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


An odd request about socks[edit]

This is directed to Wikipedians who have lots of experience with psychology and sockpuppets. I want to make a series of boilerplate pleas to encourage socks to give up socking. This is not for troll socks. They don't get food. This is for gaden-variety agenda-pushers, etc. I'm trying to get inside their heads. Outside Wikipedia, propaganda and advertising works. People are like putty. The buy cars because of an advert with a sexy woman. They vote for complete idiots babbling insane lies. I need a broad approach for the boilerplates. Appeal to reason? Forced introspection? Befriending and confidence? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In the history of Wikipedia, the only thing that has reduced socking is to discover them and block them. If they could have been conquered with reason, introspection, or befriending, that would have been done long ago. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sundayclose. I think that is a bit defeatist, my friend. In the short history of Wikipedia, has anything other than discovering and blocking them ever been studied or tried in an organized way? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that you have the best of intentions and I appreciate your efforts, but it is not defeatist to acknowledge reality even if we don't like it. Wikipedia has been battling socks since its inception 15 years ago. There are policies, templates, vigilant page patrollers, a checkuser system, and an army of admins ready to fight. If a few editors interested in psychology "organize" and appeal to socks (who have malicious intent) with reason, introspection, or befriending, will that change anything? Anything is possible, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem isn't lack of organization or insufficient boilerplates. The problems are that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and registration is not required. That's not meant to deny the value of Wikipedia (it's free, and it's comprehensive though subject to bias). I'll check back in a year or so, and I do sincerely hope your efforts produce miraculous results. If that happens let me know. Sundayclose (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback, Sundayclose. You are probably right. But the strategy you mention has so far been about laws, intel, and combat. If Edward Bernays were here I'm sure he'd suggest a way to steer them psychologically. Even governments know "winning hearts and minds" is better than brute force. So, come on, indulge me. Subtle suggestion. Shame. Planting some sort of seed in their mind to make future socking distasteful to them -- make it trigger some sort of emotion. The goal is for it to work on 1 out of 10. That would make it worthwhile. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American source/prevalence of domestic violence data at the Domestic violence article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Male rape listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Male rape to be moved to Rape of males. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The Third Wave listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Third Wave to be moved to The Third Wave (experiment). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Bullycide listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bullycide to be moved to Bullying and suicide. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Kinesthetic sympathy[edit]

Hello. While looking for the Wikipedia page on this [1], what I actually found was this... And even after trimming it down to this, the concept still seems fundamentally misrepresented [2]. 81.157.0.217 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Boasting[edit]

There is currently a very short stub of a dictionary definition boasting, and so little content for an encyclopedia that there are more words in the see-also section than in the article itself. The article has a large number of incoming links, but I think that readers are going to be disappointed ending up on this tiny page. I would like to suggest that the article be redirected to a more mature article, but I'm not sure which. My thoughts so far have been pride, vanity and hubris, of which I think the latter is the most appropriate, but this seems to be the project to ask. Thoughts?

There is also a discussion at redirects for discussion concerning 86 117 redirects pointing to this article, which would benefit from your input. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't think there is a good redirect because of differences in meaning. I know this is probably not a popular solution, but my suggestion is to unlink all the articles that have a link to boasting and then delete the boasting article. This is a good example of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading (process) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reading (process) to be moved to Reading. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses to be moved to Physical exercise and mental illnesses. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Draft:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Draft:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses to be moved to Physical exercise and mental illnesses. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Causes of mental disorders‎ needs a tune-up[edit]

I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia (as of today), so I apologize in advance for any faux pas. I was checking out the article Causes of mental disorders and it needs a lot of work. It doesn't look like any edits have been made for over a year and the talk page has been silent for 2 years. I'd appreciate opinions on 2 notes I left in the talk page about the subsection on evolutionary psychology. I've only skimmed the Causes of mental disorders‎ article and I see other things that need to be deleted or tightened up. I'm ready to work on it, but am I supposed to wait until I have feedback since certain parts of it might be hot button issues? IMHO whole subsection is weird: Factors affecting choice of models and theories. Permstrump (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permstrump (talkcontribs) 06:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Umbrella" articles of that type often don't get a lot of attention. Please feel free to improve the article in any way that seems suitable to you -- I'll add it to my watchlist. Looie496 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Looie496, do you know of an umbrella article that would be good for me to use as a guide? Permstrump (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Permstrump, if you are brand new to editing Wikipedia, you certainly edit it better than the vast majority of WP:Newbies (I mean, the way you consistently sign your username when newbies usually forget to or don't think to sign it for their very first post to this site, and the way you make sure to WP:Indent, and how you know of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). But anyway, you can ask for help with the Causes of mental disorders article at WP:Med, which is far more active than this WikiProject. Being WP:Bold and working on that article should be fine as long as you stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing and good formatting with no WP:Neutral issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I genuinely appreciate the positive feedback as I've been so nervous about messing up Wikipedia that I've just been reading talk pages without contributing since September when I first registered. I guess yesterday I was feeling WP:BOLD. Except not really, because I've basically only contributed to talk pages so far. As far as WP:Med, what do you think about my other comment below re: combining social science fields into one project and/or making this one (or a social science project) more prominent in the project directory WP:PROJDIR? Do you think it makes more sense to mainly use WP:Med? I do think psychology/social sciences is something professionals in the field and laymen would be interested in contributing to, so I wonder if there's not more traffic here only because of low visibility that the project exists. Permstrump (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering if this Project is active[edit]

...and if so is anyone assessing articles? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

it is a very sad state of affair, psychology is probably the most neglected area of Wikipedia. There are a few psychology Wiki editors around but not enough.--Penbat (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I would probably be willing to assess an article, if a request appears here. Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to combine some projects into a social sciences project or something? Off the top of my head these projects are related and less active than psychology: social work, WP:Disability and WP:SOCIOLOGY. Idk how one would go about combining them, but I would be willing to work on it with some guidance if others agree.
Maybe it's a problem that Psychology isn't listed in the main directory WP:PROJDIR? None of the categories apply. STEM and History and Society were the closest, but psychology isn't listed under them and is hard to find when you're specifically looking for it, so no one is going to stumble on it. I found it through an article I'm thinking about working on. FWIW it was either Bruce K. Alexander or his study Rat Park. Both have such major POV and UNDUE problems that I had to laugh. I think his DIL wrote them as she randomly cited herself. They're relevant because Rat Park was cited in a recent book and TED talk by Johann Hari-- who has apparently been accused of making improper edits on his critics' Wikipedia pages, so I'll be keeping an eye on his page as well. Permstrump (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Peabody Individual Achievement Test[edit]

Dear editors: I found this old draft and I fixed it up and moved it to mainspace. I removed a fair amount of detail that I felt would be of little interest to the average reader, but others may disagree. The original text is of course to be found a few revisions back, and if anyone wants to restore that material I'm sure references can be found for it; this is a well-known test.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic Mind[edit]

An entry for this book just popped up, along with a number of references added to articles. I just can't find anything about the book, I have AFDd the book, and any comments on that discussion would be appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm deleting my comment here that was maybe TMI about the AfD for this page and since I got help with my questions in the Teahouse. Forgive me for being new. The etiquette around here is confusing. :-P Permstrump (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?[edit]

Hey guys, the article for Courtship disorder was nominated for deletion. I completed the nom despite thinking that the topic looks to be notable enough for an entry, but I note that the nominator also said that the article was biased. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know if it is or isn't, hence why I'm posting here. Can one of you take a look? I don't see anything that particularly stands out offhand, but I figured I'd ask. I'm also going to cut/paste this to another WP. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Elliot Cohen (psychologist) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Elliot Cohen (psychologist) to be moved to Elliot Cohen (Psychologist). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Structural information theory[edit]

Could someone take a look at Structural information theory? It is substantially sourced to the work of a single individual, and it was almost entirely written by a single editor with an apparent close connection to that author. It appears to be related to some AFDed non-notable and possibly fringe theories: Transparallel processing which claims to enable conventional computers to match the power of quantum computers, and Transparallel mind as a hypothesis for consciousness. I'm not sure Structural information theory has any recognition beyond this single author and his colleagues. And if it is a notable topic, I'm concerned the article may not represent an impartial summary of accepted science in the field. Alsee (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I responded, but it might be helpful if more folks can take a look. I'm rusty on my gestalt psychology. Permstrump (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

Socionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in pressing need of review by people who understand the subject. Most of the article reads as WP:OR and advancing a POV, to me, but I don't understand it half well enoguh. A new user with no other contributions is now trying to cast it as a mainstream science. He may even be right, for all I know. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently appearing at AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like the ANI is going to go anywhere though, b/c this is the response so far: "The first edit is deleting the words "highly controversial". That's not deleting any critics of anything. I'm not bothering with the rest here. I don't see anything at the talk page so I'm personally saying go to the talk page and discuss it." JzG, based on a skim, it sounds like it could be WP:FRINGE, so I doubt there are many experts. I also think the reason you don't understand it is b/c it doesn't make any sense. :) I'll take a better look and comment in a bit, but maybe you could copy your comment from here onto the socionics talk page for now, so other people don't assume it must just be over their heads since there isn't really much recent discussion on the talk page, except Martinevans123 now. Permstrump (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's not an ANI matter because it's a content dispute and needs knowledge of the subject. All eyes appreciated, thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5 plan of action[edit]

Couple of questions...

1) Is there a plan of action for updating references from DSM-IV to the DSM-5?

Ex. On the main page for this project, under the resources heading, there are links to the DSM-IV codes. Do we want to update that?

2) Speaking of codes, is there consensus here about always using the ICD-10 codes from now on?

It looks like there's been some attempt made to keep the info boxes consistent, but IDK if that stemmed from this project or WP:Medicine or if on this project we have an opinion about it. Info boxes on most WP:Psych articles list both the ICD-10 code and the DSM-IV code that corresponded with the ICD-9 (see bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder). There are stragglers that were never updated to the ICD-10 (see bipolar I disorder). So if I were to update an article like bipolar I disorder, should I leave the ICD-9 stuff and add ICD-10? Seems to me that we should work towards removing the ICD-9 codes completely at this point.

4) Do we generally try to keep the terminology in articles consistent with the current version of the DSM?

Ex. What was Substance abuse in the DSM-IV-TR is now substance use disorder-mild in the DSM-5 and substance dependence is was changed to SUD-moderate or severe. It bugs me having the outdated stuff there, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's an argument for keeping it. (I'll make a separate post later about the outcome of the 7-month old discussion to merge/not merge certain SUD-related articles that I just read on the substance dependence talk page. It seems like they thought SUD only replaced substance abuse in the DSM-5.)

5) Has there been any discussion about how to handle references to the DSM-IV that no longer apply in the DSM-5?

Ex. Polysubstance dependence was removed from the DSM-5. I miss it, but it's gone. Clearly the article needs at least one sentences addresses that, but is it due the same amount of weight as before?

Permstrump (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the topic, but Wikipedia is sometimes accused of being U.S.-centric, including by the medical community. I am not opposed to including information about any version of DSM in any article, but of the two systems (ICD and DSM), if one takes precedence it should be ICD because it represents a worldwide view. Even in the United States insurance companies require ICD. For the record I am an American with a Ph.D. in psychology and a medical degree, but I do think we should be sensitive to the issue of Wikipedia being written for worldwide readership. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be rigorous one way or the other. Our terminology should be based on the literature as a whole. DSM and ICD are very important parts of the literature, but they shouldn't be the sole determinants of our terminology. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Any medical diagnostic system for psychopathology has many shortcomings. There are other diagnostic systems, but they are not well known and thus rarely used. But as far as coding and official names for disorders are concerned, ICD should take precedence. Sundayclose (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose and Looie496: I agree that the ICD should be the default. Is there a reason to standardize info boxes on articles that talk about specific psychiatric diagnoses? It looks like some effort had been made previously. Some disorder still only list the ICD-9-CM's equivalent in the DSM-IV (e.g. bipolar I disorder says ICD-9-CM 296.7), but most articles were updated at some point to list both the ICD9CM and the ICD10 codes (e.g. bipolar disorder says ICD-10 F31; ICD-9-CM 296.0, 296.1, 296.4,296.5, 296.6, 296.7,296.8). If there's a good reason to standardize the info boxes, IMHO we should delete the ICD-9-CM codes completely and only use the ICD-10 codes.

As a separate thing, the DSM is the international standard for research for now, so the vast majority of peer-reviewed sources that are cited in articles covered by WP:PSYCH will refer to the DSM, so I think there's a good argument to use the DSM in a consistent way across psych articles. IMHO it's important to clarify which articles are about conditions that exist in the current version of the DSM (and therefore also the ICD) vs articles about terms that are used colloquially or by pop psych writers who coin buzzwords for book sales. I think the articles on lovesickness and obsessive love are good examples. Note: I did update some of the phrasing in both leads a little bit recently. I liked the way the previous version of lovesickness said in the first sentence that it was informal terminology. I'd want to tighten up obsessive love in a similar way, but I haven't done that yet, because that's kind of part of this question. Permstrump (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • FYI there's actually an active proposal initiated by someone on WP:MED about moving the current standard infobox on med-related articles (which includes a lot of articles that fall under psych too) from the top to the bottom of the page. They're not talking about deleting ICD9 codes, but figured I'd point it out since it's kind of related. I guess the WP:MED people must have been the ones that standardized the infobox on a lot of the psych articles like bipolar disorder since I think this project is a branch of WP:MED. Permstrump (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This project is independent of WPMED, but psychiatric disorders are an area of overlap for the two. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor comment: I wouldn't agree entirely that DSM is the international standard for research. The actual alphanumeric codes are rarely used in research. The verbal descriptors of disorders may or may not conform more to DSM rather than ICD. I would agree that a lot of research uses DSM terminology, but I wouldn't say that DSM is the "standard" for research worldwide. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I should have worded the segue into the second paragraph better, b/c when I started talking about the DSM being the international research standard, I didn't mean the codes. I only meant the terminology and criteria. Maybe standard was a strong word, but the DSM criteria are used the majority of the time for research so that researchers can use the same tools for measurement as people in other countries and be able to compare their findings. I can't find the exact article, but this one says the same idea. My point was mainly that for the people who actually like to read the original source that was referenced in an article, it would be easier for laymen to understand if the language in wikipedia was consistent with, or at least explained the difference in, the terminology used in the sources cited within that article. Permstrump (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mixed state (psychiatry) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mixed state (psychiatry) to be moved to Mixed affective state. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Draft:Barnaby B. Barratt[edit]

Dear psychologists: Is this draft about a notable psychiatrist, and are the references appropriate?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we reply here or to the old conversation about it from 2013? I didn't see a more recent conversation in your link. Am I overlooking something? Permstrump (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Verifying Autism spectrum diagnosis[edit]

I occasionally review the list and categories of people with autism spectrum disorders, to verify the items that are added to them. I remove an entry if I find evidence that it is based on something that is plainly not an expert diagnosis. For example, I remove people who self-diagnosed.

This is what I recently did at Gary Numan. There are two relevant citations in the article. In one, Mr. Numan says that he has an Asperger syndrome diagnosis and "it makes a lot of sense." But what sort of diagnosis? The other source gives more detail: Mr. Numan's wife suggested to him that he had the syndrome, so he took online questionnaires and then announced to the world that he has it. That is self-diagnosis, open and shut. He could, hypothetically, have obtained a separate expert diagnosis. That's something he can clarify, and until he does, it's mere speculation against his own words. I removed the category, but other users have restored it, claiming that the former source contradicts the latter. They don't contradict, they are just separate statements that give different details. I believe that the category should be verified from all available information, not part of it.

Question (for discussion on the article's talk page): Is it proper to remove an autism category because a person has publicly admitted self-diagnosing? Or should that admission be ignored because it wasn't repeated on another occasion? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure if it's better to cite WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP for that one. Permstrump (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Nations and intelligence[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Nations_and_intelligence#rfc:_Lead_section. --The Master (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense to be moved to Insanity defense. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Please visit and help[edit]

Hello friends. The following articles could really use some neutral input:

Many, many, many, and I mean many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Mental disorder (insanity) defense listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mental disorder (insanity) defense to be moved to Insanity defense. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pica comorbidities[edit]

The lede paragraph of Pica (disorder) included the sentence

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and they often have psychotic comorbidity.

The writing is awkward. I think what was meant is that pica often has psychotic comorbidity, not that the mental and emotional disorders do.

I have rewritten it as

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and often has psychotic comorbidity.

But this should be checked by someone with the relevant medical knowledge.

Also listed at Talk:Pica (disorder)#Comorbidities and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Pica comorbidities. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

List of people with autism spectrum disorders[edit]

Is being considered for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)