Talk:Rorschach test

Important notice if you think that the Rorschach image inkblots should not be displayed: Extensive discussions and efforts have taken place. 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.

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

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#Too much James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld et al?.

2009 consensus review

See Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

The discussion

Archived to Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review#The discussion (Feel free to continue discussion regarding the consensus review below)

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

• [1] Minor changes within 2 hours after transclusion. Grammar, formatting, plus a few dates.
• [2] Fixed Martin's entry as he was in the compromise section in an earlier draft.
• [3] Clarifying header and description.
• [4] Amend per Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion (permlink) cf. Faustian #2 & my reply .
• [5] This change came after Faustian noticed a few missing voices and made note by editing the review directly.
• [6] Added comment from Faustian per request below.
• [7] Per clarification request below.
• [8] Disclosure note as discussed above.
• [9] Per clarification request, added LK's statement in a thread I had initially excluded, with some additional commentary re: involvement.
• [10] Per clarification request, expanded on the AN3 comment to make it clear it ended in mutual agreement.
• [11] To clarify the position of the IP added in change 5.
• [12] Minor clarification plus date of comment, importing proper formatting and linking from original quote.
• [13] Moved table info to footnotes and transcluded addendum.
• [14] Per clarification request, split a section and clarified that the edit war was an isolated incident.
• [15] Also made it clear that Faustian's approach has largely been one of brokering compromises between the two sides.
• [16] A caveat about word choice and making it clear that the dispute has been a civil and rational exchange of opinions, fix a typo.
• [17] Adding further comment from LK per clarification request. Minor format fixes.
• [18] Adding further comment from Saxifrage per clarification request. Added difflink to LK's.
• [19] Fixed one user from rename, added links to now-archived discussions.
• [20] 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)
• [21] 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: [22]. 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: [23]. Here [24]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:[25]. In March 2008 I agreed to the unhide but compromised by moving the image further down: [26]: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 [27] 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: [28]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 [29] 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: [30] 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 [31] [32] 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 [33]. –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 [34] –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 / Discussion about consensus

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: [35]. 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: [36] and [37]. 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: [38]. Indeed I was not incivil at all on your talk page: [39]. 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 [40]: "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: [41]. 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 [42]: "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: [43]. 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.

Your points of view have not been ignored, rather your points of view have been given enormous consideration, we listened to each argument and for months on end we debated these points with you. We have not been convinced of your point of view. 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)

Our points of view are functionally ignored when the final product doesn't take them into account at all. Consensus isn't just about hearing out all sides - it's about building the article based on the various opinions. It's not unanimity - if one or a couple peole differ we don't have to defer to them. But 1/3 is more than just a small minority. Please read these Wikipedia:What is consensus? carefully, it really spells it out clearly. If you have time, would you mind doing that? With respect to policy, image placement is not censorship; otherwise everything not on page 1 of a newspaper is "censored."Faustian (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you suggest we incorporated the idea of not putting the image at the top of the page with the idea of putting it at the top of the page? Should we perhaps have it on the top on Monday through Friday and give you the weekends? I have read WP:What is consensus? and I have even participated in building its contents over the years. The fact is that your position is diametrically opposed to the position that the image should be at the top of the page. The only way I could see us compromising would be to let the vocal minority get its way and ignore the majority, we would have to put the personal opinions of the few over the policy interpretation of the many. We are not going to do that.

It seems the only people who have a problem with this interpretation of consensus are those whose personal opinions are not in line with that consensus. Why is it only the side that did not get what it wanted that seems to doubt this consensus? Neutral examination of this debate has shown the what the consensus is. Chillum 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We got to the point where the choice was "not putting the image on top" vs. "putting it on top" because we compromised between other positions. Some people wanted the image hidden, others wanted a simulation of an image rather than an actual one, others wanted a black and white version of an image. Ultimately we compromised on a version that included the actual image but didn't have it at the top. This position was a way of addressing concerns over censorship while still taking into account the opinion of the substantial minority. It was closer to what the majority wanted than what the minority wanted but still reflected both sides and didn't just disregard one side - a compromise. And this version was stable for about a year. With respect to consensus, on Sunday I'll try to do a RFC on that page. But what do you make of the fact that over and over again the consensus pages emphasize that consensus is not about votes or majorities but about synthesizing and putting together everyone's opinions? There's even a quote there that consensus is not the majority's preference but a version that almost everyone can live with. This is totally different from what you seem to be saying - everybody has the right to convince others but if they fail to do so than the majority gets its way. Faustian (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that there was "no consensus" (although others might, and the whole issue of consensus itself seems still to be under debate here). And I was not consciously trying to "discredit" anything. I was suggesting that the concensus apparently reached may not be "extremely strong". I find it interesting that only 11 of the 61 contributors idenitified by Xeno have offered any clarification of the position he has assigned them. But forgive me for suggesting that consensus may be something reached by mutual consent, rather than by "hammering it out". I was in fact hinting that trying to reach "consensus by force" might be similar to the approach adopted by Lenin's 1917 revolutionary Cheka (although he did at least keep the sickle). And sincere apologies if you have had to debate "for months on end" - I had not realised my arguments had run out of time. 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)

My point is that is an extremely strong consensus. I don't think it was forced at all, it was allowed to develop over time with debate. . Your arguments have not run out of time, they are still welcome. If consensus changes so can the page. I think comparing this debate to a group that policed labour camps, ran the Gulag system, liquidated political opponents, and put down peasant rebellions is a bit over dramatic. This seems a not so subtle variation of Godwin's law. Chillum 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would be Mike Godwin, the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, wouldn't it. Then, obviously, you must be right. But I think the trusty hammer and sickle was probably much more useful than that silly old swastica. And the Gulags only really got going much later, didn't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point. I find your comparison to be gross hyperbole, irrelevant, and offensive. Chillum 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But which one? I'd let DreamGuy defend his own hammer, but you seem to have your own readily to hand. Very clearly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we would communicate better if you spoke literally instead of using metaphors. I am having trouble deciphering your point. Chillum 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what additional inkblot images would add to this article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Luna. It has not been made clear what additional inkblots would add to the article at this point. I also don't see anyone but one person suggesting it at this point. I think we can put this idea on the shelf for at least a while. Chillum 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Luna and Chillum, but I must stop using metaphors. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include an image gallery, I think 2 should be the minimum, because 1 would be tacky. One of the color inkblots would probably be a must, because it would be radically different and show how inkblots aren't only black and white. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:31, 6 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)

James, 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 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)

Just spent about an hour reading this page and some archives, and er, it's amazing how this keeps going and going! Maybe we should follow the lead of the other articles with controversial images in at least one respect, and divert the image discussion to Rorschach test/Image? Or agree that the issue will be discussed only on a regular schedule, say for two weeks each quarter, so that other article development can take place and folks know when to come back and repeat their positions.

My view is that the inkblots are integral to the test, and therefore integral to an article about the test; there have been good and valid reasons given for excluding them entirely, but none have persuaded me that excluding an inkblot image is consistent with the mission of an encyclopedia. (I'm open to such persuasion, as I've argued that information on medication dosing and specifically lethal dosages should be excluded from drug articles). On the other hand, I don't find it necessary that the inkblot be the very first thing readers see when they pull up the article. I wouldn't be opposed to the "compromise" solution of putting the image further down the article, although I imagine few readers will view the article but skip the image. If such a mild step will put a stop to the argument, why not? Absolutism is self-defeating - Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Nathan ^T 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments in response to Nathan. First, thank you very much for your comments. Secondly, the current discussion has been about whether the image should be lower on the page in the logical place adjacent to "Test materials" or at the top. So would it be appropriate to include you among those who feel that placement lower on the page is acceptable? I don't want to assume anything about your opinion that isn't true. Thirdly, although I understand why you might wish to move the discussion on the image to a separate page, I prefer that it remain on this page so that any casual reader can see the reasons (or lack thereof) for the decisions that are made about the image. A huge portion of all discussion here and in the archives relates to the image anyway. And I really doubt that limiting when it can be discussed will accomplish very much. We previously had a very stable compromise between the psychologists (and other sympathizers) who didn't want the image at all and other editors who felt that the image should be included. That compromise resulted in placement of the image lower on the page at the appropriate place next to "Test materials". That compromise stayed in place for quite a few months with little disruption. Then recently expert opinion was deemed irrelevant, stability and the compromise were thrown out the window, and we now have the image back at the top. So I don't think limiting discussion will stop some editors from ignoring any agreement and discussing anyway. But thanks for you thoughts. Ward3001 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Encyclopedia - wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that uses the actual images. Encarta, Britannica, Americana etc. all use fake images. Are they not Encyclepedic? There may be other reasons for including the images but certainly being Encyclopedic is not one of them, unless one believes that wikipedia is the only Encyclopedia. Faustian (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the real question as it pertains to this article is, "Is Wikipedia encyclopedic?" The difference between those encyclopedias and Wikipedia is that on those encyclopedias there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to reject an idea simply because it comes from an expert on the topic. They also differentiate between those who are real experts and those who pretend to be experts. Ward3001 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in limiting ourselves to paper encyclopedias. They simply cannot have full coverage of every little subject like Wikipedia can, it would take too many book shelves. Chillum 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They use fake images. They had the room for an image, and used an image, but chose not to use the real one. Here's Encarta's fake inkblot: [44]. Apparently the people behind Britannica, Encarta etc. don't believe using the real image is necessaary to make their article Encyclopedic. But what do they know about Encyclopedias :)Faustian (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image? I think we can be more informative than that by using a real image. It is not for us to say that other encyclopedias should avoid original research and stick to the facts, those are our goals and our standards. We are not really the same thing as other encyclopedias. Chillum 05:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I said there may be other reasons to use a real image. Just that being Encyclopedic isn't one of them. That particular reason needs to be taken off the table.Faustian (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't have any problem with experts and outside interests including information on Wikipedia. It is when they attempt to exclude information that it becomes an issue. There are just so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another, we simply cannot accommodate them. The idea of Wikipedia is to be a more complete and free(as in free beer and as in freedom) than the other existing encyclopedias. There are plenty of other websites(and encyclopedias) with more conservative goals. Chillum 05:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I would hardly call the years of consideration that this is issue has been given "knee jerk", plenty of thought has been put into this. This has nothing to do with your credentials, we would react the same to pretty much anyone who wants to suppress accurate and relevant information. Chillum 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has argued against the hiding of this because of an expert opinion. That's a straw man. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, who exactly are these ".. so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another.." and how exactly are they relevant to THIS article? But could we have the full list? Or are there just too many to count? Thanks, Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect Chillum, but your use of the term "straw man" is hyperbole and itself a "straw man". Exactly how much have expert opinions influenced placement of this image in the article as it is right now? Exactly how much was expert opinion sought in the decision to place the image where it is right now? With a very few exceptions, such as Martinevans123, I don't recall a single instance in which the sentiment was ever expressed that we should seek the opinions of experts in this issue. And that is an altogether different issue than "Anyone can edit Wikipedia". Yes, of course anyone can edit; otherwise the image probably would not be in the article at all (just as it is not in the articles of Encarta, Brittanica, etc. because in those encyclopedia nonexperts contribute but they seek opinions of experts). And in this particular case, "knee-jerk reaction" does not refer to the collective amount of time that this debate has taken (mostly because the experts have had to fight tooth and nail to get their opinions heard); it refers to the reaction of individual non-experts when an expert expresses his/her opinion here. Perhaps a better way to put it is the combination of many knee jerk reactions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the term "straw man", not Chillum. You presented the issue as though people reject the hiding of the image because of an expert opinion. That is blatantly false. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to Chillum for my confusion. OK, Consumed Crustacean, I'll repeat my questions for you: Exactly how much have expert opinions influenced placement of this image in the article as it is right now? Exactly how much was expert opinion sought in the decision to place the image where it is right now? And note my above statement that simply responding "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" doesn't address these questions. Ward3001 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly why you're asking that of me. Is this a response to my point, or a fresh question? If the former: You said:

The difference between those encyclopedias and Wikipedia is that on those encyclopedias there isn't a knee-jerk reaction to reject an idea simply because it comes from an expert on the topic.

I said:

No one has argued against the hiding of this because of an expert opinion. That's a straw man.

There's nothing complex there, and your asking this question makes no sense in this context. If for some reason you're asking this a new question and simply confusing the threading, then: it was not sought, nor need it have been. I'll point you to WP:5P and WP:V and hope you understand how this project works. I'm not going to argue the merits of the way in which this project is meant to function here; this is not the place for it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that expert opinion "was not sought". It's a matter of opinion as to whether it should have been. Neither WP:5P nor WP:V preclude seeking expert opinions for any article, so referring to those policies does not really address the issue. But thanks for your answer. At least we agree that expert opinion was not sought on this issue. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seek expert opinions any more than we seek ordinary people's opinions. Our rules on neutrality require that we source our content and as such being an expert bestows only the advantage of knowing where to find the sources and how to disseminate them. We truly do appreciate such contributions. While we do not put extra value on particular classes of people(rather we work based on the weight of their argument), we do value reliable independent published works in that they provide informative content. To my knowledge we don't seek out anyone to tell us what not to put into our encyclopedia as this particular service is antithetical to our goals. Chillum 04:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's useful that an expert has (at least) the advantage of "knowing where to find the sources and how to disseminate them". The only expert opinion offered so far in this discussion, supported by verifiable sources, has suggested that pre-exposure to an image might result in harm. This seems to have conflicted with some "ordInary people's opinions" which, in contrast, Have not been supported by any sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said we seek outside sources for the information they provide for us to include. We don't really seek out any source to tell us what to exclude. If there was a source that said our image was not an accurate representation of the inkblot that would be something, but a source saying we shouldn't use it is not relevant. There are plenty of sources espousing the harm of showing Muhammad, we still show the picture. There are plenty of sources that say cold reading is ineffective if it is explained to a person how it is done, we still explain this in its article despite the phone physics whose careers may be effected. At most we mention this fact and reference it to reliable sources. We cover the information, we don't obey it. Chillum 13:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief note - actually the Muhammad images are included, but not in the lead. Indeed, even though the article is about the man his picture isn't anywhere close to the top of the article (contrast this with the article about Jesus). That's because although we don't violate wikipedia policies on censorship, we do take other opinions into account without violating those policies. It's too bad expert psychologists aren't given the same consideration as Muslims are (or perhaps religion is more important on wikipedia than science).Faustian (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Muhammad article I see 6 pictures of him. If we had 6 pictures of inkblots I would agree to put them lower down for stylistic reasons. If the Muhammad article had only one picture it would most likely be in the lead(as with past versions of the page). Chillum 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is about the test not the inkblots multiple images would be inapropriate. The Jesus article has 13 images of Jesus, and one in the lead. The article on volcano has 14 or so in the article and one in the lead. I can add a few hundred more such examples if I had time. Why for "stylistic" reasons would six images mean that one shouldn't be in the lead? BTW guess how many images of Muhammad are there in the article on Islam. Even though he founded that religion, there is not a single image of him on that article (lots of images of Jesus in Christianity). The fact is that the opinions of Muslim editors are taken into account for religious reasons but the opinions of psychologists, scientific ones, are not taken into account in the final makeup of this page. This inconsistancy between the Rorschach page and the one on Muhammad indicates suggests that religion is more respected than science here on wikipedia. How encyclopedic is that?Faustian (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have not heard of a better candidate for the starting image. Surely Dr Rorschach himself is not the whole test, or for that matter even part of the test. The inkblot is the best visual representation of the test we have. I don't think we have given into religious pressure. If you look at the talk page of that article you will see that your opinions are being given much more consideration here, they just have not convinced the community. Like I have said a few times before, we given plenty of credence to those that wish to provide information it is when someone tries to suppress it that we object. It is not about who you are, it is about what you are trying to do. We don't like relevant and encyclopedic content being suppressed due to outside concerns, that whole neutrality thing again. Pointing out areas where we have failed to accomplish this 100% in no way justifies further failure. Chillum 22:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no better candidate for the starting image of the Muhammad page than Muhammad himself...and yet he isn't in the lead. That's because there is a balance on that article between showing relevent images and taking into account the sensitivities of other editors. Same goes for the article about Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith. The man's picture is only in the section devoted to the picture: [45]. Wikipedia:What is consensus? clearly states "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". Such a balance, achieved on the religious articles, seems to be lacking on this article. As for suppression, information not in the front of the article is no more "suppressed" than is the sports section of the newpaper because it's not in the front. Nor is it any more "supressed" than on the Muhammad article (although it definitely seems supressed on the Islam article). As for "outside concerns" it ceases being an outside concern when an editor is involved here. I am not an outsider, nor are the other 1/3 of involved editors who aren't pushing for the image in the lead. We are part of the wikipedia community and our views ought to be taken into account in the article, not just in the discussion page. Faustian (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the calligraphy is a better candidate. File:Muhammad callig.gif is very representative of how Muhammad has been portrayed throughout the centuries. I learned this while participating in the lengthly debates. The debate the lead to using calligraphy as the first image was one of the few debates at that article that was based on encyclopedic merit. I for one did not know that calligraphy was one of the most common representations of Muhammad throughout history until I read the article either. The lead image is very informative. Chillum 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It's unfortunate that the reader will continue to be misled that the test is about more than just the inkblot by the current placement on this article. Now what do you make of the fact that there is not single image of Muhammad at all in the Islam article? Or that Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith, is not in the lead of the article about him as a person? So it seems that we do indeed have precedents of taking editors' opinions into account, although it's nice that in the case of Muhammad representation matches religious concerns..Faustian (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, just as the calligraphy represents how Mohammad has been represented throughout the centuries, so the black-and-white image represents how the Rorschach is most often portrayed:[46]. Your argument would seem to support placing the black and white unshahded version in the lead, with the real version in the testmaterials or methods section.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Chillum, for trying to provide some answers regarding how much impact expert opinion had in these discussions. I admire you for your willingness to get involved in a post-mortem analysis that could even have some impact on Wikipedia policy, rather than just walking away after consensus was declared. For those who would argue that this is not the venue for such analysis, Wikipedia policy is built one step at a time, beginning with individual articles. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense to conduct this analysis on a page that has nothing to do with this article. I realize that policy is not made on this talk page, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a look at the policies that were at play in this article on this talk page.

I have a couple more questions (and I'm not trying to put Chillum on the spot; anyone can try to answer these questions): (1) In this particular article, if "we work based on the weight of their [experts'] argument", how much weight did experts' arguments have regarding image placement? Was that done by assigning everyone's "weight" in the argument to be equal, so that (hypothetically) if two experts express one opinion and 48 non-experts express an opposing opinion, the "weight" for the experts is 4%? If expert opinion, on the other hand, is given more weight based on the fact that experts have more information at their disposal and can cite it here, how was the weight recalculated taking that into consideration? And following up on Martinevans123's comments: (2) Was there any citation to reliable sources (presumably experts) to counter the well-sourced citations from an expert that prior exposure to the Rorschach image can possibly result in test invalidity and thereby possibly result in harm? Or similarly, was there any citation to a reliable source that the image should be placed at the top of the page? I'm not asking that the entire debate be rehashed here, just some statement as to how much reliable sourcing was done in opposition to the experts' arguments that the image should not be at the top of the page. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A:nd I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot either, but I'd sill like to know who are the ".. so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another.." and how exactly are they relevant to this article? Furthermore, if we are to look to other articles for some parallel in the use of controversial images, should this article be looked at as `science' or as 'religion' or as something in between - or should this question be irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did give examples but I will expand on them, religious folks that don't want images of Muhammad, phone physics that don't want cold reading explained, creationist that don't want the age of the Earth in the article, people who don't want shameful acts of their country or group documented, people who don't want it said that a particular sports player was caught doing steroids, and of course medical professionals(enthusiasts?) that don't want publicly available test material posted. Let me know if you want me to expand on these examples more, there are piles of such cases. The groups and their reasoning are rather varied but the end result is the same, neutrality prevents us from giving undue value to their opinion. While we value all of these groups for the information they can provide for us, we don't value their attempts at suppressing information.

Regarding science vs religion, I would say we use both as a source of information but neither as an authority on what to not post. For example I am sure there are plenty of studies that scientifically demonstrate that viewing violent or gruesome images can be damaging to the mind, however if you look up genocide or holocaust(and yes victims, bystanders, deniers, and supporters have asked us to take these down) you still see violent and gruesome images. We don't take down these images because studies show they may be harmful because we respect that the person looking up the topic is trying to be informed in the subject. Chillum 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have evidence that viewing wikipedia images can be "damaging to the mind"? Which studies are they? I was actually asking quite directly - "should the Rorschach test be viewed as science or religion, or should we not ask?". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, piles, eh? Looks to me more like six (including this one)? I was expecting something more like real examples of actual wikipedia articles? But maybe you should try and answer Ward's questions first? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. I did offer to find more examples if you wanted, are you saying that is what you want? Ward has asked so many questions I don't know which one you refer to. Chillum 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying this: "please show us where so many groups that want one tidbit of information suppressed in one way or another have affected the use of images in actual wikipedia articles and then show us how these examples are relevant to this article". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think I know the question you are referring to, hold on a moment I will attempt to address it. Chillum 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ward's question about sources for showing the image. Would you like a reliable source that shows the inkblot in question is really part of the test? I did not know that was in dispute(rather this point seems to be conceded based on the nature of the arguments being presented). That is really all the sourcing that we need to include content, just enough to verify it. We don't need sources to justify it, just enough to show the independent reliable sources verify what we are presenting. If you are asking for Wikipedia to justify showing accurate relevant information, then the answer is a simple no. Our only justification is that we are trying to inform on the topic people have come here to learn about. Chillum 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I also want to say that I am very passionate about certain topics that are either very personal to me, related to my professional career or both. I intentionally avoid editing those article to avoid damaging neutrality. You should ask yourself, are you presenting these arguments in the best interest of Wikipedia's goals or are you presenting them because it is in the best interest of something else? No need to answer here, just ask yourself and answer yourself. If advancing outside interests is more important to a person than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, then that is a conflict of interest. Chillum 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asking you questions about this article and its contents, based on your comments above. I'll ask myself about my passions, and give myself a pat on the back, or not, later. But if I don't answer myself, I don't promise not to tell you. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If the question is "should the Rorschach test be viewed as science or religion, or should we not ask?", then I would say we should ask if it is relevant to the article(not sure that it is, perhaps in the criticism section), if it is relevant we should determine which one it is based on reliable sources. Regardless of the answer we arrive at we should not let either religion or science(nor both or neither) tell us what not to post when the very same sources confirm it is accurate and relevant. The idea is to document these sources, not to obey them. Sources inform us and verify our content, they don't dictate it. Chillum 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Chillum, I have never disputed that inkblots are a part of the test. I happen to disagree that we only need to demonstrate that an inkblot is part of the test to justify including an image of a Rorschach inkblok. If that was the case, this entire two-year debate could have been resolved in a matter of minutes. You have not really responded to my latest questions, but as I said, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just hope someone will attempt to answer them.

Regarding Chillum's comments about avoiding articles about which we are passionate, there is a substantial difference between passion about a subject and having expertise in a subject, although the two certainly can co-exist. I would not expect a physician Wikipedian to avoid editing medical articles simply because he/she is passionate about the subject. That would be a loss for Wikipedia, which is severely deficient in experts for many reasons that can be seen on this talk page. As I have stated previously, there is no reason a psychologist, physician, or other practitioner should not trying to bring his/her influence to bear on an article that has the potential to cause damage to health or mental health. And in the current debate, no psychologist has suggested violating any Wikipedia policy, only that there are considerations in addition to Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that simply being passionate about something should preclude you. I said "If advancing outside interests is more important to a person than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, then that is a conflict of interest". If you disagree with this you can read the second paragraph of WP:COI(the part written in bold).

WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, and WP:NPOV is policy. What you are suggesting is in violation of policy, I don't think you have actually violated policy as you have only insisted through discussion and not edit warring. Thank you.

You can deny and challenge the state of the consensus all you want, but the fact remains that the only people who disagree that there is a consensus are those who did not get their way. That is including the numerous independent reviewers of the consensus. We have stopped arguing about the relevant point and moved into some meta debate about what is fair.

Xeno went out of his way to contact everyone involved in the debate to confirm their opinions, he posted it at a neutral venue for independent review. The people have spoken, and this has been confirmed by the people. Perhaps it is time to put the stick down, at least for a little while? Chillum 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully Chillum, but you are unequivocally wrong that any psychologist in this discussion has advocated violation of policy. It has been discussed in great detail that placement of the image is not censorship, and advocating placement of the image lower on the page is not any more POV than advocating placement at the top. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that where an image is placed violates NPOV. There are many reasons that have been presented to refute the perspectives of psychologists' on this talk page, but censorship and NPOV are the weakest of all of them. That is not to disparage your opinions about image placement, but it is a strong objection to your interpretation of policy. But, as I've said earlier, thank you for your willingness to continue discussing this matter. By the way, there is no "stick" up. I'm simply seeking explanations of how much weight expert opinion was given in this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, let's go over the actual evidence. Xeno's collossal methodical effort has shown us what most people prefer. We do yet have evidence that there is consensus, unless consensus is simply a vote. Moreover, so far only nine of the 40 editors who expressed a preference for the image in the lead, when asked to clarify their positions, have confirmed that they are opposed to any compromise: [47]. Unless they clarify their positions, we have no idea whether the other ones who expressed wanting the image shown really insist that it must be in the lead and no place else. The number who insist on it being in the lead and no place else is still smaller than the 20 who have stated that they support some sort of compromise. So we know what most people prefer, but we don't know where they stand on the issue of compromise. Indeed, so far at least, it seems that the ones firmly against compromise are outnumbered, 9 to 20, by those seeking some form of limitation.Faustian (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Preference Versus Compromise Regarding the Image: The Evidence

Thanks to Xeno's excellent work we know that 20 editors would like to suppress the image or to make a compromise involving image placement. We know that 40 prefer to have the image unhidden:[48]. A problem with this is that while the position of 20 editors in the first group was clear ("Don't show the image", "hide the image", "place the image in the test materials section for compromise") and requires no clarification that of the 40 is not clear as some of them argued not against placing the image in the test materials section but against hiding it, or against using a fake image. A person who argued against using a fake image or hiding the image canot be assumed to be automatically opposed to placing the unhidden real image anywhere other than in the lead. A question arose as to how many of the latter 40 would refuse to compromise with respect to image placement. For example, one of the 40 stated " "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?" Clearly, this user did not want the image hidden. This user did not offer an opinion, however, on where he wanted the image to be or whether he insisted on it being in the lead and no place else. So his opinion cannot be automatically assumed to mean that he is opposed to having an unhidden image in the test materials sections. He just said he didn't want it hidden.

In order to address this question, on June 1st xeno asked the editors to clarify their positions. At the present time, more than a week later, only 9 of the 40 who in various ways oppsed hiding or suppressing the image have clarified that they insist that the image be in the lead and no place else. This effectively means that they are a minority, since 14 have exressed prefering some sort of suppression and 6 have supported a compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Their silence is perhaps telling - but if you wish to give them an additional ping, please feel free. I've made some comments at the recently filed RFC, I'm going to reproduce them here as I believe it is the last I have to say on the matter, and wish to hand this off to another uninvolved admin for transparency -

I've listed 14 editors who feel that the image should be suppressed however 5 of those have not edited in over a year and have very short editing histories. You've then got 6 editors who are acceding to compromise for the sake of compromise, half of those haven't edited in at least a year.

Meanwhile, of the 41 editors who disagree with suppression (not counting those who weighed in at the AN thread), only 8 meet the same metric of inactivity.

So, using these numbers, you have 9+3 vs 33 plus those who weighed in at the AN thread which bring the numbers closer to 75% against suppression of the image. I feel also that wide community support is against suppression of images in general, i.e. I maintain that the community's default position is that the most relevant image available ought appear in the lead of the article. As such, my opinion is that the bar at which we should make an editorial decision counter to the default is higher than 1/4 or 1/3 in favour.

At some point minority viewpoints will necessarily have to realize that they have not convinced the majority of Wikipedia editors of their point of view, especially when they are diametrically opposed.

I feel that I've said all I have to say on the matter. At this point, I'm going to withdraw (however feel free to make any additional clarification requests as necessary). When the RFC has run its course, if an uninvolved admin doesn't show up to make a call, please seek one at WP:AN to determine if the decision reached in my consensus review should be revisited based on what follows. –xeno^talk 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again to xeno for a clear summary. While we all know that voting is not concenssus etc, etc, I wonder how many did actually "weigh in at the AN thread". This number seems quite critical to xeno's opinion of the suggested editorial bar, since 12 is certainly more than 1/3 of 33. But perhaps they (might seem) to get double votes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the AN thread just before it was taken away by MiszaBot: [49]. –xeno^talk 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By my count I get an extra 4 definitely against image suppression and 1 who sounds sympathetic but doesn't give a categorical statement (with 2 who express no view either way). So, 36 is certainly less than 37 and a 1/2. But it's a good job we're not counting votes to decide this, isn't it (as my no image at all vote would certainly count for two, wouldn't it). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to the 41 - activity or no activity someone who is opposed to a hidden or fake image cannot be assumed to be opposed to having an image in the test material section versus in the lead. Until they clarify their position we have no idea whether they insist that the image can be in the lead and only in the lead. Just because person X argued we can't use a fake image, doesn't mean that person X argues that the real image must only be in the lead. Thus far only 9 have stated that they feel the position can only be in the lead. In contrast, someone who argued that there shouldn't be an actual image but instead a fake one can be assumed not to want the real image in the lead. So although we can conclude conclusively that most editors don't want the image hidden or replaced by a fake one, so far we have only 9 who insist it must be in the lead and no place else, versus 20 who have argued for suppresion or compromise.Faustian (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, you should feel free to give them an additional coaxing to weigh in if you disagree that their silence equates to agreeance with the conclusion of the review. –xeno^talk 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, coaxing or no coaxing, the number 9 clarified by Faustian makes things look slightly different, doesn't it. And the proportions. When do we decide that those are the only nine? Is there ever going to be a deadline here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that because they are silent, they agree, when it could mean all sorts of things (such as, they don't care, they don't want to be involved, etc.). I could just as easily recategorize them in the compromise position and then ask them. What would silence mean in that case, then? Or I can leave a message stating, if you do not respond we will assume you do not insist that the image must be in the lead and nowhere else. So far we have 9 that stated that they want the image in the lead and nowhere else.Faustian (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the numbers were reversed, would you still think that the minority should get its way? Chillum 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "silent majority" should be asked to speak, within a month, or be removed (from the vote count we're not using to decide). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for, if we move the expiry too close to today then there are only about 3 people with your point of view. We can count 5 different ways, or weight the arguments against policy, or we can gain third party interpretation of consensus, it still comes out the same way every time. The fact is that you simply have not succeeded in convincing the community of your point of view. Perhaps one day you will convince the community but you will bypass the communities opinion with fancy counting.Chillum 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what I've asked for here hasn't really happened, but I agree it's wise to be careful. I'd also agree we don't want fancy counting (if I was a beleaguered Prime Minister I might even suggest a fancier way of voting. And yes 12 is more than a 1/3 of 33, but it's less than a 1/3 of 45, and it always will be, maybe until(1 == 2). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about expiry, it's about clarification. Someone who argued 1 year ago that there should be a fake image and that there should be no real image at all can't be assumed to believe that he might actually want a real image in the lead. On the other hand, someone who argued a year ago that he does not want a fake image cannot be assumed to believe that he wants the real image in the lead and no place else and is unwilling to compromise over location. All we know is that he wants a real image. It isn't about expiry or how old a view is - it's about what people really want. There is no expiration for a clearly held belief. The figure of "40" is misleading with respect to not wanting the image in the lead because a few of those people only argued against using a fake image, or using a hidden image. So far only 9 have clarified their position and told us that they want the real image in the lead and no place else.

As for majority/minority - yes we ought to take the minority view into account somehow. Even if the situation were reversed and the majority opposed having the real image, I would argue that we should compromise somehow.Faustian (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it can't be about expiry, since xeno's ping of 1 June, asking for clarification from editors, was open-ended. Unless or until a deadline is or was set, we are left wondering if outstanding clarifications will or would ever alter the balance. I suppose there may be many different reasons why editors have not provided clarification, not all of which may be to do with what they really want. But I wholeheartedly agree that the arguments offered in a debate should be given at least as much weight as who or how many give them, perhaps more. It seems that xeno was satisfied that consensus had been reached, regardless of pending clarifications? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image is not an option. We don't do original research here. We document what exists. We don't make our own similar version and present it instead, not when we already have the real thing. We are documenting a specific test, not the idea of inkblots. Chillum 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We could take fake images from elsewhere, there are plenty on google, in which case it wouldn't be original research. The point is that arguing against fake images is not the same thing as arguing against putting the real image in the lead vs. in the test materials section. We have 40 people who object to fake images and demand the real image, but only 9 who have confirmed that they insist that the real image has to be in the lead and nowhere else, and refuse to compromise. This number is, obviously, much lower than the number who want the image suppressed or want to compromise by putting it in the test materials section.

To reiterate the actual numbers with respect to people involved over the last few years, we have a healthy majority (40)supporting the real image, but a minority (9 confirmed so far) who insist it must be in the lead and no place else versus 20 who have called for suppression or compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A fake image isn't original research in the least, especially if identified as not an actual Rorschach image. Wikipedia has many examples of drawings and images created by editors to illustrate a point. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still having difficulty with the google image yardstick, even in the judgement of original research. If we are so determined to show a "real image", what about some "real responses" - after all one is useless without the other? Perhaps real responses would be more problematic ethically. But then as llwyrch eloquently suggested at xeon's AN thread, one's immediate reaction to an inkblot, any inkblot, is surely as "real" as anything else. To me it is the idea of logging reactions to an ambiguous image that is the essence of the Rorschach, not the actual blots created by Hr. Rorschach himself. They are test materials and as such belong to the tester. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion it appears that the images is the ONLY thing about the test that matters as the appears to be all that is ever discussed. The discussion of the image placements should be moved elsewhere.

The matter is settled the image stays in the lead even though a very vocal minority disagrees do to some perceived potential harm to the test and their association ethics wanting it hidden / replaced with a fake / moved to an obscure location.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the number of confirmed people wanting it in the lead and only in the lead remains at 10, the compromise version ought to be reinstated. The methods or test materials sections are not "obscure". But thanks for your opinion.Faustian (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

James, you're quite fond of bringing up the topic of "association ethics" and statements that some of us are here to "represent the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", as if you have some knowledge that the rest of us don't have about some editors' representation of organizations. Yet you never responded when I asked you which of us here "represents the organizations we come from / are affiliated with", and how you arrived at that conclusion for each? I asked you to 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. Did you arrive at these truths in the same way that you arrived at your expertise on the Rorschach from reading one journal article? Or do you have some other secret method of divining this information? Please enlighten us how you obtain such vast amounts of information that none of the rest of us seem to be able access, or is that something that we mere mortals can never understand. Ward3001 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally when someone doesn't ignore the ethical principles to do no harm when assuming an anonymous identity on the internet, this is wrong and evidence of "association ethics" rather than personal opinion. Splitting is cool for some.Faustian (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do physicians still take the Hippocratic Oath? Do they know what it means? Ward3001 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DocJames, how can the matter be settled if we do not yet know whether or not xeno has correctly allocated editors to the appropriate opinion category, i.e. without a much higher level of clarification? In fact are you sure that those categories covered all the opinions? Should we have asked for a series of comparisons, e.g. image vs no image, real vs fake, lead vs lower down? I certainly do not what to appear ungrateful to xeno for his massive effort or appear carping, but the "very vocal minority" deserve to be as vocal as they wish, as does anyone else. Xeno himself suggested further discussion. Consensus may change. I'd suggest that since the image appears in THIS article, its discussion belongs on this THIS talk page. And, lastly, I represent nobody but myself here, except parhaps those who I fear may be unwittingly harmed by wikipedia. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So far the "very vocal minority" appears to be those who want the image in the lead and no place else. What Xeno has done is show definitively that a large majority does not want a fake image, a black-and-white version of the real image, or the image hidden.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hows this for an additional ping: "Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate." –xeno^talk 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would add something to the effect of "If you choose not to respond then your opinion will not be counted with respect to the clarification" or something like that. If the numbers don't change significantly, we shoud reinstate the compromise version (and maybe we should do so for now, too, though at this point I'm not insisting). Just to let you know, I probably won't be on the computer tomorrow and Saturday...Faustian (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do... So then I suppose the judgment would then be based on only those that have clarified, no matter their original position. –xeno^talk 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? If someone earlier stated, "the image should not be on here" it can be assumed that this person would not want the image in the lead; no clarification is required in that case. The purpose of the clarification is to see how many of those who, for example, argued against using a fake image also oppose placing the real image anywhere but in the lead, versus those who oppose the fake image but who for the sake of compromise don't mind if the image is put in another section, as long as it's a a real image.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that consensus ought be determined based on active voices. This runs both ways, so if you want to strike out people who don't clarify we should also strike out the the long-lost echos of those who stopped in once-upon-a-time to make a COI-driven demand to suppress an image. –xeno^talk 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds very sensible and I fully support this good idea. Do you intend to apply any deadline, explict or otherwise? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, if it's supposed to be limited to active voices then why go to the trouble to count everybody from way back when in the first place? The reason we strike out people who don't clarifyis not because their opinions are old but because we don't know what their opinions are. On the contrary, we do know what the opinions of those who wanted to suppress the images are.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the entire history because I wanted to familiarize myself with the whole length of the dispute. Technically, I could have just made the call based on the most recent RFC but I felt that it wasn't entirely clear. Reviewing the entire history made it clear and I think it also showed how many voices continued to pile into the "do not suppress at all" camp while only a few remained in the "suppress, even if just a little bit" camp. Active participants are what build Wikipedia and determine consensus. The notes are sent. I excluded anyone who already clarified in some form, as well as those that opined in the most recent RFC. –xeno^talk 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If nothing changes we should change the page? That does not make sense. The numbers, and policy, and the weight of the arguments as they are based on policy as they currently are, are in favor of a lead position for the image. If those numbers do not change, then why would we do the opposite and not put it in the lead? If consensus changes then you can change the page. Instead of trying to deconstruct the existing consensus why not attempt to convince people of your point of view? People have not yet been convinced that this image needs special treatment.

Please stop trying to move this image via the back door of twisted logic. We all know if the numbers were reversed you would call it a consensus in your favor. Whenever this matter has been put up for review by uninvolved people(and it has several times) the conclusion is always the same, it is just not a conclusion you like. The only people who are disputing this consensus are those who did not get what they wanted. I can count them on one hand without using my thumb.

Instead of trying to bypass consensus with different counting methods, try to change consensus with cogent arguments. It seems you have stopped arguing your point altogether and are instead focusing on how counting and consensus should be applied in such a way that you get what you want. Even if this debate was about who has consensus, it is clear that the majority of people do not share your view of consensus. Your view regarding the consensus on this page itself lacks consensus, rather the consensus regarding the consensus on this page is diametrically opposed to your interpretation of the consensus on this page. Chillum 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are against using a fake image, a hidden one or a black and white not using a real image. With respect to image placement, the numbers are not yet in support of placing the real image in the lead and only in the lead. So far only 10 of the previous 40 have clarified that this is indeed their position. As for policy - placing the image in the test materials section versus the lead does not seem to violate any policy. It's an editorial choice. Moreover we have two examples in which a controversial image is treated by including the real image but not placing it in the lead - the articles on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad. Why should this image be treated differently? Are the concerns of scientists less important than those of religious believers? If so, is that encyclopedic?

Chillim, you made an excellent point about the image of Muhammad that his name, written in Arabic, is more representative of Muhhammad than his image, and that therefore his name is better for the lead whileimages of the man are included further down. Could we not apply the same logic here? Clearly the most representative, iconic image of the Rorschach is the black and white one: [50], which is already on wikipedia: [51]. Could we caption it thus: "The most common depiction of a Rorschach inkblot. The actual inkblot, depicted in the article, is shaded." or "Rorschach inkblots are most commonly depicted in this manner. An actual inkblot, shown below, is multishaded." (feel free to come up with a better caption). Then we would have the actual inkblot in the methods or test materials section. This would seem to parallel the way Muhammad's image is treated. What do you think? Can we compromise and let this issue rest?

I am not arguing to "get what I want" (unless by that you mean that what I want is a compromise version that takes into account your opinion as well as mine, rather than just yours).Faustian (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you know that what you want isn't plausible, and are arguing for the compromise as a more realistic option. Doesn't change the fact that when consensus appeared, consensus was questioned, and when consensus for consensus appeared, the very idea of what consensus is was challenged. How much more meta is it going to get in the quest to reverse this one issue? Will the very idea of an online encyclopedia where people decide the content by using consensus be challenged? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I've asked about the meaning of consensus on the consensus page twice (includingf once through RFC) and your version (majority preference) wasn't supported by even half of the repsondents - and among those it rested on the issue of censorship which would apply in the case of hiding the image or not using it all but not in the case of image placement. So consensus as defined by wikipedia policy didn't appear (although "consensus" incorrectly defined as majority vote or majority preference did).Faustian (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comment on the yet another compromise I'm trying to offer, based on the Muhammad article, Chillum (or somebody else)?Faustian (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted no image at all and would still prefer that. But I see this as a sensible compromise and possibly a better one than the first compromise I agreed to of the real image lower down the page. Maybe xeno's second ping would need to be more detailed? Or maybe it will prove unnecessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

I thought I would create a thread for those who wish to discuss anything other than the lead image. It really has dominated this article for a long time now and I think it is harmful to get too caught up in any one issue. It is clear some will argue this point until Wikipedia runs out of hard drive space, regardless the article must move onwards.

I for one would love to know more about how different answers are interpreted and which factors influence these interpretations. I would also love to know about the test's reliability in diagnosing different conditions, and how likely false positives are. If this article got a little bit longer then it could support more images, I would like to see an image of the test being performed(though I realize this may involve special permission if the patient is visible, we could get around this by using a non-patient fill-in or simply by taking the picture from the patient's perspective). Chillum 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not talk about the image, but then you bring up an image ;> In all seriousness though, if there was a high quality image of the test being administered that looked good in a thumbnail perhaps people would agree that is a more representative image for the lead. –xeno^talk 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I said lets not talk about the lead image, I did not mean to suggest that no images be discussed at all @:-]. That being said, a high quality image of the test being administered would indeed be a great lead image, an excellent representation of the test. If the inkblot itself is only part of the image, it may be so small in the thumbnail as to appease the concerns that exist without compromising on encyclopedic value(I do think it should be visible though, it is a significant part of the administration of the test). Chillum 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno and Chillum, with respect to the new image you're talking about, I agree 100%. To Chillum, if the opinions of the scientists knowledgable about the test are totally disregarded with respect to the image, I wouldn't expect those people knowledgable about the test to then decide to contribute with respect to other aspects of the test on this article. If the amateurs totally have their way with the image, they can go ahead and write the content too. Good luck sorting out reality from nonsense (and there is so much nonsense out there) on this complex test. I've been one of the ones to have added the most content based on reliable sources (peer reviewed journals, books, etc.) but I'd rather return to editing east European history articles (where, unbelievably, compromise somehow can be found most of the time on some very contentious issues) than stick around on this one if the "consensus" as reflected in image placement is that expert opinion doesn't matter anyways.Faustian (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Faustian, especially the "sorting out reality from nonsense". Chillum, I mean no disprespect in the least because I certainly don't expect someone not trained in the Rorschach to be able to formulate appropriate interpretive questions (or answers), but the very question of "how different answers are interpreted" is not even in the ballpark of appropriate questions. The focus on individual answers to individual inkblots is a miniscule portion of test interpretation. The interpretive process does not proceed along the lines of "Patient gave response 'It looks like a bat' to Card I, so that means he feels this way or that way or he has this diagnosis or that diagnosis". There is already a small amount of information in the article about Exner's interpretive process. To really do it justice probably would involve violating copyright by reproducing huge portions of Exner's volumes in the article. It also might involve ... dare I say this? ... ethical problems by providing just enough information for the non-expert to make a mess of things and misuse the test. That's why the websites that claim to give readers the "correct" responses to particular cards are utter bullshit that, if the reader takes their advice, produce a more pathological Rorschach. That's also why I expressed many paragraphs above my sickening fear that someone would suggest that we provide a list of hypothetical (or real) responses to the images. Now it appears that my fear may be coming to life. None of this is to say that some of the information in the article about interpretation can't be fleshed out. But I think Faustian zeroed in on a serious problem here: If the amateurs have free rein on the text of the article as they have on the issues involving the image, what's the point in an expert spending his/her time adding quality information about interpretation when it's just going to the scrapped, rewritten, and mangled by the amateurs, or even worse, those who only pretend to have some expertise? That's not a criticism of amateurs in general, just a reaction to what they have done to this particular article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So just because the community does not defer to expert opinion on ONE issue (an editorial issue, I might add, which we can all easily understand, rather than a psychological issue in which the experts might have a better point) the experts take the ball and go home, preferring to edit articles where they have not yet gone challenged instead of the ones their expertise could greatly improve in content? I think this speaks volumes of said experts and their relation with the project. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it speaks many volumes. It speaks of experts' reactions to a "project" that places no value on expert opinions (and you can deny that all you want, but any psychologist who reads the talk page and archives would immediately be confronted with that stark reality, primarily on the image issue but also on other content in which ancient sources -- some almost 60 years old -- are given more weight than research for the past two decades). When experts have the choice to repeatedly try to improve an article and then repeatedly be not only overriden by non-experts, but overriden by editors who don't show the slightest interest in seeking expert opinion -- when the expert must choose between (1) a product that inevitably will be dominated by non-scientific standards, non-professional level of knowledge, and disregard for (here's that word again) ethics and (2) avoiding lending even anonymous support to such a disastrous product (I refer only to this article, not all of Wikipedia), I think it's a safe bet that most responsible experts don't really see it as a choice. The principled expert, repeatedly encountering this choice, will soon decide that it is better to let the world see the disaster as it is rather than try to bolster it just to give it a bit of undeserved credibility. That folks, sadly, is the direction that this article has taken over the past several years. Ward3001 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. And the issue of image placement, although editorial, is informed by expert opinion. If one reads the comments of the ones seeking not to suppress, many of the reasons for doing so are driven precisely by the editors' lack of expertise, i.e. "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!" [forgetting that Britannica, Encarta etc. all use fake images], "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", "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?" etc. etc. Any expert reading such comments would be made immediately aware of the authors' ignorance of the subject. So you propose making editorial decisions based upon the opinions of the nonexperts who outnumber the experts, without even attempting a compromise that would take the experts' opinion into account whatsoever.Faustian (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of how edits may be influenced by an editors' opinion of the subject matter is a very wide one. Maybe the editor who wrote of the test "I happen to think it is a pile of rubbish" has now changed his opinion? But at the time that appraisal did cast doubts in my mind on the impartiality of that editors' comments. The problem with an encyclopedia that is based on very simple principles is that it may attract editors who are also very simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this way you really have no grasp on this project. The individuals who donate their time do not add any original research. We simply quote already published sources in a style agreed upon by the community. No one owns anything, everything belongs to the project. Any contributions are conformed to our policies. It's really very beautiful in its simplicity. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this contradicts what I've been saying.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you choose the sources, Gary? How do you know which parts of the sources to use? Are you going to read all of Exner's volumes and all of the other Rorschach literature? Are you going to recruit a dozen or so psychologists to help you with that, or were you planning to do it all by yourself? Go ahead, Gary. Do your "quote already published sources", and we'll see how it looks when you finish. Wikipedia is already forbidden as a source of information by most colleges and universities. When you finish the rewrite on test interpretation let us know, and we'll see if third grade teachers allow this article as a source. Ward3001 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is meant to be a reliable source in and of itself and thus its goal never is to be a source for colleges and universities - or even third grade. That being said, it ought to be as accurate as possible. While experts may not be necessary on articles devoted to, say, celebrities, on more complex issues or topics one would think that experts would be valued. A layperson with access to a book or journal articles or textbooks on the Rorschach or on particle physics or on a medical procedure probably isn't going to be able to produce as accurate and encyclopedic of a product as would an expert in these fields. I am reasonably sure that if an expert comes across the page and sees the image in the lead, he will either try to move/remove it (and be reverted) or simply decide he wants no part of the article and will move on. A funny thing about this debate about the image has been the dramatic discrepancy between the experts on one side and nonexperts on the other. Amazingly, for some the opinion of those not knowing and not caring about the topic at all (i.e., being "uninvolved") more weight. What a way to build an accurate encyclopedia - drive away the experts. The end result will be an article about a complex topic either written completely by amateurs fumbling around with detailed materials or, in the "best" case scensario, written by one of the small minoritry of experts who don't like the test, in which case the article will be the equivalent of a global warming article written exclusively by the small minority of scientiists who believe that people don't contribute to global warming. In either case, wikipedia will be poorly served and the fault will rest with those editors who in refusing to compromise will have driven the experts away.Faustian (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After all his good work here, xeno has now also had the good grace to present three good ideas in less than one day. I think the image of a tester administering the test (staged or not) with an inblot in view but small, is another useful idea and a route to compromise while preserving a fair and informative article. One other small suggestion (whatver the image) - couldn't Test Materials include a description of the physical nature and size of the real cards on which the inkblots are presented? I'm not sure if such details are deemed significant or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind... While I did think of this a week or two ago, I didn't actually propose it - was going to wait for the dust to settle. Chillum beat me to the punch above. =) –xeno^talk 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wards point, I would like to clarify. When I said "I for one would love to know more about how different answers are interpreted and which factors influence these interpretations" I meant to emphasize the part which said "which factors influence these interpretations". While I accept the premise that specific answers are not the crux of the test I believe the answers given surely have some influence on the test. I did not mean specific answers per say, rather more general examples(or even just explaination) to help explain how it works. While it is true that I don't really get how the test works in general, I feel this is a sign that the article needs to explain this better.

I don't think that going into detail about the test would violate copyright if we put the already published facts into our own words. You can copyright words, but you can't copyright information itself. As for ethical concerns I will once again voice that this test is not a secret and all this information is already published. We should not limit our depth of coverage because of this. Chillum 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Martinevans123, I agree with your statement "I think the image of a tester administering the test (staged or not) with an inblot in view but small, is another useful idea and a route to compromise while preserving a fair and informative article", with the provision that the inkblot is visible(even if it is small). I have no objection to compromise as long as we are not compromising encyclopedic value. Chillum 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the method itself, developed in the 1970's, is copyrighted so I suspect merely rewording it would also violate copyright, although I'm no expert on copyright. Chillum, I presented an idea based on what you told me about the Muhammad article and how that was arrived at. What is your opinion?Faustian (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources we use are copyrighted. We can still use the information in it, just not the wording.

As for the other issue I would say that when representing a cultural subject one should stick to cultural representations and when covering a scientific subject one should stick to scientific representations. I have no objection to a section discussing the history of the images being held back and an images in that section, however it would need to be well sourced. For example in the Muhammad debate numerous sources were provided showing that this was a) a common method of representation, and b) the representation itself was already published as a representation of the subject in the past by a reliable source.

I wonder if there are any scientific already published fake inkblots where the source clearly indicates it is meant to represent the Rorschach inkblots where copyright would not be an issue. The method being relatively young compared the the prophet makes copyright an issue where it is not for historical images.

Making up our own inkblot is out of the question, just as much as a Wikipedian doodling the prophets name for the lead image would be. Chillum 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Muhammad debate - the references were necessary in order to prove that his name written out was most representative of the man and thus his name rather than image belong in the lead. In the case of the Rorschach inkblot, it can be proven simpkly through a google image search, which clearly shows that black-and-white versions are the most common: [52]. So again, as a compromise, why not keep the actual image in the methods or test material section with a black and white version, the most comon and most iconic, in the lead with the caption: ""Rorschach inkblots are most commonly depicted in this manner. An actual inkblot, shown below int he article, is multishaded." Faustian (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a fake, bowlderized, or otherwise altered image should be in the lead. If anything it is tangential to the topic and should have a brief mention later in the article. The test itself uses the real inkblots and this article is about the test, not how it is depicted in culture. Chillum 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, and the article about Muhhammad is about the prophet, not about how he is represented in the culture. Yet on that article they compromised and used his name written out. Why not using that as a model here?Faustian (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that Britannica and Encarta use fake images. At any rate, to let you know, I'll probably be away from the computer tomorrow and the day after.Faustian (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can also use a break. Chillum 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the statement that making up our own blot "is out of the question". If it is because you consider it original research, again that is simply not the case. If there was a consensus here to add such an image, it is perfectly within Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has many examples of images created by editors, and, in fact, it is encouraged if it improves an article and no other image is available. There are original paintings/drawings of bio subjects done by editors; science-related articles frequently have images such as molecular structure created by Wikipedia editors; original graphs and charts; the list goes on. Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A truly faithful representation of something that we lack an image for is one thing. Making up something that is not a Rorschach inkblot, and never has been independently published is another altogether. Imagine if in that scientific article instead of the real moleculare structure we made our own similar(but original) structure because the real one was controversial somehow? That would be original research. If we had no photo of the inkblot I would not object to a faithful representation of it. But we do have a photo so that is all moot. Chillum 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Chillum has a good point here. But I remain unconvinced that creating a novel inkblot image would be "OR" provided the caption/ description was sufficiently clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chillum, but you are completely wrong here. There are, in fact, freely available images of molecular structures, but Wikipedians sometimes feel they can create a better quality image and do so. Many (perhaps most) of the flag images on Wikipedia are computer-generated by users, even though there is an abundance of flag images freely available elsewhere. And in our case, as long as it is made very clear that the image is not a Rorschach inkblot, there is no policy violation. Wikipedia even encourages user-made images if they are appropriate and important for an article: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles". At one time there was a consensus in the Rorschach article to use the image File:Inkblot.svg; by your definition that image would be original research, but the OR issue is not what led to the removal of the image. I'm not trying to force the actual Rorschach image off the page by making a false claim about what is not original research. The current image may very well remain in the article for a very long time. But let's be very careful to separate the other reasons argued for including a Rorschach inkblot (not copyrighted, illustrates the test, etc.) from a reason that simply doesn't hold up when you look at Wikipedia practice and policies. Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still a difference between a faithful representation and a made up image designed to not show what the real image looks like. This test is made up of specific inkblots. Making a new one up would be tantamount to using a different molecular structure because the real one was upsetting some group. The inkblots in this test have a specific appearance, that is what we should be documenting. Chillum 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point, as indicated in your statement "The inkblots in this test have a specific appearance, that is what we should be documenting". In this particular discussion I am not arguing whether or not the article should display an actual Rorschach inkblot. The issue of original research can be completely separated from the issue of whether the article should have an actual Rorschach inkblot. My point is that if we as editors agreed to create an inkblot and add it to the article (with or without a Rorschach inkblot), it would not be orginal research. I'm saying that your understanding of original research in this particular case is flawed for the reasons I have given above (i.e., Wikipedia already uses editor-created images when other free ones are available elsewhere; creation of images, including drawings, is encouraged by Wikipedia). You might consider it a moot point because the article already contains an actual Rorschch inkblot; that's a matter of opinion. I don't consider it an unimportant issue because it is important to understand why we have an image of the Rorschach inkblot. There are several reasons that have been presented for including a Rorschach inkblot. Regardless of the merits of those arguments, using a fake inkblot is not original research. Ward3001 (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point looked good, Chillum, but now Ward has convinced me that it isn't. Futhermore, images of such things as molecular structure, although open to a certain level of interpretation seem to be fundamentally different to those of Rorschach inkblots. In one case there is a generally agreed `pattern' of atoms which the image tries to represnt, in the other case the idea is that nothing is generally agreed and the viewer makes his own `mental pattern'. I realise that we are searching only for analogies, but the Rorscharch inblots do seem, to me, ever more distinct as a set of images. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Chillum using a fake would be dishonest. A person who comes here wants to see what the real test objects look like.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that?Faustian (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, James seems to be able to tap into a vast storehouse of knowledge that none of the rest of us can access. Apparently that now includes what people are thinking. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the page they went to? I would think this would be obvious to anyone who was willing to see it. It is safe to assume people coming here are trying to learn about the subject. At the very least we can assume they did not come here to be misinformed or to have the test contents misrepresented. Chillum 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No misinfomration if it's properly labellled. But see my comments above.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all know how well we can all disagree with each other, so I have sought outside opinion on the matter. Chillum 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Chillum. We can get so wrapped up in the complexities of these issues that we sometimes lose perspective. I did, however, clarify your summary of the issue on that page. Perhaps unintentionally, you again intermingled two different issues: Should we use a Rorschach inkblot? -- Is a fake inkblot original research if it is properly labelled as not a Rorschach inkblot? I don't think WT:NOR is the appropriate venue for the first issue, but it is quite relevant to the second issue. Ward3001 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad you appreciate my vast storehouse of knowledge. Anyway I am glad everyone is so friendly and understanding here. :-) Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And I appreciate your high commitment to ethics, particularly that doing no harm business. ;)Faustian (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All 10 images

All ten images add nicely as an image gallery to this article. Any comments?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In light of previous discussion that would be inapropriate, to say the least.Faustian (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Would disagree. Maybe we should hear from the rest of the community before you continue with you unilateral removal?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you unilaterally added it despite multiple comments about more images not adding to the article, apparently out of personal anger. In light of the sensistive issues regarding images, such moves should follow not precede discussion.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Assuming Good Faith :-) I think the images add very well to the bottom of the article as an image gallery. I think I have made this comment before. Other than you and Ward lets see what the rest of the community has to say. I would recommend we leave the images there so that others may see what they look like presented like this during the discussion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the controversy, it might be better to wait until we have other comments, especially since we already have people sayignthat this is unnecessary. I would have unilaterally made some of my own changes but have chosen to wait for further clarification. As for assumptions of good faith, sorry I doubt that your latest move following Ward's not very pleasant comment was a coincidence.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From a previous discussion:

I don't see what additional inkblot images would add to this article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I actually see that gallery I think it does add to the article. One can be under the mis-impression that all of the inkblots are of the same style, the multi-colored ones are particularly interesting. If we don't add them to the article it would be more because it is just so damn hard to argue against very stubborn people, not because the article does not benefit from them. The edit warring does not help. Chillum 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will post them below than will I file the 3R.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting them there... it adds more information about the variety. I would recommend putting the version currently at the top with the paper background into the gallery and the white background up to the top, for consistency sake. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More than one inkblot is completely unnecessary. I'll ask everyone to wait for a clear consensus before adding more images. Ward3001 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy that we should use the paper background instead of the floating in white versions. Ward, we generally don't need a consensus to add verifiable relevant information to an article. If you want them removed then get a consensus for them to be removed. Chillum 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee Ward you just removed the images. I don't see any consensus that they are not relevant(Only you and Faustian are objecting). Perhaps you should get consensus before removing them? Please self-revert, that is the best way to stop an edit war. Chillum 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The pot is calling the WP:KETTLE black when someone who is edit warring without consensus tells other people to stop edit warring. One of thsoe "do as I say, not as I do" things, I guess. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear who you are referring to here DreamGuy. Chillum 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not help but notice that Faustian used 3 reverts, just missing the 3 revert rule, then the reverting was taken over by the other person who objects to the change(there only seems to be 2). A careful reading of WP:3RR will show this type of gaming can still lead to a 3RR block, even if you only revert 3 times. Beyond the repercussions it is just bad tact to use such methods. Chillum 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, respectfully, please assume good faith. There is no "gaming" here on either side of this issue. If an editor violates 3RR, then they should be dealt with. But don't make accusations that have no basis and of which you have no knowledge. I have not communicated with Faustian about his matter. We have operated independently with no "gaming" any more than the editors who have added the images repeatedly. But no one, either adding or removing the images, is "gaming" anything. I personally don't plan to remove the images any more for a while. The more ridiculous this article becomes, the less credibility it will have. Ward3001 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought these actions to the Administrators' noticeboard: [[53]] Hopefully this will help the development and subsequent enforcement of a consensus.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen all of the images and think they are very interesting. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Gary they are interesting. They are hardly homogeneous such that one image is able to sum up the appearance of all ten. The only reason to exclude them is attempts at censorship.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The censorship issue has been well refuted in many previous discussions. There are a variety of issues here, but censorship is not one of them. Ward3001 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the censorship issue has not been refuted. In fact it stands. I think this is censorship plain and simple because it is an outside force seeking to remove information from Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's job to protect the test you use. When outside forces start infringing on our goals that is a problem. Chillum 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, tell us specifically what are these "outside forces"? Are you saying that those of us who oppose adding all ten images are "outside forces" and that those who want the image are not?Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind the people who have been repeatedly adding the images that policy is that no controversial additions should be made without consensus. I have removed the images in the hopes that we can agree to wait for consensus, a RfD, or or other dispute resolution process to occur before pushing a change. LK (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Doc and Gary that the images are interesting. I also think they are informative and relevant. I think it is a real shame our readers are being denied this information through edit warring. No valid policy based reason has been given for removing these images, only the interests of an outside group has been presented. Chillum 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be balanced with the fact that this provocative display against consensus will guarentee that no expert will edit the content of this article, other than to periodically delete the images.Faustian (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodically deleting the images would be the act of someone unwilling to accept consensus and would likely find Wikipedia incompatible with them. I don't find your assertion convincing and think there are plenty of professionals and experts who do not seek to suppress information. I don't accept that a whole class of knowledgeable people all share your opinion. There is no consensus against this display, and while a small handful of people do find it provocative the majority of Wikipedians not directly involved in the subject outside of Wikipedia(read conflict of interest) find them informative, verifiable and relevant. Once again your arguments are not based on Wikipedia policy, but rather the feelings of an outside group. Chillum 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've requested full protection of the article while this discussion is ongoing, to prevent further revert warring over the images. I would respectfully remind all parties of WP:3RR#Not an entitlement. –xeno^talk 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "outside forces" we are all referring to just to make it perfectly clear is the "American Psychological Association" and their stated attempt to suppress any information available to the general public about this test. This organizations opinion is the antithesis of the purpose of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the issue is one of ethics whose purpose is to protect the public and do no harm. Ethics is not antithetical to wikipedia, as much as some would like it to be. Indeed, policy is clear that wikipedia integrates ethical concerns: [54] "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 mine). But who cares about policy, right?Faustian (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Doc, that is precisely what I was referring too. Chillum 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

James and Chillum, I have asked repeatedly for you to tell us which editors here are acting on behalf of the American Psychological Association, but no one has given a reply. So now, for about the fourth time, tell us who represents the American Psychological Association here? And give the evidence for that. If you can't, we can safely dismiss your ridiculous hyperbole. And because James has decided to repeatedly make this assertion, if you can't provide some answers but continue to make false claims, I plan to bring this up for discussion at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is not just the general public that uses Wikipedia. Lots of professional use it as well. Almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. I am sure psychologists and psychology students look up information here as well. They as well as other health care providers would find these images informative.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Basically every psychologist here has condemned the use of these images: [55]. Indeed, putting them up here basically guarantees that no psychologist will edit on this psychology-related article. So you are sacrificing content for the sake of images (or ego). Nice work contributing tot he wikipedia project - make sure no psychologist edits a psychology page. Faustian (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here [[56]] is the overview of the claim that both Faustian and Ward3001 are practicing psychologists. But WP:ANI may be able to help clarify things for you.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

James, I assume by that you mean that Faustian and I are the editors that you have repeatedly stated or implied represent the American Psychological Association. If so, please share with the rest of us how you acquired the knowledge that the APA bestowed that power on us: was that something that we won in an APA election; or did APA draft us to represent them; or is this some sort of secret mission that APA sent us on? Further, please acknowledge to everyone here that you are representing the American Medical Association. (I got my information about that from the same place you got yours.) Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The French article for example puts all ten images in the lead. [[57]] By the way I am Canadian so it is the Canadian Medical Association but no worries.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions, James. I've asked them several times. And so you acknowledge that your represent CMA on Wikipedia? Ward3001 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am associated but beyond that it is not of significance and therefore none of your business.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. James feels that he can assume anything he wants about other editors representing organizations here (as he has done over and over and over again, with no justification except for his own inexplicible reasoning), but the rest of us can assume nothing about him. James repeatedly makes references to other editors representing organizations, but when repeatedly questioned about where he gets this information, he provides no response. Yet, if someone uses his same logic (if it can be called that) to assume that he represents an organization, he tells us "it's none of your business". This tells us a lot about James. World, look at the kind of people who are in control of this article. This leaves little doubt about why this article is quickly moving on a trajectory that can only be considered laughable. People who know nothing about the test thinking they're improving it. Anyone with an semblance of knowledge about the test being effectively told to go away. And any newcomers who understand the test and stumble across this article will immediately dismiss it as junk. This article effectively has been shot dead in its tracks. Thanks James. Is this your understanding of "Do no harm"? Ward3001 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would thank both of you to stop this discussion if you're not going to conduct it in a manner that is in any way conducive to article construction. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point CC. I think the best thing an expert on the Rorschach can do for this article is to go ahead and let it turn into an even more ridiculous mess than it already is, not make any factual contributions so as not to lend any undeserved credibility to the article, and let everyone see a disaster for what it truly is. And I have no doubt that's the path this article will take in the foreseeable future. It's not a coincidence or because of any lack of available psychological expertise on Wikipedia that the text of this article has had no substantive additions of any quality in a long time. There is no "article construction" possible under these circumstances, so it's best that those of us who know something about the test let the "article destruction" continue taking its course. Full steam ahead. Ward3001 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrific, I'll hold you to that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That won't be very hard. Neither I nor any other psychologist on Wikipedia that I know of has any desire to put any effort into improving this article. I'm glad you consider an article's destruction and driving away of the last remnant of expertise "terrific". That's really "conducive to article construction". Keep up the good work. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since all 10 images have been added I have learned some interesting things about them. For one I thought they were all black and white. Now I know some have a color inkblot and some have a shaded background. I believe that people coming to this page want to know about the test. What the ink blots look like. How answers are evaluated. Some history behind the test...etc. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction (edit: so far as arguments against them go) between having a single and having all of the images. This is quite informative, and isn't out of the article's scope. I'd argue that it's on the ugly side (it's not wide enough on this monitor, looks a bit stupid), but that's more due to the <gallery> tag. Having them in the lead as the French article does is even uglier. It doesn't occupy too much space down at the bottom there though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The images are useful and informative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, intended to inform people. We have less appropriate images (first 2 links NSFW) on this website. Object to those if you have to object to something. Nobody will be offended by an inkblot. One argument that comes up often is that the images will affect the results of the test, but it's not a good idea to look up any test (Asch's conformity tests would be thrown out the window if anyone read about them, for example), and the images are already available elsewhere (Google Images anyone?). Put the images at the bottom of the article, in a gallery, and let people get on with their lives. There are more important issues to deal with. Dendodge _T\^C 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They're available right on a single page on the Commons as well. The link appears to have vanished from the article, but it was part of the article for awhile. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

• FYI, I've just dropped a note at WT:PSYCH & WT:MED seeking more and fresh voices on this. –xeno^talk 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstingly it looks like, so far, all 3 editors thusly summoned support some sort of limitation of the images (2 comments here, another on a talk page).Faustian (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn! I was bracing myself for the stampede of experts that some have predicted would rush in and rescue the article. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject the repeated false dichotomy that we have to choose between experts contributing and showing the images. The "I am taking my ball and going home" argument carries little weight, you can edit or not but don't use that as a trump card to get your way. I am sure there are plenty of professionals with a more open mind towards our ideals. Claiming that your point of view represents the point of view of an entire professional class is unrealistic. Chillum 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reject away Chillum. Let's see how many of your "professionals" rush in to fill the void. Do you honestly think the only psychologists who have looked at this article in the past year have been Faustian and me? If you do, you are sadly naive. There are quite a few psychologists on Wikpedia. They just don't want to get into all the crap it takes to try to get anything reasonably close to quality in this article. And I suppose you have some inside knowledge about the views of "an entire professional class"? Lord Almighty, even I didn't think this discussion would turn so unbelievably ridiculous. For a while there, I thought you were just engaging in hyperbole to push your point of view, but now I know I was wrong. You honestly believe that your stating something here ("I am sure there are plenty of professionals ...") will make it come true. I apologize for misjudging you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I know enough about people to know they have varied opinions on matters. You have leveraged the expert card so often that it is really losing meaning to me. We have never taken experts as an authority, only as a source of contribution. Even if your opinions are universal amongst experts in this feild, I really don't think every last one of them is going to go off in a huff because they don't get their own way. Pretty much everybody at Wikipedia has to accept that they won't always get what they want, most don't leave and those that do were not well suited for a consensus based environment anyways. Chillum 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, there isn't anyone here who can "leverage the expert card" except Faustian and me. A few have tried to pretend they have some expertise, but that was painfully obvious even to most of the non-experts. You continue to confirm my new impression of you: You honestly believe there are 8 or 10 experts just waiting to jump in and bring this article to FA quality because that's the way you want it to be. And you're right, no other experts are going to "go off in a huff"; that's because they're never going to be here in the first place. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me go at this from another angle. If we were using the wrong images, you as an expert would be well suited to point this out to us and provide sources to demonstrate this. As an expert we appreciate your ability to find sources and provide information. What being an expert does not do is give you any special authority here. There is no dispute about the accuracy or the relevance of the images, the reasons for excluding them are entirely non-encyclopedic. Being an expert does not mean we have to do what you say, it means you can argue your position better(in theory). Being an expert gives you the abilities that being an expert give you, but it does not give you any special position here beyond what those abilities convey. You stop contributing to us in retaliation for not doing it your way, but that is not a content based argument and won't change any of the issues at the table. Far better would be to accept that some things here don't go your way and continue to contribute in other areas. Chillum 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right. As long as we get those damn images in the article, the quality of the text doesn't matter in the least. Keep writing Chillum, please. The more you write, the more people really see how this article turned into crap. Ward3001 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I still reject your proposed dichotomy that we must choose between obeying you or the article collapsing into a pile of dung. I seriously doubt that there isn't anyone here who can "leverage the expert card" except Faustian and you. You must realize how that sounds to us mere mortals. There are in fact other experts in this world, some will not mind the images and of those that do mind many of them won't run off because they didn't get what they wanted. If you wish to stop editing this article for personal reasons then so be it, but if it is an attempt to influence then I suggest you think of another way. Chillum 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said "can leverage", I was referring to those who have contributed to this talk page over the past few months. There are a number of psychologists on Wikipedia who probably could make good contributions to this article. But they don't. And there's a good reason for that. Most psychologists here who have looked at the article immediately see that it's a poor article. Then if they glance at the talk page, they know for sure that there's no point in trying to improve the article. Once again, do you honestly believe that the numerous psychologists on Wikipedia have never looked at this article? (Yes, I suppose you do.) They look at it, see hopeless crap, and move on. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The only dichotomy is the one you create by refusing to take into account expert opinion as demonstrated by your refusal to compromise. You are the side demanding your way or no way. The fact is that to experts, displaying these images is grossly inappropriate and that is why it is highly doubtful that any would bother editing this article. The fact is that display of the images is unethical because it is harmful. How many experts will contribute to a harmful unethical enterprise - which is what you have chosen to turnt his into. The disgusted comments by all the experts contributing so far: [58] suggests that this is indeed how it is. But that is your choice - to go against consensus and thereby limit expert opinion to expressions of disgust for the sake of having your way and no other way.Faustian (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has objected to people improving the article. Chillum 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has to object to it. The article has not been improved in the past few months. I removed some horribly outdated sources a while ago (but that's the last substantive edit I'll make, at least unless some of the irrational crap here goes away). I think Faustian may have recently changed a few things. Other than that: nothing. And driving away any expertise is an excellent way to prevent improvement without objecting to improvements. That is the most outstanding "accomplishment" for this article over the past year. Ward3001 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To Chillum: you set up conditions that make improvement unlikely or very limited by insuring that experts will stay away. The consensus within the field is that the images are harmful. This means that anyone making contributions to an article displaying harmful images is collaborating with that harmfulness. I doubt that many will agree to do so, and indeed as I've posted already the reaction from experts to this article has been limited to outrage: [59]. Here's a quote from an editor who identified her real self, a Ph.D. with a background at MIT and the University of Virginia who has published in peer reviewed journals: "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." Yeah, let's antagonize and drive away such editors. That does wonders for the project. Being devoted to this wikipedia project, I attempted to salvage the article by balancing ethical concerns with wikipedia policies to forge some sort of hopefully acceptable compromise that would permit experts to feel comfortable making contributions. Apparently the majority among the amateurs here are unconcerned about this. So instead of having contributions by actual experts in the field we'll have an article written by people who know nothing about it, fumbling through sources they are unqualified to interpret or judge accurately to produce some sort of shoddy product. But at least all the images will there, because the pretty pictures are the most important thing. Good luck.Faustian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Chillum's arguements are excellent. If any editors want to go off in a huff just because they are unable to get their way all the better for Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, not everybody approaches this like a child would, James.Faustian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from being insulting. It lends nothing to the argument and only inflames the situation. Consider rewording or outright retracting that comment please. Chillum 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James stated "If any editors want to go off in a huff just because they are unable to get their way", implying that my argument is a cild's tantrum. You should have accused him of being insulting, not me. Why didn't you?Faustian (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from the context that he was referring to a hypothetical expert who would not edit that page because he did not get what he/she wanted, not a reference to you. Even if it was an insult to you that in no way justifies you insulting back. Chillum 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A very generous interpretation. It was also clear that I was summarizing James' expression - "go off in a huff just because they are unable to get their way " which is clearly childlike behavior , not directing my words at him or anyone personally. I would appreciate a retraction of your claim that I was insulting. On the other hand since his words pertained to those experts who would not contribute due to ethical concerns, they were indeed insulting words about editors. Faustian (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Faustian, but I really don't see anything insulting about a simple statement of fact. Do you disagree that "not everybody approaches this like a child"? Do you think that everybody approaches this like a child? Who has that insulted? If I'm wrong in my interpretation of Faustian's comments, I prefer to get his explanation rather than jumping to conclusions. Ward3001 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm new to this discussion and find it daunting to attempt to catch up with the many words already written. However, Xeno appealed at WP:MED for fresh voices, so here I am. Until someone proves that the Rorschach test has no value, I find myself wondering if it is in my best interest to avert my eyes, thinking that I may one day need to avail myself of this test. If this isn't a copyright infringement against an individual, perhaps it is one against humanity. Showing all 10 inkblots would be akin to practicing the professional of psychology. See WP:MEDICAL disclaimer. This is the actual test in its entirety. I could somewhat understand if you must show one image. Such a compromise may serve the purpose of CONSENSUS. I would prefer that the image be a facsimile, but I respect the arduous process that has led to this point. I disagree with those who argue for authenticity because I find the ethics behind it to be overly simplistic. But I respect those who fight against censorship, considering the depths to which humanity has sunk in the past century and even in the present in the leadership of certain countries. I'm just surprised to see that that fight extends to this charitable medical procedure. Isn't there more important work to be done in the cause of truth and justice? Sigh! Anyway, keep your one image and be satisfied. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am here for the same reason. I must say that I did find the images informative and interesting, having not seen all 10 before. I also did a quick google image search and found them easily accessable. Anyone looking for them would find them either here, or elsewhere. That said, some people may just come here for information only, so perhaps 1 image and a link to the rest would be appropriate givin the misgivings about the ethics of including all 10. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose it seems to hide the images is the theoretical concerns that it will lead to depressed people not being picked up. Truly depressed people have symptoms such as loss of interest (which means they will not be surfing the web), decreased motor activity (ditto), extreme fatigue (more of the same), and poor concentration. People who are depressed are not at home studying psychological test in an effort to figure out what answers should be given so that they may than escape detection. So first of all they will not come across this information. And second even if they do there is no evidence that they will be misdiagnosed because of it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction to some blatant misinformation: As most third-year med students know, there are many depressed people (including those who are suicidal) who don't report enough of these symptoms for a DSM-IV diagnosis, often do "study" things (whether psychological tests or other matters they are required to study), and cannot magically remove their exposure to what they see in a Wikipedia article if they don't know it's to their detriment to see it. Most psychiatrists (and there does not appear to be a physician on this page who knows much about psychiatry) know that the test does much more than diagnose depression. And it is simply a lie (perhaps done out of ignorance rather than malice, but nonetheless a lie) to say that there is "no evidence" that those who see the image could be misdiagnosed. Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by removing these images from Wikipedia when googling the images shows them all? It is like trying to put an egg back into the shell, it just is not going to happen. The images are already out there for everyone to see, anyone looking up the test on the internet is going to see the images no matter what we do. The whole premise of removing the images is flawed, if it were the contents of a test that was not already plastered all over the internet then perhaps there would be some point to all of this. Chillum 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I agree that there's a lot on this page that doesn't make sense. As for what could be "accomplish[ed]] by removing these images", I would direct you to the many comments by everyone on this talk page and archives, not just those who have succeeded in getting the images in the article. If there are specific comments about not having the images that you don't understand and have not been thoroughly explained, you should ask about those specifically. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have entertained this debate for years. The reason I am not convinced is not because I haven't been reading it properly. Chillum 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to direct you to the answer to a question that has been answered in many parts of this discussion. I didn't really want to repeat paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. I assume then that if you have read and understand everything, your questions have been answered; not that you must agree with the answers, just that you have understood the answers. Ward3001 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another argument that makes no sense is how does letting a group who want nothing about the test published in the public domain remove the images encourage them to come write about the test? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question, so thanks for asking. Who is the "group who want nothing about the test published"? Be specific, including where you got this information. Otherwise your question doesn't make sense. And generally on Wikipedia a frequently effective way to get people who have knowledge of a subject to edit articles they know about is to actually listen to their opinions and respect what they have to say. That's done on many articles, just not this one. It also helps if people who don't have more than a superficial knowledge of the topic don't try to give the impression that they do. That really does nothing to encourage people who understand the topic. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward, "I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question" is an extremely condescending thing to say. You don't need to be an expert on psychology to know that you don't convince people of your point of view by belittling them. This sort of commentary on each others person poisons any attempt at productive discussion. Please stick to the issue at hand and not comment on the people with whom you dispute. Chillum 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, drop your false accusations please. And please stop assuming you can read someone's mind, first Faustian and now me. Why would he ask a question if he knew the answer? And how is thanking him for asking the question being condescending? You know, Chilum, false accusations is not assuming good faith. That's twice you've done that in just a matter of minutes. Please work on that, and do please stick to the issue at hand. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not reading your mind, I was reading the words you wrote "I'm not surprised you don't know the answer to that question". I don't have to assume anything, it is all right there. Chillum 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I must assume that you did not understand what you read, or that you read it incorrectly. There is no condenscension in acknowledging that someone does not know the answer to a question that he asks (or do you think he pedantically asked a question that he already knew the answer to?), or in thanking someone for asking a question. So I'll modify my admonition: Please either (1) don't make false accusations or assume you can read someone's mind; (2) read a statement more carefully to be sure you fully grasp the meaning before you respond to it, especially with an accusation; or (3) seek an explanation if there is any chance that you may not fully understand what you read. That covers all the possibilities, so you select the one that applies best. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

• 
  Plate 1
• 
  Plate 2
• 
  Plate 3
• 
  Plate 4
• 
  Plate 5
• 
  Plate 6
• 
  Plate 7
• 
  Plate 8
• 
  Plate 9
• 
  Plate 10

I have altered the gallery tag to lay out the inkblots into two rows. What does this look like to people with different screen resolutions and browsers? Is it better than the default settings for you too? Chillum 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Gallery tag for more information. Chillum 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Better. The default of 4 columns looks poor on any display I've tried, and 10 isn't divisble by it. I've gone and changed it on the article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume such a change is not controversial. Thank you. Chillum 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the discussion on whether or not to use a gallery, whilst protection is in place, does anyone object to putting the true image into the gallery? (Perhaps putting the shaded-black on white into the lead - in consideration of the fact that it is the more iconic image - like others, I did not know the inkblots were coloured). Right now I am uncomfortable with having a false image in the gallery especially given the heading and no supporting text. –xeno^talk 02:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the "floating in white" version is not the most accurate. I think we should stick to the unadulterated background on all of them. Chillum 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps the issue of removing the images can now be discussed without the din of an edit war going on in the background. Chillum 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes many thanks. Things seem to get out of control quickly in this area. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if either of you would have been so quick to thank Tanthalas if the protected version did not include the images. I came to this page with the preconception that there should be an inkblot in the lead, but frankly, I'm disappointed with the behavior of the editors here who feel that steamrolling a controversial page change is appropriate behavior. LK (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would and we would be here discussing the arguments just the same.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, why don't you petition Tanthalas to remove the images while their addition is being discussed? I mean this as a serious proposal - it would go a long way towards clearing the air. LK (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of m:The Wrong Version that somebody will be dissatisfied (and the opposed party please, I suppose) with the protected version no matter which is it? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a complaint to a sysop, I'm asking for a show of good faith, along the lines of what DocJames claims to feel. LK (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Protecting administrators aren't supposed to choose a version when they protect (except insofar as not protecting a version with BLP violations and the like). –xeno^talk 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually LK both Xeno and I made it very clear in our requests for protection that protecting either version was preferable to allowing the edit war to continue. Edit warring is very harmful. I would have thanked Tan either way. I am not going to petition him to remove the images because a) that would not be fair to those who seek inclusion, and b) that would reduce the quality of the article. Chillum 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

I disagree with the argument that it's okay to publish all 10 photos on Wikipedia simply because all 10 photos are readily available via a simple google search. As my parents used to say, "just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you should do it, too." Come up with some different arguments, please. I'd prefer it if you parsed your arguments using sub-sections so that we may respond on a point by point basis rather than in chronological order. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not "Everyone else is doing it so it is okay for us to do it", the argument is "Since everyone else is doing it then us not showing the image will not prevent the problem it is supposed to prevent". Chillum 04:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You put too fine an edge on it. Both arguments are functionally similar. I'll offer two points: First, ethically speaking, just because I can't singlehandedly right a wrong doesn't mean I should participate in perpetuating it. This ethic applies to many situations: picking up litter, using less water by installing low-flow showerheads and toilets, reducing our dependence on foreign oil by using public transportation. (This Thursday is national "Dump the Pump" day in the US, so please participate by biking to your nearest bus route - if only as a one-time experiment.) Second, I don't see this as "the cat's out of the bag" or "the levy has failed" or "the cause is hopeless." "Let's give up." I think it will help prevent a problem if the wikipedia article doesn't include all 10 images. Many will come to Wikipedia first for their information and upon reading a high-quality article, thus be satisfied with one image. They will then be able to take the Rorschach test later and offer their first impressions of the images, as they should. Only moderate to highly determined individuals will continue their inquiry and go looking elsewhere for all 10 Rorschach images. If only one person is helped by this, receiving the full benefit of a properly administered test, giving only their first impressions (not their second or third), then that will be enough for me. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Question What is the opposing parties' view on why not to add the images? I can't find it, and I don't really want to read through all of this text, to be honest :P. Renaissancee (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick overview - it's a very commonly used psychological test typically used to clarify diagnoses (is the person psychotic or not? depressed or not?) and assess risk (is the person a psychopath or not? suicidal or not?). Prior exposure to this, as in any test, negatively affects the test validity (if someone posted the entire SAT don't you think that readers' scores would be affected?). Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here. Some of us editors would like to balance wikiepdia's goals of being encyclopedic with ethical concerns regarding the images and have presented numerous compromises with respect to doing so (for example, showing just one image in a section devoted to test materials). This sort of compromise has precedent in other articles, such as in the treatment of Muhammad (he is not depcited on the Islam article at all and on the Muhammad page he is shown not at the top but elsewhere). A group of about 5 (?) or so editors, who clearly know little about the test, are insisting on showing the entire gallary of images with no deference to compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here.", all Faustian is doing here is labeling anyone who disagrees with him to not be an expert and therefore someone who should be ignored. As he was already told, I was specifically trained on administering the Rorschach and have a strong educational background in counseling, and I agree that the images should be included here. All he's doing is POV pushing and also misrepresenting the nature of the comments here to try to ignore Wikipedia's core principles and the established, informed consensus that has developed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, wrong, if you go here: [60] you will see that 9 psychologists have been involved on the side of limiting the image. You are the only self-proclaimed expert who contradicts the others. However your self-claimed "expertise" is doubtful. Not because of your opinion on this issue but because of numerous claims that show you know little about it (your expressed surprise that anyone is using it, your claim that the test is not popular within the field, your claim that a background in "counseling" is highly relevant, etc.). Even if you were an expert, which you are not, that would make 9 against and 1 for - thus my statement that "Experts in the field who have commented here have pretty much universally condemned posting these images here" is accurate if a little hyperbolic.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

@Renaissancee - it's an "argument-from-harm-prevention" (i.e. seeing the inkblots could cause harm by impacting future Rorschach test results), you can get a bit of a primer on this at the /2009 consensus review. –xeno^talk 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely you ask patients if they have had prior exposure to the test(perhaps from another doctor)? If they have already been exposed you can use something else like the Holtzman Inkblot Test which was invented to correct many, if not all, of the controversial issues aroused by the Rorschach Inkblot Test. My understanding is that it has two alternate forms of forty-five inkblots. Chillum 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Holtzmann isn't nearly as effective and as useful, which is why it's hardly ever used or taught or used in research. It's a poor substitute. As I mentioned previously, people are aksed about prior exposure and the results are considered accordingly.Faustian (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think opinions differ on that matter. Chillum 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because it's convenient for you to think that. I'd rather base what I have to say on objective evidence. The consesnus within the field is that the Holtzman is less useful. This is evidenced by the facts that it is used less often, is taught less often, and is much less a topic for research in the field. It's largely been rejected as an inferior substitute.Faustian (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord I can't believe how bizarre some of the comments are getting here!! The lunatics are running the asylum (that's a figure of speech, by the way). Chillum, give us just a tiny shred of empirical evidence from a peer reviewed publication that reputable psychologists (excluding those with a vested interest, such as the creator or publishers) think that the Holtzman is as useful as the Rorschach. Otherwise, that appears to be something that you just pulled out of thin air. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd find this sort of like all the graphical adult images here on Wikipedia. They're not hear to harm anybody, but to provide scholastic and meritable education that has been hard to find. As well as for hurting the future tests of people, The article has only had an average of 300 views in the past year, so I don't think it is going to cause disastrous damage. As well in accordance with Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, images here are subject to questionability but still may be posted, and the risk disclaimer states that users must use this at their own risk. If we had some spoiler type gallery or something, that would I think be the best option yet. As well as your experts on this topic, are these editors Wikipedia, or are they certified Psychologists and Psychiatrists? And users who are feeling suicidal or depressed aren't going to go to Wikipedia and randomly look up this test and take it beforehand and then go to a Psychiatrist. If they where smart, they wouldn't be wandering around Wikipedia while depressed or suicidal and looking at Psychology articles. Plus, there was a RfC for this May, right? Seeing as we're still screaming at each other about this, I think we might need to make a MedCab case or a Mediation case. Cheerio, Renaissancee (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to quote Luna Satin from Feb. 2008, "The crux of my point wasn't "other people have done it, so we should do it, too," but rather that 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."[61]

Here we are well over a year later and we are still going in circles. In all of that time the issue really is the same as it was back then. In all of that time this fundamental flaw in the argument against the images has not been properly addressed. Chillum 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, it would be a good idea if you read the discussion subsequent to Luna Santin's comments 17 months ago. And I know, you say you've read them, but you conveniently forget to mention the evidence that was provided against Luna's argument (and please don't ask me to find it for you). You also forgot to mention that Luna recently made a similar statement, after which I responded with links to several compelling arguments on this talk page that refuted his claim. Luna's response was to thank me, and state that he would have to think about it. Subsequently Luna never countered what I wrote with contradictory evidence. Chillum, any of us can go back in the archives and pull out tidbits to support virtually any position. That method was attempted very ineffectively by an editor (not you) with a single journal article out of hundreds that have been published. If you're going to pull up ancient history, please be open enough to give readers all of the history and not just a sentence or two (out of volumes) that you alone deem more noteworthy than anything else. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

#02 - No evidence of harm

There is no evidence of significant harm from the exposure to these images. One can make up theoretical arguments either way but this can be done for anything ( like for example informing a patient that they have cancer ). It is considered unethically by the way to patronize people and not inform them of their condition even if you have concerns that it may effect their mental well being ( and there is evidence to support the fact that informing people they have cancer does negatively effect their mental well being ).

What if for example a health care practitioner who does not use the Rorschach ( as most do not ) came across this test. Was convinced of it usefulness by reading the article and seeing the images and thus used it to diagnosis people that would have otherwise been missed and subsequently saved their life by providing them with the treatment / counseling they needed. This is at least as likely if not more likely then the scenario of harm. And thus the potential benefit of presenting these pictures is greater than the potential harm. And not showing these images may lead to the death of some depressed youth.

By the way almost 50% of physicians use Wikipedia to look up clinical information. Our default should always be providing information unless there is evidence of significant harm. Not concealling information until it has been proven safe to provide it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Prior exposure affects the test results, compromising the test's validity. Invalidating a test is harmful, as it robs the test of the ability to do what it is meant to do. Your second paragraph is grossly innacurate. Proper administration and interpretation of the Rorschach takes months of training and supervision (usually at least a year), so no "health care pratitioner" would ever pick up the test and use it based on a quick idea or reading about it on wikipedia. Trying to adminsiter it based on some personal reading is about as dangerous as trying to practice medicine after getting some book on pharmacology and anatomy from the local library. No offense meant, but making a statement like that shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about the test. 50% of physicians use wikipedia to look up clinical information? I doubt that's true, but if so that's scary - there's a reason for medical disclaimers on wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just personal curiosity here - based on the proliferation of these images wouldn't it make sense to ask the patient if they've seen the images before? Seems like it would be a good idea to CYA, as it were. And (a more ambitious suggestion), develop some method for interpreting results where prior exposure has occured? –xeno^talk 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone asks about prior exposure. If a person has been exposed previously that means that their responses are less valid and we are forced to use "worse" information. It is still better than no information, but it is compromised. I suppose if a vaccine was rendered 10% or 20% less effective for some reason it would still be used (what choice would there be?) but that doesn't mean that making it less effective is acceptable just because it will be used anyways.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And the latter part, has there been any effort to generate better (more valid) interpretation of results based on those who have had prior exposure? I realize this is kindof beyond the scope of what we're doing here, again, just personal curiosity. –xeno^talk 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across anything addressing the latter concern.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref verifying the nearly 50% figure for physicians. [[62]] Also if you could provide a ref again showing that prior exposure invalidates the test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean that consenus within the field of people who know about the test isn't enough for you? It seems self-evident that being exposed to a test beforehand affects the results. That's why teachers generally don't want students to have access to tests before taking them, right?Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't base our information off of our editors personal knowledge, we use independent reliable sources to verify our information. See WP:V and WP:OR for more information. Chillum 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I was talking about the APA's call not spread tests around for ethical reasons (the consenus within the field) rather than editors' personal opinions. However the latter do matter also, in the sense that they ought to be taken into account when creating an article (thouigh not with respect to information within that article). Faustian (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I was misunderstanding your statement. I would like to read the actual wording of this call, do you have a link? Chillum 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to the ethics code: [63].Faustian (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any test can be invalidated if you look up the test ahead of time. If people are going to look up the test before they do it then the outcome should be obvious. Almost all tests require a lack of prior knowledge. Should we hold back our coverage of mathematics and history as well as psychology in order to protect these tests? No we should not, we should let people learn what they came to learn and not deprive them of information for their own good. Chillum 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am sure looking at horrible images of murdered and mutilated bodies can also cause harm to a person, yet if we look at the article Holocaust we see many gruesome potentially harmful images. Why? Because we are not censored, if people want a sanitized encyclopedia they can go elsewhere. If they want unadulterated(read not censored) coverage of a subject then they can come here. Chillum 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect to tests being invalidated by learning about them, that's generally not the case. Seeing them is another matter. YOur comparison to history or mathematics is incorrect - one would hope that a math test or history test did not require a lack of prior knowledge of math or history! Posting an actual math or history test online however is a different story. Does wikipedia policy condone leaking tests and placing them online in their entirety? Holocaust images and Rorschach images are quite different. Rorschach images impact a psychological test's effectiveness. Holocaust images simply look disturbing. There is a difference between being disturbed and having one's treatment for a condition negatively affected. Moreover not everyone interesting in looking up the test necessarily wants to have their own test invalidated. As I suggested earlier, an article devoted specifically to the images might have them on it (someone looking up "Rorschach inkblots" should expect to see them); the test itself is another matter.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not say anywhere that exposure to the images before hand leads to measurable harm. We live in an evidence based world therefore show me the evidence. We are not here to follow the APA.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, we live in an evidence based world. The APA, the representative body of psychologists (scientists) makes decisions based on evidence. Ethical matters deal with preventing harm to the public, which is why it is considered unethical to compromise tests.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is this based on? BTW expert opinion is ranked as the lowest form of evidence.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that prior exposure to tests impacts the result of those tests. Do you propose that it doesn't? Since what you propose goes against common sense and against expert opinion, it would seem that the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. As for your opinion about expert opinion, expert opinion is still evidence, whether you feel it is "lowest form" or not. Nonexpert opinion, such as yours, doesn't trump expert opinion when the two contradict each other.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not. You are a physician. This is a psychology-related article. A psychiatrist is the only M.D. who might be an expert, but that's not your specialty nor discipline. An a 3 month rotation through psychiatry while in med school, if you did this, wouldn't qualify you as it would give you practically no exposure to this. That fact that you claim to be an expert on this topic based on your background is further proof of how little you know about this topic.Faustian (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James, you've said some time ago that you read one journal article pertaining to the Rorschach (the link to which I posted). Where does the remainder of your expertise on the Rorschach come from? If it's mor than one article, how many? If it's entire books on the Rorschach, name them. You have repeatedly implied expertise in this area, and now you boldly say so that there is no doubt about what you claim. Please tell us the source of your expertise on the Rorschach. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are such an expert Faustian that should not simply take what you say as gospel, but we should also let you tell us who else is an expert or not? This sort of attitude is exactly why we make experts show their work. Where is the evidence? Chillum 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ido not think you should take my word as gospel. Actually reliable sources will do. I've already posted the judgment of the field of psychology - the experts when it comes to a psychological tests - about the harmfulness of distributing the test. This evidence is sufficient.Faustian (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, please wait for James' reply to my question about his expertise before passing judgment on Faustian. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is those who claim harm that are to provide the evidence. We are all waiting for this to be provided. Ward3001 we do not need to get off track.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James, asking you to back up your repeated claims of expertise on the Rorschach is very much on track. You said, "Actually I am an expert". So please, what is the source for your expertise? Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, all of this talk about who is and who is not an expert is way OFF track. It is not relevant because we use evidence not opinion here. It does not matter. You don't get to vet the education of those you are in a dispute with, your arguments should stand on their own. A simple request for evidence is on the table. Chillum 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again see comments above... The APA ethics guidelines do NOT in any way say that displaying these images are harmful. So we do not even have expert consensus here. Is there any evidence of any sort that shows harm?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum and James, you both are simply evading an important issue. If James claims to be an expert, he needs to explain. If he can't, then we can safely discount any of his comments about the Rorschach as anything more than average person who does no more than read Rorschach test. I contend that he is no more expert on the Rorschach (or any psychological test, or APA ethics) than the least expert person in this discussion. If that's not the case, he needs to tell us why. Ward3001 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter one whit(a whit is a very small amount) who is and who is not an expert here. It makes no difference. What is needed is a reliable independent source. An expert should have no problem supporting their positions with such sources. Chillum 02:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

#03 - Adds to the page

The image gallery IMO looks good, it provides additional information that is not provided by a single image (the images are not homogeneous) and it is encyclopedic. One should not have to go elsewhere to find information. It should all be here on Wikipedia. I say this images during University but have subsequently forgotten what they looked like. One should be able to refresh their memory here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly found it informative. Reading the article in no way prepared me for the fact that the images do not look like they have been presented to me in culture. I always pictured them as one shade of black and one shade of white. The images have given me a greater understanding of the subject. While culture in general has held back these images for one reason or another I am glad that Wikipedia is properly informing me on the subject. Chillum 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I had doubts at first, but the gallery merges really well into the article, illustrating the various inkblots without being intrusive. It's good and it should stay. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship

The APA it seems want to keep what they do a secret. Allowing them to carry this out on Wikipedia amounts to allowing them to censor Wikipedia content.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

APA isn't the one seeking to limit the images, wikipedia editors are. And they do so in part not because of APA but because of ethical concerns. Censorship doesn't apply every time an image isn't placed into an article.Faustian (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The APA has been the only evidence so far presented. We think are looking for proof not the musing of experts. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to denigrate expert consensus as "musing of experts." Faustian (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Without evidence to back it up that is what it is. This applies no matter what area of science you practice in.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that what experts claim by consensus is mere "musing" or of little value.Faustian (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes what experts claim by consensus without evidence is often of little value. So is there any evidence other than your interpretation of expert opinion? The APA guidelines do not comment about harm.

The APA guidelines say "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." As per the ref above.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of declaring that each others opinions are of little value, we could just forgo opinion and stick to evidence. Imagine that. Chillum 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a link to the wording of this APA guideline that is being used to justify the removal of these images? I found nothing directly relevant doing a google search. If what Doc quoted above is the meat of the material being used to justify this image removal then I must say it falls significantly short. We are not psychologists for one thing, we are an encyclopedia. It also does not mention the issue at hand, just test material in general. We are being consistent with law and contractual obligations. This passage does not seem relevant to the issues at hand or to Wikipedia in general. Chillum 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It does mention the techniques that should NOT be used to maintain the "security of the test". And it does not say that it is harmful to show these images. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The Rorschach is test material - it is one of the most common types of tests. The ethics code's purpose is to shield the public from harm by proscribing harmful activity. Compromising test security constitutes harmful activity. It's pretty clear. The consensus within the field of experts is that compromising test security is harmful for the general public. The fact that the Rorschach isn't mentioned specifically doesn't make a difference here. Statutes against theft or murder don't list the specific victims not to be robbed or killed by name either, so what? Faustian (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Were does it say that the purpose of the code is "to shield the public from harm by proscribing harmful activity" and that "compromising test security is harmful for the general public"?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what ethics codes are for. Don't they require ethics courses in med school? Here's the code: [64]. "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline." If something is proscribed in the code, it is to avoid harming someone.Faustian (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key words in that passage are "encountered by psychologists". This is not a psychological work, this is an encyclopedia. These rules were never meant for anyone but psychologists. Perhaps it is true that you personally should not post these images due to professional ethics however that does not apply to Wikipedia which uses a neutral point of view. Chillum 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing the consensus within the field that display of test material is harmful. The display doesn't cease beng harmful just because a psychologist isn't the one posting the test material. With all due respect you seem to be graspng fro straws here rather than looking at things objectively.Faustian (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've agreed with Chillum a couple of times today. You're absolutely right Chillum. This is certainly not a psychological work. It's not an encylcopedia article either, however. And sorry, Chillum, but you made a glaring error when you said that ethics rules "were never meant for anyone but psychologists". They were meant to protect everyone. That's similar to saying that laws are only meant for judges and the police. Ward3001 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a law you are talking about. I am sure firefighters have a book of ethics too, but they don't apply to everyone either. There are just too many rules books out there, we follow our own policies and the law in Florida(where our physical servers are located). The source you are talking about is a guideline of ethics for psychologists, and it does say the image is harmful. Do you have another source? Chillum 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

I've seen some studies posted here as to the prevalence of use of this test among psychologists, as well as a paper or two implying that priming might be an issue. Are there any reasonable, peer-reviewed studies presenting a conclusion that the presentation of these images to potential patients before-hand is harmful? I'd like an answer and if possible, citations, not a mini-essay reply, thanks. I may alter my viewpoint on the gallery dependent on this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be impossible to do such a study because it wouldn't pass the ethics review. Institutions don't take kindly to deliberately compromising an effective test and seeing whether someone will harm themselves as a result of having done that. There are plenty of studies showing the Roerschach's effectiveness across many situations in which harm is reduced, and there are plenty of referenced claims by experts that say prior exposure to the Rorschach and other psychological tests impacts the tests' effectiveness to do their job. I haven't come across any studies, however, in which someone proposed that the test might not work as well due to prior exposure, exposed someone to it, and then went to see if that someone got the wrong diagnosis/medication (or worse, hurt themselves) due to their prior exposure. If you don't want to take experts' word for it, however, you seem to be in a Catch-22 situation.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't take expert opinions merely on their word, especially when it regards withholding of information (I am also uncomfortable with secret tests, same reason). There should be some way to actually arrive at this conclusion without hand-waving. A review of case studies in which patients admit to seeing the test beforehand or something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Or hell, a study involving people who have already taken the test successfully once (and thus have been exposed/primed). For that matter, how do they study the test and the particular blots used within it in the first place? Is it all based on real-world clinical psych situations? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CC, you may have a hard time accepting experts' opinions, but do you actually expect researchers to violate the restrictions placed on them by university research committees by engaging in research that could get them thrown out of their universities, out of the profession, and into jail? As for case studies, published case studies these days are quite rare and largely very weak in conclusions. And it is poor prioritizing of resources for a researcher to spend millions of dollars and endless amounts of time trying to find a handful of clinical cases across a nation or around a world in which a patient's test results have been invalidated. If you had read some of my earlier comments, you would have seen that we can test non-clinical (i.e., healthy or normal) people to check the effects of prior exposure, but we cannot then place that non-clinical research subject in a potentially harmful situation to see the consequences of an invalidated test. These days, for any researcher (or the general public for that matter), that process is considered Hitlerian. We are talking very fundamental societal ethics here, not just psychologists' ethics. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hitlerian"? "Potentially harmful" if they saw the images? Please, dial back the hysteria here, you aren't being at all realistic. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please do all of us the courtesy to actually read a comment before responding to it. I said that intentionally exposing a research subject to harm is Hitlerian. Or do you think it's acceptable to intentionally harm research subjects? Read, DreamGuy. Please. Ward3001 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? It's as though you're intentionally making this difficult. I asked a few straightforward questions, how difficult is it to give a straightforward answer without trying your hardest to make me sound like some sort of bad guy? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with CC. The conversation here is becoming less and less productive. There is far too much commenting on the people making the arguments and far too little discussion about the argument itself. Chillum 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Chillum. Comments such as yours ("What exactly is this supposed to prove? That you are so invaluable to the article that we should just whatever you say?) and CC's ("you are trolling") are perfect examples of "far too much commenting on the people making the arguments and far too little discussion about the argument itself". Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Faustian gave a clear and accurate answer to your question. You responded "I don't take expert opinions merely on their word", suggesting that Faustian was somehow not giving you all the available information, didn't know the information, or distorting what is available. That is essentially saying, "You need to give me more than that or I don't believe you", a demand for more information. You said, "A review of case studies in which patients admit to seeing the test beforehand or something", as if Faustian was somehow overlooking an important source of information that you thought would answer your question. I again pointed out the difficulties and impossibilities of getting useful information with case studies. You cast doubt on Faustian's veracity or his knowledge of the available evidence, demand non-existent information, and expect someone to supply that information or be considered untruthful or incompetent. Since Faustian had answered your questions fully and accurately, and since you didn't want to accept his answer, and since your case study suggestion is not a feasible way to answer your question, then the only remaining possibility to provide you with impossible answers is to intentionally inflict harm on a research subject. Unreasonable demands for impossible information will often get a reply that illustrates how unreasonable the demand for the information is. If you don't want to know the realities of existing data; if you make an a priori assumption that you won't believe a responsible answer to your question; then maybe you shouldn't ask the question. Ward3001 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I never stated Faustian was incompetent, I never questioned his knowledge on the field. I asked if such information existed, I did not demand it. I am trying to expand my knowledge to the best of my ability. You are not trying to help, you are trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, let's spell this out as plainly as is possible. Let's say I'm writing a term paper on sorting algorithms, and a PhD in Computer Science says that there's some crazy new variant of Bubble Sort that's O(log n). As a lowly undergrad, I can not hope to compare my expertise to his own, and I might accept it. However, curious as I am, perhaps I decide to look up a proof. Lo and behold, nothing is found. Do I still include this in my paper? If I ask him for a proof, and he tells me that I should not question him being lowly as I am, and he presents claims by other experts as to running time of this new algorithm (again, without proofs), do I request his forgiveness and include it then? Maybe you're confused because I'm not approaching this the way you would, but in the fields in which I have any knowledge this is not the normal way in which discussions take place. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then please tell me something, CC. If you don't want to accept Faustian's comments that case study data are not available, and you don't want to accept my statement that case study data are not available and unlikely to provide any useful information, and you question in advance that you're getting reliable information from an expert, then how do you propose that we get the answers to your questions? If you don't accept the unethical, illegal, harm-the-research-subject scenario, then what is you method for getting the answers? As Faustian said, "you seem to be in a Catch-22 situation". The experts don't have the answers, and you don't have the answers (unless I'm wrong and you can tell us here how to get the answers). If you can agree that expecting an answer in such a situation is unreasonable, then I can agree to apologize for misunderstanding you. But you can't have it both ways. You can't expect answers, not believe the experts, and not come up with the answers yourself. Ward3001 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you use the information. If it's just someone's word spoken to you then it's not enough. But if that expert has published his claim (with or without proof) than the published claim ought to be sufficient, even if he doesn't publish his proof with his claim. I agree that the proof is preferable. In this case "proof" in the sense that you seem to want - a controlled experiment - is impossible for ethical reasons. So you'll have to trust consensus within the field as reflected in ethical guidelines as evidence, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not how science works in any way shape or form. You publish you evidence / reasoning. Just a one off remark is in no way proof and evidence for that matter.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's evidence for what the consensus among the scientists is. How they arrived at that is an interesting question but doesn't change the fact that this is what the scientisits agree is true. You claim it isn't harmful. I showed with reference that the consensus within the field of experts is that it is harmful. Now if you believe that all these experts are somehow worng, the burdon of proof is on you to show the contrary. Your personal preferences don't trump expert consensus, sorry.Faustian (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone is an expert in their field does not mean they are experts in building an encyclopedia. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone can contribute to Wikipedia doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they don't know what they are doing. DreamGuy (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true Ward. That's why we have policies and guidelines to help anyone edit Wikipedia. Believe it or not we encourage this. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly true. Anyone is encouraged to edit in most of Wikipedia. In a few articles, but not most, you are encouraged to edit unless you actually demonstrate that you have expertise (not just pretend that you have it). In a few articles, if experts are in the minority, they are steamrolled until they give up. Thank goodness that not's the case with every article because, if it were, there wouldn't really be a Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We encourage anyone to edit any article. Chillum 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the standard line, of course. Just as communist, dictator-run, North Korea's official name is Democratic Republic of Korea. Reality is quite different, of course. I've edited about 300 articles, a few of them extensively. A select group of editors are more discouraged on Rorschach test than any other article with which I have been involved. In fact, except for the trolling that some articles attract, I've never been discouraged to edit on any article except this one. Amazingly, my opinion has actually been sought and listened to on a few articles. Ward3001 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We encourage anyone to edit any article, providing our policies are followed. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you shouldn't be editing here. You're statements and actions here seem to be actively pushing a POV, which is not allowed. If you stop doing that, then you'll be fine. If not, well, then I guess you should expect to be frustrated. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is discouraging you from editing this article Ward, we just are not doing what you tell us too. You can still edit the article all you want as long as it is in line with consensus. Chillum 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, if you're so encouraging of people who have knowledge of the Rorschach, where is that stream of experts on the test that you knew were out there (I can link to your comments if you can't find them) and were going to step in to polish up the article? It's not because there aren't any psychologists on Wikipedia. Chillum, any of us can regurgitate the "official" policies of Wikipedia. It's an altogether different matter to demonstrate that no one has been discouraged here. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone discouraging you and simply feeling discouraged. Chillum 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just feel discouraged. Since you again appear to be reading minds, how do all the experts you said would come in to fix the article feel? Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the majority here is violating policies concerning Wikipedia:Consensus:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? "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.""
• "[65] "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."

The majority steamrolling their version through is clearly violating this policy.Faustian (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the whole policy it also says: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." We are not going to bypass neutrality and not being censored because of a small group of editors. Chillum 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You quoted selectively. The full section reads: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors. For example, a few editors may consent to edit warring, but it does not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Even if there is large scale interest in promoting an original theory or hosting personal information, it does not mean that Wikipedia should accommodate it. That said, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and editors should make efforts to update and modify policy to reflect actual practice." In light of this example, the point here is in my favor, not yours. Just because a majority on this particular article seek to ignore wikipedia policy on consensus by using majority rule, they cannot override policies and guidelines agreed to by a wide range of editors. So whether you decide that edit warring is appropriate or that majority dictates the article with no compromise, you still can't override wikipedia policy and guidelines which I've outlined for you. Faustian (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to modify policy to allow for deviation from our stand against censorship go ahead an propose the idea at WT:NOT. As for neutrality that is a Foundation issue and not up for debate. Nobody is attempting to ignore the policy on consensus, it is the policy on consensus that says consensus does not override our policies that have been agreed on by a wider range of editors. Yes we should normally attempt to represent all minority views in a consensus, but not those minority views which go against our policies. I can't figure out by which logic you are keeping score, but it does not change much. Chillum 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you are changing the subject from consensus to other things. No, I do not wish to allow for deviation against our stand against censorship. I do, however, wish that we would follow our policy regarding consensus. As for the subject changing - how is what I am proposing violating nuetrality? As for censorship - not including every possible image is not censorship. I cannot add whatever image I want everywhere and cry censorship when someone feel it's inapropropriate for whatever reason. There is not a single image of Muhammad in the Islam article btw. Does that violate censorship policy? Faustian (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving so much credence to one outside organization that we remove otherwise relevant and verifiable information is a deviation from neutrality. Neutral coverage would take not of the objections from outside sources, giving citation to them, and then go on as normal showing the images. We cover all reliable significant viewpoints, we don't obey them. Chillum 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't remove information because the APA said so. Their judgement reflects the consensus that it's harmful. And it's the harmfulness that we take into account when creating the article, not APA's decisions. As wikipedia policy clearly states, "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." Nothing shockinjg about that. We take into account Muslims' considerations when we refuse to place an image of Muhammad on the Islam page, we ought to integrate scientific considerations as well as religious ones on this project.Faustian (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If your argument was to not put the images on the APA article then that would make sense. Chillum 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You think ethics applies only to psychologists?Faustian (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Chillum 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots?

Just a suggestion. Perhaps it would be better to display the Rorschach Test inkblots in a way that the reader doesn't inadvertently have to see them, using {{hst}} and {{hsb}}?

For example,

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• 
  Plate 1
• 
  Plate 2
• 
  Plate 3
• 
  Plate 4
• 
  Plate 5
• 
  Plate 6
• 
  Plate 7
• 
  Plate 8
• 
  Plate 9
• 
  Plate 10

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiding images is a form of censorship. The first image was originally hidden until policy forced the change. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're using that argument, then not adding the ten images would be a form of censorship as well. Renaissancee (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, hiding the images is a form of censorship, not adding them for the same reasons is also a form of censorship. Chillum 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, considering they are public domian, I believe it would be. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary, For my information, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the policy page section that was used. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure Bob. Many policies. Here is a link to the discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't seem to wanna take us to number 13 of archive 3 (I think it's too long) but there are many good discussions there on policy violations. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary, Thanks. That was helpful. I was able to find the talk section that you directed me to, and here's a link to it that works, Why is there an image hidden...? . In reading that discussion, no one appeared to point to the specific part of policy that deals with the show/hide issue. However, if you came to a consensus regarding the show/hide issue, that would be sufficient to determine its fate. Thanks again, and good luck to all of you with your article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• We do appreciate the suggestion, though, Bob. And I'm sure the regulars here are happy to see a few new faces =) Take off your jacket, stay a while ;> –xeno^talk 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the invitation. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a spoiler alert and inserting a {{hst}} and {{hsb}} as a possible way to achieve consensus. This aids the reader and puts the responsibility for health decisions firmly in his or her hands. I disagree with the spirit of the argument that this is a "form" of censorship. I interpret that to be hyperbole. While I agree that censorship comes in many "forms," I also think that it also comes in many degrees. Censorship, in its extreme form, is much, much more than a mere spoiler alert: Book burning, for example. In less severe forms, it can be a simple movie rating: Rated R, or PG-13, for example. Unfortunately, the English language does not offer us many synonyms to describe proportions of censorship. We should be careful with the use of this word. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't put spoiler alerts in articles. And to label this a health decision is just absurd. If someone saw the images and goes to counseling and they say they're going to administer the Rorschach test, they can decide there to either not worry about it or have the counselor administer a different test, as it's not like counseling suddenly screeches to a halt because they can't perform this one test. The attempt to hide this from Wikipedia readers because people with financial and philosophical stakes in promoting this test complain about their inclusion here is censorship, pure and simple. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We also already have a general conent disclaimer. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Attributing financial motives to opposition is not very nice, and saying "who cares if the test is spoiled, they can take another" is not a very good reason to spoil the test. Would this excuse with respect to, say, compromising the effectiveness of a flu vaccine (no big deal, use another one...and the doctors opposed to compromising it only do so because they're making money off it).

The spoiler alert wouldn't be applicable in this case as it refers to entertainment media. Moreover, saying that "Viewing the test may invalidate the results" or something like this is not a spoiler, it's a statement of information and a such is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please review spoiler policy. Faustian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can you say that exercising the choice to view the images is not a health decision, and then turn around and argue that the patient, in session with his or her health professional, can together "decide there to either not worry..." or to "administer a different test" Are you sure you want to stand by that thinking? Can I convince you to offer a different argument? For myself, I'm considering the possibility that my argument is "absurd." I can concede a point or two if I must. That's what arguing in good faith means, right? My motives are good, here, and I'm not heavily invested in any outcome. My biases and my philosophy are subject to change when confronted with a good argument. Give me one please, and I'll consider it. As for censorship, what degree of censorship do you object to? Any and all degrees of censorship? Can I get you to consider measured proportions of this word, censorship, please, understanding that the English language makes this a difficult task? It's very easy to take terms to their penultimate meaning. If we can avoid doing so, then perhaps we're close to consensus. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we could work an encyclopedic line into the lead that mentions that test results can be tainted by prior exposure. On that note, who is this "Society for Personality Assessment"? It doesn't make sense to me to point out that it's the is "the second most widely used test by members" of that red-linked org, if they're not notable enough for an article. Perhaps they are, though. Ironic that their abbreviation is SPA ;> –xeno^talk 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, Regarding one of your points that has been mentioned by others too, "The attempt to hide this from Wikipedia readers...is censorship...". I presume you are referring to the show/hide mode for the inkblots. How is it censorship when it is available in the article to the reader? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I intended to read all of the arguments before contributing but I got sick of the personal attacks. I like the idea of the show/hide mode as a middle ground. Failure to include the images is pure censorship. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information for researchers. The show/hide feature makes them available for this purpose but reduces the likelihood of tainting. The tainting issue is not a valid argument against including them, however. They add considerably to the article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone could provide reasonable evidence of harm than I would agree to the show / hide mode. Not because I think it is the best idea but because this compromise if agreed upon would allow all to move onto something more productive.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New expert sign-up section

Since we are expecting some new psychologists (or at least editors knowledgeable about psychology) to join the group of editors in charge of this page, it is important for us to have some idea about how that's coming along. So it's a good idea if these new experts would identify themselves here and possibly include a bit about their training and background in the Rorschach. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's pretty obnoxious (there's no other way to describe it) to insist that the editors here who disagree with you are not knowledgeable about psychology just because they disagree with you. For the record, as I've already pointed out, I've had training on how to administer the Rorschach test and am by no means an amateur on this topic. Do not think that calling people from outside who agree with your opinions to try to take control of an article here is an acceptable way of proceeding. You have proven your intentions here to be completely at odds with the fundamental founding principles of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are such an "expert" that you claimed surpise that it is being used even though 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessments use it, as is referenced in the article.Faustian (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, this is for new experts joining the editing of this page. And it was not me who is calling for experts who agree with me to take control, DreamGuy. Again, you failed to read what I said. I said that others (not me) have said that new experts would be arriving here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is this supposed to prove? That you are so invaluable to the article that we should just whatever you say? Chillum 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not supposed to prove anything Chillum. Please assume good faith. I personally think anyone with expertise on the Rorschach should be welcomed here. Do you disagree? This is a way for us to get to know newcomers with that knowledge in one central location. The article needs all the help it can get. Just because I was rudely discouraged from editing this article doesn't mean I don't want others with some expertise to add to it. Now please, if you have problems with me, address that elsewhere, not this section. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The list starts here:
1 - I havent been on wikipedia that long, but this seems completely out of keeping with wikipedia. I might be a clinical psychologist with 15 years experience (in 2 western countries) or I might be a bloke in the pub. For what it is worth, I have never used this test and dont work with or currently know any colleagues who use it. The source stating that 80% use it does need to be checked...maybe in the US in certain fields, but I dont think it widely regarded or used anymore. It is always difficult to find this sort of evidence (ie a reliable source of how common or rare a practice is...how often do family doctors test your reflect by hitting you with that little hammer - just like on TV!!). Probably time to just get back to basic wikipedia principles? I have nothing else to add to the article. Keep up the good work. I found the article interesting and looked up some of the good references cited Earlypsychosis (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looked at the reference and it did indeed say 80% of clinical psychologist use it at some point. Other refs available say routine usage is much less. This point could probably use clarification.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James, are those data not available in the one journal article you read about the Rorschach? If it needs clarification, you should read another journal article, or two, or three ... or several hundred. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

2 -