Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		3	4	11			18
FL			1	1			2
GA	5	15	27	69		10	126
B	29	187	310	312		93	931
C	29	337	1,089	1,926	1	448	3,830
Start	6	164	851	3,291		2,269	6,581
Stub		6	120	1,349	1	1,851	3,327
List	7	11	47	100	1	10	176
Category					2,964		2,964
Disambig					30		30
File					38		38
Portal					100		100
Project					23		23
Template					227		227
NA		7	44	153	720		924
Other					162		162
Assessed	76	730	2,493	7,212	4,267	4,681	19,459
Unassessed			1	12		396	409
Total	76	730	2,494	7,224	4,267	5,077	19,868
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 71,232			Ω = 4.81

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 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)

Peer Review for Proxemics

Hi Everyone, I am currently editing the page on proxemics for a Communications graduate course and I could use some help. If anyone wouldn't mind reviewing the article I'd greatly appreciate it. User:ebrock818 9:43 April 2, 2012

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Peer Review for Artificial Grammar Learning

Hello all! I recently made some edits on the article for artificial grammar learning and I could use some feedback. User:Amylynn0815 3:42 April 23, 2013

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps, by Barbara and Allan Pease, ISBN 0-7679-0763-9

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Template:Narcissism
• Template:Bullying
• Template:Abuse
• Template:Psychological manipulation
• Template:Domestic violence

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)

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)

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)

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)