Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Index · Statistics · Log

Mentioning bipolar diagnosis in BLPs[edit]

Please comment at WT:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. PermStrump(talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing topics about psychology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

From a quick scan of the list, I could do Thurstone equal-appearing intervals and Transference. Ngyi1983 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Malignant narcisissm[edit]

The article Malignant narcissism lists Trump as an example. I have brought up issues with this on the talk page. I would like outside analysis of this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That inclusion is a WP:BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, many psychologists I know take an issue with attributing psychopathology, both because such diagnoses are given outside any acceptable context (the individual has not been assessed) and because of a mistrust to psychologicalization of political ideologies, policies, etc. Ngyi1983 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

There's tons of speculation that Donald Trump may or may not have certain psychological conditions. But it's just that: speculation. He does not have an official diagnosis of anything, and none of the people who are claiming he has these conditions has studied him personally. Thus, it is not a medically relevant diagnosis. Be on the lookout for people addding Trump to articles as an example of said disorders or to add information to the Donald Trump article directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Avoidant Restrictive Feeding Intake Disorders (ARFID)[edit]

-Any ideas on expanding the types to new diagnoses? Adding ARFID, types of food selectivity and diagnoses?

-Any contributions on the influences of family food repetoire and how that impacts the child's habits as well as parent training post-intervention?

(IvanaPorcic (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

The Authoritarian Personality Method Summary[edit]

I have started working on a summary of the methodology and findings of The Authoritarian Personality. Please have a look and comment, at User:Ngyi1983/Methodology of The Authoritarian Personality —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that the authoritarian personality study was subject to a good deal of criticism on methodological grounds. For example, items making up the A-S, E, and F scales were all written in one direction, opening the instruments up to the problem of response sets such as acquiescence. The sample was unrepresentative of Americans, even if the sample comprised White, non-Jewish adults, it was unrepresentative White, non-Jewish U.S. adults. Individuals in the sample had to be members of at least one organization, thus omitting from the sample individuals who were not members of an organization. The researchers also used the TAT, a projective test, which is of limited or no validity. Interview data were coded by coders who knew the interviewee's questionnaire responses, thus opening the coders' interpretation to bias. That the scales were correlated with education and IQ suggests that what the scales were, at least in part, measuring was worldly knowledge. In addition, the study was partly built on a good deal of psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo. I nevertheless believe that Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) were on to something important despite the methodological limitations of The authoritarian personality. Iss246 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I just finished adding the Methodology section. Virtually all of your points have been covered. What is missing is a description of the TAT procedure and more references on the psychodynamic background of the study under a critical viewpoint. Thanks! Ngyi1983 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

April editathon on psychologists at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's
April 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Tsuruko Haraguchi, circa 1910.PNG
Biographies, writings, achievements, organizations

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Attentional bias[edit]

Hi! I'm a student from LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) who is part of a PS110 course (Foundation of Psychological Science). As part of Project Psychology, which our professor introduced us to, I'd like to contribute to the "Attentional Bias" wikipedia page, which appears to be underdeveloped (as seen in how it is classified as a "Stub Article").

I have some changes I'd like to make, and a log to accompany it (although I know theres a wiki history for each page), but I'm quite new to the editing world of Wikipedia, so I understand if individuals would be worried if I added new content and made changes, so I felt like I should check with the community before making any changes.

Thanks! JohnDT (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@JohnDT: Carry on. Since you are a new user, I will point out that headings in Wikipedia use sentence case, so, for example, the title of your comment here should have been "Attentional bias" not "Attentional Bias". (I corrected it.) Look at MOS:CAPS for more detail on capitalization rules in Wikipedia. There is also an introduction to the Wikipedia Manual of Style that you should read before getting started, so that your work conforms to style rules as much as possible and others will not have to clean up as many style errors. That introduction notes: "The MOS goes into great detail for a great many cases, but one can often get a quick example of what to do by looking at a featured article (especially one on a similar subject), as these must conform to all the style rules." Biogeographist (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Thanks! I made the changes I wanted to make. However I'm curious how the quality ratings work, as I'd ideally like to keep working on the wikipedia article until it surpasses it's current "stub" rating. Once again, thanks for your help! JohnDT (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@JohnDT: I have upgraded the article to start class. Please review my comments at Talk:Attentional bias § Corrections, 3 April 2017. Biogeographist (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC-Borderline personality disorder[edit]

Hi, a new RfC request was posted at Talk:Borderline personality disorder that might interest some of this WikiProject's members.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

CBAT (Community Based Acute Treatment)[edit]

CBAT is a disambiguation page. It does not list this meaning. I have put some links and quotes at Talk:CBAT § Community Based Acute Treatment (behavioral and emotional therapy), but I am totally incompetent to make even a stub about it. I hope someone in this project can do something for it. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice on an article[edit]

I ran across the article Joseph E. McGrath while doing some copyediting on articles with external links in the text. I can easily deal with the external links and grammatical details, but I'm not sure what to do with the rest of it. It is basically a poorly-referenced curriculum vitae with an unsourced poem stuck in the middle. I think it's clear that the book chapters and journal articles, at least, need to be trimmed, but how does a non-expert decide what should stay and what should go? Leschnei (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help with a draft at AFC[edit]

Draft:Personal Initiative (PI) is waiting for a review. A subject specialist's opinion about the draft is requested. If you don't wish to, or know how to perform a full AFC Review, please simply post your opinion on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Video game addiction[edit]

It strikes me that Video game addiction could use a combing over to comply with WP:MEDRS by an editor with more experience and inclination than I. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Another AFC draft needs a subject specialist review[edit]

Draft:Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale needs to be evaluated by someone familiar with the topic area. If you don't wish to, or know how to perform a full AFC Review, please simply post your opinion on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions needed![edit]

Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dignity of risk[edit]

I have started the draft, please feel free to participate in developing it further. I have posted a list of sources that I can share on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Parental Alienation[edit]

[1]A very important part of Parental Alienation is missing from your definition. That is "the breakdown of previously normal, healthy parent-child relationships during divorce and child custody cases"


2600:1005:B05C:90FF:91A9:486E:718B:4384 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Psychology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Psychology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Leisure, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Person-centered therapy[edit]

Person-centered therapy could use some eyes on it, there is a content dispute that could use third opinions. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Client-centered therapy and Carl Rogers' work is so important yet receives so little attention in most graduate programs these days. So for those of you who recognize the vital importance of the psychotherapeutic principles Rogers and others espoused--and researched extensively--this is a great article to work on. Your contributions will help the next generation of psychotherapists become more effective.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to create a Template?[edit]

If you do, would you be so kind as to consider creating one similar to WikiProject Medicine's template, Reliable sources for medical articles? Some resources to consider including in such a Template include Wikipedia LibraryHow to find sourcesFind your source - scholarly booksFind your source - academic journalsJournal sourcesBook sourcesFree resources, and Partner databases. (That's probably too many, but I'm not sure which ones I would want to remove.)

Btw, if you do not already have access to PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and related APA databases, you can apply for access via the Wikipedia Library on the Partner databases page. Now that's a deal! (Only do it if you edit regularly though--that's one of the criteria.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit needed in Resources section[edit]

I don't know how to edit information in the boxes on the Project's home page. Under Resources, Open Directory ( has closed, so we should either remove it as a resource or link to the archive.


Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
Content mine logo.png


This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.

Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.

While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New article about pussy torture[edit]

Could someone from this WikiProject review and assess Pussy torture? It's a newly created article that did not pass through WP:AFC, so it's yet to be reviewed. I am asking this here beause I found this project's banner on the talk page of one of the articles listed in the "See also" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of teenager[edit]

This teen is exhibiting the following behaviors: Isolation, severe depression, aggression, leaving home for days, weight loss, grades failing, has quit activities, i.e., gymnastics, diving team, wants to quit school, all these, among others (seems to hate his parents and siblings, started using marijuana), and no one can get him to talk about what's troubling him.

I believe this child, age 17, has been abused, possibly at school (bullied or worse). Is there any way to get him to talk about what happened? He simply will not talk to anyone about what's wrong but seems miserable and looks disheveled. His parents think it may be a "phase" he's going through. His parents have taken him to many counselors but he won't participate and refuses to take medication. His father is in fear that he may hurt himself.

My question is what kind of professional should be engaged for a person with these symptoms?

2601:C2:4102:B274:C55C:ECF4:5D65:F56D (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)