Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA		3	4	11				18
FL			1	1				2
GA	5	14	27	69			10	125
B	29	180	300	299			90	898
C	28	323	1,078	1,874	1		423	3,727
Start	5	170	856	3,234		1	2,251	6,517
Stub		5	122	1,370			1,866	3,363
List	7	10	47	97	1		10	172
Category					2,897			2,897
Disambig				3	26			29
File					35			35
Portal					100			100
Project					23			23
Template		1			225			226
NA		8	44	147	685			884
Other					175			175
Assessed	74	714	2,479	7,105	4,168	1	4,650	19,191
Unassessed			1	14	1		410	426
Total	74	714	2,480	7,119	4,169	1	5,060	19,617
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 70,615			Ω = 4.82

January 2011

Gestalt psychology article listed for deletion

• Principles of grouping (AfD discussion)

It's about the Gestalt laws of perception, from the work of Max Wertheimer, Irvin Rock, Stephen E. Palmer, et al.. You might query why you were never asked about this article. You have been, now. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for bringing this up! Morton Shumway—talk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

The AfD discussion has been closed, the article has been kept. Thanks, Morton Shumway—talk 02:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

Dynamic Tagging Threory

I have Prodded Dynamic Tagging Theory but if you know anything about it, you may wish to add cites, or, perhaps bring it to AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Motivation

I noticed that our article Motivation was mentioned recently by The Economist as needing expert attention. I put the quote on the talk page there. I hope posting here might... Jesanj (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler: The quote only states that the article is tagged as needing expert attention. However, it's WP:PSY assessment is High/Start, and it's a rather long article - it does above all need someone with some basic psy knowledge and editing skill. Even the introductory paragraph needs rephrasing. Morton Shumway—talk 03:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

Propose suicide and mental health articles on Afghanistan

I'm doing a little work on Category:Health in Afghanistan, and would like to propose creating Suicide in Afghanistan and Mental health in Afghanistan. On the first issue, there was a flood of coverage in mid-2010 of female self-immolation, but I'm not seeing much coverage other than that exact topic. Plus it's hard to screen out everything related to suicide bombing/attacks (outside the scope of my intended article). Further, there have been some studies by various governments on Afghan mental health after 30yrs of war, and I think it could be an extremely fertile topic, and arguably something that a few editors could push up to GA status relatively quickly. Thoughts? Links to recommended resources? Copying my post from WikiProject Afghanistan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Help removing two pages

I tried to create a new task force subpage under Wikiproject Psychology, for the APS Wikipedia Initiative. Before I correctly understood the syntax, I created two pages that should be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_APS/Wikipedia_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_APS-Wikipedia_Initiative

Can anyone tell me how to do this?

Robertekraut (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. There's no mystery. It just needs admin powers. All the best. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perception / Fludd image

A particular user reattempted an edit which there was consensus against. I have done another revert, however I ask those who are acquainted with the issue (e.g. Martin Poulter) to have an eye on it. Thanks! Morton Shumway—talk 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Evolutionary psychology

The article on Evolutionary psychology needs attention from mainstream psychologists who can make sure that the article remains neutral - it is currently being edited by a few editors with overtly acknowledged biases in favor of the discipline.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good that the article is edited by persons with an actual interest in the theoretic framework and methodology of evolutionary psychology. In one particular case, the discussion was about a passage from Encyclopedia Britannica which no one seemed to know verbatim, until after you asking here I bothered to identify and cite it at the talk page. However, the reaction to that clearly shows that it was still not very much understood what that passage says, but to say what you were believing anyways. Furthermore, I am wondering how WP:PSY could even be on par with the suggestion that overt acknowledgement of the idea that psychological faculties might have an evolutionary history would be blatantly misguided? My impression was that the accused are in part just those who believe that evolutionary psychology as a field with a certain scope and methodology is a sensible endeavour. Morton Shumway—talk 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Jigsaw (teaching technique)

Hi

Can someone take a look at the article. It seems a little strange in the classroom examples area as it seems they do not exactly fit the technique steps quoted, although this may be acceptable I do not know enough about the technique to know for sure.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)

I have noticed that the EMDR article is no longer part of this WikiProject. Edit warring and the arguments on the talk page seem to have ceased for about two months. As a student in the psychotherapy field, I am requesting that the article be readded to this Wikiproject. I believe the advice and contributions from editors interested in psychology would prove invaluable to this article. Thanks!!

cReep (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It may have fallen victim to a movement a while ago to remove controversial or pseudoscience psychological topics from the project on the grounds that including them in the project gave them validity (!!). In my view each topic ought to look after it's own psuedosciences as it were. No other project is going to. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. I'm only requesting input from editors that are interested or knowledgeable about EMDR and inquring whether or not EMDR would be within this projects scope. The only issue this project adressed about the EMDR article was over the capitalization of therapeutic systems (at least to my knowledge). I do understand that a group of professionals regard EMDR as psuedoscience, but there is a larger group of professionals that view it as a form of psychotherapy (which is within this projects scope). I thought it would be appropriate to post my proposal here since the creator of EMDR Francine Shapiro, as well as EMDR being a form of psychotherapy, and also on the List of therapies. Which are all tagged of interest to this particular project. cReep (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Fainites on this. EMDR claims to be a psychotherapy. In which case it should be included in this WikiProject so that people interested and knowledgeable about psychology are directed toward the article where they can read, assess and, if necessary, debunk those claims. We should all look to our own house. I have reinstated the WikiProject box on the article. Famousdog (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. It's been quite controversial since the beginning, but I have been noticing its presence in many newer textbooks on psychotherapies. But hey, psychology has always been controversial! cReep (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you Famousdog! I like we should all look to our own house. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Amplification

I wonder why the only autism spectrum mentioned here Asperger's syndrome, when somatosensory issues are a considered a hallmark of all forms of autism. Mtndewd (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Step one is to find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that supports what you just said. Step two would be to take it to Talk:Autism (it seems to be more active than any of the other autism-related articles) and discuss it there. Provided you can bring an appropriate source, you'll receive a warm reception. But make sure you understand WP:MEDRS before selecting a source.

You might locate an ideal scientific journal article by searching PubMed (index of important medicine-related journals) or scholarly textbook by searching Google Books. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

HEXACO model of personality structure

The article on HEXACO model of personality structure describes the big five as 'earlier research', and suggests that it has replaced the big five factor personality model. I'm not a psychologist, but that doesn't seem right. Can someone from this wiki project have a look? Thanks lots. 203.142.100.17 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the section in question to clarify that the Big Five model is currently the most widely used model of personality structure. M C Ashton (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If there aren't any further concerns about the description of the current status of the Big Five model, I'd like to remove the neutrality tag. Thanks. M C Ashton (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the neutrality tag. M C Ashton (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Neural processing for individual categories of objects

Could someone take a look at Neural processing for individual categories of objects. I get the distinct impression that it should be merged somewhere, but their are no good indicators as to where, I think we need someone with subject expertise, Sadads (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done some link work, now it might be easier to see if and where to merge it. With its focus on neuroscience/cognitive neuropsychology however there is no obvious solution. As to its more general aspects, domain specificity seems a good candidate. On the other hand, it might just be a good idea to keep it and maybe rename it – on the talk page I have proposed "Domain-specific neural processing". I will also tell WP Neuroscience. Morton Shumway—talk 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Love

Further input is welcomed on some recent controversial edits to the Love article. See Talk:Love#Recent_edits. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I also informed WP:PHILO. Morton Shumway—talk 13:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Students editing psychology articles

I am having student teams in my upper class organizational class work to improve Wikipedia psychology articles relevant to the course. I've posted a table of the student's Wikipedia usernames and the articles they will be working on at User:Robertekraut/Orgcom11. This is just a heads up that you might see a little more activity than normal in a few articles. Robertekraut (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal Music and the brain into Cognitive neuroscience of music

Anyone with a background in music psychology, music cognition etc. is invited to discuss the proposed merge here: Talk:Cognitive neuroscience of music#Proposed merge Morton Shumway—talk 22:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Serial killer#African American serial killers

Psychological/medical sources are usually used to identify serial killers, with the occasional exception of law enforcement. Generally, news sources are not the best sources to use for a topic such as this, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. Yet, the section in question uses news sources and writers. The first source in the section already inaccurately describes two people as serial killers. The editor who added the section, however, feels that the section should stay because it is "verifiable." The question is...whether or not this editor's sources should be considered good enough simply because they are "verifiable."

Opinions are definitely needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Discussion on WP:RSN regarding appropriate sourcing for psychology article

A discussion here has been started on WP:RSN regarding whether what appears to be a literature review published in a law journal on stereotype threat is a reliable source. Some here may want to add their 2 cents. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• John Smith (2000). "How to Put Things into Other Things". Journal of Foobar. 1 (2): 3–4. arXiv:0123456789. ASIN 0123456789. Bibcode:0123456789. doi:0123456789. ISBN 0123456789. ISSN 0123456789. JFM 0123456789. JSTOR 0123456789. LCCN 0123456789. MR 0123456789. OCLC 0123456789. OL 0123456789. OSTI 0123456789. PMC 0123456789. PMID 0123456789. RFC 0123456789. SSRN 0123456789. Zbl 0123456789. |id=____. {{cite journal}}: Check |arxiv= value (help); Check |asin= value (help); Check |bibcode= length (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check |issn= value (help); Check |jfm= value (help); Check |mr= value (help); Check |ol= value (help); Check |osti= value (help); Check |pmc= value (help); Check |pmid= value (help); Check |rfc= value (help); Check |ssrn= value (help); Check |zbl= value (help)

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Human agency

Shouldn't the article Agency (philosophy) contain a section, or maybe even a separate page, about its meaning for psychological theories? Lastnightilie (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity and psychology

I just came across http://www.psychologicalscience.org/apswi and noticed that the focus of this initiative appears to be on WP as opposed to the WMF sister projects. I'd like to invite you to check out psychology learning resources, activities, research etc. on Wikiversity. e.g. v:Psychology, v:Category:Psychology e.g., some recent courses I've taught on WV include v:Survey research and design in psychology, v:Psychology 102, v:Motivation and emotion, v:Social psychology (psychology). Feel free to join in. WV tends to provide a much less daunting and much more encouraging editing environment than is often the case on WP, plus WV accepts lesson plans, curriculum, as well as original research etc. so often fits the profile of academic's work tasks better than the constraints of encyclopedic writing. Happy to chat more if you're interested. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Images in phobia articles

• An interesting point has been raised at Talk:Coulrophobia#Removal of File:Scary clown.jpg

Are images which cause problems for the sufferers of phobias appropriate within those phobia articles? If so, how should they be presented? I thought it would be a good idea to invite members of this project to that discussion for input. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with removal of images. Wikipedia isn't censored and people should expect related images in articles. Moreover, images like the one in arachnophobia can't cause any problems (except extreme psychological cases). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with censorship, but I don't see this as censorship. Does anyone not know what a spider or a clown looks like? without having a picture drawn? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Check th image in arachnophobia. It adds to the article. It's not just a spider. The same way in Triskaidekaphobia. Should we remove the number 13 from text? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is, I think, completely different. The scary clown image was deliberately manufactured to be scary, as the posing and lighting make very obvious. It's not an image of a regular clown that those not suffering from coulrophobia would be likely to find scary. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't add anything particularly from psychology to this but, as an observation from a layman, everybody knows what a clown looks like, so the article doesn't need an image. Phobias can be quite disabling, so people with this condition (surely a very important audience for the article) may be driven away by an image. Finally, the article-page discussion is tending towards "this is a deliberately scary-looking clown, who even scares me a little, so is inappropriate for this article," but images of happy, smiley, cute, friendly clowns, though not scary for most, may be just as scary as this one for affected people. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't studied psychology so I can't be of much help on that. I thought the discussion in here as more general. I 've no idea how many people are affected by coulrophobia but I think it's not well studied as phobia. I am also not sure if only the image can cause symptoms like in agrizoophobia. Anyway, in the general discussion: If an image adds to the discussion it should stay. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself haven't studied psychology, but here's my opinion on this issue, articles about phobias shouldn't have images of the fear itself, because people suffering from the phobia would be driven away from the article due to the image, and if that person wants to overcome and face that fear, then that person would just visit the article about the fear, an example of such is the article on pediophobia, the fear of dolls, it has an image of dolls, which to a pediophobe would be uncomfortable and would be driven away from the article due to the image. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Several good points have been made, and I think that the most important factor is if the image gives the reader new information or a deeper understanding of the subject. Since everybody knows what a clown looks like a clown picture in Coulrophobia doesn't really add to the article. The images in Triskaidekaphobia, on the other hand, really do add information to the article. Besides, I think it's unlikely that they would be scary to a triskaidekaphobic, which is another important factor. The "information factor" and the "scary factor" toghether makes four alternatives: informational/unscary, informational/scary, uninformational/unscary and uninformational/scary. IMO informational/unscary images should be kept, but uninformational/scary should be removed because they add nothing to the article for the non-phobic but they detract from the article for the sufferer of the phobia in question. For the other two alternatives decisions will have to be made on a case by case basis. If there is an image that is potentially scary, I think that we should be careful to choose an image that is a little scary as possible, but still conveys information. The image in Arachnophobia is a good example, where you also can argue that it has informational value as it ties in nicely to children's rhymes.Sjö (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As both a psychology major and someone with coulrophobia, I would like to specifically counter Magioladitis' arguments. There is no comparison between the images in your two examples and the image that was being used in the coulrophobia article. The image in arachnophobia depicts the phobia. It's artwork showing a girl's fear of a nearby spider. And it's a cartoon with an unrealistic spider. For the triskaidekaphobia article, it wouldn't be realistic to write the article without using thirteen in the text. It's a different situation. Explaining it through text is required to convey the information to the reader. An image of what, specifically, sufferers of any phobia are afraid of is not required for readers to understand what the phobia is about. The aracnophobia article doesn't need a picture of a spider, agraphobia doesn't need an image of a rape, gymnophobia doesn't need a picture of nude people, and ailurophobia and ophidiophobia don't need images of cats and snakes, respectively. Those are just a few examples. If you click on any of those articles, or the vast majority of all WP's phobia articles (perhaps every one of them, I haven't checked them all), you'll see that they lack any sort of potentially fear-inducing images. To sum it up, images of the cause of the fear are not necessary. Images that depict the phobia should be considered for inclusion, but there should also be some consideration given to the potential editors who may suffer from a given phobia. Any desire they may have to edit an article may be swiftly diminished if visiting the article triggers panic or anxiety. Lara 20:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an ideal case for a thoughtful presentation using javascript to permit reader choice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that the images should be included on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED, but Lara's argument above has converted me: we can still have an excellent article about a phobia without a picture of the thing which causes the phobia. Merely by wikilinking "clown", you give the reader the opportunity to find out more about clowns, see pictures and so on, if they're at all confused about what a clown is. It's not a matter of censorship, but of making a good encyclopedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there an example of javascript used in this manner? I'm not sure I understand what is meant.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lara (thanks for the differentiated exposition!). Also, I find it an odd idea of censorship to believe that particular images must be included. Morton Shumway—talk 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

After thinking it over and reading the arguments, I'm inclined to not generally support the use of problematic images in these articles, especially if they are just basically decoration. For instance the image in Coulrophobia didn't show coulrophobia, it showed a clown, which is rather different. The image in Arachnophobia, does show arachnophobia, and it includes information about arachnophobia. The information it provides is that arachnophobic persons exposed to a spider will fall over even if they are sitting down and throw objects that they are carrying a considerable distance. This is false information, but at least it's information, so we're on the right track, I guess. (An audio file of someone screaming "SPIDER!" would probably be much more accurate. A video would be even better. The spider wouldn't really have to be shown much if at all.) Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stimulus

Not surprisingly, another rather central notion to psychology has been shredded to an intricate problema in Wikipedia's cellars (just kidding). I have done some little work, however I thought this should be brought up here for anyone interested in science theory/history, philosophy of psychology, or just the central concepts their science is based on. Maybe it's a good idea to merge, or just to expand, some of the following mixture of ideas/lemmas: stimulus, stimulus (psychology), stimulus (physiology), proximal stimulus, distal stimulus. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

I think the redirects to Perception are a good idea, however I think that regarding the most recent changes to those redirects both should point to "Process and Terminology". Morton Shumway—talk 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC). (Sorted. Morton Shumway—talk 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC).)

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as a related project.

Hi, folks. I have been bold and added the Sexology and sexuality WikiProject to the project page as related project. I thought, however, that some might wish to discuss it. WP:Sex is generally quiet, but the great majority of the discussions and pages are psychological. My real-world experience (I am a clinical psychologist and sex researcher) is that most psychologists say sexual behavior was was a neglected topic in grad school and that a majority of the information in sexology is psychological.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To do list request

Should there not be a to-do list on this page somewhere?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) [moved here Morton Shumway—talk 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC).]

I guess this little lot is a start: Category:Psychology_stubs. IMHO it will take years to beef up that lot. I think it makes a lot of sense to have, say, a 12 month program of paid work by relevant academics. --Penbat (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a to-do list, but it's not being kept up to date. Scroll down the WP:Wikiproject Psychology page and you get to "What you can do to help". Large numbers of Psychology articles need Assessment: click on the numbers in the "Unassessed" row. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Martin Poulter - I guess the nearest thing to what I had in mind was the "What You can to do help feature".ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Effect and Executive dysfunction

Would a WikiProject Psychology editor review Aha! Effect for accuracy and whether it is correctly named? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psyc3330 subpages for related history. Thanks, Cunard (talk) Cunard (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also review Executive dysfunction (also from the same MfD). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Aha-Effect is of early Gestalt flavour and goes back to Bühler 1907's Aha-Erlebnis, which the (other) article on the concept - Eureka effect - does not fail to mention. Might be merged. Morton Shumway—talk 05:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Evolutionary psychology RFC

I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it really hard to participate in an RFC when you continue your edit war even there. Morton Shumway—talk 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

DYK submission for Social Foundations of Thought and Action

FYI, I have submitted a "Did You Know" (DYK) item for inclusion in that feature on the Main Page. If accepted, it will help give appropriate attention to psychology and psychology articles. The proposed item is for an article expanded on March 26 (see DIFF), and the proposed hook is

[Did You Know] ... that outlines of a "grand theory", sought for 100 years, were said to be given in Social Foundations of Thought and Action, a book by Albert Bandura, the most highly cited living psychologist?

Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST + Update: So far no-one's reviewed the DYK submission for Social Foundations (1986), which is delaying and could conceivably prevent psychology from getting the added exposure from this DYK item. If you have 10 mins, please consider reviewing the submission (see HERE for instructions, and search on same page for "Bandura" to locate the submitted item). This same DYK process can potentially be used to highlight articles you create, too. Health Researcher (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral genetics stub

Hey all, would really welcome help on the behavioral genetics article, which is basically a stub, but is a very important subject.--Babank (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MHP FAR

I have nominated Monty Hall problem for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Race and intelligence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Race and intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. +Race and IQTetron76 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Should the Psychology Barnstar be included in the official list of topic-related barnstars? An opportunity to discuss this question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards#Proposal_for_Psychology_Barnstar . MartinPoulter (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

psychological or emotional neglect

Hi everybody,

It seems to me that the Wikipedia articles "Neglect" and "Child neglect" are lacking. I don't have the competence to do the topic justice, but judging by some of the research literature there seems a lot that could be said about the phenomenon of neglect, its developmental impact and the difficulty associated with defining and hence researching it, among other things. Please take a look at the discussion page of those two articles and see if you can improve the articles. It would be greatly appreciated. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi they are 2 of many Wikipedia psychology articles needing attention. We are short of psychology contributors at present but will see what i can do about those 2 but it may take a while though.--Penbat (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy of perception

Since PhoP is of basic interest for some psychologists, especially those concerned with perception, I would like to ask for opinions on the recent rewrite of that article's lede, which I consider quite a worsening and challenge here: Talk:Philosophy of perception#Lede rewrite (April 2011). Morton Shumway—talk 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC).

A public talk about this wikiproject

I'll be giving a presentation on "Psychology on English Wikipedia: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" a the WikiConference 2011 tomorrow in Bristol, UK. There may be video of it, and if so I'll post a link here. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Video and audio were recorded, but separately, so I'll have to get the files off the two people, sync them and put it online. The talk seemed to go down very well. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am looking forward to it! Morton Shumway—talk 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

Source request

Would someone with access to the Journal of the APA mind helping me out? The article is here http://apa.sagepub.com/content/57/6/1504.extract . I'd like to use any quotes it has about Suzanne Segal's experience regarding depersonalization disorder. Thanks very much.Ocaasi ^c 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please disregard this, I got access to the source. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Theory of indispensable attributes

I just created this basic article. I was planning to add sections on indispensable attributes, history, and criticism, however I realised that I won't have time to spend on this particular topic in the near future. Anyway, given that the theory was not covered anywhere on WP, I considered what I had written reasonable enough by itself to create the article and give others interested in gestalt theory, perception and cognitive psychology the opportunity to extend it. Morton Shumway—talk 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Rape#Definition of rape / sexual assault

Opinions are needed. The discussion is about whether or not the articles should be merged/whether or not the Rape article should exist. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

request for feedback

Hello, I am part of a team involved with the WikiProject United States Public Policy. My team and I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on our article Benefits for United States veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrandfield (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Article candidates: Social loafing and Social identity

I've noticed that these two articles are seeking reviewers for Good Article status. See Wikipedia:GAN for details on how to review. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone thinking of undertaking the reviews should be also be aware of the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I had a quick look at these articles and it seems to me that they rely rather too heavily on primary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comfort

I have converted the former disambiguation page on comfort to a stub article on this core topic. Any assistance in developing this article would be deeply appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

infomation (can a psychology dr. be affected by his work?)

can a psychology dr. be affected by his work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.35.185 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Actually any kind of doctor can be affected by his/her work. See Medical students' disease, if nothing else. (In future, please use a more informative title if you ask a question -- I have edited this one.) Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

<Psychosophy>

I sent you a message earlier from a different site and then from this site; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosophy#Scott_Hamilton contact me at Sine_764@hotmail.com I just need someone to communicate with, and I'm full of Goodness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.7.113 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the improvement of Psychology articles on Wikipedia. We can't answer general questions, but you can take those to the Reference desk. They can provide answers to specific factual questions. If you're just looking for someone to chat to, Wikipedia isn't the right place: there are lots of more appropriate sites elsewhere on the internet. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

State of the Wikiproject

We recently passed 3000 article evaluations: a steady improvement (1260 have been reviewed in the past year), but still fewer than half the Wikiproject's articles have any kind of assessment. Check out the popular pages list (and put it on your watchlist) to see that some high-traffic articles are in need of review.

I'm seeing a lot more new users editing psychology articles in the last few weeks. This seems to be mainly a result of the Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia initiative. I'm also seeing real article improvement, in substantive, interesting areas. For example, check out the improvements to Stereotype threat by new user User:Haley love.

I expect this will result in a deluge of Good Article Candidates. Robertekraut's students have been doing really good work and are starting to submit the articles they've worked on to GAC. We sorely need reviewers. I just don't have enough time at the moment. I urge my fellow Wikiproject members to look into reviewing these efforts, and issuing Wikithanks and barnstars as appropriate to the new contributors. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Acting on Martin's remarks, I recently assessed some ten or twenty articles, among others Phallus, which – even though tagged 'start' by two other projects – I rated 'stub' from the point of view of WP:PSY. However, another editor (seemingly not active in this project) recently changed all three ratings to 'C', without any preceding change to the article worth mentioning. Wouldn't that be an unproductive way to deal with project assessments? Morton Shumway—talk 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

The other editor probably assumed s/he was being helpful in making all of the ratings match. I, too, would have rated the article as C-class, since it contains more than a dozen sections and 18 inline citations, and the introduction of (both) sections and citations is the absolute minimum for rating an article C rather than Start.

A stub is commonly defined as an article that contains less than 10 sentences. Just the psychoanalysis section contains 11 sentences and two (incomplete) WP:Inline citations (those numbers in WP:PARENtheses are page numbers for the book, but the full bibliographic citation is missing, and the rest of the article has converted WP:FOOTnotes). While it is noticeably incomplete from the perspective of psychology, I think that "stub" was a bit of an overreaction. Start-class, however, I think is perfectly justifiable from the perspective of this project. You are welcome to 'correct' the other person's change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your view, that was exactly the point I was wondering about: whether there is a policy for project assessments that is not identical with assessing from a general editorial viewpoint. Of course I am aware of the differences between stub, start, etc. in general, and I don't think that I overreacted. Still, 'start' might be fine as well, but I would take that to be from a purely psychoanalytical viewpoint. Anyway, it seems to me that per WP:ASSESS what counts are factual completeness alongside content and language quality. Since the assessment until A level is done by the projects, it would be a contradiction to enforce a particular assessment on the basis of those of another project - an articles that is A, i.e. factually complete, from the POV of one project does not at all have to be complete from another project's viewpoint. Morton Shumway—talk 21:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Really great to see the assessed articles total going up and up: thanks to everyone who is contributing to that. Taking a glance at Phallus just now (I mean the article, of course), I'd say it's beyond a stub, and could be either Start or C depending on a closer examination. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Input and expansion (?) for Hypersexuality

Hi, folks. I've reworked the Hypersexuality page, and it seems quite stable. I'd like it eventually to achieve GA status, and could use input and additions for any areas you think it might still be lacking.— James Cantor (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

creativity

Creativiy comes from how the brain works. You have ideas and just go with them and then keep stretching them to become bigger and more in reality. It like dreaming of something and making it happen. When it does not work the way it should them you just keep expanding it to become what you want. You just do not give up you just keep going till the subject gets done. Creativity is very important in all areas of your life it lifts you up when you are down. It bring excitiment in your life when you try to figure out how to do it. It also bring the spritual end into it because you have to trust yourself with your thought and let them guide you to what you want to accomplish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.152.12 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Latent Inhibition article

The article on "latent inhibition" should be completely re-written. I have done so, but I can't figure out how to submit it in Wikipedia format. I have posted my edits in text format in my Sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relubow/Sandbox. Can someone help with incorporating the changes into the article?

Relubow (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added this content, but the article needs further edits to restructure, remove poorer content, and introduce wikilinks. Also given this user links to Help files. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Eleanor Maccoby

Taking Martin Poulter's advice (see above entries for March) I went to "What you can do to help" and saw that there was an article on Eleanor Maccoby requested. I have just been to the article which I created this week (in May 2011) and was very surprised to see, that on its talk page, there was no reference to the article forming part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology. I shall be extremely grateful if this could be rectified. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Wikiproject code. To do this for any article that you think is in the scope of the project, just add this code to the top of the article's Talk page: {{Wikiproject Psychology |class= |importance= }}

MartinPoulter (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New Good Article

I'm happy to announce that the article on Stereotype threat has been promoted to Good Article status after being substantially improved by User:Haley love as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. Social identity is still waiting for a GA reviewer. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Monopolize?

People that describe others as being happy with oneself and confident of oneself to the point of expression as a disorder are perhaps a bit narcisistic...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) perhaps a bit narcasistic... Because they are attempting to manipulate that persons wellbeing by making a vague blatent label with little explanation to inhibit that person to question themselves when they are simply being happy and content with themselves...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving Wikipedia's coverage of Psychology, not for this general discussion. Please take this elsewhere. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm refering to the example on the page about narcissism... The subject named "Narsissus" was not exibiting any narcissistic activity... He had never seen his reflection before...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A better example for narcissism is like when people manipulate others interpretations by making blatent lables with insufficient examples...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the relevant talk page, please. The similarity between "Narcissus" and "Narcissism" is not accidental. Please also give your sections a meaningful title that is relevant to what you are trying to say. That makes it easier for us readers. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage

• It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living

Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New Good Article candidate

The article on Management of traumatic memories was improved by an educational project earlier this year. The project has run its course and the original authors no longer seem to be active, so I have submitted it to Good Article review myself. To review, follow the instructions at WP:GAC. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All in the Mind article

I wonder how many members of WikiProject Psychology have seen the article on All in the Mind, the BBC Radio Four programme on psychology and psychiatry? If you go the talk page of the article, you will see it is currently watched by WikiProject BBC - but it could also be watched by this project group. After all, it is a programme on psychology! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion: I've added it. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It can have some good material but it is frustratingly selective for example i have never heard the words "personality disorder" or "narcissism" uttered. --Penbat (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Psychology is a very broad subject, and each radio programme has to present a single topic, so they're necessarily subjective. Also, they seem to focus on pivotal experiments: if there isn't a famous experiment into a topic, they are less likely to address it. Still an excellent programme though, and should be added as external links wherever relevant. Penbat, would it be fair to say you have a bit of an obsession with the above topics? ;) MartinPoulter (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Poulter, I appreciate that you do an enormous amount of good work for this WikiProject, but I still feel that you used the wrong word when you said "subjective" above I think you meant "selective". Also, it is not true that each programme is about a single subject - most editions present coverage of three or four items. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just edited the article on the programme, putting in the bit about the programme from Hong Kong - I shall be grateful if any one can let me know whether any one feels that what I typed there is a little off-subject. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Links between autism and eating disorders

Well, one subject that was addressed on All in the Mind was that of a possible link between eating disorders and autism. As you can say on the talk page of the article on Asperger syndrome, reliable sources have informed me that there are some psychologists who believe there is a link between eating disorders and Asperger syndrome, although the claim remains contested. If any one in this WikiProject knows about this, perhaps s/he could add it to the article onAsperger syndrome, or possibly to the articles on eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on William McDougall

The article on William McDougall may be of interest to this WikiProject - I do mean the psychologist William McDougall, not the Canadian politician who was linked with the Red River Rebellion! I notice that we have not given it a rating - I would be more positive than the WikiProject or philosophy, who have rated it as stub class and low importance (I think this would be interesting enough to be mid-importance to psychologists, and I would rate it above stub class). I see the article was in an arbitration case - I do not know what that means, but any one who does could perhaps offer help there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who understands the assessment system and is familiar with the project is permitted to assess articles -- I went ahead and assessed this one as Start class and Mid importance (for WikiProject Psychology). The arbitration involvement relates to his views on race and eugenics, and should not be of concern unless for some reason the article becomes a battleground (which has not happened so far). Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Input on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page

Can I get some input from the project on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page? There is an slow, ongoing debate relating to all things Ramachandran, but it has really escalated in regards to the mirror neuron hypothesis of autism; see Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Pathophysiology_of_autism. I might be losing my perspective on this, as I've been involved in a slow battle with several other editors, so I thought I'd ask for some outside input from other experts in the relevant areas. I've also asked a couple of other editors who are part of the neuroscience project for some input, and asked an admin to lock the page to promote discussion instead of edit-warring. Thanks Edhubbard (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

List of psychiatric medications by narcotic class

New article! Assistance welcome!! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Could use some eyes at Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

I don't know anything about this school but I watch listed it when it was on New Pages and later removed some serious unsourced allegations. [[1]]. Now the word "controversial" is in the stub. Is that a weasel word or just fine? I'm not sure. In any case, whatever the controversy is I'd appreciate it if a few people kept an eye on it. Thanks. Cloveapple (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The linked article Modern psychoanalysis looks like it has a similar problem. I just reverted an [edit] that inserted the word "cult" as well as some random looking stuff.Cloveapple (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Behavioural science articles for deletion listing page

I have created a page where behavioural science-related articles for deletion (AFDs) can be tracked. I have found such a page helpful for other projects I participate in. Please list behavioural science and psychology-related AFDs on this page to encourage others to participate in the discussions. The listing page can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Behavioural science. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Psychology popular pages increased from 800 to 1500

WP:PSY/PP --Penbat (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems with 'Internal Monologue' article

There is so much written on the topic of 'internal monologue' by psychologists and linguists who have studied early childhood and language acquisition etc. professionally that it seems ridiculous to begin an article like this with Zen Buddhism, and then follow it with some random jottings under 'Related Concepts'. Unfortunately I don't have the competence to edit this article, but I very much hope someone with the necesssary knowledge will, for the sake of any poor student who might consult this page.

58.41.128.121 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agoraphobia article needs some help

Hi - I hope this is an appropriate place and way to ask - the Agoraphobia article needs some help. It is disorganized;, has tended to offer outdated, pseudo-science and cultural rather than psychological definitions; has sometimes suggested questionable "treatments" which could cause significant trauma or harm to agoraphobics. Anyone willing to help? UC232 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Article or redirect?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sexual preference#Own article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Some mentoring needed at Judith V. Jordan

A new editor posted this around April or so, asking for help at Request for Feedback. The editor received some help, but still seems to be having some difficulties; can anyone help them out with this bio of an American psyhologist specialising in women's issues? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

Discussion has been light thus far; input would be welcome at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia_and_gynephilia
— James Cantor (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for article on aviation psychology

I have just been to the list of requested articles on Wikipedia - there is a request for an article on aviation psychology. I do not think we will also need an article on aerospace psychology, but I think that an article on aviation psychology would make a good addition. I know too little about the topic to start one - I just know that Dave Bartram is an expert in the field. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have just requested an article on "space psychology" - this is the more common name. Helen Ross is the big name here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC

Here is a list of articles to start with (from a cut and paste of David Ohares publications list!). the journal of aviation psychology seems like a relevant source.

• Pauley, K., O’Hare, D., Mullen, N., & Wiggins, M. Implicit perceptions of risk and anxiety and pilot involvement in hazardous events. Human Factors, 50 (5), 723-733 (2008).

• O’Hare, D., Mullen, N. Wiggins, M., & Molesworth, B. Finding the right case: The role of predictive features in memory for aviation accidents. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22, 1163-1180 (2008).

• O’Hare, D., Mullen, N., & Rinaldi, M. Brief encounters: Enhancing the impact of accident and incident occurrence reports. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18(3), 225-236 (2008).

• O’Hare, D. (2002). Aeronautical decision making: Metaphors, models, and methods. In P. S. Tsang & M. A. Vidulich (Eds.), Principles and practice of aviation psychology 201-23).

• Wiegmann, D. A., Goh, J., & O’Hare, D. (2002). The role of situation assessment and flight experience in pilots’ decisions to continue visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. Human Factors, 44(2), 189-197.

• O’Hare, D. (Ed.) (1999). Human performance in general aviation. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Earlypsychosis (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles created for freshman college course

I've become aware of a summer freshman college course in psychology (outside the college and university project) whose students were required to create Wikipedia accounts and write or improve articles; many of them appear to have chosen the former option, and the course has just ended leaving us with articles that should be checked. Several were submitted at Did You Know and of those Optimalism has already been merged into Optimism, but I appear to be the first to have become aware of the group as a whole, and I don't know much about psychology (as may be apparent from the limits of my editing at Illusion of transparency). This page has a list of students and articles at the bottom. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles are now listed here, being struck out as they are copyedited or identified as merged, etc. Of them, please can I urgently ask for someone to look at Moral reasoning, which has been submitted to Did You Know by the student who expanded it? It seems obviously deficient to me as coverage of the topic, but I do not have the knowledge to fix it and the DYK nomination is on hold until someone with knowledge of the field looks at it. Many thanks to anyone who can find the time. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, only one of my students created a new article (Army Substance Abuse Program), the rest were encouraged to choose low-quality stubs to work on. This semester we'll be doing the same kind of thing, trying to improve the 1000+ stubs (or the 3500+ unassessed articles) as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. They are freshmen, but it is my goal to ensure that they don't make anything worse. My course is listed on WP:SUP this semester, and we'll be making a concerted effort to leave anything we touch better. Thanks! --MTHarden (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Prosocial behavior article at AfD

Prosocial behavior is at AfD. I've started to upgrade it from a school essay-- is it ready to go as is? The PsychWiki.com article is closer, but can't be copied. Anyone here who can help? Trilliumz (talk)

I was quite surprised to such an important topic in psychology being there, and I have just stated that I am in favour of keeping it. I shall have a a look at the article itself now. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ExpertCommentBot

We are researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who are working on a project to involve experts in different scientific fields to contribute to Wikipedia. Our project has started as a collaboration with Association for Psychological Science to improve the quality of psychology articles. More information about the initiative can be found at: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/APS-Wikipedia_Initiative. As part of this project, the team is developing tools to support faculty who are interested to use Wikipedia in classroom. An important purpose of our tools is to allow faculty to share comments they are providing to their students with the Wikipedia community to broaden the audience who can contribute in addressing the problems with the article. To support that feature in our tools, we are creating a manual bot to post comments on article talk pages on behalf of experts who might not be familiar with the Wikipedia markup language and to decrease the difficulty of providing feedback from experts. You can find more information about the bot which is in approval process here. We appreciate your comments, questions, and concerns. Rostaf (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of junk psychology articles to improve. I will keep an eye on developments with interest.--Penbat (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Pathlight School's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to Wikipedia and this WikiProject, an article about Pathlight School, a Singaporean special school for autistic children! All of you are invited to comment at its ongoing peer review to help the article become Wikipedia's first special-education-related GA, thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychological and psychosocial interventions in the treatment of cancer pain

I have just written Cancer pain and it needs a section on evidence-based psychological interventions. I won't be able to get to that for quite a while. Thought I'd point it out, just in case there's someone here with an interest in these things who'd like to take a crack at it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Popular articles

I have been looking at Martin Poulter's comments above on the popular articles list,and I have just had a look at it.It made interesting reading - I did not even know that some articles could get a rating above "High" for "importance" of "Top" (Sigmund Freud and psychology both got that rating). However, if Sigmund Freud got top rating, why did Oedipus complex only get mid rating for importance?Freud believed that discovery of the Oedipus complex was his main achievement, so I wonder whether it could be promoted to high rating? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that Freud is not a good estimator of the importance of his achievements. --MTHarden (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Importance" really means "Priority for this group". Think about psychology-related subjects that are so fundamental, so critical to a basic encyclopedia that this group would be terribly embarrassed if the articles didn't exist, or if they existed but were in really bad shape, everyone would want to pitch in and fix ASAP: These are your top-rated articles. Psychology is certainly one such article.

The rest of the scale goes down from there: High is something that we need a good article on, but if you had to choose which one to fix up first, you'd pick the top-rated article. Mid is normal priority: We want a good article, but there's no particular rush, and it will be improved in the normal course of editing. "Low" means that it's related to psychology, but if it takes us a couple of years to get to that low-traffic article, sub-topic detail, or whatever, it's not a disaster.

There are two basic uses for these ratings:

1. to decide which articles you are going to work on next, and
2. to decide which articles go into the WP:1.0 team's offline releases of Wikipedia (e.g., on DVDs for schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just add that although the idea is reasonable, in actual practice nobody pays much attention to those ratings when deciding what to work on, as far as I can tell. Page view statistics are a much more useful guide to where effort is most urgently needed. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Wallis's The Death of Chatterton, 1856.

Notification of RfC

Talk:Suicide#Image RfC

1. Should Henry Wallis's painting The Death of Chatterton be used to illustrate the article Suicide?
2. Should the article Suicide contain an image depicting suicide?

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

References needed on Millon Inventory

In the article on the Millon Inventory, I have added a reference on the limitation of validity to clinical populations. But it is only to the publisher's FAQ page, so there are probably better, more authoritative references on that matter, so it would be good if someone could supply that.

The sentence following that one sorely needs two references. On what bases is it stated that (a) "there is a strong evidence base that shows that it still retains validity on non-clinical populations" and (b) "psychologists will often administer the test to members of the general population."?

- WagePeace (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

bullying

what do we all need to do to prevent these suicides resulting from bullying I am a bilingual multicultural psychotherapist planning on giving a series of talks in order to facilitate more open discussion and exploration of this shocking topic I appreciate your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

TeenScreen merger proposal

For anyone who is interested: I've proposed a merge between TeenScreen and Columbia University TeenScreen Program, because they are duplicative. Because the former is the more common name, while the latter is not actually correct, the resulting article should be TeenScreen.

Meanwhile, because neither article is very good, I've written a new draft combining the best of both, scrupulously cited, and following all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can see it here: User:WWB_Too/TeenScreen. I need an administrator's help with the merge because I am not an admin, and I would like another editor to consider my replacement draft because I am engaging these pages on behalf of TeenScreen, so I have a potential COI issue with the topic.

A similar version of this explanation can be found on the TeenScreen Talk page, where the merger proposal lives. Note also, I'm posting this same request to WikiProject Medicine, because the primary article is also listed within its scope. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Page improvements

We would like to improve this page by adding the following sections and improvements: Studies in the subject, elaborate and site the theories, brain processes, physiology of the eye in relation to the concept, basic info about illusions, why this is important, what it is related to, table of contents, images, adding credible references, external links/further readings, overview of content, bibliography, encoding and perception, history/discovery, influential people.

       Mackey14321

October 2011

Soft topics from history

Do we have a plan for extra soft topics from history like Active imagination or collective unconscious. From the articles a casual reader wouldn't be able to tell that these aren't really the current thinking in psychology. Clearly these topics are important from a historical perspective, and I'm sure various new age / mystic projects would be interested in them, but maybe it would be worth while to have an organizational plan for clearly separating the science from the rest. --198.209.26.252 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Despair (emotion)

A decision should be made on what to do with "Despair (emotion)". It currently redirects to "Hope" which is obviously a less than ideal target. Granted it's a tough subject to write an article on but it's important, and if someone from this project maybe wants to start off a short stub or whatever that's at least something for editors to build upon. -- œ^™ 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You all want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)