Have you guys seen the templates on pages such as applied psychology lately? They're really hard to read. -- Yath 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran across a mental health stub for Cassandra syndrome, although it looks more like it belongs in Category:Science fiction themes.Does this term actually exist outside of fiction, as it seems somewhat similar to Martha Mitchell effect? Static Universe talk| contribs 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
While trolling around random pages, I found the article on temporal illusion.It's in a sorry state, but a search on Google scholar shows that a good article can be written on the subject.This is a polite way of encouraging you folks to write it. YechielMan 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#List_of_fictional_characters_with_phobias. Regardless of which position you take, I think it's important that people already focused on psychology examine something like this instead of leaving it to the people who visit all the AfD discussions. Doczilla 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Appologies up front if this isn't the place, but after an exhaustive search on the net I could think of no other place to actually as people the question which to me relates greatly to the topic of psychology and to people who share a fondness of it and could perhaps shed some light.
We have all experienced at one point or another in our lives a person using the phrase "I dont want to argue with you". If we remove those cases when it is clearly obvious someone is purposely trying to pick a fight (ie the person saying the phrase says it because absolutely no answer will suffice ), what does a person really mean when they say this phrase?
I considered several possibilities myself, but would be very interested in finding out if there are any specific psychological conditions, behaviours, or mechanisms that might lead a person to use this to obfuscate something entirely different.
So as to not cause problems on this page I have created a sub-page you can reply to : Here
Enigmatical 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar Wikiproject Award for neuroscience articles - i dont really know how to format the box's and stuff -someone else can help with that - hopefully i can make a psych one soon.
thuglas
talk|
edits
15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a Christmas star. -- DanielCD 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool! -- Jcbutler 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha well its supposed to be neurons thuglas talk| edits 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As some of you might know I started the Mental health professional article a little while back. My goal was to discuss what a mental health professional is, what fields they can go into and define differences.
After creating the article several people proposed the idea of creating a “psychiatry vs. psychology” article. Ever since I heard that idea, I’ve liked it. So many people out there don’t know the difference or think one is “better” than the other. Since that time I’ve written what will be the future article on this topic. It’s neutral, presents both professions/studies in a positive way, and talks about major similarities & differences between them. So that means I’ll be uploading it soon.
Some may ask, “Why not bring in other professions too?” Well good point, however most mental health professions are already in the Mental health professional article. My guess is most of the confusion lies between the “big two,” if you will. However, I will be mentioning the other professionals in this new article (briefly), and linking them to MHP.
One problem though. What to call the new article? I have a list of articles that will link to it all ready, but I still don’t know what the title of this new article should be. I’m sure I’ll be creating numerous redirects so it may be found easier, but I want the main article’s title to be informative & neutral. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for your help! Chupper 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For ideas & current policies see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions
Input is needed regarding a category rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_11#Category:Autistic_people. Doczilla 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Just stumbled on an Afd on an article tagged by you guys as one of your own. It's Philosophy_of_Death_and_Adjustment, I don't know much about Pyschology, so if some of you sharper Psychological minds coukd comb over the article, see if it's notable and vote on the matter. It seems to be somewhat hot button. -- Sharz 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics related to psychology. I've tried to find any relevant redirect and similar articles but I would appreciate if you could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, Messianic complex is up on AFD. Perhaps someone here has an idea what to do with it, or has an opinion. Smmurphy( Talk) 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles need help - go to Operant Conditioning Thuglas ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
A request for peer review has been made for the article Clinical psychology in order to get it FA-worthy. Please look over the article and add your comments on the peer review page. Thank you! Psykhosis 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I know at least one member of this group has turned attention to the article on locus of control, which certainly needed much editing. If any one knows about the familial origins of locus of control orientations, it would improve the article if such data were added to the article, as would increased coverage of applications of locus of control to health psychology and increased coverage of the work of those who have looked at changes in locus of control across the lifespan. Finally, a section on cross-cultural differences in locus of control would be a good additional touch to this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders, which recently got renamed through CfD, is already undergoing another CfD and needs comment. Over the last four days, the discussion has mainly been between two people disagreeing with each other. [1]. Although I expressed my own opinion about it a few days ago, I'm actually okay with either outcome. I just feel more people need to weigh in on this. Doczilla 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Semantic Pragmatic Disorder was recently mentioned in the The Times - and it didn't come out very well. The exact word I used was "rubbish". WP:PSYCHOLOGY might want to spruce it up a bit (hint, hint). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if someone who specializes in clinical psychology could have a look at Attachment disorder and give their opinion? There are also some 'popular psychology' issues involved. We would appreciate any opinion on that article.-- DorisH 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Clerical error: this to an RfD. Please see Wikipedia:rfd#Sexual_repression_.E2.86.92_Religion_and_sexuality. -- Shirahadasha 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Positive behavior support, Sensory integration therapy, Floortime, Developmental Social-Pragmatic model. Nice to have articles about these, but the author did have some other pages speedied for promotion and/or copyvio. Probably a good editor off to an unsteady start without knowledge of policy. Just a look over these articles by informed eyes would help. — coel acan — 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
www.toad.net/~arcturus/ (The author of many pages being Sharon C. Ekleberry) seems to have been used as a reference/link on a lot of psych pages, specifically related to personality disorders, but perhaps also others. It also seems a valid reference, however, now it is gone :o(
So keep an eye out for these links, they can be replaced using http://www.webarchive.org, until we find other sources. -- Zeraeph 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of requested articles in the psychology section. I deleted a few that were pop psychology nonsense or so vague as to be useless as a request. I also suggested a few redirects. Can we have someone with some expertise (especially in clinical/counseling psychology where most of the requests seem to fall into) look at the requests and either create stubs, or delete the nonsense that psychology so often receives?-- Cassmus 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.-- Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I nominate clinical depression for an increase in Importance from high to top, for two reasons:
Also, I suggest that you consider the possibility of maybe merging it with depression (mood). 69.140.155.148 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both proposals.-- Cassmus 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposed Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles, including suggested headers for clinical diseases/disorders. It seems that a lot of articles on clinical psych conditions would not be suitably covered by this approach (i.e. by just a medical model). Including the central article mental disorder. Would it be feasible to develop a similar guide outlining a more psychological (or biopsychosocial) format? I could help have a go at starting this if there were any agreement or advice. EverSince 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all (Ed, I didn't know you were over here :-) We've extensively discussed (at my prodding) broadening the suggested section headings at WP:MEDMOS, making sure they included alternatives and possibilities for "non-disease-oriented" articles, and indicating that they are *suggested* headings. Of course, MEDMOS doesn't preclude separate psychology guidelines, but I'm posting this here so that you all will have a chance to weigh in. Hopefully, we've now gotten the medical groups to broaden the Manual of Style to the point that it now more comfortable encompasses, for example, Tourette's—they certainly had to hear from me at every turn. I would also say that EverSince doesn't understand me well in saying that I "advanc[e] a purely medical approach to everything". I do advance anything that will help us generate comprehensive, well-sourced articles. Hopefully you'll concur that MEDMOS, in its current form, will do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer proposing that psych manual of style - seems like it's been squished - so unless anyone else is then the draft thing that was done could be deleted. EverSince 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article Eidetic memory is painfully full of opinion and original research with a potentially endless list of characters people think could have eidetic memory. Doczilla 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The article on locus of control has received the tag of an article needing attention from a psychology expert. I have made quite a lot of edits to this myself (I do know about this topic), but wondered whether I have inserted too much detail, especially in relation to health psychology and locus of control. There are about 20 or so references appending the article - is that too many, or about right, for a Wikipedia article? Finally, can any expert on developmental psychology add something to this page about the origins of locus of control orientation? Thank you in advance if you can respond to my continuing quest to improve this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a move proposal on the article Skinner box. The term Skinner box is often used in ad hominem attacks against the experimental analysis of behavior. I propose that the page be moved to the more technically correct operant conditioning chamber (with appropriate redirects). Please direct your comments to Talk:Skinner box. Silly rabbit 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject lists several psych articles as being featured, but they are actually listed at WP:FA under "biology and medicine". FYI, this discussion from end 2006 seems to have lead to this, despite disagreement. It looks like the editor who initiated it was SandyGeorgia, then using the tag Sandy. In March, without having seen that prior discussion, I questioned this grouping, with only a reply from SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia says above on this talk page that it is "they" who don't want a separate psychology section - I'm not sure where that discussion is.
It seems that mental disorders like schizophrenia and asperger's (autistic spectrum) are very much psychological topics and are widely addressed as such. Major scientific developments in these areas and concepts have involved psychology (incl. experimental, clinical, neuropsychology) as well as medicine. If there are not yet enough articles to justify a separate psych category, should not the existing category title be expanded to "Biology, Medicine and Psychology"? EverSince 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the talk page for locus of control, you can see that my plea that a developmental psychologist visits this site remains. ACEOREVIVED 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training#RFC_Summary ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of you might be aware of the List of psychology journals over at the Psychology Wiki. Just letting you know that I've recently started developing some of these articles. Part of the development includes creating links to online full texts. Please feel free to use this reference to gain access to papers that in turn can be used to further develop articles here at Wikipedia. If you have a link to a full text that isn't included on any of these articles at Psychology Wiki, please feel free to add it to the appropriate page. Some of these include:
Article is a partial copyvio (see my talk page for details). Since neither I nor User:PrimeHunter appear to be experts in psychology, I hope that one of you can completely rewrite the article. It has some references not related to the original author, so it's a start. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor posted a note on the Help Desk indicating that they recently added an entry on Selective Eating Disorder or SED, "a newly acknowledged eating disorder." Since it is newly acknowledged, there may not be enought Wikipedia reliable sources to write a verifable article on the topic. I think this one requires some expert knowledge. Would someone please give Selective eating disorder a once over? Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone had not one but two psychology templates on parapsychology and further has it listed on its talk pages as falling under the scope of this Wikiproject... That's ridiculous. Parapsychology, despite the similarity in name, is not psychology at all. It's a pseudoscience. Having the psychology templates on that article gives readers the false idea that parapsychology is a science and respected academic discipline within psychology, which is certainly not the case. I have removed the templates, and the psychology category. I also think the template there saying that it belonged to this wikiproject should also be removed, but I'd hate to do it and have someone just undo it not realizing why it was removed. DreamGuy 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
An arbitration request has been opened on DreamGuy. Interested parties may view the proceeding at WP:RFAR DreamGuy. -- DashaKat 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It was suggested in October 2006 that Applied Drama be merged into Drama therapy. This has not been resolved. Please discuss it here. JohnnyMrNinja 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Autism needs a peer review. Please contribute to it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism. Eubulides 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to lack of interest at Talk:Psychiatry, I have cross-posted here.
Where is this image derived from? The caduceus is a symbol of commerce. Axl 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As a new member of this WikiProject, I have two requests, in line with the goals of the project:
My first request is that someone rate the article suffering for quality and importance. The banner for this is already on the page Talk:Suffering.
My second request has to do with the categories emotion, pain, perception, motivation... Would someone come with me for ordering them somewhat more? Robert Daoust 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of these articles are disorganised and lacking in references. Given that panic attacks are a common problem, it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. Recently, Paulee24 has made some major edits that have several formatting and style problems and which reference an article in the text without giving a link as a footnote.
There is a suggestion to merge PA and PD but I think that is misguided and have justified my view on this elsewhere. Since CBT would appear to be the best treatment for Panic Disorder, a psychologist with expertise in this area would be best to have a look at it all.
I will make some suggestions on the talk pages but could someone else with the expertise have a look at it?
-- CloudSurfer 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Standardname attempted to draw our attention to an ongoing content dispute on the Dissociative identity disorder page (see project page history). I reverted his extensive additions because this is not the place for the entire discussion. However, I am posting a notice here, to let everyone know about the material I deleted, so that you can read it over yourself. The most informative thing for me was to go and check the last 50 edits on the DID page. Having now reviewed that material, I think that StandardName is engaged in POV pushing by removing all mention of the scientific controversy that exists around DID, but it would be good to get feedback from other editors, too. Edhubbard 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Below is a post of mine copied from the Talk:Suicide page:
There has not been a response to this posting in the last week and my entry remains the most recent page edit as I write this. I am therefore unclear as to whether this lack of response signifies disinterest or just that people have not looked at the page in the last week. -- CloudSurfer 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Several articles relating to specific emotions have been nominated for inclusion in a release version of wikipedia at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations#Emotions. If any uninvolved editor from this project would be interested in reviewing the articles for scientific accuracy and neutrality, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 16:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Contemporary dream interpretation needs expert attention. I've placed a rewrite tag on it, on the hopes that it can be salvaged, but I think the original contributing editor speaks English as a second language. — Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to undertake a revision of both the Emotions Template and the Emotions-footer. Many of the items listed are not appropriate, and some are feelings...not emotions. Further, I believe an internal categorization scheme within the templates may useful. Thoughts? -- EmpacherPuppet 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Attachment therapy and related pages are currently in ArbCom. In the course of the arbitration, 4 of the 6 editors (percieved by others to be controlling all the attachment pages) have been blocked and the other two have been banned for one year, except from presenting evidence at arbcom.
Several of the articles have already been substantially rewritten, including Attachment therapy, Attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment theory and Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. The rewrites are not complete, but the articles are so different now that they no longer present a fringe view as the mainstream that they could really do with reclassifying. I think they all say 'start class' at the moment. I hope this is the appropriate place to raise this. Fainites barley 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Could anybody explain why attachment disorder is rated as high importance, Reactive attachment disorder as mid importance and attachment therapy as low? Fainites barley 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All 6 socks now blocked. Arbitration ended. Fainites barley 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We need a page on Traumatic stress. Right now Traumatic stress redirects to a subheading inside the article 'James Brown is dead'. Could someone fix this? -- DashaKat 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I am submitting a new Wikipedia categorization scheme for dealing with emotions, and more generally with all affective topics. I was using a section at the page Talk:List_of_emotions while I was working out that scheme, but then I realized that it would be more appropriate to create a new subpage at WikiProject Psychology. Interested people may have a look at the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. Please note that the initiative, in order to go further, now requires that at least a person or two agree with the propositions made. Robert Daoust 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
{outdent) Here is an example of terms I found listed in Category:Emotion as it is currently structured - (in addition to Petting, Kissing & Condolences):
In my opinion, we do not want to aid and abet using neologisms or categorizing behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology. -- Mattisse 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) It is clear, from the link you reference above on Talk:Emotion, that the problem lies in the many disciplines that use the word in different ways, not in a dispute within Psychology. Perhaps you should look into those other disciples, for example Philosophy. Most of the arguments seem to be in that realm. -- Mattisse 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I gave a wrong link above (now corrected). The right link for a discussion that is now going on about category emotion is Category_talk:Emotion. I believe nobody wants the word emotion anymore in categories, that's why I propose we make a request for renaming category emotion. What will be the new name? I suggest 'Affective states and processes'. Who agrees? Who says better?-- Robert Daoust 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The word affective may have a specific meaning in clinical psychology or in other contexts, but in common language it refers univocally to feelings, moods, sentiments, emotions, etc. Am I alone who see that what is needed is a category for all psychological phenomena relating to the affective dimension of mind? I mean, affective states include a lot more than emotional states. I believe that emotion has become 'emblematic' of the affective, because it is an intense, strong, 'conspicuous' kind of feeling. Emotion, however, is not 'representative' of the affective, since most affective states are mild, soft, 'discreet' feelings. See for instance Myriam-Webster: "emotion carries a strong implication of excitement or agitation", "feeling (…) may suggest the mere existence of a response but imply nothing about the nature or intensity of it". Emotions belong to a subclass of feeling, so to speak. Relationships between emotion, feeling, mood, sentiment are not simple, so, in order to keep it simple, why not simply talk of affective states? Mattisse, you seem to think that because you are not an affective scientist or an emotion researcher, psychology should not deal with the affective. You are emptying unilaterally, in the middle of an ongoing discussion on the subject, the category emotion, not minding that the category might have to be reconstructed more laboriously from scratch. There is a crowd, I believe, who consider that articles like anxiety, shyness or happiness belong to a common category, because they feel that the affective is a major and legitimate part of psychology. -- Robert Daoust 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
ANNOUNCEMENT: I made a request for renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes. You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12 -- Robert Daoust 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the proposed renaming of category 'emotion' to 'affective states and processes' is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. -- Robert Daoust 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been seeking sources for the unsourced article Episteme psychology from the article's creator. I told her that I would ask here for assistance with this. If you are familiar with the topic (or know where to look for sources on it), please pitch in. :) -- Moonriddengirl 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Episteme psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episteme psychology (27 September 2007 – 7 October 2007) Move→ Epistemological psychology; otherwise, no consensus→Keep
There is someone busy coming up with a list and categories for Psychology/Emotion who is considering "kissing" and "condolences", and "petting" and other such words as emotions. Is this WikiProject Psychology attempting to be a quality, professional Portal like Architecture or Portals for other disciplines. Or is this Portal a joke? I really am wondering. -- Mattisse 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Jungian psychology is being nominated for a rename to Category:Analytical psychology. Comments are welcome at its discussion page. Samuel Grant 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me please the requirements for being one of these? Somebody signing himself 'Doug Pratt' left this comment in the portal box on AT [2] but does not appear to be on the list of Wikipedians interested in psychology or indeed registered at all. Nor has he responded to a reply on his talkpage. Whats the score on this? Fainites barley 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Emotion-footer seems to be a list of topics that may lend themselves with being dictionary definitions rather than articles. Now pending at DRV is the Disappointment DRV. Your comments at that DRV may help in resolving this Psychology(?) issue. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Stuttering has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All input here to gain consensus...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an AFD that could be closed at any time:
There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse
cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, at the moment there is a discussion going on about the meaning of modelling in psychology on the Talk:Modelling (psychology). The subject itselve is notable enough. But the original author has some very particular ideas about it... and gave a very specific meaning to this very general subject. I wonder if sone of you could take a look at this article and respond to the notability discussion on the talk page. Thanks. - Mdd 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Sinthome claims to be about a psychoanalytic theory, therefore I am including this note here. I added the *cleanup-confusing* tag to to Sinthome, as it is "likely to be confusing to the average reader, because it is obtuse, confused, or missing key information. Sometimes, we all write text that makes perfect sense to us, but does not make sense to most other people." (Per WP:CLARIFY.) The article needs to be rewritten for comprehensibility/clarity. -- 201.19.77.39 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Per previous on Sinthome, I see that Foreclusion is if anything even worse. -- 201.19.77.39 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Time-madness (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted
Hi everyone, I came across the RMT page after I saw a story which appeared in the British news. There have been a lot of changes in the article this month, and I couldn't tell that it was currently within the scope of your project, but thought maybe it should be. I lack the necessary background knowledge to determine if all or some of these changes are needed for NPOV, but they appear to be making the idea more accepted than it really is. Thought the needed expertise might be found here. . .could one or some of you take a look? Thanks, R. Baley 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cold feet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold feet (2nd nomination) (28 October 2007 – 5 November 2007) Redirect→ Raynaud's phenomenon
International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (22 October 2007 – 6 November 2007) Deleted
The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I questioned the science reference desk about this, but nobody there has commented yet. In " Talk:Neurotransmitter#Neurotransmitter effects" I describe a recent psychopharmacology mishap I'm recovering from, and my attempt to map the effects of changing neurotransmitter levels. Does my interpretation appear correct? Which receptors appear to have been preferentially overstimulated or understimulated? 66.218.55.142 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If one looks at the article on aging, one sees that it is currently under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology, but it is surely an article that also relates to psychology. I have made a proposal at WP: Council to start a new WikiProject group on gerontology - are members of this WikiGroup interested? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just created American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I'm handing it over to y'all for the addition of any templates etc etc etc that your wikigroup suggests. Cheers! Ling.Nut ( talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Any of you guys interested to team work on emotion related articles? I almost rewrote Anger and nominated it as GA. I'd like to do the same with other emotions like Fear, ... but it would be nice to teamwork on this. The Psychology related articles are unfortunately in a bad shape and need to be sourced; we really need to do something about them. BTW, I am also interested in dream in case anybody wants to do some team working. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at [3]. It would be better to improve article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol, and now its quality is rather poor. 83.5.242.20 ( talk) 12:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated this for deletion here as I doubt it satisfies notability. Chipping in with opinions is welcomed, including reasons or evidence for keeping it.cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a clinical psychologist working on a project to improve imterpersonal communication within the Wikipedia Community. Would you please E-mail me if you would be interested in helping with such a project.
Regards,
Michael David ( talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, a featured article, to appear on the Main Page on January 16 2008, the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the Act into the US Congress. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 16. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you guys seen the templates on pages such as applied psychology lately? They're really hard to read. -- Yath 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran across a mental health stub for Cassandra syndrome, although it looks more like it belongs in Category:Science fiction themes.Does this term actually exist outside of fiction, as it seems somewhat similar to Martha Mitchell effect? Static Universe talk| contribs 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
While trolling around random pages, I found the article on temporal illusion.It's in a sorry state, but a search on Google scholar shows that a good article can be written on the subject.This is a polite way of encouraging you folks to write it. YechielMan 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#List_of_fictional_characters_with_phobias. Regardless of which position you take, I think it's important that people already focused on psychology examine something like this instead of leaving it to the people who visit all the AfD discussions. Doczilla 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Appologies up front if this isn't the place, but after an exhaustive search on the net I could think of no other place to actually as people the question which to me relates greatly to the topic of psychology and to people who share a fondness of it and could perhaps shed some light.
We have all experienced at one point or another in our lives a person using the phrase "I dont want to argue with you". If we remove those cases when it is clearly obvious someone is purposely trying to pick a fight (ie the person saying the phrase says it because absolutely no answer will suffice ), what does a person really mean when they say this phrase?
I considered several possibilities myself, but would be very interested in finding out if there are any specific psychological conditions, behaviours, or mechanisms that might lead a person to use this to obfuscate something entirely different.
So as to not cause problems on this page I have created a sub-page you can reply to : Here
Enigmatical 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar Wikiproject Award for neuroscience articles - i dont really know how to format the box's and stuff -someone else can help with that - hopefully i can make a psych one soon.
thuglas
talk|
edits
15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a Christmas star. -- DanielCD 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool! -- Jcbutler 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha well its supposed to be neurons thuglas talk| edits 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As some of you might know I started the Mental health professional article a little while back. My goal was to discuss what a mental health professional is, what fields they can go into and define differences.
After creating the article several people proposed the idea of creating a “psychiatry vs. psychology” article. Ever since I heard that idea, I’ve liked it. So many people out there don’t know the difference or think one is “better” than the other. Since that time I’ve written what will be the future article on this topic. It’s neutral, presents both professions/studies in a positive way, and talks about major similarities & differences between them. So that means I’ll be uploading it soon.
Some may ask, “Why not bring in other professions too?” Well good point, however most mental health professions are already in the Mental health professional article. My guess is most of the confusion lies between the “big two,” if you will. However, I will be mentioning the other professionals in this new article (briefly), and linking them to MHP.
One problem though. What to call the new article? I have a list of articles that will link to it all ready, but I still don’t know what the title of this new article should be. I’m sure I’ll be creating numerous redirects so it may be found easier, but I want the main article’s title to be informative & neutral. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for your help! Chupper 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For ideas & current policies see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions
Input is needed regarding a category rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_11#Category:Autistic_people. Doczilla 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Just stumbled on an Afd on an article tagged by you guys as one of your own. It's Philosophy_of_Death_and_Adjustment, I don't know much about Pyschology, so if some of you sharper Psychological minds coukd comb over the article, see if it's notable and vote on the matter. It seems to be somewhat hot button. -- Sharz 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics related to psychology. I've tried to find any relevant redirect and similar articles but I would appreciate if you could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, Messianic complex is up on AFD. Perhaps someone here has an idea what to do with it, or has an opinion. Smmurphy( Talk) 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles need help - go to Operant Conditioning Thuglas ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
A request for peer review has been made for the article Clinical psychology in order to get it FA-worthy. Please look over the article and add your comments on the peer review page. Thank you! Psykhosis 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I know at least one member of this group has turned attention to the article on locus of control, which certainly needed much editing. If any one knows about the familial origins of locus of control orientations, it would improve the article if such data were added to the article, as would increased coverage of applications of locus of control to health psychology and increased coverage of the work of those who have looked at changes in locus of control across the lifespan. Finally, a section on cross-cultural differences in locus of control would be a good additional touch to this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders, which recently got renamed through CfD, is already undergoing another CfD and needs comment. Over the last four days, the discussion has mainly been between two people disagreeing with each other. [1]. Although I expressed my own opinion about it a few days ago, I'm actually okay with either outcome. I just feel more people need to weigh in on this. Doczilla 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Semantic Pragmatic Disorder was recently mentioned in the The Times - and it didn't come out very well. The exact word I used was "rubbish". WP:PSYCHOLOGY might want to spruce it up a bit (hint, hint). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if someone who specializes in clinical psychology could have a look at Attachment disorder and give their opinion? There are also some 'popular psychology' issues involved. We would appreciate any opinion on that article.-- DorisH 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Clerical error: this to an RfD. Please see Wikipedia:rfd#Sexual_repression_.E2.86.92_Religion_and_sexuality. -- Shirahadasha 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Positive behavior support, Sensory integration therapy, Floortime, Developmental Social-Pragmatic model. Nice to have articles about these, but the author did have some other pages speedied for promotion and/or copyvio. Probably a good editor off to an unsteady start without knowledge of policy. Just a look over these articles by informed eyes would help. — coel acan — 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
www.toad.net/~arcturus/ (The author of many pages being Sharon C. Ekleberry) seems to have been used as a reference/link on a lot of psych pages, specifically related to personality disorders, but perhaps also others. It also seems a valid reference, however, now it is gone :o(
So keep an eye out for these links, they can be replaced using http://www.webarchive.org, until we find other sources. -- Zeraeph 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of requested articles in the psychology section. I deleted a few that were pop psychology nonsense or so vague as to be useless as a request. I also suggested a few redirects. Can we have someone with some expertise (especially in clinical/counseling psychology where most of the requests seem to fall into) look at the requests and either create stubs, or delete the nonsense that psychology so often receives?-- Cassmus 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.-- Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I nominate clinical depression for an increase in Importance from high to top, for two reasons:
Also, I suggest that you consider the possibility of maybe merging it with depression (mood). 69.140.155.148 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both proposals.-- Cassmus 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposed Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles, including suggested headers for clinical diseases/disorders. It seems that a lot of articles on clinical psych conditions would not be suitably covered by this approach (i.e. by just a medical model). Including the central article mental disorder. Would it be feasible to develop a similar guide outlining a more psychological (or biopsychosocial) format? I could help have a go at starting this if there were any agreement or advice. EverSince 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all (Ed, I didn't know you were over here :-) We've extensively discussed (at my prodding) broadening the suggested section headings at WP:MEDMOS, making sure they included alternatives and possibilities for "non-disease-oriented" articles, and indicating that they are *suggested* headings. Of course, MEDMOS doesn't preclude separate psychology guidelines, but I'm posting this here so that you all will have a chance to weigh in. Hopefully, we've now gotten the medical groups to broaden the Manual of Style to the point that it now more comfortable encompasses, for example, Tourette's—they certainly had to hear from me at every turn. I would also say that EverSince doesn't understand me well in saying that I "advanc[e] a purely medical approach to everything". I do advance anything that will help us generate comprehensive, well-sourced articles. Hopefully you'll concur that MEDMOS, in its current form, will do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer proposing that psych manual of style - seems like it's been squished - so unless anyone else is then the draft thing that was done could be deleted. EverSince 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article Eidetic memory is painfully full of opinion and original research with a potentially endless list of characters people think could have eidetic memory. Doczilla 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The article on locus of control has received the tag of an article needing attention from a psychology expert. I have made quite a lot of edits to this myself (I do know about this topic), but wondered whether I have inserted too much detail, especially in relation to health psychology and locus of control. There are about 20 or so references appending the article - is that too many, or about right, for a Wikipedia article? Finally, can any expert on developmental psychology add something to this page about the origins of locus of control orientation? Thank you in advance if you can respond to my continuing quest to improve this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a move proposal on the article Skinner box. The term Skinner box is often used in ad hominem attacks against the experimental analysis of behavior. I propose that the page be moved to the more technically correct operant conditioning chamber (with appropriate redirects). Please direct your comments to Talk:Skinner box. Silly rabbit 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject lists several psych articles as being featured, but they are actually listed at WP:FA under "biology and medicine". FYI, this discussion from end 2006 seems to have lead to this, despite disagreement. It looks like the editor who initiated it was SandyGeorgia, then using the tag Sandy. In March, without having seen that prior discussion, I questioned this grouping, with only a reply from SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia says above on this talk page that it is "they" who don't want a separate psychology section - I'm not sure where that discussion is.
It seems that mental disorders like schizophrenia and asperger's (autistic spectrum) are very much psychological topics and are widely addressed as such. Major scientific developments in these areas and concepts have involved psychology (incl. experimental, clinical, neuropsychology) as well as medicine. If there are not yet enough articles to justify a separate psych category, should not the existing category title be expanded to "Biology, Medicine and Psychology"? EverSince 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the talk page for locus of control, you can see that my plea that a developmental psychologist visits this site remains. ACEOREVIVED 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training#RFC_Summary ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of you might be aware of the List of psychology journals over at the Psychology Wiki. Just letting you know that I've recently started developing some of these articles. Part of the development includes creating links to online full texts. Please feel free to use this reference to gain access to papers that in turn can be used to further develop articles here at Wikipedia. If you have a link to a full text that isn't included on any of these articles at Psychology Wiki, please feel free to add it to the appropriate page. Some of these include:
Article is a partial copyvio (see my talk page for details). Since neither I nor User:PrimeHunter appear to be experts in psychology, I hope that one of you can completely rewrite the article. It has some references not related to the original author, so it's a start. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor posted a note on the Help Desk indicating that they recently added an entry on Selective Eating Disorder or SED, "a newly acknowledged eating disorder." Since it is newly acknowledged, there may not be enought Wikipedia reliable sources to write a verifable article on the topic. I think this one requires some expert knowledge. Would someone please give Selective eating disorder a once over? Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone had not one but two psychology templates on parapsychology and further has it listed on its talk pages as falling under the scope of this Wikiproject... That's ridiculous. Parapsychology, despite the similarity in name, is not psychology at all. It's a pseudoscience. Having the psychology templates on that article gives readers the false idea that parapsychology is a science and respected academic discipline within psychology, which is certainly not the case. I have removed the templates, and the psychology category. I also think the template there saying that it belonged to this wikiproject should also be removed, but I'd hate to do it and have someone just undo it not realizing why it was removed. DreamGuy 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
An arbitration request has been opened on DreamGuy. Interested parties may view the proceeding at WP:RFAR DreamGuy. -- DashaKat 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It was suggested in October 2006 that Applied Drama be merged into Drama therapy. This has not been resolved. Please discuss it here. JohnnyMrNinja 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Autism needs a peer review. Please contribute to it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism. Eubulides 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to lack of interest at Talk:Psychiatry, I have cross-posted here.
Where is this image derived from? The caduceus is a symbol of commerce. Axl 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As a new member of this WikiProject, I have two requests, in line with the goals of the project:
My first request is that someone rate the article suffering for quality and importance. The banner for this is already on the page Talk:Suffering.
My second request has to do with the categories emotion, pain, perception, motivation... Would someone come with me for ordering them somewhat more? Robert Daoust 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of these articles are disorganised and lacking in references. Given that panic attacks are a common problem, it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. Recently, Paulee24 has made some major edits that have several formatting and style problems and which reference an article in the text without giving a link as a footnote.
There is a suggestion to merge PA and PD but I think that is misguided and have justified my view on this elsewhere. Since CBT would appear to be the best treatment for Panic Disorder, a psychologist with expertise in this area would be best to have a look at it all.
I will make some suggestions on the talk pages but could someone else with the expertise have a look at it?
-- CloudSurfer 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Standardname attempted to draw our attention to an ongoing content dispute on the Dissociative identity disorder page (see project page history). I reverted his extensive additions because this is not the place for the entire discussion. However, I am posting a notice here, to let everyone know about the material I deleted, so that you can read it over yourself. The most informative thing for me was to go and check the last 50 edits on the DID page. Having now reviewed that material, I think that StandardName is engaged in POV pushing by removing all mention of the scientific controversy that exists around DID, but it would be good to get feedback from other editors, too. Edhubbard 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Below is a post of mine copied from the Talk:Suicide page:
There has not been a response to this posting in the last week and my entry remains the most recent page edit as I write this. I am therefore unclear as to whether this lack of response signifies disinterest or just that people have not looked at the page in the last week. -- CloudSurfer 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Several articles relating to specific emotions have been nominated for inclusion in a release version of wikipedia at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations#Emotions. If any uninvolved editor from this project would be interested in reviewing the articles for scientific accuracy and neutrality, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 16:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Contemporary dream interpretation needs expert attention. I've placed a rewrite tag on it, on the hopes that it can be salvaged, but I think the original contributing editor speaks English as a second language. — Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to undertake a revision of both the Emotions Template and the Emotions-footer. Many of the items listed are not appropriate, and some are feelings...not emotions. Further, I believe an internal categorization scheme within the templates may useful. Thoughts? -- EmpacherPuppet 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Attachment therapy and related pages are currently in ArbCom. In the course of the arbitration, 4 of the 6 editors (percieved by others to be controlling all the attachment pages) have been blocked and the other two have been banned for one year, except from presenting evidence at arbcom.
Several of the articles have already been substantially rewritten, including Attachment therapy, Attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment theory and Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. The rewrites are not complete, but the articles are so different now that they no longer present a fringe view as the mainstream that they could really do with reclassifying. I think they all say 'start class' at the moment. I hope this is the appropriate place to raise this. Fainites barley 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Could anybody explain why attachment disorder is rated as high importance, Reactive attachment disorder as mid importance and attachment therapy as low? Fainites barley 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All 6 socks now blocked. Arbitration ended. Fainites barley 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We need a page on Traumatic stress. Right now Traumatic stress redirects to a subheading inside the article 'James Brown is dead'. Could someone fix this? -- DashaKat 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I am submitting a new Wikipedia categorization scheme for dealing with emotions, and more generally with all affective topics. I was using a section at the page Talk:List_of_emotions while I was working out that scheme, but then I realized that it would be more appropriate to create a new subpage at WikiProject Psychology. Interested people may have a look at the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. Please note that the initiative, in order to go further, now requires that at least a person or two agree with the propositions made. Robert Daoust 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
{outdent) Here is an example of terms I found listed in Category:Emotion as it is currently structured - (in addition to Petting, Kissing & Condolences):
In my opinion, we do not want to aid and abet using neologisms or categorizing behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology. -- Mattisse 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) It is clear, from the link you reference above on Talk:Emotion, that the problem lies in the many disciplines that use the word in different ways, not in a dispute within Psychology. Perhaps you should look into those other disciples, for example Philosophy. Most of the arguments seem to be in that realm. -- Mattisse 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I gave a wrong link above (now corrected). The right link for a discussion that is now going on about category emotion is Category_talk:Emotion. I believe nobody wants the word emotion anymore in categories, that's why I propose we make a request for renaming category emotion. What will be the new name? I suggest 'Affective states and processes'. Who agrees? Who says better?-- Robert Daoust 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The word affective may have a specific meaning in clinical psychology or in other contexts, but in common language it refers univocally to feelings, moods, sentiments, emotions, etc. Am I alone who see that what is needed is a category for all psychological phenomena relating to the affective dimension of mind? I mean, affective states include a lot more than emotional states. I believe that emotion has become 'emblematic' of the affective, because it is an intense, strong, 'conspicuous' kind of feeling. Emotion, however, is not 'representative' of the affective, since most affective states are mild, soft, 'discreet' feelings. See for instance Myriam-Webster: "emotion carries a strong implication of excitement or agitation", "feeling (…) may suggest the mere existence of a response but imply nothing about the nature or intensity of it". Emotions belong to a subclass of feeling, so to speak. Relationships between emotion, feeling, mood, sentiment are not simple, so, in order to keep it simple, why not simply talk of affective states? Mattisse, you seem to think that because you are not an affective scientist or an emotion researcher, psychology should not deal with the affective. You are emptying unilaterally, in the middle of an ongoing discussion on the subject, the category emotion, not minding that the category might have to be reconstructed more laboriously from scratch. There is a crowd, I believe, who consider that articles like anxiety, shyness or happiness belong to a common category, because they feel that the affective is a major and legitimate part of psychology. -- Robert Daoust 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
ANNOUNCEMENT: I made a request for renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes. You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12 -- Robert Daoust 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the proposed renaming of category 'emotion' to 'affective states and processes' is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. -- Robert Daoust 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been seeking sources for the unsourced article Episteme psychology from the article's creator. I told her that I would ask here for assistance with this. If you are familiar with the topic (or know where to look for sources on it), please pitch in. :) -- Moonriddengirl 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Episteme psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episteme psychology (27 September 2007 – 7 October 2007) Move→ Epistemological psychology; otherwise, no consensus→Keep
There is someone busy coming up with a list and categories for Psychology/Emotion who is considering "kissing" and "condolences", and "petting" and other such words as emotions. Is this WikiProject Psychology attempting to be a quality, professional Portal like Architecture or Portals for other disciplines. Or is this Portal a joke? I really am wondering. -- Mattisse 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Jungian psychology is being nominated for a rename to Category:Analytical psychology. Comments are welcome at its discussion page. Samuel Grant 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me please the requirements for being one of these? Somebody signing himself 'Doug Pratt' left this comment in the portal box on AT [2] but does not appear to be on the list of Wikipedians interested in psychology or indeed registered at all. Nor has he responded to a reply on his talkpage. Whats the score on this? Fainites barley 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Emotion-footer seems to be a list of topics that may lend themselves with being dictionary definitions rather than articles. Now pending at DRV is the Disappointment DRV. Your comments at that DRV may help in resolving this Psychology(?) issue. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Stuttering has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All input here to gain consensus...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an AFD that could be closed at any time:
There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse
cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, at the moment there is a discussion going on about the meaning of modelling in psychology on the Talk:Modelling (psychology). The subject itselve is notable enough. But the original author has some very particular ideas about it... and gave a very specific meaning to this very general subject. I wonder if sone of you could take a look at this article and respond to the notability discussion on the talk page. Thanks. - Mdd 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Sinthome claims to be about a psychoanalytic theory, therefore I am including this note here. I added the *cleanup-confusing* tag to to Sinthome, as it is "likely to be confusing to the average reader, because it is obtuse, confused, or missing key information. Sometimes, we all write text that makes perfect sense to us, but does not make sense to most other people." (Per WP:CLARIFY.) The article needs to be rewritten for comprehensibility/clarity. -- 201.19.77.39 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Per previous on Sinthome, I see that Foreclusion is if anything even worse. -- 201.19.77.39 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Time-madness (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted
Hi everyone, I came across the RMT page after I saw a story which appeared in the British news. There have been a lot of changes in the article this month, and I couldn't tell that it was currently within the scope of your project, but thought maybe it should be. I lack the necessary background knowledge to determine if all or some of these changes are needed for NPOV, but they appear to be making the idea more accepted than it really is. Thought the needed expertise might be found here. . .could one or some of you take a look? Thanks, R. Baley 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cold feet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold feet (2nd nomination) (28 October 2007 – 5 November 2007) Redirect→ Raynaud's phenomenon
International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (22 October 2007 – 6 November 2007) Deleted
The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I questioned the science reference desk about this, but nobody there has commented yet. In " Talk:Neurotransmitter#Neurotransmitter effects" I describe a recent psychopharmacology mishap I'm recovering from, and my attempt to map the effects of changing neurotransmitter levels. Does my interpretation appear correct? Which receptors appear to have been preferentially overstimulated or understimulated? 66.218.55.142 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If one looks at the article on aging, one sees that it is currently under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology, but it is surely an article that also relates to psychology. I have made a proposal at WP: Council to start a new WikiProject group on gerontology - are members of this WikiGroup interested? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just created American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I'm handing it over to y'all for the addition of any templates etc etc etc that your wikigroup suggests. Cheers! Ling.Nut ( talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Any of you guys interested to team work on emotion related articles? I almost rewrote Anger and nominated it as GA. I'd like to do the same with other emotions like Fear, ... but it would be nice to teamwork on this. The Psychology related articles are unfortunately in a bad shape and need to be sourced; we really need to do something about them. BTW, I am also interested in dream in case anybody wants to do some team working. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at [3]. It would be better to improve article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol, and now its quality is rather poor. 83.5.242.20 ( talk) 12:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated this for deletion here as I doubt it satisfies notability. Chipping in with opinions is welcomed, including reasons or evidence for keeping it.cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a clinical psychologist working on a project to improve imterpersonal communication within the Wikipedia Community. Would you please E-mail me if you would be interested in helping with such a project.
Regards,
Michael David ( talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, a featured article, to appear on the Main Page on January 16 2008, the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the Act into the US Congress. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 16. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)