Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


January 2010

women need help

im sick and needed help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there.

I have recently made significant changes to the Self-enhancement article. Is it possible for this article to be formally reviewed?

Thank Amy Cridge 12:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Cridge (talkcontribs)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey all,

I wish to edit the old self-handicapping page because I feel it is inaccurate, not up to date with recent research, and not well references. On my userpage you can see my proposed changes. I have spent a while on it reading up on the literature but I know more research could be added if anyone is interested? I also don't want to step on anyone toes by making deletions so if anyone disagrees with my proposed article, please do let me know over discussion. This is a uni project for me but I'm interested in keeping up wiki-fying so any feedback is welcome.

Kind regards, Siobhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiobhanSmith (talkcontribs) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Society of Consulting Psychology

could someone here please have a short look at this group of articles:

They were all created by editors Rllowman (talk · contribs) and Psychologyscholar (talk · contribs) (obvious COI) over the last couple days. This looks a lot like self promotion, and at least the journals don't appear to pass what WP:Notability (academic journals) recognizes as consensus (the psychologist appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC though). I'd be happy if someone knowledgeable in this area could give me a second opinion, and maybe help cleaning them up.
Thanks, Amalthea 19:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about The Psychologist-Manager Journal, but Consulting Psychology is represented by the Society of Consulting Psychology,[1] a division of the American Psychological Association which publishes Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. The articles need fixup and referencing. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Mattisse! Amalthea 14:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Overjustification effect

Selection of evidence appears to be biased to a select set of authors. Also, the mention of the Pizza Hut Book it! program represents an inappropriate endorsement of the null hypothesis. It should be removed as an example of support, though there are plenty of other, more scientifically rigorous examples that could be substituted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bog13 (talkcontribs) 13:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree somewhat with the above statement. The article seems to contradict itself. —mattisse (Talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion nomination of Template:Abuse

Listing this here to get more eyes on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also a discussion on WP:AN. I think that the abuse article looks like WP:SYNT, for the reasons I explained there. I'm not going to take it to AfD myself, but that should be considered. Pcap ping 18:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree that this template is WP:SYNT with arbitrary inclusions. The section Personality disorders and behaviours is particularly problematic. —mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Towards a balanced assessment of Asperger's Syndrome

It seems as though insufficient questioning of the epistemology of Asperger's syndrome has led to its being awarded an entirely spurious status. This blog gives an alternative perspective, saying that Asperger's is a racket: (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not usable as sources for Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Prevention

I came across Suicide, Read this First. The author isn’t qualified but if the article can help prevent suicide I’d like to add links to Wikipedia articles. I’m not qualified either so I can’t take responsibility for adding it to Wikipedia. I’m not sure if it will discourage suicide or depress people further. Perhaps qualified psychologists can discuss this. Incidentally this comes high on the first page of Google if you type in, “Suicide” so this matters. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

probably not appropriate as per WP:MEDICAL and/or WP:THERAPY. Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the message, add a link and you'll get banned without further warning! Well I don't think I've acted irresponsibly and I didn't intend to break Wikipedia rules. Incidentally Wikipedia rules are so complicated I doubt if even User:Jimbo Wales knows all of them and it's easy to break a rule without knowing. I've got the message, experts think I shouldn't link to that web page and I won't. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by being banned without further warning. Maybe I was referring to WP:NOTGUIDE. In any case, qualifications dont matter on wikipedia - just bold editing. why dont you add it to the page to see what happens Cheers. Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's hosted by Psych central and it was written by one Martha Ainsworth based on the work of Dr David Conroy. But what would you be adding as? Fainites barleyscribs 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

AfD on Historical pederastic relationships

I have listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination) -see the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Dear all,

I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.

I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.

I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Outrageous Betrayal

Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal#RfC:_Removal_of_words_Is_and_Was. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


In my work on hepatic encephalopathy I came across Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Before I start a stub or request that the article is created by someone brighter than me, could anyone indicate if this is likely to be a notable subject? Thank you. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a neuropsychologist and I have not heard of it so I believe it is not among the most used tests (at least in spanish-talking countries), however searching in the Lezak in google books (the bible of neuropsychological tests) it has its own section, so at least there is a reliable secondary sources that deals with it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Garrondo, I know I should have asked you straight away :-) JFW | T@lk 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Created. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III

does anyone have a passing interest in the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III? It has no references at all !! Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

AfD of interest

Psychonaut. By the way, I think this wikiproject needs a WP:DELSORT queue. Pcap ping 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Postpartum depression

I have placed a request for expert attention to the above article, and am alerting the associated Wikiprojects for Psychology and Medicine. A reader has raised a serious concern about the article and I think it would be very useful to have someone with expertise in the area improve its quality. Any help much appreciated. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality = mental illness in the Czech Wikipedia (still)

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there. Pcap ping 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Emotion-based therapy vs. Emotionally-based therapy

A concern has been raised regarding the recent redirection involved here. Please see Talk:Emotion-Focused Therapy for details. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, DSM

The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for OTRS members) about the widespread replication of DSM material across psychology-related articles on Wikipedia. Approximately 40 articles were identified by name which now bear the copyright problems template pending resolution. Many of these seem straightforward copying; some may be too closely paraphrased; some may be properly paraphrased. Assistance from individuals with access to the source would be greatly appreciated. Please see the CP listing. I've tried to note articles where the scope of the problem is particularly unclear. I am concerned that some of the articles may also take too liberally from other diagnostic manuals, and review of the articles to remove copyright infringements would also be greatly appreciated.

The letter-writer asserts that this is an ongoing issue. Trying to think of a way that we can minimize the danger of repeat infringement from these sources, I'm wondering if a template for psychiatric disorder articles similar to {{Plot2}} would be useful. While one time copying in one article could create a problem for WMF, repeated copying across dozens of articles is potentially a much bigger one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to update: this one is currently in the hands of our attorney. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles

A paragraph in the article Mental retardation says:

In the UK, ... "learning disability" ... is not yet widely understood, and is often taken to refer to problems affecting schoolwork (the American usage), which are known in the UK as "learning difficulties." British social workers may use "learning difficulty" to refer to both people with MR and those with conditions such as dyslexia.

But the disambiguation page Learning difficulties says:

Learning difficulties may refer to:

(which is rather unhelpful for UK readers).

Please can a knowledgable editor resolve the disagreement about what "learning difficulties" means in the two countries. It may also be necessary to change Learning difficulty, which is currently a simple redirect to Learning disability. JonH (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious

we desperately need a few experts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious. See also Talk:Subconscious for some more initial discussion, but the basic points are in the AfD I'd think.
Thanks in advance, Amalthea 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Tony Attwood

Views welcome in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Attwood. AllyD (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of mental and behavioral disorders

With WPMED, I am working on cleaning up and organizing Category:Diseases and disorders by ICD-10 classification. In taking a look at the psych categories, I came across Category:Mental and behavioural disorders (which was created in October and named after the ICD-10 chapter), and Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD (which has been around for a while). Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD doesn't seem particularly organized, and the "by DSM and ICD" seems unnecessary, given there are no other mental illness categorization schemes on Wikipedia. I was wondering if anyone would mind if I started categorizing these articles by ICD-10 code directly into Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. In the process, Category:Abnormal psychology will get cleaned a bit, as it is unnecessary to put both subcategories of Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD(/Category:Mental and behavioural disorders) and the category itself in Category:Abnormal psychology. Thanks. --Scott Alter 05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Category:Mental structures

Category:Mental structures was recently proposed for merging to Category:Abstraction. The discussion (here) ended with no consensus to merge, but a number of issues were raised that remain unaddressed.

I am posting here in the hope that the members of this WikiProject could take a look at the category and perhaps discuss some of those issues, either here, at Category talk:Mental structures, or in a new CfD nomination. (I have notified WikiProject Philosophy also.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing psychology topics

I've updated my list of missing psychology topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, and for drawing attention to it here. I will look there for future article ideas. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How could you possibly miss off intergenerational transmission of abuse ? Also does anybody take any notice of this list ? --Penbat (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's very good, Penbat and something to aim for. Fainites barleyscribs 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

May 2010

Armando Favazza

Hello. The article about psychiatrist / author Armando Favazza is suffering at the moment from a lack of sources, as well as having been edited by the subject. Presently, notability is in question. I'm having trouble sourcing the article as much of the coverage is behind paywalls. If anyone can add anything to the article to help demonstrate notability, or if you think he doesn't meet notability guidelines, if you could mention that at Talk:Armando Favazza, that would be appreciated. I'm also posting this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More contributions from academic psychologists?

Hi everyone! A group of folks at APS is interested in maybe trying to get more academic psychologists involved in Wikiproject Psychology. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? :-) How would you go about it? What kinds of things should we do to help potential new wikipedia contributors learn how things work around here, and help out without stepping on toes? Asbruckman (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We desperately need more psychology academics working on Wikipedia. I have been doing tons of work myself on Wikipedia psychology articles and would love academic assistance. The sort of articles i have been involved with are listed at User:Penbat One article i was hoping to create was User:Penbat/intergenerational_transmission_of_abuse. It would be very useful if some psychology academics strategically reviewed all the Wikipedia psychology articles and listed the biggest problem areas, inconsistencies and work remaining to be done. --Penbat (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Asbruckman - I think that what they should do is be BOLD, sign up, create an account and get stuck in. They can express an interest here if they like and people will be only too willing to point them in the direction of the "how to edit articles" type pages and the relevent policies. There are some very comprehensive welcome templates giving all the links. I always found people very happy to show me how to find things or create references ar things like that. Bring them on on I say. Fainites barleyscribs 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
we could all adopt a psychologist ! Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fainites - I know that the new president of APS Mahzarin R. Banaji will be using one of her first columns in the APS Observer to call for APS members to participate more, so there may be a deluge soon. Do you think it would be possible to identify potential mentors in advance for an adoption program? The column will include a precis and pointers to getting started materials in Wikipedia in general, like the 5 pillars, Welcome to Wikipedia and the tutorial. Is there anything she should add about norms for operating in the WP_Psychology? Robertekraut (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I doubt they'll need mentors, much as the idea of adopting a psychologist appeals. I think if you advise them to put a message on this page if they want a hand, then people who have the right kind of knowledge should respond. Norms for operating in WP Psychology? Hmmm. Other than the usual requirements for verifiability, notability etc, probably the best thing to look at is WP:MEDMOS on writing medical articles. Psychology has been a bit of a neglected area on WP, hence the plea for more psychologists. It has in the past suffered from a number of editors with particularly strong - if unconventional - viewpoints. Things seem to be calmer these days. One of the things I would suggest is not to be surprised or frightened off by fringe ideas trying to appear as mainstream. Just explain the reality calmly (and with reference to sources) on the talkpage and if that doesn't work, bring it to the project. I'll leave a message with another editor to have a look at this discussion. Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a psychiatrist who is happy to answer questions. One idea is to set up a standing list of experienced editors who can be approached to ask questions (I guess...) The key issues are the inline referencing in building articles and how we use sources. Good and Featured Articles would be good to explian as well - I more and more think about them as stable/consensus versions one can always refer back to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So glad you all generally like the idea! Some ideas we've tossed around include recognizing nice articles and contributors in the APS newsletter. Maybe publicizing the collaboration of the week there. How do those all sound? What else would be good? Asbruckman (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. We have a system of grading articles. Projects can give an "A" but the psychology project is not heaving with workers. The one most used is WP:GA. This involves certain standards as to coverage, sourcing and writing and is reviewed by a single reviewer. The most sought after is WP:FA. This covers not only sourcing, comprehensive content and prose, but also compliance with all sorts of mildly arcane rules about presentation of articles. However, there may be some "nice" articles that just haven't been nominated or tidied up yet. You could feature good/nice/FA articles and the ones that really need a lot of attention - and then invite a joint effort - article by article. Sort of "project of the month" (or week or whatever). It's amazing how quickly a really nice article can be put together by a bunch of good willed editors collaborating. It can be a bit of a buzz too. Fainites barleyscribs 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine but don't forget the articles that are at the garbage end of the scale, IMHO, they are the ones that most urgently need to be worked on to bring them up a level or two.--Penbat (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Well yeah but hey.... people edit what rings their bell.Fainites barleyscribs 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest talking to User:Tim Vickers, who has experience with similar projects. The folks at WP:WikiProject Neuroscience have also done something similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The pointer to WP:WikiProject Neuroscience and its the [Society for Neuroscience initiative] to improve Wikipedia is great. It provides lots of examples of how to solicit contributions and coordinate their activity in parallel with the relevant Wikiproject. Thanks so much. Robertekraut (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 60 articles to be referenced, a 4.8% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

Google's private foundation is supporting expansions of the Swahili Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia. (See this announcement.) Forty medicine- or health-related articles, some of particular interest to developing countries, have been identified as targets. Basically, Google has offered to have these articles reviewed and professionally translated -- and we'd all rather that the translators were looking at a good, accurate, globally relevant article.

Recreational drug use, a topic that is within the scope of this project, has recently been reviewed by an outside expert, who suggested several freely accessible sources and some factual corrections. Please read the comments on the talk page and see whether you can help improve this article. Even small contributions are very much appreciated.

If you are interested in helping with the overall project, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to your watchlist, improving these articles, and/or contributing advice at the talk page. All editors are welcome. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request for Confirmation bias

The Confirmation bias article is seeking a peer review to help it get towards Featured Article status. Any help is welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

citing internal documents, e.g. APA

Are sources from internal documents such as policy and position statements of psychological associations acceptable on wikipedia articles about those organisations or should we rely on sources from third party sources? For example with the American Psychological Association article I assume its ok to cite their internal web site documents for simple facts such as number of members and educational requirements but what about for position statements or more complex issues? ----Action potential discuss contribs 10:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem, so long as you make it clear what you are citing and why. Self-published sources can be used as sources for their own content in certain circumstances, and APA position papers are significant sources. There's a separate question of how notable the policy or position is. You may need third-party coverage to justify mentioning the APA policy in an article if there's not a clear case. Take a look at the Homosexuality article, where APA resolutions and statements are used as sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Types of psychological depression

Hi. On its Talk page, I'm suggesting this article be merged with Mood disorder or deleted. Your input would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

depression (mood)

Join in the fun to see if this or this is a better version to work from (see text differences at the bottom). discuss here - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaja Bordevich Ballo. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean Piaget needs cleanup

I was very surprised to see the juvenile style used throughout our article on Jean Piaget. We should fix this.

The article

has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

-- (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- useful to know. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement

A WikiProject has been created, for the topic with main article: Transcendental Meditation movement. The project page is located at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Article Perception

There has been some heavy editing to the article by a single user, resulting in a deletion of half its content, while the new phrasings are no improvement at all. Also, the user has e.g. deleted the disambiguation link. I have started a discussion at the article's talk page, but he seems slightly ignorant about his edits. If there is someone interested in the topic, please take a look at the article as of now and the revision before the edits in question: I don't want to rush anything and give him a chance to understand the relevance of his changes. Possibly however I will need some other opinions regarding a revert. Best, --Morton Shumway (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

The issue has been resolved, a revert has been done. --Morton Shumway (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

RFC at List of Scientologists

Request for Comment at page, List of Scientologists. Please see discussion on talk page, at "RfC: Should people be self-proclaimed Scientologists in order to be included on this list?" Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Auditory Filter Article

Looks like someone wrote an auditory filter article but created it as a User Page.

Could someone more knowledgeable than me figure out what to do? (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The user possibly chose that name AND uses his user page to prepare an article on the topic. You could leave a note on the user's talk page, asking him how it's meant. Best --Morton Shumway (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

Somatoform and Conversion Disorders

As a patient who went through years of counseling for conversion disorder and somatoform - please note the following:

If the patient complains of flushing, fainting, diarrhea, and/or IBS, please consider that it could actually be Carcinoid Cancer. Potential heart complaints or wheezing may be present. Carcinoid Cancer is a very rare form of cancer and can be difficult to find even when medical professionals are looking for it. Some tests to help determine Carcinoid Cancer: CgA, 5-HIAA 24 hr urine test, CT scan (doesn't always see it), and Octreotide Scan (aka OctreoScan, 85% accurate). Carcinoid Cancer is often misdiagnosed for years.

PLEASE consider this before diagnosing a psychological disorder. By the time they found my Carcinoid Cancer, I was at stage 4 (terminal, metastasis to the liver) with the beginning stages (leaky right-sided heart valves) of Carcinoid Heart Disease.

Thank you, Jennifer Holm Stage 4 Carcinoid Cancer patient Advocating Carcinoid Cancer Awareness (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Does anybody know if this differential diagnosis is in its appropriate article? Anthony (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Anthony (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments please for AFD on superficial charm

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superficial charm --Penbat (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Steve Eichel

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Eichel. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Perception (again)

The person who was responsible for some ipso facto destructive editing to the article that had to be reverted has now extended the lead by a long explication of Robert Fludd's 1619 depiction. Users interested in Perception, please help reviewing (you can assume good faith, but also a bit of ignorance and an inclination to enforce a christian perspective). Best, --Morton Shumway (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Revert has been done. --Morton Shumway (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Definition of the term 'Oceanic Feeling'

Does anyone have information/resources that could aid in defining the term 'oceanic feeling' in this article: Please reply, in case there are corrections, additions to be made. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielm-njitp (talkcontribs) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not take Roland's description and make something of it that is closer to a "definition" than found in the article? Or take Freud's paraphrases, e.g. from Culture and its Discontents, German Ed., Fischer, 1994, p. 32: "[…] a feeling of undissolvable connectedness, the solidarity with the whole of the outside world" (own ad hoc translation): --Morton Shumway (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

== One perspective is that "oceanic feelings" are essentially a regression to early infancy, such as the feelings of an infant at its mother's breast. While not meaning to discount such experiences out of hand (although many psychologists and brain researchers see reason to do so), a more significant question is as to how useful such experiences are in terms of self-development. In other words, as blisfull as oceanic feelings may be, do they integrate into our lives in any useful way, or are they little more than a state of temporary relaxation? This is especially significant when oceanic feelings are given labels such as "spiritual" or "transcendent," bringing to mind Ken Wilbur's old "pre & trans" argument, contending that it's far too easy to label infantile regression (pre-personal experience) with spiritual transcendence. R H Jewett 2/19/2011

Intelligence Citations List Posted for Your Suggestions

I have posted a citations list about intelligence that I invite all of you to visit. It is a subpage of my user page titled Intelligence Citations. You are all invited to surf by and edit it by adding new citations. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding references daily recently, and I'd love to hear your suggestions. Intelligence Citations -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Confirmation bias is now a Featured Article

Confirmation bias, which is rated as mid-importance for this wikiproject, has passed FAC. This brings the total number of FA-class psychology articles to 13. I began a rewrite about a year ago and have had great support from the community in making the text accessible. A number of connected or overlapping articles are relatively basic, so it may be worth looking at the text and sources in the Confirmation bias article to get ideas for improvement. I plan to write a guide to improving psychology articles, based on this experience. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. That has long been a useful article, and I have been following on my watchlist the changes you and others have made in the article recently. It well deserves featured article designation and it will help a lot of users of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article attention needed

I'm not sure how this particular project operates, not being a member, but during a "recent edits" patrol, I came across Child psychotherapy, an article in desperate need of some expert attention. There appears to have been a great deal of discussion over the years about ways to expand or improve the article, but nothing appears to have been done. As it stands now, the article contains little useful information, and what information is there seems confusing. For example, there is a hat note that, for issues of attachment theory, one should see a different article, but then there is a subsequent section on Parent-infant therapy to address attachment issues. Either the article should be cleaned up to provide a list of viable therapies (and links to their articles) or it should probably just be deleted as containing no useful information at all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that around 30% of Wiki psychology articles are seriously bad and need expert attention. --Penbat (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah the attachment stuff was me. I started adding it but it got silly because nobody was working on the other stuff - and hadn't been for years - so it ended up nearly all attachment-based therapies. So I created a different article for it at Attachment-based therapy (children). I left Lieberman behind because it was psychoanalysis based. There used to be a big section on mentalisation aswell. One idea was to have an article that gave a brief description of all child psychotherapies but that fell at an early fence because it turned out that psychotherapy tends to mean psychoanalysis-based in the UK but more or less any therapy in the US. All suggestions as to what an article called "child psychotherapy" should consist of gratefully received! Fainites barleyscribs 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Application of WP:MEDRS to EMDR

The EMDR article is rife with NPOV problems. Since early May I've tried get editors to apply WP:MEDRS to resolve these problems with no success. Anyone able to help with what may become a rewrite of much of the article? --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Barnstar

I've noticed that there are a couple of Psychology Barnstar images, but I couldn't find an award template, so I've created one. You can now award the Psychology Barnstar to any user for major work that improves this Wikiproject's articles. Congratulations to Lova Falk, the first recipient. To give the award, create a message on the user's talk page and enter

{{subst:Psychology Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

replacing "message" with your personal message. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New look for Wikiproject page

I've taken the bold step of recreating the main page of the Wikiproject to make it look more modern, breaking it up into sub-pages and writing some more detailed and forceful goals for the project. I've added more detail to the templates explaining what the different templates are for. Naturally, I welcome improvements. The top two boxes could do with some images to look more appealing. Help is especially needed with the Tasks and Resources sections. I am also going to put in a request for a Popular pages sub-page so that we get an automated Top 500 listing every month. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Attachment (psychology)

Does anybody object if I merge this into Attachment theory ? This was agreed a while ago but never actuall done.Then the merge notice was removed.Fainites barleyscribs 18:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No objection. Go ahead! MartinPoulter (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: Merge done. --Morton Shumway (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Intergenerational transmission of abuse

I think this is a very important subject. I intend to spend the next 2 weeks knocking an article on this into shape in my sandbox, see: User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse. Anybody who can constructively add useful material on this subject is welcome to edit it.--Penbat (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about List of cognitive biases

Contributions welcomed for the discussion at Talk:List_of_cognitive_biases#Does_this_article_need_renaming.3F. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Big Picture" idea

'Psychology' (or at least human psychology) is essentially studies about humans done by humans. This should be addressed, because, to someone studying the non-physical area of the human brain, being a human themselves is both a curse and an advantage. The issue is that no other intelligent species is capable of the higher mental functions we are, including full self-awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Corporal punishment common sense

There's a saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". You can look at a pudding, analyse its colour, study the contents, have your own opinions as to the taste, but none of this matters to the cold reality of the taste.It is the actual taste after eating the pudding that will win the consumers vote. Any subject you care to discuss means nothing if the actual facts or truth has been replaced with merely peoples "views or opinions". Especially if those views come from people who have not physically or practically lived or worked within the subject matter that they have "a view on".

The discussions on corporal punishment I have read is an example of this, where ignorance and arrogance have replaced the cold reality or facts of the matter.

To be concluded....soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbsaws (talkcontribs) 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good idea to use verifable facts rather than peoples' views or opinions. Yes, please do this. Link to the psychological article you have concerns about, and supply verifiable, reliable sources that you think aren't being included or fairly represented. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Merge Depression (differential diagnoses) into Depression (mood) - discuss at Talk:Depression_(mood)#Merge_discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


I think the Wikipedia page for the firm, ALEKS ( shows one of the companies that employ a version of Keller's Personalized System of Instruction. Perhaps putting this on the "links" section may be useful.

I apologize, if I have not followed protocol exactly, as this is my first time making a suggestion for a Wikipedia Article.

Thanks for the consideration, Joe Klunder ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, to source and to point out that connection with learning theory. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Great new source for editing many articles on psychology

I've been reading a new book, which is both popular in readability and scholarly in approach, on commonplace myths about psychology.

The book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology is a good guide to the professional literature with its extensive bibliographic notes and a good reality check on what is mainstream POV and what is fringe for editing articles on psychology. I think you will enjoy reading it and find it helpful for recommending to other editors when editing articles. It could help the general public for you to request that your friendly local public library acquire copies of this book. I have no conflict of interest—I know none of the authors and don't get money from recommending the book. I just think it is a pleasant and helpful read that should be known to more Wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to expand source lists for article editing.

I invite your comments on the source lists for article editing I have been compiling on human intelligence and on other subjects related to articles in the scope of this WikiProject Psychology. There are a lot of serviceable articles that can improve a lot if only they are better sourced. A current Arbitration Committee case also makes painfully clear that some visitors to Wikipedia have treated what is meant to be an encyclopedia as an advocacy blog, distorting the content and point of view of dozens of articles within the scope of this project. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at the bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

The RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page

Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom decision on Race and intelligence and related articles

The Arbitration Commmittee case on race and intelligence has just been decided. Thus articles that are either in the Race and intelligence controversy category or mentioned in the findings of the 2010 Arbitration Committee case on Race and intelligence or closely related to those are subject to active arbitration remedies that you may wish to review. The case decision seems to have resulted in an immediate improvement in the editing environment of several articles that previously were very contentious. Peaceful, collaborative editing that turns to sources and upholds Wikipedia policy is enjoyable editing. I thought I should let participants on this WikiProject Psychology know that this improved atmosphere now exists, because most of the articles related to that case have long been marked as part of this project. Your participation in editing those articles is welcomed and encouraged. You can look up sources to help improve articles in the source lists I have been compiling to share with all Wikipedians. And because the source lists span several different topics, and those topics fit quite a few articles in this WikiProject in whole or in part, suggesting new sources would be a very kind thing to do. The atmosphere has improved a lot, so the articles can improve a lot. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors with knowledge of psychology are encouraged to look over the articles in the scope of the recent ArbCom case. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

LGBT parenting - developmental psychology

Could you please contribute with your opinion to this? Thank you! --Destinero (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Idée fixe

It has been proposed by JohnBlackburne that the article Idée fixe be deleted. If there is some interest in this eventuality, please go to the deletion discussion and present your views. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Psychology to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Mr. Z-man: much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I notice a lot of the articles on the list are unassessed. I will assess some, but any help from other members of the wikiproject is appreciated. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment for guidance. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Internet addiction disorder

I wonder if there's anyone around here familiar with email addiction (Internet addiction disorder)? There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Watchlists_of_banned_users where any knowledge of it might (possibly) be helpful. Rd232 talk 10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychological typologies

Please, check this out. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that Nagibina (talk · contribs) went to the English Section of Wikipedia because of critical response to her contributions in Russian Section of Wikipedia. --Kovani (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Developmental psychology comment

I believe there is an error regarding early childhood development. I do not think that infants perceive their own wills as separate from the wills of their parents in even remotely the same way that do after say, the first 18 months or so of life. I think it is an inaccurate description to call them narcissistic when it is that they have not developed a psychological differentiation about needing and wanting which occurs, progressively with development.

It is not even appropriate to describe that as egocentricity. Is your own hand egotistical when it operates as if it is part of you?

Babies are more like that....separations along with development inform them of things such as "wills" and identities...I don't think the "shrinks" are entirely wrong, I just think that describing babies as egocentric is a miscommunication of their actual reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the developmental psychology article, I can't find where it says babies are narcissistic. Can you point us to the article that has the problem and the exact wording you find objectionable? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Temperaments image

Hi. There was an image at Four Temperaments from January 2006 until a few days ago. I'm trying to determine whether the image itself (and its variants) have any basis in a Reliable Source. Here's what I've managed to uncover:

(Example image. The caption was:
Simple emoticons of the four temperaments (clockwise from top right: Choleric, melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic).

The image, in various forms, has been in the article for years (first added here), and variants are used in many other Wikipedia language editions, via these files:

Possibly, they're derived from these 2 images or similar?

or possibly (hopefully) they come directly from a textbook or similar?

I'll point the editor who first uploaded the image to this thread, in case they can help.

Any advice appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As the originator of this image, I must confess to my sins. It is not my idea, but an idea I got about 15 years ago in a train from a guy whose name I've forgotten (though I think I might be able to find it again) - and I don't know where he got it from, o whether he thought it up himself. So, there is no reliable citable source. I've seen a diagram in a book by C.G.Jung about introvert/extravert pesonalities and something else, which similarly creates four temperaments by combining two aspects, but it is not THE SAME idea. Sorry.-- (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite? Insomnia Treatment section

An apparent new consensus statement has been released by the British Association for Psychopharmacology on September 2, which may indicate that the treatment section of the article Insomnia should be rewritten. Please see information posted at the talk page and discuss there. —CodeHydro 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dulcis foetidus

The new article Dulcis foetidus is proposed for deletion. This article concerns a public psychology experiment. I'd like to rescue it, if possible. Anyone here care to help? (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Psychology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Should B and start class articles really be included in this? Fainites barleyscribs 21:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Body memory

Some serious work needs to be done to fix the Body memory page. It has been so re-written to support the idea that this is a scientifically proven Psychology idea that even the "Skepticism" section supports this idea when the person quoted called it one of a group of "unfounded "dysfunctionality" theories".--ARTEST4ECHO talk - 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


I have cut this article in half because a large part of it's content seems to have been a copy and paste of Resurrecting melancholia by M. Fink & M. A. Taylor from Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Volume 115, pages 14–20, February 2007. (DIFF when added)

This article averages over 1,300 views a day, so perhaps a knowledgeable editor can look at the deletion and re-write that section so it is not a copyright violation? nb (subscription required), Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead, and whether the article should be moved

Input needed on whether the authoritative use should come before the general use of term, and on whether the article should be moved. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

need help

iam a preschool teacher a have a child that came from a adopted family. he is 4yrs old.the child was an orphanage in a war torn country where the child had 2 siblingsleft behind. from day one the child appeared worried, stressed and defenive when anyone tries to redirect him from doing something wrong in class. the child strikes back with rage and screams in broken englishas if being painfully hurt.he bits kicks and hits the teachers we are worried about the safety of others.does any one know how to help us at our school. we dont no what to say to the parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia editors are not permitted to give advice. I'm afraid you'll have to look for help elsewhere. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Category for associative learning

Reading the classical conditioning article I get the impression there are quite a few articles about associative learning (a topic which itself doesn't have an article). Perhaps we should have a category for them?

I'm not sure because (a) the behaviourism category seems similar (I'm don't know much about this topic) and (b) I'm not sure what non-associative learning includes besides basic sensitization and habituation (I understand that there's a debate over whether almost all learning is associative learning?), so it could be that associative learning is almost synonymous with learning. Richard001 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Social salience?

Social salience has had multiple issue tags on it including a WP:GNG, Is this One that meets WP:GNG? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


I have nominated Down syndrome 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Weber-Fechner vs. Steven's power law

The logarithm article currently says:

In psychophysics, the Weber–Fechner law proposes a logarithmic relationship between stimulus and sensation (though Stevens' power law is typically more accurate[citation needed]).

I'm not a psychologist--does the statement in parentheses reflect consensus in ps.? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It does,—let me give a reference from the field of cognitive science: cf. e.g. the lemmas Psychophysics and Perception: Overview in Lynn Nadel's Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (2003). There you will not only find that there is no Weber-Fechner law (but a Weber, and a Fechner law), but also that after the discussion of Weber and Fechner / their experiments and laws, it is common (and I remember this to be found in literature which is closer to neuroscience as well) to present Stevens' research. Stevens' can easily be considered as "more accurate" in the sense of the differentiated exponents the table at Stevens' power law shows. Best, Morton Shumwaytalk 01:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC).


The articles on dependent personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder need immediate expert attention for these reasons here. Thanks for any and all help. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a dire shortage of psychology experts on Wikipedia - you might get one in 6 months if you are lucky. Incidentally the DPD and HPD articles are relatively good in comparison with a lot of psychology articles - maybe about 30% are not much better than junk. --Penbat (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD relevant to this project - Jessica Feshbach

Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought Disorder as a Side-Effect (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 21 Oct 2010. Hello,

I read the article on Thought Disorder with great interest and I would be very keen to know how this 'model' of Thought Disorder may be any different, if at all, when it only exists (or sporadically exists) as a side effect of very recent as well as substantial substance abuse?

For example, a drug addict or someone who abuses substances regularly and frequently (not necessarily every day, but at times almost), and after doing so experiences some of the worst cases of thought disorder probably every observed. (methamphetamine, where an abuser might be awake for 4-5 days at a time - eventually there is no 'order' anywhere let alone present amongst thought).

However on the other hand, a full time job is still being maintained on above average wages, renting in a very beautiful property, maintaining all other social and legal responsibilities: possibly child support or direct dependents. That said, there is no question that this substance abuse has an obvious and significant affect on the individuals attitude and performance and behavior to name just a few, however, the individual manages to somehow and someway get by otherwise.

My question is this merely a side effect of abusing drugs, or is it an indication that this individual suffers from THought Disorder?

Many Thanks Will Tacoja


Anyone into child development/psychology etc care to take a look at this RfC on the Adoption article? Fainites barleyscribs 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Personality development disorder

I came across this article which seems to be only mentioned in one book (in German) and even then there appears to be discussion of 'a' personality development disorder, not 'the'....Google Scholar isn't showing up much at all, so my gut feeling is it is a concept in one book which is not mentioned or referenced in any other secondary source. Anyone else heard of it, because I haven't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology

Could someone from this project have a look at the assessment of this article? It is currently assessed as "priority=High", which seems exaggerated to me. Similarly, I have a disagreement with the same editor about the importance rating for the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, which I rated "Low", but the other editor wants to rate it "High". Other opinions are welcome. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR cleanup needed

See Talk:Schizophrenia#Article_issues. I think the article has slipped massively and needs cleanup if it's to stay an FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Image of mycrography for Parkinson's disease

I have just nominated Parkinson's disease for good article, as a way of improving it before taking it to FAC. I was also thinking of an image for the symptoms section, and I thought of a writting by a PD patient with micrography. I do not have such kind of image, but maybe somebody from the project is capable of getting one directly from a patient. Best image would be a short text with some rule on it to show scale...--Garrondo (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

Homosexuals Anonymous is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of conversion therapy. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the DYK project - nomination here. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I intend to post a similar notices at the LGBT Studies WikiProject and the Religion WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate WP:CANVASS and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not. EdChem (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging psychologist participation in project?

I see the number of articles within the scope of WikiProject Psychology keeps expanding steadily (sometimes in advance of the article talk pages being tagged with the project template). But I recall a statement on this project talk page that only a few psychologists are active on the project. I am not a psychologist, but I have had the privilege of getting a lot of reading advice from psychologists in my town and on international email lists for discussion of gifted education. As I dig more and more deeply into the sources I have found through various library systems, I hope that there will be psychologists, medical doctors, and other editors with specialized knowledge looking on as I do more edits to article text. I asked a personal friend who is a psychologist for advice the other other day on how to source a Wikipedia article I have been revising for a while. My friend replied that while advising me about sources (something this friend has done several times before) is something she will always be glad to do, she will absolutely, positively never do anything to revise a Wikipedia article. The concern she expressed was that there are past cases of Wikipedia articles revealing the item content and scoring standards of certain psychological tests (I think I know one of the examples the friend has in mind) and that most practicing psychologists don't want to contribute to a decrease in test security for standardized psychological tests. Is this something you have heard about? I know this project is blessed by the participation of several wikipedians who are psychologists (and who are very responsible about how they write about secure tests). Encouraging more psychologists to participate here would be helpful, I think, and in keeping with Wikimedia Foundation strategic goals. What would help bring about an atmosphere here so that "everyone can edit" includes "psychologists feel welcome to edit"? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a huge argument about the Rorschach inkblot test being exposed on wikipedia. You can probably find details on the talkpage there. However, in my view, one of the reasons why few psychologists edit psychology is that it is an area with a lot of people pushing somewhat more - shall we say - fringy view points - frequently with considerable persistence and force. It gets very wearing and I don't think psychologists "do" conflict much. The more psychologists there are though the better it would get as knowledgable well sourced opinion would find it easier to prevail. It's certainly still a bit of a thin area though improving all the time. Fainites barleyscribs 21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I can think of 1 or 2 experts in the distant past got fed up with fighting fringe non-expert editors but how do psychologists come to this defeatist view when very few of them ever try any Wikipedia editing themselves. I dont know about User:Jacobisqs background but he certainly knows his stuff, He is making excellent contributions and am not aware of his work being impeded by anybody. I only wish there were 10 User:Jacobisqs as there is a mountain of work to do. You cant really argue with a psychologist who backs up his work with a good reliable source anyway. Psychologists must constantly be looking at Wikipedia. If they search on google for psychology terms without realising it they will often find themselves looking at Wikipedia pages. How can they live with themselves and not correct any errors they see ? --Penbat (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Penbat, you wrote, "Psychologists must constantly be looking at Wikipedia." I have witnessed examples of this. In the weekly behavioral genetics seminar I attend at my alma mater, many times during discussion someone will have a factual question, and the usual way of dealing with that will be for someone with a laptop or netbook computer going online, usually straight to Wikipedia, to look up an answer. Usually those Wikipedia articles that come up randomly are considered quite trustworthy. When I see behavior like that in the real world, I feel good about trying to give back to Wikipedia. Thanks for mentioning a user who provides a good example. I will try to learn from good examples of work on this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Fainites, yes, you mentioned the example I had in mind. I am aware that the Rorschach test itself is the subject of considerable controversy in the psychological community. I hope that in any event, I can learn from the best examples of editing in articles in the scope of this WikiProject, and I definitely invite all of you who are familiar with the sources to comment on how I use the sources as I edit articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well best of luck Weiji. Fainites barleyscribs 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In the case of projective tests, some psychologists of the cognitive ilk are hostile to them and they might (I don't know) consider it a plus point that Wikipedia gives such thorough information. There are plenty of psychologists whose work has nothing to do with personality testing. Their lack of involvement may reflect the general problem for academics, which is that there's no career incentive for them to write about psychology on WP rather than in a book, paper or class handout. I'll do what I can: I'm going to write a short piece for a psychology newsletter and there's a mailing list I've been meaning to send a request on. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

see the issue here. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MartinPoulter/How to write a psychology article --Penbat (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Earlypsychosis for the link to the discussion of the Rorschach test article and to Penbat for the link to Martin's advice on writing psychology articles. I hope to write some new articles within the scope of this project soon, to turn some redlinks into bluelinks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

lots of red links here User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Psychology. some are them are easy to fix - as the terms are slightly different from existing articles. Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Histrionic personality disorder serious article flaws

This article needs serious work from knowledgeable sources as per the objections I raise over here that don't seem to have in any way been acted upon. I thought for that reason I'd go ahead and bring it to the attention of the Project in the hope that an expert or at least a seriously informed person might be able to take some good action on it. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How to write a psychology article

I promised that if I got a psychology article to FA status, I would document what I'd learned from the process. Fulfilling that promise, I've finished off a draft of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/How_to_write_a_psychology_article (mentioned above) and shared it with this Wikiproject. Improvements welcome as always. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Defence mechanism

There have been a couple of requests (Talk:Defence mechanism#Where is the empirical evidence? and Talk:Defence mechanism#Criticism Section) on the talk page of Defence mechanism for a criticism section. I'm hoping someone here knows how to go about that. ~rezecib (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

APS Wikipedia Initiative

The Association for Psychological Science (APS) is starting a Wikipedia initiative, encouraging members of the association and their students to help improve the coverage of psychological science in Wikipedia. The president of APS, Mahzarin Banaji has written a couple of her presidential columns about Wikipedia [1][2]. Starting in February, 2011, the APS website will include a portal describing the initiative and recruiting volunteers. The plan is that APS members and students will volunteer on the portal and fill out a form to identify their areas of interest and expertise. The portal will then try to match volunteers with needed work on psychology articles, using the SuggestBot task recommender. It will suggest assessment tasks to APS members who have PhDs in psychology, using the new article feedback tool that the Wikipedia Foundation has developed for this purpose. The recommender will ask graduate students and others to work on particular psychology articles that are important (i.e., have high numbers of page views) and that the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology has assessed as C grade or below. These are important psychology articles that aren't good enough yet. The initiative will also host a forum or talk page where APS Wikipedia Initiative volunteers can communicate with each other and members of the Wikipedia community. Finally, the initiative will evaluate the value of different techniques to get psychologists involved in Wikipedia, using both surveys of the volunteers and experiments involving different technqiues.

This initiative is clearly relevant to the discussion started by Penbat about why psychologists don't participate in Wikipedia. As a psychologist myself who does research on how Wikipedia works [3], a member of APS and an (inactive) member of wikiproject_psychology, I offered to help APS plan and run their initiative. I wanted to get feedback from the community about these plans. I also wanted to see whether you thought that the communication forum for APS volunteers should be placed within the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology pages. perhaps as a new APS Initiative taskforce, or elsewhere. Robertekraut (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the best news we've had in a long time! I expect the current Wikiproject participants will be helpful and welcoming, and I hope the incoming APS members recognise us as a useful resource. I agree with the idea of making an APS task force within this Wikiproject, along the lines of Aiden Gregg's Self and Identity task force. I hope the task force finds the How to write about Psychology for Wikipedia essay useful. Thanks again, Robert, this is really exciting. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Martin, thanks for your reply. I'm also investigating whether the LiquidThreads interface, which the WikimediaFoundation has been developing, can be used as the discussion forum for this initiative. It should make discussion easier for newcomers compared to the MediaWiki editing conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertekraut (talkcontribs) 12:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The APS Wikipedia Initiative is scheduled to go live on February 1, 2011. You may see an influx of newcomers working on psychology articles. Although many will have domain knowledge, most will know little about Wikipedia and how it operates. Are any members of the Wikiproject_psychology project willing to act as mentors for some of these newbies, answering questions or reviewing initial editing attempts? The Wikiproject US Public Policy has an "online ambassadors" program to help newbies working on public policy articles. Having a list of people to contact will help the psychology newcomers to get involved. Please leave your username here if you are willing to have newcomers from the APS/Wikipedia Initiative contact you. Robertekraut (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont list me for now, but i would be happy to do some hand holding if any of the psychology newcomers are prepared to get involved with anything listed on my user page User:Penbat.--Penbat (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. I seem to be committing to lots of things at the moment, so my only concern about being an ambassador is if I have the time to dedicate to it, but I really want this project to succeed, so please include me. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia portal at the APS website about to go live? Can the developers run it by us before it does? An influx of well-meaning but poorly indoctrinated students can be extremely burdensome to established editors. Also, if they wait a little, this proposal may be implemented, which will make referencing a lot simpler for newbies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

anything happening or is it a damp squib ? --Penbat (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I have nominated Schizophrenia 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. Basket of Puppies 23:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Body schema

The article Body schema, recently added to the project, has been nominated for GA and it still has no reviewer. It is located in the biology and medicine subsection. Maybe somebody from the project is interested in performing the review. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great to see improvement in a psychology-related article. I've started a review. Other editors, especially with a neuropsychology focus are welcome to suggest other improvements on the review page. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin. I have added some impressions/suggestions. Morton Shumwaytalk 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Gestalt psychology article listed for deletion

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 Shumwaytalk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
The AfD discussion has been closed, the article has been kept. Thanks, Morton Shumwaytalk 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)


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 Shumwaytalk 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:

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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Jigsaw (teaching technique)


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. (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 Shumwaytalk 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC).


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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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=, now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=|jstor=0123456789.

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

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

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 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

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 Shumwaytalk 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)


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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC). (Sorted. Morton Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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)


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)


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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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 . 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 Shumwaytalk 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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 (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)


I sent you a message earlier from a different site and then from this site; contact me at I just need someone to communicate with, and I'm full of Goodness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 Shumwaytalk 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 Shumwaytalk 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)


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 (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 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)


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

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. [[2]]. 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. (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 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)


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:, and 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)

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)


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 (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)

With modest support on the Talk page and at Help desk, I've gone ahead and made this change. WWB Too (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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. -- (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


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. (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Project article of deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed for ACF assessment

I have been reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gibsonian ecological theory of development, and while I can see the subject is genuine, I am unsure about the accuracy of the content or whether the article name is appropriate. Review responses can be added to the article using the ACF system, or on my talk page. Thanks in advance. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin as a source for Narcissism articles

Self-published works by Sam Vaknin have been used as sources for various articles related to narcissism. The issue of whether those should be regarded as reliable for Wikipedia purposes is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited by Sam Vaknin. Project members are invited to give their views.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there an article on Left brain interpreter with a different title?

I looked up Left brain interpreter and had no article, so I started one. But I have a feeling there may be an article on it with a different name or something, I would be surprised if not. Anyway, if there is one, please merge/redirect. Else, you guys may want to help write more on it, given that it is only peripheral to my interests, and I had not even looked at the topic for a decade, so what I know may be dated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I also posted on Wiki proj Neuro and responses were provided. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gender Psychology

Was declined once for WP:OR issues, but was submitted again today. Is there something salvageable in there? The draft article seems to be a rather broad perspective on gender (incl. biological and social/cultural), not narrowly from a psychology perspective. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I'm hoping someone here who might have a better understanding on the topic of 'Percept/Perception' could perhaps offer some opinions at Talk:Percept (computing). I feel unable to make any informed decision about what disambiguation may be required until I better understand the situation. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article, but i found the information too detailed and too descriptive for what wikipedia's standards are. I would focus more one general information that would still inform, but not make it hard to navigate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaqua (talkcontribs) 01:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I liked this article in the way that it was more detailed than most articles you find on wikipedia. It was nice to see something that gives you more than the general information about the topic. I would not shorten the article at all. The length was good. Kayla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayrae1101 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic of personality psychology is very interesting to me! I think you have a lot of good information presented in the article. I do however, think that if I were looking for a specific topic in this article, it would take me some time to find. I'm not going to say it's an organization problem, because the information is well organized, but there is a lot of it. If you could cut certain information that is unnecessary for the topic, that may make it easier to read. When looking at a wikipedia article, I expect to get basic, quick information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajohns52 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Crying wolf" and fake crimes

Hi! I found an interesting article that talks about fake crimes and "crying wolf"

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Dutch psychologist data manipulation

What's the procedure for dealing with sources that become dubious? Are any of our articles affected by this (alleged) data manipulation?

(University of Tilburg report, Science Magazine article via The Chronicle of Higher Education via Reddit) --Lexein (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Esther Thelen

Please help to improve the article on Esther_Thelen Standard2211 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reward Dependence

I have rewritten the article on Reward dependence. Edits and suggestions are welcome. Please help me improve the article on the Reward dependence Talk page. Thanks! Vishakavijayakumar (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Inviting comments on APS/Wiki class projects

To members of the Wiki Project Psychology List:

As part of the initiative by the Association for Psychological Science, I have asked the students in my first year graduate seminar in Social Psychology to revise or add an article to Wikipedia for their final project. Those projects have now been posted, and all of us would certainly value the input and reactions of this community to their work.

The articles they have contribute to are:

Thanks in advance.

Benjamin Karney Professor Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles

Benkarney (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding group dynamics i am rather concerned that quite a lot of useful material from the previous version of group dynamics has been lost. The list of key theorists seemed like a good idea. Tuckman, for example and his forming/storming and norming idea now doesnt even get a mention.--Penbat (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Greetings! I am trying to establish enemy as an article. Wikipedia has struggled with this concept, for much of its existence having no article at all on the concept of the emotionally threatening other; instead, we have had a disambiguation page there with no link to an article on the concept itself. I think that the concept of having an enemy or enemies is very much a sociological/psychological concept, so any help in developing this article would be much appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Create a taxonomy for coaching

I invite a new ontology for the page on coaching. The discipline of coaching is exploding around the world, and its various branches are not well suited to one Wiki page. I propose the WikiProject Psychology seriously consider creating more rigid taxonomy for the coaching discipline, of which, sports coaching should be one branch along with many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

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.


October 2011

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)

Possibly redirect to Depression (mood) for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Done --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Expert Needed/ Coherance Needed

I am not going to tell you which two articles, but two of your articles not only go against the DSM-IV, but they also contradict each other.

I am not going to tell you because you call yourself an Encyclopedia. With great power comes great responsibility. Especially on these more serious subjects, it is very important that take the content of your articles as seriously as you portray them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course we don't want articles to contradict DSM-IV, but it's difficult to see how we could figure out which articles you are talking about. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). You have just as much "great power" to fix these problems as any other person here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

new article

Hello, I've created the article Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified but I don't know that much about the disorder. Looking for help on expanding the article and adding medical information. Thanks! --Turn685 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments needed on merger

Those involved in creating coverage of psychology may want to weigh in on the proposed merger into a different article of a biogage for psychologist Thomas G. Plante. --Presearch (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Psychology articles at WP:GAN

Hi, just a heads up that there are several articles awaiting review for good article status at WP:Good article nominations#Psychology. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Large scale student editing assignment due to be repeated.

Folks at this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Large scale student editing assignment due to be repeated.

For background information see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 24#A bunch of students.

-- Colin°Talk 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Major Depressive Disorder (Vincent van Gogh: "At Eternity's Gate")

I refer the group to this thread on the Talk page at Major Depressive Disorder concerning the use of Vincent van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" in that article and to this comment of mine pointing out it has no place in the article and should be removed.

The essence of the complaint is that is fully documented that van Gogh's painting is not at all, nor was ever meant to be, a portrayal of depressive disorder but is rather merely a study of an old man. For that reason alone it should be removed for reasons of encyclopaedic accuracy.

As it stands it necessarily makes a judgement about the nature of depressive disorder, that it necessarily implies despair, even that it necessarily implies suicidal ideation (because of its title and van Gogh's own well known suicide). It is very much to be regretted indeed in my opinion that a Wikipedia administrator, Casliber, a practicising psychiatrist it seems but a poor historian of art, appears to be the prime mover behind perpetuating these poor judgements.

It also mythologises Vincent van Gogh himself who took the greatest care to separate his difficulties in life from his work; the nature of whose illness is not settled but which is not certainly typical of a depressive disorder; who is not documented as suffering from suicidal depressive moods in the last months of his life when this painting was completed and whose suicide itself has in the past year been plausibly questioned by a respected source as rather a manslaughter.

I ask that the image be removed. If it is felt necessary, and I cannot imagine why it should be, that the article be illustrated by a fine art image, then I suggest the original image, Durer's Melancholia, be reinserted. Skirtopodes (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder, request for input

Anyone who is interested might wish to look at Dissociative identity disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjem3 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Input on what, exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a full-blown edit war going on at this article and it could use the intervention of some level-headed editors from this project. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at both talk and main article today - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, things have not changed, with accusations of meat-puppetry and off-wiki hounding now being added to the mix of accusations of dishonesty, COI, etc. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that left me nonplussed. Actual editing of the main page is much better (IMO) and some of the discussions on the talk page are actually pretty reasonable. Outside contributions and commentators are still welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Spoke too soon, it's still a problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for being so nonspecific about the Dissociative identity disorder page. Having burned my fingers on it a bit, I felt this article could use additional outside expert input and did not want to be accused of canvasing or loading the dice in anyway. Drjem3 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I too feel we need some level headed outside help on this page please.~ty (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review Motivation crowding theory

A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on Gedanken Experiments: Aristotle not "lofty"

Third paragraph of article on Gedanken Experiments mentions Aristotle's "lofty but inaccurate" conclusion that heavier masses fall faster than lighter ones. But Aristotle's conclusion was not at all lofty, it was the result of experiments. He tried dropping things in air, but he couldn't tell if the speeds were different because they fell so fast. So he decided to slow them down, by dropping them in water instead. He considered water and air to be similarly constructed. And in water, a heavier ball will drop faster than a lighter one. And, in fact, it's also true in air, as Galileo himself noted. The correction I would like to see in this article is the removal of the editorializing "lofty." Aristotle was wrong about many things, but he tried to conduct experiments the best he could think of. Thank you.Patrican (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Patrican (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Psychology will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in psychology and subjects related to women and psychology. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing article: Temporal motivation theory

I was surprised when I googled this and no Wikipedia article showed up for it. The Transhumanist 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing article: Piers Steel

Originator of the theory mentioned above.

"Dr. Piers Steel is one of the world's leading researchers and speakers on the science of motivation and procrastination."[3]

He appears to be notable enough for an article. The Transhumanist 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Major revert to Procedural memory article?

I think the subject article might be improved by a revert to a much earlier version but someone with more expertise needs to review it first. Please see Talk:Procedural memory.

I also proposed a merge from Automaticity. Sparkie82 (tc) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi guys.

So, following a crazy idea at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disability#Crazy_idea, to set a goal of getting our top ten most popular pages up to GA+ standard, bipolar disorder is being looked into with a view to put it forward for GA (thread here) - does anyone have any thoughts on this? For or against? It would be great to get some of you guys involved either at the prep or review stages... I'm aware it's also one of this wikiproject's most popular articles... Fayedizard (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Peacebuilding

I'm planning on editing the Peacebuilding article as part of a Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities course at Rice University. The article had been placed in this WikiProject before I started editing it, but I'm not sure why because it seems like the psychological issues caused by war would be more effectively addressed on the Conflict resolution page or another page. I will mention them in edits but do not intend to do so in depth. Feel free to look at the Peacebuilding discussion page for details on my edits.

Does anyone have any objections to my argument? If you do and have suggestions for me I'd be happy to incorporate them into my final article. If not, I will remove the page from this WikiProject. I greatly appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Nadhika99 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pandemonium Architecture

This template should be substituted on the article talk page.

I am revising (significantly expanding) the current article on pandemonium architecture, if anyone wants to help or review my work please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmierock (talkcontribs) 20:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment requested for new articles

I would like to request quality and importance ratings for three recent articles that have yet to be assessed: typical intellectual engagement, subjective well-being, and general knowledge. Thanks for any interest! --Smcg8374 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed at Epigenetics and Behaviour

I randomly stumbled upon this article. I have no idea what this article is really about, but it raises several red flags of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I got zero expertise on this, so I can't say if it's a load of baloney that should be sent to deletion, or if it's salvageable with some work, but I know that it needs some attention from people that know something about something. I'm cross-posting this notice at WP:MED and WP:PSYCH to, so as many eyes as possible will look at this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a class project article. The writing is somewhat essayish, but I wouldn't call it OR. Epigenetics is a very hot topic at the moment, and the work covered in the article is all pretty recent but it all looks reasonable to me, at least on a quick survey. We certainly have a whole bunch of articles that are a whole lot worse. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)