is. Chillum 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I don't think that anyone proposed leaving criticism out. The issue was that the article seems to contain too much criticism relative to other parts of the article and relative to the criticism's importance within the field. The reason I showed the widespread use of this test was to disprove the notion that the test was considered fringe in the field (such as cold fusion within physics).Faustian (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The source cited above by Faustian to try to support the idea that criticism of inkblot tests is a minority position in the field is misleading. The source quoted is an organization explicitly in favor of such tests, which in itself is only a minority in the field of psychology. If we are going to talk about WP:UNDUE weight we can't promote a minority agenda-specific group as some neutral source of opinion for the whole field. Much of the field of psychology disagrees with each other. Cognitive and behavioral psychologist as a whole do not support the unscientific methods of those who use projective tests like this test and Freudian psychotherapy and so forth. Saying that most people in the field supports these tests based upon the claims made by a group specifically in favor of such tests would be like claiming that most voters in the U.S. wanted McCain to win over Obama in the last Presidential election based upon opinion polls held at the Republican National Convention. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please give us some information to back up two claims you have made. First, please elaborate on the "unscientific methods of those who use projective tests" in specific terms of the Rorschach and the Exner system for interpretation (since that by far is the most frequent use of "projective tests"). What specifically is unscientific about Exner's research and methods? Secondly, please give us the specific statistics that psychologists who use the Rorschach are in the "minority in the field of psychology". "Minority" would mean no more than 49%, which seems to contradict the source that says 80% of psychologists who work in assessment use the Rorschach. Sources to back up your claims would be very helpful. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know a few cognitive psychologists who use the Rorschach using the Exner system. Less anecdotal, thew factthat 80% of graduate programs teach it, the majority of internship oprograms require it, and that 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessment use it tells us that its the opposing side who are well within the minority within the field. But to the point - I'll get some more info about its widespread prevalence in the field and put that into the article.Faustian (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Four percent of graduating psychology Ph.D.'s are experimental psychologists and one percent are "Cognitive psychologists.":[8]. Yeah, that's a substantial number.Faustian (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

summary of method section, please

It would really help this article, if someone could briefly summarize the "methods" section in the lead. Currenly, I cannot even get a vague idea of how this test is supposed to work without reading the rather verbose method section.--98.210.233.15 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done!Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Other pages with controversial images

For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter. LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Muhammad has been mentioned before in this discussion, as have the controversial cartoons. The situations may be similar and that sounds like a sensible precaution. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these situations are analogous. Seeing a Rorschach ink blot will not upset anyone's religious sensibilities. –xeno ^talk 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. It's OK to interfere with their mental health diagnosis and treatment, but let's not do anything to their "religious sensibilities". Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If people are worried about their psychologists drawing the wrong conclusion from the results of their Rorschach test, I think they shouldn't be reading the article whatsoever, let alone seeing a picture of the first inkblot. –xeno^talk 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to stop them before they can start to worry? Maybe "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for gander", as Someguy was trying to tell us a little earlier? Of have I come to a "wrong conclusion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, I wonder if you could explain two things related to your comment about "people worried about their psychologists drawing the wrong conclusion". First, how is someone supposed to know that the inkblot will be staring him/her in the face until he clicks on the article and sees it; are you assuming they should magically know that the image is there before they click to open the article? And second, even if they somehow are miraculously aware that the image is there before they look at the article, what about the person who looks at the article before his/her psychologist decides to administer the Rorschach; since there is no alternate version of the Rorschach test, is the psychologist supposed to magically create a new test on the spot that will produce equivalent results? In my 20 years of using the Rorschach, I don't believe the answers to those questions was ever covered in my training or experiences. So it would really help me and the other psychologists if we could get your solutions to those problems. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position, but this just strikes me as an "argument against spoilers". We have the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. We are an encyclopedia and people should expect full coverage of the subjects they're looking for. –xeno^talk 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sympathy. I asked for the answer to a couple of questions based on your earlier comment. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The person will know an inkblot will be staring them in the face because they've asked for an article on an inkblot test. As Martinevans123 cleverly demonstrated above, if I want to see a picture of a girl giving a blowjob, all I do is type it into the search box and voila. If I wanted a picture of Hermann Rorschach, I would probably type just that. This is why the inkblot picture belongs at the top, because it is what the reader is looking for. Wikipedia's remit is not our readers' psychological well-being - that is yours (assuming you are practicing and have patients that read Wikipedia). –xeno^talk 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So someone can actually know before clicking a link to an article which particular image will be there, and that it will be at the top of the page. I haven't figured out how to do that yet; that sounds like a wonderful skill to have, so could you please tell me how it's done? And you forgot my second question, so I'll repeat it: "even if they somehow are miraculously aware that the image is there before they look at the article, what about the person who looks at the article before his/her psychologist decides to administer the Rorschach; since there is no alternate version of the Rorschach test, is the psychologist supposed to magically create a new test on the spot that will produce equivalent results?" And I just thought of a third question: so it's really true that Wikipedia has no concern for someone's psychological well-being, but we should be concerned that Wikipedia might "upset anyone's religious sensibilities"? Ward3001 (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, don't miscontrue what I said. I didn't say Wikipedia had no concern for someone's psychological well-being. I said it was not our remit. Moving on to the rest in order, one can never know for sure that a completely descriptive image will be at the top of an enyclopedia article, but it's a fairly safe bet. Without looking, I can tell you that Tiger will have a picture of a tiger at the top of the article. If someone is on Wikipedia, looking up information on psychological testing, it stands to reason they want a full exposition of the matter, including pictures. If your patient, who you haven't yet decided to administer an Rorshach test to, who you haven't advised not to research psychological testing (beansy, and all) as it may taint the results, goes on Wikipedia and starts researching the Rorschach test, then well, you're pretty much SOL anyway. They will probably read a good deal of the article, make it past the fold to see the inkblot (FYI on my resolution, it's visible above the fold in its previous location), and most likely corrupt your results completely, don't you agree? –xeno^talk 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, they're not my results; they're the results of the patient I am trying to help, possibly a 15-year-old who may be suicidal but not telling anyone (a finding that certainly could be revealed by the Rorschach results when nothing else would reveal it); and that 15-year-old, misproperly diagnosed and without the results regarding suicide because you (yes, you Xeno) decided it was in the best interest of everyone concerned to get that fucking image at the top of the page at all costs because ... well, because you can ... and because you know that those of us who understand the test are in a minority ... that 15-year-old might actually succeed in that suicide. So, just a slight correction; it's not my results; it's the results of my patient who might be desperately hanging on to life by a thread. Now, I'm sure in your comfortable den looking at your computer enjoying this intellectual debate, that you will no doubt conclude that I am grossly misinterpreting these matters because ... well, because it's not your child who might commit suicide.
One thing for sure that I can tell you. If the patient reads the article without the image, the patient will not see the image. If the patient clicks on the article with the image at the top, there's about a 100% change he/she will see the image. If the image is in it's proper place adjacent to "Test materials", I don't know the odds that he/she will see the image, but I'll take those odds over the odds when the image is at the top. Ward3001 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting hypothetical. Would I be correct in assuming that you'd really prefer the article not exist at all? –xeno^talk 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd, but not surprising, that you find the suicide of a 15-year-old an "interesting hypothetical". I think it's safe to conclude that you haven't personally known many teens who have suicided. To answer your question, I would prefer that the image is not in the article, and, if that is not possible, that it is in it's only logical place as a test item, adjacent to test materials. Is that a sufficient answer to your "hypothetical" question? Ward3001 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only hope it's hypothetical and you aren't discussing your actual patients' case files with me. That's not quite what I asked, but it's sufficient enough to understand your approach to editing this article. –xeno^talk 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears you know as much about psychologists' professional ethics as you know about the Rorschach. Information about patient case files are published in professional journals; the simple little trick that I'll let in on is that you don't NAME the patient (and in this case, we're not even naming the psychologist because my name ... believe it or not ... is not actually Ward3001. And likewise, you have made it more than clear what your approach is to this article, science, and mental health. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a professional journal. It is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to inform its readers. –xeno^talk 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I say this is a professional journal? Let's see ... no, I don't think I did. Did you caution me about discussing my case files on Wikipedia? I believe you did. Let me try to make my point more simply. If I can discuss case information in a journal, I don't think there's a problem if I discuss it (properly) on Wikipedia. I'm not sure it's possible to simplify that concept any more. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't caution you about anthing. I just said I hope you aren't discussing your case files with some complete stranger. Perhaps I have my own interpretation of professional ethics: I'm not a practicing psychologist. Consequently, I don't have an approach to science or mental health, but to the spread of information and knowledge. Last question, answer it truthfully and directly and I'll go away: Do you agree that reading the article in its entirety is going to do as much or more damage than simply seeing an inkblot? –xeno^talk 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Among psychologists familiar with the Rorschach, that's a no-brainer. Seeing an image of a Rorschach inkblot is much more likely to invalidate the test than reading a few general paragraphs about the test that don't suggest specific responses. Now that I've said that, I suppose the next project of the image-at-the-top proponents will be to confabulate hypothetical responses and insert them near the top of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

happy editing, –xeno^talk 03:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have full respect for Ward's suggestion of putting hypothetical responses near the top of the page, I think it would be a violation of our goal not to produce original research. We should stick to documenting what has been publishing in as neutral a manner possible. The inkblot seems to be from a reliable source and I have no doubt to its verifiability. It seems to be in full compliance with both our policies and our goal of providing informative encyclopedic coverage on all encyclopedic topics. Chillum 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never cease to be amazed at you Chillum. Please read again. I DID NOT SUGGEST PUTTING HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSES IN THE ARTICLE. And for those of you jumping at the chance to chastise me for SHOUTING, please consider Chillum's history of misrepresenting opinions throughout this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary there is no need to shout, I have not been misrepresenting anyone thank you. If you think I have then take the evidence to my talk page, this is not the correct venue. We are talking about image placement here, not you or I. If you had read just a little further down you would have seen I recognized my misunderstanding already. There is no need to once again try to accuse me of bad faith. Surely you must realize how you comment was less than clear. Sarcasm does not work well in text based communication because it lacks the tonal and visual queues that normally give it away. Chillum 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statement, and your edits and the responses by Martinevans123 speak for themselves. You misrepresented Martinevans123 three times, and you were corrected not only by me (which you called "baiting") but by Martinevans123 himself. And Martinevans123 even corrected your mispresentation of my comments. And now you have mispresented me by claiming that I suggested putting hypothetical responses in the article. And no, I DON'T agree that my "comment was less than clear". I will agree that you did not read it adequately, but nowhere in my words did I suggest that anyone should add hypothetical responses to the article. So either drop this issue or give us the diffs for the following: (1) give us diffs in which Martinevans123's position was either to put the image at the of the page, or the diffs that was your basis for leaving his opinion out altogether; (2) give us the diffs in which I suggested putting hypothetical responses in the article. Since I can't read your mind, I have no idea whether your misleading comments were errors (four such errors stretches credibility, but I'll accept that with the caveat that your edits are still misleading because they are prone to multiple errors) or intentional deception. I'll let other readers come to their own conclusions. But there is no doubt that your statements, whether by mutiple honest errors or malicious intent, are misleading. As all of the edits above speak for themselves, until you can produce the diffs to back up your claims, this is the end of discussion on this point for me. Ward3001 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, Ward's comment was entirely clear to me and you seem to have misunderstood it. In your reply you then misrepresented what Ward had said. That was equally clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I told you before Ward, I will not be baited into allowing this discussion be about me instead of the topic at hand. If you think I have done something wrong them take it to my talk page where you are always welcome. This article's talk page is not place for your accusations of bad faith on my part. Chillum 01:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And again you have not been "baited", your favorite word to avoid accepting responsibility for your errors. If you'll take another look, I'm not the only person here commenting on your misstatements. There is no "baiting"; there is simply corrections of your misrepresentations. And discussion of your errors belongs here, not your talk page, so that the rest of those in this discussion can see your pattern of making error after error after error in your incorrect restatements of what others say. The rest of the people in this discussion deserve to know when you make an error and how many errors you make. Ward3001 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please take any commentary regarding me to my talk page this is not the place for it. I will not let this discussion be side tracked. This discussion would be far more productive without argumentum ad hominem. Chillum 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again, despite your attempts at diverting attention to your several errors, discussion of those errors, especially when they are misleading, belongs here. Ward3001 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But no, Xeno, I wasn't trying to cleverly demonstrate that your argument was right before you had made it. I'd hardly expect to see a blow job when I was looking for a goose. Searches do not always produce what is anticipated, surely that's part of the reason for searching. What about a search for Rorschach, which might be a very easy mistake to make? And excuse me, but instead of answering Wards' legitimate concerns you seem to have have treated him with condescending scorn. Have you now left us with that little wave of your administrative hand? Chillum, I don't think Ward was "suggesting" that at all, do you? Surely that was his glum prediction of the level to which this article might fall unless arguments such as his are properly heeded. I think you may be being disingenuous in order simply to score points here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Don't worry, nobody wants to resort to original research here(as far as I can tell). "wave of your administrative hand"?? Not sure what that has to do with the subject, this is not an administrative issues, this is about our content and our content related policies. I may be an administrator but I have not made that part of the debate. Lets keep this about the debate at hand and not resort to assuming scorn in others.

I don't find the arguments that people might be looking for a comic book or band by the same name and will accidentally see it very compelling. Even if this does happen from time to time it is no justification for altering out encyclopedic coverage of this subject. Even then what are the odds that someone about to take this test is going to be researching a comic book of the same name, really? That argument sounds so unlikely. The fact is that if a patient is actively researching the test(or a comic book of the same name for some reason) they are going to learn about the subject. Anyone with a somewhat modern computer monitor will see the picture anyways, by your logic we should just delete the article or perhaps hide it with some sort of content disclaimer.

We don't offer medical advice, and our content should not be taken as such. Our disclaimers are clear about that. If the test really relies both on a significant statistical sampling of many people's reaction to a set of the same images and also requires the the person being tested has not seen them then the problem is not Wikipedia, it is the internet. Perhaps a test that must be both well viewed by many people, but not viewed by a patient has a fundamental flaw in the age of the internet. That is not a problem for Wikipedia though, that is just modern availability of information.

I don't think we should be tucking away information down at the bottom "for the reader's own good". What about the vast majority of people who are not about the take this test? Chillum 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, your argument seems to be - "inkblot images are freely available all over the internet, whether or not people want or intend to see them, therefore, why not have one in this article." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: As Chillum says, there's nothing "administrative" about what I'm doing here. I didn't mention that I was an administrator, I didn't mention any administrative actions, I simply raised some questions that highlighted that certain editors participating in this dispute may have motives incompatible with building an encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer, I am an academic, but not a psychologist. I originally came here in response to the RfC. My opinion is that there is no real need for the image to be at the top of the page. Wikipedia's role is to provide information, and the information is still there whether it's at the top of the page or in the middle of the page (as long as the information is organized logically, and clearly labelled). If someone wants to see the inkblot, all the have to do is look at the table of contents, and see the section labelled test materials - there is no censorship here. The question is, if Wikipedia can accommodate requests from religious communities by placing religous images further down the page, why can't it accomodate a legitimate request from the mental health community? Let's just let this one go and let it stay as it is. It's not going to kill anyone to have to hit the space bar if they want a look at one of the original test cards. LK (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should not be accommodating requests from religious communities, to do so is in violation of our goal of providing a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not perfect and sometimes we are not completely neutral, but that is a poor argument to allow outside concerns effect our content in such a way. Past and current failures to prevent this sort of bias in no way justifies further bias. Bias is exactly what is being talked about, letting one specific group let its traditions dictate our content. Saying that it has simply been moved and still available is missing the point, we should not let outside ethics, tradition, dogma, beliefs or superstitions color our encyclopedic portrayal of content at all, not even a little bit. Chillum 17:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, it seems that you haven't left us after all. You really didn't have to mention that you were an administrator, but my apologies if I have offended your non-administrator sensibiities. Can you please now tell us who exactly has "motives incompatible with building an encyclopedia"?

Chillum - the issue here is surely not one of "accommodating requests from religious communities" and I thought someone argued earlier that those articles with controversial religious images were NOT analagous to this one? Goodness me, if Wikipedia has all its own `ethics, tradition, dogma, beliefs and superstitions' it's begining to sound a bit like a new religion in itself. Or did you mean that Wikipedia is not a place for ethics at all?

LK, your suggestion seems very reasonable and practical. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chillum. We should pursue our goals without regard to religious sensibilities. I am not saying we should go out of our way to offend religious people, but if anything we do for a legitimate reason happens to offend them, we should not let it affect us. And as a comment to Ward3001, let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaimeastorga, I am truly horrified by your apparent lack of concern for the possible effects of what may be shown by Wikipedia. I had not realised that there was no place in "the mission goals" for any kind of social responsibility. But could you please explain why you feel this article is connected with "religious sensibilities"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Horrified" may be an understatement. To use a phrase from the 1960s, "the whole world's watching". Regardless of where the image ends up, I think it's important that the entire English-speaking world see the real priorities of those who control this article. Ward3001 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Martinevans123, religious sensibilities were brought as a parallel, including cases where there have been disputes about how to accommodating them into articles (specially with pictures involved), so I thought I would comment on that. As a side note, I believe people should have the right to commit suicide if so they choose. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"If they choose"?? A 15-year-old? Again, "the whole world's watching". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jamieastorga, I can see that other articles where images have been in dispute may be relevant, some of which may be connected with religious beliefs. But I think different sets of considerations may also apply between psychological test materials and religious beliefs, explicit sexual acts, or whatever. My point was really more "this is not religion, it is health care" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I really don't think that seeing a picture on Wikipedia of an inkblot is going to make anyone commit suicide. Chillum 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry that you don't understand that the Rorschach can detect suicidality, but only if it is not invalidated by seeing a Rorschach image prior to taking the test. You're entitled to your opinions about what the test can and cannot do, but your expressing those opinions does negate the fact that your opinions about the test are not based on a scientific understanding of it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have rather over-simplified the single hypothetical case that Ward was offering, into a rather crass likely/unlikely dichotomy. Perhaps a more general question might be this - how can we know that further internet over-exposure of one part of a set of psychological test materials will or will not blunt beyond use an established test which may already be suffering from over-exposure? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the suicide theory because that is the opinion being put forth. I can only respond to those arguments put forth to me. An opinion is one thing but we work on reliable sources. Can you show a reliable source that says us showing the image will lead to people killing themselves? Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. When providing this source please take care not to reach a novel synthesis based on information from multiple sources. Chillum 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, why do you interpret English sentences differently than the rest of us do? Martinevans says he opposes the image at the top; you say he favors it at the top. I express fear that someone will place confabulated test responses in the article; you say that I have suggested that we place test responses in the article. Now ... can you please show me where anyone, myself included, has said that "showing the image will lead to people killing themselves". Once again, I write a sentence that everyone interprets one way and you interpret it completely differently. If you will take the time to actually read what I have written, I have said that the Rorschach can detect suicidality; I have said that viewing the image prior to taking the test can invalidate the test and thus lead to incorrect conclusions, including conclusions about suicidality. I have not said that looking at an inkblot can cause someone to commit suicide. And it appears that you are the only one who has interpreted my statements that way. Now, if you want a reliable source that the Rorschach can detect suicidality, please read Exner, J.E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 0471386723. And if that definitive source isn't good enough, I can give a few more. But if you consider this authoritative source to be sufficient, then please let it be understood that my statements about the Rorschach and suicidality are accurate and let's move on. If you don't accept Exner's conclusions as accurate, then please provide your own reliable source that refutes Exner. And please, please read my comments several times before leaping to incorrect conclusions about what I'm saying. Ward3001 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought Chillium's statement was a very clear reference to your implicit suggestion that viewing the inkblot could hamper efforts to prevent a suicide that might not otherwise occur. I think you're taking an overly literal interpretation of Chillium's statements instead of assuming he knows how to read and is being figurative. I'm also not sure why you insist on repeatedly bringing up Chillium's misinterpretation of Martin's position. So he made a mistake. Live and let live; it has no bearing on the resolution of the dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So you consider the statements "Showing an image can lead to people killing themselves" as equivalent to "Viewing an image can invalidate a test and result in a false test conclusion about suicide"? You actually believe those two statements say the same thing??? And I bring up Chillum's repeated errors because he has made four such misprepresentation of facts (and possibly five) in this discussion. I believe that is more than a little noteworthy, and I am not the only editor who feels that way. So I brought it up more than once; live and let live. Misprepresentation of opinions repeatedly is not a minor issue. Ward3001 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for blunting test materials, it is not our job to protect systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed. Our goal is to provide knowledge and if a particular test, theory, religion etc requires a lack of knowledge then our goal is not compatible with theirs. You said it yourself that it is already suffering from overexposure. I don't think use moving the image down lower will change that one whit. Simply put, we provide information, if people need to avoid this information then this is the wrong place for them. Perhaps knowledge is dangerous, but we provide it non-the-less. Chillum 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You should review wikipedia policy: [9] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." (emphasis added by me). So we do do take ethical concerns into account when editting wikipedia. We balance those ethical concerns with the necessity of being encyclopedic. We don't just throw them out.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, please tell us what are these "systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed". I suspect that you would include in this set all psychometric tests where prior knowledge of the answers might invalidate the test. Maybe Wikipedia should have an article detailing all of the answers to the tests currently constructed to allow entry into the armed forces? Candidates could simply then learn the answers mnemonic fashion before the test. Might that not be dangerous? Or are you simply saying that psychometrics per se are all just a complete waste of time? Would you at least agree that the type of "knowledge" used in a projective test is somewhat different to that used in a quantitative cognitive psychometric? And how much over-exposure is too much over-exposure exactly? I certainly don't know, but I was suggesting that might be the case, based on advice from the relevant professional body. And would you care to please apologise now for blatantly mis-representing my position? I certainly want no part in anything that is dangerous to human health or well-being thank-you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My opinions on the value of psychometric testing are not relevant here, and neither are yours(that is part of my point actually). We should simply be documenting the information out there and not letting our own opinions effect the content in such a way. That is the basis of neutrality. The argument I see being put forward is that if we provide the knowledge of what a rather common image looks like then it will damage a diagnostic system designed to require a lack of such knowledge. So this is the argument I respond to. My only point was that this requirement of the test is the test's problem and is not our burden.

Please assume good faith. Once again if you want to talk about me go to my talk page, this is not the correct venue to talk about each other. I will not let this discussion be made about your or I, it is about the topic at hand. I have not misrepresented anyone's position, I made a misunderstanding about 2 weeks ago which I fixed and apologized for and have been harped at about since them. Let it go, or take it to an appropriate venue. If I have understood the position of others incorrectly it may be because the positions presented seem a little hard to grasp, they seem to change depending on context. Not long ago the argument put forward was that the image did not show the whole test and thus should not be shown, now the argument seems to be it shows too much of the test. A comparison to religious images is made and I respond only to be told that I was misrepresenting. A comment about there being more suicides if people see the image is seen has been made, I respond to that and am again accused of misrepresenting. Well, what exactly is the argument then? Lets have a debate instead of just pointing fingers and making accusations.

Back to the debate at hand(lets try to stay on topic). If the Rorschach test required that the person taking knew nothing of the test, not its history, its basis, that is uses inkblots, anything, would you argue we get rid of the article completely? Or would we simply accept that the test and are article are not compatible? Chillum 13:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you did more than have a "misunderstanding about two weeks ago". You made four errors in your representation of others' opinions. And you did more than comment on suicidality. Your exact words were: "seeing a picture on Wikipedia of an inkblot is going to make anyone commit suicide". And neither I nor anyone else said anything even remotely close to that. There is a huge difference between seeing an image as a cause of suicide and seeing an image as a cause of test invalidation.

Your repeatedly referring to one error does not negate the other three. And no one here (except you) knows whether those were intentional misprepresentation of opinions or multiple but honest errors. My point is that others must be cautious in drawing conclusions when you attempt to represent another person's opinion because four such errors in the same discussion is more than adequate reason to be cautious. And once again, others deserve to know when so many errors are made in the same discussion, so discussion of your errors is appropriate here, not your talk page. I could easily add multiple comments that you have said something when you didn't actually say it, then I could argue "Take it up on my talk page, not here", but that doesn't make my misrepresentations any less of an error. Now, if you want mention of these errors to stop, you need to do a few things. First, stop denying (including implicit denials by stating that you made A mistake when you made four mistakes). Second, don't misrepresent others' opinions again. And third, stop bringing it up yourself. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rorschach does not require that the person knows nothing about the test. That's a moot point. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your hypothetical straw-man here adds any weight to your argument, Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Chillum, I don't want to talk about you, I just wanted an apology. You misrepresented my position. Oh well. Could you answer the general questions I asked you about psychometrics, as I believe they are relevant to the discussion of the content of this article. Please tell us what are these "systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a heated discussion is taking place. One can easily find images of all the ink blots with a google image search. As in here [10] If one knows the name of the test they can find how the test is performed. I do not think we need to sensor these images in anyway. http://www.uptodate.com/ does not mention these images. They are not used in routine clinical practice.[11] No one will every die from having seen these images before being tested with them. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reassuring words, Doc, I'm sure. But why should your handy "uptodate" commercial website (subscribe at no risk) mention inkblots at all when the nearest it comes to any mental health issues or any psychological test is Neurology? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Doc, let's straighten out the misconceptions you created by using this commercial website, and in fact taking the information out of context. The website is full of errors that are completely contrary to current practice and the fact that the Rorschach is among the most widely used personality tests in clinical practice. But the website did manage to get one little detail correct, but you conveniently left that part out. Here's the full statement: "Although psychological tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory or the Rorschach, are not administered routinely in current clinical practice, these tests can be quite helpful for diagnostic purposes. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee Martinevans123, I already retracted my incorrect statement. If all you want is an "I'm sorry" then "I'm sorry". I took it back, I admitted it was a mistake, and now I have apologized, can we now move onto the debate at hand instead of concentrating so hard on the people involved in the debate? Martin, you say "what are these 'systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed'", when I just finished saying "The argument I see being put forward is that if we provide the knowledge of what a rather common image looks like then it will damage a diagnostic system designed to require a lack of such knowledge", that is my answer to your query. If that is not the argument being put forward then please clarify it. Chillum 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I appreciate your input. Please do not be intimidated on what you can plainly see to be a heated discussion. I know sometimes a debate can seem like something to be avoided when it continually strays from the topic at hand, but I if we focus on the topic we can make progress. I think that if level heads prevail then things will go well, if hot head prevail then... well... lets hope that does not happen. Chillum 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Doc, please be cautious not to accept representation of someone's opinion by others, as such representations are prone to errors in this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, suicide risks (or even mental health wholesale) aside, the general point is surely this - "tests don't tend to work so well if you give someone the answers before they do the test" ... even in the case of the Rorschach, where there are no definitive "right" and "wrong" answers as such. (But, I suppose, this will be all rather irrelevant to some practitioners who don't believe that tests are even worth performing). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any test that is published openly is that the person who may take it can simply look it up ahead of time. That is why most tests are kept secret. I know this is not practical when the test relies on an exposure to a large number of people for a statistical baseline, but regardless the problem exists. Doc put it very well when he said that you can find this information simply by googling it. I fail to see why we should lag behind other information sources when our action would not really prevent the image from being seen. The cat is already out of the bag, no sense in closing the bag now. Chillum 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find lots of things by Googling them, such as how to create a hidden explosive to destroy hundreds or thousands of lives, or how to carry out necrophilia, or sexual images of children. Is that the appropriate standard for Wikipedia: If you can find it by Googling it, then Wikipedia should have it? Let's not lag behind the terrorists or the pedophiles. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we are showing a smudge of ink not child porn or explosive instructions, lets keep things in perspective. I once again reject the argument that the image will result in a higher suicide success rate(I hope this wording does not misrepresent your point, please correct me if I am mistaken). I don't think it has been demonstrated independent of opinion that people will actually die as a result of looking that this image. I don't think we even have a policy on images that kill, such an idea being so far out there. I have seen a reference that the test can detect suicidal tendencies, but that is not really the same thing. So can sitting down and talking with someone, or reading their diary. Looking at the likeness of Muhammad may increase certain people's likelihood of wanting to commit suicide. Reading an article on hanging may improve somebodies success of properly hanging themselves. It is not really relevant to writing a neutral and informative encyclopedia. People will inform themselves as they see fit, it is our job to give them this information in a neutral fashion not influenced by outside dogma. Chillum 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK you insisted on a reliable source that the Rorschach can (and does) detect suicidality, which I provided (Exner, 2002). And I'll further add that (per Exner's research), the Rorschach can detect suicidality beyond the other methods you mention. Now that you have denied that to be the case, you are obligated to provide a reliable source to refute Exner. Not your opinion; a reliable source. Otherwise your statement that you "reject the argument that the image will result in a higher suicide success rate" is a complete fallacy. Ward3001 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a question. Should the article on Psychics leave out the part where it says that many psychics use cold reading to accomplish this feat because this knowledge would invalidate the therapeutic value of talking to your "psychic friend"? Let me put it in the form of a statement instead of a question; If the viewing of a Rorschach inkblot is harmful to the results of the tests and it is common practice to not show it, then it is our job to document this practice, not to follow it. Chillum 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the issue, so I'll repeat it: give us a reliable source to refute Exner's research on Rorschach and detection of suicidality. And by the way, I must again correct your misrepresentation, no one has said that "looking at the image" of a Rorschach inkblot will result in someone dying. Ward3001 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source says that Rorschach can detect suicidality(sic), we should document this next to the image. You have provided a reliable source that demonstrates this. You may find a source that says that showing the image will invalidate the test. But Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position makes it clear you cannot take a few reliable sources that are in some way related and combine them to produce a novel hypothesis. That is original research. You need a source that shows showing the image kills people, then I Wikipedia can document that fact. We can also consider that when deciding to show the image. Chillum 23:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Suicidality" is a correct English word that is properly spelled. Your use of "sic" should be applied to your own error. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"it is common practice to not show it, then it is our job to document this practice, not to follow it": Sorry, I have no idea what this means. What exactly are you saying is being combined to reach novel hypothesis; and what is the novel hypothesis? I fail to see it. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And does previous knowledge of the test effect the ability of the test to detect suicidality and than if this is the case does it lead to missed cases of suicidality? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Viewing the inkblot before taking the test can damage test validity, which can reduce the tests ability to detect suicidality. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I want a reference for, "Viewing the inkblot before taking the test can damage test validity, which can reduce the tests ability to detect suicidality." I have not seen a reference to that claim yet, only parts of it. Chillum 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been presented for each end of the argument, but one cannot combine sources to come up with a novel idea like that, it is a form of original research. An existing reliable source needs to make that connection. I have not actually seen a source that says it invalidates the test, but I don't doubt it has a negative effect. I would imagine reading the article itself without any pictures would certainly taint one's unconscious answers with prior expectations anyways. Chillum 23:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take a few days off of this debate. It is starting to get repetitive. I hope when I come back there are some new arguments or at least progression of some sort. Chillum 23:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Source regarding prior viewing of a Rorschach inkblot and possible test invalidity: Sciara, A.D., & Ritzler, B. (2006) The little book on administration for the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Asheville, NC: Rorschach Training Programs. Test security in general (not just the Rorschach) is addressed by American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code Of Conduct. Washington, DC: APA.
Detection of suicidality and precautions against interpreting invalid tests has already been sourced (Exner, 2002). Ward3001 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

These books are hard to come by. Anything from journals?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No harder to come by than old journal articles. The books summarize journal articles. Since these data have been in existence for decades, I would have to dig to find original journal articles. For examples, Exner's work on suicide and the Rorschach dates back to the 1970s and 1980s. If I can find something online, I'll post it, although I don't plan to make a trip to the library for old journal articles when the information is readily available in the books. And the books themselves are available in good academic libaries. So, it's a matter of who has to go to the trouble to go to the library. I have the books. I can access many journals online. Be my guest to make a trip to the library for anything else. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the earliest (but certainly not the only) studies by Exner on the suicide issue is Exner, J.E., & Wylie, J. (1977). Some Rorschach data concerning suicide. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(4), 339-348.

A more recent study on the suicide issue: Fowler, J. C., Piers, C., Hilsenroth, M. J., Holdwick, D. J., & Padawer, J. R. The Rorschach suicide constellation: Assessing various degrees of lethality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76 (2), 333-351. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A review article that includes a review of suicide data: Viglione, D. (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach. Psychological Assessment, 11 (3), 251-265. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a controversial test. A significant proportion of the scientific community is not even sure the test is useful: "current research is insufficient to demonstrate the utility of the Rorschach" [Hunsley J, Bailey JM (2001). "Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence". Psychol Assess. 13 (4): 472–85. PMID 11793892. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversial, yes. Misunderstood because critics have not considered much of the solid research in the last three decades? Yes. But neither of those facts mitigates its usefulness. I would caution against a quick computer search, reading article titles and abstracts, and jumping to conclusions without doing a thorough literature review. And read the refutations (as well as the sources cited) in Rorschach test. I suspect you know of medical procedures that at one time were controversial, but have become commonly used after research was conducted and the dust settled. The Rorschach is a very complex test. Quick glances at the literature with intent to find controversy will certainly turn it up, but without the thorough review, you can come away with a very inaccurate impression. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually looked at the whole review that I posted above. Can send you the complete copy if you want. I have not as you said looked into this extensively. Never used the test myself. A little to time consuming in the environment I work in. It does seem that some consider it useful and others do not. The popularity of this test in different professions and different locations would be interesting material to add to this article. This sort of data however is hard to find if it is even avaliable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To correct another false impression that you created, Doc, the statement "if it is even avaliable" suggests that it might not be (it's a bit like my saying, "if you are even a physician"). The data are available. And the data may be hard for you to find because you haven't gone to the trouble to find them. But the data are easily found for those who wish to actually take some time to do so. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An exerp from the paper you list above "In a study with adolescents, Silberg and Armstrong (1992) found that the S-CON did not discriminate previous adolescent inpatient suicide attempters from nonattempters. However, a six-variable empirically derived cluster did discriminate them quite well. Four of the six variables (SumV > 0, C.Sh > 1, MOR > 1, CF + C > FC) overlapped considerably with the S-CON. Meyer (1993) reported that the S-CON was not associated with a weak suicide risk criterion. This rating-scale criterion was confounded with depression, and the sample contained only 12 serious attempters."

Seems some studies find association and others do not.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, please don't pretend that you understand the Rorschach and its research based on reading one article. Do you actually think you have mastered the level of knowledge needed to understand this test? Just as you did in your very first post in this discussion, you have selectively picked tidbits here and there to confirm a preconceived notion of yours, ignoring (or ignorant of) the larger composite of research. For example, I could selectively pick the following statement from the same article and suggest very different conclusions: "The complex of data support the utility of the S-CON". For your (uninformed) information, the Silberg and Armstrong study was attempting to devise a revised S-CON for adolescents. It was not a full investigation of the effectiveness of the then-current S-CON. And you have completely ignored the research on adult suicide. Do you know anything about the relative effectiveness of the S-CON for adolescents compared to adults? My hypothetical example may have involved a 15-year-old, but that does not make adult suicide any less serious. For someone who claims to understand science, you're making some of the most egregious scientific fallacies possible. (May God be with your patients if you apply the same scientific standards to diagnosing and treating them.) Look, the vast majority of physicians know almost nothing about the Rorschach; and that's perfectly OK because they don't pretend to undertstand it and instead rely on those who do understand it to inform them. You're a physician. You're not a psychologist, and you're not God. There have been about 500 quality journal articles published on the Rorschach since Exner began his work. How many of those have you read? Please tell us what is the complete basis for your expertise in the Rorschach that lets you draw sweeping conclusions from one journal article. Otherwise let's not be fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about because you read a journal article. Your opinions as an editor are welcome here. But you're nothing close to an expert on the Rorschach or any major personality test. Expertise is not a requirement for a Wikipedia editor. But acting as if you're an expert without any justification seriously damages your credibility. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heartening to see editors now engaging positively and providing useful and relevant references to support their positions. But I suspect the heated dicussion over Ward's hypothetical example may have somewhat skewed the debate - which now seems to be on the brink of "if prior exposure could cause suicidality to be missed, the image must go! (or stay further down the page)". I'd suggest that suicide is a worst case scenario and that the more common problem would be less severe mis-diagnosis caused by the blunting of the test's validity. But I still think it unethical to ignore this possibility. I am still struggling, however, as I have all along, to see how this could ever be "proved" one way or the other. But I am not a medical practionner and am certainly not familar with the literature. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the "worst case scenario" issue may have sidetracked us some (although that worst case scenario is very important and, in fact, the research on suicide detection with the Rorschach has been some of the most useful research that has been conducted on the Rorschach). There are a lot of things that are hard to prove beyond any doubt; that's true in almost any scientific endeavor. Proving anything about suicide is even harder because it's such a rare event. But it's such a devastating event (and not just for the victim) that anything that improves our diagnostic skills is worthwhile. But beyond suicide, diagnostic precision in general can be critically important. And I don't mean which DSM-IV category a person might fit into. I am referring to the kind of diagnosis that provides more than a superficial pigeon-holing of the patient into a category. And the Rorschach adds immensely to our skills in gathering such information, but only if the results are valid and not contaminated (such as with prior exposure to an image). Just in the small town in which I work, there are several psychiatrists, internists, and family medical practitioners who rely on myself and other psychologists to help guide them in medication and other treatment decisions. The Rorschach certainly isn't the only source for their information, but it's one component used by responsible practitioners who have a healthy respect for the complexities of mental health diagnosis and treatment. Ward3001 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Ward. I must admit that inappropriate medication following misdiagnosis was a concern - could the ostensible consequences be much less obvious than a successful or attempted suicide, but still be very serious for an individual's quality of life? And a question for all Goggle-lovers - will there come a day where Wikipedia use determines popularity of image search in Google, or are we even close yet? What would our yardstick of public exposure then be? Perhaps some web expert could help with that one. (Note to Chillum - these questions are not meant to be rhetorical). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, misdiagnosis and the resulting medication decisions can have far-reaching consequences that don't involve suicide. As just one example (and the possibilities are almost endless, so let's not just focus on this one scenario henceforth), if we have an out-of-control 10-year-old who is saying that voices tell him to do bad things and who is not responding to standard behavior management techniques, are we dealing with a bad case of ADHD combined with emerging Conduct Disorder and manipulative behavior, Bipolar Disorder, psychosis, some combination of those, or something else that hasn't been considered? The medication and other treatment possibilities there are incredibly complex with a host of potentially avoidable side effects. And about the only test that can be administered directly to that child (not just questionnaires for the parents) is the Rorschach. I have been in similar situations on numerous occasions. Sometimes the Rorschach results were a critical piece of the puzzle, sometimes they helped, and sometimes there were still lots of questions. But on the whole, the precision of the diagnoses was improved significantly with the Rorschach results. Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This worst case scenario was about the only thing I found even a little convincing about the arguments to tuck the image away. Now Doc's investigation seems to show varied findings in that matter. I don't think a mere blunting of the test in any way justifies any sort of editorial bias. I agree with Doc that the image should be moved to the top. I don't think we need to put all of the images in a gallery at the bottom. I don't think the article is long enough to need that many pictures. What is more, once you have seen one example of the ink blot there is little encyclopedic value in the other inkblots(imho). Chillum 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are varied opinions on pretty much everything in science, including human controbution/causation of global warming. So what? The fact is that 80% of psychologists doing assessments consider the test useful (80% of such psycholgists use the test) and 80% of academic departments do too (otherwise they wouldn't devote considerable time and resources to teaching it to their students). Just because a minority are opposed to it for whatever reason doesn't mean that we disregard the consensus within the field. So, the consensus is that the test is useful in a healthcare field for healthcare purposes.Faustian (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, please tell us the specific literature (name the sources) that justify moving the image to the top. It's fine for you to have that opinion as your opinion, but if you want to attribute your justification to "the literature" as if there is some scientific basis for your opinion, you need to back that up with citations. Let's turn the tables. I could edit a medically-related article that you have invested some time and research in; I could claim to have looked at "the literature", and then I could rewrite that article based on ... ? Is it based on the literature, or is it based on my opinion? So please back up your claims regarding "the literature". Otherwise let's acknowledge that it's simply your opinion, not a scientific one. Ward3001 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Chillum, that was a short few days. I'm not sure I have managed to tame those darned hotheads in your absence, but I do hope that there are now "some new arguments or at least progression of some sort". Does your finding the worst case scenario "even a little convincing" mean that you accept that pre-exposure of an image may damage the validity of this test? Or if not, why not? I know it's only your opinion, but I'm still very interested to hear it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I will state I am not a psychologist but a physician. They did not teach this during medical school or residency in Canada as of the year 2000. I have never nor have I ever seen any other physician use this test in my 10 years of practice. Non of our social workers or councilors use the test either. I do see suicidal children and do not believe that this would have added anything to there treatment / diagnosis. I have been unable to find any statements by the American Psychiatric Association pertaining to this test. Were is it being used? Is it just regional?

My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc, no offense, but you continue to reveal your lack of knowledge here. Social workers and counselors neither administer the Rorschach nor are trained in the Rorschach. The Rorschach is administered and interpreted by psychologists. There is a difference. American Psychiatric Association??? Once again, Doc, psychiatrists don't administer the Rorschach; psychiatrists leave that task up to the properly trained psychologists. And the fact that you see suicidal children but choose not to seek input from a psychologist who could help diagnose that child properly does not diminish the power of the Rorschach. I'll leave up to others to decide what it might say about your professional judgment. And it's perfectly fine that you have not been convinced not to place the image at the top, but let's make it clear that that is your personal opinion, and it's not based on a review of the scientific literature or any more than a superficial understanding of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Offense has been taken. You make it clear that you would prefer subtle insults than discussing issues. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, you have offended the sensibilities of serious scientists in some of your subtle suggestions. Cheers. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take too much offence, DocJames. It's very encouraging that you have been clear about your professional interest and experience here, instead of pretending to have a level of knowledge that you do not. I'm sure your views are respected, even if they are deemed to be personal opinions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can agree that psychiatrist / social workers do not use this test. Neither do our psychologists ( who I referred to as counselors above ) Any data supporting the 80% of psychologist use this test?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was actually Faustian who added that information, although I don't doubt its veracity as I've seen the figures. I can't remember the specific source, but if Faustian doesn't provide it soon I'll try to dig it up. But only on the condition that no one will selectively cherry-pick quotes and post them here out of context to create a false impression. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it was Faustian. This is why I commented on the use of this test by other health care professionals. I presume you are referring to the review I mentioned above when you comment on cheer picking :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of cherry picking here, but bringing all that up serves no purpose at this point. I just wanted to get my caveat about it on the record so that if/when I find the source (if Faustian doesn't), it might prevent it from happening again. I think I've made my point and don't intend to bring up cherry-picking again unless it happens again. Thanks for your understanding. Ward3001 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Still have no idea what you are talking about...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't I doubt that I could convince you, so why don't we just let bygones be bygones and move on. My edits above will always be there if you ever want to look at them in more detail. If no one tries to cherry pick quotes in the future, that aspect of this debate won't be a problem. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to continue on with my point. In most areas of the world psychologists do not deal with the presentations of emergency psychiatry. It is primarily dealt with by psychiatric nurses, emergency physicians, and psychiatrists. And please correct me if I am wrong but it seems only psychologists use the Rorschach. If this test were important in picking up frequent subtle presentations of depression that are detectable by no other method and this test could prevent the discharged from care of children who subsequently commit suicide we would all be using it. As we are not this does indirectly cast some doubt on the usefulness of this test. All other professionals other than psychologists are not idiots who miss important tools which are essential for helping their patients. And there are lawyers which makes sure no one falls though the cracks :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not in most parts of your world, but in my world (and I practice in a small town, but I have trained in metropolitan areas), psychologists are an essential part of emergency psychiatric situations. I am frequently called by the hospital at which I sometimes work for emergencies involving psych patients. Psychiatrists often seek my opinion (or another psychologist who is available) before making major decisions, including involuntary commitments. In fact, I have been involved in involuntary commitments more than any non-psychiatrist physician at that hospital. And I will correct you since you asked me to. Yes, only psychologists administer the Rorschach, and contrary to your impression, such data are often requested by psychiatrists and other physicians. As to your statement that "we would all be using it" -- no, only the psychologists administer it, but lots of specialties use the results. I seriously mean no offense, Doc, but I really think you have a very narrow and outdated view of psychologists. Maybe it's your training, maybe it's your specific geographic region, or maybe it's something that I don't know about. But physicians in many locations rely heavily on psychologists to assist them in their diagnosis and treatment. And I did not say that other professions are idiots. That's a very warped and cynical interpretation of my comments. There is a needed place for everyone -- psychologists, physicians, social workers, licensed counselors. They all have their important roles. It just happens that psychological testing is one of the roles of the psychologists that other professions don't use (and most don't wish to have to learn how to use them anyway). Psychologists don't expect others to know about the details of the tests, and most of the physicians, social workers, and counselors I know are quite satisfied with being part of a team in which the psychologist plays an important role, just as all the other specialties play an important role. That's mental health care in the 21st century. Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists do not generally use this test because it is not their area of expertise. However, at least at the Ivy League hospital where I work, psychiatrists are quite familiar with it and residents are trained in basic knowledge about it and are expected to know about it. Similarly, psychologists don't prescibe meds (except in some very limited settings) but are expected to have some basic knowledge about certain medications. Psychiatrists turn to psychologists when they feel the use of the test is called for, (for diagnostic clarification, risk management, etc.). The fact that they don't administer it themselves in no way indicates that they do not believe in its utility. It just means they didn't spend a year learning how to properly administer the test and analyze the results. And here is the reference for the facts that 80% of psychologists practicing assessment use the test and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it: [Weiner, I.B., Greene, R.L (2007). Handbook of Personality Assessment. John Wiley and Sons. pg. 402. ISBN 0471228818]. The reference was in the article, why didn't anyone find it?Faustian (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It does state that 80% of psychologists use this test. This ref here says in the assessment of children and youth 40% never use the test and 4 % use it always.

Title:Child and adolescent psychological assessment: Current clinical practices and the impact of managed care

Source:Professional psychology, research and practice [0735-7028] Cashel yr:2002 vol:33 iss:5 pg:446

So yes I agree the test is used by many psychologists. Even more of a reason to discuss it in full detail.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, if 40% of psychologists never use the test in the assessment of children and youth, 60% use it at least once in a while. I agree that its widespread use is a good reason to discuss it in full detail. A detailed discussion doesn't have to mean spoiling the test however.Faustian (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know the name of the test you can spoil it regardless of Wikipedia. If you are searching for it by name you are expecting to see the images of it. The article just looks better with the inkblot in the lead. When I search for this test that is what I expect to see. Trying to hide it for ethical reasons I find strange and goes against the ethics we follow in medicine. Unless something will cause definite harm to the patient it is their right to know.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are searching for it by name you are not necessarily expecting to see the image. The page is about the test, not the blots. Your opinion is that the page looks better with the image in the lead. Others feel it shouldn't be here at all. So the collective compromise was to have it in the test materials section where the blots are described. The test is considered useful, so therefore compromising it is harmful. What sort of ethics would consider it acceptable to compromise a tool that is useful in treating people? Nonmaleficence or "do no harm" is an essential component of ethics. And we ought not leave it behind when we go online. Faustian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New consensus has emerged

Ward one new voice does not change consensus. It takes a new argument that other editors support. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus before the "one new voice". The "one new voice" only makes the absence of consensus more pronounced. Lawrencekhoo's revert was before the "one new voice". Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek has stated in an edit summary that Xeno was functioning as an admin in his edit of the article. For the record, this is what Xeno wrote above: "there's nothing 'administrative' about what I'm doing here". There are legitimate disagreements here, but please don't fall into Chillum's habit of misrepresenting opinions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward your childish mud slinging and lack of good faith does nothing to improve this article or your arguments. Xeno was an uninvolved admin trying to make a point. Soon you shall see admins acting officious. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he said. He said I was an "uninvolved admin", and, for all intents and purposes, I am. I don't use the Rorschach test in my professional practice. I don't anything to gain or lose by ensuring the image is at the top or not. I hadn't edited the article until coming here from the request for comment. It was my uninvolved opinion that consensus was for the image being at the top, this being an article about the Rorschach test and not Hermann Rorschach, and this being an encyclopedia. I only count three people arguing for it not being at the top (some with obvious biases and conflicts of interests) and many more arguing persuasively for it being there. –xeno^talk 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, let me suggest that you stop your own "childish" threats. I think Xeno has explained himself to my satisfaction. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, this bickering does nothing to enhance the article or justify your position. I have not threatened you but merely stated a fact. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Soon you shall see admins acting officious". Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes because you refuse to accept a new consensus and have been edit warring to avoid it. Ward, your own behavior threatens you, not I. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Soon you shall see admins acting officious". Your words speak for themselves. A threat is a threat is a threat. As for edit warring, I think if you read the false edit warring report you made on me, you'll see that you're as guilty as anyone. I don't plan to revert the article any time soon out of respect for Wikipedia policies. But Gary, look at your own history, not just on this article but elsewhere. You're not exactly the virgin bride who's entitled to put on that white gown now are you? Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My report was not false and I will not allow you to slander me, "A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts" says policy and EdJohnston. The fact that I am as guilty as you for 3 reverts does not make my report false or change the facts that I have consensus on my side. Now you troll my history and continue name calling. Your behavior is deplorable and I will not continue this thread for it does nothing for the article in question. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is "trolling your history", Gary. It doesn't take a major investigation to look at your talk page. Geez. Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Still you slander. My talk page is a lesson in civility that you should learn. Noticed I do not revert criticism as you do but actually engage other editors in thoughtful discussion. If you wish to engage me that is the place. This article's talk page is for improving the article. Please desist this thread. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Falsely accussing someone of slander is ... slander. I'll "desist this thread" just as soon as you do. Thank you for your cooperation. Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this discussion is getting no were, has been going on a long time, and is often uncivil containing personal attacks. Maybe an RFC is needed? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean an RfC on placement of the image, actually all of this debate has arisen from an RfC that's still in effect (look a few sections up). Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I put that one up a while ago. Speaking of which, quick question. If an RfC does not solve an issue, what is the next step/tool/procedure supposed to be? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia:Mediation Committee been tried? Wikipedia:Arbitration may however be needed but one has to show that all other measures have been tried. I am new to this discuss so am not up on the history here but there is definately a lot of animosity and may WP:Policies are being broken.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By far consensus is the preferred method. After that you follow WP:DR. I think third opinion is the next step. Then informal mediation, formal mediation, and arbitration. But the details are at WP:DR. Probably best to let the dust settle a couple of days and see how things stand. Ward3001 (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What new consensus? Consensus isn't majority vote, it is coming to a version mutually acdeptable by most parties. The ratio of those supporting the image at the top and those opposed to displaying it is the same as it has always been. I posted consensus info before and I'll do it again because we ought to know what consenus really is before we make edits or edit war based on false notions of consensus. Either continue this conversation [12] or have it here:

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 (this point of view was besr expressed here:[13] by an editor not involved in the current discussion). 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 wikipedia 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 and that various opinions of what is "ideal" are exactly the same as they had been before. A majority wanted the image to be presented one way; a significant minority disagreed strongly. Working together, we made a compromise that was acceptable to all. This was a good example of consensus as defined by wikipedia policy. But now, rather than compromise, it seems that someone has decided that the majority simply dictates what happens. I'm assuming this is being done in good faith due to not knowing what consensus really means - compromise and taking all viewpoints into account to create an acceptable article.Faustian (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Faustian I mean no insult when I say I do not believe you understand consensus. It's true consensus is an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on but that doesn't and rarely means that everyone agrees. It's also true that this is not a democracy done by voting but it is a majority based on logic. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that consensus means that everyone must agree - what it means is that it needs to be something that takes into account most viewpoints - as you correctly stated "consensus is an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree." Where is this effort when someone pushes to have a version that reflects 100% of what the majority wants without taking into account the opinion of a significant minority? To summarize yet again, we have some editors who feel that this image shouldn't be here at all and should be replaced by a fake image or a sillouette of an image, we have other editors who prefer a "hidden" image that can be unhidden with a click, and we have the majority that wants the image there and on top. We arrived at a consensus to display the actual image, but rather than place it on top we placed it in the test materials section, which is the section that describes the images and cards. This was a good example of consensus. Could there be unsatisfied lone individuals? Sure - consensus doesn't mean veto power by single editors. But utterly refusing to take into account the opinion of 30% or so of editors involved in the article and just ramming through the majority preference is not consensus as defined bywikipedia policy. On that page: [14] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." (emphasis added by me). The ethical part is important, but more pertinant to this discussion is the emphaiss on a product that reflects a negotiation that balances competing views. Again, where is the negotiation that balances the competing views when the final version is a 100% representation of what the majority wants?

Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."

Moreover, [15] "Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus.

A vote may help to organize discussion around specific proposals, but this can sometimes breed conflict and division. One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option. Even a "middle ground" option can be insufficient, as forcing people to choose between options may prevent new ideas from coming forward that would gain more support. Another problem with voting is that it might prevent a real discussion, as voters do not have to justify their position. This prevents people from evaluating the underlying reasons for a vote, and criticizing weak or inaccurate reasoning for a vote. It also prevents people from coming up with alternative ways to satisfy the voter's concern, with a less divisive course of action.

The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time."

Again, where is consensus when the opinions of a significant minority are simply disregarded when it comes to the content of the article itself - when the article does not take into account their opinions at all? In that case, how is negotiation reflected in the article content? Where is the synthesis of different viewpoints?

I would like to add that I take no offence by your words. I also hope that you and others don't let your attitude be swayed and nuetrality compromised by unkind words by another editor who is arguing against you.Faustian (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. whenever possible. Being logical you must agree that this is not always possible. We have beat this issue to death for months at a time and arguing about the definition of consensus brings us no closer to solving the dilemma at hand. I respect your opinion that you do not believe consensus had changed but do not share that view. Regardless, the next step in the dispute resolution process should be followed, Mediation or Arbitration. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree generally. I would add that if in this case agreement is impossible it is due to the deliberate effort on the part of those wanting the image at the top. I have listed my prefrence and have agreed to and worked on a compromise. Once this whole process is complete, I hope the end result isn't to reward those who refuse to compromise and refuse to go by consensus, whose meaning is quite clear: "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""; "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue."; "[16] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

It's clear what consensus is. I am playing by the rules here, it's unfortunate that others choose not to.Faustian (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said it is pointless for us to debate consensus (do you really believe the Admins who feel consensus has changed do not understand what consensus is?) and your argument maybe turned around to say you would not compromise to move the picture. What really matters is the weight of the arguments each side postulates. The three of you have stuck to your principal arguments but failed to convince others of their validity in the encyclopedia environment. Please respect that we disagree and either side is not likely to change its mind considering the amount of time already devoted to this issue. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Being an admin does not necessarily mean that one knows the policies well, as we have seen above. The policy is outlined above: which parts of the policy go against what I have been saying? Moreover, there are four editors here who have argued against placing the image at the top, not three. Furthermore, my position has been to hide the image - the current page the way it is is a result of compromise, not my original position. Others have not wanted the image here at all or wanted a fake image. We have compromised by accepting the actual image, unhidden, in the test materials section. We followed consensus policy which clearly indicates that wikipedia is based on taking into account various points of view and accomodating them as much as possible. The side that seeks to circumvent that policy by just ramming through their version is not mine. I repeat the points on consenus that for some reason are conveniently ignored:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."

• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""

• "[17] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

Please point out how ramming through the majority's preference with no regard to the minority's points in terms of how the article looks is not a violation of the the three points above? Saying "because I think so and I'm an admin so I know better what policy is" is not an argument, with all due respect. Faustian (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, an other discussion about what consensus is. "Consensus" on Wikipedia IS a vote, but obvious sockpuppets, canvassed people, and those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about are ignored. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This not the place to debate what consensus is. Feel free to do that at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. This talk page is for improving the Rorschach test article. Let us return to topic at hand. Anyone object to mediation? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To Apoc2400 - Consensus policy clearly states it is not a vote. Read the first line here [18]. Your implied accusations that there are sockpuppets etc. is noted.

To Garycompugeek, the heading here is your claim that "new consensus has emerged." Has it? A discussion of what consensus is, is pertinant here. Your refusal to do so (beyond merely stating it is what I say it is) is unfortunate. I've outlined what wikipedia policy on consensus is. I don't think we can just ignore policy completely as Apoc2400 seems to want to do.

The discussion of consensus is important and relevant because outlining what consensus is, affects the way we approach changes to this article. I urge you to read or reread the policy and please point out in which way I am mistaken, if I am mistaken, with regards to these points and how the article ought to look, when we take into account all the divergent views. This goes directly to improving the article, as an ideal article takes into account various views, which is what wikipedia concensus policy mandates. I'll repeat it again:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
• "[19] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

You made the claim that consensus had changed. What evidence did you have for that? Basically, a majority vote. But this clearly is not what consensus is about, as outlined above. Do you retract your claim? If so, do you seek to determine the article's content in a way that in essence goes against consensus policy by refusing to negotiate/compromise/synthesize other views/tking onto account ethical restrictions etc.?Faustian (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No I do not retract my claim. I totally believe that consensus has changed but refuse to debate the issue with you. It seems like you would rather debate the definition of consensus than press your argument for picture location or do you fear the outcome of mediation? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you make a claim and refuse to defend that claim after evidence was presented that the claim is based on a faulty understanding of what consensus means. That's unfortunate. I have already made numerous arguments on picture location, as have others. We've settled on a situation with different opinions. So now we need to come to a consensus by making a good faith effort to synthesize our various views. I've made that effort. Have you? Have you tried to come to an agreement and take into account others' views which is what consensus means? Or do you refuse to do so. As for mediation, what do you mean by that?

Moreover, I am wondering other than you how many others refuse to do so. Because it seems we are presented with two discrete issues here:

1. how many people prefer one presentation of the image versus another
2. how many people want to arrive at consensus and work on a mutually agreeable solution, versus how many want to make no compromises whatsoever.22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)

May or may not be new consensus

I figured that was obvious but does this make you feel better Faustian? I have tried to take the definition of consensus nonsense to either Wikipedia talk:Consensus or even your discussion page. Let me also be plain... Faustian and I do not agree on what consensus is. OK. Let's move on to formal mediation if there are no objections otherwise I suggest arbitration. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The heading implies that one opinion about consensus is true.Faustian (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 consensus review

Report prepared by –xeno^talk

Disclosure: I came to the article on May 14 with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Taking 7 days to review the history, I made the call on May 21. On May 22, I engaged in some limited discussion on the talk page at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images. I also made this comment (annotated thusly) in another thread regarding my degree of involvement and began preparing this report shortly thereafter. This is discussed further in the body and footnotes of the report and subsequent to this report in #The discussion and #The addendum. —This statement added at 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue

The issue: For two years, Faustian (talk · contribs) and Ward3001 (talk · contribs) have argued for removing or suppressing the image (by deleting it, removing it, hiding it, replacing it with a fake one, or moving it below the fold, for example) on the Rorschach test article to prevent possible damage to the results a hypothetical future psychological test the reader might take.

Being the top two contributors to both the article and the talk page, they have been the most active participants in a debate over whether to hide the image somehow (to prevent harm) versus those that felt it should not be hidden in any way. Recently, many have been calling for a convenient display of the Rorschach inkblot image in the lead section. Wikipedia's guideline on images advises editors to display images "relevant to the article that they appear in" that are "significantly related to the article's topic." The article is about a test involving the viewing of inkblots, not Hermann Rorschach, thus the inkblot image is entirely appropriate for the lead section.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its first and primary goal is the distribution of information and spread of knowledge. Wikipedia has both a content disclaimer and a medical disclaimer. I note also that this statement was recently removed from the article, having been uncited since at least April 2008. Thus, no one has even been able to provide a reliable, third-party source proving the test's integrity will be diminished by prior exposure to the images. Even if they were able to produce such a source, the psychological care of our reader is not within Wikipedia's remit and we should not make information harder to come by because of uncited theoretical damage to the integrity of a test most readers of the article will likely never take.

The history

The issue first came up as the very first section on the talk page (untitled) in early 2005. The main argument being used then was copyright, which was eventually dismissed as the copyright on the image has expired. See also Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#My $0.02, for the opinion of a psychologist that stood without reply. Though he has problems with the Rorschach test itself, he "more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious" and thus argued for compromise in using a non-Rorschach inkblot image.

Then, there was a discussion started in November 2006, entitled "Outrage" where a "student psychologist" was "outraged by this page" stating

“ It takes years, sometimes decades, to provide the service of creating a new, creative, reliable test. ... this cannot be veiwed by the public, simply because it is based on first impressions. You are ruining this novelty by posting the first card on the internet. It is an injustice to psychologists who still consider the Rorschach as an integral test. If Wikipedia ever wishes to be a viable source of information, they will seriously consider becoming an ethical one as well and removing the inkblot picture. ”

Faustian (talk · contribs) weighs in on the issue some months later in March 2007:

“ Agreed. Viewing the original image may invalidate the test, impacting client care. There is no reason to place the controversial image there; interested people can find the link after having been warned about it, rather than have the image pop up immediately when they look at the wiki page. It is truly irresponsible to place that image here, just because one can. [20] ”

In May 2007, Ward3001 (talk · contribs) joined the discussion entitled "Keeping the inkblots secret" where he argued from reasons of copyright that the images should not be displayed, and should be deleted [21]. In July 2007, he expressed concern that viewing the image could do "serious damage" integrity of the Rorschach test [22]. He would later go on to clarify

“ The issue is not damage to the test. It is damage to the results for the person taking the test. In other words, if someone is taking the test and the results are important to that person's psychiatric treatment, viewing the image can make those results inaccurate. [23] ”

One (presently inactive) user explained in June 2007 that

“ Any psychologist who sees that someone has posted the actual blot on Wikipedia is obligated to remove it. According to the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines, psychologists must do everything within reason to maintain the integrity of the testing materials.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security. The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli ... Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

This code is online at APA APA Ethics Code. The reason for this policy is that seeing the blots in advance could spoil the test results for someone who may need to take the test later. [24]

”

One more discussion occured in the infancy of the page -

1. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#Which image.

    

   Later in 2007 the issue arose again ... and again... and again:

    

2. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#No reason to hide images
3. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden? (the start of an RFC that was dominated by Faustian and Ward3001, that ran into the other sections listed below)
4. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Thank you for clarifying
5. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#We could have a consensus here if.....
6. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Another problem with posting the picture
7. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Enough!
8. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web
9. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2#Please stop editwarring

    

   Archive 3 (November 2007 thru March 2008) is also filled with discussions regarding the image:

    

10. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Question on Reaching Resolution
11. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Copyright
12. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship (a lengthy section that included an RFC on replacing the inkblot with a fake one)

    Ward3001's position seems best summed up here, "The "organization" would be the American Psychological Association, and secondarily the various state licensing boards (in the USA) that usually fall in line with APA's ethics code. (...) another set of blots with equivalent psychometric and clinically useful properties does not exist, and is extremely unlikely to exist in the next few decades. Secondly, APA's ethics code already requires a psychologist, as much as possible, to use tests that do not have compromised reliability and validity; to consider a variety of other test and non-test data (when possible) in making decisions (thus often more than one test, procedure, or source of data is used), and to exercise informed, prudent judgment in interpreting test results. Because there are no perfect tests, and no psychologist has absolute control over the many variables that might influence human behavior, conformity to those ethical principles has some gray area. Most of us do the best we can with what we have. But we can't do the impossible. (...)
    
    And here's something about a point that has been raised several times on this page but non-experts seem to be having much diffuculty grasping (that's not a personal attack, just an observation). There is a huge difference between collecting norms and developing a clinically useful personality test. If you gave me several million dollars, I probably could come up with some norms on a new inkblot test in a year or two. But what you would then have would be a set of useless norms; nothing else. Getting the norms is just the starting point. The norms tell you nothing about what the scores mean. Test scores do not interpret themselves. That requires research, and lots of it. Exner developed norms for the Exner system of scoring, and then spent the next thirty years (along with many other researchers) figuring out how the data from those norms should be interpreted. Norms are essential for most tests, but norms alone are useless. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)"

13. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc? (included a straw poll that came out 15 to 6 in favour of not hiding the image)
14. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Wikipedia Guideline Review
15. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Poll: Who is willing to go to mediation? (they never went)
16. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3#Stop the Edit War

     

    and much of the same in Archive 4 (March through August 2008):

     

17. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#A more general discussion ?
18. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#What about the article itself ?
19. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Outrageous straw man for the straw poll
20. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#The image is already public
21. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Unhide Picture
22. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Straw poll on mediation (7 to 3 in favour, informal, didn't seem to take)
23. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#scroll
24. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years
25. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#New lead image (wherein Hermann makes his handsome appearance)
26. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#Image Discussion
27. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 4#It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily

     

    And of course, the current talk page (December 2008 to May 2009) is pretty much still all about the image placement (with a rare, but heartwarming, moment of agreement wrt the article's title):

     

28. Talk:Rorschach test#Location of the inkblot image (now archived)
29. Talk:Rorschach test# RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test? (now archived)

    It was on the back of this RFC that I made this edit on May 21, 2009 and commented in the edit summary that "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page".

30. Talk:Rorschach inkblot test#Interpretation of discussion (now archived)

    Chillum points out that Ward3001 and Faustian are still the only ones arguing against the images placement at the top of the article. I note, however, that Martinevans seems sympathetic to the position of "heed[ing] the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect[ing] the images". Nevertheless, three editors do not consensus make and Wikipedia is not bound by APA codes of practice.

31. Talk:Rorschach test#What is Consensus? (now archived)

    An example of Faustian attempting to frame consensus.

32. Talk:Rorschach test#Another compromise (now archived)
33. Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images (now archived) (This discussion was my first experience with the talk page and editors in question. It should be reviewed with an eye to judging my level of involvement prior to drafting this report. I have only included comments from this section that occurred prior to my first comment and have not included subsequent discussions in this report, though they may be discussed in #The addendum)
34. Talk:Rorschach test#New consensus has emerged (now archived)

The review

Faustian and/or Ward3001 have commented at length in nearly every single one of the above-linked discussions. I must admit their opinions are not entirely synthesized in the below, however, I have attempted to capture the essence of their arguments in drafting these results.

The below is based solely on talk page edits as found in the archives and current talk page, ending at this revision.

Editors who have argued for removal, or otherwise suppressing the image

i.e. expressing a desire to delete it, hide it, replace it with a fake one, or move it below the fold for reasons other than compromise

1. Faustian (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in March 2007)

   This edit seems to indicate he is a practicing psychologist

   (22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The test, like many psychological tests, requires that the person taking it is unfamiliar with the stimulus presented to him/her. For example in IQ tests subtests require analysis of pictures or construction of shapes using blocks (thank God those test materials are still under copyright so that such tests aren't spoiled gratuitously). In the case of the Rorschach it requires getting a first, immediate impression of what the person sees. Responses to subsequent cards often depend on the unspoiled impressions of the first inkblot. The test norms (see more info here: [25]) were built around this approach to the test, meaning that we can't compare someone's results to the norms and get an objective reading if the person has taken a test not in accordance with the way the normative sample did. So the image is inherently harmful because viewing it makes the viewer incapable of using it. And as noted elsewhere in the discussion page, this test is considered useful in the field." (12:47, 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."

   In March 2007, engaged in a protracted edit war with a few IPs and one user who did not participate in discussion, attempting to make a change in the status quo (citing this discussion) to implement a black-on-white retouched image of the inkblot rather than the the true shaded image. This edit war ended when a compromise was reached to use a collapsible table to hide the true image, with a disclaimer.

   Comment from Faustian to Xeno regarding his placement in this section: (16:09, 28 May 2009) "I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns." (in light of this concern, the below paragraph was amended)

   For some time, rather than strictly arguing from the irresponsibility of showing the image as he did in 2007, he has participated in lengthy talk page discussion with the ultimate goal of brokering compromises to balance the concerns of preventing potential harm with that of providing encyclopedic access to the image. More recently, has argued that Wikipedia's notion of consensus demands that we necessarily compromise in deference to a minority viewpoint, even where no such consensus to compromise exists any longer.

   Further to the above, he wrote at Xeno's talk page (14:49, 29 May 2009) "that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input."

2. Ward3001 (talk · contribs) (as above, numerous arguments starting in May 2007)

   Claims to be a practicing psychologist. Does not deny he wishes the image suppressed to prevent theoretical damage, in fact, this often forms the bulk of his argument.

   (04:22, 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. (...) The issue here is not whether there should be an image of an inkblot, but rather the most appropriate place to put it."

   Was the subject of a recent AN3 report [26], albeit filed by the other party who had made just as many reverts at the time of filing. The result of the report was an agreement brokered by an admin not to revert the disputed item for one week which was amenable to both parties.

3. Goingape (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   In response to the first edit to the talk page noting that "Psychologists prefer that the general public not see them so that it will not skew results when the test is performed": "As a pscyhologist, I have to say, that I agree ... I wish Wikipedia would honor the ethical requirements of the only professionals who have access to this material."

4. Annalisa579 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) "I was shocked to see this image on Wikipedia (...) there's been decades and decades of blood, sweat, tears into testing the cards, norming data, running statistical analysis that are unimaginable to anyone outside of the field. (...) I spent years studying and administering it (...) Making images available on the internet will make it obsolete and we will have lost a helpful tool. (...) I encourage the person who posted that image to substitute [a non-Rorschach inkblot] in order to renew the sanctity of test"
5. Teenyshan (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2006 Nov 7 (UTC) "student psychologist" and initiator of the "Outrage" thread examined above. It was the user's only edit. "Regardless of whether or not these inkblots are copyrighted has absolutely no bearing on the ethical issue at hand"
6. Monnicat (talk · contribs) 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Ph.D., is a mental health clinician and researcher, the retired user who quoted the APA ethics code above) I deleted the image of the blot the last time I visited this page, but it was restored. I will continue to remove it every time I visit. Placing the image in a public forum compromises the validity of the test for all the reasons previously discussed.
7. Plskmn (talk · contribs) argued [27], especially from reasons of copyright, but also for reasons of restricted access; 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "I work for one of the named companies, am a licensed professional, and--for several decades--have had specific responsibility for reviewing customer documentation when restricted tests of these kinds are ordered." (17:32) "It simply puts Wikipedia in a fairly radical stance regarding materials used by mental health professionals. It is a problem regarding tests in general--for example, IQ tests, achievement tests, aptitude tests, etc. These all rely on evaluating tested individual's responses to materials under similar conditions--that is, in the absence of prior knowledge and exposure." (17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) "It seems to me that the public's right to understand what the Rorschach is about can be easily satisfied without our venturing into explicit exposure of material that publishers, researchers, and professional groups all agree has a legitimate reason to be provided in a professionally restricted manner."
8. 193.65.1.44 (talk · contribs) (11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC) "Definitely agree with Faustian" who wrote that [start of comment by Faustian] (21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC) "By placing the inkblot on the page you don't give anyone the choice - as soon as they go on the wiki page they see the image. There is already a link to those images on the page, so if someone really wants to invalidate the possibility of seeing the test for themselves, they can choose do so by going to the link. Placing the image on the page removes that choice. So, the image is inappropriate." [end of comment by Faustian] "In addition, copyrights are violated. I removed picture."
9. Dela Rabadilla (talk · contribs) (formerly anon) was a user whose entire editing history is an extremely vocal four month period beginning in December 2007 during which time they edited almost entirely on talk pages within the Rorschach area of dispute, even initiating a MedCab case in late March 2008 in which all three responding mediators agreed that Wikipedia policies supported displaying the unhidden image. (07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) "The reality is that this test is used by many psycologists, who have reason to beleive their efficacy in providing their much needed services is compromised by having these images available. (...) I find it completely contrary..." [to Wikipedia's goal to] "...promote knowledge and to benefit human kind ... to neglect the currect use of images for mental health by thousand of professionals. If anything Wikipedia should embrace psycologists that wish to censor this information." (17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) "Several people including myself have stated that the display of rorschach inkblots interferes with the practice of the mental health community, and therefore should be considered harmful and should be avoided."
10. Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "This seems more akin to hiding the punchline of a joke before someone has read the question than censorship. If I was going to be taking a Rorschach inkblot test in the near future and I decided to check out the Wikipedia article, it would be nice to be warned before I actually saw the images. I certainly wouldn't object to the images being available, but it would be nice to not ruin the test for people."
11. Anakin101 (talk · contribs) (14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I would have been bitterly disappointed if I'd glanced at the image before being able to read about it. Hiding it for a moment made it more interesting, and made the article about the inkblot tests make more sense. (...) Those who cry WP:NOT#CENSORED are missing the point – it's not frigging censorship. Censorship is unfairly burying or removing relevant information because somebody else doesn't like it. But here, we have the image box perfectly visible, with a note about what it is. All it takes is one quick click to make it visible. I also think that as a disclaimer, it's a fairly trivial one. I honestly do not think it matters that much whichever way it's done, though my preference is keep it hidden when the article first appears."
12. AAA765 (talk · contribs) (formerly Aminz) (02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "The main purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to the users, nothing more. Hiding the images will not deprive the readers from seeing it if they want to do so. Another point is that the very hiding of the pictures provides some extra information (the fact that seeing it will influence the test)."
13. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) arrived in March 2008 and his initial talk page contributions seemed to support open display of the image. However later comments indicated he believes we should "err on the side of caution". As at 21 May 2009 his position had changed significantly. (19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) "I'm not sure about the `harm may arise' argument anyway. Presumably this is harm to the purety of a psychometric test. But seemingly this would arise only in the case where a candidate for assessment, consciously or unconciously, sees a real ink-blot here, self-elicits their own responses, remembers them and then remembers again when actually assessed in order to give deliberately different responses (all the while not knowing how the responses are interpreted). This seems a little far-fetched." (17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "The argument of "may impact peoples care" stlll seems extremely far-fetehed to me (my logic above) and I suspect that the only consensus you would find would be amongst those practitioners who use the test on a regular basis (for monetary benefit, I am guessing). (...) I'd argue that the Rorschach ink-blots are somewhat in a class of their own, their novelty being the very reason they ever became useful." (19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I would not underestimate the pervasiveness of Wikipedia, however, copied as it seems to be onto countless echo websites. Just because people have disregarded possible harm in the past does not mean that we also should be careless. But then again, where is any EVIDENCE that harm has OR HAS NOT resulted over the past 50 years? I suppose it's a question of how significant one thinks Wikipedia is, compared to what has already been published. Maybe we are all psychologists already these days." (11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "At the risk of setting the debate back a step, I would remind (...) 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." (18:31, 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." (21:14) "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." (21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "I believe in my arguments, not in whether or not I am in the minority or the majority. I have seen nothing that persuades me that the image should be shown. But Ward, and others, have made a number of very sound arguments for why the image should not be shown at the top and I support them in those. I also believe that good arguments continue to exist even though they may not be constantly repeated." (20:05) "I don't want it to be lead image because I don't want it here at all. I haven't changed my position to now wanting it to be a non lead image."
14. Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "Coming late to the discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that there should be an inkblot at the top of the page, as that is the most iconic image people have of the test." (16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) "For purposes of illustrating what the test is about, I see no difference between a random inkblot, and an inkblot made by Roscharch. I would actually prefer a black and white inkblot at the top, as it is more iconic of the test. I still hope that a compromise can be reached, but if it can't, I see no concensus here for a change from status quo. The image of Card 1 as it is currently used should be in the criticisms section." "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." 04:07, 22 May 2009 "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter."

    Comment from Lawrencekhoo: (14:12, 2 June 2009) "I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter."

Editors compromising

i.e. those that acceded to some form of suppression in the interests of of compromise

1. Rsugden (talk · contribs) (in the unreplied-to "My $0.02" thread) (31 August 2005 (UTC) "Sorry to return to the issue of having card one shown in this article. It seems unnecessarily provocative to post this, especially when there is a suitable non-Rorschach card to be in its place. And the issue is not copyright. I guess this doesn't matter in Wikipedia as long as someone wants to do this, no amount of appeal will prevail. (...) And as I psychologist, I have problems with the Rorschach. However, I have more of a problem when articles in WP are contentious. (...) Maybe I will add to this article but not if it is going to stir up the passions of the anti-Rorschach people. It's not worth an "editing war"."
2. Saxifrage (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) "I am a student of psychology as well and I disagree with the dissemination of the inkblots in general, but while at Wikipedia I leave my bias behind as much as I can and edit according to Wikipedia's rules. One of these rules is that Wikipedia must remain neutral by not choosing sides in real-world disputes such as this one. Speaking as an editor, I think using a silhouette of only one of the inkblots is a good compromise between the camp that believes the inkblots should be known to all and the camp that believes they must be kept strictly secret."

   Comment from Saxifrage: (23:51, 2 June 2009) "For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent." (00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "The [clarification] categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end."

3. Blue Leopard (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) "I like the option of being able to chose to see the pics in the current state of the article."
4. Diego (talk · contribs) initially 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "Keep the picture. Don't hide it. (...) Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner. If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like." but later acceded to compromise 5 October 2007 (UTC) "Posting a picture of a symmetrical inkblot in order to show readers what an inkblot (not necessarily a "Rorschach inkblot") looks like does not violate WP:OR. The inkblot need not be an "interpretation" of the important features of a Rorschach inkblot. The caption could be written to make it very clear that it was just a picture of an inkblot, with no direct relation to the Rorschach. The important point is that it would look roughly and qualitatively similar to an average viewer. I think the proposal is an elegant solution that should satisfy those who seek to develop a multimedia-rich article and those who, due to ethical concerns, wish to keep the actual Rorschach image hidden."
5. Runa27 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [28], 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [29], "as someone who has a neutral opinion on the Rorschach ink blot test, I can perhaps provide some perspective, and will attempt to do so now: I LIKE the way it is now. It is both logical, and considerate to our readers. (...) it is considered to at least partially invalidate the test if one views the blot before they take it - but then still gives you the option of viewing the image, which is only of the first card."
6. MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) initially 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "I actually don't see any problem with using the blot." (01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) "When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information." later (21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) "The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that."

Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image

i.e. did not see a need to delete/remove/hide/replace/move the image below the fold

1. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) 18:10, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) "All in all it appears to me to be yet another company trying to distort copyright laws to protect things that can't be protected. And, hell, even the ones under copyright can be used via Fair Use rules for comment and criticism."
2. Wikibob (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC) "I agree that the copyright claim is spurious, is there a source for the claim? As you say, if the author was Hermann Rorschach and he died in 1922 April 2, then they are in the public domain, both United States and EU."
3. 190.30.98.233 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I think the inkblots should be available for anyone who wants to see them and understands the fact that he or she won't be able to take the test effectively after seeing them. The pretention of keeping them secret is like reserving the right of applying it to someone against his/her will: if someone wants to keep the chance of taking the test, they just won't look for the inkblots in the internet. They won't look for any kind of information about the test! (this argument was seemingly made while users were adamantly keeping the image off the page entirely, instead providing an external link to view the image)
4. Spindled (talk · contribs) 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) "I think fair use would probably apply in this case... also, i personally do not think that knowing about the inkblots, how they look, or thinking of what they might resemble will affect anything, as the psychologist would be looking at your impulsive responses and the way you respond, and not what you already know about the pictures. just my $0.02"
5. Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) "The images are pd since Hermann Rorschach died in the 1920s. So life +70 has expired." (14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "I would argue that there is little point in haveing both images since one is simply a blacked out version of the other. I would favor haveing the shaded one since it accuretly depicts the blot" (03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test." (04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC) "A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot." (15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) "This is wikipedia. We are not censored for the benifit of professional codes or principles." (23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "The views of various academics and trade associations should of course be recorded in the article but beyond that are not something that really applies to us."
6. Mooleh (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC) "I congratulate Wikipedia on publishing this inkblot"
7. Halo (talk · contribs) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy and you are trying to censor Wikipedia. See censorship: "Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body". How exactly have I missed the point?"
8. Drugonot (talk · contribs) 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "damage? what are you talking about?!? wikipedia isn't under psychologists or psychiatrists censorship. There are no damage at all by showing a couple of pictures! (...) I'll not censor (by hiding) a picture, because it may damage your unscientific work. (...) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia. Inside every good encyclopedia you'll find the REAL and ORIGINAL images, not a fakes or censored one!"
9. The Merciful (talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "==No reason to hide images== So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. (16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) "(...) Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all. It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group."
10. HaeB (talk · contribs) (formerly High on a tree) 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) "I don't see such a consensus" (to hide the picture through Javascript) "I personally think that "let those people just have their way, even if their reasons are wrong" is not a good motto for writing an encyclopedia. It amounts to bowing to whoever is arguing most vociferously instead of basing the decision on the best arguments." (14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation)."
11. Itub (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) "This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to be informative, neutral, and uncensored. It is not bound by the norms of any professional organization, religion, or nation (...) This test does not need to be "protected" (...). Wikipedia already has a general disclaimer (...) Finally, regarding the [show] button, I don't think it's a good solution because it has accessibility problems (it doesn't work without javascript, for example), and IMO goes agains the spirit of the no-disclaimers-in-articles policy." (13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) "Some people have argued that the Rorschach test is actually harmful when used in forensic an occupational settings (among others) because such an questionable test may end up determining people's lives (for example, see [30]), Therefore, one could argue that exposing the inkblots actually helps people by invalidating the test. I don't expect Wikipedia to decide what is "good for the people". We just provide the information."
12. Publicola (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) "If all ten of the 1921 blots were not so easily available in full colour and high resolution from a few minutes of web searching, I might feel differently, but given the current state of affairs I see no reason to censor any of these images. If the members American Psychological Association wish to follow the spirit rather than the mere letter of their ethical guidelines, then they might advocate that a new copyrighted set of blots be normed for the test rather than clamoring to censor public domain information that any schoolboy could find in minutes."
13. mike4ty4 (talk · contribs) made some astute observations and raised some interesting questions at "The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship" (21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "It raises an important issue, namely whether or not Wikipedia should appeal to interests outside of itself, or censor or semi-censor certain things." He "wonder[ed] about the interapplicability of the various solutions. For example on this article about the test, it is hidden. Should the same be done on other articles like that about those cartoons...? Also, how does this jive with official policy that Wikipedia is not censored?" While he didn't explicitly reveal his personal feelings on the matter, he argued at length with Ward3001, Faustian and Dela Rabadilla, perhaps in an attempt to cause them to expose flaws in their own arguments. He later asked (02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) "where does one draw the line on what to censor and what not to? In the case of the religion, regardless of whether or not we agree with that religion, one has to take into account the _feelings of the people_ who follow it. Should those cartoons be "censored" ... or not? What about the Rorschach tests? Should they be "censored"? (...) Furthermore, we still have the issue of Wikipedia vs outside interest: should Wikipedia bend to outside interest or not, and if so, where is it appropriate?" (20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) "...viewing the Rorschach image does is not damage the person themselves, it damages the usefulness of the test on that person (...), a test they may or may not be required to take. Since we do not know who is on the receiving end of the pictures, what they believe or may believe, or what they will do or have to do in the future, one cannot predict when real harm will actually occur with certainty. This therefore raises the question of whether or not the mere potential to cause harm, to even some individuals, is enough to warrant partial censorship, or if WP:CENSOR should be taken to the letter and these concerns thrown right out the window." (21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) "See, that's the rub -- we don't know oif they will or won't take this test. Should we defer to that risk there?"
14. 88.65.139.108 (talk · contribs) (responding to mike4ty4's straw-man suggestion that the Rorschach decision be extended to other articles) (22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "If you take that step, where does it end? If we delete something to help the psychologists, then why not delete something to help everyone else? I think publishing the images is a service to an extent, because the test is already spoiled because you can get all the images elsewhere on the web. Who knows how many people have? The fact that nobody knows means that the test is spoiled. The sooner this gets in to the heads of the people who don't want to bother with another set of blots that can be kept more secure, the better." (IP's only edit)
15. MilesAgain (talk · contribs) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) "Hundreds of editors have weighed in on the question, and the clear consensus is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#CENSORED. Not for this, or any other article." 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) "I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that trying to censor the images is tilting at windmills. Why do you choose to advocate hiding the images rather than the creation and normalization of another set of blots which would be subject to copyright and trade secret protections that the ten 1921 blots lack? Is the effort of normalizing another set of blots really more, in your estimation, than the effort it will take to keep the current public domain blots hidden?"
16. Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "Anyone who would Wiki those psychological analyses he plans or expects to undergo has likely already invalidated them. And so I don't see a compelling need to censor the images here." (00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "it's not our job to protect the accuracy of this test. We don't plaster these images all over the encyoclopedia, ruining the test for hapless bystanders; these images are displayed on the article on these very images, and if someone is already trawlling the internet for info on the Rorscharch inkblot test, I don't think shielding his eyes serves a purpose." (19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Having the images present in no way forces people to see them. If they don't want to see the Rorscharch inkblots, they shouldn't have navigated to this page." (20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) "If the bigger group did what it wanted to, the inkblot image would still be at the top of the article. Also, I don't quite see any encyclopedic purpose of placing the creator's image at the top of the article, aside from helping maintain stability of the article." (04:08, 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." (02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "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."
17. Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [formerly Until(1 == 2) ] 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "If someone lookup up the test at the library they would see the same picture. If people are specifically trying to learn about the test then that is their choice and if that invalidates the test then that is the cost of the research they have done. We can't hold back information from people because we think them knowing it will harm them somehow, that is for them to decide." (20:06) "The suggestion that an image illustrating the topic causes harm does not seem credible to me, if the person chose to research the test then that is the cause of any harm, not the information source that has the pictures. If a person looks the test up at the library they are likely to see a similar image. It is up to the doctors to decide if the test is effective, not us. We are an illustrated encyclopedia, not a pop-up book. We also must not be giving medical advice, that is a big no-no, so even putting our dislike of disclaimers aside we could still not do it." (17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "Even with the hide template the image still flashes up on my screen for a moment, that near subliminal flash may do more damage than it showing steady. But as an editor that is not my determination to make, just as other editors should not be deciding if the image should be hidden or not based on their opinions about the test. We should just show the image and stop taking these strange measures. I understand the motives as sincere, but this is a place to present information, not obscure it." (17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "To put my point more succinctly, we should be documenting psychological practice not following it. Just like when we document a religion we should not let that religion's taboos influence our content. When documenting a school of thought we cannot follow that school of thought as the basis of our article. When we decide to let the precepts of the subject dictate our editorial actions we are committing original research and deviating from a neutral point of view. This is not something a scholarly work with the goals of this project should be doing." (02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "People can use the information on Wikipedia to invalidate almost any test out there, that does not mean we should hide the information away. Policy is clear and I see no overwhelming reason or consensus to hide the image." (14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It should not be hidden. Almost any test can be invalidated by having access to Wikipedia, I am sure I could have aced, and invalidated, many of the tests I have taken in my life if I had access to Wikipedia, that is hardly Wikipedia's responsibility, nor should others be inconvenienced to avoid this. I have no objection to having the image lower on the page for stylistic reasons, but please understand this is not to prevent people from seeing it." (15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC) "There is a pretty strong consensus to show the images. While a few people have stuck to the idea of hiding them, they simply do not represent the opinion of the community at large here. We don't hide the information we intend to present, we show it in an unadulterated fashion. The idea that this test is accurate is a belief held by some scientists(I assume at least as I have not seem a citation) and not held by others. The belief that the test can be invalidated by viewing the images is supported even less universally. It is a belief by a group of people, we should not let it effect our content." (00:09, 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." 14:04, 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." (16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "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."
18. Luna Santin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (on replacing the image with a false one) (22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I suspect it'll still be a point of contention in a case where we already have a "true to form" image freely licensed." (09:52) "would any old picture of a car do for the Honda Accord article? As long as it's a similar car, say another Honda, it's pretty much the same thing, right? It seems quite obvious that showing a "clearly different" automobile and describing it as a Honda Accord does not "convey the same value of information" -- how is this case different?" (21:41) "So a completely different car is acceptable because...? What, because the uninformed reader won't know the difference, anyway? That's quite an approach to take to academic integrity." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "you haven't demonstrated that the image produces actual harm in a situation where the image is already available freely and widely, saturating the public awareness in a way that publishing this image is nothing new." (23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I for one have seen the inkblot in Image:Rorschach1.jpg dozens of times previously, even before ever coming to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion it's already pretty much saturated on the net and in general culture, and that's it's been plastered all over the place to most anyone who goes looking for the test." (00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Clearly we've decided to have an article on the test; clearly the image is relevant to that article." [Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is] (21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "a guideline which has years of respect (and even what you might call "enforcement"), including at the Foundation level. One major problem with in-line content disclaimers is that we'll then have to start justifying our failure to place them left and right, all over the place where people might find objectionable content -- not just in an editorial "why" sense, but also potentially in a legal sense. Calling this "just a guideline" is a bit like calling Evolution "just a theory" -- it entirely misses the point, as I see it. Is there an explanation for why we're intentionally violating this long-standing and well-respected community norm, beyond "it's just a guideline"? You say there's consensus for that on this particular page; given recent debate, it's clear that's disputed." 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer (22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "where's the evidence seeing the image potentially causes significant harm? It keeps getting mentioned, yes, but I notice the answers become evasive or repetitive when I ask for evidence." (01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC) "That's one reason I keep asking for evidence of actual or potential harm. Then we move from a bunch of random people quibbling into actual professional opinion on the matter. And I'll take this opportunity to once again point out that you've yet to provide any evidence of that sort, despite my having asked for it numerous times. "
19. hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "I tried to remove even simply the disclaimer (not even the hide box) and I was promptly reverted. Wikipedia has no disclaimers. The policy doesn't need to be cited. It's the entire policy. It is a disclaimer, and Wikipedia "has no disclaimers", therefore, it needs to be removed." (21:07) "The one I am specifically talking about is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. However, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Not censored, and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image are all relevant." (21:44) "All articles are covered by the five official disclaimer pages." (18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC) supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ([hiding / disclaiming images is] "in breach of Wikipedia guidelines & policies") (20:02) "If one wants to actually take the test without knowing anything about it, he/she shouldn't research it on an illustrated, uncensored encyclopedia." [on new voices calling for unhidden display of images] (23:07) "it's better to have new, unbiased people voice their opinions rather than people with personal feelings on the subject matter."
20. Garycompugeek (talk · contribs) (21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) "Hiding the pictures sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow it on this article we must allow it on all articles. It is understood why you are doing for respect for the test but in reality you are censuring the picture unless it is clicked on." (01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This precedent will not stand. Consensus doesn't appear to favor hidden images. Policy clearly dictates against it. Why the revert? Your admins. Enforce policy." (20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "I feel the entire article would be damaging to anyone who would be taking the test therefore hiding an image should be pretty moot." (23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Once again since the image is all over the internet, why is Wikipedia hiding it? (14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I feel current page violates numerous policies which could be rectified by unhiding the image." (20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "This matter has been talked up and down the pike. Consensus and policy clearly lean towards unhiding picture. I move that an admin unhide the picture." (15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Arguments are made and weighted accordingly." (17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) "I sympathize that seeing the images before the test may damage test results. Certainly if Wikipedia was the only place one could easily see the test images the above arguments would have much more weight but that is not the case. Not only have they been in the public domain for a very long time but are lambasted all over the internet. Trying to track down these images and having them removed or hidden seems virtually impossible and going to one particular site like Wikipedia (IF we were to remove or hide them) would also seem a pointless and thankless task. My point is the damage has been done and we cannot put the genie back into the bottle." (21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "I would say consensus in this matter has changed (it has been talked up and down) to show the ink blot on top of the page (and maybe move Herman's picture to history section) and would say that a majority of us feel this way. I respect everyone's opinion who has commented on the matter regardless of whether or not I agree with you. I am moving both pictures but will not edit war and revert this change. The next step would be arbitration but before anyone goes there think on this... if you cannot convince us then I doubt they will prove different for this seems an unbiased group of seasoned editors."

    Was the filing party of a recent AN3 report [31] in which he was the other reverting party, the result of which was an agreement to not revert over the image for 1 week.

21. Fredrick day (talk · contribs) (00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I don't see any consensus that the images are to be hidden - I see lots of argument about it, so I have removed the disclaimer and remove the hide - because if this page is in dispute, surely we default to (as noted by Luna) the long-standing and well-respected community norm. Otherwise, I think we'll have to get involvement from the wider community." (20:22) "The article has a disclaimer that breaches the spirit of our policies on disclaimer and I'd argue also breaches "no medical advice" - we have a general disclaimer for such matters. More broadly, there is NO consensus on this page to hide the images and therefore we fall back on accepted community thinking on such matters - images are not hidden." (00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "moving it based on a "scroll" argument is bogus because we have no stats on resolution, screen size, dimensions etc - it's based on an assumption, I see the image as soon as I log-on. So if you move it to cover landscape editors then you are making special allowances for groups of users - strictly prohibited by policy."
22. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk · contribs) (05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "You can add me to the list of people who believe the image should not be hidden. There appears to be a consensus emerging. Unless a lot of editors suddenly decide to support keeping the image hidden, the recent conversation here clearly indicates the picture should be unlocked." (23:00) "This image should clearly be openly available as per WP:NOTCENSORED, unless there is consensus to hide it per WP:IGNORE. The consensus emerging is to unhide the image, and I concur strongly with that sentiment."
23. Schutz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "I am strongly against hiding the image, and I am against a disclaimer (but not as strongly). (...) Are there really many people who would be looking for information about this test and would not want to see the image ? (...) There is also another factor that makes me think that the hiding is useless: I have never taken the test, and I have never searched actively for the images of the cards; however, I could have described pretty accurately at least the first card of the test, because I have seen it countless times in movies, comics, etc. To me, it is public knowledge, and I don't think it makes any sense to hide it. (...) Wikipedia pages should be written so that they are as versatile as possible; hiding the image under a "show" button does not help very much if the article gets printed" [as the image] "is hidden by default (...) However, I am entirely in favor of adding to the article and to the description of the image a (sourced) note indicating that some people believe that viewing the image beforehand may invalidate the test; this is an encyclopedic piece of information that I think is very interesting; it should not, however, have any influence on our policies and the way we present this topic." (17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "I feel that you have incorrectly reversed the burden of proof; we are building an encyclopedia, and we want it to be as comprehensive as possible, so by default, we are here to provide information. This test is an encyclopedic topic, and the image is without doubt of interest in relation to this topic (I don't think anyone disputed that); from this starting point, I believe that people who do not want the image are the one who must provide the definitive argument. I have read these arguments, and I think I understand them, but to me, given the evidence presented, they do not carry enough weight to go against this basic principle of providing the information. There will never be an opportunity to reach a conclusion (and I don't see how any objection has been proved wrong, on one side or another); I think all the arguments have been presented, and different people will take them into account in different ways and will make their mind accordingly." (19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) "Wouldn't the article itself be at least as damageable to a potential patient than the description of the test ? (...) A patient who has read this description would probably be very careful about not saying anything until he had thought long about it; would it be any less damageable than seeing the image itself ?" (06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...the scientific community has no business telling people (...) what is good for them to see or not (if only because the scientific community can not pretend to know that)."
24. Bryan Derksen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) "IMO it's ridiculous. Anyone who has enough interest to actually examine the inkblot in detail will do so, and those without the interest probably won't be "tainted" in any meaningful sense by glancing over it. But regardless, we shouldn't be making special exceptions to our standards based on the sensibilities and opinions of tiny minorities like this."
25. Oahiyeel (talk · contribs) (10:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Agreed.")
26. MasonicDevice (talk · contribs) (02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) "Agreed. Don't censor/disclaim to benefit movie studios or medical field or religions."
27. Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("No way. Can't believe this is even getting this much delay honestly.")
28. Black Falcon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "In addition to the various arguments noted above, "the lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (quoted from WP:NDA). Moreover, the arguments used to justify the use of this disclaimer could justify the presence of a disclaimer on virtually any medical article. After all, one could argue that an encyclopedia article discussing the symptoms of a disease could be "fuel for the fire" for a hypochondriac. Should those articles have disclaimers? Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is unambiguous: no disclaimers in articles. No exceptions." (00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "I find it implausible that someone visiting the article and wanting to know about a test would not expect to ... well, actually find out about what the test involves." (06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "Since hiding the image constitutes a major deviation from established practice and policy, the burden of forming a consensus rests with those who advocate that the image be hidden, not vice versa."
29. Prolog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC), supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in psychology. Policies cited above are quite clear on this.") (23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "...the image should be shown inline per usual practice. {{linkimage}} was a template with a function identical to the wikitable currently used in this article to hide the image. The result of the TFD and the resulting DRV was that the "show/hide" system should not be used anywhere in the project."
30. Jahiegel (talk · contribs) (04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC) , supported the straw poll option Image should not be hidden & have no disclaimer ("One is spared my usual verbosity here, as Black and Bryan, inter al., put the case quite well.")
31. Rossami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ==The image is already public== "I have to say that I think this whole dispute is a tempest in a teacup. That image is already widely known and universally recognized as part of the Rorschach test. It's in pretty-much every Psych 101 textbook and in a vast number of pop psychology articles and books and has been for decades. To the extent that prior exposure to the image compromises that part of the test, any theoretical damage was done many years ago. Having the image on the page adds so little incremental exposure that the damage, if any, is in my opinion trivial. It's certainly not enough to deserve this level of debate and dissent among well-meaning Wikipedians."
32. Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "...looking over the recent debate, I tend to agree that consensus currently is to show the image by default. I will unprotect and unhide the image shortly, though I would not be surprised if warring over the image resumes." (15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) "those opposing hiding the images have policy and guidelines on their side: WP:CENSOR, WP:No disclaimers in articles, WP:Content disclaimer, etc. Those wishing to hide the image are relying on a medical reason that is without merit under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That isn't to say that I don't understand the concern from your end. (...) However, after reading the debate, including the archives of the previous debates, I am of the opinion that consensus has changed, and that the image should be displayed until a better alternative is agreed upon."
33. Clpo13 (talk · contribs) (10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) "It's one picture in a test that is widely considered to be pseudo-science. Even so, I still fail to see how the picture is a problem at all. I've looked through the talk page discussions and the only thing I can gather is that some people are worried that readers of this article will see the picture, note that the caption says something about a bat and a coat of arms, and then be influenced by that in the rather unlikely event that they take an inkblot test sometime in the future. If that's not correct, then it might be handy if someone outlined the problem so that newcomers to this discussion will know the whole story without having to go hunting for it. At any rate, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of certain groups. When your livelihood depends on images that are in the public domain, you have to expect that people are going to come across them. If not on Wikipedia, then somewhere else. The image illustrates the topic, and thus it should stay in full view in a position in the article where it is in context."
34. Dendodge (talk · contribs) (21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) "The images are neither shocking nor explicit. (...) There is no way they will be deleted. There is much more (relevant) policy to support keeping the images than removing them."
35. Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (03:19, 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." (04:33) "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." (05:12) "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." (01:55, 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." (02:10, 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."
36. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk · contribs) (01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "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." (01:27) "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." (02:17) "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." (19:29) "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." (23:16, 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."
37. Apoc2400 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 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." (22:56) "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." (14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "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." (09:26, 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."
38. Shadowjams (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) responding to the RFC on the lead image: "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."
39. Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (responding to RFC) "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." (23:51) "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."
40. HarryAlffa (talk · contribs) (16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "My first thought was that if it's about the test, then the inkblot image is the one to use. If this was an article about the man himself, a biography, then the obvious image to use is of the man. In a biography you would surely use an image of an inkblot somewhere, and in skimming the discussion I gather that one image is considered by some to be iconic? I would guess this would be the butterfly one? Well they all look like butterflys! There can be no argument that a biography would use a portrait image, conversely then an article about the inkblot is about the inkblot, so better show an image of one of those please. Use a portrait later on. Why not have both images in the article?"
41. See #Additional voices

The call

Based on this revision of this page. Additional comments based on amendments and new voices are noted at #The addendum

As I stated above, I came to the article with an eye to making a call on the RFC. Starting around May 14, I took what time I had to review the lengthy history on this matter. Then, on May 21, feeling sufficiently confident of community consensus, made this edit with the edit summary: "consensus seems to exist to move the more descriptive image, being the first inkblot, to the top of the page". I later engaged in discussion on the talk page, starting at Talk:Rorschach test#Other pages with controversial images, a section began by Lawrencekhoo. He moved the image back the next day. Garycompugeek reverted him, and was reverted by Ward. A brief edit war [32] erupted which led to an AN3 report, at which time I felt it necessary to draft this report to demonstrate that consensus is clear on the matter. The initial "consensus" discussion began in May 2007 when Ward joined Faustian and a few other psychologists in demanding the suppression of the image. At that point, it was basically even, 6 mental health professionals arguing with 6 disinterested parties (4 users, 1 anon, and an admin). In the two year period that followed, users regularly edit warred over the images, causing the page to be protected 4 times [33]. During that time, only 7 additional voices, came out in support of suppressing the image. On the other hand, 37 additional voices (23 users, 13 admins, and an anon) agreed that suppression was inappropriate. The ideal place for the Rorschach inkblot image is unhidden, in the lead of the article. Consensus was actually clear as far back as March 2008 (36/12/3) after the failed attempt at using MedCab to enforce suppression. Yet somehow the words of a few interested parties continued to inform our editorial decisions despite the numerous objections (42/13/3) of disinterested editors.

The conclusion

I have no doubt that psychologists do good work.

Editors come from all walks of life including mental health professionals. However, they are all asked to check their biases at the door and edit with an eye to making the encyclopedia as informative as possible. The image is in the public domain, and germane to the article's subject.

Ward pleads, "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." Indeed, Ward and Faustian have written many hundreds of kb's on the subject. Their arguments are often repetitive, and each has been refuted by disinterested parties. The burden of proof lies with those wishing a consensus-other-than-the-norm. The norm is to show the most descriptive image we have available in the lead.

It is clear that many disagree with the suppression the image in any way, shape, or form. It is also clear that it is a very vocal minority, perhaps acting out of deference to their personal and/or professional ethics, who continue to suppress it. "Consensus does not mean 100% agreement."

Consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when half of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body.

I agree with Ward that consensus has not changed. Consensus has been the same, all along. Based on this exhaustive review, and my understanding of Wikipedia's pillars, policies, and guidelines, consensus is clear to this heretofore uninvolved admin that the true inkblot image should appear unhidden in the lead of the article.

–xeno^talk 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion

I'm basically staying out of this debate at this point, but I would like for Xeno to clarify two points so that they are not later misrepresented. I hope Xeno will make his statements here crystal clear:

1. Xeno, are you expressing your opinion in your capacity as an administrator on Wikipedia? Other editors have made comments that "admin Xeno" said this or that, so I think everyone needs to know whether your above comments in this section are as an editor just like the rest of us, or as an admin.
2. If you consider yourself a disinterested party in this matter, does the fact that you have previously taken positions in this debate entitle you to claim "disinterest"? In other words, if you're completely disinterested, you're simply summarizing the discussion and stating what you think the consensus should be, without having a prior opinion on the issue. Do you consider yourself to be completely disinterested, or are you somone who has expressed opinions on this issue (and thus not 100% disinterested), but you are trying to bring closure to the consensus process? Please note that I am not criticizing you either way. You certainly are entitled to try to bring closure, but do you feel that you had no opinion on the issue prior to this "review". Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I have drafted this review and submit the results to the community to do with as they wish. Before I drafted this report, I wasn't willing to rubberstamp my edit as "adminly", because I hadn't made a full examination, but now feel that based on these findings any reasonable admin would come to the same conclusion. So yes, this review, and this edit I see Faustian has already reverted, can be considered as executed in the capacity of an administrator and I will submit the reports to WP:AN for review if editors still disagree.
2. Last week I had a rough assessment of community consensus, so I made a single edit to place the image in the lead with a comment as to my assessment. After I made the edit, I engaged in talk page discourse as any good editor should after making an edit that could be deemed controversial. In this report I have excluded those discussions. Thus, other than that brief discussion, I would consider myself uninvolved and disinterested except insofar as I want to see community consensus enacted and put an end to the long running disruption to the same. –xeno^talk 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus is clear (42/13/3). I have re-applied the consensus edit and submitted the report to AN for review. –xeno^talk 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I say this with no reference to the issue of image placement, and with all due respect to Xeno, I do not consider you (Xeno) to be an impartial, disinterested party because you formed an opinion and expressed opinions prior to your writing this review. I cannot address whether it is proper for you to function as an admin in this situation, but (and again no offense intended here) I personally think it would be best to have an admin who has not had any prior experience on this issue to fill that role if it is needed. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I made a rough determination of consensus absent of my input as of 21:00, 21 May 2009. This review is simply the written form of my determination at the time of that edit. Afterwards, I engaged in talk page discourse, as any reasonable editor or admin should. However, I invite you to raise this concern at the appropriate venue, the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:AN#Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the massive effort you made. A few points of my own:

1. You stated correctly that "consensus is built upon the voices of the many, not the voices of the few (or the two) - especially when over half[14] of those few freely admit conflicts of interest. We must not compromise our ethics as encyclopedists for the ethics of an exterior body." However, nor is consensus a majority vote. Wikipedia:What is consensus? states that "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Furthermore, "[34] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." As you have clearly demonstrated, we have a situation in which, according to the talk pages, the opposing sides have a ratio of 13:42 (with a further 3 arguing for a compromise position only). Consensus of course does not require unanimity, but on the other hand nor is it strictly a majority vote. The voices of 24%-27% of the editors involved ought to count for something and ought to be incorporated into the article. Where is the balance of competing views when they are not? I have initiated a discussion on the talk pages of consensus and am awaiting others' opinions: [35].
2. Your counting seems to be off somewhat. At least one of the 42 people you listed as arguing against having the image hidden were not opposed to having it moved to a different section of the article (indeed, he is the one who first proposed moving it into the test materials section which you are reverting):[36] "...That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) This is one person, at least, who should be moved from the show the image in the lead section to the compromise section. Not everyone who objected to the image being hidden also opposed the version that you have reverted and insisted that the image in the lead was the only way that this could be done. You seem to be mixing up people opposed to hiding the image, with people who want the image in the lead, and inaccurately presenting it as one group, which clearly it is not. While it is safe to say that all of those wanting the image hidden or replaced with a fake one oppose having it in the lead, one cannot assume that every person who doesn't want it hidden insists that it must be in the lead and nowhere else. We already have one example above. The high number of 42 you repeatedly list is therefore somewhat misleading and the total is probably not as lopsided as you suggest.
3. Your numbers do not include those editors such as this one [37] who are not involved in the discussion but who have nevertheless removed the image. Presumably they ought to count also, no?
4. You bring up "wikipedia ethics." Wikipedia is not amoral, and indeed a proposal to claim that wikiepdia has no moral code failed to achieve consensus: [38]. Wikipedia editors are supposed to "negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." There is nothing wrong with taking ethical considerations into account when writing articles. While certainly ethics codes - whose essential purpose is protection of the public good - ought not have veto power over wikipedia content, that does not mean we are obligated to ignore them entirely, either. One of the people on the "show the image" side wrote: [39] "We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible." I hope that this is not your view also.
5. You seem to disparage the fact that one side happens to include several psychologists, based on conflict of interest (see my next point). Psychologists writing about a psychology-related topic should be considered a plus, not a minus. Is it wrong when actual biologists contribute to biology-related articles? When physicians write about medicine-related articles? If the goal is to have the best articles possible, one would hope that people in the field contributing to the articles on topics of which they are experts would be embraced, not driven away or their opinions disgarded when the actual article is created. One would think that the opinion of experts in the field would carry more weight than that of people who know little or nothing about it.
6. You claim a conflict of interest among many of those seeking to not place the image at the top. If someone crosses the line from letting his or her background inform his edits to causing them to compromise his edits I agree. I have not certainly not crossed that line. I have striven to balance ethical concerns (which everyone, not just psychologists) should have with the goal of being as informative as possible. Knowing more about a topic and editting accordingly is not a conflict of interest. An admittedly rough analogy that comes to mind: some creationist putting a lot of stuff into the Darwinian article and then complaining that the biolgists opposing him are doing so out of a "conflict of interest."
7. You seem to frame the debate in non-nuetral terms by referring to one side as seeking to "suppress" the image.

Xeno, the version you are reverting is the one based on compromise. If there is no compromise, there is no consensus. We know that more people prefer to have the image up at the top; however we do not know how many people actually oppose the compromise and insist that there is no other acceptable way. These are two distinct points. Remember Wikipedia:What is consensus?: "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." (bolded parts mine). Your numbers do not address that point.

We ought to see how many people refuse to compromise, and then seek mediation if there is no resolution. I am restoring the previous version, which takes into account the opnions of both those who want the image in the lead as well as thjose who want it hidden, per these comments but will not get into an edit war with you over it. I hope you read and address my concerns before reverting. Faustian (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I have read your arguments with respect to consensus, and the rebuttals. I am still of the opinion that consensus, broadly construed, holds this image should go in the lead.
2. Wikipedians are, on the whole, nice people. So they often say things diplomatically, and speculate about possible compromises. When I placed those 42 editors in the column it was because they argued against suppression. As the support base grew, less and less people were willing to entertain compromises. If you would like to voir dire these numbers, I will ask the editors I've placed to re-affirm or clarify their position succinctly in light of the ongoing erosion of the various compromise versions towards the seemingly logical choice of showing the image in the lead.
3. I have not as yet examined article space edits, though I am interested to see how those data shape up. I'm hoping someone cleverer than I might be able to run a query rather than me having to go through it by hand.
4. I'm not particulary swayed by the hypothetical. I agree that there are certain ethical standards we should hold to as an encyclopedia - one of them is not allowing outside influences to inform our editorial decisions. I agree with you that our goal should be to create the best articles possible.
5. In writing this, I was of course concerned that it may be viewed as such. I have no problem with expert attention to the article; I'm sure it has benefited greatly from it, however, they must bring with them an encyclopedia editor's hat.
6. Fair enough, I'll accept in good faith that you strive to be impartial while editing the article.
7. Suppress is simply the most accurate word I can think of to apply to the following actions taken on the image: deleting, removing, hiding, replacing with false or re-touched images, moving below the fold.

As I said I don't believe we should compromise our editorial integrity in this regard and framing consensus to suggest we should isn't a compelling line of argument. Some time later today I will send a note to the people I've referenced in the review and ask them to affirm or clarify their position at which time I will move and/or annotate accordingly.

I feel that consensus is sufficiently clear. Even if a couple of the 42 were to fall into the 3, it wouldn't change the landscape that much. I've said my piece, I won't be making any more edits to the article. I may, however, seek advice on other forms of dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to Faustian's #2: I see what you mean. This should fix that, it was a mistake borne of lack of red bull =] I've also left Black Falcon a note. –xeno^talk 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my points. I really do appreciate the considerable time and effort you put in, and the fact that you have definitely shown that the majority who have taken part in discussions prefer to have the image unhidden versus hidden. I've never doubted that, and indeed had mentioned that this was the case many times, but it's great that we now have it concretely shown. And indeed, the version I have been defending recently includes the real image, unhidden, in the test materials section. With regards to ethics, I think that wikipedia policy is clear in supporting a balance - putting on an editor's hat doesn't mean leaving all ethics outside the door. I find it unfortunate that others don't feel that way. Three problems still need to be addressed:

1. We have no data on the extent to which the group wanting the real image unhidden refuse to accept any placement other than in the lead. I hope that when you ask those other editors, you frame the question appropriately - not "do you prefer to have the image in the lead" but "do you refuse to have the image anywhere but the lead", "are you open to image placement other than in the lead, such as the test materials section", etc. The former position indicates refusal to compromise in any way, the latter does not. Getting the answers to such inquiries would go along way to clarifying how people feel. Until we do, it is premature to declare based on number of opinions that consensus is to put the image on top. So far, we know only that a large majority are opposed to using a fake image or hiding the image. That's all we know concretely. The version that has been reverted does not have a fake or hidden image.
2. As noted, we don't know how many people "vote" by editing - by removing the image altogther. This data would seem to be important. I'm waiting to see that.
3. With respect to consensus, could you please outline your reasoning on why we shouldn't take the minority view into account? I've outlined the reasoning based on appropriate policy pages and essays about why we should. I'd be interested in your reasons why not.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify what position my comments advanced, so here goes: I oppose in principle any form of suppression of the image undertaken for the purpose of suppression itself. Therefore, I oppose altogether any form of "hard" suppression, by which I am referring to actions taken to hide, replace, or remove the image from the article. That being said, I do not necessarily oppose "soft" suppression, by which I mean placing the image "below the fold", if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image (for instance, if the image is more relevant to one particular portion of the text than any others). In other words, I think that the image should be placed where it would best serve to improve readers' understanding of the topic; if that happens to be below the fold, then so be it. I hope that this explanation helps to clarify my position.

On a side-note, I noticed that the article has seen about 12 reverts in the past 72 hours. While there does not seem to have been a technical violation of the three-revert rule, having so many reverts in such a short time does go against the spirit of the policy. I think that the best chance for positive dialogue aimed at resolving the issue would be to focus on having/continuing a constructive discussion and, for now, to pay less attention to the current location of the image in the article; the consensus reached in the discussion will ultimately determine where the image goes. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The test is about much more than the inkblots; it is about the person's perceptions and the analysis of those perceptions. This article is about the test, not the inkblots. The inkblots themselves are necesary but are simply test materials, not test. The article on Astronomy does not have a telescope in the lead. If this were an article about the inkblots themselves it would be a different story. The idea of the test being simply about the inkblots is a popular misconception that is perpetuated by placing an inkblot in the lead. The purpose of placing the inkblots at the top is that they are "iconic" of the test and most easily recognizable. However, a google image search reveals that by far the most common and iconic image is the black-and-white version of the image rather than the actual image: [40]. I think that someone mentioned the possibility of having the black-and-white version at the top, indicated as such, and the actual one in the test materials section. It seems noone followed up on that.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, consensus is not a matter of numbers; nor is a matter of breath, which I fear Faustian and Ward have forgotten. Writing more does not make you more right. Screaming longer and louder than others does not make you more right. I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way, and frankly I'm tired of hearing that if you're not going to back it up. As I said before: we have an article, we have an image relevant to that article, and absent some compelling reason I don't see why it shouldn't be right where it so obviously belongs. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting other editors by implying that they are "screaming". The APA deems it unethical to spread tests around. The purpose of the ethics code is to protect the public, thus the scientists involved in this matter collectively deem it harmful to expose the public to this image (along with any other test materials). You may personally feel differently of course.Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the APA have any opinion on this image, specifically? The apparent lack of one seems telling. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The APA ethics code does not mention any specific test but covers all tests: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code."Faustian (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to thank Xeno for this clear, painstaking and (largely) very fair, summary here of a great deal of debate. Re-reading my early comments it seems that I might more easily fall into a category of `editors who have changed their opinion'. My initial scepticism over protecting the image has largely been replaced by support for the two main protection protagonists, i.e. they have persuaded me with their arguments. But I still feel my most problematic issues (which I must admit are more general) seem to remain unresolved - that test materials should not be shown in Wikipedia and that `Goggle images' shoud not be used as the best yardstick of what is "in the public domain". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But many books written by eminent psychologist also show the blots, such as this, p.1144. which shows much more than we do. Google books finds very many such books. If the APa want them to be secret, they are making very little attempts to enforce that with their membersYobMod 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they know their work can be accessed on googleimages. Interestingly, usage of fake inkblots isn't a problem for Britannica or encarta: [41].Faustian (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The one i linked to is also available in libraries and bookshops (including Amazon and B&N - googlbooks gives links). I have nothing against using "fake" images (at least for the lead - the real one was more useful to me next to the description), but holding wikipedia to a stricter standard than trained and accredited psychologists does not seem a good arguement for it.YobMod 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I commented elsewhere, placing images in books is not the same as online. The fact that this is becoming blurred with googlebooks doesn't change it, and I expect eventually something to be done about it. However the authors don't put the images on the cover of the books. Indeed I have one book with a fake image on the book jacket and real ones within the text. Faustian (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Yobmod, I'm sure if we deliberately go to a library, or even search purposefully on-line for a scholarly text, we can easily find examples. And your points about lack of APA action here are interesting. But my problem lies with frivolous, casual, or even accidental, browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine. For me, two (or several) over-exposure wrongs really don't make a right. Surely, poor control on one part of the web, is no justification for poor control on another or, particularly, here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But you have not demonstrated that the APA or any psyhological association considers any exposure to be wrong. The lack of any response from the APA indicates the opposite. While this is obviously not conclusive, without a single cite to show that this is an ethical breach, we only have your (plural) POVs. Wikipedia cannot assume adding any information is a breach of ethics without any proof whatsoever that this is a widely held oppinion, or we could never add anything! Finally, i don't consider Wikipedia to be frivolous use - our not-for-profit disemination of knowledge is less frivolous than yet another psychologist writing a book for money and recognition. YobMod 08:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ethics code: 9.11. Maintaining Test Security "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." And I'm sorry, but the idea that people write books for "money and recognition" is insulting and sad.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me add to Faustian's response to Yobmod. The ethics code has been cited several times on this talk page (although in Yobmod's defense, he is far from being the only person to make this mistake here). And the APA's ethics code does not exist for "money and recognition". Furthermore, it is generally understood among writers and users of information in scientific journals (including but not limited to psychology) that publication is done to advance science for the common good, not for "money and recognition"; very insulting and sad indeed that someone would make such a misleading and uninformed statement.

Well, I'd certainly write a book for "money and recognition", but I probably wouldn't choose the Rorschach for a subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By "..frivolous .. browsing with a ubiquitous image search engine.." I was alluding to Google Images not Wikipedia. I have no professional knowledge of APA, so I would need to seek advice from those who do. Thanks, Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, regardless of what ultimately happens, I would like to thank you for the mammoth effort you have undertaken in reviewing and summarizing years of discussion Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrary break

Despite my disagreement with Xeno, I would like to thank Xeno for the painstaking work here.
I have tremendous respect for Luna Santin and intend no offense, but Luna Santin, you have simply made a mistake in your comment that "I've never seen anything to support the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical or harmful in any way". Regardless of Wikipedia's policies (which I am not disputing), if you read all of the discussion (including the archives), you will see ample reference to the ethical problems in exposing the image, and by no means is it a "ridiculous claim". I'm not really sure that you really believe professional ethics are ridiculous, but if you do then I would respectfully disagree. But otherwise, thank you for your comments. Ward3001 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I believe professional ethics are ridiculous, not at all; rather, to the best of my knowledge I've never seen you back up your claims of harm. You're doing it again, now: mentioning decisive evidence without actually quite providing it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again with respect, Luna Santin, but your comment (perhaps unintentionally) did include the statement "the ridiculous claim that posting the image is unethical" (italics added), and the APA ethics code has been cited previously on this talk page. As for the issue of harm, if you'll look closely at my edits above, I gave a source that prior exposure to a Rorschach image can damage the validity of the results ([42]) and that tests in general (not just the Rorschach) should have a security level that avoids prior exposure because of compromised validity ([43]). I also provided evidence that the Rorschach can detect suicidality ([44], [45], [46]), and thus if the test validity is compromised there can be cases in which the test can miss detecting genuine cases of suicidality. If you include suicide as a form of harm, then compromising the results of the test can result in missing potential suicide. Now, if you want specific evidence of individual cases in which someone has suicided because he/she saw an image of a Rorschach inkblot prior to taking the test, I consider that an unreasonable demand for evidence because those data will never be available; psychologists do not routinely publish data about individual clinical cases in which test validity might be compromised. And we may not even know the patient saw the image until after the harm is done. But I don't think it takes a great leap in logic to see that if exposure of an image results in an invalid test, and an invalid test can result in missing a case of suicidality, then improper exposure of the image can be a factor in harm to a patient. And that only pertains to the worst case scenario. I have also made comments about less lethal, but nonetheless harmful, possible results from an invalidated test and consequent misdiagnosis ([47]). I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually; I'm going to need some time to think on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. This can be a lot of info to absorb for those without training in the test. Thanks for your efforts here. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again Ward I wholly agree with you. And you have explained part of my original scepticism over protecting the image - the "scientifc proof of harm" would involve unethical, impractical and maybe impossible measures. One group would need to be deliberately pre-exposed to images in a randomly assigned but controlled manner (knowing that this might compromise a later test/diagnosis) and one group not. Then a sufficiently large number of each group would need to be tested/diagnosed (double blind) for a statistically large difference to be demonstrated. But even testing for no genuine reason might be construed as unethical in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In an individual clinical situation (i.e., my patient whom I am trying to diagnose), testing for no reason would have ethical problems, unless the patient and I both are willing for the patient to be a part of a larger study and all the proper protections for research participants are put into place. In that particular scenario, I would not do the testing (another psychologist would), and it would be unknown whether the results would be useful diagnostically until I got them (if I could even get them; that would depend on the conditions determined in advance about release of the data). Much of the suicide research has been done in situation in which patients have been tested for clinical purposes, then the resulting data (along with suicide data) are given to the researcher after the fact (with all the proper confidentiality safeguards, of course). Combine that with the fact that suicide has such a low base-rate, and you can see why such research data are hard to get. And that's all the more reason that we want the data to be as pure as possible (i.e., uncontaminated by artifacts such as prior exposure to a Rorschach image). If even one Rorschach from such a data pool is contaminated, that can be a tremendous loss of invaluable information. The research problems with non-suicide issues are usually less dramatic, but it can still be incredibly difficult to collect such data. The Rorschach is a time-consuming test that isn't always administered in a clinical situation. If we use non-clinical research subjects (i.e., people who aren't being treated or seeking treatment), it can be a little easier to get the data, but then we have the problem of how useful the data are. We might demonstrate that the test is invalidated by prior exposure of an image, but we are not likely then to be able to relate that to "harm" because we cannot (ethically or practically) create situations in which the research subject would experience harm. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My name was not added to the list. I too think that the image should not be suppressed in any way shape or form. A convincing argument has not been put forth to hide it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added you to the addendum at #Additional voices. –xeno^talk 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that my prior interpretation of consensus is in line with this new interpretation of consensus. Sanity checks are always very helpful. Hopefully this edit warring will stop and that image placement consensus supports can remain now. Chillum 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for words like "sanity checks", Chillum. There have been legitimate disagreements here, not problems with "sanity" (literal or figurative meaning). If you mean "accuracy checks", don't forget to count your own edits among those that have needed checking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a check on my own sanity. I often refer to a confirmation or a contradiction of my interpretation of things as a "sanity check". I certainly was not attempting commentary on anyone else(other than my comment about edit warring). Chillum 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to say that I think this edit is productive and informative. I think putting the significance of inkblots in regards to the test as a whole into the caption for the lead image is the correct place for it as such an image needs qualification to avoid misunderstandings. I also agree that the common interpretations of the image belong in the body of the article for pretty much the same reasons. Chillum 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. And this particular test is highly subjective anyway, and people taking it are supposed to make snap decisions upon seeing it (which wouldn;t be all that affected by having seen it earlier), so the odds of this screwing up tests for anyone to any meaningful degree are so low as to be ridiculous. (And are people even still using these? Seriously? It was a nice parlor game about a century ago, but I'd hoped the field had moved on by now.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  The above copied here from "The clarifications" as it was trimmed somewhat in that section. –xeno^talk 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A differing viewpoint further (copied from Xeno's talk page)

This debate reminds me of my previous attempts to edit articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group of which I am a member. After consulting with our world headquarters via snail mail, I accepted their view that "fighting" for a particular presentation of information and suppressing information which we believe strongly to be blatantly false or deliberately misleading would be a fruitless endeavor; we (JWs) have specific venues through which we disseminate information about ourselves, and while lies and misinformation exists, both online and elsewhere, our duty is to "defend and legally establish the good news" through the very basic venues recommended by 1st century Bible writers and our own publications. It is up to others to decide from what sources they will acquire information, whether or not such would prove detrimental; it is simply not our call.

The reason that I bring this up is that I feel that these professionals with an interest in suppression that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards need to take stock of the effectiveness of this fight. Such uses of these now-public domain images permeates our culture (see Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song)#Music videos), inasmuch as misinformation and disinformation thrive in legitimate venues despite the real and potential damage such can bring. These professionals may likewise encounter published bad advice, but attempts to suppress it would likely be ineffective. As Jehovah's Witnesses may attempt to reinforce "true" statements about themselves to individuals may come to them already having taken in misinformation, so too psychologists should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information, but accepting the reality that no one can effectively "win" in arenas so vast and prodigious. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add that my decision for my own editing practices was to avoid editing articles about which I hold such a strong personal view, as such could compromise Wikipedia's highest principles, not simply because such an effort would be ongoing, fruitless, and unbelievably frustrating. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick comment in response to CobaltBlueTony's comments: Though well intentioned, your comments basically are "preaching to the choir". Most psychologists would agree that they "should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information", which is why we have been doing that for many years. But does that mean we should not try to bring to bear our influence in more difficult areas where mental health is jeopardized, such as this Wikipedia article? You're right that it's frustrating, but that doesn't make it less important. Ward3001 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cobaltbluetony, my efforts here may also well turn out to be `ongoing, fruitless, and frustrating' but none of those are good enough reasons for not making those efforts. I also think there may be important differences between the substance of our respective topics. But thanks for presenting a different point of view, which some may find useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The addendum

In this section, I will note clarifications requested and/or made to the review after posting, as well as any additional comments that I noticed after the cut-off revision of the review.

If there is anything in the review that needs clarification, please leave a note at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests.

Degree of involvement

An important clarification request to address is with respect to potential involvement. The question was raised by Ward at #The discussion (a), and Faustian at my talk page (reproduced below). As such, I added a disclosure note above the review.

“ In the interests of full disclosure I believe you ought to state that you had taken a side in the issue and argued in favor of one of the positions: (b). Although your review is based on what was said before you had taken a side, it was written after you had argued on that side. This probably needs to be made clear from the start of your review.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done (c) –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your disclosure statement - thanks, although I feel strongly that you ought to explicitly state which side you took.Faustian (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking a side and re-iterating past positions that led to my determination of consensus are not the same thing. If admins were not allowed to do the latter, we would have to walk about with our mops, heads down, completely mute, and enact consensus without discussing our decisions. I don't think that would be good for anyone. –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Except you did more than reiterate prior positions, you advocated them. Briefly, and in a limited way, but you were not nuetral. That's okay, you have the right to your opinion, but it should be made clear IMO.Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hrm... that must come from my background in argumentation. I will copy your comment to the addendum section. –xeno^talk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

”

The report was also posted for review by neutral parties at the Administrators' noticeboard. It remained there for close to a week, and the conclusion was supported with no concerns raised as to the manner in which it was reached.

Changelog

• [48] Minor changes within 2 hours after transclusion. Grammar, formatting, plus a few dates.
• [49] Fixed Martin's entry as he was in the compromise section in an earlier draft.
• [50] Clarifying header and description.
• [51] Amend per Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion (permlink) cf. Faustian #2 & my reply .
• [52] This change came after Faustian noticed a few missing voices and made note by editing the review directly.
• [53] Added comment from Faustian per request below.
• [54] Per clarification request below.
• [55] Disclosure note as discussed above.
• [56] Per clarification request, added LK's statement in a thread I had initially excluded, with some additional commentary re: involvement.
• [57] Per clarification request, expanded on the AN3 comment to make it clear it ended in mutual agreement.
• [58] To clarify the position of the IP added in change 5.
• [59] Minor clarification plus date of comment, importing proper formatting and linking from original quote.
• [60] Moved table info to footnotes and transcluded addendum.
• [61] Per clarification request, split a section and clarified that the edit war was an isolated incident.
• [62] Also made it clear that Faustian's approach has largely been one of brokering compromises between the two sides.
• [63] A caveat about word choice and making it clear that the dispute has been a civil and rational exchange of opinions, fix a typo.
• [64] Adding further comment from LK per clarification request. Minor format fixes.
• [65] Adding further comment from Saxifrage per clarification request. Added difflink to LK's.
• [66] Fixed one user from rename, added links to now-archived discussions.
• [67] Added permlink in disclosure statement and transclude now-archived discussion about consensus review iteself.

Additional voices

In the original report, I cut off my review at revision 291659328 as after that point I had made comments. However, that doesn't mean additional voices should not be heard. I will note them below and add placeholders in the original report.

• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) commented at Talk:Rorschach test#Arbitrary break: (13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom. (23:30) My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.

The clarification requests

Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page, but preferably below (make each request on its own line prefixed with a *bullet and signed individually) and I will incorporate accordingly. –xeno^talk 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you just want to make a quick clarification or affirmation of your position, see below at #The clarifications.

• (none currently)

The clarifications

Below you can make a quick clarification or affirmation based on your current position towards the placement of the image. Simply add your name to the list. Brief commentary is acceptable, but for longer statements, use the clarification requests section.

I feel the image belongs in the lead and would object to it being moved.

• Extensive explanation of my point of view is in the archives. Chillum 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto. My opinions are in the archives (see a summary here.) hmwithτ 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• My position is as demonstrated at Talk:Rorschach_test/2009_consensus_review. We can not possibly hope to accommodate every editor's personal viewpoint, and to try to do so would result in this project becoming utterly worthless. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) in the cylindrical shape of the neuron..
• Xeno accurately represents my position, which remains absolutist, in his review. Joe 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• [68] You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, Schutz (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accurate. In principle, I don't mind moving the image "below the fold" so long as we have an image at the top that is clearly appropriate, but since I object to the portrait, an outline, or a fake inkblot, I can't think what image could possibly satisfy me. I had indicated at some point that I was amenable to including an outline at the top but honestly I don't feel comfortable with it, and was saying that only to try to get the conflict resolved through a lot less effort than Xeno put forth in this review. Mangojuice^talk 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Xeno has summarized my position well. I have watched this page for years. First to get the image unhidden (was amazed we were actually hiding an image) then extensive debates to relocate it to most relevant location. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am of this opinion. I came to this page after the compromise of having the page below the fold was already enacted, and still argued on the talk page for want of seeing it lead the document. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• The image definitely belongs in the lead, a group of experts wanting to suppress the image in the public domain is not sufficient justification to hide / replace with a fake / etc. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• All the ten official inkblots should be shown, with at least one of them in the lead section. Prolog (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Halo (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm a bit late to the party, but I still stand by my earlier comments that the image belongs in the lead as it is a suitable depiction of the article's subject. --clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am open to other options, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead.

• My position is as expressed here and here, and as summarized by xeno. I would not object to moving the image to the "Methods" or "Test materials" section as long as that move was supported by a good editorial reason (i.e. better illustrating the text content of the section) and not just a desire to suppress the image. Having an image in the lead is desirable but, in my opinion, not essential. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Longer explanation in the archives but this argument by Black Falcon summarizes my position well. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel the image belongs in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section.

• This follows wikipedia policy regarding consensus which calls for synthesizing the diverse opinions of various editors and reaching a compromise, taking into account the opinions of editors (not a tiny minority, but 1/3 of those involved) who feel that image ought to be limited for various reasons and those do not want it limited. Otherwise, consensus is reduced to just a vote, which is contrary to consensus policy. Plus, the article is about the test not inkblots and the materials or methods section is the most strictly accurate place for them.Faustian (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel the image should not be shown in the article at all.

• I believe that no real Rorschach inkblot image should be shown in this article, for the reasons I have already given. But if this is not possible I would support an image only in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• When psychologists administer this test, the results are based (in part) on the persons spontaneous reaction to the blot. If they have seen it before (like on Wikipedia) that may well influence their response when taking the test. Therefore that person is then deprived of the opportunity to receive the best possible test results, compromising their mental health care. Monnica Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
• I believe that, even as unexpected as it may sound, in this case the images should not be displayed. There are precedents, and it is contrary to the humane reasons why people gather knowledge in the first place. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am confirming my position in the original report

• Hi xeno, thanks for letting me know about your review of the Rorschach discussion. I just write to confirm that I agree with your summary of my position. --Itub (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like you classified me correctly. You may also be interested to note that there's been a bit of a history of attempts to delete these images from Commons, too: Commons:Talk:Rorschach inkblot test. Not sure how relevant it is as far as English Wikipedia is concerned but it involved pretty much the same reasons. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have no preference where the image should be placed. My opinion being that as an encyclopedia, the image should not be removed/hidden for the sake of censorship. - oahiyeel ^talk 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I prefer the image in the lead, I am willing to accept placing it elsewhere for the sake of compromise in order to accommodate other editors' opinions and bring an end to the dispute.

• 

Other quick clarification

• 

from Faustian

• I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly. Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed." This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing. I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information. While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns. In fact, one of the compromisers, Diego, compromised with exactly the version that I proposed: [69]. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that you have been recently arguing from a position of compromise for some time, however your actual position was made clear with your earlier edits. I have included your comment below your listing. –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  If you look at my history I have been calling for compromise on this article for a very long time, not recently. It's always been central to my approach of editing on any article and I've even been awarded barnstars for such behavior on other topics (just scroll down my user page). I've always valued the collaborative approach and have tried my best to be collaborative. This is why I take issue with how I was characterized.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  An approach to be admired no matter the dispute. When things settle down and I get through your other requests, I'll take a closer look at this. –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, please do. I consider collaborative editing to be very important and do not wish to be mislabelled. Although I do feel that it is irrespionsible and unnecessary to show the images, I have consistently for years worked on crafting compromises that take mine and other positions into account. Describing me as "Has edit-warred[5] and argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed" seems to ascribe to me motivations of bad faith and I hope that this can be reworded. Let me help you by diggin up examples of my consistent attempts to forge consensus through compromise:

  By September 2007, I went from my original position of preferring simulations of inkblots to defending a compromise version that someone else had created, in which the images are hidden and require a click: [70]. Here [71]in October 2007 I expressed openness (albeit with reservations) for a further compromise by another editor involving unhiding the image but placing it further down, although I continued to advocate for the previous compromise of keeping the hidden image:

  Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yet another agreement to a proposed compromise solution, a few days later:[72]. In March 2008 I agreed to the unhide but compromised by moving the image further down: [73]:Oops, my mistake. :-) That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) That would work, too, and I will move it there.Faustian (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) And with that latter compromise the page was stable for about a year, until the current bickering. I will note that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor. I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input.

  Back to my point, again, I feel that given my history I ought to be in the compromise category. Hopefully the background I found for you will help you make a change sooner than later.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  As for my edit warring, in the example you linked to I was reverting an anonymous editor who made changes without going to the talk page. My 2+ year history of involvement on this article has few edit warring incidents, so I feel it gives ann unfair impression of me when in my description one of the first said about me is that I "edit-warred". I request that you reword my description.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   Done [74] I believe I have addressed your above concerns, but let me know if I missed anything.

  Faustian, it is my honest opinion that you are in the appropriate section. The "Editors compromising" section is for those who, preferring open display, are acceding to some suppression in the interests of compromise/diplomacy/avoiding edit wars/etc. You, on the other hand, admit that you have been acceding to (increasingly open) display since editors, over time, no longer wanted to accept whatever form of suppression was in place. That is, your starting position is "prefer not to show at all". The fact that you broker compromises is to be commended, but doesn't change this fact. Am I wrong? –xeno^talk 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Your description is absolutely correct (although my preferred position has shifted to wanting the image hidden with a click to see the actual image, although we have moved beyond that). I just feel that compromise can work from both directions - some compromise from the position of let's show it completely, others compromise from the opposite direction.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on this: [75]MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk · contribs) also needs to removed from the "Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image" and placed in the compromise section: "Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that." Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Done –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  ThanksFaustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• In future edits, for the sake of accuracy, if you must use only 2 numbers I suggest you place compromisers together with no "suppressors". Incidentally, we seem to have a ratio of about 1/3 to 2/3. Is there any way of coming together or do the 1/3 people don't count when the actual article content is considered?Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  If I refer to numbers in the future, I will use all three numbers. I don't think we can lump compromisers cleanly into either polar side, some lean one way, some lean the other. Your question (does the minority not "count") is a good one, but beyond the scope of my report and probably best taken up at WT:Consensus#Is consensus compromise? and sometime in the future, when things settle down, I will try to compose my thoughts on this in further detail. –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• And you probably should have included Lawrence Khoo's clearest comments: "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC).cheers,Faustian (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Done [76] I had initially not included this section as I had participated, but as this comment occurred prior to that, it should be fine. –xeno^talk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks!Faustian (talk)

• Thanks for including my comments. Could you recategorize MarkAnthonyBoyle [some redundancy redacted] and could you remove Black Falcon from the list? Thanks....Faustian (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  No problem. Already  Done and  Not done per above and below, respectively. –xeno^talk 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

wrt BlackFalcon

• Based on his comments here: [77] in which he indicated no specific preference (and thus he cannot be categorized) Black Falcon ought to be removed from the list. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  As I read Black Falcon's clarification, it seems to me sufficiently clear that he disagrees with suppression of the image strictly in deference to the potential harm argument. He is willing to entertain the moving of the image for editorial reasons ("if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image"). –xeno^talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, however prior to May 22nd he did support placing it in the test materials section and since then he hasn't made a decision. Therefore he shouldn't be lumped together with those wanting it in the lead.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  In March 2008, he disagreed with the hiding (via collapsible table) of the image which was the issue at the time, so I think he is appropriately placed. However, if he tells me that he does not belong in that section, I will move him. –xeno^talk 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  His solution to the hiding was to place the image in the test materials section, unhidden. If he feels that it truly belongs there his catgory should be swiitched. If he is unsure of where it belongs he should not be in any category.Could you ask him if he prefers being in either section or in no section as an undecided?Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I will ask him. I am also pondering a suitably neutral way to contact all the editors I've counted to make sure I haven't misrepresented them. –xeno^talk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As both of you have correctly noted, my position was and is that the location of the image should be determined based on where it best fits the text, regardless of whether that is above or below the fold, with the ultimate purpose of improving readers' understanding of the subject. I am not so much concerned about not having an image for the lead as I am about letting a desire to "soft suppress" affect the decision of where where the image is placed.

Part of me thinks that it may be worth, at this point, to compromise for the sake of compromise itself, just so that this dispute can be over. I do not doubt that most parties on both sides have pursued it in good faith, but I also think that it has largely run its course, in that there is little or nothing new to be said about the issue (desirability/undesirability) of suppression. Regardless of which particular column my name is added to, there is at least a two-thirds majority opposed to the very principle of suppressing the image. To me, this suggests that any continuing discussion about the placement of the image should leave alone the issue of suppression and focus on standard, editorial reasons. One mark more or less in a particular section won't make much difference.

By the way, I know that most of the discussion so far has considered the options of placement in the lead and in the "Test materials" section, but I would like to offer a middle-point: the "Methods" section, which starts with the following text:

There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored. After the individual...

I think that this could be a fitting location for the image—i.e. the place where the image best serves to illustrate the text. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, I don't think it should be moved because it could harm readers. hmwithτ 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So would you be willing to accept the image in the test materials section rather than in the lead?Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If there was consensus that was where it fit best in the article and there wasn't a better image of the test. However, at the current time, the inkblot is the best image to use, so it should go on the top right (per WP:MOS). I can't think of an image that would be better in the lead, besides perhaps an image of the test being given, but if someone did find one, that new image could go at the top. This article should be treated no differently than any other article. The best image of the topic in the lead, others in relevant sections. Normal procedure. hmwithτ 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From Ward3001

• I'm sure "Rorschach" is your least favorite word right now, and understandably so. Let me reiterate my appreciation for all your hard work. I know you have your hands full right now, but when you get a chance I would appreciate your considering a point I wish to make here. You mentioned the AN3 report on me (Was the subject of a recent AN3 report), which I think is acceptable, EXCEPT you have not mentioned that Garycompugeek is as guilty as I was of edit warring. I don't think it is sufficient to simply provide a link to the AN3 report without mentioning our mutual guilt in edit warring. I'm not asking you to accuse him of anything, but I think it is only fair if you mention the report about me, there should be some statement as to his involvement. This is not a vendetta against him, just a desire to have a fair and balanced reporting of the situation. If you feel it best not to bring him up in relation to that issue, I think you should remove any mention of it whatsoever. If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments Ward. I hope you, as well, realize I am attempting to remain as neutral as I can throughout this and am certainly willing to look at any instances including this one where you feel I may have fallen short of the mark. I would also like to re-iterate that I have no problem with professionals/experts editing Wikipedia articles in their chosen fields (it only makes sense... I edit video games - perhaps the only thing I can consider myself an expert on ;>). As to your clarification request:  Done [78] [79] Is this better? –xeno^talk 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite acceptable. And I fully understand your comments about experts. I personally think that Wikipedia should have some degree of editorial oversight by established experts for some articles, but that's a much broader issue that goes beyond any disagreements (or agreements) between you and me. Thanks again for all your efforts on the Rorschach issue, including this most recent request by me. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From others

From Lawrencekhoo

I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter. LK (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done [80]. –xeno^talk 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From Saxifrage

• For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  So, just to clarify, do you fit into any of the above pre-written statements? (If not, I'll just indent your section and include this comment below it) –xeno^talk 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  The categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is "prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end." — Saxifrage ✎ 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Based on the above, you don't move from your spot in the review, but I'll add your comments below your line item.  Done [81] –xeno^talk 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sections subsequent to 2009 consensus review

Custody & patrole hearings

I added a fact tag to a sentence in applications. It is entirely possible that the cite for the next sentence mentions this, but if so, i think it still should say the test is controversial in the US due to its use in these hearings (or that it is controversial because it is used in US hearings). I've never heard of custody battles in the UK or Germany using this test, so if the claim is for world-wide use and controversy, more sourcing is needed.

Also, the does the source for the APA ethics of "maintain the integrity and security of test materials" mention this test? Is a separate source not needed to show that some believe that showing the test counts as not maintaining the integrity? Word-association tests do not require that a person has never heard the word before, so it seems a debatable issue (presumable all psychologists agree with the APA ethics rule, but some disagree that this would be a breach of them - otherwise no psychologist would have ever written a book with the images in). Hast there ever been a hearing or loss of licencing from the APA over this?

More questions i had that i don't think the article covers: If seeing the inkblots damages the test results, can a person only be given the test once? Are there alternate blots for long-term patients? "let's try the inkblots again" is something one hears a lot in fiction, implying that this sort of test can be used repeatedly - are there rules for repeated use, or difference criteria to assess responses after the first ones?

Very little of the "methods" section is sourced. All the arguing over image placement seems to have distracted from more important work on the article content and sourcing :-(. YobMod 10:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The APA ethics code does not mention any specific test. The ethics code's purpose is to protect the public; keeping test information secure protects the public, insomuch as prior exposure to the test compromises its usefulness. In terms of retesting, a general rule of thumb is not to retest a person for at least a year, although this isn't always practical. I doubt that the authors of some of these books are aware that the images can be accessed through googlebooks. I don't now about Germany, but the Rorschach is widely used in Spain and Latin America.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i agree it is widely used in Germany, just not for custody or patrole hearings. I assume the authors of the books do at least understand that these books are in public libraries - they are certainly not secret in any way. From my (limited) understanding of a APA, any breach of it's ethics code is a very serious matter, and can result in revoking of membership. If this has never happened, in spite of numerous publications of the blots by pschologists, it implies that the APA do not consider it a breach of ethics - hence why it needs more sourcing.YobMod 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between placing an image in a book and plastering it on the internet or making it widely visible. none of the books you mention has a Rorschach image on the book's cover or sleeve.Faustian (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, as you seem to admit, those authors have published the test images in such a way that they are readily accessible by the public, without anything in the way of apparent repercussions. Why is that? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They are published in scholarly works typically found in university or hospital libraries rather than public libraries or bookshops. Thus they are not "readily" accessible. This is different from putting something on the internet where it does indeed become widely available. Scholars must and do exchange information, for research and training purposes. This means stuff gets into books. But ethics do call for making reasonable efforts to safeguard information for the public good. In this case, the images are not on the book cover and when these scholars write in popular magazines or general publications (such as Scientific American or Britannica) they use fake inkblots in those articles. If those scholars had put the images on the internet there indeed likely would be repurcussions (and no scholar has done this, not even the ones like Woods et al who have harshly criticized the Rorschach). Googlebooks access to the images seems to be one of those cases where technology moves forward in unplanned directions, not always good from the perspective of public good. It wouldn't be the only case of technological progress have bad repercussions, think of online support groups for unrepentant pedophiles.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed where i stated that these books are avaiable in both public libraries and amazon and B&N. The link takes you to the pages that sell them to the general public. Saying they are limited to acedemic or clinical setting is simply not true.YobMod 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the advent of the internet age it was much more difficult to get this information because one had to go to academic or hospital libraries or order them from the publisher (or buy them from the university bookstore if they're used as textbooks). They don't sell these books in Borders or other bookstores and they generally don't have them in neighborhood libraries either. The mass availability through amazon etc, is a very recent phenomenon and as is often the case technology moves forward in unexpected ways, usually good but not always. Putting images into an academic text that can be bought online is not the same as posting ther images on-line.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular book is available from over 50 used book stores. Not just Amazon.com mind you, they are just the venue. These are independent used book stores, you can also buy it new from Amazon.com, or if you prefer a brick and mortar book store you can use Barnes & Noble. And the image of the inkblot is on the front of the book, at least partially. These books are made available to the general public in the corner book store and do show the images. I don't think Dr. John E. Exner Jr.(Executive Director of the Rorschach Workshops, which he founded in 1968; and Curator of the Rorschach Archives and Museum in Bern, Switzerland) did anything unethical by publishing this book in that manner either, if someone looks it up in the library or at a book store that is the information they will get. I don't see why such importance is being attributed to the medium in which the information is published. Book store, Internet, carrier pidgin, it all makes very little difference from an ethical point of view. Chillum 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a forensic psychologist, so I may not have much to say here. But a couple of corrections, Chillum. Major correction: the image on the cover is not from a Rorschach inkblot. Minor correction: John Exner is deceased. One additional point not in response to Chillum: we need to distinguish between forensic uses (e.g., custody and parole) and clinical uses. Clinical patients generally have no interest whatsoever in learning lots of details about the test. At most, they may have a bit of curiosity. In the 20 years that I have used the Rorschach clinically, I have never known of a patient who would go to the trouble to gain access to a book about the Rorschach, online or elsewhere. Most are too preoccupied with many other problems in their life and desperate for someone to help them; they have little or no interest in trying to figure out the test in advance in order to manipulate the results in some way. If they do have that little bit of curiosity, they're likely to read about it in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

YobMod, did you mean custody and parole? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So...

Is it over? Is the page going to remain like this? Can I remove the RfC now? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The RFC had already expired (30d). I'm going to shortly notify the participants to ensure I have represented their positions accurately. –xeno^talk 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea Xeno, lets remove any doubt as to the interpretation of other people's stances. Chillum 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. First time using one; didn't know they were set to expire after a month. Thank you for the correction and for your continued efforts. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The notes have been sent, so now we wait. –xeno^talk 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach" = dubious

NOTE FOR CONTEXT: This section arose after DreamGuy claimed that the 80% figure was inaccurate (his first claim) and dubious (his second claim)

Direct quote: ""over 80% of clinical psychologists engaged in providing assessment services use the RIM in their work" (p. 402). Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE FOR FURTHER CONTEXT: I labeled it dubious because it is inaccurate. I don't know why you felt the need to add that text at the front, but it sounds like you were acting like the statements are contradictory. DreamGuy (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was necessary for me to provide the context because you did not provide any context. And to clarify, you first placed an inaccurate word in the statement contrary to the source (you inserted "personality" before assessment), and then when that was removed, you stated that it was dubious. Someone coming into this discussion without knowing that background could be more than a little confused. Ward3001 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty self-evident, especially to anyone who would look at the article history. And "personality assessment" is absolutely NOT inaccurate. Personality assessment is a specific kind of assessment, even though you don't seem to understand that there are different kinds of assessments. DreamGuy (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the source used the term "personality assessment", not just "assessment"? And I'm not asking for your opinion about what "seems pretty self-evident". I'm talking about accurately representing a source cited in the article. So did the source use "personality assessment" as you originally claimed? Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you've proven that the line in the article is inaccurate. It says: "80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach" Clinical psychologists are only a subset of psychologists. Experimental psychologists and cognitive psychologists assess people all the time, and certainly would not use inkblot tests as a method. We also need to know which psychologists were covered by the survey of "clinical psychologists" -- considering that the survey was administered by the Society for Personality Assessment, it's likely they only surveyed their own members and, when presenting the results, didn't explicitly spell out "80% of the psychologists we surveyed" in every line, assuming that would be understood. And these kinds of posts are better suite for the article talk page, not mine, so all the editors interested in the article can see the conversation, so I have moved them here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Experimental psychologists don't do any assessments. If someone writes "80% of doctors delivering babies", do you think they include radiologists in that figure? The statement is accurate because it is clinical psychologists who are the ones doing assessments. And the source doesn't refer to what the authors surveyed. It refers to a review of literature of surveys on the subject. Stop splitting hairs to try to make a point, stop tendentious editing, and please read the source if you want to challenge it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What bizarre definition of the word assessment are you using here? Experimental psychologist most certainly do make assessments. You can't just define "assessment" to mean "whatever people who use the Rorschach test do" and then say that people who do assessments use Rorschach tests. You're making circular arguments here, and it's slanting the coverage of this topic quite severely. And when I tried to clarify it to mean "personality assessment" -- which is apparently what you as well as the source you cite are trying to claim "assessment" to mean -- you reverted that change. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And please tell us how many experimental psychologists administer psychological tests (not just the Rorschach; all kinds of psychological tests: intelligence, achievement, neuropsychological, interest inventories, etc. etc.). Of course every human being does an "assessment" as in "I assessed the traffic situation and decided not to cross the road", but that's not the professional meaning of the word now is it? But that is not a "psychological assessment". Once again, you are splitting semantic hairs over the meanings of words that have a clear meaning to the average reader. So tell us which tests experimental psychologists routinely use. Ward3001 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of what DG proposes is original research, but I'll go ahead and change the article to state "over 80% of clinical psychologists". Faustian (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not original research, it's simply understanding the English language and realizing that claims made must be kept within proper context so as not to mislead people. And your change does not solve the problem because we don't know who this very biased source surveyed in order to make that statement. Was it a representative sample all clinical psychologists (presumably limited to a geographic area) or member of their organization? These all make a HUGE difference. Please explain exactly who this survey was aimed at and the methodology involved so our readers can get a fair and accurate understanding of the statistic's relevance. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, what is this mysterious "their organization" that you refer to? The survey information is from a reliable source, and it is sourced within that source with reliable sources (peer-reviewed academic journals). If you want to challenge a reliable source, find that source and dispute its contents, or find another reliable source that states otherwise. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. A citation to a reliable source stays intact until it is properly challenged with evidence to the contrary. You're the one challenging the information. You need to point out the specific fallacies in the reliable source. Have you read the source? Have you read the sources referred to in that source? If not, you need to begin by doing that, then make your challenges; otherwise you're challenging something without even knowing what it says or what it is based on. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific fallacies in the source are that the editor who added it did not give information about the metasurvey and thus is suggesting that it's all psychologists everywhere (which is patently absurd on the face of it) instead of certain kinds of psychologist in certain places. I'm sure you know all about lies, damn'd lies and statistics. This is not some game where you make a vague reference to a book to make a claim you want added to the article and expect other people to go find the context of the source to make the information more accurate, less misleading and not something pushing a POV. You are expected to either provide the proper context for wide-ranging statements or not make such statements at all. And please do not try to tell me how things are done on Wikipedia when you demonstrate very little understanding of the process yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source refers to a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles? Did the authors of those articles use "damn'd lies and statistics", and if so, what did they lie about? Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source states that 80% of clinical psychologists performing assessment services use the Rorschach. That's pretty clearly not suggesting all psychologists everywhere. It's those that perform assessment services. It's not those who only do therapy, or those who only do research with animals, etc. And try to be civil, please ("And please do not try to tell me how things are done on Wikipedia when you demonstrate very little understanding of the process yourself.").Faustian (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"That's pretty clearly not suggesting all psychologists everywhere." And the article was written as if it were all psychologists everywhere, and that individual or individuals was guilty of abusing statistics to spread misinformation, which is why it needed to be changed. And, again, I stand by those words because they aren't being uncivil, just an accurate appraisal of your lack of understanding of rules here and your aggressive stance toward insisting other people do what you tell them to do despite not having a good reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was written "In surveys, 80% of psychologists engaging in assessment utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach the Rorschach.[1]" The actual source stated "over 80% of clinical psychologists engaged in providing assessment services use the RIM in their work" (p. 402). I clarified that by stating "clinical psychologists" (even though most psychologists providing assesment services are indeed clinical psychologists). Thanks for assuming good faith by describing me as "guilty of abusing statistics to spread misinformation."Faustian (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How many inkblot images

Now that we very clearly have demonstrated an extremely strong consensus to include one of the Rorschach images in the lead of the article, we should have a further discussion of just how many images should be in the article. Someone above suggested a whole gallery of them. I think we probably could use at least one or two more: one with color, to show that they are not just black and white, and perhaps one of the ones that critics have suggested were selected precisely because they do have shapes that would appear to be phallic in nature. It looks like there is a wide range of images of these inkblots available at Wikimedia Commons, so it would be no problem to drop links in. DreamGuy (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key question is what information would more than one image bring that one image does not bring? Doesn't the one shown now have color, or do other ones have multiple colors? If a good source can be found regarding the phallic appearance of an inkblot and this has been criticized then I think it is relevant if we have a body of text covering this sub-topic. Chillum 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that dreamguy is just being vengeful for whatever reason: [82]. For whatever reason he's angry and wants to do something that the editors he's arguing with doesn't like. He has a pattern of engaging in conflicts apparently: [83] and [84]. Faustian (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:AGF and inaccurate. But, yes, I don't shy away from conflicts, mainly because some editors like to aggressively start conflicts and throw accusations around and then pretend as if then not letting them continue to violate policies somehow makes me a bad person. But, yeah, so you came to my talk page to try to tell me everyone who disagreed with you was ignorant and acted all aggressive and act shocked, shocked that anyone would decide that that kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a bad person, dreamguy, and my message to you was quite civil and not aggressive whatsoever: [85]. Indeed I was not incivil at all on your talk page: [86]. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. However you felt about my message, it is no excuse for you to act uncivil.Faustian (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "extremely strong consenus": 1/3 of involved editors disagree. Somehow when 80% of psychology schools teach the Rorschach it's not an overwhelming majority, but when 66% of editors want a partiuclar version it's "extremely strong consensus." Unless you believe consenus to mean majority rule or democracy rather than synthesis etc. there is no consensus.

I wouldn't object to a second inkblot, but I would think that to include another one just to illustrate that some of the blots include colors other than black and grey would not be a good enough reason. I am quite interested, though, to see more images generally. Can we include some other sort of visual? A graph, a table, or a timeline maybe? Mangojuice^talk 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be enough to make a gallery of the original inkblots on commons and simply link to that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Or better, create a page devoted to the inkblots, how they were selected, etc. and then include a couple of them there. This page, about the test, emphasizes the blots too much already.Faustian (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The blots ARE the test, so this page cannot emphasize them "too much" -- I mean, come on, that's like saying the article on William Shakespeare concentrates on his body of work too much. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the blots are merely the material for the test. They are no more the test than ink and paper are to Shakepsear's body of owrk.20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy of thinking that the blots ARE the test has only been stated about 15 or 20 times on this talk page. Any first year grad student in clinical psychology knows that there's a lot more to the test than the blots. In fact, most people who take an introductory psychology course as undergrads pick up on that particular fact. As for the incredibly strained logic that "this page cannot emphasize them 'too much'", if we follow that line of reasoning, there would be no words in the article, just a page with inkblots. I suppose that's what DreamGuy is proposing, that we remove any remnant of explanation (not to mention citations to research) from the article and have a page with nothing but ten inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the ultimate low-maintenance projective article. Or would it be just a bit of a white elephant? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any evidence that Hermann Rorschach (and he's the one who selected all of the images) selected any images "because they do have shapes that would appear to be phallic in nature", but if someone has a reliable source indicating that he did, that would be interesting information. Ward3001 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "extremely strong consenus", um, I thought the consensus review was still ongoing, pending submission of final clarifications from all those invited to give them? Will Xeno than come to a final decision? Surely discussion over "number of images" a little premature before then? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was a bit shocked to see the image moved even before the consensus process was completed. I just got a message from Xeno yesterday, and haven't had a chance to read over the whole summary yet. Also, and apparently this needs pointing out, one person summarizing the discussion and declaring his interpretation of it, does NOT make concensus. LK (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My review has been posted at the administrators' noticeboard since May 28th. If you dispute my interpretation of consensus or have an issue with my actions with respect to resolving this dispute, I suggest you raise your concerns at Wikipedia:AN#Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy began this discussion following his threat to do so if I didn't desist from defending my opinion [87]: "I think the compromise is that there's only one image up instead of a number of them. Some people expressed interest in having more images there, and I think that'd be perfectly acceptable. The consensus to have one image was pretty strong, so I suspect editors wouldn't be opposed to having more. If that current situation is unacceptable to you we could hammer out a new compromise, but it might end up being even less desirable to you than the current one.DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Faustian (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat, simply pointing out that the article already leaned too far in favor of kowtowing to the opinions of people like yourself not following Wikipedia policies. Gosh, now I am accused of acting in the interest of what the consensus of editors said they wanted to do instead of promoting the ends of a aggressive minority. Heaven forbid. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Martin, the notes were sent out to verify the respondents positions (as the landscape changed over the last four years). Without a bunch of the respondents suddenly making a complete about-face, my conclusion is unlikely to change with respect to the single image. –xeno^talk 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to the preferences of the majority of involved editors as well as their willingness to compromise or seek consensus. However it doesn't address the issue of consensus itself which is not accomplished by vote. To paraphrase somethng I wrote on my talk page, I asked the "experts" about consensus on their input regarding what consensus means in such a case here on the talk page of the article on wikipedia consenus policy :Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Four people offered their opinions, which seem to have been evenly divided. Two experts felt that limiting the image violates the NOTCENSORED principle, and that this violation trumps any possible consensus. The discussion doesn't make clear, however, if when talking about censorship they are talking about image placement or using a fake image. Two other experts seemed to indicate that a compromise ought to be reached for it to be consensus. One stated "And though we disregard what external organizations want us to write or not write, we do not disregard what our editors want to write and not write." (which I suppose supports a compromise so as not to disregard what some of our editors - 1/3 of the ones invovled here - want). The other states that "Consensus should be, when at all possible, when the concerns of all editors are addressed as much as is reasonable without tilting the individual points too far one way or another. For some topics of discussion this may not be possible (whether a source is valid for example, or whether a subject is presented with a neutral point of view). For yet others it should be possible to work out compromises (designing templates, proposing changes to the MediaWiki software, etc)." In my opinion, moving the image to the methods or test material section would tilt it far in the direction of those who don't want to limit it at all but would still demonstrate some acceptance of the minority's viewpoint, in a way that would probably match the 1/3:2/3 preference for limiting/not limiting the image. It would be a true reflection of what most editors want, and thus actually reflect consenus.

My view is that censorship applies with respect to not including the image at all. However, image placement (in the lead? in the methods or test materials?) is an issue of editorship rather than of censorship. An article isn't "censored" because it's on page 2 of a newspaper rather than page 1. So therefore, IMO, censorship isn't an issue here and thus the rules regarding compromise and taking various editors' opinions apply. If it turns out that your poll shows that the overwhelming majority refuse to want to compromise on this issue, I think that the next step (mediation?) would be in order. But let's see what happens now, first.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to use that line of argument, I'd suggest getting a much wider range of opinions than that of those (not necessarily experts) who just happen to be watching WT:Consensus. Perhaps an RFC on that page, added to Template:Cent. –xeno^talk 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Would that attract people who know the consenus policy or just random people who may not? I would welcome input and the opinions of as many people as possible who know something about wikipedia: consensus. However, I'm afraid that a random sampling of people who may have looked at the consensus page for the first time, in response to the RFC, won't produce a very informed opinion. Is there a group out there somewhere classified as experts of wikipedia policy to whom we can turn to for an opinion?Faustian (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It should attract a wide array of opinions. Experts on Wikipedia policy? The only group close to this would be administrators in general, I suppose (and your mileage may vary!). Remember, our policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive; so what can anyone really "know" about them?...except what has happened in the past, and whether policy as written accurately reflects what actually happens in practice. I think your question of whether a few minority voices can be disregarded in light of a seemingly overwhelming majority is an interesting one and would like to see how it plays out on a wider stage. –xeno^talk 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is one or two exceptions than it seems clear that those voices can be ignored - consensus is not unanimous. In this case, however, we have a substantial number of dissenters (1/3 of involved editors), not just a few in light of a seemingly overwhelming majority. Moreover, looking at the background of dissenters it seems that the more someone knows about the Rorschach the more one is likely to be a "dissenter." I know that no one can "own" an article, but still, it's unfortunate that in this case it is exactly the experts whose opinion is disregarded. Xeno, how would one do an RFC on the consensus issue? I'm bad with respect to such processes...Faustian (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC#Instructions. You've already done step 1, so just add the {{rfctag}} and brief neutral statement as instructed to the top of the section you've already started. Then I'll pop it into Template:cent. –xeno^talk 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm getting into a busy period but will try to do this in the next few days....Faustian (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, can we keep the meta debate about who has done what to whom to a thread of its own? The topic of this thread is how many images to use, the topic of every other thread on this page is all that other stuff unrelated to the article. I think consensus is clear enough to at least resume normal editing. Lets put the sour grapes behind us and talk about the content of the article.

I don't think we have yet been given a good reason for showing more than one pictures. If we have a body of text that shows notable commentary on a specific image fine, but until then I don't see the benefit. Chillum 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chillum, but I am still a little surprised that this is a valid topic for discussion at all, before some kind of satisfactory resolution of the main debate. For the benefit of us non-admins with short memories, I wonder could Xeno briefly summarize the steps that should happen next as part of the review process? I'm sure that normal article editing can now resume but "how many images" just seems a bit contentious right now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You haev to be kidding me. There's plenty of satisfactory resolution to the main debate, and this discussion is an extension of it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my review is complete and I don't really expect the conclusion I reached to change (especially based on the responses thus far). Next steps? Keep editing as you were: with collegiality, using the talk page to hash out disputes. I believe Faustian is still working up the "What is consensus" angle, and I gave him some advice above on that. The issue of whether to include more than one Rorschach image is beyond the scope of my review. That being said, I don't see more than one person who is arguing for more inkblot images. I note that the commonscat template at the bottom can lead one to more images if the one shown here leaves one wanting. –xeno^talk 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well since we are not sticking to the subject of the thread I will comment on the topic that seems to be dominating it. I seriously think those challenging the consensus now would say there would be a consensus if only 1/3rd of the people wanted the image at the top and the rest wanted it moved or removed. I strongly suspect that those challenging this evident consensus are doing so because they do not like the outcome. There is clearly no consensus to deviate from our normal style of presentation for an article, and plenty of agreement to follow it. Perhaps consensus will change about this in time but it is in clear favor of the image being at the top at this point in time.

I agree that this is probably not the best time to request more images. I certainly think if we do add more images there needs to be a very good reason, and a body of supporting text that is well sourced and justifies the addition. I have not seen that yet. Chillum 04:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as LK (talk) has pointed out, the normal style of presentation for an article in which the image is controversial is to include the image (rather than censor it or hide it) but to move it further down the page. This is how it was done in, say, the articles about Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively). If the ratio were reversed I would still call for a compromise, although it would have to be one closer to the position of those who don't want the image up to reflect the range of people's opinion accurately. I would NOT just disregard the 1/3 who disagreed with me, which apparently much of the current 2/3 majority would like to do with the opinion of the 1/3 minority.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There's no real consensus for handling controversial images in that way, and the kind of controversies involved there are not the same as the false, manufactured one here. And you have been readily ignoring anyone who disagreed with you for years, so to claim you wouldn't if the situation were reversed doesn't ring true. The 1/3 minority seems to be making its opinions based upon personal beliefs and not Wikipedia policies, so, like all editors who want to ignore policies, yes, those people can be safely ignored. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been offering various compromises for years, not ignoring others' views: [88]. Rather than make personal attacks I suggest we stick to the ideas. We have two links to two articles in which images are controversial, in which the controversy was handled not by removing the image or placing it in the lead but by keeping it while placing it further down the page. Wikipedia policy states that consensus involves compromises between various opinions [89]: "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."Faustian (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Though if there is any relevant and reliable information on the significance of color in the images, I must say this is striking: File:Rorschach_blot_08.jpg. Chillum 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping with the original topic, I'm not sure how much information an additional image would add. A colour blot might add something, but if any other related media can be found it would probably be preferable to simply sticking another ink blot image on here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who know of my previous contributions might guess my position on this one. The words `wound', 'salt' and 'rubbing' spring to mind, but not necessarily in that order. Do editors really think that, in view of the huge effort expended in the debate over the past two years on the use and location of one single image, and the massive review effort by Xeno, this question is the best one with which to develop the article? Or is this communal "wiping the slate clean" a necessary part of "proving" that a new "extremely strong consensus" really has been established? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who have read other editors' comments above know that the question is valid and consensus has been established pretty conclusively on one aspect and should be further hammered out on some others. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your zeal for better construction here seems just a little daunting. Hammer away, but count me out, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what hammers and sickles have to do with the debate, but I do know that this consensus was reviewed and confirmed by a venue composed of uninvolved people very familiar with our policies: [90]. I find it disingenuous to say that there is no consensus. Of course it is not a vote and of course 2/3 does not automatically beat 1/3, we all know that. But when the 2/3 base their opinion on policy and the 1/3 use opinions outside of policy, and then several independent parties review the consensus and confirm it, then yes that is a consensus. I suggest you focus more on trying to change people's minds about the arguments you are making instead of attempting to discredit what is clearly the preferred decision of the community. Chillum 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

We are here to write an encyclopedia. We are not here to represent the organizations we come from / are affiliated with or to push the agenda of said organizations WP:COI. We are here to provide information not to sensor it. It would be interesting to see all the inkblots with a description of each on. I agree however that this should take place on a seperate page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Doc, a couple of questions. First, how do you propose providing a "description of each"? I realize that psychologists' opinions don't matter here, so am I correct in assuming you do not prefer using the terms that are generally used by psychologists (Card I, Card II, Card III, etc.)? Do you suggest placing your own interpretation of each (e.g., "This one looks like a bat to Doc James")? Or do you prefer citing one of several non-professional websites that indicate the "normal" response for each card? If you suggest the latter, are you aware that if someone follows the advice of these websites he/she will actually produce a more pathological Rorschach than the average uncoached responses? So which is your procedure for "describing" the inkblots?

Second, which of us here "represents the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", and how did you arrive at that conclusion for each? Name each of us specifically who represents an organization, name the organization we represent, and tell us how you determined how each of us was placed into that position of representing that organization. Don't neglect to include any organizations that you represent. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The images are collected on the Commons -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I work for a company that sells books. As a result I may be bias towards informing people about the topic they are seeking information on. Chillum 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)