This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Merge comment needed: Effort justification

Should Effort justification merge with Cognitive dissonance? Please comment at Talk:Effort justification D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add new material to the article, Psychophysics. I am new at this but excited to be working on this as a class project for my History of Psychology course. I will begin by adding a few links to external academic-supported sites that allow opportunities to try the Method of Limits, for example. I welcome any comments and suggestions. WebFlower1 (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreeableness and Lexical Hypothesis - Help and Ratings

I've started reworking/writing the Agreeableness article and would really appreciate some help and/or ratings along the way. In the process of writing that, I realized that there's no home for the Lexical Hypothesis. I hope to create that article tomorrow, but I won't have the time to make it anything substantial...any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for my article please.

This template should be substituted on the article talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemonium_architecture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmierock (talk • contribs) 13:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimmierock (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am doing this project for a history of Psychology class and will be editing this project. I would like to add new material to the article, Word Superiority Effect. I hope to add to this article for clarity and to better develop the article. LAElling (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am editing this article for my history class and hope to improve the information as well as make the article easier to read. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Breaugha1 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking to edit the article Addictive Personality for my History of Psychology course. I'm planning to edit the description, correct errors, and remove bias. I hope to improve the overall well being of the article (Hieraths1 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

I will welcome all constructive edits, please do leave comments on what you did and such so I can keep track. I am grateful for all of your help :)

Jimmierock (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment on an expanded article?

Would someone be kind enough to look at Internet relationship and see if it merits more than a "Start" rating now? A bunch of student have been working on it. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Social isolation article

It needs top-priority help because prior to the latest edits (mine), it was full of dubious and unprofessional language, meaning that basically half the article had to be cut out with only the already-verified scientific bits and pieces allowed to remain. As you'll see, I also attempted to add language that would give an appropriately objective or near-objective sense of where an article like social isolation might want to be heading towards. But the article still very much needs help, especially since this kind of thing seems to be affecting more and more humans in the current era regardless of what you believe the causes to be. I've taken the liberty of adding it to the To-Do list as a Priority Article, but I don't know if anyone just browsing the Project is going to see it there, and frankly you may all decide that I don't have the authority to put it there. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Erikson's stages of psychosocial development

My name is Briana and I'm an undergraduate student. I'll be editing Erikson's stages of psychosocial development for a class project. Any and all suggestions are welcomed. Maryannb1001 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review Memory for the future. Does this topic actually exist?

The cites in the article don't seem to verify that it does.

A quick Google search isn't turning up much verification.

-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is literature that uses that specific term, but there is support in the literature for the concept that the ability to visualize the future depends on memory systems. There might be some level of original synthesis here, but it is by no means the worst I have seen -- not nearly as bad as Argument from poor design. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Two sections missing

The treatment section and future of child psychopathology section appear in the edit version of this article, but they do not appear on the published online version. Please check to see what happened to these "ghost" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrerajoshua89 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The citations and other wiki markup are screwing up the article. I started to correct this but had edit conflicts so I'll leave it for now. It will need going over by an experienced editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've got the two sections visible. The refs still need work though.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Semmelweis reflex

Could somebody take care of Semmelweis reflex? Currently, the article does not even have any valid citations, as the citation given for the definition seems to be irrelevant. I have considered to propose the article for deletion without further ado on WP:NEOLOGISM, but there are a number of hits on Google Books which suggest that the term is in serious academic use, even if perhaps not really an established term in psychology. While I have encountered the suggestion that the term was coined by Robert Anton Wilson, it appears that Timothy Leary was the writer to introduce it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer View for Wonderlic Test

Hello All! I am currently in need of peer reviewers for the article on the Wonderlic Test. Any and all help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time. Mdwilliams2 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ontogeny and Phylogeny

Hi Everyone, I am some one who likes to read and then do something with what he has learned. In this case adding to Ontogeny and Phylogeny (now known only as phylogenetics) after reading Freud's Wolfman. At this moment both articles are purely biological/genetical in nature. However, the terms apply to both physical and mental properties. IMHO both should have one article on the general outline of the terms, with links to the more specialistic fields. However, one more experienced editor reversed my additions. I am now wondering how other people feel about this issue. So, my question to all of you is how to proceed to be of most service to all eager seekers? IMHO a disambiguation page would benefit people less than one general introduction page.

Your opinions, please.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to stop following this page After some deliberation with 2 more experienced editors a solution has been found.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Input requested at talk:paraphilic infantilism

Please see Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#Input_regarding_use_of_sources. Cross-posted at WP:SEX. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the prior discussion is at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#Fruend_and_Blanchard.27s_Paedophilia_article_doesn.27t_belong_here. BitterGrey (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Other prior discussions (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3, RSN 1, and RSN 2). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that one prior discussion (two weeks ago) related simply to one source, Fruend and Blanchard's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." which is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." It doesn't use the already-established term "infantilism" or any established synonym, and so can't be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article without WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The other links either followed this discussion, or are from last year. It would be best if we could avoid linkspam and obfuscation. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Maladaptive daydreaming concerns

I spotted that Maladaptive daydreaming was recently added to the List of mental disorders. Since the Maladaptive daydreaming article does not provide support for the existence of the proposed entity as a recognized disorder, I am removing it from the list. I also have concerns about ambiguous wording in the article, which I have summarized on the the Talk page. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Review - Canada Education Program

We are working on the Joint attention article as part of the Canada Wikipedia Education Program and submitted for Good Article status on March 20, 2012. How can we encourage review of our article? The end of the semester is quickly approaching and any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Amae2 & NadRose & LianneAnna (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for Work motivation

I am making a page for work motivation for this class and I would like this to be reviewed so I can see what I need to work on. Jastha08 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adult grooming

The article Adult grooming has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references supplied, appears to be original research. If and when references to reliable sources are found, it can always be recreated.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maratrean (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Child depression

maybe needs redefining - see Talk:Child depression Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypergraphia vs graphomania

See Talk:Hypergraphia#Merge from graphomania suggestion. Also, they ar probably to be tagged with more narrow wikiprojects. I am just a "drive-by editor" for this subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Master and His Emissary: Expert attention needed

Hi, can someone please have a look at The Master and His Emissary and give it your expert attention? We really need someone who has this 600+ page book to write an appropriate synopsis. If you click on the banner at the top of the page, it will take you to the talk page discussion section.

It may be useful to check a revision prior to the mass removal of material, to see what—if anything—is important and might be worth resurrecting?

Many thanks in advance. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cognitivism (learning theory)

Hello everyone. I just noticed that there is a new article Cognitivism (learning theory) to complement the existing Cognitivism (psychology). Are these two legitimately separate topics, or should there be a merger on the cards? Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy

Subject article needs some TLC, it's a mess. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack A. Apsche

Article appears somewhat autobiographical. This is not in my field -- can anyone take a look at this and see if it meets WP:ACADEMIC? If it does, could use some attention. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvey A. Carr

I have just had a look at the article on Harvey A. Carr. When you go to its talk page, you will see it is watched by two wikiprojects - Wikipedia: Wikiproject Chicago and Wikipedia: Wikiproject Biography. However, since Harvey A. Carr was a psychologist, shouldn't this wikiproject also be looking at this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just repeat that I really think that Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology ought to be the dominant wikiproject looking at Harvey A. Carr? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. It's totally okay to add the template to the talk page yourself- you don't have to ask permission here. I've added it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind

It would be great with some extra attention to a discussion at Talk:Mind where another editor and I are attempting to work towards a better definition of "mind". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles drawn up by private companies

The article on MADD appears to have been written by a private company or institution. Among other things, it includes two phone numbers in Canada where readers (who may themselves be sufferers) can call 'our psychologists'. I just wonder if this is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I have never seen a Wiki article quite like it - it starts like a standard encyclopedic entry, but gradually sounds more and more like the kind of leaflet you might find in a doctor's practice, even addressing the reader directly in the second person.188.203.49.105 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The abbreviation MADD can refer to many things, but in this case it appears to refer to Mixed anxiety-depressive disorder. -- Presearch (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2012 (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). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia template

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 18#Template:Pedophilia about whether or not this new template should be kept, and, if kept, what/if any changes should be made to it. More opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Please read the arguments for keep and delete before weighing in, should you decide to comment in the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was relisted here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Adult grooming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adult grooming 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/Adult grooming 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 high-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.. Maratrean (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Gender identity and Sexual identity articles

These articles are a mess, and the way that "sexual identity" is being used is WP:OR (somewhat anyway). Basically, help is needed to sort this out. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Sexual identity for the current discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Individual differences psychology to Differential psychology

See discussion here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence††

Greetings discussion group, WP:Psychology, Intelligence, 2nd paragraph in lead Artificial Intelligence", with its hyperlink redirecting off site, (in the lead!), perhaps feature article status alludes?, Is this article *Intelligence]] categorized with psychology, I would edit the hyperlink out leaving a bold "artificial intelligence"^[1] Now all of that to say, I would like to improve this article under whatever Wiki Projects are interested however, I notice this is a c class article. I assume the "c" means classroom. May I take this article into my classroom to present it as a feature article, and let's say the classroom improves the article to feature page in two weeks^[2] Seeking to develope the Wiki Project Schoolhouse, I humbly offer my school assignment before you. Orschstaffer (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) O=MC⁴

^ Bold is used for highlighting referenced articles†
^ *This could be accomplished in x^N edits provided the initial preparations were in order.

O=MC⁴

18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Imagination inflation and Stephen Lindsay

Hi everyone, I have created two new stubs as part of the APS-Wikipedia Initiative and am continuing to extend and edit them; any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you! Emountier (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rumination (psychology)

We thought that the Rumination (psychology) article needed to acknowledge that psychologists have various definitions for rumination, such as Mikulincer's (1996) that divides rumination into three different categories/definitions. We added a bit about attentional biases but we still think that this article needs more content and needs to be more organized and contain scales. We think the RRS scale should be uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethan28 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of possible interest to this project

Please have a glance at Talk:Suicide#Chronic suicidality?, which is very short and might be of interest to this project. If there is follow-up kindly bactrack on my talk page. Guyovski (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A Harvard Associate Professor doing psychology of business is notable... or are they?

Hi folks, I've been asked to offer opinions on how to improve Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Cuddy which is a draft article about an Associate Professor in the "Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit at Harvard Business School". Cuddy focuses on psychology... mostly.

The article has been declined twice, the second time for being about a non-notable person. I do understand that "Associate Professor" doesn't meet notability standards for academics, and that many of the more "reliable" sources cited seem to be about topics that Cuddy can claim to be an expert on (i.e. she is invited to a TV show) rather than sources talking primarily about her.

However, I do wonder if there is notability here despite that, and maybe we can improve it to reach that point? Any ideas or suggestions? The article creator is pretty new to Wikipedia, so we can maybe bring out more points - or more solid refs - that they have not quite got across?

I posted something very similar to Wikiproject business. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now live at Amy Cuddy thanks to the very prompt assistance of User:Maunus, but improvements are of course very welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Presenting problem

Please see, Talk:Presenting problem.

I've redirected ot to Chief complaint, as it included the British term Presenting complaint. However, Identified patient could well fit as well, as it includes the individual as the "Presenting Problem".

It is commonly used but, due to my lack of expertise in this area, I am happy to defer to others wisdom. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Chief complaint appears to me to be more generally where Presenting problem would be more related to mental health.

--Bridge Boy (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

Attention is welcome on this article, at which there is currently a debate about some contentious recent and proposed edits, and about alleged violations of neutrality and weight. See the foot of the talk page. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK to put the Wikiproject:Psychology template on pages edited through the APS Wikipedia Initiative

Psychologists and students working as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative have edited over 1,200 psychology-related articles as of June, 2012. Although most of these already had the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology template on their talk page, over 300 didn't. Would it be OK to place the WikiProject_Psychology template on these articles and in the future recommend that students and others working through the APS Initiative do this by default? Robertekraut (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Robert- yes, please do this. If an article is related to psychology, whether discussing a phenomenon, a finding, a person, a research technique or so on, then it should have the wikiproject tag on its talk page. It doesn't need to have the importance and quality ratings- just a bare tag will do - although you may find that rating an article on the quality scale is a good educational activity in itself. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for the advice. We will include instructions to APS members and students to start doing this if they are working on a psychology-related article that hasn't already been tagged. We may also retroactively go back and add the psychology template to other articles, where it is clearly relevant. Robertekraut (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bert Hellinger - sources in German and Spanish

I dont think this article about a living person fully and accurately reflects his position and reputation. However many of the potential sources are in German and Spanish and I dont trust my high school language training or Google Translate on correctly interpreting nuanced content. Help would be appreciated. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bert_Hellinger -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Questionable article Eight-circuit model of consciousness

I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, but, as I noted in the talk page for the article, there are some issues. The specifics might need to be teased apart (feel free to correct my talk discussion if it's mistaken), but the symptom, which I think is serious, is that the article presents this particular model as part of mainstream psychology, which it is obviously not. Undiskedste (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues here seems to be that because this is an obscure fringe theory it apparently has never been discussed at all within mainstream psychology, hence there are no published sources that point that it is not mainstream. One reasonable response might be to remove the wikiproject psychology banner from the talkpage for the good reason that there is no evidence that it is a valid part of psychology. This action would not fall under WP:OR because the burden of proof that it is part of psychology falls on anyone who wants to keep it within the scope of this project. Therefore, anyone who objects to removing the psychology banner would need to provide reliable sources that this is a part of psychology. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Sensation Seeking Scale

I plan to add additional information to the sensation seeking page. I will explain Zuckerman's hypothesis that some people who are high sensation seekers require a lot of stimulation to reach their optimal level of arousal and when they are deprived they find the experience unpleasant. I will also explain Hebb's theory of Optimal Level of Arousal in which people are motivated to seek arousal. Feel free to edit and add additional information. Thebinbin (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Recently I moved this page to sensation seeking as I believe there needs to be an article about the concept itself, not just the scale used to measure it. All of the information from the previous title has been retained, although the article has been reworded. --Smcg8374 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychological research

Hi,

I'm going to be spending some time creating a non-list (article) version of psychological research, going into some more detail and introducing some ethical considerations. If you would like to help or have any input, please do. Your expertise would be much appreciated. I will be working on it here. Thanks Brad7777 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much to contribute yet, but this sounds like a great project: well done for taking it on and keep us updated! MartinPoulter (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's coming on ok... but not too sure if using some of the references is acceptable? Also, If anybody can add an image to the experimental methods section, that would be handy, because I can't find/think of any suitable. Brad7777 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mutiplicity

Does anyone know more about this? It is risking to be deleted, help source it if possible. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiplicity_(psychology)#Multiplicity_.28psychology.29 -- RexRowan Talk 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexuoerotic tragedy

The article Sexuoerotic tragedy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability of concept not demonstrated

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ZackMartin (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New article feed

I've noticed your project was listed at User:AlexNewArtBot but was missing the ruleset, so the search was not carried out. I'ved added the rule (list all new articles with the string "psycholog" in it, and hopefully that's all that was needed. If so, you should see this link turning blue soon, and then you may want to add it to your main page. See how we did it at our WP:SOCIOLOGY: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology#New_article_feed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Piotr. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DIBELS test article

This article on the DIBELS test is a bit of a unencyclopaedic mess. It's been the subject of both drive-by attacks by anti-testing people and spin-doctoring by what appear to have been DIBELS spokespeople.

Could some knowledgeable editors take a look and see if they can improve this article? I gather this is an important educational test in the U.S., so we need a good article.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

Dissociative Identity Disorder Could this page be listed here under pages that need to be worked on? If there are psychologists out there who work with DID and know the subject, this page really needs you. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Introducing “social groups”

Hi all. Myself and another editor cannot seem to reach consensus over at the social group article. Our differing opinions relate to the article intro and apparently we have reached a bit of an impasse. While I don’t expect anyone to read the entire discussion (It is quite long and a little antagonistic at times), the opinion of someone outside the debate could be valuable. Even if it is just to break the deadlock. The current state of affairs can be found here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

Dissociative Identity Disorder Could this page be listed here under pages that need to be worked on? If there are psychologists out there who work with DID and know the subject, this page really needs you. Tanya ✫ ♥♫ 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Introducing “social groups”

Hi all. Myself and another editor cannot seem to reach consensus over at the social group article. Our differing opinions relate to the article intro and apparently we have reached a bit of an impasse. While I don’t expect anyone to read the entire discussion (It is quite long and a little antagonistic at times), the opinion of someone outside the debate could be valuable. Even if it is just to break the deadlock. The current state of affairs can be found here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sociopathy

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Sociopathy#Redirect to Antisocial personality disorder? that could use some input from someone who has some background in the area. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Anybody? Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Exhibitionism

Eyes, please, disagreement concerning the proper scope of the artice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Article Cohesion

Consider going further in depth in the lead section, expanding on definitions and explanations so the reader can get a clearer idea of what Feature Integration Theory is before launching into the stages. Also, work on the article coming together as a whole. Currently, the article reads very disconnected.

Use a footnote when citing specific terms coined by Treisman, such as "feature maps" and "saliency maps," especially since all your sources share the same author. Samjcummins (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Navbox

We need some people watching {{Emotion}}. There's an editor who is unhappy that navboxes like this one are not required to contain inline citations proving that readers of articles like Emotion might be interested in reading articles like Outrage (emotion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012‖ Mnettle (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom

Because it involves core article of interest to this WikiProject, I thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Psychotherapies. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

PSYCH 2410A

I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012

Mnettle (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes I Plan to Make to the Social Stigma Page

- the first change I plan to make to the social stigma page is to change the layout of the page, as of now it is very confusing and not orderly. I plan to have the introduction start with the definition then the etymology then the 3 forms of social stigma followed by a little talk on Goffman who first named the 3 forms and then a summary of some research done on social stigma. After this I plan to make the following headings of what social stigma is, main theories and contributions, followed by current research. - the next change I plan to make is to eliminate some categories and form them in to bigger categories to make the paper flow better. For example, etymology can go in the introduction of what social stigma is as the section is only about 2 sentences. Also, there is about 3 sections talking about people who have contributed to the study of social stigma so I plan to form those in to one big section. - the last thing I will do to this page is add some information on social stigma in the media by talking about gender stereotypes and a study done on them. This will go under the research portion of the page. The study I chose is called looking through gendered lenses: female stereotypes in advertisement. It is a study about 150 high-school students who are divided in to 2 groups, one that views stereotypical images and one that does not. The results showed that brief exposure to gender stereotypes played a role in reinforcing them. This study was done by S.Lafky, M.Duffy, M.Steinmaus, and D, Berkowitz in 1996.

Mnettle (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New article: Arthur Jensen's book 'Bias in Mental Testing'

A new article relating to a controversial subject - Arthur Jensen's book Bias in Mental Testing (1980). It might well benefit from input from WikiProject Psychology regulars. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Adolescence and Emerging adulthood

Last year my advanced seminar in adolescent development at Oberlin College did a major revision of the Adolescence article. The Advanced Methods in Adolescent Development course is doing more editing and adding additional information to it. They are also doing a major expansion of the Emerging Adulthood piece, making it a piece on normative development from around age 18-30. They may merge that article with the piece on Young Adulthood. The latter was suggested by other editor and I'd like to see that done. Nancydarling (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Outline:

Brief Description-Running away from personal destiny

 --Picture Added---http://blogs.nazarene.org/zenichka/files/2011/01/lastman-pieter-jonah-and-the-whale.jpg

Etymology

-Biblical Origin

 --Jonah and the Whale
 --Song of Jonah

-Abraham Maslow

 --Picture Added--http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Abraham_Maslow.jpg/220px-Abraham_Maslow.jpg
 --Birth-Death
 --Short description of qualifications
 --Jonah Complex

Causes Contemporary Views on Jonah Complex

-Analogies (Sinking Ship) -Journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step

Connections to Psychoanalytic Theory

-Defense Mechanisms

 --Repression
 --Rationalization

Jonah Complex vs. Peter Pan Syndrome?

-Michael Jackson -- "I am Peter Pan in my heart."

References -Bible -The Song of Jonah: A Metrical Analysis Author(s): Duane L. ChristensenReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 217-231 -http://www.executive-and-life-coaching.com/jonah-complex.html -Swallowing Jonah: The Eclipse of Parody Author(s): ARNOLD J. BAND Reviewed work(s):Source: Prooftexts, Vol. 10, No. 2, Tenth Anniversary Volume, Part 2 (MAY 1990), pp. 177-195 -The Jonah Complex by Andre Lacocque; Pierre-Emmanuel Lacocque Review by: James S. AckermanThe Journal of Religion, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 372-373 -Excerpt from Personality and Personal Growth (6th ed.) Frager, R., & Fadiman, J. (2005). New York: Pearson Prentice Hall pg.342: -Desacralizing life and its mystery: The Jonah complex revisited. Lacocque, Pierre-E.. Journal of Psychology and Theology10. 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganmurphy17 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Near-death experience

In the article Near-death experience, there is this beautiful sentence: "The left temporo-parietal junction is involved in the feeling of a sinister figure's presence behind us who copied our actions." I removed it but was reverted, and the editor wants to discuss this on the talk page. I'm too tired to take up this discussion. If somebody else feels like it, that would be your good deed for today! Lova Falk talk 14:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Looie496 and FiachraByrne! ‎Lova Falk talk 07:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom! I really enjoyed reading your article. You have done a great job. However, there are some areas that you can improve on.

3 Areas for improvement 1. You should proofread the article again. The information is very good but there are some typos. There are also some phrases that could be worded better. The first sentence drags on a bit. 2. Under your heading “In popular culture,” you should expand more. Also, you could expand more under the “Replicating the study” section. 3. Adding a picture would make the page more interesting. We also think you could use more examples throughout the article.

3 Strengths: 1. You do a great job of linking words and phrases to other pages. You also do a great job with citations and references. We also like how you listed other Wikipedia pages that are similar to your topic at the end of the article. 2. Overall the article has a lot of good information. The research looks valid and accurate, and we think the article is very organized and flows well. The headings and spacing make it easy to read. 3. We really like your section called “Recent Research.” We feel that these examples allow us to relate to the subject.

I look forward to reading your final draft! Sheridaa (talk)Abbey Sheridan —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lev Vygotsky and weight of a particular scholar

People familiar with the scholarly works avialable are encouraged to comment Talk:Lev_Vygotsky#Weight_issue_and_possible_COI, or just be bold and edit if appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Forget

Is there such a thing as a mental health condition where one forgets things a lot? Pass a Method talk 09:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Amnesia. And of course, dementia. Lova Falk talk 09:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

APA Wikipedia initiative

Seems to be hitting our articles, with mixed results. I'd say Anti-social behaviour has 2 editors from this initiative, Hunting hypothesis and Gathering hypothesis definitely has one, and all 3 articles and the 3 editors need help. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal distress

I am just so stunned by the second half of the definition of Personal distress that I put my question also here (and not only on the talk page). The article starts with: "Personal distress is an aversive, self-focused emotional reaction (e.g., anxiety, worry, discomfort) to the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state or condition."
Now I understand that people can be distressed because others are distressed, but isn't this just one possible source of personal distress? Can't we experience personal distress because we might lose our job, get a divorce, etc etc. Or is it me who doesn't know that the term "personal distress" is used just in this context??? Lova Falk talk 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds wrong. Specifically, it sounds like someone accidentally deleted a sentence or two that used to be in between those concepts. Perhaps the page history will be illuminating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the phrase appears in the very first version of the article. It's a strange definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment at AfD

Might interest some people here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A sense of control

What's the article for the subjective sense that you're in control of your future or situation? Just to be clear, what I mean by "sense of control" is this: Imagine a world in which people believe that sacrificing a chicken under a full moon might prevent cancer. A given person is particularly worried about developing cancer and therefore engages in this practice. The practice is not scientifically proven, and the person knows this. However, he continues the practice, because "it gives me a sense of being in control, even if it doesn't work". (It does "work" in the sense that it reduces his anxiety.)

There's nothing at sense of control; is there another name for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Locus of control is not really the same as sense of control, however, having an internal locus of control comes close to having a sense of control. However, this may not be valid for your chicken example.. Lova Falk talk 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's more of a philosophical thing than a psych thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Sense of control" is used in psychology. It's studied in relation to wellness, symptom severity, anxiety, depression, etc. Definitely a concept worthy of an article. GBooks --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Superstition as a maladaptive coping strategy? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Paedophilia epidemiology

Hello to all. There are major issues on the paedophilia article regarding its prevalance. I am wondering if anyone here is interested or knows how to resolve this problem? The problem is as follows. According to wikipedia 1 in 10 men approximately are fixated on prepubescent kids. To me this is obvious nonsense. I suspect that either sources have been misinterpreted, such as prevalance rates in prison samples have been extrapolated across into the general population or else adolescentophilia, particularly hebephilia has been included in these statistics without informing the reader. The big problem is that for obvious reasons there are no solid estimates as to the prevalence rate of paedophilia in the general population but I just know it is not 1 in 10 men! The discussion is here for all who are interested. The discussion is here, Talk:Pedophilia#Prevalence_rates. --MrADHD | T@1k? 20:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing articles

Today I've discovered that we have no article on the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981) and nothing on parafoveal priming. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sonicyouth86! I added the Modern Racism Scale to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Psychology; when it comes to parafoveal priming, do you it is notable enought to deserve its own article or would a section in Priming (psychology) be better? Lova Falk talk 17:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to start with a section in Priming (psychology). Perhaps I'll get around to writing it myself. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be great! Personally, I have never even heard about parafoveal priming, so it'll be interesting to read. Lova Falk talk 20:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome: re-evaluation by APA

Expert attention is welcome at Talk:Asperger syndrome#Time for a revisit to this article (version of 15:15, 8 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria

Does this even exist? [1] -- RexRowan Talk 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I just checked on it in PsycINFO. There are 31 matches for the search "mass hysteria" in titles and 112 results for the tag "mass hysteria". So the term certainly exists, even though it seems not to be too popular. The first hit is overlappign with Mass psychogenic illness. --Finn-Pauls (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Autostereogram Featured article review

I have nominated Autostereogram 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

An article needs your help

Jumping to conclusions (AfD discussion)

Now that we know what the psychiatric name for it is (You'll never guess.), the article is in need of attention with respect to the psychology. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Moral exclusion

I've accepted a lengthy article on Moral exclusion from Articles for Creation. Though I've attempted to sort out the formatting problems, I've no idea whether it is a balanced and adequately sourced article. Someone may like to take a look. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging the articles Applied behavior analysis and Behavior modification

Hi,
I wanted input back on merging the articles ABA and Behavior mod., as the former is a new term for the latter.
See here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC^{. Talk} 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377)." ATC^{. Talk} 23:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Specific

Is there any specific term for somebody who has a mental disorder but is highly functioning (i.e. it does not interfere with their day-to-day life). Pass a Method talk 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The help desk is probably in general the better place for questions regarding content like this. However, you seem to be referring to the Global Assessment of Functioning in general, which I suggest you read. In general, though, the reference sources I've checked indicate no specific term which can be used in a global way, independent of references to diagnosis, other than the phrase you used "high functioning" and the logical variations on it. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Im looking for a single word term. Pass a Method talk 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of mental disorders have a criterium stating that: "The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Careful clinicians should not give a diagnosis to anybody whose functioning is not interfered with. Lova Falk talk 09:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

psychology.wikia.com and template:enPW

Is psychology.wikia.com a reliable source? This question is in relation to the attribution template {{enPW}} now under deletion discussion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Wikia sites are publicly editable wikis like Wikipedia. For that reason, they're unsuitable as sources for Wikipedia. Just as with Wikipedia, however, Psychology Wikia may be a starting point for finding reliable sources that are suitable. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Savant syndrome

Hi! User:Mellywelly15 and I are in a disagreement about the definition of savant syndrome. I would be happy with the input of other editors, so the two of us can stop going back and forth. Lova Falk talk 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Elmer Ernest Southard

I created an article for early twentieth century psychiatrist Elmer Ernest Southard, but it needs attention from someone with more background in the history of psychology. I think it could use more in-depth coverage of E.E. Southard's views on schizophrenia and how they differed from his contemporaries. If anyone would like to have a look, I would appreciate it. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 13:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

Psychodynamic theories about OCD

Someone on Talk:Obsessive-compulsive disorder has pointed out that the article's description of the disorder's etiology focuses exclusively on biological theories. S/he claimed that there are many psychodynamic theories that attempt to explain the disorder. However, I am not familiar with modern psychodynamic theories, and wouldn't even know where to start my research. Is there anybody here who can help? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Guilt complex

I recently discovered that this is a redirect. What should it redirect to? p b p 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI

— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything in mainspace? Seems about 2 1/2 months too early for jokes... p b p 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki sometimes needs jokes year round to balance the drama...I don't reserve that just for April Fools' Day. Concerning guilt complex, I don't see the redirect anywhere...it wouldn't be red-lettered above if it were a redirect. I believe you may have a candidate for writing an article and that it is related to the Polycrates complex but different enough to stand on its own.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual dysfunction#Move?

The above linked discussion is a move discussion that this project may be interested in; it's about whether or not to move the Sexual dysfunction article to the title Sexual disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of biases in judgment and decision making

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:List of biases in judgment and decision making#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rashomon effect

At WT:JAPAN we are discussing if adding macron (diacritic accents) to this title to conform to the Japanese romanization of "Rashōmon" is original research or correcting bad spelling and whether MOS:JAPAN applies to this psychological concept. You are invited to respond. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article review needed for Transactive memory

This article has been nominated for Good Article review. See Talk:Transactive_memory MartinPoulter (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing mental disorders

I have been cleaning up Category:Biology and recently three new subcategories appeared:

These categories are too specific for Category:Biology, but I don't see a good place to put them. I have considered adding a subcategory to Category:Mental and behavioural disorders named Category:Biology of mental and behavioural disorders. Would this be an appropriate way of dealing with these subcategories? Also, do these disorders work on separate enough receptors, proteins, etc, to warrant separate categories for each disorder? I would think that these disorders would overlap a lot on the biomolecules they interact with.OakRunner (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment!

I removed quite a few external links, but when the editor asked me about it, I couldn't find a clear ELNO to explain why I did it. Now I wonder if I was wrong. I would be very happy if some of you could comment on this here. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 19:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (PS If it takes a while before I react on your comments, its because the working week is about to start...)

Jokestress and James Cantor: topic bans from sexology articles?

It may be of interest to some that there has been a discussion of Jokestress's participation on the Talk:Hebephilia page at WP:AN/I; there are proposals under consideration presently to topic ban either Jokestress or James Cantor or both from sexology articles. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Seclusion of children who are... not following direction, misbehaving....

Can anybody lead me toward articles and rules about this subject. I believe it is being misused/overused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.68.149 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean Time-out (parenting)? I also really dislike it. Please find some good and reliable sources, be bold and add a section Criticism to the article! Lova Falk talk 14:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Three cheers for Lova Falk

LF, me doing this now is going to look like a reaction to you nominating me for a present from the Foundation, but I was already meaning to do this after assessing a lot of psychology articles recently. You're doing amazing work monitoring & fixing psychology articles, removing dodgy links and spam. There are very few of us doing it and Wikiproject Psychology owes you big thanks for your hard work. I've already awarded you the Psychology Barnstar, so I thought I'd thank you in this public manner for how you've improved things since returning.

To other members, I recommend building up a Watchlist and bookmarking it so that you can see recent changes to articles you're interested in (and contest them if they are dubious). See Help:Watching_pages for an explanation of how to do this. Article development is important, and there's lots of that going on recently thanks to an influx of academics and students, which is great to see. That said, we also need people to go round tidying up, tagging, repairing damage, assessing and so on. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hip hip! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh!!! Saturday morning, still a bit sleepy and tired after the workweek, going through my Watchlist, and suddenly...

Thank you so much! Lova Falk talk 10:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Speech

Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could use some improvements. I've been working on formatting and standardization, but additional research from experts would be appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Great to see a truly awesome Wikipedian contributing to an article of such high importance. I'm interested in the overlap with perception. No immediate plans to contribute, but watchlisted. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Inviting new users

There have been many new users editing psychology articles over the last few months, which is great to see, many of whom are academics or students brought by the APS Wikipedia Initiative but others may not be. I've been wondering how we can make them aware of this noticeboard and give suggestions of things they can do to help. I give them a standard welcome message, but it would be good to have something psychology-specific as well, as many other WikiProjects have. So I've created Template:Psychology_welcome, but I'd welcome input/improvements from other editors before putting it to use. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! Do I understand you correctly that this template should come after a welcome template and not instead of one? I think templates with a picture are a tad more appealing. What about adding this one? Lova Falk talk 10:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is that it would be used in conjunction with an existing welcome template or welcome message. I agree about having a picture: so far, it's been hard to find one that is general enough to be compatible with a very broad interpretation of psychology. Psychology being about people, a picture of people ought to be non-controversial, though. This is better than nothing but a bit like clip-art. Anybody have any other image suggestions? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is of course always this one, but it's not so colourful: Lova Falk talk 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

specific cleanup exercise needed on psychology articles

User:Jacobisq has done a lot of seriously awesome work mainly on psychology articles but also on some sociology and philosophy articles. His earlier work was done in an unconventional style where he simply quoted text fragments from the source instead of summarising the cited source. Apart from possible copywrite issues, it also makes the text difficult to read. He is now no longer doing this (see User_talk:Jacobisq#CCI_Notice) and is gradually converting his old material listed at User:Jacobisq/Article list but it is a slow process as he only devotes a certain amount of time to this and he also likes to do new work. If you can help with the conversion please do. I would help myself but quite a lot of it is out of my depth. It may not be necessary to access the original sources that User:Jacobisq used but an understanding of the subject matter is a prerequisite. His cites are meticulously accurate.

It had occurred to me that it may be viable to apply for a Wikigrant http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start for User:Jacobisq to devote his time in a concentrated way to doing his own cleanup as it is a clearly defined task as defined by User:Jacobisq/Article list. However i suspect the odds are against both User:Jacobisq agreeing to the grant idea and it getting Wiki approval, also an upcoming deadline for this will almost certainly get missed anyway. Incidentally User:Jacobisq is currently on a wikibreak but may be back fairly soon.--Penbat (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested

Could some of you please have a look at Talk:Narcissism in which I try to discuss Examples of narcissism in the media? This section contains a long unsourced list in which it seems that any selfish (J. R. Ewing) or self-confident (Patrick Jane) character gets a place. I would like to remove it, but before doing so I would like to hear if there are any objections. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Thank you all who helped! Lova Falk talk 08:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

List of psychological effects

Is it OK to make this draft into a new page and link to it from Outline_of_psychology#Lists?

I'm doing the initial population by extracting psychological effects from List_of_effects.

Earcanal (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this could be quite useful. The subject focus could make it a lot more interesting than the list of effects. Better still would be adapting the first sentence from each article into a one-sentence definition for this page, and indicate if an effect goes under different names (e.g. above average effect = Lake Wobegon effect). I'm not 100% sure what the policy is on the admissibility of lists.

'Subject focus'? Could you provide an example? Earcanal (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All that means is that a "list of effects in psychology" is more interesting than a "list of effects of any kind" article, and since the latter already exists, that suggests the former belongs on Wikipedia as well. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Have gone for a simple list initially. Earcanal (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice start! Lova Falk talk 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Found this article

I was sifting through the list of dead-end pages and came across Functional approach. Google Scholar was no help to me, as many research papers in psychology are titled A study of X: a functional approach or similar, so I've had a difficult time determining if this is original research or a valid article. Can someone here look it over and deal with it appropriately. Thanks. Mind matrix 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The functional approach is another term for functionalism: the study of the purpose mental processes serve in enabling people to adapt to their environment. Our article about this is called Functional psychology. Seeing the quality of Functional approach, or rather, the lack of quality, I would say Functional approach can (should?) be changed into a redirect. Lova Falk talk 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about tone and undue weight

At Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision_making there is a discussion about whether an article in this WikiProject's scope should have been tagged for unencyclopedic tone. Additional perspectives on this would be welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Eye gaze - page?

Following advice from the Teahouse I made a redirect from Eye gaze to Eye contact. But it is more than simply [Eye contact]], as includes sharing of attention, communication of attention shift, and the cooperative eye hypothesis. It is also a huge part of Gaze. Should it be its own summary page with link off to these other pages?

The term "eye gaze" is found in many pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_contact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_tracking - "point of gaze" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_attention - "means of eye-gazing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication "eye gaze" link to eye contact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_eye_hypothesis

Bodysurfinyon (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank Farrelly

The Frank Farrelly article was a mess so we tried AfD to see if consensus would be to fix or delete. Editors from this project may want input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Hyperia (epilepsy) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperia (epilepsy) 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/Hyperia (epilepsy) 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 high-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. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Psychology education project

I have found this project Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1). Many articles are medicine related. Students have to add or develop a section in the article and include 10 references. However only a reduced emphasis has been made on the use of secondary sources, and as of today students have posted some possible sources to be used in the talk pages of the articles and in most cases are primary. I have indicated the problem to the teacher and embassador (yesterday) but it is still too soon to see the effect. Nevertheless more eyes would be a good idea. --Garrondo (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Every single student so far who has presented their sources, plans to use primary sources... It is a total drag!! However I have had help in phrasing a text about sources that I can paste (sometimes with minor adjustments) as a comment to their plans. Please feel free to copy and paste it anywhere that it is needed. (I put it in nowikitags here so it is easier to copy):

All sources you mention are [[WP:primary sources]], that is, results of single studies. However, '''Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay!''' Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published [[secondary source]]s (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary source]]s (such as undergraduate textbooks). [[WP:MEDRS]] describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, ~~~~

I also intend to ruthlessly delete all new student content based on primary sources. Lova Falk talk 17:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I get there first.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lova Falk. I just saw your cautionary blurb in action. It looks really good. Would you mind if I borrow it from time to time. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be so happy if you did! Below is the one I paste when they just write they are students, and nothing is said about sources. Lova Falk talk 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on [[WP:primary sources]], but on reliable, published [[secondary source]]s (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary source]]s (such as undergraduate textbooks). [[WP:MEDRS]] describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, ~~~~

Another class project alert

See the talk page of new user Psyc-mmills (talk · contribs), the instructor of a class project which has started producing a string of articles labelled:

"NOTE: This is a stub, and it will be expanded as a university class project until May 10, 2013 under the auspices of the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative."

It's not clear what university this is. A good deal of advice has been provided, including pointers here and to WP:SUP, but many of the new articles are being deleted as content forks of Evolutionary psychology. The project needs some watchful eyes, and help to guide them to a useful plan. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Potential additions to the Emotional labor article

In hopes of expanding the depth and legitimacy of Wikipedia, I would like to further develop the article entitled “Emotional Labor.” I would like to add research-based conclusions from psychological research journals, such as work completed by Rebecca Erickson, Alicia Grandey, and David Holman. Along with adding research-based conclusions, I would also like to connect these theoretical concepts to specific examples of emotional labor with the current labor market. Besides having mediocre ratings based on Wikipedia standards while also missing substantial amounts of important information, the importance of the article’s subject matter merits its expansion. Most people hope to be an effective and successful member of the workforce. However, being an effective member of the workforce does not only require having the necessary individual qualifications. Success also requires understanding how the workforce operates as an institution. The concept of emotional labor is a theoretical concept first theorized by Arlie Hochschild that brings a specific and important understanding of the workforce to light. Specifically, as the American economy shifts from a manufacturing to a service economy, control of one’s emotions based on companies’ standards have become so important that emotions have become a commodity in and of themselves. Essentially, I think understanding how emotional labor works ultimately leads to a better understanding of the labor force more generally. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions on any potentially useful resources.

Morell21 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Make believe

The make believe article is sadly languishing. Is childhood pretend play a topic of interest within developmental psychology? Would the Psychology project like to take this article under its wing? Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Revising Low enrollment of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and Careers article

As part of a class project, I plan to revise the Low enrollment of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and Careers article and retitle it "Women in STEM (United States)". According to the notice at the top of the article page, this article is currently written “like a personal reflection or essay” and needs to be rewritten in encyclopedic style. While I do not plan to rewrite the entire article, I do plan to add a substantial amount of information and to possibly restructure and revise parts of the existing article. In particular, I wish to discuss the social, structural, and psychological factors that help explain the low numbers of women in STEM fields. Besides making the title more concise, I also wish to change the name of the article to reflect on both the challenges that women face in entering STEM careers and the progress they have made. Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of psychology, psychological theories, psychological research and psychotherapy." Many psychologists, particularly those in Social Psychology and Industrial/Organizational Psychology, have explored the obstacles that women face in male-dominated occupations such as the ones in STEM fields. Many of my additions will focus on social psychological phenomena like stereotype threat and the Pygmalion effect, as well as social and structural phenomena like discrimination and the leaky pipeline. However, women have also made progress in entering STEM fields and certain STEM areas (e.g., Biology and Psychology) tend to have large numbers of women. It is important to recognize women's achievements and contributions in these fields. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go to reaching full equality. In revising this article, I hope to give a comprehensive overview of the current state of Women in STEM careers while addressing many of the current issues with the existing article. I would appreciate any feedback and look forward to contributing to this project. Naomi FK (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Talk:Low enrollment of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education and Careers instead, so we don't get two discussions in two places. Lova Falk talk 07:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Following up on Tag of IQ reference chart

I see that the article IQ reference chart has been tagged by another editor to draw expert attention to it. It is at once a high-priority article for this project, and a start class (low quality) article at the moment. I have been drafting an update of the article, with references to reliable sources, in the sandbox attached to my user page, and I invite all of you to take a look at that. I will be doing more revisions soon. I think the best approach for this article (but I invite your possibly differing opinions) is to do a bold edit that completely replaces the current article text with a thorough revision once the revision is well drafted and thoroughly referenced. Please let me know what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the use of secondary sources in psychology articles

After a rough interaction with an educational project, in which I tried to enforce that articles were mainly based in secondary sources the online embassador of this educational psychology project is discussing if the use of (mainly) secondary sources should be required. My opinion is clearly that it is.

I am sure some will be interested in commenting their opinion on the use of secondary sources, specially due to the increasing number of educational assigments on medical and psychology articles, and some of the problems that have arrived with them.

Lova Falk also had similar problems with this educational project and their use of sources, but she has recently taken a wikibreak.

--Garrondo (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fundamental attribution error/Archives/2013#Correspondence bias and the fundamental attribution error are two different concepts

I would love to have some input from the members of WikiProject Psychology. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Joordens, University of Toronto editing

Where on-wiki do any of the discussions mentioned here occur? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Commit Suicide" discussion

Input from members of this project might be helpful at Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral. Markhenick (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Requested

Will someone within this community please review my article on Team Composition and Cohesion in Spaceflight? Any input will be greatly appreciated. Jssteil (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(The above was posted on the Psychology Portal talk page, but is more appropriate here.) MartinPoulter (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate peer review on my Causal Reasoning (Psychology) article. Thank you! Lilypad221 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology of language

The recently created page Evolutionary psychology of language seems to cover a topic quite similar to that of Origin of language and may constitute a content fork. Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Evolutionary psychology of language and contribute your opinions to that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Overlearning Stub

Hi everyone! I am a college student working on a stub article for the Overlearning article. Does anyone have any suggestions for this article as I move forward with revisions? Thank you! Chelseylandis619 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback/Editing request

Hi all,

I recently wrote my first article (Statistical learning in language acquisition), and would love some feedback on it from people who have been around a little longer than I have. Thanks in advance! InnocuousPilcrow (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Exercise a valuable tool in overcoming drug dependence and drug addictions.

I've recently come across many stories where former drug addicts talk about how they beat their drug addictions with the help of moderate to high intensity exercises.

Does anyone have access to any studies that has been undertaken in the past. Or would anyone volunteer to write up an article on this? I did come across an article here on exercise addiction...but there was no mention of drug addicts as a subset of population who might also be at risk of exercise addiction.

The reason I think this would be important is the ever growing number of people with prescription drug addictions in the US as well as globally. So much so that this problem is now among the leading cause of death.Day'jav (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We really need involvement of new volunteers so please feel free to improve existing content on the topic or create new articles, as long as you use reliable sources. Other editors may be willing to give you a hand on how to write the article, but most probably nobody will be capable of creating new content as there is so much to improve out there. --Garrondo (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. We can't rely on anecdotes or newspaper stories, though, and the scientific evidence is unfortunately rather limited. If you want to get into this topic, a good way to start might be by reading the Introduction to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889694/. (The paper itself, being a pilot study, is not a good source, but the introduction gives a useful survey of the recent literature.) Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

On choiceless awareness

I have absolutely no idea of how to correctly participate with this grand project called Wikipedea. But I feel a need to mention a note, on Choiceless Awareness.Perhaps someone else could look at this, and clean it up a bit.

I think some of us would look at this "Choiceless Awareness",and wonder what it feels like. In this, I shall attempt some guidance.

An exercise. Remember a moment, when your eye was caught, by a magifecent scene. Or, reflect on when you were in polite conversation, while at dinner, and your attention is brought to the taste on your tongue. And, reflect on the listening to a presentation of music, and feeling yourself being swooned on the kalideoscope of sounds.

That moment. That very moment. Just before you starting to think about it. You were/are there! This might be the goal of meditation. But be aware that goals aren't choiceless. Let go of the goals. Let go of the thinking

This might be that moment called Enlightenment

Now to strech this a bit. That/this state of mind/body, is where all other life forms have always been. They are all "in this moment"

There are hundreds of millions of people in this state right now. They are called Babies. And, at this moment, even our own bodies have always been/are here. Our bodies don't need our permission, to do what bodies do.

That leaves just one thing, that is in a state of conflict. And, that is our thinking. Thinking has always been a tool. Not an identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenner49 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bringing reliable sources to back up any theories and improvements to articles would be a great way of collaborating.--Garrondo (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Adios

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ADHD up for review on GAN page

Hi folks, I have nominated the ADHD article for good article consideration on WP:GAN#PSYCH if anyone would like to review it. :-) There is quite a back log of articles there that could do with some volunteers from this project helping to clear. :-) I think that the ADHD article should be given priority but I am thoroughly biased!! :=)--MrADHD | T@1k? 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Psychos"

the usage of Psychos is under discussion, see talk:Psychos (TV series) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism

This article could use some attention. It has been massively rewritten today by a new editor (or at least a new account) in a way that I think is not an improvement. My inclination is to revert, but for the moment I have settled for starting a discussion on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the article has been rewritten from the viewpoint of some contemporary "practical" form of behaviourism; much of the material on history and methodology has been deleted. Instead, BCBA/modern behaviour analysis method and standards are stressed. — Some sections clearly needed a reorganization or even a rewrite, as well as more sources. However, now there is only a third of the original references left. Allover, I don't think that is an improvement. 㓟 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

From my POV: I would revert and move to talk last version for further discussion or future use. --Garrondo (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted. There is too much material to move it to the talk page, I think. Incidentally, it looks to me like this might be another education project, so continued attention would be useful. Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. These articles now look familiar:

* Professional practice of behavior analysis

* Applied behavior analysis

* Experimental analysis of behavior

Would you please also inform WP:COGSCI in case of potentially problematic edits etc.? Thanks and kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Update

I created User:Canoe1967/Period of purple crying after someone at help desk wondered why we didn't have an article on it. Your project is the only one listed on the Crying talk page. I just found a source today that has some good stats including:

" Since its full implementation in January 2009, the breakthrough Period of PURPLE Crying Program has helped reduce the number of cases of abusive head trauma in B.C. infants six months and younger by 58 per cent."

I don't want to fumble it into any articles that it may belong in or create an article that may end up a mess. Here is the one source I found: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2012/10/period-of-purple-crying-program-helps-keep-bc-babies-safe.html from a British Columbia government website. If it isn't worthy of its own article we could just create it as a redirect to a section on it in another article. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hedda Bolgar

Hedda Bolgar, a new stub, would make a great DYK if someone has time to expand it ... ! Djembayz (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed to merge or not merge Categorization and Taxonomy (general). See Talk:Categorization#Merge. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bruxism#Psychosocial interventions and Bruxism#Psychosocial factors ... input requested

I have almost finished reworking the above article as far as my sources and patience will allow, but I feel it lacks sufficient weight towards both psychosocial factors in the causes section, and details of psychosocial interventions in the treatment section. Many sources suggest that psychosocial causes are the main cause of bruxism, and therefore logically psychosocial interventions are a good place to start given that there is barely any evidence for any of the other treatments that have been described. Maybe someone here could be tempted to expand these sections... thank you, Lesion (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Help arranging a dialogue with Mrm7171 regarding changes bearing on occupational health psychology

Mrm7171 has been attempting to make wholesale changes and some smaller changes in occupational health psychology, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, applied psychology (as it bears on occupational health psychology), and in the psychology sidebar‎ (as it bears on occupational health psychology). I think we can discuss our ideas bearing on OHP. I have tried to engage Mrm7171 in a dialogue about edits, but without success. In the event he is new to Wikipedia, I included a link to his talk page in some of my responses to his changes. I think that some of his changes are too wholesale, and he has attempted to reduce OHP to a province of industrial/organization psychology. I have responded to him on his talk page and on the OHP talk page.

Is there a psychology contributor who can help arrange a dialogue between Mrm7171 and me? Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the original edits to OHC by Mrm7171 are not productive. Lots of material was deliberately deleted without any comment, and material that was added does not seem to care much about encyclopaedic standards beginning with the first sentence. As to a dialogue, it does not seem to look like Mrm7171 is willing to comment on his/her talk page or the article's talk page (except for the all-caps edit comments). As Iss246 seems to have background knowledge in the area, it should be a good idea for him/her, particularly regarding the points that Mrm7171 advocates in his/her edit comments, to produce sources which are suitable to support the respective claims. However, even if OHP should be considered a subfield of I/O Psy, the mere removal of whole sections on OHP does not make much sense. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Help interpreting a citation index

Hello: recently I've been trying to use googlescholar as a tool to help evaluate prominence of researchers. However, I don't really have a gauge for interpreting the results in fields outside of mathematics. I am currently interested in [this researcher's data]. I have nominated his self-authored BLP for deletion since it reads like an article acting as a soapbox, and does not contain many (if any) references outside of his personal website. I do want to do due diligence though in ascertaining the appropriateness of that article. The googlescholar results linked to above show the top cited papers are 98, 97, 37, 24, and then the rest rapidly dwindle. Do these results alone merit having a BLP in wikipedia? I can't tell, but I suspect not... Thank you for any advice you can give. Rschwieb (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are not very high numbers of citations -- in themselves they would not justify an article, and it is clear that his ideas are outside the mainstream. However, he has a book published by Erlbaum (generally a good publisher), and he has a target article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences -- not as meaningful as it used to be, but still meaningful. So I would say that he is notable enough to justify an article, if appropriate sources are available. Looie496 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Morevoer: work citations do not give notability to a person , but to its work. If there are no secondary sources (that is, not self published) talking about a person, then, no matters how many citations have his publications, this person is not notable. --Garrondo (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clear and prompt responses! I think in light of this, I'll revise the nomination to ask for better citations, reevaluation of POV, and more assurance the information comes from secondary sources (and not the pen of the subject directly.) Rschwieb (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: do you think that subject's research area falls under WP:Psychology, or is there a better project to alert about the proposed deletion? (The subject was already notified. I just wanted more people to get a look at it.) Rschwieb (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Controversies" headline should be added to bipolar page

I believe a "controversies" headline should be added to the bipolar page given the fact that the Wiki Iatrogenic page lists bipolar as a disorder that is considered to be partially or wholly iatrogenic. I also believe this is important given Allen Frances', the head of the DSM-IV-TR, recent concerns regarding a "childhood bipolar epidemic," and warnings of "Psychiatric Diagnosis Gone Wild." I also believe it is important due to the comment by Dr. Insel, the head of NIMH, who stated that NIMH would no longer be directing research funds at projects based solely on DSM classifications because these disorders are not based on scientific etiologies and are "lacking in validity." Plus, there is the controversy regarding Dr. Joseph Biederman, his ties to pharmaceutical companies, and his "widening" the scope of bipolar diagnosis criteria, to include childhood bipolar. 1998sh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013

Best place to discuss the edits you propose is the article's talk page where you can reach consensus with other editors involved. Nevertheless you would need high quaility sources that follow WP:MEDRS (mainly review articles in peer-reviewed journals, or professional books) to back up your proposals. --Garrondo (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about template narcissism

I have opened a discussion on Template talk:Narcissism about my concerns regarding that template. And I invite the views of other editors, so please comment whether you agree or disagree. Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Update on updating article IQ reference chart

Back in March 2013, I noticed that the article IQ reference chart has been tagged by another editor to draw expert attention to it. It is at once a high-priority article for this project (it has over 2,000 page views per day), and a start class (low quality) article at the moment. I have been drafting an update of the article, with references to reliable sources, in the user sandbox attached to my user page, and I invite all of you to take a look at that. I will be doing more revisions soon. I think the best approach for this article (but I invite your possibly differing opinions) is to do a bold edit that completely replaces the current article text with a thorough revision once the revision is well drafted and thoroughly referenced. Please let me know what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article IQ reference chart is still identified as a high-priority article for this project. I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (often automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to two editors active in this project who have commented on the talk page of my sandbox draft of updates for IQ classification (the article's new title). I appreciate their help, and invite your suggestions while I incorporate their suggestions into further updates of the draft. They both told me I should post the new text soon to the public-facing article, taking it out of my user sandbox, and I intend to do that in the next few days. I have found that the comments on the article from Wikipedia's article rating system (you can find the link on the article talk page) are also very helpful as suggestions about what content to add to the article. Feel free to comment as the new version of the article rolls out. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparative Cognition Society

Hi everyone. I am working on an article about the CCS. It is in my sandbox, any help or advice is welcome. Oh yeah it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbrodbeck/sandbox/CCS Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice, you should also notice WP:COGSCI. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Article on Social Sharing of Emotions

Hello,

I am an undergraduate psychology student at Cornell University, and am currently working at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium with a graduate student here as part of a class to write an article on the Social Sharing of Emotions. We started the article in French as we're at a francophone university, but finally decided to write the article in English because French is not our native language. We will be continually adding content to the article over the next several months, and would appreciate any feedback you may have! The article can be found here: Article: Social sharing of emotions, and my partner is Paulinushk.

Astrss 8 March 2013 at 9:27 (CET)

Hi Astrss and Paulinushk, and welcome! I will copy this text to Talk:Social sharing of emotions, and recommend everybody to write their feedback there. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, could someone please re-review this article on the WikiProject quality and importance scale? It has undergone major revision and expansion since the time it was given this rating. Also, I have made the article a good article nominee, so if anyone would like to do the review that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Astrss 2 May 2013 at 9:46 (CET)

This is still seeking a Good Article reviewer. Good Article criteria are here and instructions for reviewers are here. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Bullying

Hi. I am completely uninvolved, but there is a discussion going on at the Bullying template's talk page. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm seconding this request for assistance from this WikiProject's members on this template. Technical 13 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely still an issue here. Like the problems with Template:Narcissism, this focuses on a Template whose main author is User:Penbat, a template which links to a lot of articles of questionable relevance to the topic, and even to articles outside of Wikipedia. In each case, the effect has been to place links to an article whose main author is Penbat across a range of unrelated articles. Where legitimate criticism has been raised, Penbat has not engaged with the Talk page debate, and, it appears, has only interacted with the article to undo edits by banned users, including legitimate users as well. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenoten. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We face here the generic Wikipedia problem in dealing with obscure things. The sources are primary studies published in obscure journals. "Tenoten" is a homeopathic remedy consisting of antibodies to S100 protein diluted to such an extreme degree that there is essentially nothing left but water; see http://materiamedicacompany.com/en/2eng.pdf. Even without the dilution it's very hard to see how it could be effective for cognitive problems, since antibodies generally don't cross the blood-brain barrier to any appreciable degree. In short, this is goombah. It might be useful to the community for us to have an article that describes the substance and explains to the reader why it is goombah. However, because this substance has drawn zero attention from reputable sources, there is no easy way to explain that it is goombah without committing OR. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone involved in the editing of psychology articles should be intimately familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources on medicine and should feel free to nominate for speedy deletion any article that mentions medical issues that has no such sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel free to do it, but I sometimes don't like to, because there are many people who are curious about these things, and it seems like a shame to deprive them of the only reliable source of information they might get. (In this case the article doesn't even exist yet, so the issue doesn't arise.) Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Somatoform disorder and DSM V

An IP user comment on the talk page of the above article suggests that the DSM V no longer uses this exact term. Could someone elaborate on this please? Lesion (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is now called "Somatic symptoms and related disorders" in dsm-5. It includes

300.82 Somatic symptom disorder
300.7 Illness anxiety disorder
300.11 Conversion disorder (Functional neurological symptom disorder)
316 Psychological factors affecting other medical conditions
300.19 Factitious disorder
300.89 Other specified somatic symptom and related disorder
300.82 Unspecified somatic symptom and related disorder Farrajak (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binding_problem

On the color part of this discussion. Please see page 20 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps, by Barbara and Allan Pease, ISBN 0-7679-0763-9Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

"The retina at the back of the eyeball contains about 130 million rodshaped cells called photoreceptors to deal with black and white; and seven millino cone-shaped scells to handle color. The X chromosomes provides these color cells. Women have two X chromosomes, which gives them a greater variety of cones than men, and this difference is noticeable in how women describe colors in greater detail. A man will use basdic color descriptions like red, blue, and green, but a woman will talk of bone, aqua, teal, mauve and apple green."

This book is not well indexed, but is 250 pages long and has 120 references at the end.

Suzi2sticks (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved to the talk page in question?

WIthout another reference for these claims, that book does not make a good source. Also, I find the explanation oversimplified at the least. For a primary source, you can see this article: http://www.bsd-journal.com/content/3/1/21. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission might be of interest to you. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review on Cultural Divide

Hello! I'm looking to improve the stub page on Cultural divide, and would appreciate some feedback on the tentative article on my Sandbox here before I expand the actual page. I'm still new to editing and have tried to follow the style of similar wiki articles - please tell me if there are any obvious conventions or procedures I've overlooked or should be aware of. Thank you! Musketeer 13 (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made some minor tweaks and given more feedback on the draft's Talk page. Look forward to this being in article space once it's improved. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PD images of psychologists

I've written some biographical articles on psychologists, particularly past APA presidents. For most of them, copyright status on their photos hasn't expired yet. Does anyone know of a good source for public domain images of psychologists? I'm particularly looking for one of Donald N. Bersoff since I've just written the article and have a pending WP:DYK nomination on it. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see progress on this. Have you tried a polite request to the individuals concerned, or the APA itself? They may well want there to be photos on Wikipedia but be unaware of the requirement for free content. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please have a look at this submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now approved. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture

There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Albert Laszlo Haines is up for deletion. The main issue is whether his case is notable or not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing name of Jungian Archetypes to Archetypes

Given that the word 'archetype' is virtually synonymous with Jungs use of it, or at the very least dominates our conception of the word, I think that the title of this article is a bit redundant and suggest that the current article on 'archetypes' and 'Jungian archetypes' be merged. Any comments re: this and suggestions as to how to get it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.3.222 (talk)

To clarify, we have separate articles on the topics Archetype and Jungian archetypes; we also have Archetypes which is currently a redirect to Jungian archetypes. Looking at the contents of the articles, I don't think that a merge is appropriate, but it would make sense for the Archetype article to more prominently point out the existence of the Jungian one. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about merging 'archetypes' and 'Jungian archetypes'. I don't know what you mean by 'looking at content' as the article 'archetypes' has no content. The 'archetype' article is a bit of a hash job and in a poor state, but sure I think it should retain that place as a marker for the consideration of the term 'archetype' in a wider context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.3.222 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not keen on archetype and archetypes giving different articles at all, as I think about it. It seems unlikely to me that readers will expect anything like that or know how to make sense of it. Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see what you're saying now and I agree. I've re-done the archetype page - meaning edited and removed some extraneous stuff. I think the archetype page had a lot of amateurish assertions that were more thoroughly explored in the main articles anyway. So I've deleted those and added main article links. I envision this page as a landing page which describes the 4 primary connotations of the word 'archetype' which can then be further explored by looking at the main article links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how we can justify archetypes and archetypes being different articles (sic! See the wikicode.) So I've set the redirect so this is no longer the case. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Criminal Psychology

Kia Ora koutou. I have made a few suggestions on the Criminal Psychology talk page , including that it be flagged for multiple issues. I have proposed that Correctional psychology be merge into that article to assist with some of these issues, at least until the amount of information about Correctional Psychology increases enough to warrant a separate article.

I would also like to propose that the Criminal Psychology page be raised in importance within the psychology project (current importance: Low), due to use of the term to describe a broad discipline which includes Forensic Psychology and Correctional psychology as well as having important implications for correctional and criminal rehabilitative practice generally.

For the same reasons I would like to propose that Criminal Psychology be considered as a higher-level Forensic_psychology category which includes Forensic Psychology and the above areas. As a category Criminal Psychology has the potential to include other areas not currently connected into Psychology but relevant to forensic and correctional practice such as recidivism and risk assessment.

New here, so prioritising etiquette over action for the time being. Thoughts? Thanks! Anterelic (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this User:Anterelic. On your second point, I agree: areas of the psychology discipline need to have high priority for the psychology wikiproject, so I've gone ahead and changed the article importance assessment. For decisions of an article's importance, I recommend being bold and changing them to what you think they should be, and if it turns out to be controversial, inviting discussion here. As a rough guide, areas of the subject would be top, individual theories and phenomena as mid, and pop cultural references as low. Individual psychologists might be at any level depending on their significance. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probability Request Sequence

Dear psychology experts: I rescued this abandoned article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence which had been declined at Afc months ago, and I have been simplifying the text to make it more intelligible to the average reader. It has been declined as being too essay-like as per this discussion: User talk:Bonkers The Clown#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence. Can anyone here give me suggestions as to how to improve it so that it seems factual instead of essay-like, or, if this is indeed not an established technique, please let me know? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic is potentially interesting and notable, but the problem with that article draft is that it's written partly as a "How to". I've commented in more detail on the draft page. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

After Anne's further edits, I've now approved this as a new article. It now needs categories and wikilinks from relevant other articles. Thanks User:Anne Delong for working on this article repeatedly and patiently to bring it up to standard. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

IQ classification extensively updated today

I've been receiving help from other participants in this WikiProject as I did sandbox drafts of a new version of the high-priority, start-class IQ classification article. My revisions have just gone live in mainspace. Please let me know what you think. I'd be happy to collaborate with other editors active in this WikiProject to bring that article up to good article and then featured article quality. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Other editors who are active in this project were very helpful in providing suggestions for updates of IQ classification. I'd be very grateful if you took a look at the current condition of the article, or at the DYK nomination of the article, as I would be happy to see the article further improved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

EMDR

I've made a proposal at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing to delete a number of issues relating to that article. It needs some input from you. It clearly is a controversial topic but the article has been improved considerably from what it was a couple of years back. At the beginning of this month the article was redirected to the article for the author by an editor who specializes in deleting articles and this seems to sum up the polarization the topic causes. Yet by one account there are 20,000 people trained in the technique worldwide so it does not seem appropriate to suppress the article. Please read it and give your comments. Chris55 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've commented on the Talk page. More voices always welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're not Jung's Archetypes, whose are they? They weren't co-discovered or rehashed. The Archetype by Jung is clearly defined in every case so that if you only say Archetype you would have to differentiate it on your own. I prefer a change by discarding once and for all the word "Jungian" Nicole Mahramus (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Life and Death in Assisted Living - seniors

Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/ Please contribute to discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment request

Hi! Our Wikipedia team has made edits to the Big Five personality traits article. This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. But rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. I hope anyone could review this article and see if it is eligible for higher class article or not. Saehee0908 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this is still C class. The text contains errors and a lot of it will be incomprehensible to most readers. Also the article badly needs some background on the "factor analysis" approach to personality, and also an explanation of how the Big Five emerged as an extension of the "big two" of introversion and extroversion, or the "big three" of introversion-extroversion-psychoticism. There's a lot of good stuff in the article, but I can't yet regard it as clearly written and comprehensive. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Socializing - Socialize, not even a lemma? Article?

Hello all, I'm new to this forum and I hope (not yet quite sure) this is the right place for rising this subject or that someone could kindly point me there.

To briefly introduce myself (just if someone would want to know), I'm a non-psychologist interested in the subject and I've been contributing to Wikipedia in what languages I can from the times before the Seigenthaler incident (when exactly I've lost track of), mostly by spontaneousy wiki-gnoming (courtesy link just for those not caring about wikiese, no offense) both in small corrections and facts, digging deeper or creating the occasional article or quality stub from time to time. There's no need I'd currently feel for much discussing my inclination towards being an "ethical IP", though.

As to the subject I would like to raise, I recently looked up "socialize" or "socializing" in both Search and Advanced Search just to find plain nothing short of a few indirect hits on "socialization". Specifically, there isn't even remotely such a thing as a lemma on socializing, if I'm not utterly mistaken.

To be exact, there is a redirect for "socialize" which immediately took me to the article on "socialization" which in turn mentions socializing, in the meaning I'm talking about, in one single phrase under "Other uses". All other (and comprehensive) content of the "socialization" article seems to be about the usual technical term and its aspects, again leaving out socializing as we know it from daily life, with that even including how its patterns are acquired. That's very surprising to me.

There's also a disambig with a lot of numerous aspects of socialization, but again, socializing is utterly missing there. There seems to be nothing in the least conspicuous (by search for its name at least, that is) to be found for "socializing" or on the behavioral patterns we call socializing or the development thereof.

This seems even more astonishing to me as socializing, as you may agree, is not only a social concept of the most important kind, it is even a concept that has its own proper name in English while this isn't the case in a number of other more-or-less major languages, which seems to make it very distinct. Non-native speakers of English brought up speaking these languages have to be taught that there is even such a word in English, and to properly value and connect that word with its meaning. This often doesn't even happen at school and comes as a cultural surprise later in learning the language (the lot of you who have travelled abroad to immerse into a foreign language after some school learning will know the effect from experience, I doubt it's any different whatever language border you cross in which direction).

Now with all those Wikipedia users just mentioned in mind, English being a dominant language in large parts of the world, that makes another strong point for having a proper lemma here, in my opinion.

For the language thing specifically, if you're interested, consider French and, for that matter, German (I don't know about Spanish and Mandarin). Just for a striking example of contrast to English language and culture, consider the lengths a person would have to go to verbally to only mention socializing in German (see here and eclectic discussion here).

Having a proper article, not just lemma, should (or so I suppose) be interesting, to say the least. Where are all the aspects of a healthy and sound practice of socializing hidden in the WP? In the realm of the self-understood that is never mentioned? That's precisely not a reason not to be talking about it, to me (and I do recognize I may well be preaching to the choir here for the lot of you, being psychologists and such). Or where else could it be hiding? Social disorders, anyone? It seems to me that it should have a proper place.

I'll be happy if this may help create some fruitful discussion, or even the article in question. Thanks out to everyone caring, --217.81.163.66 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Cross-posted short text with a link to this at Wiki Projects, Anthropology and Sociology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.163.66 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't generally have articles about verbs. I agree with you that this concept deserves an article -- an appropriate title might be socialization (sociology) or socialization (psychology). Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for your support and suggestion. I'll be waiting for some other users to show up and comment, for the moment. Apart from that, I haven't read up on the current stub creation philosophy for a while so I don't know if it would be wise to start from a bare stub. Looking for participation in writing the article from some users with a sound theoretical/empirical background and/or mentoring practice on the subject. --217.81.180.22 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (original poster)

These articles should be more or less interesting in this context:

Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, in sociology, the process of "socializing" is called Socialization, for which there is an article. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. It occurs to me that you are referring to the process of building Social networks. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of navigational templates

I have been putting this off in the hope that @Penbat: would get involved in these discussions, but in the absence of that, I invite discussion here.

Background

As seen previously on this Talk page, there are multiple discussions around a couple of psychology navigational templates. These templates seem to be largely the work of one user, and while being useful in lots of respects, there seem to be problems, in particular with directing traffic from arguably unrelated articles to articles that have been heavily edited by that user. Although this is a good-faith user who brings a huge number of real improvements to the encyclopedia, there may have been a loss of perspective in this case. There are also possibly issues about how that user has reacted to the existing consensus on the relevant Talk pages, so I'm not convinced that my and others' attempts to fix the problems won't be undone. The situation is complicated by the fact that some participants in the discussions were behaving badly and have since been banned from Wikipedia.

Rather than have the same discussion again and again, we should build consensus here and apply it across all possibly affected templates. We should keep in mind Wikipedia:Navigation_templates, particularly the points "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia" and "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles".

Template:Narcissism

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: Listed at Template_talk:Narcissism#Problems_with_this_template. This is the template at the time of the complaint. Links off-Wikipedia, links to many articles that don't mention Narcissism. Clearly not serving the function of a template for navigating across a related group of articles: instead it seems to be an attempt to summarise the theme article. Multiple links to the same articles, especially to the theme article.

Behaviour issues: Penbat undid some changes that fixed these problems with an edit summary which wrongly stated that a banned user's edits were being reverted. Where the inclusion of Control freak in the template has been challenged, Penbat has provided a link to Google Scholar results which on the face of it seems to lack suitable sources.

Template:Bullying

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: See this version before recent changes. Long, complex discussion on the Talk page focusing on similar issues to the Narcissism template: links outside Wikipedia, linked articles with no sourced connection to the topic, multiple links to the same article.

Something seems excessive when an article like self-esteem has dozens of links related to bullying (via the See also section, two of these navigation templates, and categories). Are people reading about self-esteem expecting it to be "part of the topic" of bullying?

Behaviour issues: Consensus was built up on the Talk page to remove certain links as excessive, but Penbat reverted the changes with an edit summary that wrong implied that only the work of banned users was being undone. However, some of the discussants have been banned. Then again, the arguments stand on their own merit, the consensus involved editors who are still in good standing, and new arguments have not been presented since to change the consensus.

Template:Abuse

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: arguably irrelevant inclusions. Incivility ("lacking in civility or good manners") has been listed as a type of abuse. Exaggeration and Lie were deleted for lacking a sourced connection to the topic, but the deletions were reverted.

Template:Psychological manipulation

Main contributor: User:Penbat. Main contributor to theme article: User:Penbat.

Content issues: relatively minor. Over-broad interpretation of "related topics" (Fallacy, Self esteem, Sycophancy). Note that a certain range of articles, including Setting up to fail and Mind games come up repeatedly in the above templates.

Template:Domestic violence

Content issues: relatively minor. Are Embarrassment, Superficial charm, Mind games, and Setting up to fail related topics to domestic violence?

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the banned user in question is User:Star767 and User:Farrajak, both of which are apparently sockpuppets of User:Zeraeph. According to a list provided by Penbat:

Both had an interest in editing psychology articles and both seemed to edit with supreme confidence and divisiveness.
Both edited at a rapid speed in a flurry of activity, often jumping around from one article to another.
Both did some good work but much of the time it was divisive and destructive, often deleting cited text with the excuse that it isnt relevant.
Both had a similar naive dismissive understanding of psychopathy.
Both were destructively critical of psychological manipulation.

Fladrif was also constantly wikihounding Penbat to the point where he felt he was unable to do any significant editing. Fladrif actually supported some of these changes, but the main issues were that he was being disruptive and attacking other editors (including myself), and he was blocked in April as a result. So, I think we should get a discussion going between the psychology project. Consensus can change, so I think we should go ahead and the template is what we should be really discussing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're being asked here to comment in detail. I commented earlier at some length on one of the templates, Template_talk:Bullying#This_reversion, and I can say that in general I believe we should be conservative, and that the templates as I saw them at the time were waaaaaay to full of inappropriate/incorrect article links. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to comment, but I only worked on a couple of these templates if I remember correctly. I know I discussed the content of one at great length with Fladrif who, at least with me, worked well and in a spirit of co-operation. Others were involved with that discussion, We cut a great deal from the template, seeking to form consensus for each item's inclusion or exclusion. I feel this type of discussion is an appropriate mechanism to pruning large templates, and would support it in each one. Fiddle Faddle 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: detailed commentary is helpful, but thanks for confirming my perception that there is a problem with inappropriate links. :@Timtrent: seems like you agree too that there has been a problem with templates needing to be cut down, but that we need to apply it carefully in each case- fine with that. :@Sjones23: unlike the other two you haven't commented about the templates, but you say "the template is what we should be really discussing". "we should get a discussion going between the psychology project" - this is the discussion. We're having it now. What is your input on the topic of the templates? Do you agree that they need to be cut down? As regards the behaviour issues I've raised, are you confident that Penbat will not undo the changes we make as a result of this discussion? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: You have summarised my thinking perfectly. Overburdened templates should be pared down with care and consensus, not with a hatchet. I would argue strongly against a Bold, Revert, Discuss on this set of templates. Some elements are obvious candidates for removal (external links etc), others need discussion on the template talk page to show with precision the consensus that has been achieved. I have noticed my own thinking was challenged by the discussion and I found I was persuaded towards removal of items. Equally I was able to persuade others to retain some.

We should most assuredly discuss the templates and ignore any personalities, good, bad and indifferent, in the templates' histories. Prior conflicts are amusing but unimportant history. @Penbat: is an editor who works with consensus, or so I have always found. They have strong opinions, and are susceptible to well reasoned argument. When discussing this material with them other editors should be susceptible to their arguments too. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the templates, I would personally prefer the versions before the edits by Star767, Farrajak (both of them which are believed to be sockpuppets of the banned user User:Zeraeph, and bans apply to all edits good or bad) and Fladrif. I think Penbat would agree with some certain ideas since he is a well respected editor. According to a discussion, he is apparently trying to keep a low profile due to the events of March and April 2013. I am filing an RFC on this matter if no one objects to get a new consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Navigational templates

There have been some wikilink issues (such as coat-rack links that have no significant relevance to the primary subjects, related topics, off-WP sites) with the following five templates:

These stem from issues with Star767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Farrajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), two disruptive suspected sockpuppets of a banned user who have a long history with Penbat (talk · contribs), an established editor and primary contributor to the psychological articles. In these cases, should some of these wikilinks be removed to prevent bloating in these templates? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the templates list above appeared to be bloated. Links to off-WP sites including Wikitionary should be removed and also the many coatrack links that do not have direct relevance to the primary subject. Also I don't see any need for a Related Topics section in any of the templates.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Sjones23: for doing this the proper way (I'm new to RFCs as you can tell) and thanks @Keithbob: for specific input. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I might add that it is traditional to place a neutral summary at the top of the RfC section here and to ask specific questions or statements that participants can agree or disagree on. If you don't do that, participation will be less and the results will be muddled.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All right. I've refactored it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree Yes, please clean up the templates. Mateng (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree with many of the concerns by MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) above, and there indeed ought to be some clean-up of these templates. But I still think this RfC isn't very specific because it just vaguely waves to concerns like WP:COATRACK and loose relevance without actually proposing specific changes. This would be a much, much more productive discussion with concrete proposed changes. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been randomly selected to offer an RFC opinion on this and I also must agree that the proposed templates be removed. There are two problems, however, with the RFC (1) which has been addressed already about the need for neutrality in the RFC summary but also (2) some history of the contention (usually between two editors) which has led to the RFC being requested. The editor requesting the RFC might examine a bit more the procedure for requesting an RFC if only so that volunteers can get a little bit of background in to the contention and perhaps evaluate the various faction's reasoning behind wanting to keep and behind wanting to eliminate or change text. Damotclese (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My aims in raising this here were 1) to get discussion on whether there is a problem to be addressed (clearly one of the editors involved in these templates does not think there is a problem; I do, and am willing to hear opinions either way); 2) to make editors who were discussing the problems in detail on one template Talk page aware that there were almost exactly the same issues with other templates, and hence avoid a problem being fixed on one template but not another. From that perspective then, this request for comment has been a success even if it hasn't fit a common model for RFCs. It's clear that the templates do need to be swept with a stiff brush, but the exact removals (or readditions) can be debated on the respective Talk pages. MartinPoulter (talk)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello,
Please note that Child, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Request for three scientific papers

I am currently working on the article on the T puzzle. This puzzle has been used in quite a few psychology experiments, so I would like to have that covered too. I have most of the papers, but still missing three which my university doesn't have access to. Direct links are: [2] [3] [4]. I would be most grateful if anyone could send me any of these papers. My email is at gmail with the first bit of the email address being voorlandt. Thanks a lot in advance, and I hope this request isn't too blunt. --Voorlandt (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I could not find the last article-- although it appears to be listed in Google Scholar, I can find no record of the title appearing in Psychological Science nor does the author's name appear in the entirety of the journal. It is possible the title was redacted or pulled for some other reason, but I really have no idea. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Regards, --Voorlandt (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles on average IQ in specific countries.

A new user has started an article about the national IQ average in Iran. I wonder if there is any precedent for articles on IQ in specific countries -and whether the project think such articles are relevant, or alternatively if there is some other articles the content could be merged into? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Any new such article should probably be under strict scrutiny by other editors, in light of the Arbitration Committee decision in the Race and intelligence case. There are not actually good data on the IQ level of most countries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New psychological Good Article

Good news everyone! Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been promoted to Good Article status. Many thanks to the nominator User:MrADHD, the reviewer User:Zad68 and other editors who have brought the article to this important milestone. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! I just perused the article and through the improvements made through the GAN, and I am very impressed. Excellent work to all involved. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delighted to be a part of the process! Zad68 02:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment request for IQ classification.

I appreciate the suggestions from other editors active in this project that have prompted extensive edits to the article IQ classification (formerly, IQ reference chart ). That article received a rating from this project quite a while ago, when it was much shorter and cited hardly any sources. I am continually updating the article now, as a way to digest a much larger professional research project I am engaged in, and any suggestions any of you have for improvements to IQ classification will be taken very seriously as I continue to revise the article. If an editor who has rated articles for this project before could please kindly rate the current condition of the article, that will be a reality check on how much more revision needs to be done before, say, nomination for good article or featured article status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

With the caveat that these ratings don't actually mean all that much, I've rated it B class, as high as it can go without a GA or FA process. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start educating myself about the GA criteria. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP Psychology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article in this WikiProject, Pangender, has been proposed for a merge with the article Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Psychology - Skysmith (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry

I posted on Project:Medicine, but maybe this is a better place to raise attention about the newly created article Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, the closely connected, newly created bios Maria Luisa Figueira and Mario Di Fiorino, as well as edits made by the same four users in e.g. Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Ganser syndrome, and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [5] and left a note on the editor's page,[6] and subsequently tried to add info from the .it article Leonetto Amadei. (It appears that the Italian Leonette Amadei has had additions similar to the ones made to the English.) The English version has now had the same material re-added.[7] I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti.[8] Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Progress monitoring

Resolved

Dear psychologists: This article has been waiting for over two weeks in the Afc. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mental retardation

Category:Mental retardation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Intellectual disability. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

EysenckPersonalityTypes.gif

image:EysenckPersonalityTypes.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Categories

Since the old discussion on the Bullying template has withered out, I think we should get a new consensus via an RfC. I've started one at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Categories. However, Penbat is unwilling to participate in that discussion as a result of the incidents with Star767/Farrajak and Fladrif and he seems to be quite upset that the stuff was be removed. According to him, he has WikiBurnout and is doing as little work on Wikipedia as possible due to those incidents. Anyone who wants to get involved in this discussion should comment on the link provided. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another one for ya. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Another AfC submission needing a subject specialist review

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Child Lying. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Communication Theory

Hello psychologists! The above article appeared blank because the whole thing was hidden inside a comment. Now that I have revealed it, is this an appropriate article? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Very interesting submission. I'm not aware of such an article on Wikipedia. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dynamic Emotion-Focused Therapy

Hello again, psychologists. The above old abandoned Afc submission will shortly be deleted unless steps are taken to prevent this. Is Dynamic Emotion-Focused Therapy a notable topic that should be saved and clarified, or is it a term used by just one person? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia RfD

A discussion that may be of interest to members of this project is taking place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Heterophobia. - Mr X 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationship skills

Hello psychology project editors. It's too essay-like, some say. Others wish to keep it. Maybe some of you would like to add their two cents? Lova Falk talk 07:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added my $0.02 cents as a Keep vote to the article's AfD "articles for discussion"? The article is well-cited and could benefit from skilled feedback. I fear it is stalked by a deletionist(s) ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 00:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-control therapy

Hello! Would someone from this project care to review the above article and determine if it is suitable for inclusion or not? Thanks! --Cerebellum (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD Sharon Presley

Please add your input here. Steeletrap (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank

A discussion is underway as to whether Second Circuit judge Jerome Frank is the primary topic of that name. Please feel free to provide your opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the judge, but another Jerome Frank wrote an important book bearing on clinical psychology and psychiatry. The book is Persuasion and healing. Iss246 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank was a psychiatrist who advanced the view that many people who seek psychotherapy do not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. He terms their problem "demoralization." Bruce Dohrenwend used Frank's work as a point of departure for further research. Although I am writing about Frank, it is important to note that Dohrenwend found that many psychological symptoms scales (measures of depression, anxiety, self-esteem, psychosomatic complaints, etc.) correlate as highly as the scales' reliabilities permit. Dohrenwend advanced the view that the scales are largely measuring the same construct, nonspecific psychological distress, another term for Frank's demoralization.

I add this point. In two-stage epidemiological studies of mental disorder, studies in which a screening instrument like the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) is administered in stage 1, every individual with a high score on the screen (a score above a pre-determined cutoff) and a random sample of individuals with low scores would be seen at stage 2 for a diagnostic interview. A sizable fraction of those with high scores on the screening instrument do not meet criteria for a mental disorder. What is troubling them? Well, they are still experiencing distress. That is the kind of distress Frank meant when he identified demoralization as a force that motivates individuals to enter psychotherapy. We have a debt to Jerome Frank. That is a good reason for including an entry on Frank in Wikipedia.

Finally, I add this note. I observed that there is a legal scholar with the same name who already has an entry in Wikipedia. If a reader of this talk page were to create an entry for Jerome Frank, the author of Persuasion and Healing, the reader would have to differentiate the two men with the same name. I don't feel that I have the time or an extensive enough knowledge base to create an entry for this Jerome Frank. Iss246 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I read over his book after writing the above, and note that this Jerome Frank is Jerome D. Frank, enabling a contributor to instantly differentiate him from the legal scholar named Jerome Frank. Iss246 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Courage article

I have posted this on the article's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Psychology banner.

For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 (As a strength in psychology) and 6 (Bravery), based on the 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per WP:UNDUE, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA).

Also to be noted is the fact that these parts have been added by a single-purpose account, I love courage. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The term SPA is usually used for an account that edits repeatedly but always on the same topic, not for an account like this one that made a sum total of three edits. In any case those edits were made back in 2010, and if you feel like reducing that material (the first paragraph might be suitable, the remainder seems UNDUE), I don't see any reason for holding back. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, I am not enough of an expert to feel confident about making those changes myself - I just thought those parts looked promotional while reading the article. Peterson & Seligman are not the only people who have looked at psychological courage in recent times - there are many other sources that can be found from a search on Google Scholar, so I don't see why Peterson & Seligman's work should be represented (even as a single paragraph) and not others'.

The Moral Courage section also seems promotional to me, but I would rather leave the actual editing to an expert. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

is Relief (emotion) a psychology article?

Hello,

This article has the Psychology template at the bottom of the article, so I added it to this project on the talk page. Hope that's ok. If not, what project does it belong to? It's in dire need of help. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What areas should be included in the applied psychology article & sidebar?

My point is that all of the fields of psychology listed below need to be included in the applied psychology sidebar and applied psychology article. Either that, or we need an 'overhaul' the sidebar and base it on a pre-set and objective criteria, as to which areas of psychology are included and which are excluded, which was never done in the past. That seems to me the only way to avoid total discrimination by arbitrarily placing some areas in the applied psychology sidebar and completely, based on no evidence or reasoning exclude all of the others.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

pasted from last section "....most people except you would rather keep that item in the sidebar than remove it. There's no space limitation. Including OHP does not result in anything being "displaced". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)"

Sorry whatamidoing, but you are clearly 'off the mark' on a number of points made above in relation to what should and shouldn't be included in the very important psychology sidebar. These areas below and many others, should also be included in the psychology sidebar, and the applied psychology article, if as you say, there is no no space limitation. These other fields of applied psychology which are equally, if not more important to include than a 'multidisciplinary' area like OHP.

Why are these areas listed below not included? Second, you say no-one cares? I'm not sure about that? I think a lot of people are just as protective and passionate about psychology as I am. I agree with this statement made by a similarly concerned group of psychologists.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"The general public frequently turns to Wikipedia when seeking information about psychology, therefore psychological scientists have both a social responsibility and a personal stake in ensuring that the information the public receives is complete, accurate, up-to-date and well written." Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative

I'm also not sure Whatamidoing, that the sidebar has the space to include every applied psychology area as you have said? I think some of those areas which are currently in the sidebar, have been placed there arbitrarily, or whatever? with no proper criteria established for which areas of applied psychology actually should be inncluded in that important sidebar? I think 'some' of these areas should also be included in the Applied psychology article and Applied Psychology Sidebar

Counseling psychology
Ecological psychology
Aviation psychology
Neuropsychology
Media psychology
Marketing psychology
Operational psychology
Traffic psychology
Rehabilitation psychology
Pediatric psychology
Addiction psychology
Police psychology
Trauma psychology
Mathematical psychology
Criminal psychology
Positive psychology
Coaching psychology
Medical psychology
Economic psychology
Music psychology
Biopsychology

Not including all of these very valid fields and subfields of psychology is plain discrimination. Pure and simple. Why are the current list of psychology fields in the applied psychology article and the applied psychology sidebar? Surely as psychological scientists and psychologists we can come up with a better way of representing our international profession on Wikipedia? Readers would surely wonder why those areas are listed in the sidebar and applied psychology article while all others are left out?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) and many more.....

Where do we draw the line. I think 'blindly' quoting no space limitation whatamidoing, in this case is ridiculous. We would end up with at least '50' or so areas of applied psychology in that column! You could easily place every one of the 54 'official' APA Divisions, which have earnt their place in psychology. Surely the first criteria of being placed in the psychology sidebar, should be a American Psychological Association (APA) division. At the minimum? What do other editors think?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology

Hi to fellow psychology editors. There has been an ongoing discussion about the Occupational Health psychology article for a number of months, without dispute resolution. The discussion has become very insular and at times hostile, and would benefit greatly from some fresh opinions on the psychology topics under discussion. Given the use of the terms psychology and psychologist throughout the article it is a particularly relevant article to this Wikiproject. I have concerns that the article has been originally written in a non neutral style and there may be some promotional interests at play. Getting any changes or additions to the article based on strong reliable sources, has been very difficult. There seems to be major overlap between occupational health psychology and organizational psychology. Comments from interested editors would be very welcome. ThanksMrm7171 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also see above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Help arranging a dialogue with Mrm7171 regarding changes bearing on occupational health psychology. Kind regards, User:㓟 - (pi) (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Occupational Health Psychology on Wikipedia 2008-2011

I only joined Wikipedia in 2013, however if we are to take it right back to the beginning, to gain an objective perspective, editors should firstly read the these discussions between 2008 and 2011. They were between iss246 and at least 6 other psychology editors. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 These heated discussions between iss246 and numerous psychology editors between 2008 & 2011 ensued and culminated in iss246 placing occupational health psychology in the sidebar against all other editors consensus not to do so. I was not involved in these discussions between 2008 and 2011 however my reading is that iss246 falsely placed OHP in the sidebar, where it still falsely remains.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topic discussions about meat puppetry which do not belong hereMrm7171 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for taking up so much space on this page but the full excerpt below bears on Mrm7171's above criticism of Psyc12 and me. The following is a verbatim transcript from the Wikipedia:Editor assistance request page (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 118). Iss246 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I just waded through that whole talk page and I see 1 (one) instance where 1 (one) of the two editors you are complaining about claims to be a professor. I don't see any instance where they attempt to use this to "assert authority/control over other editors". I would strongly recommend that you start listening to WhatamIdoing and start concentrating on sources and such, instead of continuing the highly emotional discussions on that talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edit history of this article and I have to say that some of your edits are very troubling. This one], for example. A professional society is not a "club", their newsletters are generally considered reliable sources, not "self published". I would recommend that you familiarize yourself more with WP policies and guidelines before continuing editing that particular article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 needs to chill out and grow up. It appears one of the other editors is, in fact, a professor, who displays professional competency and demeanor. That is hardly "asserting control", as Mrm7171 asserts, and who seems broadly clueless. WhatamIdoing has given him some advice, but I suspect he needs across the board mentoring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence here of iss246 using Wikipedia:Canvassing techniques, on top of his Wikipedia:Meat puppetry, to prevent the truth coming about how he went against the consensus of 6 very experienced psychology editors between 2008 and 2011 and placed OHP in the psychology sidebar against clear consensus not to do so. Iss246 has become very aggressive toward me as a relatively new editor who has challenged him on why entered OHP in the sidebar against clear, definite consensus not to do so.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology placed in sidebar against consensus?

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Occupational health psychology was placed in the psychology sidebar by iss246, against the consensus of at least 6 other psychology editors. Heated discussions between iss246 and numerous other psychology editors between 2008 & 2011, culminated in this statement by DoctorW 3 March 2011 in reference to iss246 placing occupational health psychology in the sidebar against the consensus of all other psychology editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 "Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you iss246 doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

It appears that the only reason occupational health psychology remains in the sidebar is because all other editors between 2008 and 2011 'gave up' in desperation as it sound like what DoctorW has done from his comments above, after iss246 went ahead and jammed it in the sidebar anyway! So now other 'genuine' areas of psychology have been displaced, erroneously, by iss246 putting OHP in their place?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy you need to read is WP:Consensus can change. The short version is nobody really cares what somebody claimed to be the consensus two and a half years ago. We care about what people say the consensus is today. AFAICT, most people except you would rather keep that item in the sidebar than remove it.

There's no space limitation. Including OHP does not result in anything being "displaced". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topic relating to meat puppetry investigation and canvassingMrm7171 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry whatamidoing. I appreciate you are friends with iss246 and iss246 has used Wikipedia:Canvassing of you and others, on occasions, to support his point of view and build consensus,

Correction. Mrm7171 wrote above about user:WhatamIdoing, "I appreciate you are friends with iss246." I am not WhatamIdoing's "friend." I don't know who she is. She once, a long time ago when I was relatively new to Wikipedia, chided me for including external links within the OHP article. I was upset by her criticism but got over it within a day or two because I quickly learned that she was right and I had made a mistake. I corrected my mistaken edits. Later I observed that she helped other Wikipedia editors; I, therefore, on rare occasions, asked her for advice about edits. That is the extent of my connection to WhatamIdoing. Iss246 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just not true and you know it iss246, and I could easily prove Wikipedia:Canvassing and your Wikipedia:Meat puppetry that other editors also concluded iss246, by pasting names of all the 7 individual meatpuppets, including psyc12, you used,to support your point of view, and exactly how you actually canvassed whatamidoing on more than one occassion? However this page is NOT an appropriate place for these topics. I do not not want to talk about these issues here please iss246. Please focus on this important topic I have presented. The only reasons I included your posts between 2008 and 2011 Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 forcing OHP in the psychology sidebar against consensus as DoctorW pointed out in 2011, relates to my discussion for others in the psychology community to consider. A side issue was how you placed a field like OHP in the sidebar when so many other areas of psychology should also be included.

Mrm7171's accusations are based on minimal information. Sock puppets. Meatpuppets. Friends. Becoming something like the Joe McCarthy of Wikipedia is not a good idea. Yes, I asked WhatamIdoing about a not-so-fully-formed plan I had regarding how to approach Mrm7171 and many of his counterproductive edits on Wikipedia. I inquired with her because she has considerably more knowledge of Wikipedia than I have, and she has been an honest broker, including when she informed me of my mistakes on Wikipedia. After reading her response, I decided to do nothing. But I can say this. As much as I disagree with much of what Mrm7171 has been doing on Wikipedia, at least I agree with him about one idea, namely, that this page is "NOT an appropriate place for these topics." Iss246 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not me accusing you of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and pointing out the 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology who were all 'directly solicited by iss246,' to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process and all joined up on the 'same day' in June, at exactly the same time, to 'support iss246's point of view, these being: psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Don't wrongly attack me for mentioning the term Wikipedia:Meat puppetry I did not bring it up, although I did agree with the editor who did, ie. who rightly said this:

"I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. —Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" Given there is new evidence which has now come to light, it should now go back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than discussed further on this page?

I hear violins playing. Mrm7171, you wrote, "It was not me accusing you." "It was not me, it was not me, it was not me." Thou doth protest too much. You repeated accusations against me right here on this page. If you are going to repeat accusations, no matter how spurious, then own them. If not, don't repeat them, particularly with the pathetic refrain "it was not me." I remind you that Wikipedia looked into the matter of the phoney sockpuppetry allegation only to discover (and it was pretty easy to discover) that Psyc12 and I are different people, working on different ends a continent. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 I think you are missing the point Kww made. It was not sockpuppetry it was meatpuppetry, with these 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology involved psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. Please drop it. It is going back to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations area with new evidence that has come to light.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, you just repeated an old accusation, a mossy old canard that has no merit. I interpret your parroting the old canard that you own it although you hide behind someone else's skirts. To quote, Robert Welch, "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" Iss246 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, apologies to other editors. I will not reply to your sarcastic abusive remarks iss246. The issue of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and the 7 members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology involved, was stated by Kww, NOT ME. Okay! Stop attacking me iss246!

Editor Kww said this about the matter: "I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that." Kww(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" So please desist from your personal attacks on me. Wikipedia is not about you iss246? You are not in control! This is not the place for these discussions. So please stop the abuse.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is the applied psychology article, and the psychology sidebar and what areas of psychology are included and which are excluded. I believe there should be an objective set of criteria, not who can 'force' an area into the sidebar against all other editors like what was done with the occupational health psychology entry by iss246! What about all the other areas? Absolute discrimination not to include every single one of those areas below or at least establish an objective criteria as to which are included and which are excluded. That discussion is very relevant to this page, your comments and the 'off topic' issue of meatpuppetry and your abusive, sarcastic comments are not.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to other editors, the only reason I mentioned this and very much regret it now, is that iss246 falsely placed occupational health psychology in the sidebar while 'genuine areas of of psychology are left out. On a constructive note, any comments please iss246, on my proposal to include all of the other areas of applied psychology mentioned below on the sidebar also?

It is purely discrimination against those areas of psychology not to include them also. Many of those areas I have listed actually do have Doctoral programs in countries around the world. Whereas occupational health psychology for instance, has no doctoral programs anywhere in the world, even though iss246 actually used the 'false claim' as an argument between 2008 and 2011 Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 with other editors even counting the number of OHP doctoral programs, when the truth is, there are none.

Free Expression Policy Project

I've created an article on the organization Free Expression Policy Project.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at Talk:Free Expression Policy Project.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Narrative Psychology

Dear psychology experts: This old Afc draft will soon be deleted because there is already an article Narrative psychology. It has a good collection of sources, but they are all offline. Is anyone familiar enough with these sources to know if any of them can be used to strengthen the referencing in the mainspace article? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Course for Psychology grad students

Grad students from UCLA's Graduate ProSem in Social Psychology have been working on their sandboxes for the past month and have started moving this content into the main namespace. As their campus ambassador, I welcome the wikiproject to check out these articles and garden where necessary. These students will learn much their interactions with all of you. Thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comprehensive review on Edwin Ray Guthrie

Hello, I recently did an overhaul of the Edwin Ray Guthrie page and would like some feedback on everything from grammar and wiki formatting to subject matter and citations. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJWise90 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maladaptive daydreaming

Please could someone have a look at this article. It needs more references and looks like it could be easily expanded. Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

[1] Bold is used for highlighting referenced articles†

[2] *This could be accomplished in x^N edits provided the initial preparations were in order.

[1]

[2]