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

What are we doing here? We have an article titled Intellectual disability. It's rather lengthy, but about half the page discusses the term "Mental Retardation" and how it used to be used a lot, but not so much anymore, but still is here and there, etc., etc. Then we have another article titled Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities, which is a start class, with not a great deal of info. These articles has recently been renamed and moved around. I've tried reading thru the talk pages, but can't really determine just how this all came to pass. First off, who came up with "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" ? Surely we find a better name than that, but the real question is why should have to in the first place? Instead, couldn't we just;

1. Remove all the non-medical info from the "Intellectual disability" page that only discusses the previous usage of the MR term, as the article should focus on medical content, instead of outgoing terminology. Then move this content to it's own page, perhaps titled "Naming Conventions in Psychology & Psychiatry" ...or something like that.
2. Then, we could take the content from "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" and merge it with the remaining content of the "Intellectual disability" page, would be clearly to the benefit of the reader, allowing them to peruse, compare and contrast all the content in one place.
3. We could then do away with "Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities" title altogether. (sorry, but it's a not-that-great-of-a title)

Wouldn't this make sense? - thewolfchild 21:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Why would you want to remove all non-medical information from an article whose very title was changed this year due to strictly non-medical social pressure? We don't normally create content forks to "hide" non-medical information. There is a sizable section on non-medical information at Disease and Breast cancer and thousands of other medical articles. I don't see why this should be any different. (In this case, tracing the changing names allows you to trace the changing social attitudes, too.)
2. Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities covers what used to be called Mental retardation, as well as Dementia, Traumatic brain injury, Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment, Specific learning disabilities, and all the other forms of Cognitive deficit. If you don't understand the difference between the one relatively famous developmental condition and these others, then you need to do a lot more research before you edit the pages.
3. I agree that it's a lousy title, and I'm the person who came up with it. It exists because we're required to have a title, and all of that information was previously located at the page title now wanted for the-condition-formerly-known-as-mental-retardation. It had to go somewhere; if you've got a better idea, then WP:MOVE it. But I do strongly suggest that you understand the difference between Alzheimer's and "MR" (now "ID") before you try to do that. Alzheimer's is only supposed to appear on one of those pages, and it's not the page about the developmental condition. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get into a pissing contest over who-knows-more-about-what. I'm well aware of the differences between genetic-, pathological-, and trauma-based intellectual disabilities. I was just of the opinion that;

1. there are too many references regarding the usage of the term RM, spread all over the page and especially in the lead. If not split off, then it should at least be confined to one section.
2. there is still no reason to not merge that content together.
3. yeah, that title is lousy. I would have no problem moving it to something better, but I figured; why not try to discuss it first? That's usually not a bad idea. - thewolfchild 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see any compelling reason to merge these subjects. They get different ICD-10 codes, and many of them are specifically defined as excluding the others. Why don't you explain why parents with Down's children should have to wade through an article that is mostly about irrelevant conditions, like senile dementia and traumatic brain injuries, instead of going straight to a page that is entirely about the separate medical condition that they care about? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just reading through this discussion I think it is very worthwhile considering combining these subjects. I agree that the title is poor. We need something more succinct. I don't see any rationale for your opposition whatamidoing? Your somewhat ;off topic comments regarding Down syndrome are not helpful to this discussion. Mrm7171 ( talk) 08:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand why it's relevant, then you don't understand the proposal, which was to remove the articles about specific intellectual conditions, and just have one large one about all the stuff that causes intellectual problems—treating Alzheimer's and the mental effects of Down syndrome and many other problems as being exactly the same thing. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely understand. It's just that I don't agree with your point of view on this issue. Your points don't make sense in many ways, that's all. I think you should probably reconsider thewolfchild's very sensible suggestion that's all. No big deal. Mrm7171 ( talk) 10:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had better jump in here with some history. As Wikipedia was founded, some parts of the English-speaking world used the term "intellectual disability" (now the current term) to cover the conditions designated in my childhood as "mental retardation," and editors weren't united in a plan to merge the former Intellectual disability article (the one we are talking about here, under its new name) and the former Mental retardation article, which was renamed to Intellectual disability just before the discussion here began, as all the current sources now prefer that term. For want of coordination on this project page beforehand, it has been difficult to find a suitable term for an article on, what?, perhaps all the conditions that limit cognitive ability (including but not limited to intellectual disability, formerly known as mental retardation). IF, and only if, there is a general term for such a category in the reliable sources for articles on medicine, then it would be a good idea to build up an article titled with that term, by digging into the sources. If there is no such category in scholarly discourse, we could simply let this troubled article be deleted (or merged) by consensus, and go on editing the articles on actual encyclopedic topics with renewed vigor and attention to sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

75.72.5.61 ( talk) 08:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) hi, fwiw, I have just been making some edits to the Pediatric Neuropsychology page including listing specifically the major medical causes odf intellectual disabilities... don't know whether that might be helpful as an organizing structure, but just mentioning in case this is useful.

Hi everyone, I am a student and I need a peer review for the wikipedia's article. Thanks. LujaynH ( talk) 09:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just accepted Social problem solving, Niche picking, and Achievement orientation as new articles through the Articles for Creation process.

The three have some similarities; a total lack of wikilinks, a somewhat similar topic area, and a total reliance on academic papers for references, with correctly formatted references but without any weblinks as part of the references. They also share a somewhat essay-like tone, plus possibly a smattering of original research?

And they were all originally created in either October or November. By different editors.

Having come here to discuss this, I now also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Self-control therapy in the section above, which seems to match all of the above too.

So, a request and a couple of questions:

• Please take a look at the articles I have accepted and check if there are major problems (e.g. should not have been accepted, or need merging somewhere else) or minor problems (e.g. I've put them in incorrect categories).
• In general, is it acceptable for non-specialist Articles for Creation reviewers to accept articles like this into mainspace (normally your project would only find out because they would have been added to your Wikiproject category), or would it be better always to ask here on a case-by-case basis first? (From the reviewer's point of view, accepting it into mainspace is generally easier than asking questions, so long as it doesn't result in your Wikiproject being inundated with inappropriate creations.)
• Is it likely that this series of creations is a university class of some sort, and should we try to find out who is behind it?

Thank you for your help. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You mention "a total reliance on academic papers for references, with correctly formatted references but without any weblinks as part of the references," and that brings to my mind the issue of whether those sources are reliable secondary sources or unreplicated primary sources, which plague all sciences, but especially psychology. My suggestion is that if you accept such articles into mainspace, unless they are plainly sourced to review articles, that they immediately be tagged with Template:Primary sources so that other editors will know at a glance what to do to upgrade the articles. And if they read like essays to you, tag them that way right away too. In general, if an article looks problematic, but was an honest effort to begin a new encyclopedic article, tag the problem. For what probably is a class project, it's usually not necessary to find out who is behind it, as articles are fixable by anyone once they reach mainspace. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The former article Intelligence (which has long covered animal and artificial intelligence as well as human intelligence) has just had some content split off to form a brand-new article, Human intelligence. I thought you would like to know. I have begun suggesting sources for updating that article to reliable sources in medicine standards on the new article talk page, and have also tagged the article as being within the scope of this project. I hope you will all look on as the article editing begins. It would also be very kind and helpful to look at the recent edits on the Template:Human intelligence, which originated from the efforts of editors who were subsequently topic-banned, and which has long suffered from two few editors who read the psychology literature (not none, but too few) working on it. I have also suggested some sources on the template talk page to help define the scope of the template. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 02:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on mental rotation is horrendous. It makes wild claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence. I have begun to clean up this page, but it could use the help of an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.197.201 ( talk) 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. That's awful. Alas, so are most Wikipedia articles about any aspect of human intelligence. I've watchlisted the article and will see what I can do. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This may not be news, but on Reddit, a month ago I learned that this article was in bad shape: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1p4eft/the_decline_of_wikipedia_wikipedias_community_has/ccyuvaa?context=3

• Vessyson said: "Is a fucking disaster and has been for a long time, no matter what your opinion on the subject is. Just read the talk page and tell me that's how wikipedia is supposed to work."
• cp5184 said: "I've put a merge tag on an article, it languished for years until someone deleted it not because people in the talk page article didn't agree that the merge shouldn't be done, but because they had declared a war on tags and obviously had no interest in doing the work involved in merging the articles."

Is anyone interested in taking the time to clean it up? WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't take advice from Reddit on any topic. That said, I have observed on previous occasions that the article Evolutionary psychology has very bad problems of at least one editor attempting to "own" the article, so that the very existence of a separate article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, which I agree looks like a mess, is concerning. In a collaborative editing environment working according to Wikipedia policy, the description of evolutionary psychology as a topic and criticism of that field ought all to be in one article (possibly linking to detailed subarticles) sourced to a more diverse and more current set of reliable sources. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of project participants. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome :) . I don't automatically assume every complaint is correct but it is a good idea to investigate to see how things can be improved. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This article could use some input from a knowledgeable editor. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Volkerpsychologie, although I am interested in the topic and did a little background reading in order offer some (hopefully) helpful feedback. Although not widely understood or discussed, even by psychologists, Volkerpsychologie qualifies as a notable topic because of its importance in the history of psychology, and, equally important, because its core concepts serve as a critical counterbalance to the current emphasis on neuroscience as the 'answer' to understanding the mind. I would classify the current article as Start class, Mid importance. Some might vote for Low importance by arguing that Volkerpsychologie represents peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology, or by noting that most professionals in psychology are not aware of the concept. The latter conclusion is most likely accurate, but I would counter that if one takes the time to better understand Volkerpsychologie, one will find its central ideas, particularly as articulated by modern psychologists, compelling and important. The article by Wong (2009), referenced below, provides an excellent introduction.

The article certainly needs some work. It reads like a term paper (although a good one), rather than an encyclopedia article. It needs serious pruning to achieve a succinct, encyclopedic description of Volkerpsychologie. And some citations to Wundt's original work, along with other pertinent references, will also improve its quality. Note that this constructive criticism should not tarnish in the least the original author's substantial and important contribution. The fact that someone recognized the importance of Volkerpsychologie and wrote a Wikipedia article on the topic is commendable.

Reference: Wong, W. (2009). Retracing the footsteps of Wilhelm Wundt: Explorations in the disciplinary frontiers of psychology and in Völkerpsychologie. History of Psychology, 12(4), 229–265. doi:10.1037/a0017711. PMID  20509352. Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, psychologists! Is this submission at Afc different enough from the existing Accent articles? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered this question ... after reviewing and adding the Accents (psychology) article to the mainspace. :o/

In hindsight, it would have been better to discuss the article here before accepting it. Well, the deed is done, but I hope you will agree with my conclusion that the Accents (psychology) article covers a notable and important area of social psychological research and emerging knowledge that the other Accent articles do not address. While there is certainly some overlap with Accent (sociolinguistics) there is much less than I anticipated. The good number of quality references, many from prominent psychology journals, which the Accents (psychology) author included (and some of which I skimmed or even read more thoroughly), persuaded me that this is a complimentary but distinct field of study.

Please see the new article's Talk page for three questions I posed:

1. Do my quality and importance ratings seem accurate to you?
2. Did I complete all the appropriate Reviewer tasks specified under WikiProject Articles for creation?
3. Should the article be included in WikiProject Linguistics?

I appreciate any responses you can provide to those questions. :o)

Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD 13:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Markworthen: Thanks for taking this on. The article appears to have been correctly accepted. Although I do have a 40-year-old degree in psychology, I am not qualified to comment on the other questions. It appears that almost everything that I learned has since been discredited (sigh). — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! ... Oh, and I know what you mean about the knowledge explosion. I was in college and grad school in the 1980's. When I supervise interns I'm amazed at all the new or expanded areas of inquiry--and I'm a pretty obsessive journal reader. There is just so much to keep up with! Although, I should say I just read a fascinating article on Volkerpsychologie with multiple references from the 1600's to the early 20th century. Mark D Worthen PsyD 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to share my experience with the facial feedback hypothesis. After many years of drug addiction i managed to stop using for many years(currently 15 and counting). I realised that during the best times of my late life ,i was intentionally trying to smile ,and keep smiling during my day ,to people,even when i was alone i was smiling in a n attempt to keep my spirits up. And i can tell you it worked. This experience i had was long before i read this article and i feel like sharing my experience as it might help others. smile.makes others wonder!!!:):) I d smile to people on the street i never met before ,and because of my attitude the feedback i was getting from others was also usually a happy mood.this as a result had to make me feel happy in reality,and i d smile without thinking about it. As a friend said,do as if until you just do... and this applies here too!!!. try it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.220.219 ( talk) 13:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive thoughts. And smiles. However, material added to Wikipedia articles needs to be based on published sources, not personal experience and recollection. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harry Helson has been submitted as a draft article at Articles for Creation. Helson looks to be notable for his work on "The Adaptation-Level Theory", or I think so anyway - I am open to correction on this.

However, the submission has a bit of a problem of close paraphrasing ( Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing ) from the cited source in the section "The Harry Helson Award". I can't easily view the other sources used (American Journal of Psychology, A history of psychology in autobiography, and Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics), so I wondered if anyone here is able to check these out for similar problems? Many thanks. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. For the last four years I have participated in a weekly graduate seminar on behavior genetics at my alma mater's psychology department. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on the article talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.

Noting that Behavioural genetics is listed as a start-class, high-importance article by the WikiProjects for both genetics and psychology, I will start a workpage of an article update draft in my user space, relying on the sources recommended on the article talk page and on others listed here (in approximate order of date of publication, which is also almost but not exactly the order in which I have read them over the last few years):

• Rutter, Michael (2006). Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN  978-1-4051-1061-7. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Bazzett, Terence J. (2008). An Introduction to Behavior Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. pp. 241–242. ISBN  978-0-87893-049-4. Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Kim, Yong-Kyu, ed. (25 March 2009). Handbook of Behavior Genetics. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-76727-7. ISBN  978-0-387-76727-7. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. ISBN  978-0-19-955990-9. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Anholt, Robert R. H.; Mackay, Trudy F. C. (2010). Principles of behavioral genetics. Academic Press. ISBN  978-0-12-372575-2. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Goldman, David (2012). Our Genes, Our Choices: How Genotype and Gene Interactions Affect Behavior. Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN  978-0-12-396952-1. OCLC  773025118. Retrieved 7 November 2013. {{ cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |laydate= ( help); Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

• Segal, Nancy L. (2012). Born Together—Reared Apart. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. ISBN  978-0-674-05546-9. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behaviorial Genetics). Worth Publishers. ISBN  978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).

• Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I. (1991). "Is H² = 0 a null hypothesis anymore?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 14 (03): 410–411. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00070540. ISSN  0140-525X. Archived from the original on 19 April 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) ( help)

• Turkheimer, Eric (October 2000). "Three Laws of Behavior Genetics and What They Mean" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 9 (5): 160–164. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00084. ISSN  0963-7214. Retrieved 29 October 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

• Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, E.; Gottesman, Irving; Bouchard, Thomas (2009). "Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18 (4): 217–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01639.x. PMC  2899491. PMID  20625474. Retrieved 21 November 2010. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

• Johnson, W. (2010). "Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (3): 177–182. doi: 10.1177/0963721410370136. ISSN  0963-7214. Archived from the original on 25 August 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) ( help)

• Johnson, Wendy; Penke, Lars; Spinath, Frank M. (2011). "Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 25 (4): 287–294. doi: 10.1002/per.835. ISSN  0890-2070. Archived from the original on 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{ cite journal}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= ( help); Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) ( help)

• Dick, Danielle M. (2011). "Gene-Environment Interaction in Psychological Traits and Disorders". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 7: 383–409. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104518. ISBN  978-0-8243-3907-4. ISSN  1548-5943. PMC  3647367. PMID  21219196. {{ cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.

• Spinath, Frank M.; Johnson, Wendy (2011). "Chapter 10: Behavior Genetics". In Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas; von Stumm, Sophie; Furnham, Adrian (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444343120. ISBN  978-1-4443-3438-8. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

• Maxson, Stephen C. (10 October 2012). "Chapter 1: Behavioral Genetics". In Weiner, Irving B.; Nelson, Randy J.; Mizumori, Sheri (eds.). Handbook of Psychology (PDF). Vol. Volume 3: Behavioral Neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN  978-0-470-89059-2. Archived from the original on 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{ cite book}}: |volume= has extra text ( help); Check date values in: |archivedate= ( help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |laydate= ( help); Invalid |ref=harv ( help)

Please feel free to suggest other useful sources for the several articles in the scope of this project that pertain to behavior genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if I could ask for some help on expanding some articles here (they are psych related). Is this the place to ask? -- Turn685 ( talk) 13:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments are needed on this matter this matter: Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As at the article talk page, I am requesting project participants to look at the best reliable sources they have at hand to check the issue of which phrase fits common usage in the relevant disciplines. Coincidentally, I will be posting here a source list for a closely related series of article edits on high-priority articles in the scope of this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps editors looking on here will find it of interest that as a matter of phrase history there is one phrase that has consistently been the dominant phrase in English, per Google Books Ngram Viewer, which may have some relationship to the WP:COMMONNAME policy here. That phrase, "nature and nurture," is the phrase originated by Francis Galton in his writings to sum up the issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a peer review on olfactory reference syndrome, located here [4]

(Cross-posted on WT:MED) Kind regards, Lesion ( talk) 18:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello WP:PSYCH, I am starting to work on a start class psych article. What headings should be used? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just used the recommended headers from WP:MEDMOS. If this is incorrect and there are some other headers I should be using please let me know (ping). Kind regards, Lesion ( talk) 17:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are using the Diseases or disorders or syndromes section of WP:MEDMOS. If so, I would suggest the following modifications - my comments are preceded by an arrow -->

Classification: If relevant. May also be placed as a subheading of diagnosis. --> Keep in mind that many (most?) clinical psychologists believe the DSM (currently DSM-5) and ICD (currently ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM) rely too heavily on a medical model for classification of emotional, cognitive, and/or behavioral problems. Therefore, if other classification models are supported in the literature on the condition you are writing about, you might include them (if they have good secondary sources).

Causes: Includes Risk factors, triggers, Genetics or genome, Virology (e.g., structure/Morphology, replication). --> Look for good sources of information regarding developmental (see developmental psychopathology research), cultural, economic, systemic, and social causes.

Pathophysiology or Mechanism--> May or may not be relevant.

Diagnosis: Includes characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis. --> Biopsy findings will usually not apply. Differential diagnosis can be important.

Society and culture: This might include stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, notable cases --> If not an etiological factor.

Special populations, such as Geriatrics or Pregnancy or Pediatrics --> Important for many psychological problems.

Other animals --> Might be relevant, depending on the condition.

Good question. :o) Mark D Worthen PsyD 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not have this talk page watchlisted. The article this related to was olfactory reference syndrome (see below). Thank you for your response. Lesion ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This submission is relevant to your Project. Please review it if you have the time. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one, although it might be WP:OR.

discuss... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Givens (2nd nomination) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, psychologists. This old abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? It appears to have references. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sycophancy#Merge with Sycophant?. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A psychiatry Professor has offered to review olfactory reference syndrome and body dysmorphic disorder. The latter article could use some expansion first if anyone is in interested in this topic. Lesion ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 09:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: Should this old Afc submission be kept, or deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

is taking place here: Talk:Woozle_effect#Notability, dear psychologists. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 13:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Psychologists, please join the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've recently come across several newly created articles (last 3 months or so) that might benefit from a good deal of scrutiny and possibly cleanup for tone and accuracy. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gender differences in human memory
• Human mating strategies
• Developmental regression

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kestenberg Movement Profile. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: Is this a notable therapy? Should this abandoned Afc submission be kept or let go? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Impossible object, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

• Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

3D Blindness could use some expert attention, and I think this is the most appropriate project to deal with it. Apart from needing to be totally rewritten, I am not sure of its notability, and whether it should be merged (I rather suspect it may be a neologism and perhaps goes by another name, though it seems to something different than Binocular vision) or deleted. It also seems to have been written by one of the authors of a reference.-- Derek Andrews ( talk) 12:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a merger tag to compersion. I suggested it be merged with Polyamory. I don't believe the compersion page warrants its own page because it appears to be a neologism. If it can't be merged I think it should be nominated for AfD. If anyone can take a look and help out, it would be appreciated. mikeman67 ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Repressed memory article is in a great need of work. The article is tagged for factual accuracy (since 2012), neutrality and lede. Some discussion here about how to improve it:

• Talk:Repressed_memory#Tagged_a_POV_issue

-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neil Mercer. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reaching and Grasping during Infancy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger W. Schvaneveldt. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross W. Greene, Ph.D.. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject: I think the evaluative diversity page may be psychology related (in the category of moral psychology). Could someone please review it? Langchri ( talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the quality but I've added it to the scope of this Wikiproject. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that a number of articles have material at the bottom that looks like it is supposed to be in a template, but is free-floating. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory&action=edit&section=11. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting and fixable. Can you point to more examples? MartinPoulter ( talk) 09:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced all the instances with a new template, {{ Personality theories}}. I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Templates MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I am a student at Rice University, updating the article Homelessness and mental health as a subset of my Human Development in Global and Local Communities course! Though the current article is a stub, it provides a useful framework for expansion. I plan to supplement this article with the historical, medical and social context of homelessness and mental health. I will primarily focus on the United States, yet I hope to expand on the international context of this issue. After overviewing large eras of legislative reform, I will expand on prevalent mental illnesses seen with the US homeless. I will also describe the social conditions that provoke or compound mental illness for the homeless. I will then overview societal consequences, such as incarceration and chronic homelessness. Lastly, I will expand on modern government and NGO responses. I’m excited to expand on this page, and I would love any input and suggestions as I work on it for the next couple months! Thanks!

jeanygina ( talk) jeanygina 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying to you, @ Regina Leslie:. What you describe sounds excellent and exactly what we'd like to see. This is a valuable topic to create free knowledge about. I look forward to seeing your improvements. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The author of this article bypassed AfC, and as such this article wasn't reviewed properly. I'm unaware if this particular professional passes WP:ACADEMIC. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 11:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@ FoCuSandLeArN: Thanks for bringing this (and the other articles) to the attention of the Wikiproject: none of the sources are about the subject and the subject's career does not seem particularly remarkable. I think this is a straightforward case of an article failing notability. Do you want to nominate for deletion, or should I? MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Go right ahead, as I think it's better when it comes from a knowledgeable editor. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've nominated at AFD, just to be sure, though a PROD might have been appropriate. I've also put a notice for the author. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

— Cirt ( talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Family estrangement. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The word engram is a definition in college dictionaries as a mental condition that happens when a person is unconscious (the subconscious takes over at that point) and negative images are formed in the subconscious and stays there because the subconscious doesn't interpret good from bad or negative from positive; it simply takes in the information and hold on to it. For example, if a boy gets hit by a car and is knocked unconscious and people are standing around him making statements like "is he dead," or "he's not moving," or "I don't think he's going to make it." The list of negativities goes on; now I'm going to focus on the negative statements I just mentioned. When the boy pulls through he has no recollection of statements being made around him because he was unconscious. If he is playing football and is trying to catch a pass, a mental thought may come from his subconscious to his conscious mind and say "I don't think he's going to make it," and then he drops the pass. Another example; if someone gets arthritis, it could very easily come from the engram statement "he's not moving," because the subconscious feeds the mind and the mind controls the body. Engrams is simply a word that was looked up in the dictionary and through research with different cultures by Ron L. Hubbard (founder of Dianetics Foundation)and broken down into simple terminology in his books, but he tried to use semantics (a way of putting his words to persuade others)to make readers think that his "auditing" sessions was the only way to get deep enough into the time frame of the mind (going back into puberty)in order to catch engrams and erase them all the way up to the present time of the minds functioning,which is the here and now. Scientology should not be a source of discussion when talking about engrams because the term engrams is a true fact (otherwise it would not be defined in the dictionary) that was not created by Scientology. The main focus should be on "how do you rid yourself or someone else of engrams?" Many people (I have met)laugh about engrams, or play it down, or they simply don't understand it. Well, that means many people don't understand why they can't be successful or why they have a hard time saying no, and end up saying yes. Many people don't understand where depression comes from and why they have a hard time trying to do the right things in life instead of doing drugs and committing crimes. Engrams would probably be a natural discussion when patient's visit psychiatrist's, counselor's, and psychoanalyst's; the questions will always remain, how many professionals in the medical field really understand engrams and how to eradicate them from the minds of patient's? Continued education, all the way up to a doctorate degree, is one way of eradicating engrams because a strong mind is built up through that process. A successful marriage with kids, is another way to build a strong mind because it brings positive thoughts that strengthen the mind. Having friends and family members that you enjoy being around is another way to build a strong mind, and picking out a career you enjoying doing and being successful at it, is another way of building a strong mind. All that is easily said than done; it would be up to a therapist to explain and guide a patient through that process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.241.73.247 ( talk) 10:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"unicorn" is defined in the dictionary. According to this argument, that means that unicorns are real. MartinPoulter ( talk) 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, psychology experts. This abandoned Afc submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved, or should it be let go? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a notable topic, but ought to be a section in Markov models rather than its own article. MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible idea; I can't do it myself because of lack of knowledge in this field. I have delayed its deletion for six months in case someone at this project would like to transfer some of the information. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am also a student at Rice University and I am planning on contributing an article on autism in developing nations. This contribution is planned in collaboration with my Human Development in Global and Local Communities course as part of my minor. Currently there is a wealth of information about autism in the West, but there is hardly any information about developmental disorders in developing nations at all on Wikipedia. I believe that leaving this information out of Wikipedia means ignoring a vast number of children in the world who have autism. The information in my article will help to equalize information presented about autism from a cursory Internet search by explaining that people with autism exist in more places than only westernized nations. Diagnosis, treatment, and perceptions about autism are very different in developing nations than in the west, and I plan on explaining these differences based on scholarly research. I will focus on different areas of development, including Africa, South America, and Asia. Finally, I will explain the challenges that researchers often face when studying autism in developing nations. Any input or suggestions will be extremely welcome as I embark on this project!

Allisonshields ( talk) 04:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, and Wikipedia needs a global perspective on topics like autism, but I have a reservation about the title. "Developing nations" is arguably an outdated term: see Hans Rosling's talk about how "developing nations" is a term that no longer reflects a real distinction. On Wikipedia we use " Global South" but even that gets attacked as prejudicial and patronising. It's hard to think of a title that captures what you aim to do Cultural responses to autism? Global perceptions of autism?. An article can be renamed after being created, but I suggest starting with one that avoids the term "developing nations". Thanks for asking us, @ Allisonshields: and sorry for the delay in replying. MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And now we have an article on Global perceptions of autism - a fascinating topic. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychologists: Is this a notable professor? I couldn't find a Google Scholar report, but she appears to have been a department head. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Anne Delong: I think it is a notable topic and ready for namespace (always good to have more articles about women scientists!) Not sure how to do that without disrupting the AFC process though. Can I submit it then accept my own submission? MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MartinPoulter. I'm glad that you were able to recognize this as a notable professor. I moved it to mainspace, but it was really too soon, because when I looked more carefully I saw that it needed serious editing. I removed some duplication and promotional sentences, and added some more independent sources. It's better now, but it would be good to find sources to verify some of her appointments. Along the way I learned some interesting facts about aging! Thanks for your help, and I'd appreciate it if you or someone from this project would check out the article and make any further appropriate changes, since my education in psychology is sadly outdated. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for creating work for you, Anne. I've added an infobox to the article and done a bit of clean-up. I'm amazed there isn't a Cognitive aging article. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't complaining about your reply; I was just annoyed with myself for not fixing it first before moving it instead of the other way around. The infobox is a good addition. I agree about the cognitive aging article; likely the reason it's not there is that those like me who are most interested in this topic keep forgetting about it.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A wikipedia editor "Livingmegler" has contributed to grief. Livingmegler's first edits were to an article for creation about Susan Anderson (the majority of all their edits). In the Grief article, a two paragraph section has been added, and three included references are authored by Susan Anderson (one may be mispelled "Sisan"). I suspect self promotion. When searching Google for abandonment recovery, a seeming key concept of the paragraphs added, it is difficult to find any summary of the technique or techniques, and the references often seem to be referring to a book or books available for purchase. Gzuufy ( talk) 05:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of self-promotion, could someone also look at the Courage article, please? The section in question is As a strength in psychology. I posted this concern earlier too, and on the Talk page of the article, and someone added tags, but the problem still remains - that section still references a single book from 2004 ten times. FireflySixtySeven ( talk) 05:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Psychology,

I am a 3rd year university student and I am editing one of your articles, Social Penetration Theory for my assignment entitled Psychology of Internet Behaviour. I am editing the section of breadth and depth of social penetration. It is alright if I could update that section with information from the 8th edition of the Communication Theory by Em Griffin?

I appreciate any feedback to this query. Thanks -- Rosiesievers20 ( talk) 11:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Rosiesievers20: Hi and thanks for your query. Please go ahead. That section is badly in need of citations to reliable sources. And feel free to expand or correct the text that's there. It's an interesting topic, but there's lots that needs to be done to the article. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it. I uploaded my edits on the page for you to have a look at. If you see anything that might need changing, could you let me know?---- Rosiesievers20 ( talk) 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internalizing Disorder. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article reads like an step-by-step manual for psychiatry students, rife with didactic prompts like "Does the story hold up? What model are you working with?" I'd take the axe to most of the sections myself but I'd prefer someone with more knowledge in the subject intervene. Thanks --Animalparty-- ( talk) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: the tone is very unencyclopedic and the citation formats are all over the place. Grammar is sloppy as well. Go ahead and be bold. MartinPoulter ( talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that the article is up for deletion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 18:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

— Cirt ( talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk:family estrangement for convenience.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of discussion moved to talk:victim blaming since it was originally routed from there to here to answer a specific question. Seabreezes1 ( talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. I am willing to give it a serious pruning if someone with access to academic sources can find some reliable sources. Or should it just be let go? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the current articles listed in the category of "Top-Importance". Many of these obviously DO NOT belong there. And perhaps there are some articles that are not listed as "Top-Importance" but should be.

• Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• Behavior
• Behavioural sciences
• Clinical psychology
• Cognitive dissonance
• Cognitive psychology
• Counseling psychology
• Curiosity
• Developmental psychology
• Educational psychology
• Emotion
• Evolutionary psychology
• Experience
• Forensic psychiatry
• Sigmund Freud
• Happiness
• Health psychology
• History of psychology
• Homosexuality
• Humanistic psychology
• Intelligence
• Major depressive disorder
• Memory
• Mental disorder
• Mental health
• Mind
• Neurolinguistics
• Neuropsychology
• Personality psychology
• Psychiatry
• Psychoanalysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychologist
• Psychology
• Psychotherapy
• Sex life
• Sexual orientation
• Sleep
• Sleep disorder
• Social psychology
• Social science
• Suicide
• Time

Now some of these obviously belong here. "Psychology" for one. the "History of psychology" is clearly another. "Mind" and "Behavior" are also obviously of top importance, (though perhaps mental process should be added to the list of top importance.

General branches of psychology seem to be of top-importance as well, (e.g., Developmental psychology, social psychology, Biological psychology --- the latter of which is not on the list). Some like "Forensic Psychiatry" may be of High Importance, but strikes me as a bit to specific to be of "Top Importance".

"Time"? "Suicide"? "Sex life"? No.

Perhaps "Top Importance" should match the subcategories of Category:Psychology, (though some of those most general subcategories don't belong there either, like "Humor research".

EPM ( talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

At a practical level people don't really pay too much attention to those ratings. Feel free to change any as seems appropriate to you. Looie496 ( talk) 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment-- from an outsider POV here, shouldn't suicide definitely be top importance for this project? This is the perhaps the worst prognosis that psych conditions can have? Lesion ( talk) 17:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lesion, i.e., Suicide should remain a Top priority, for the very important reason he or she articulated. ... Here are my thoughts on articles that we might remove from the Top list:

Definitely Not a Top list topic: Forensic psychiatry - if anything, it should be forensic psychology, although I agree that forensic psychology should not be in the Top list either (and I am a forensic psychologist); Neurolinguistics; Psycholinguistics; Sex life.

Probably Not a Top list topic: Curiosity; Homosexuality - important, but not necessarily Top - Sexuality should be Top; Major depressive disorder (specific disorders should not be Top); Sleep disorder; Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; Time.

Neutral, but not clear why they are Top: Psychiatry; Psychoanalysis; Sigmund Freud. Mark D Worthen PsyD 20:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've demoted some articles as a result of this discussion. Just wanted to say that Psychology is a study of human beings and what they do, not primarily a study of disorders or "psych conditions". MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also as a result of this discussion, I've done some clean-up of the top level of Category:Psychology: alphabetic ordering, moving some articles to sub-categories and so on. Always more to be done, of course. MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've downgraded Sigmund Freud from "top" to "high", but my edit was reverted, and there isn't a clear consensus here, so it looks like we need to have the discussion.

Generations ago, Freud would have been top priority for psychology, but a reflection of modern academic psychology (rather than "pop" psychology) would definitely not put Freud as central to the discipline. It is now possible to study psychology at university with barely a mention of Freud, or read a introductory psychology book which only mentions Freud to say that some of his ideas are not longer in vogue. Freud is still an extremely highly-cited author, but you'll probably find he's more central to other disciplines like critical theory than to psychology.

No other person is listed as "top" importance for psychology, though many are "High" importance, so this special treatment at least stands in need of justification. Even enormously influential, highly-cited psychologists who advanced psychological science are usually "Mid". By downgrading Freud from "top", we can restrict the top importance level to the genuinely core topics, and send a signal that this Wikiproject is about scientific psychology, not popular conceptions about psychology, or an out-of-date conception.

User:Almanacer's rationale for replacing the Top rating was that psychoanalysis also has a top importance rating. I think we should also discuss whether this should be the case. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Psychologist, the journal of the British Psychological Society has devoted two issues exclusively, and unprecedentedly, to Freud and his work - December 2000 and September 2006 (available online).  I think this speaks for itself, but to emphasise the renewed contemporary interest in Freud's work I quote the following from the 2006 issue:

"with the  emergence of neuroscience as the organising paradigm psychology, the subtlety of his reflections about the workings of the mind are finding exciting new echoes... aspects of modern cutting-edge psychology appeared still to articulate well century-old Freudian discoveries"  Brian Rock and Peter Fonargy "Freud's Influence: Personal and Professional Perspectives" The Psychologist Vol 19 Pt 9, Sept 2006 Almanacer ( talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about listing Freud as top importance; the fact that the vast majority of his theories (not just some) have been discredited is definitely something to keep in mind. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Freud should be listed as top importance for historic reasons. You might be right that most of Freud's theories have been discredited, but it isn't our job as editors to make that determination. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)and

FYI The BPS article. Brian Rock; Psychoanalyst with the British Psychoanalytic Society. Peter Fogarty: Chief Executive of the Anna Freud Centre. "collaboration between the British Psychological and the British Psychoanalytical Societies." Sighola5 ( talk) 22:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article of fluff, synth, and essay stuff. It is in desperate need of secondary, reliable sources. Would love someone familiar with topic could rebuild some of the article. Before and after can be found here. Thank you. EvergreenFir ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Hello psychology experts. This old AfC submission is either about some kind of psychological testing, or maybe about measuring gravel in the space program, but in any case it's unintelligible to me. Is this a notable topic, or should it be allowed to fade away as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Anne Delong: You're doing heroic work rescuing these drafts. From the many references to scholarly literature, that definitely looks like a notable topic. There are problems with the language being over-technical, but that's a reason to tag it, not to refuse it entry to Wikipedia. MartinPoulter ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have postponed its deletion for six months. I hope someone who can understand it will undertake to simplify it and make sure that it isn't essay-like. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Research in a clinical study showed that the majority of the participants with the condition had solid family backgrounds as well successful professional lives. Half of the patients were of higher intelligence level. ^[1] This indicates the Diogenes syndrome does not primarily affect those experiencing poverty or those who had traumatic childhood experiences.

References:

Kfrey ( talk) 15:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You had added an extra {{reflist}}; I removed that and the article now looks fine. FireflySixtySeven ( talk) 07:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Marion Solomon. The submission is relevant to this WikiProject. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Metaphor Therapy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 23:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The first one has been declined, but the second is still awaiting the opinion of an expert from this project. Anyone? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A number of articles about theories in psychology and/or learning are using this referent for introducing their subject or some other first and important component of it. Although its meaning can be considered self-evident to many it may also be perceived as refering to some other undefined abstraction. In other words, undefined it can be used to mask the irrelevance of its object, or introduce some level of ambiguity in a discussion following it. It does not seem that a simple Wiktionary link would solve that question. -- Askedonty ( talk) 07:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The referenced Wikipedia article which appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_in_Action_Inventory_of_Strengths

contains in the Criticism section the quoted text below.

I have no psychological training or education beyond college Psych 101, but I am an attorney and have some analytical skills.

I recently completed the StrengthsFinder online assessment pursuant to a mandate from the corporation I work for that all senior management do so.

At the conclusion of the exercise, and after seeing my results, I commented to our HR manager that I was not sure of the benefit of a program that asks people to rate themselves using obvious criteria that allows the individual to choose the persona they fancy themselves as presenting to the world.

She assured me there was a great deal of science behind the program.

I had doubts, so I went as usual to Wikipedia to find an objective point of view.

The text quoted below captures my reaction exactly.

However, there is no reference to any authority -- only "Citations Needed."

I just now created a Wikipedia account to execute this post, so I am not sure of the proper etiquette for how to proceed. So, I'll take a risk and just ask for what I'd like to have. I'd like to have the author of the text contact me by e-mail at grahovac8@gmail.com and provide me some authority, credentials or other credible basis for the text. Alternatively, I would like for someone to add citations to the text.

I believe my company is about to embark on a major senior management exercise based on these assessments, and I would like them to have the benefit of any alternative points of view that are out there in the professional psychology community. _________________________________________________________________________________ "Additionally, the major limitation to the overall validity of the scale is its very nature of being a self-reported subjective ranking of positive traits. There is no verifiable proof that a person is able to self assess traits within themselves. This is different from people being aware that they have psychological or psychiatric problems that cause them distress that are evaluated by "negative" scales such as ones used for grading depression or anxiety in the more traditional psychiatric setting.[citation needed] Mentally healthy human beings have an innate desire to possess positive traits and to think of themselves as a good people. This innate "positivity bias" is unavoidable. Positive psychology scales are particularly prone to this bias. For example, in a question that would ask for an agreement with the following statement "I am curious about the way things work" most people would answer yes with a high degree of agreement since most people think of themselves as having a curious mind whether they truly do or do not possess one simply due to the fact that we recognize that having a curious mind is a positive trait valued by society and ourselves. In this way many of the positive psychology scales are not truly evaluative of the traits the person possesses but more an assessment of the traits they desire to possess and see in an idealized vision of themselves. Greater score on any one component does not necessarily mean the person has the trait but very likely means the person highly values the trait and wants to see that trait in themselves. It is illogical to think that people would score themselves low on positive traits such as kindness, forgiveness, fairness to others, etc. What a person thinks about themselves regarding having the trait is very likely different if the trait was observed or reported by others. Basically, most people think that they are better than average yet that is not scientifically possible, i.e. more than 50% of people think they are better than the 50th percentile in any given positive trait. [citation needed]"

Grahovac2014 ( talk) 03:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: I am not sure if this is the correct place to report this old abandoned Afc submission. The user accidentally submitted it blank, and then added a large amount of text, but didn't resubmit. Is this a notable topic? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another old draft that was never submitted at AfC. Should this one be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria ( talk) 14:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For those who might want to follow or comment, the discussion is at Talk:Personality test#International Personality Item Pool. 75.177.156.78 ( talk) 00:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could some editors, with access to academic journals, take a critical look at Big Mind Process#Clinical trial? I've been reading the "trial", and think it's rubbish, making bold statements based on ivalid use of tests and invalid comparisons. To my opinion, this "trial" is being used as an advertisement-tool, and I'd like to know how other, non-involved editors, think about this. See also Talk:Big Mind Process#Clinical trial. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, psychologists. Here's one more abandoned AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? It appears to have a number of references. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all worth creating an article for this obscure topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 18:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay; it's gone now. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Before it goes, is there anything there that should be migrated to Two-factor theory of emotion? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:London School of Differential Psychology for discussion here. I'll be honest... I have no idea what to do with the category, but I do know it needs some attention. For your assistance, you will have my eternal gratitude—or, at least, my temporary appreciation. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fellow editors, I have heavily edited and polished the short stub of an article about Antilocution, only to find conflicting information located on the article about Allport's Scale (in which antilocution is the first degree of measurement). Allport's Scale does not appear to be widely accepted, but there were a few accredited sources on Google Books that make references to Allport's work in the 1950's and 60's.

I know I should change the antilocution section on the Allport's Scale article, and I am wondering if this calls for a merge. I am a fairly new editor and I do not know how to go about moving all the citations and such. Could somebody please guide me in this endeavor, or better yet, merge Antilocution into the Allport's Scale page?

Thanks!

Retroscope ( talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, I see a discussion of the project to expand vital articles coverage in psychology, and I thought I should draw the attention of WikiProject Psychology participants to that effort. The talk page of the expansion project provides sections for discussion proposed psychology articles to be added to the list of vital articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

One editor, apparently uninformed, has begun renaming psychological tests without regard to what is accurate, even going so far as to move entire articles to the incorrectly titled test. For example see Revised autism diagnostic interview. I can fix the text in the articles, but would someone be kind enough to move the articles back to their correct titles? Thanks. 75.177.156.78 ( talk) 15:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a proposed merger for the stub Program of Assertive Community Treatment into the larger article Assertive Community Treatment. An IP anon is opposed to a redirect. I would like some comments / third opinion from WikiProject Psychology regarding the proposal at Talk:Assertive community treatment. NAMI describes the two terms saying, "There is no difference between the PACT (Program of Assertive Community Treatment) model and the ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) model. Not only does NAMI use PACT and ACT interchangeably, but PACT or ACT is also known by other names across the country." [5] The other point of view is that they are not the same, but different enough to require separate articles. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 22:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obesophobia Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Psychology experts: is Draft:Senior Peer Counseling notable? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

The good article nominations in psychology include a nomination of IQ classification, which was greatly expanded about a year ago. Your help in reviewing the latest article from this project to be nominated for good article consideration is greatly appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The good article nomination process asks for patience on the part of nominators, so I will continue to be patient, but I wanted to remind editors who work on this project that the IQ classification article, within the scope of this project, is one of the good article nominations in psychology, so if this topic is of interest to you, I'd be glad to communicate with you about sources during an article review. Thanks for your kind help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just warning you that Psychopedagogy was almost entirely copy/pasted from a book chapter. After removing the copyright violation, there are only three sentences left. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started two requests for comments at Talk:Madeleine McCann. 159.92.1.1 ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they are located at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Did you mean to post this to WikiProject Psychology? I'm unclear on the connection to psychology. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Introspection was tagged with the {{ WikiProject Autism}} tag. I read through the article and it doesn't seem related to autism so I removed the tag but was reverted.

Does this project agree with me? If so, please removed the tag. Parabolooidal ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(Apologies for the cross-post.) Introducing myself for those of you I haven’t interacted with before — I’m LiAnna Davis, and I’m in charge of communications for the Wiki Education Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada. One of my goals this year is to create a series of discipline-specific support materials for students and instructors participating in our program. Given the challenges some psychology students have had in the past, I’m starting with psychology, and I need some help. I’ve created a page in my userspace explaining more about what I’m trying to do, and then added an outline of the preliminary content I’d like to include.

Since psychology is not my specialty, I would really like to get feedback from experienced content contributors in psychology to make sure I’m providing accurate advice to students. I’m looking for several people who’ve contributed content to psychology articles to review the advice and offer feedback — please help if you can! I need all comments by Monday, July 14. Please leave comments on the talk page rather than here so they’re all in the same place. Thanks! -- LiAnna (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft is ready for review. I'd like any additional feedback by July 23, so we can get it off to the designer and get it printed before the start of the term. Thanks. -- LiAnna (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 04:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I just uploaded the designed file for the new psychology 4-page brochure to Commons: File:Editing Wikipedia articles on psychology.pdf. I welcome any final suggestions in the next few days before we print them! Please add comments on this talk page. -- LiAnna (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 08:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

[[:Category:WikiProject Psychology|Autism]] Is this part of the Psychology Project? Parabolooidal ( talk) 02:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.-- Sage (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please investigate the value and validity of this model, particularly as to the claim that it supersedes the Hierarchical model ?

As far as I can tell, 'Attachment theory' per se is not a successor to Maslows' Hierarchy of Needs model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

While Maslow's model attempts to place a set of developmental stages relative to a person's age and intellectual and emotional growth; Attachment Theory does nothing of the sort.

Attachment theory is at best pedagogical focused with only a small aspect dedicated to development in later adult stages. It says nothing about the internal dynamics of a person's psychosocial development relative to their experiential settings.

The links offered to support the claim over Attachment Theory border on the self-serving. They are highly debatable; particularly with regards to claim that it has replaced Maslow's Hierarchical model.

I should add, that I am a trained educator (Androgogy) with a background in Educational Psychology.

Please consider removing or deleting the reference to 'Attachment Theory' in its present location.

At best, it could be inserted in the criticism area of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.46.98 ( talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have trouble understanding what you are saying. Which Wikipedia article are you criticizing, and which part of it do you think ought to be changed? Best regards, Looie496 ( talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Philip Zimbardo states:

Zimbardo attacked the BBC study, making claims that something must have been wrong since the results were different and even claiming they lied about how they selected who was assigned to being a prisoner or a guard.[9]

The article cites Zimbardo's commentary here which is referring to the BBC prison study found here. It seems to me that "something must have been wrong since the results were different" is an oversimplification of Zimbardo's criticism of the BBC prison study, however, this is beyond my area of expertise so I was hoping someone here might be able to take a look at it. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 05:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Location. While I am not sold on the validity of Zimbardo's criticisms myself, I do agree that the wiki-content you are talking about is an unfair characterization. In fact, the entire section has some serious errors in it and I am not convinced that this topic belongs in this biographical article at all. I have boldy opted for removal at this stage. Cheers Andrew ( talk) 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a great start to an article. In order to best communicate oneself, we should stray away from passive voice. Also, I found that the use of BIRGing instead of writing out "basking in reflected glory" chopped up the sentences and made it harder for me to read. If we eliminate the acronyms, I think it will read smoother. I also think that reworking some of the sentences to take a more analytic approach would improve the article. The applications section is somewhat limited, adding a new variety of examples should help enhance the reader's understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWilkerson ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It says that this wikipedia article includes a list of references but the sources are unclear. Perhaps the person who wrote the page can go and double check to make sure the references are still valid and are cited in a correct format.

It also says that this article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay.   A suggestion is to avoid any  usage of words or phrases that indicate that such as I, think, me, probably, etc.  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
JeheliO (
talk • 
contribs) 19:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Everyday life, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Dear psychology experts: Here's another of those old AfC submissions that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be saved and improved? Right now the title redirects to Mirror test. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: This old draft will soon be deleted. Is this a notable theory that should become an article? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I nominated Wilhelm Wundt for inclusion in the level 4 vital articles (ie the 10,000 most important articles on Wikipedia) in the psychologists category. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Psychology

We would need at least one more vote within the next 10 days or so for inclusion (assuming there is no opposition).

Cheers. Arnoutf ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think canvassing for votes is a bad idea, but it would be great idea to have more participation by members of the Psych prokject in establishing which psychology articles are vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: I have made a start at removing some of the jargon from this draft article by creating a new lead paragraph. While I have some training in this area, it was a long time ago, and I may have inadvertently introduced error. I have placed my suggested lead paragraph below the original one. Can someone who is familiar with this topic please comment? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is Chesivoirzr and I am doing a Wikipedia project where I have to edit articles on Developmental Psychology. My goal is to make valuable contributions to editing Wikipedia articles on Developmental Psychology. I would like to get help on the project. Could anybody give me suggestions for Developmental Psychology articles to edit? How could I improve the Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesivoirzr ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found a few pages, including the Psychology page itself using Citizens Commission on Human Rights websites as a source. I've removed them and have done a crude search on Google for other pages on Wikipedia that use them. I've removed the ones on the English language Wikipedia, but there's a few in other languages that do. Please ensure that no pages use CCHR (or any other fringe group) as a source. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I lose track of the names of all those cover groups for fringe activism. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of assistance. The wording of the article comes across as a personal essay. I suggest refraining from using words such as: you, they, and instead use words such as: one, the participants. Also the definition and the example are paradoxes. I suggest for that to be corrected or be defined more directly. Lastly, the second paragraph I found the experiment to be very confusing to follow and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeheliO ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am very new to Wikipedia editing. I only just discovered the existence of your project. I drafted an article in my user space about a section of the Canadian Psychological Association: /info/en/?search=Draft:Section_on_Psychoanalytic_and_Psychodynamic_Psychology,_Canadian_Psychological_Association Later on I notice a page about Divisions of the American Psychological association: /info/en/?search=Divisions_of_the_American_Psychological_Association with a suggestion that it be merged into the APA page. So I was wondering if maybe my rejected article might be acceptable if it were merged into the CPA page? Thanks for considering this. PhilPsych ( talk) 15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

what do we do with it - discuss at talk page. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Academia. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is covered under Wikipedia psychology and really needs some more editors. Currently I have a dispute with an editor who sees EMDR (the eye component at least) as quackery, the dispute centers on the insistence that skeptic literature (eg. http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skepdic.com/ www.skeptic.com ) is acceptable for use as citations. I don't agree with this, I think peer reviewed psychology and psychiatry journals are preferable. Especially considering much the same information/arguments found in the skeptic literature are available in peer reviewed journals. Of course the mainstream view of EMDR is that it is a scientifically validated treatment 'EMDR is recognised as having the highest level of research evidence for the treatment of PTSD by the Australian Psychological Society (EBPI Review 2010).' http://www.psychology.org.au/Events/EventView.aspx?EventID=10848 You may agree or disagree regarding the sources but this article really would benefit from having more active editors with a psychology background, considering the treatment was created by a psychologist and almost all the research and discussion on it has been published in psychology journals. Thanks Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 09:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the direct citation for the "(EBPI Review 2010)" mentioned in the event calendar link? And what do professional societies of psychologists in other countries say about EMDR? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

https://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Evidence-Based-Psychological-Interventions.pdf On page 11 footnote it states EMDR has Level 1 evidence (the highest level)

American Psychological Association website http://www.apa.org/pubs/videos/4310764.aspx 'EMDR is an integrative psychotherapy designated by the American Psychiatric Association as highly effective and empirically supported'

From the article: 'EMDR is now recommended as an effective treatment for trauma in the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[8] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[9] SAMSHA,[10] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[11] and the World Health Organization.[12]' EMDR is accepted as a validated scientific treatment for PTSD by numerous national boards of psychology eg. The American Psychology Association, the Australian Psychological Society, the British Psychological Society, the Canadian Psychological Association etc. That said there are still controversies about the treatment as discussed in journal articles.

There are many good sources already in the article including meta-analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of EMDR , and journal articles discussing the controversies, they just have not been well summarized. The article is just not very good and really doesn't need the addition of poor (skeptic) sources.

I'm surprised it is considered a low importance article on the project's importance scale. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 23:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel the percentile range presented is inaccurate. /info/en/?search=Seasonal_affective_disorder

Old Post: Although experts were initially skeptical, this condition is now recognized as a common disorder, with its prevalence in the U.S. ranging from 1.4% in Florida to 9.7% in New Hampshire. ^[1]

References:

New Post: Although experts were initially skeptical, this condition is now recognized as a common disorder. ^[1] SAD's prevalence in the U.S. ranges from 1.4% in Florida to 9.9% in Alaska. ^[2]

References:

Bradleyseuntjens ( talk) 01:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Better to post this on the article talk page. This 2013 book is a superior source to a 7 year old newspaper article so I don't see any problem, it conforms to WP:MEDRS. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd ( talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, psychologists. This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this worth keeping and improving? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has two articles that appear to me to be duplicative in topic: ‪Brief psychotherapy and ‪Brief psychoanalytic therapy‬. The first has been here for some years; the second is a brand new article by a new user. Neither has inline citations. I am wondering if these should be merged, and the "psychoanalytic" one redirected to the "psychotherapy" one. I don't know enough about the field to make that decision, or to do the merge myself, so I am bringing it here for your consideration. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but as I understand these terms, psychotherapy is a general term that could refer to therapy following the approach/perspective of any of the schools of psychotherapy; psychoanalytic therapy‬ is a particular kind of therapy that uses psychoanalysis. Therefore, these articles aren't exactly the same; brief psychoanalytic therapy‬ is one kind of brief psychotherapy. FireflySixtySeven ( talk) 22:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, psychologists. I posted about this old draft at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apparent Movement, but I should have remembered from my undergraduate psych classes that perception stuff belongs here. Please join the discussion there if you are interested.— Anne Delong ( talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

The Wiki Education Foundation has gone ahead with some changes to the student training. Of particular interest is the addition of a new section intended for students who may touch medical articles, including psychology.

This section of the training is now live, here.

Thanks to BlueRasberry for contributing to this project, and we are, as always, looking for further suggestions and feedback!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Psychecological science could use some critical eyes. I'm not convinced it's a distinct field rather than just a neologism. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Databases_for_psychologists#Databases_for_psychologists. Thx. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_30#Category:American_Psychological_Association_academic_journals. Thx. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing Imagined contact hypothesis and it is currently on hold pending changes. Since the primary author, a student, hasn't edited since Nov 2014, I am posting here to see if one of you would be willing to make the corrections necessary. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago I proposed merging Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences). There was some discussion of it, but not a large response. It's probably safe to merge them, and I will if no one else responds soon, but I figured I would bring it to the attention of anyone who is interested, so I am posting notices on the related WikiProject talk pages. Cheers,   Discant X 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Interested parties please read and comment on the discussion about that the scope of the article Depression (mood) on it's talk page, section "scope". (sorry I do not know how to link to a section on a talk page). Jim Derby ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Magen and I am an undergraduate student at Rice University. This semester, as part of an upper-level course on human development, I am interested in creating an article on mental health in the American prison system. I can't find any information on this topic currently on Wikipedia except for a section within the Prison Abolition Movement article, which, accordingly, is framed in relation to that political stance. This article would address the prevalence of mental illness within the prison system (according to one study done by the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are currently more people with mental illnesses in jails and prisons than in hospitals), proposed causes of this prevalence/its relation to deinstitutionalization, the psychiatric care inmates receive while incarcerated, the different experiences of inmates with mental illnesses vs. inmates who do not have mental illnesses, and advocacy surrounding this issue/proposed reforms. I have identified these topics through a review of the relevant research, and I plan to draw on scholarly sources available to me through my university, including journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior, American Psychologist, Psychiatric Services. The Journal of Law and Criminology, American Journal of Public Health, etc. If you are interested in knowing more about my current bibliography, feel free to ask. This is only my second contribution to Wikipedia (my first was "Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States," which received a B-Class rating), so I am more than open to feedback, ideas, cautions, etc. My most immediate question is what the article should be titled. This is, of course, related to community norms about talking about mental illness. Which is more accepted on Wikipedia: "person with a mental illness," "persona with a mental disorder," "mentally ill person," "mentally disordered person," or something else? Depending on what is accepted, the title of my article might be something like "Mentally ill people in United States prisons," modeled after the existing article "LGBT people in prison." What do you think? Thank you so much for your time and feedback. I hope this posting finds you well! Magenstat ( talk) 08:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the articles Domestic violence — Gender stereotypes , of interest to this wikiproject, were selected a while ago to be reviewed by external experts. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the articles before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated experts for review (for details, please see each articles' talk page). Any notes and remarks written by the external experts will be made available on the articles' talk pages under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) ( talk) 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A Request for Comments is in progress at Talk: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience concerning whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in that list; (2) included in that list, but with a notation that it is so categorized by a minority of scholars; (3) excluded from the list. Your participation in the RFC is welcome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem ( talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a draft for the surprisingly article-less topic of guessing ( Guessing redirects to Güssing, a small town in Austria, Guess is a disambiguation page). My research suggests that there is a great deal of unspoken psychological activity that goes into making a guess, so I thought it would make sense to ask for input here. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it meet WP:Notability? So far the article does not meet the "significant attention from independent sources" requirement. I tagged the article, but sb removed the tag without taking action to fix this issue. -- 151.75.1.229 ( talk) 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts: I came across this disambiguation page, which has two items. Is this a useful page, or should it be deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a draft article which could be a replacement for this page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Murray’s Theory of Personality. It needs some work, though. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there is currently a draft Draft:Getting lost that has been declined on the grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (implying that the topic is too trivial to have an article). However, I disagree with the reviewer's assessment of that. Therefore I'm seeking for extra opinions on whether it is suitable or not. Thanks! Darylgolden^{( talk)} Ping when replying 06:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, and capable of substantial expansion with information about the increased incidence of "getting lost" with advancing age and the onset of dementia, and the frequent occurrence of getting lost in dreams. bd2412 T 04:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe this would be suitable for a section in Orientation (mental). 67.188.230.128 ( talk) 19:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone! My name is Laura and I am new to the Wiki world.

I am currently a student at Virginia Tech, and am double majoring in Biology and Psychology. I am in a class called physiological psychology and for an assignment we must add information to a wiki stub or create a new article on a topic of choice. I decided I would like to add to a stub, and stumbled across one for novelty seeking. I have created some information in my Sandbox and was wondering if there was a way to get your approval before trying to add it to the page. I have copy and pasted it below and I hope it doesn't ruin anything in terms of the formatting.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from someone/all soon!

Laura Giovannoni

Novelty seeking

Lead?

Causes and Effects

Although the exact causes for novelty seeking behaviors is unknown, there may be a link to genetics. Studies have found an area on the Dopamine receptor D4 gene on chromosome 11 that is characterized by several repeats in a particular base sequence. Multiple studies have identified a link to genetics, in particular one conducted by Dr. Benjamin and colleagues, where individuals who had longer alleles of this gene had higher novelty-seeking scores than individuals with the shorter allele ( ^[1]). In another study relating to the gene and financial risk, Dr. Dreber and colleagues found a correlation between increased risk-taking and the DRD4 gene in young males( ^[2]). Although there are studies that support the link between NS and dopaminergic activity via DRD4, there are also studies that do not exhibit a strong correlation. More studies need to be conducted to confirm the importance of DRD4 in novelty seeking.

Dopamine

In addition to potential heredity, novelty seeking behaviors are seen with the modulation of dopamine. The overall effect of dopamine when exposed to a novel stimuli is a mass release of the neurotransmitter in reward systems of the brain including the mesolimbic pathway ( ^[3]). The mesolimbic pathway is active in every type of addiction and is involved with reinforcement. Because of this activation in the brain, NS has been linked to personality disorders as well as substance abuse and other addictive behaviors. DRD4 receptors are highly expressed in areas of the limbic system associated with emotion and cognition.

Relation with age

It is important to note the individual's age with novelty seeking. This behavior will decrease with time, especially as the brains of adolescents and young adults finalize in development. More studies need to be conducted to identify factors of variation including gender, ethnicity, temperament and environment.

References

Responses

I like it, though it meeds some copy-editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been recent massive refactorings of articles egocentrism, obedience (human behavior) and minority influence, at least some of which are in this project's scope. Similar changes to another article, egocentric bias, were reverted by JorisvS with an edit summary of "rv: too many poor-quality edits". I'm therefore drawing attention to these other edits as well, so that you can ensure quality of these articles is not compromised. Regards, Samsara 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The changes to egocentrism were similarly horrible looking (you were quite right to revert that). Those to the other two are not as superficially terrible. Obedience (human behavior) has been shortened very much and part of a quote has been deleted, in all significantly reducing its quality (so I've reverted it too). Yet, minority influence has more content, the "Studies" section has, correctly, been incorporated into the rest of the article, and the removal of the header "Further research" is also quite appropriate. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am interested in adding some significant statistical measures to the dependent personality disorder page. Any feedback is welcome and greatly appreciated. Here is the future added information:

"A 2004 twin study suggests a heritability of .81 for developing dependent personality disorder. Because of this, there is significant evidence that this disorder runs in families. Children and adolescents with a history of anxiety disorders and physical illnesses are more susceptible to acquiring this disorder."

I will cite the textbook of which this information was generated. Here it is: Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2014). Abnormal Psychology (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

I think it is necessary to include statistics on how significant the correlation is between the disorder and its prevalence in families.There is limited information in the article about the topic, so I thought this might help. -- Kpatelzimbabwe ( talk) 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article on implicit cognition is not written to the usual Wikipedia level of clarity, readability, and grammatical correctness. The information in the article may very well be correct and helpful, but it needs to be edited.

Thanks for your comments. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you don't have to register to edit. Feel free to begin the cleanup. It might help the rest of us if you could explain some of the details about your concerns at Talk: Implicit cognition. If you need any help on how to do things around here, place {{ helpme}} on your talk page, or ask me on my talk page. Sundayclose ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to reference conditions that are co-morbid with low frustration tolerance? For example, depression ^[1], Aspberger's syndrome ^[2], and/or ADHD ^[3].

References:

Yogator ( talk) 17:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, everyone,

I see that the main article of this project, Psychology, was nominated once for featured article status in 2007, but didn't gain that status, and is currently listed as a B class article. I wonder who would be interested in focused, top-to-bottom improvement of the article's sources and overall organization and balance so that the article could be listed as a good article? I've nominated this article for consideration in this month's Core contest to improve vital articles, and I would be delighted to work collaboratively with other project participants to ensure that the Psychology article represents the reliable sources accurately and reflects well on this WikiProject. Are you interested in joining in? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Another editor is making very good suggestions for improvements in the Psychology main article, and a third editor is watching the page closely. I invite anyone else interested in the project to take a look at the discussion at the article talk page. I have gathered about half of the references for the article to begin a top-to-bottom reference check of everything that is cited there now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just had the great pleasure of being one of several co-editors who brought the article English language up to good article status, and I think the current status of Psychology is already better than English language had ever been before this month, so I'm inviting all of you who are interested to join in (or look on) as other editors and I push to improve Psychology (which, after all, is the main article for this WikiProject) up to good article status. I've had a good time digging into library resources, both online and in actual physical libraries, to gather reliable secondary sources for improving the article. Feel free to join the fun or to make your constructive suggestions as the article revision continues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello project psychology,

Disclaimers first: I am a complete stranger to psychology, though I know a bit about research in general (and in physics specifically). I checked only archives 6 and 7 in passing for that talk page, feel free to WP:TROUT me if the subject has already been discussed and/or solved.

I came across the AfD for WOOP (scientific strategy) which lead me to mental contrasting and implementation intention, articles for which I would like to see some external review.

Those articles have some issues (for instance, Mental_contrasting#Application is not-very-subtle WP:ADMASQ), but I am wondering whether the whole thing is not WP:UNDUE weight given to the works of Oettingen and Gollwitzer (plus maybe PhD students or close colleagues). The references include maybe 90% of papers where either of the two is author or co-author.

It is not technically a walled garden since those do not link anywhere, but the general idea fits: a specific subdomain of dubious notability with no ingoing or outgoing links (except maybe to very general subjects). I simply cannot tell between a famous subdomain with two world-leading specialists and a crusade by two crazies trying to sell their research/books.

Thank you, Tigraan ( talk) 09:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not a psych-expert and I'm not even a member of this WikiProject (oops), but I read through those articles and their references and we definitely have some sort of a walled garden issue with these, plus the way the articles are written is not quite encyclopedic. Here are the thoughts i expressed in my edit summaries: Mental contrasting: "This article is an advert and mostly sourced from Oettingen's writings"; Implementation intention: "written like an essay; I also suspect that some of the non-Gollwitzer sources don't directly talk about/refer to the topic of this article specifically"; WOOP (scientific strategy): "This article is an advert and primarily sourced from Oettingen and Gollwitzer's writings"; also Talk:Gabriele Oettingen: "I'm not gonna put tags on this article but I think it's slightly advert-like and too many of the supporting refs are primary sources." —  Jeraphine Gryphon ^{( talk)} 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If Peter Gollwitzer and Gabriele Oettingen are "two crazies" as User:Tigraan suspects above, they are certainly fooling a lot of people, as judged by the number of citations of their work on Google Scholar: author:PM Gollwitzer and author:G Oettingen. Biogeographist ( talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation stats (especially counting self-cites) are not a good measure of scientific value, it gives a rough idea at best. You have a point that they are not unknown in the academic world, but caution is still needed. Michel Maffesoli has huge citation counts... Tigraan ( talk) 09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that caution is always needed, but there is a fine line between caution and innuendo, neutrality and disconfirmation bias, skepticism and pseudoskepticism. It is not difficult to find controversy about Michel Maffesoli; indeed, it is documented in his Wikipedia article. But I have not yet found any controversy about Gollwitzer and Oettingen, and it appears that User:Tigraan has not found any controversy either (correct me if I'm wrong). Gollwitzer and Oettingen have coauthored publications with John Bargh, and some of Bargh's work has recently become controversial after other researchers failed to replicate his findings (this controversy is documented in Bargh's Wikipedia article). Neither Gollwitzer nor Oettingen were coauthors on the studies that failed to replicate. Controversy about Gollwitzer and Oettingen's work could, of course, emerge if other psychologists fail to replicate their studies. Let's hope that such replication attempts continue not only for the sake of science but also to provide more sources for the Wikipedia articles on implementation intention and mental contrasting. To date I have seen nothing written about Gollwitzer or Oettingen that warrants a suspicion of craziness. Biogeographist ( talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"To date I have seen nothing written about Gollwitzer or Oettingen that warrants a suspicion of craziness." Neither have I. My rant was more about the principle (more citations = good) than the issue at hand. (By "craziness" I mean being the sole promoters of ideas that the rest of the field views at best as uninteresting and at worse as ludicrous.)

However, as per my discussion of sources at [6], I am fairly sure Oettingen or her editor called every journalist they could for book promotion, so I see a possibility that the drums and trumpets made them more famous than their academic status warrants. (There are countless examples of the mainstream press publishing "scientific" articles that were in reality nothing more than "X answered our phone call and we paraphrased everything they said", or even "we answered X's phone call and…".) This, in turn, might or might not have impacted Wikipedia coverage of related areas, and someone with moderate knowledge of the field could check that better than me. Tigraan ( talk) 08:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your points. I'm not especially concerned about implementation intention and mental contrasting, but I agree that psychologists in general (and editors that write about the field on Wikipedia) need to pay attention to the issues you raise. Here's a recent article on the subject:

• Strickland, Brent; Mercier, Hugo (March 2014). "Bias neglect: a blind spot in the evaluation of scientific results" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 67 (3): 570--580. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.821510. PMID  23944157. Experimenter bias occurs when scientists' hypotheses influence their results, even if involuntarily. Meta-analyses have suggested that in some domains, such as psychology, up to a third of the studies could be unreliable due to such biases. A series of experiments demonstrates that while people are aware of the possibility that scientists can be more biased when the conclusions of their experiments fit their initial hypotheses, they robustly fail to appreciate that they should also be more sceptical of such results. This is true even when participants read descriptions of studies that have been shown to be biased. Moreover, participants take other sources of bias—such as financial incentives—into account, showing that this bias neglect may be specific to theory-driven hypothesis testing. In combination with a common style of scientific reporting, bias neglect could lead the public to accept premature conclusions. Biogeographist ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

My name is Ana and I am currently an undergraduate student who enrolled in an independent study course that is asking us to edit existing Wikipedia articles in Psychology. The article I chose to edit was a Psychology stub: production blocking. I realized that it would have been a better idea if someone read over my sandbox draft before I made it go live. Since that already happened, I would really appreciate it if someone took some time to read over my contributions. For future purposes, I will definitely be asking for advice and suggestions before editing an article.

Thank you and I hope to hear from someone soon!

Ana L. Cortez ( talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Psychology,

The Wiki Education Foundation will be hosting a booth and a workshop at the Association for Psychological Science convention in New York later this month. We'd love to meet WikiProject Psych folks, so if you're going to be there, I hope you'll stop by and say hello! -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 18:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please could someone with a knowledge of Psychology please have a look at Draft:Self system - I have no subject knowledge, so cannot tell if it's ready to be published or not. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've accepted the article -- thanks for bringing it here. Looie496 ( talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have created a number of drafts in various stages of development that are (to varying degrees) relevant to psychology. Any assistance getting these done and moved to mainspace (where they will supplant existing disambiguation pages where primary topics should sit) would be appreciated. They are:

• Draft:Accusation
• Draft:Atonement
• Draft:Captivity
• Draft:Confrontation
• Draft:Guess (almost done, already proposed to move to mainspace)
• Draft:Mental state (obviously)
• Draft:Mockery
• Draft:Rivalry‎

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion, if people want to have a look here. -- Avi Tuschman ( talk 22:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Some days ago, I proposed that the article Convergent and divergent production be deleted as it is a "content fork". Looking at the AFD instructions, it seems I should have notified people here to attract attention. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convergent and divergent production. OsFish ( talk) 01:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where's the fourth I in the 4 I's section of the cultural psychology page? Or are there only 3 I's?

After review of this article I feel that it can use improvements. The first paragraph in the "definition" section does not seem to have a reference. It was unclear if this paragraph went with the next paragraph (which was cited) or not. If it does belong with the 3rd paragraph I would suggest combining the two so that readers can tell where the information came from. In reference to the 3rd paragraph, I have some concerns about the reference from enotes.com. Whenever I click on the link it takes me to a website that has a comment from a 'college teacher'. How reliable is this source? The other references are from peer-reviewed journals, which are much more credible than a note-taking website.

The section that relates Law of Effect to natural selection also does not list a reference. This example seems like more of an inference or assumption from the author, instead of a fact. Also the Colwill and Rescorla example seemed out of place. It was a one line sentence with a reference behind it. Had I not clicked on the reference note I would not have known that this example came from a scholarly journal that analyzes Thorndike's effect. This example could have used an introduction explaining why it was relevant to this article. In the same section the article discusses Skinner, but provides no reference to how Skinner and Thorndyke can be related.

The only link that I found to not work was the 'connectionism' link.

Overall, I found this article to be well written, with minor defaults that can be easily fixed.

CCMcgrew ( talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary—an autobiographical account of a man suffering from OCD—as a Featured Article Candidate. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1! Curly Turkey  ¡gobble! 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chinese whispers to be moved to Telephone (game). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rationalization (making excuses) to be moved to Rationalization (psychology). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lisztomania (phenomenon) to be moved to Lisztomania. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Campus rape to be moved to Campus sexual assault. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 11:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

...wondering whether anyone here would care to improve the content/framing of Coulrophobia#Research.

Please see/discuss at WT:MED#Coulrophobia thread. Thanks, 109.146.70.40 ( talk) 12:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mental disorder to be moved to Mental illness. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Somebody Else's Problem to be moved to Somebody else's problem. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive to be moved to Attention deficit disorder. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Peter Principle to be moved to Peter principle. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 00:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Amelia Baggs to be moved to Amanda Baggs. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Notable academic? Draft:Richard Schanck. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI there's a psychology edit-a-thon tonight, just in case anybody notices any unusual activity from new users. (It's in NC in case anyone's interested and in the area). Please excuse the cross-post with WikiProject Medicine. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 14:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Draft:Psychology of eating meat to be moved to Psychology of eating meat. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Dark triad is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark triad (1st nomination)

AustralianRupert of WP:MILHIST previously gave a lot of helpful comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues AustralianRupert already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:

1. WP:NOTGUIDE
2. WP:EDITORIALIZING

I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe someone from this WikiProject could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Physical attractiveness#Blue eye image and blue eye primacy for the image caption. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Validation. We are clearly missing a basic psychology article, on psychological validation a.k.a. emotional validation a.k.a. self-validation a.k.a. emotional affirmation (as distinct from normative social influence and informational social influence, forms of "social validation", on which we do have articles already). They're basically diametric opposites, the one being about standing out, the other two being about fitting in.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm finishing up work on Draft:Psychology of eating meat, a topic whose researchers ascribe significant psychological importance. I have no training in psychology whatsoever; everything there is based solely on the best paraphrasing-of-secondary-sources I could manage. I'd greatly appreciate it if some experts could point out my worse abuses of sources and ideas. FourViolas ( talk) 15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear psychology experts:

A reviewer recommended that this old draft be merged into Arnold Gesell. The draft was created all in one edit some time ago, and the editor has not moved the material. Also, two editors, DGG and TKK, have indicated that they think the article should be separate.

1. There appear to be plenty of book references about the "Maturation Theory", and for once this draft is about an area where I have some education, so I am willing to work on it, add inline citations, make sure it's not giving advice, promoting the theory, etc., if the editors here feel that the content is generally suitable. On the other hand, if it's to be merged with the mainspace article it will need to be cut down so as not to overbalance that article.
2. Whether or not the draft is merged into Arnold Gesell, that article needs some improvement; some of the language is vague and non-neutral, and it lacks inline citations. Also, there is no mention of the Maturation Theory. I will be making some changes there, which others may wish to check out. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Either way would do it, but Gessell is so important that a separate article would be justified. What really matters is improving the material. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)`

Okay, I have fixed up the draft and moved it to mainspace as Gesell’s Maturational Theory. I also rewrote a lot of the Arnold Gesell article, which had some close paraphrasing from a book. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Would someone with some understanding of the Hoffman Report like to take a look at Gerald Koocher? A single-purpose account recently added a fairly large amount of information to this BLP regarding the findings of the report. Another account with a username similar to this subject's name has made several edits to the page; at least one edit deleted mention of the Hoffman Report and at least one more edit added self-published material. I want to make sure that, whichever way it goes, the entry reflects a neutral point of view without any undue weight. Thanks. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd posted this elsewhere, but I wanted to cut/paste this here so I can get a decent amount of editors coming in. I especially want people from this WP to help out.

Basically, I came across Draft:Psychology of eating meat. It's an interesting article, enough to where I think that as a topic it has a lot of merit as a Wikipedia article. The editor has certainly done their research and there are a lot of sources here. The only drawback is that this article kind of puts off big research essay/paper vibes, enough to where I wasn't really comfortable accepting it as is. It needs some re-writing here and there and I think that it'd be best if this was done by someone (or someones) used to doing this with research articles of this type. An example of what kind of gives off OR type vibes are things like the use of "for example" quite liberally through the article.

Anyone want to help out? I really don't want this article to stagnate in the userspace. The editor ( User:FourViolas) has done a very, very good job of cleaning it from its earlier version, so I really don't want this decline to discourage them from further cleaning the article. I don't think that it'd really take much, just some editing here and there. This isn't exactly my forte, so while I can do some editing, this really needs someone more familiar with writing psychology articles to help out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So I found this article, and the sourcing was atrocious. Generalized claims based on single instances out of unrelated books, mostly. On the psych side, it claimed ties to neurosis and other disorders, but tied to sourced written 25 years before the term set up to fail was used (the veracity of which was also suspect). Could someone point me to/source information for me via a psych study on "being set up for failure"? I don't have access to the necessary resources to do it myself. MSJapan ( talk) 00:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The dress (viral phenomenon) to be moved to The dress (meme). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 05:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

In the history of Wikipedia, the only thing that has reduced socking is to discover them and block them. If they could have been conquered with reason, introspection, or befriending, that would have been done long ago. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose. I think that is a bit defeatist, my friend. In the short history of Wikipedia, has anything other than discovering and blocking them ever been studied or tried in an organized way? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that you have the best of intentions and I appreciate your efforts, but it is not defeatist to acknowledge reality even if we don't like it. Wikipedia has been battling socks since its inception 15 years ago. There are policies, templates, vigilant page patrollers, a checkuser system, and an army of admins ready to fight. If a few editors interested in psychology "organize" and appeal to socks (who have malicious intent) with reason, introspection, or befriending, will that change anything? Anything is possible, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem isn't lack of organization or insufficient boilerplates. The problems are that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and registration is not required. That's not meant to deny the value of Wikipedia (it's free, and it's comprehensive though subject to bias). I'll check back in a year or so, and I do sincerely hope your efforts produce miraculous results. If that happens let me know. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback, Sundayclose. You are probably right. But the strategy you mention has so far been about laws, intel, and combat. If Edward Bernays were here I'm sure he'd suggest a way to steer them psychologically. Even governments know "winning hearts and minds" is better than brute force. So, come on, indulge me. Subtle suggestion. Shame. Planting some sort of seed in their mind to make future socking distasteful to them -- make it trigger some sort of emotion. The goal is for it to work on 1 out of 10. That would make it worthwhile. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. While looking for the Wikipedia page on this [7], what I actually found was this... And even after trimming it down to this, the concept still seems fundamentally misrepresented [8]. 81.157.0.217 ( talk) 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is a very sad state of affair, psychology is probably the most neglected area of Wikipedia. There are a few psychology Wiki editors around but not enough.-- Penbat ( talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would probably be willing to assess an article, if a request appears here. Looie496 ( talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to combine some projects into a social sciences project or something? Off the top of my head these projects are related and less active than psychology: social work, WP:Disability and WP:SOCIOLOGY. Idk how one would go about combining them, but I would be willing to work on it with some guidance if others agree.

Maybe it's a problem that Psychology isn't listed in the main directory WP:PROJDIR? None of the categories apply. STEM and History and Society were the closest, but psychology isn't listed under them and is hard to find when you're specifically looking for it, so no one is going to stumble on it. I found it through an article I'm thinking about working on. FWIW it was either Bruce K. Alexander or his study Rat Park. Both have such major POV and UNDUE problems that I had to laugh. I think his DIL wrote them as she randomly cited herself. They're relevant because Rat Park was cited in a recent book and TED talk by Johann Hari-- who has apparently been accused of making improper edits on his critics' Wikipedia pages, so I'll be keeping an eye on his page as well. Permstrump ( talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

"Umbrella" articles of that type often don't get a lot of attention. Please feel free to improve the article in any way that seems suitable to you -- I'll add it to my watchlist. Looie496 ( talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looie496, do you know of an umbrella article that would be good for me to use as a guide? Permstrump ( talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Permstrump, if you are brand new to editing Wikipedia, you certainly edit it better than the vast majority of WP:Newbies (I mean, the way you consistently sign your username when newbies usually forget to or don't think to sign it for their very first post to this site, and the way you make sure to WP:Indent, and how you know of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). But anyway, you can ask for help with the Causes of mental disorders article at WP:Med, which is far more active than this WikiProject. Being WP:Bold and working on that article should be fine as long as you stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing and good formatting with no WP:Neutral issues. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I genuinely appreciate the positive feedback as I've been so nervous about messing up Wikipedia that I've just been reading talk pages without contributing since September when I first registered. I guess yesterday I was feeling WP:BOLD. Except not really, because I've basically only contributed to talk pages so far. As far as WP:Med, what do you think about my other comment below re: combining social science fields into one project and/or making this one (or a social science project) more prominent in the project directory WP:PROJDIR? Do you think it makes more sense to mainly use WP:Med? I do think psychology/social sciences is something professionals in the field and laymen would be interested in contributing to, so I wonder if there's not more traffic here only because of low visibility that the project exists. Permstrump ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote] Certification or Membership

Professionals interested in certification offered by the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association need to become a member of the association by becoming members. [/quote]

RillyWilly ( talk) 04:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this spam? Permstrump ( talk) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Currently appearing at AN/I. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, it's not an ANI matter because it's a content dispute and needs knowledge of the subject. All eyes appreciated, thanks. Guy ( Help!) 08:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)