Talk:Activity-specific approach in temperament research

removed COI
I removed the tag COI| as this is one of the cases that only competent experts can make this contribution, and this expert is indeed related to latest stages of development of this theory. The theory itself, however, was not offered by the contributor iratrofimov, considering the text of the article and citations. The theory was initiated in 1970s, developed in 1980-90s, and was simply used and not adjusted any further by this contributor.KaiStr (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Why it doesn't meet the notability guideline? And why does it have a tag on " excessive amount of intricate detail"? The theory came within a notable institution under the Russian Academy of Sciences and was used as a very popular psychological test Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Nowadays we still can see old theories in references and old temperament or personality tests in use, such as Eysenck's or MMPI, even though they appeared have less correlations with psychophysiology than Rusalov's test. At least Rusalov's test is still in use, including Canada and Australia, and the activity-specific approach is still being learned in temperament research in North America. The details described on the page are rather basic, and share very notable idea that physical and social actions are regulated by different systems in the brain. This is not very complex, at least less complex than some Wikepedia pages on thermodynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvSpar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The tags about me being closely associated with the content were nonsense, so I removed them. I don't even speak Russian, and I am not a psychologist but a psychiatrist (plus a mathematician and a physicist). I just used the test based on this theory in 3 studies and studied the sources in detail. I found that there is a deliberate ignorance of North America to this theory even as it is known in Europe. Now I find it important for developing new versions of psychiatric classifications and there is no reason why we should keep ignoring it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and not a show business or a popularity contest. Just read the definition of encyclopedias and then check the 5 principles of the Wikipedia. The very first principle says that it is an encyclopedia as any others. This means it including the knowledge about very specific theories that only professionals know - this is just a format of all general encyclopedias. The theory described on this page was proposed in various forms by various authors, not just by those cited, and it was done well before I finished my university degrees, therefore this is not mine! So let other users contribute with details on who else differentiated between physical and social-verbal traits, and please stop messing up scientific pages of the Wiki if you are not an expert in these fields.Sulisw (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

See the main discussion of the COI tag on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
The section 17 of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine hosts the main discussion on this matter Iratrofimov (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

deleting additional info only muds up the matter
The Languages-versions section was deleted by Ozzie10aaaa at 09:53, 3 October 2019, and Additional-References section was deleted at 15:54, 4 October 2019 by Doc James, right at the middle of the COI discussion. Perhaps, we should restore these sections, to make the matter of "who are the players" more transparent? Other users, similarly to WhatamIdoing, might want to look for this info, and PubMed can't deliver it as it doesn't keep the history of all publications from 30 years ago. Otherwise, the STQ page and derivatives really sound that it is only me who initiated the whole thing Iratrofimov (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We use inline references, not a collection of references at the end. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were inline references but references at the end were specifically for readers who have no access to publications listed in PubMed. Since the approach formally was offered in 1976 in Russia, and developed mostly in mid-1980s, PubMed doesn't have these non-English and even English references. "Additional references" section had many references of this sort. These sections should be restored, especially in the context of active COI discussion of this page. Or just remove the COI tag, please. Iratrofimov (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * General references are allowed. However, that was what we call a Further reading section, and it was in a different article, so it probably shouldn't be discussed here anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)