Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 9

Dual systems model - Help needed with GA Review
Hi everyone. I'm conducting a GA review for Dual systems model, and the editor has not been active on Wikipedia since November 2017. Is anyone here interested in helping address the concerns I've posted and joining me as I start the GA review in more detail? If not, I'm afraid I'll have to fail the nomination. Thanks, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 19:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Irene C. Kassorla
If one goes to Requested articles, looks at the section  on "Medicine" and then goes to "People in Medicine", you might see that some one has requested an article on Irene C. Kassorla. I believe she has done research into schizophrenia, and was wondering whether any one in your WikiProject might be able to fulfil this request. Many thanks, Vorbee (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Autism (symptom)
I have trouble understanding this article or at least portions of it. Is it just me not being a native speaker of English? The creator of the article is a native speaker of Russian and I often find it difficult to understand "Russian English", but perhaps others don't. Still, I think the article should be glanced over and copyedited at least. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will leave a note about this at WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. Despite the hatnote explicitly saying that 'Autism (symptom)' is a separate page, it automatically redirects to Autism for me. Is anyone else having this problem? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Cognitive Bias Diagram
Would appreciate folks weighing in here. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What to do with the lotus seed pod image at the Trypophobia article?
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Trypophobia. A permalink for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&oldid=865908409#Should_the_image_be_removed,_retained_in_the_lead_but_collapsed,_or_moved_down? here]. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Female hysteria merge discussion
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Female hysteria. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns what to do with the Hysteria article since "hysteria" is not synonymous with "female hysteria," at least in the modern sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sapiosexuality
Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Social media addiction
Querying why this page has been listed as low importance. This is a worldwide psychological crisis. We often cannot see it due to our cognitive biases against these constructs. Thoughts welcome E.3 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Social media addiction
Hello. I am presently working on a revision of this article on my sandbox here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E.3/sandbox I would appreciate any editors contribution before putting it on the main page. This takes into account this and other language wikipedias consideration of my edits in detail. If there is no further discussion I'll put it on the main page, for further consideration once it is finished. Thankyou very much. E.3 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible Sources
As I begin to look into self-destructive behavior, I'm looking for reliable sources. I would love feedback on what you all think! Here's some;

https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/9153/self-destructive-behavior/

https://study.com/academy/lesson/self-destructive-behavior-signs-causes-effects.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eAA1WPFyk

Thanks,

Mdarrow18 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow

Discussion
A discussion of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Conspiracy theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Body positivity
Body positivity has been recently expanded as part of a classroom assignment. Project members are invited to come make further improvements and/or leave talk page feedback. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Workplace bullying and PTSD
PTSD is barely mentioned in Workplace bullying. Is anyone interested in creating a separate article about the topic please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

LOTS of data in personality psychology
I see several personality psy textbooks contains this LOTS of data concept but not found in Wikipedia. I have created a page for it, though the concept is not really that useful. See if anyone has idea. Curtis (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Celi
3rd nomination for this article - subject has written books WP:GNG Even though the books are self published the books are in many libraries. In addition the subject has made a widely recognized contribution in her field. Often quoted on the topic of Men's Health across Australia 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

invitation to an RfC regarding Bruno Bettelheim
Bettelheim was director of a residential school for children and teenagers at the University of Chicago from 1944 to '73, also a professor there. He also wrote the books The Empty Fortress (1967) and The Uses of Enchantment (1976).

Arguably, after his death in 1990, he was discredited in several ways, and therein lies the controversy.

You are invited to a Request for Comment entitled "RfC: how to cover someone who doesn't have credentials for their field?" If this topic interests you, your participation is welcome. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Talk:Bruno Bettelheim

Dunning–Kruger effect
This is a very important article but has low readability. I'm getting minimal engagement on the Talk page and mostly resistance to change. It could do with a few more editors. WykiP (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Book smart and street smart
I have started a draft article addressing the juxtaposed concepts of "book smart" and "street smart". I guess this fits under psychology more neatly than any other field. Some more expert analysis would be useful. bd2412 T 16:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Street smart" may be more of a sociological concept, as it applies specifically to common sense and practical know-how as applied to urban social situations. Experienced farmers or experts in bushcraft, for instance, would not be considered as street smart, even though such knowledge and experience is typically gained outside academia. Probably building on the Know-how article (which mentions street smart) would be a better strategy. -- 18:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting perspective. It would be useful to have a source tying the use of the phrase, "street smart" to urbanity. bd2412  T 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no great sources on the topic. But the OED definition of "street smart"] or streetwise says The experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the potential difficulties or dangers of life in an urban environment. -- 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Stimulus substitution
Does this duplicate the article Counterconditioning (which begins, "Counterconditioning (also called stimulus substitution)...")? If so, do you recommend merging? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK to merge as long as these distinctions are clear in the resulting article: "The term counterconditioning has been used in two different ways, which are often confused." Biogeographist (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Irritability - Some sources not WP:RELIABLE?
Irritability cites some sources that IMHO don't pass WP:RELIABLE.

Anybody care to take a look at it?

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Adler merge
I proposed that a few Adler and individual psychology articles be merged a few months ago but didn't get any feedback. Could someone help me with this Talk:Individual_psychology. Notgain (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories with committed suicide in title
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Categorization. A permalink for it is here. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Presentation at American Psychological Association convention (APA 2019)


I just gave a talk at the APA 2019 conference, so I thought I'd upload it here for reference. I'm happy to share the powerpoint slides if they're useful. 1) Wikipedia as a key public health tool: leveraging the world's most-read information source 2019-08-09 Abstract: Wikipedia and its sister projects are a key part of the knowledge ecosystem. For psychology topics, they are are often a first port of call for patients, journalist, lawmakers and more. Core topics are typically viewed over 100,000 times per year. Contributing to Wikipedia is therefore one of the most time-effective ways to make a difference to public understanding of psychology on topics ranging from Suicide among LGBT youth to Digital media use and mental health to Family therapy. The accuracy of these articles should be a top priority of the psychological community - their quality has immediate, international, real-word impact.

2) Wikipedia-integrated medical journals as a key health literacy and outreach platform 2019-08-11 Abstract: The internet is the first port of call for most people when looking for medical information. >70% of internet users use online health information and although 50% state that it influenced their decision, 35% don't fllow this up by visiting a clinician. Wikipedia is the most-accessed source of health information and so the accuracy of its medical content has a large impact on health literacy. However, clinicians, researchers and allied professionals rarely contribute to creating and improving its articles. The WikiJournals of Medicine is a Wikipedia-integrated academic journal that addresses this problem in two ways. Firstly, it rewards authors with citable, indexed review publications to incentivise contribution. It is able to publish fully open access and without any author fees since it is hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers and runs with a volunteer staff. Secondly, by subjecting submissions to rigorous external peer review, it ensures that the information is accurate and up to date. In addition to adding new articles to the encyclopedia, existing Wikipedia articles can also be expanded or overhauled and submitted for the same peer review and publication process. Each article is commonly read >100,000 times per annum with many above a million reads. In this way WikiJMed and its sister journals improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia with high-quality, peer-reviewed content, and reward authors with publications that achieve far greater reach than any traditional scholarly publishing. Developing and expanding these journals is vital mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of biomedical information on a platform that is read millions of times per day.

I'll be giving that second talk in a couple of days so will also share those slides too once I've finalised them. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now also added the slide deck or the second talk. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 12:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That is so awesome Thomas! Good on you man. (Btw, you linked to the American Psychiatric Association. I believe you meant to link to https://convention.apa.org/ . Your invited address is listed on p. 312 of the Convention Program.)
 * Thanks! With 12500 people there the conference was pretty intense (previously the largest I've attended is 2000), but there seemed to be great enthusiasm from several of the divisions as well as the APA communications office so I'm hopeful that the momentum will continue. I've corrected the link above - over-hasty googling! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible bias klaxon on the article: General knowledge
The General knowledge article seems to lean very heavily - ~50% of refs - on papers by Richard Lynn, a controversial (and some would say repugnant) academic who seems big into supposed race and sex -based differences in intelligence. That doesn't seem like a good thing. Perhaps someone from this project could give the article some attention to ensure that wikipedia is not promoting fringe views. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not least, the article seems to be being used by Amy Wax as evidence to support her superiority of Anglo-Protestants view - for which read white supremicism - according to the New Yorker - https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-penn-law-professor-wants-to-make-america-white-again --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Good catch. :0) I made one edit and have it on my Watchlist.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move - change title of "Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States"
It has been proposed that Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States be renamed and moved to Veterans benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States. Please see my rationale for changing the title (removing the hyphen in "post-traumatic" is the only change proposed) at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Please discuss on that Talk page too. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I withdrew this proposed move (title change). Please see the article's Talk page for details. 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Fluid and crystallized intelligence
Can I get someone knowledgeable about fluid and crystallized intelligence to take a look at the section that explains these concepts? I have posted on that page's talk page that I can't understand any of it; I'm wondering how much of this is due to my own ignorance and how many it is due to its inherent understandability. The first paragraph is especially baffling to me. The "Hard or "crystallized" sciences" subsection doesn't fare much better for my poor brain. It definitely has to be rewritten to be more understandable to a broad audience, but I have no idea what parts should stay or go (considering that a very high chunk of it is seemingly either original research or reliance on primary sources, you might argue for deleting most of it).--Megaman en m (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying WP:PSYCH and for your edits, article notices, and message to the person adding all the questionable material. I just reviewed the article and deleted a lot of the text (‭14,626‬ characters) due to the problems you identified (diff). I also left a "Caution" message on the person's Talk page.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Help invited at new stub Ecological grief
Your help would be welcome at new stub Ecological grief NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nom
Hello! I was wondering if any members of the WikiProject could kindly take a look at the review for this article that I nominated. With many kind thanks -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Will you be a peer reviewer for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States?
I requested peer review for this article: Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Would you help improve the article by reviewing the article on its peer review page? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Psychology Barnstar
As part of the Barnstar 2.0 project I've created remaster for the Psychology Award for WP:PSYCH. Proposing its addition to WP:Barnstars 2.0, I would love to get any input the folks at WP:PSYCH might have! — Will (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Changed the color of the background star, as the black on black was a bit much even with the white glow. 11:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The caduceus or the Rod of Asclepius traditionally serve as a symbol of medicine and are not generally associated with psychology. However, I do appreciate you working on a 2.0 Barnstar for us! :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that's the kind of info I'm looking for! All of my medical experience has been in white and red trucks, where Caduceus are everywhere. I can remove it easily enough and just leave the Psi on star!— Will (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rapid Grant Proposal to bring Wikipedians and psychology content experts together next month
There is a rapid grant proposal to bring together three groups next month in Atlanta to increase engagement in editing psychology related pages: (a) Helping Give Away Psychological Science -- a nonprofit service organization dedicated to improving dissemination (b) Atlanta area Wikipedians (regardless of psychology expertise) (c) Psychologists attending the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies -- an international meeting drawing several thousand psychologists from research and practice Please consider commenting on or endorsing the grant here. Thanks! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added my support vote over at meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Helping_Give_Away_Psychological_Science/HGAPS_brings_Wiki_to_ABCT. Great to see the continuing HGAPS momentum. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 11:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Human Rights- Commercial sexual exploitation of children
-- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   18:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Help invited for Parental Alienation
Hi. The Parental alienation article was recently the beneficiary of an effort to improve its references and to reconcile the text of the article with its references. Unfortunately those efforts appear to have stalled. It would be helpful to have some knowledgeable editors contribute to the clean-up process and make suggestions for a revised lead as proposed on the talk page. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Help expanding Julian Hochberg
After noticing here that Julian Hochberg was one of the few NAS members in psychology without a WP entry, I created a stub. I would appreciate any help expanding it. I turned several red links to blue by creating it, but it really only covers his education, teaching positions and a few major awards.

I don't have a particular goal for the article (like GA/FA/DYK), but I know more can be written about him - just not by me. I have only an undergrad degree in psychology and an amateur interest in the history of the field. Unfortunately, my sensation-perception class was not memorable, so I don't really have enough background to weave Hochberg's contributions into some sort of narrative. I am sure that someone here can add a paragraph or two about his research. I appreciate it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Seanna Leath
Please comment. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Valerie Purdie Greenaway
The same new editor who created Seanna Leath also created Valerie Purdie Greenaway (Purdie-Vaughns, Purdie). The latter looks notable to me, but the article could use a good look from someone more familiar with her subjects than I am. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral endocrinology
Hello, another student and I have edited the Behavioral endocrinology page for a class. We have made it more about the field of behavioral endocrinology than it was before. I would appreciate anyone taking a look at it to see if it is up to Wikipedia standards! Daniypink (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ecological grief
Hi all

I spent some time over the last few days expanding the article on Ecological grief, I would really appreciate some help with it, especially:
 * describing the relationship between ecological grief and climate grief, its quite muddled in the article
 * adding more information on how the topic effects different groups
 * Finding more references, especially from academic sources
 * I added some references to the end of the first line that I haven't read through yet to extract information

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Resources for Wildfires in US and Australia
Hello,

With all the wildfires that occurred in California over this past fire season, I helped create a wildfire prep/safety page:

Helping_Give_Away_Psychological_Science/Fire_emergency_--_Preparation_and_coping

Seeing as similar devastations are currently happening in Australia, we want to expand the page so that it includes links and resources that are specific and relevant to Australia. If any of you know of some good resources and could help us out with this, that would be great.

We would also appreciate any input for resources/links for other parts of the US aside from California.

Thanks

Alyssabrostowin (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria article controversy
Please see the discussions on the Talk page, along with the associated edits, reverts, etc.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  06:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC -- Request for Comment -- on Bruno Bettelheim
Hi,

Interested persons are welcome at RfC on Bettelheim (at University of Chicago 1944 to '73). The specific question is:


 * Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?

RfC on lead sentence

If this topic piques your interest, please dive on in! Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious entries in Category:Films about psychopathy
Joker (2019), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and M (1931) are listed among the Films about psychopaths, yet the characters in question don't fit the definitions of psychopathy in our own Wikipedia article. I dared not remove the entries myself for lack of intimacy with the current customs. Gaius Marius (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a Wikipedian in Residence! (U.S.)
Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).

The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.

This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.

PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/

Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 18:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Race and intelligence"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Childhood chronic illness page
Hi there, I'm editing the childhood chronic illness page throughout the month of March 2020 as part of the WikiMedicine Project. Right now the page's info box has a photo indicating it is part of the Psychology portal. Since the current page has very short sections mostly about the psychological aspect of childhood chronic illness, this makes sense but I'm thinking of expanding the sections to become a more broad introduction to important topics including epidemiology, management, impacts (educational, developmental, social), and advocacy.

I realize the page hasn't been edited in a while, but does anyone have any thoughts about changing the main photo to something more broad? I'm not sure yet what to replace it with. Open to suggestions! Dsalvarez (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please create a stub article for strange-face illusion ?
Can we please create a stub article for strange-face illusion

aka strange face illusion aka Strange-Face-in-the-Mirror Illusion

This seems to be well attested. Has been mentioned in popular sources and academic journals -

[ https://mindhacks.com/2010/09/18/the-strange-face-in-the-mirror-illusion/ popular media - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/p6466 journal - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4258311/ journal - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4373638/ journal - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/illusory-scenes-fade-in-out-view/ popular media - https://europepmc.org/article/med/22981318 journal ]

(Note: This is not  Hollow-Face illusion)

Thanks -  2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft article for Developmental Neuropsychology
Hi WikiProject folks. Could someone with knowledge of the topic please comment on whether Draft:Developmental Neuropsychology (field) is factually correct and unbiased? It would be much appreciated, since I am not in a position to judge this. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review for Attachment theory
I have nominated Attachment theory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

John_B._Watson needs copyedit
Can people please fix John_B._Watson (American psychologist who established the psychological school of behaviorism.)

Article currently says


 * he described the relationship between brain myelination and learning ability in rats at different ages.


 * Watson showed that the degree of myelination was largely related to wand learning.

That text has been in the article for close to ten years now.

It apparently originally read


 * Watson showed that the degree of myelinization was largely unrelated to learning ability.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_B._Watson&oldid=334490993#Dissertation_on_animal_behavior ]

I don't know what it should say, and so don't want to mess with it myself.

Could someone please make this read correctly?

Thanks -- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Areo magazine, The Crimson White, and The Post Millennial
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Areo magazine, The Crimson White, and The Post Millennial for the Bo Winegard article. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   03:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you do an AfC review?
If you can conduct an AfC (Articles for Creation) review of the draft article below, that would be awesome. :0)

Draft:M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual

I would have just published the article, since I am not a new editor. But I had inadvertently submitted the article for AfC review in 2018 (it was not accepted), therefore I thought it only proper to resubmit for AfC review.

While I believe the article meets notability criteria, it is not a long article.

Note: If you have not conducted an AfC review before, please read how to get involved and the reviewing instructions and then, if you believe you meet the criteria, add your name to the list of AfC participants. Make sure to use the AfC Helper Script (to install the script go to your user preferences and check the checkbox at: Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script).

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  16:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article review needed for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States
I nominated Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for a Good Article Review. WP:PSYCH is an interested WikiProject for the article. If you (anyone reading this) could conduct the GA review, that would be awesome. :0) I nominated it under the Culture, sociology and psychology subtopic. If you have not conducted a good article review before, take a look at the good article reviewer instructions to see what is involved. If you decide to conduct the review (thank you!), please be sure to read Markworthen/Veterans-benefits-GA-nom where I provide some important history/background info about the article, e.g., 2015 SME (subject matter experts) review; 2015 GA nomination feedback; 2019 Peer Review; 2020 Guild of Copy Editors review, etc. Much appreciated  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC opened for Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality
Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality is within the scope of WP:PSYCH.

To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?

→ Share your insights and suggestions at Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight.

Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality a B-class article?
I believe that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality meets this WikiProject's C-class criteria, but not B-class. Two other editors disagree. I am therefore posting this question at the three WikiProjects with interest in the article—the other two are WP:LGBT and WP:BOOK. Please weigh in at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Another topic has superseded this one. In fact it's immediately below! ↓↓  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse
If someone competent would like to help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Psychology portal
Portal:Psychology had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Psychology § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America1000 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Bicameralism (psychology)
Just a notice that this is an article needing a lot of work, especially in relation to sourcing. Not helping is that Julian Jaynes' ideas have not been seriously discussed by mainstream psychologists, and touch other fields; it's more part of popular culture. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It’s worth noting that Jaynes’ work *has* been influential in cognitive science — Dennett is deeply indebted to him, for example. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read Richard Dawkins write not unfavourably about the idea, albeit briefly and among others, in some discussion of the evolution of religion. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Verbal Behavior major rewrite
I don't know enough to see if this is sensible, but it's clearly major. I've brought this here because you've already been reverted once and a quick glance at some of the edits have left me wondering about them. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * what exactly is your concern? --DevilTrombone (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Marked for deletion but not deleted
I'm not sure what the status is with Maladaptive daydreaming which was/is marked for deletion. I'm cross-posting this to Psychiatry also for a decision. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for reviewers of Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy
is looking for reviewers for her WP:AFC submission at Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, about the psychotherapy AEDP. The article was nominated for deletion in 2017 and the result was to redirect to Diana Fosha, the creator of the psychotherapy. (See the deletion discussion for details and the draft talk page for further details.) has since rewritten the article and is looking to have it reviewed and reinstated. Perhaps and other editors could take a look at Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy and make any necessary revisions if you think that it should be reinstated to article space. I am generally in favor of covering AEDP in Wikipedia, but I think editors other than me should evaluate the article. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still looking for help! Thank you in advance. Carrie Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Intelligence_quotient
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intelligence_quotient. Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mother-Infant Bonding Disorders
Can anyone experienced evaluate this? I'm a little suspicious that it is WP:OR/WP:SYN especially because the titles of the references don't have much to do with "bonding disorders". Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look. Thanks! - MapleSoy (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

looking for help with accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy article
Hi, Is anyone willing to take a red pen to my draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. I can't seem to understand how to write from a neutral point of view. Happy for any edits that will make this article acceptable. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

could someone within PSYCH take over the draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy
Hello,

I'm hoping someone inside the WP:PSYCH will take over the Draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy project. It has been declined and this time there is no resubmit button. The reviewer thinks it should be "blown up" and does not think it is notable. There is extensive discussion of previous drafts and submissions on the talk page.

To summarize the concerns are 1.COI: I have explained my association and declared that I am a therapist who practices AEDP and I am associate editor for its internal journal. But I don't receive any financial benefit from my association and I am not a supervisor or a faculty. 2. In this recent decline the reviewer believes it is not notable. But that has not been an issue for other reviewers. Clearly it is very notable: there are now 5 training DVD's published on the APA site for psychotherapy training series. I think aedp should be on wikipedia because people who are interested in going into therapy have come across these letters and are curious. if you go to psychology today "find a therapist" aedp is on the list of therapies - it is the only major therapy (by major I mean has world wide practitioners - world wide on-going trainings many times a year - and a rigorous certification process and is taught in psychotherapy training programs and is about to publish 2 separate outcome research projects - one of which involves close to 100 subjects). 3.it's length (though reviewers are not bothered by the length). It is easy to deal with this because the "map of the change process" section makes up about a 1/3 of the article. It could be deleted or radically shortened, though that would be unfortunate because I think someone who is curious about aedp would appreciate this section of a the practical application of all that goes before (this is what it looks like in practice if you are a client). 4.The technical language problem has been resolved. If you look at the history, you will see that I have put in 100's of hours re-wording previous drafts in order to remove anything technical or text-bookish and still retain the substance. So if someone take this over, your job will be easy in that sense. 5. The references really are closely read and match the content. I purchased deepdyve and have read every article. So despite several reviewers impression, the article is written from a NPV. If you would like me to share the articles I captured from deepdyve I will figure out how to share them with you, or at least the relevant parts (I regret that I did not include page numbers for the articles). Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Carrieruggieri - Either I am being misquoted or I used templates that said something that is not what I intended to say. It is true that I Rejected the draft, and said that it needed to be blown up and started over.  I did not mean that the topic is not notable.  The draft, as presented, is not encyclopedic, and is not about to become encyclopedic.  I did say that an article on the topic is needed.  It just cannot be, in my opinion, based on this draft.  The current draft is much too long, and is about the same length as the article that was deleted.
 * The submitter seems to be saying that multiple reviewers agreed with her that her draft should be accepted. I see that User:Timtrent would have accepted the draft.  The draft is not very different from the version that was rejected by User:Sulfurboy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that I did overlook the submitter's COI declaration, and that her conflict of interest is not the sort of conflict of interest that Wikipedia is primarily concerned about. In re-reviewing, the issue is not so much conflict of interest as such but tone.  The draft is written as if the author is trying to sell something, such as therapy.
 * If there is not enough comment here, because this project is semi-active, we can discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and all, I would second the rejection and recommendation of WP:TNT. The whole thing reads like a brochure trying to sell something. There is nothing formal, neutral or dispassionate about this article. It continues to synthesize and use fringe connections with established practices and psychology to create notability and credibility for this branch. I also see nothing that would establish standalone notability.
 * These factors and negative marks against it are likely hard to be seen by the page creator. The inherent COI of creating a wiki page for a form of psychology that you practice for a living is a horrible idea on multiple levels. This is likely what is causing all the problems with this article in the first place. It should be blown up and re-written by someone less involved.
 * Coming to the Psych wikiproject is fine, but comes across as WP:OTHERPARENT. The issue with this page is not one that needs examination from a specialized/subject-informed eye. Instead, the issues are related to policy failings that could be spotted by any editor, even one that has zero knowledge of the field of psychology. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , As you know, my view and yours differ in that I believe the draft as it stands would be better from community attention rather than being reworked by the creating editor. Often I have found that the wisdom of crowds is better than my own wisdom. Often Have found the reverse, too! Maybe that is conceit.
 * I would have accepted this on that simple basis, and let it take its chance. I had not noticed a prior AfD (Why not? No idea), but even that doesn't really matter, the more so since I think you advised us that it is different.
 * I'm still pretty sure (0.9 probability) that any promotional tone would have been edited away by others. It might have been deleted. While that saddens me for the work on it, if that is what the community wants so be it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have accepted this on that simple basis, and let it take its chance. I had not noticed a prior AfD (Why not? No idea), but even that doesn't really matter, the more so since I think you advised us that it is different.
 * I'm still pretty sure (0.9 probability) that any promotional tone would have been edited away by others. It might have been deleted. While that saddens me for the work on it, if that is what the community wants so be it. Fiddle   Faddle  06:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia on TNT:”if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links.” I don’t think the article’s content is “of no value.” And, why expect someone to read through 75+ references and create a non- technical translation of a topic that is not only a field which is overloaded with jargon but also has its own version of jargon. And, you can’t say what aedp is without learning about it anymore than I could write about a topic on physics or math or anything else. Please give an example of what sounds promotional? It seems to be that you are suspicious that it’s promotional because maybe that’s one of Wikipedia’s headaches- people trying to get traffic through Wikipedia.i can appreciate your problem with that. But this isn’t why I’m advocating for the article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

AEDP proposes a theory of how psychotherapy can influence a positive change in a clients overall wellbeing as well as proposes a methodology for achieving positive change“. Is this an example of what seems promotional? Positive is not an adjective here: the word is used in the context of aedp being developed on models of change theory (in which change is not necessarily positive). But I can see that the word positive could be deleted without altering the meaning. I think there are other examples like this - someone who has read psychotherapy research articles and knows the idiosyncratic language could easily go through and correct this type of thing. Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , TNT is not compulsory, but instead a recommendation. A rejection in AfC means the article will not be considered further in it's current form. This does not mean minor tweaks or rephrasing a few words, it means a complete overhaul which is why TNT is a good recommendation. The systemic issues have been pointed ad nauseam in multiple venues starting at the AfD for the original article. Also, the constant (sometimes not so) subtle suggestion that we're basically too stupid to understand the nuances of psychology to appropriately judge the article is getting quite old.
 * I'm also unclear as to why you still have not properly declared as a paid editor. You seem to be under the impression that to be considered a paid editor you must have received an explicit payment for the creation of the article. This is not true. Anyone who has a financial stake in promoting a subject is considered a paid editor. By your own admission, your practice focuses around employing AEDP. As such, you have a clear financial stake in promoting the subject. The very first next step you should take is to properly declare per the guidelines of WP:PAID Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also unclear as to why you still have not properly declared as a paid editor. You seem to be under the impression that to be considered a paid editor you must have received an explicit payment for the creation of the article. This is not true. Anyone who has a financial stake in promoting a subject is considered a paid editor. By your own admission, your practice focuses around employing AEDP. As such, you have a clear financial stake in promoting the subject. The very first next step you should take is to properly declare per the guidelines of WP:PAID Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I am not a paid for my role as assistant editor. It's a volunteer position. I apologize for giving off the feeling that I think editors are too stupid to understand the nuances of psychology. I don't think that. But, you are right that I have had an attitude: it's been my experience that scientists tend to have a distain for psychology and especially for psychotherapy. I can understand this because the vocabulary is full of jargon and observation is often treated as fact. So quite the opposite. I feel some of you think I am self-promoting, or trying to pull a fast one, or parent shopping, or trying to infect wikipedia with "pseudo-science", or concealing a COI. I'm glad you mentioned that so I could clear that up. My intentions have been under continuous scrutiny, which I understand because you need to protect wikipedia from these things that really do happen. But, I have no evidence that the article has even been read for its content - only for it's 'tone' or potential implications. It's not been seen by anyone, as far as I can tell, that I have taken care of every single request and suggestion. I can't figure out what seems promotional or not neutral and I think this is where a PSYCH who knows the literature can be helpful because I would hope they would see I'm not writing in a promotional or not-original research manner, at least not intentionally. The articles, especially research articles should remain linked to the content they are linked to because that is a hell of a lot of work for someone to have to do all over again. Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Above you asked another editor: Please give an example of what sounds promotional? An example is in the first paragraph, which says: "It is featured by the American Psychological Association in its psychotherapy training DVD Systems of Psychotherapy Series, and Psychotherapy Supervision Series." This sentence sounds promotional; there is no good reason for this sentence to be in the article. The sentence, or one very similar to it, was also included at the start of the version of the article that was nominated for deletion in September 2017. The sentence was removed in subsequent editing in draft, as seen in this version of the article from November 2017. But then later you restored the sentence! That sentence is a good example of how the article has improved in some ways since it was moved to draft but has deteriorated (or at least not improved) in other ways. Biogeographist (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , No one is talking about your role as an editor. We are talking about the fact that you are a psychotherapist that advertises your services in relation to AEDP. This means you have a financial stake in promoting the subject and thus are a paid editor. Maybe you should heed some of these suggestions instead of fighting them all at every turn. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sulfurboy, I heeded every single suggestion - I have only been arguing when I had needed to keep it from being blown up, or when accused of concealing my association, or accused of having selfish motivations to promote my interests, or to promote AEDP. I simply really don't understand what sounds promotional (I never would have thought of the phrase "featured in" as promotional until Biogeoghraphist just pointed it out). I did not intentionally delete biogeoghaphist's changes because I didn't notice them except for a major contribution that was to do with substance and not style.  I have a pretty thick skin but after feeling like a source of suspicion, it's hard to not defend myself and the article from some of the people who actually don't understand psychology but want to say that it's pseudoscience. And to be labeled as a parent-shopper for asking for eyes from PSYCH is really demeaning, even though I think someone is just putting a tag to a perception, but it feels bad and therefore, perhaps that is the defensive tone you rightly detect. I don't think it would harm wikipedia if a nicer manner toward writers was adopted, such as, "hey great effort, nice writing, we see you put a lot of work into this, wikipedia appreciates it. But you've done your best lets have someone else work it into a wikipedia style." Instead, it's a lot of suspicion aimed at my motivations: I am trying to promote aedp, myself, parent-shop, conceal my association (i.e., lie, deceive), and then be told that my work of over 4 years should be blown up with TNT! Also, once again for the 1000th time I do not financially benefit in anyway whatsoever from my association with aedp.  I have a psychotherapy practice and my clients come to me because I am an expert in trauma. Yes, they are interested in what aedp is, but, they come to me for trauma whether or not I edit articles for the aedp internal journal.  BTW, I write articles for pleasure. That is why I was doing this. Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, is being too harsh and suspicious. It's obvious to me that you've put so much work into this because you love it—not because someone is paying you to do it, which is what being a "paid editor" means, per WP:PAID. And you've already sufficiently disclosed any other potential COI at Draft talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, in my opinion. Something I said in October 2017 is still relevant: these problems are endemic in the psychotherapy literature and nobody who has been intensively socialized into the psychotherapy milieu could be expected to step out of that culture and into Wikipedia's culture without a lot of experience editing (other articles and topics in) Wikipedia. Contra, the problem is not paid editing, it's that you are an AEDP cultural insider and we need an outsider point of view (this is like the emic and etic distinction). You already know this, but nobody else has stepped up to take responsibility for the article, unfortunately. Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of support Biogeographist, I understand how being a cultural insider can make it difficult to understand how other's may read the content and tone. I hope someone can benefit from my work into it. The hardest part is translating technical language and matching references to content. I am happy to provide someone with the references I got from a resource called deepdyve - I can't copy/paste cause of copyright, but I can screenshot relevant portions - otherwise, as you know, the cost is prohibitive for each article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Biogeographist, I'm really sorry about deleting your improvements that was not intentional. I went through the whole thing all over again in early 2020. I still don't see how it's promotional - oh! featured in? Ok. I can see that now. Didn't I need to mention the DVD series to establish notability? Well, I think someone could really just fix those sorts of things pretty easily. That's obviously not something I can do - its hard for me to see how it might appear to others. Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * is wrong about lack of notability. Notability has never been the issue with this article; even, who nominated the article for deletion in 2017, said that the subject was notable then, and it still is. The way it is written has always been the problem. Subsequent edits should have been focused on style and WP:NPOV. There has never been any need to establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Draft talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy again and noticed that I mentioned that sentence about the APA videos in October 2017, which likely lead to the sentence's removal (temporarily!). What I said then was appropriate and made me chuckle when I read it again now: On a related note, the APA's video series does not need to be mentioned in the lead. Mentioning the videos there makes it sound like AEDP is trying too hard to be legit. Yes, I know, the various psychotherapies do jockey to be legit, but that jockeying doesn't need to take place on Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I comment on one point, and that is that User:Carrieruggieri completely misses one point. She says that, contrary to the statements of some reviewers, the draft is written from a neutral point of view.  No, no, no.  She means that she thinks that she wrote it from a neutral point of view.  At least two reviewers think that she did not, and an author is not the judge of whether an article is written from a neutral point of view, only of whether the author tried to write it from a neutral point of view.  This is a case where, the more she insists that it IS NPOV (as opposed to that she tried to make it NPOV), the more obvious it is that she is not the best judge.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I never meant to say that the topic is not notable. I used the wrong template to reject it because there was no right template.  Someone who can read English can see that I said that there should be an article on AEDP, just not this article.  I never had notability issues.  I had tone issues, and length issues.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, my understanding from reading WP: NPV means the article should be written from reliable secondary sources. The article is written from reliable secondary sources. That to me is the most important criteria for NPV. I understand what biogeographist said about it sounding promotional to Wikipedian ears while it doesn’t sound that way to me at all. That is a non-judgemental assessment and doesn’t cause one to feel defensive. But probably 90% of the hours were in finding and reading and using the 2cd and 3rd party sources. That is a lot ! (And I really mean a lot! More than I ever put into any piece of writing ) of work. So you are using NPV to say it sounds promotional but someone might read NPV and think I wrote it from primary sources or cooked it up in my head. So I have to defend my work and my integrity - it would be very rude to push a non-NPV after being told not to- It’s been frustrating that my efforts have no way to be really seen- cause whose going to read the references? As to the template- how is one to know what takes precedence- what you write within the text or the big red box that says NOT notable along with a stop sign? If it stays like that it will discourage someone who might like to work on it. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been following this discussion from a distance and it's time I give my two cents. I will first comment on the alleged NPOV issues. I'm someone who is decently familiar with Wikipedia's policies and psychology topics, although I have not heard of AEDP in particular up to this point. After skimming the article, I have come to the conclusion that the original writer is not meaning to push a non-NPOV view, but that they're simply not familiar with Wikipedia's style of writing. There are just a few words here and there that Wikipedians would take issue with. The biggest culprit I've spotted would definitely be the sentence that states that it's "featured by the APA in its psychotherapy training DVD System...". While this might've been a simple way of establishing notability (which is important) this reads like the writer is trying to validate the legitimacy of this psychotherapy. It doesn't belong in the lead and I'd strongly consider removing it all together. Then you got other phrases in the lead like "informed by" and "is recognized as an effective treatment". Some Wikipedians would take issue with the wording here. I'd write "based on" and "is an effective treatment". It's more neutral that way and seems less like someone trying to justify its value.


 * Other than that... I honestly wasn't able to find much of anything that could be considered NPOV. The article's tone seems to largely be in the same vein as the B-class article Cognitive behavioral therapy. Maybe the tone was less neutral before I checked it, but right now it seems fine, other than the issues I mentioned above. I was more annoyed by how all the in-line citations precede the period (they should follow it) and how the article tells the reader several times to "see X below" (Wikipedia article's don't do that). This article is way better than your typical first article; I see no reason not to publish it after fixing these minor quibbles.


 * As for the COI issues, Carrieruggieri seems to have disclosed any COI, so I'm not sure what is the problem here? It's not like they invented AEDP or are promoting a book they wrote. They're just a student as far as I know. And as for notability, while I have not checked any of the sources directly, they do seem to be reliable from a distance. If this actually are secondary sources on top of that, I can't see how anyone would question the notability of this psychotherapy. Lastly, the article's length is not problematic in the least. "Much too long to be an encyclopedic discussion of a therapeutic technique"? The article on cognitive behavioral therapy is like twice the length. The length is fine.


 * Long story short, I really don't see any massive issues preventing this draft from being published. Change some wording, remove that APA DVD sentence and the 'see belows', then fix the position of the in-line citations (place them after the period). That's all I have to add.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with everything has said. I especially agree that it is extremely annoying that all the inline citations improperly precede punctuation. As can be seen in this version of the article from November 2017, I had managed to clean up all of the inline citations so that they properly followed the punctuation, but then  reverted all of that. Such subversion of my editing efforts by  caused me to stop working on the article. After someone else steps up and makes all the needed corrections, the article should be published. Biogeographist (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have declared my COI on my user page. It is also on the talk page of the draft. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Biogeographist, I'm very sorry about messing up your edits. Regarding the punctuation, I thought that I was being inconsistent with the inline punctuation, and I went through to make it consistent. I feel very badly about that and all the edits I unknowingly undid. I don't know how much work and time you put into it - I hope not too much. You are right to be highly annoyed! I am happy to go through and fix the inline citations - am I allowed to do that? I think I am instructed to stop working on it? If I have permission to fix that I am happy to save someone from the tedium. Also, how to I ping a name (do I put @ before it? or double Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can go through the draft and fix the inline citations; that would be helpful. Reply to or re is one way to ping; u is another way. The two ways produce slightly different formatting. Click on those links to see examples. Also, regarding content, the Criticism section mentions some criticism of metaprocessing by Sass, but doesn't mention Fosha's response/rebuttal to Sass in the same issue. I think it would be important to mention the latter. Biogeographist (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

re Biogeographist ok, will do. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

reply to Biogeographist I hope I got the format correct this time. I change the inline citations to be outside of the punctuation. I added Fosha's comment to Sass, and I took out the (see the map of the change. process as megamen n m suggested). I also took out the sentence about the DVD and added the DVD as a reference to supervision and short-term therapy part of the sentence about applications. I think that is everything. Let me know if you think there is anything more. Carrieruggieri (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Will you be removing the redirect so that the article can be moved to the main space?Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DSM-IV and DSM-V Diagnoses
I have encountered a situation at Articles for Creation that I will probably encounter again. A draft has been submitted on Draft:Other Specified Dissociative Disorder. That is a DSM-V term, and it redirects to Dissociative disorder not otherwise specified. The question is whether we want articles for both terminology, with cross-references, or whether we want to keep only the most current terminology. Any general or specific comments are welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Parkinson's FAR
I have nominated Parkinson's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

kindly requesting AFC Review
Good day! I am kindly requesting an AfC (Articles for Creation) review of the draft article below. Any feedback is much appreciated!

Draft:Centerstone Rlambert327 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Stereotype threat
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stereotype threat. Please see "Too much reliance on primary sources and WP:SYNTH" and following sections. Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Village pump (proposals)"
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals), which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Counterfactuals
Hi! I was wondering if anybody would be interested in helping improve and expand the "psychology" section in the counterfactual conditional article. Right now it has a couple cool tidbits, but isn't really cohesive. As a non-psychologist, it doesn't really help me understand how psychologists understand this phenomenon. Cheers! Botterweg14 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR for philosophy of mind
I have nominated Philosophy of mind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Violence article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's now an RfC: Talk:Violence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging of commitment with involuntary commitment
I think we should merge Involuntary commitment with Commitment (mental health). Commitment seems to be a new page split out from a sociology page. It mostly deals with the history of commitment in a number of countries. I'm advertising here to get some consensus. (Also is there anywhere else i should advertise this).

--Talpedia (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Obliviousness
I have a fun little draft underway at Draft:Obliviousness which could benefit from the ministrations of editors knowledgeable about psychology topics and sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source ?
Article Superstitions in Muslim societies is in process of expansion. Various related issues are under discussion at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

it includes following  topic Where in issue of Psychology was raised.

Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies

Any one can participate in expansion of Superstitions in Muslim societies and give inputs at various related discussions at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

For information and record

16:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for reviewers- Social dominance theory
I'd like to request a review of this article. SDT theory is highlighted in a recent Psychology Today review of John Dean and social psychologist Bob Altemeyer 's new book, "Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers". It is mostly concerns the mystery of Trump's base of followers who seem impervious to substantial factual evidence that contradicts their worldview.

I am not a subject matter expert in this area, but am a long time WP editor comfortable with making research paper more comprehensible to the general public. I have attempted to upgrade its quality over the past weeks and would appreciate a second set of eyes on it. I expect this article and related social/ political psychology articles may gain increasing public attention. Any edits or comments on what the article needs for improvement would be much appreciated. I'd like to help get it up at least to at least B quality. J JMesserly (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about in/excluding sources on Talk:Orgone
I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism
Your participation is invited at. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the relation of occupational health psychology to health psychology on Talk:health psychology
User:iss246 Please notify me after replying on my User_talk:Iss246. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New Article That Needs Help
Hello, there is a relatively new article for which an editor has recommended attention from experts in psychology. See Semantics (psychology).  DOOMSDAYER 520 &#124; TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested: should this be a container cat?
Category:People with mental illnesses only contains a single article (other than a main list). I don't think it's useful to have biographies directly inserted into this but it is useful to have it in subcategories that have actual diagnoses and reliable sources. Should I apply container to this? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on how to define "suicidal ideation" and compose the lead paragraph
WP:PSYCH is one of the WikiProjects listed as having interest in the article, Suicidal ideation. A request for comments (RfC) is currently underway at: RfC on how to define "suicidal ideation" and compose the lead paragraph. Your input would be very helpful. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Inertia (anxiety) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inertia (anxiety) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Inertia (anxiety) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Greta Thunberg § BIAS Alert: Why does the article start with Health (mental health)?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Greta Thunberg § BIAS Alert: Why does the article start with Health (mental health)?. The issue is whether discussing her mental health early in the article biases it. There is a suggestion that it should be moved to the bottom of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ADHD in Women
Hi, I am very interested in creating an ADHD in Women article. A lot of research has been done on this topic and more girls/women are getting diagnosed. I feel that the importance of an article to summarise the research for women considering diagnosis or recently diagnosed and their friends/family (and let's be honest, their health care providers too) is increasing because the numbers of people to whom it is relevant is increasing. However, I've got some problems
 * 1) I myself have ADHD and therefore have issues with follow-through. I need others to help because I will just peter out without others to get me going.
 * 2) I have a biased view on the topic because I am a woman with ADHD and a disability advocate.
 * 3) I am used to writing about ADHD in an academic context and may not be able to write in an accessible way.
 * 4) I am new on wikipedia and don't know a lot of things (e.g. how one creates a new article).

I have posted this on the psychiatry talk page as well.

Thoughts? Xurizuri (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops forgot that I should also post this to WP:AUTISM and the ADHD article itself. Have now done that. Xurizuri (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, User:Xurizuri. You might like to post this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as I get the impression that a lot of psychology related discussion happens there rather than here.
 * - I think wikipedia has a problem with follow-through in general (busy lives), but I think other people often extend unfinished work over time.
 * - I wouldn't worry too much about being biased, other opinionated people will read and edit what you write, and if you are using and accurately quoting WP:MEDRS sources for everything you write your bias is limited. The only caveat here might be if you are working somewhere where there are few other people.
 * - I don't know what I think about accessibility. I'm probably one of the people more in favour of "academic" style writing in wikipedia (perhaps with simplified leads) as I feel that making writing accessible or simpler often creates bias or misleads. Other people disagree with me.
 * - I don't know what advice I would give about being new to wikipedia. There's a bunch of advice you can read and policies. I might encourage starting out with smaller edits that add things, as they generate less controversy, and watching how other people copyedit your work is quite informative.
 * One thing I might suggest is starting your work *within* the ADHD article rather than in the new article. You'll get more feedback there, since people will already have that article on their WP:Watchlist.
 * I have some slight concerns about WP:POVFORK, drama, and the potential for controversy regarding "women and X" topics, particularly if the main article doesn't address the topic that well, but can see the value as a lens for particular topics where there are strong gender effects.

Talpedia (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC) . It's probably the logical place to post - it's just there might be no one here to reply!
 * In no particular order, and w/o responding to all: I think that is a good idea to begin on the ADHD article and get feedback; expand the women/adhd section there which would also function as a very rough draft for a larger article. The psychiatry page is part of WP:MED so I assumed that relevant issues get shunted there. I did think about POV fork, but I believe it is a different enough topic to warrant its own page. Women tend to have different diagnosis and symptom patterns, and symptoms appear differently. There's also issues on why diagnosis is different - e.g. whether it reflects an actual underlying genetic difference, if its biased application of diagnostics, if its that the diagnostic criteria themselves are flawed. Similar situation with symptoms. Co-morbidities are different. There is an issue with implying otherness - ADHD in women implies that the ADHD article is about men and the omission of "of men" implies that men are default - but I think that just requires very careful wording of the article title, in the related section in the ADHD article, and in the lead. Further, ADHD historically has been a boy's condition: thats why an ADHD in adults article was created and why it isn't entirely inaccurate to imply that the ADHD article is about ADHD in men. (maybe a better title for this is ADHD and women? idk.) Xurizuri (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the deadness of this page, I'm basing my comments on some comments by User:Flyer22 Frozen here "That WikiProject is barely active, though. It can be described as inactive, not just semi-inactive."
 * I haven't read the literature enough to know whether it is true or not - but I see no reason why it isn't given my current understanding. My general theoretical bias for psychology is to view gender as a continuum with different means (so for example the symptom patters may be described by agreeableness rather than gender), splitting the genders in two may hide this (e.g. you might get the more agreeable boy with ADHD whose symptoms are similar to those of girls or the disagreeable boy whose symptoms are like those of girls - in the sense that some symptoms are described by agreeableness) - a distinction based on male/female may fail to deal with the significant minority of boys / girls who are less "male" or "female" along some particular facet of personality than the mean. Not sure the discussion is that relevant in practice though, I agree that the diagnostic pattern is probably different enough to justify a "female specific article" (though again without having read the literature), but feel that it might be good to cover much of the material in the main article instead / as well. Yup I agree that the main article is probably going to be about "ADHD in male-stereotypical men" in the sense that the literature will be slightly limited, but if the literature exists we can correct this bias in the main article. Talpedia (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your theory, but tragically the gender spectrum hasn't really reached psychology's deep academia yet (gender as socially constructed has barely reached it). Given the current scientific understanding, child/adult and male/female (using the LGBT meaning of this here) are the only splits that are clear for now. For bias in the main article, it's reasonable to prioritise our understanding about the majority of cases there. It'd be unrepresentative to give as much time in it to describing female-specific patterns as to describing the majority pattern. Ideally though over time the field will figure out how to incorporate female experience of ADHD into the overall body of knowledge and the distinction will be moot. BUT either way, I think improving the main article's coverage will be the first goal; having a checkpoint that stands alone as an actual contribution is definitely the way to go for me.
 * So I wouldn't necessarily classify all of this as "gender spectrum" in the LGBT sense (even though that's the term I used), in the sense that you can be a very heterosexual women who likes stereotypically female things and yet, say, also be highly disagreeable and risk taking (traits that are more common in men). There's a fair amount of research on personality and what it is correlated with (big 5), I don't know if this has showed up in ADHD yet of it it's really that applicable, it seems like it might be a different psychological construct that is correlated with ADHD.
 * I think if will be an achievement to add enough material to make the article unrepresentative! Talpedia (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just having a look at this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3821966/ and this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ It's kind of interesting that that one of the correlates with ADHD, neuroticism, is more common in women, while another, disagreeableness is less (but only shows up as a correlate for impulsivity) so in some sense ADHD might be *more* common in women but less visible/problematic (of course that is to assume a direction causality / underlying factor that may not exist). Also the enthusiasm/assertiveness split comes to mind here. Talpedia (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * hexaco/big 5 correlates with conditions are very interesting. emotionality/neuroticism is consistently associated with mental illness across the board, whereas the other trait spectrums are different depending on the condition. It makes sense that neuroticism would be worse in women w/ adhd, as the rates of depression/anxiety is frequently found to be higher (one of the theories is that women are socialised to suppress hyperactive/impulsive traits and then becomes anx/dep). It's well-established that women don't meet the hyperactive/impulsive criteria as often and it seems fairly likely this relationship is partially (though definitely not fully) causative. Xurizuri (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All interesting stuff, will be good when we've added some of it to wikipedia! Talpedia (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Realised its possibly not fully clear from how I'm speaking: there's reasonable amounts of literature on females w/ ADHD, but this hasn't been integrated that well into broader condition understanding. The latter is what I meant by majority pattern. Xurizuri (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Xurizuri - Welcome to Wikipedia! It's great to have an enthusiastic, knowledgeable new editor like you join our ranks. // Regarding your idea, I suggest writing a draft article in your sandbox and post the link here. Interested editors can give you feedback as you progress with the article. (I will put it on my watchlist.) Other editors are not going to delete an article in your sandbox, but if you published an article to Wikipedia without feedback, it would probably get deleted (simply because you are new and haven't learned all the whys and wherefores of Wikipedia yet.) I think your idea is a good one, whether it ends up being a stand alone article or a section within a current ADHD article. (I think it's notable enough for a stand alone article, but, of course, it's not up to just lil 'ol me. ;-) All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm currently summarising references on my user page because I haven't figured out subpages/sandboxes yet. Once I do, I'll link it. I definitely wouldn't just suddenly create a page on a psychiatric condition (particularly such a contentious one) bc of the potential harm if I've written something very inaccurate, so I would honestly hope it would get deleted if I did that. Xurizuri (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you can just type in a URI like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xurizuri/Draft (I've seen other users do this). Talpedia (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Grammar Pedantry Syndrome
Kindly help if we can improve the topic. Happy new year, 2021. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  UpdateThe subject page is moved to Draft: Pedantry, for  reliable sources. RV (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Psi in the navigation template
Hi,

Should the letter Psi really be used on the Psychology navigation bar?

See Template talk:Psychology sidebar. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resources on project page
I updated some of the links in the resources section. However, the NIAAA one was... a bit weird. It's been deleted from the NIAAA website and then someone grabbed it and archived the database here. In 2003. I didn't update the links, for two reasons: it's not clear why the NIAAA stopped using this database, and it's 17 years old. It seems like it'd be a useful resource, except that I have pretty big concerns about its accuracy. Should I update the links, delete the old ones, or leave well enough alone? P.S. I am not very talented at that last one. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh while I'm doing this anyway, should I leave the two links to the DSM-IV? --Xurizuri (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the links to the DSM-IV (once I remember how I managed to edit it last time). It's 8 years out of date. I'll leave NIAAA for now, maybe someone that knows more about it will appear. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Article comment requested
Could I get some people to please comment on Talk:Group work about what the article is even supposed to be about? Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate pages on Hypersexuality
There are two pages addressing "hypersexuality." Nymphomaniac redirects to one, Nymphomania redirects to the other. One appears to be a legitimate article, the other is flagged in various ways as being a problem. In my opinion, Hypersexuality should be kept and Hypersexual disorder should be removed completely and the various redirects sorted out accordingly.____
 * I agree with you, . --Anton.t.gregersen (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Collective intelligence
An article that been involved with ( Collective intelligence ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (General collective intelligence). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AngusWOOF, there isn't a discussion there. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , see Talk:Collective_intelligence. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AngusWOOF, I did, but I was expecting a discussion instead of one comment. Thanks anyway. I can always reply to the person and see if that gets the discussion going. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Members of this group may be interested in this discussion on Talk:Parental alienation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender euphoria
Cross-posted from WP:MED. Relevant to this wikiproject, comments are needed at Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Human
Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

New footnote/reference needed on Iconic Memory
On the Iconic Memory page, the first reference seems incorrect. It goes to an unrelated reference. RobinJBR (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Narcissistic abuse
The article Narcissistic abuse has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Narcissistic abuse (2nd nomination). All input helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

R.I.P. Arthur Staats, highly regarded behavioral psychologist
There is a fantastic obit found here in The New York Times if anyone wishes to create an article. I'll note that he is quoted in the behavioral psychology article, so that would be one easy wiki-link to make. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Mental health first aid" article needs help rewriting with neutrality
The Mental Health First Aid article reads as an advertisement from the organizations selling the courses, has source spamming, and needs a lot of work to rewrite it in a neutral fashion. It's efficacy is controversial, according to peer reviewed sources (one cited on the page so far). It's too large for myself to rewrite on my own. Sesopenko (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning bipolar diagnosis in BLPs
Please comment at WT:Biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PermStrump (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit needed in Resources section
I don't know how to edit information in the boxes on the Project's home page. Under Resources, Open Directory (dmoz.org) has closed, so we should either remove it as a resource or link to the archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markworthen (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:	#7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

 

Editorial: Core models and topics
Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links

 * WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development).
 * Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon.
 * As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata.
 * GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions.
 * Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months.
 * Olivia Solon in San Francisco, the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian'' on 11 July.

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
 * }

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

body positivity in fashion
I plan to add a sections on Christian Siriano, the winner of Project Runway, and a fashion disgner. He believes in the bueaty of the body and how he can dress the women to look and feel beautiful. One example includes Leslie Jones, a comedian. Not one disigner would dress her for the Reboot of Ghost busters. When word got out on social media Siriano happily took her in.

https://theundefeated.com/features/leslie-jones-said-no-one-would-help-dress-her-for-ghostbusters-premiere/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Siriano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klopezz2 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Convers about DISC assessment
Dear psychology experts, i feel that DISC assessment is in need of some urgent review. The article has grown significantly since I last worked on it. I feel that it's tone is definitely promoting what I believe is a fringe topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Robert Lanza
There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Gay lifestyle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gay lifestyle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience
There is a discussion as to whether psychoanalysis should be categorized as a pseudoscience on the article talk page. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about coverage of claims of efficacy in Positive psychology
After reading the article "Positive Psychology Goes to War" in the current Chronicle of Higher Education (see ), out of curiosity I looked at the Positive psychology article (and the related article Martin Seligman). Although the article Positive psychology mentions Seligman 35 times (including the references and bibliography), there was no mention of the doubts that have been raised about his claims. The Chronicle article focuses on the lucrative contract that Seligman's Positive Psychology Center has with the US Army for the purpose of preventing or reducing PTSD, despite the apparent absence of any evidence of the method's efficacy in preventing PTSD. The Chronicle article mentions some sources that question the evidentiary basis for the claims made for positive psychology techniques in reducing depression and suicide among adolescents, and also some sources for the PTSD controversy. Should this be discussed in the article? If so, someone with a background in psychology would be better able than I to know how best to give balanced coverage to the viewpoints of the promoters vs critics. I think the Martin Seligman article also needs some balance. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: A review/opinion piece by senior editor Len Gutkin in the Chronicle of Higher Education (see ) gives another source, the book The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills by Jesse Singal. NightHeron (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Here is Seligman's response to Singal and Singal's response to Seligman . The main question in dispute is whether or not the data support the effectiveness of Seligman's positive psychology program with the US Army. NightHeron (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Attractiveness merger
Heads up that I've just started a merger of attractiveness into interpersonal attraction. I also noticed an unresolved merger proposal of chemistry (relationship) into interpersonal attraction (generally supported) from 2012, and thought it'd be a good idea to remind everyone of it for any new opinions, then close both at the same. One way or another, these articles have a nightmarish level of crossover, so it'd be nice to check if we actually need all of them. Come give your thoughts! --Xurizuri (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits/reorganisation at Stanford prison experiment
Please join the discussion at Talk:Stanford_prison_experiment. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

DSM codes
Is it just me, or did the infoboxes on articles about mental illnesses used to have DSM and ICD codes? I just flipped through a few and didn't see any, and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) doesn't have a slot for that info. I think it would be useful to have; I've heard of people getting a medical bill with a DSM code on it and not knowing what it was, so being able to do a search and find the corresponding condition would be grand. Is there any downside to including this info or some discussion somewhere that resulted in all this being removed? -- Beland (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles usually have a Template:Medical resources in the bottom of the page (below citations and references) with ICD identifiers etc. Anton.t.gregersen (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

RFCs at Talk:Psychology
There are two Requests for Comments active at Talk:Psychology. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Are non-therapy treatments in scope?
I couldn't find anything on the subpages or archive - are medications in scope? There seems to be a trend of medication classes or groupings being in-scope, but not specific drugs. For example, of the top priority psychiatry articles that have existed for at least a few years (I'm assuming we would've claimed them by now if we wanted to) - Fluoxetine and Sertraline aren't marked as psychology, but Mood stabilizer, and Psychiatric medication are. However, did we as a project decide on this? If not, then the trend could feasibly be due to a small number of people maintaining it. Similarly, are surgical interventions in-scope? Electroconvulsive therapy is marked as included, but psychosurgery/neurosurgery aren't. Any help would be appreciated. I personally would say treatment of any psychological disorder should be within scope, given that the disorders are in scope. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous into Alcoholics Anonymous)
Please see Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Social construct theory of ADHD into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies)
I've started a discussion on this proposal over here! Should this also be posted to the relevant pages for WikiProject Medicine and the neurology task force? — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , it would be a good idea to let the WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force know. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh also Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly, ! The psychiatry task force seems a bit inactive, so I'll leave a notice on the main article's talk page. — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Simplified Hierarchy of Needs
Hi there! I was just reviewing this article and think it could use more information under the simplified Hierarchy of Needs image. It would just be useful to have a quick explanation of what is being presenting under it. Such as: Simplified Hierarchy of Needs pyramid, showing the different sections of basic, psychological and self-fillings needs within his model. Let me know your thoughts.Beherbic (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, when you say "this article" which article are you talking about? Wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Simplified Hierarchy of Needs". If you're talking about the article Maslow's hierarchy of needs then, yes, that image could do with a better caption explaining what is different about the simplified version. Feel free to go ahead and improve it. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

DISC assessment
I'd appreciate some expert eyes on DISC assessment. This is an article about a Myers-Briggs style personality test that is often sold to recruiters as a way of providing insights to hiring managers. From what I read it is entirely pseudo-scientific. I've noticed that a one single purpose editor seems to be making promotional edits to this page, eliminating references which are critical of the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Need review of broad deletion of usage of category, template and links to "Psychological manipulation"
Suggest review of these changes relating to Psychological manipulation, the Category:Psychological manipulation usage and the template Template:Psychological manipulation usage. StrayBolt (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you had done past reverts and notices on the IP's talk page, thought you might want to comment about a possible larger issue. StrayBolt (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Larger issue may be that this appears to be User:Wiki-psyc editing while logged out. They removed many entries from Template:Psychological manipulation on Monday with an edit summary about the difference between manipulation and psychological manipulation, then an IP began removing that template and related categories from the same articles the next day, in the same order they had been listed in the template. No opinion on the merit of any of these edits, psychology isn't my area and I haven't encountered this user before, I just reverted what seemed like a mistaken category removal on the gaslighting article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do do not always check to see if I'm logged in. I will be mindful to do that going forward. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that someone intentionally stacked the "psychological manipulation" template for some reason. I'm not sure it is helpful or encyclopedic to link in articles like Popularity, Smile, Attention, Praise, Flattery, Gift, Jewish mother stereotype, Assertiveness, Suggestibility, Dumbing down, Distraction, Nudge theory, Personal boundaries and most interestingly, Persuasion under the category of "psychological manipulation". These article don't discuss "psychological manipulation". While it is true that any human interaction (or lack of) can be corrupted, I don't think listing them in a template serves the readers. A review is welcomed and I will yield to the majority. Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks eventually I did start to suspect the IP and Wiki-psyc were the same.
 * I first encountered this issue in Nudge theory where there are many publications discussing if/when it is Psychological manipulation. Perhaps it would be better to start with improving the PM article itself first and then edit the category members or template. For instance, your rational for removing the other articles in the categories isn't specifically stated in the PM article, while many of those articles are mentioned/linked to in the PM article. So some articles are too general for PM, I may revert some of your changes like I did for Nudge theory. StrayBolt (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my rationale. I offer the following as food for thought.
 * My point was that "psychological manipulation" is not mentioned in the article "Smile" for example which displayed a "psychological manipulation" template. It's also worth noting that "smile" is also not mentioned in the article Psychological manipulation. So why is it in the template and why is the template displayed? Is smiling a primary element in Psychological manipulation? Should we up edit these two articles to make the point that smiling is psychological manipulation? Probably not.
 * I think that one could equally argue that most applications of "nudge theory" don't rise to the level of being "exploitation and devious" and that social influence is generally considered harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive (|Stanford's Ethics of Manipulation). Nudge theory is primarily about social influence and influencing decision-making through positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions. Nonetheless, an argument can also be made that in some cases, it could be "exploitation and devious" - but that argument is not made in the article.
 * Perhaps, going forward, we might consider where these subjects fall on the continuum of Persuasion → Influence  →  Physiological manipulation before re-posting the PM template. Just food for thought. Appreciate the discussion.
 * I found this. It is helpful. WP:NAVBOX
 * Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Article and template has been cleaned up. Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to Personality page
I made some suggestions for revisions to this article and would welcome feedback and help implementing them. See Talk:Personality. Thanks. Hypoplectrus (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Rapid Grant Proposal: Using Squid Game to share resources
Hello! I am a member of the H-GAPS User Group. I am working with a small group of editors to create and share mental health resources. We are hoping to create a toolkit or set of pages focusing on psychology using Squid Game for examples/context. The show's universal popularity is something we hope to use to connect with a wider audience, and hope that we can collaborate with teams in Korea to execute partner resources in Korean. To support this project, we are applying for a Rapid Grant through the Wikimedia Foundation, and you are welcome to review the draft here: Promoting dissemination of cross-cultural mental health resources using Squid Game. We welcome any questions, feedback, and endorsements! Please feel free to contact me directly at hannahkim623@gmail.com with any questions or feedback. Thank you.--Hkim243 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's great to hear from you! I'm guessing that you meant H-GAPS User Group for the first link and meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Hkim243/Promoting dissemination of cross-cultural mental health resources using Squid Game for the second. When creating links to pages that are on other wiki foundation sites, you'll need to put the name of the site at the start, followed by a colon. Most sites also have an acronym or abbreviation, for example Wikimedia is "mw" (you'll see I used that for the second wikilink), which I believe stands for "meta-wiki". If you need to connect to a Wikipedia page though, put "en" at the start for English wikipedia (e.g. Squid Game), or "ko" at the start for Korean wikipedia (e.g. 오징어 게임) - and so on for other languages. Unfortunately, I know nothing about grants, wikiversity, or the squid game, so I can't help with your project :( Hopefully someone else can though! --Xurizuri (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (To make readability a little easier, I've directed edited the links above with the relevant prefix). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject landing page
So people may have noticed some changes... I made the changes primarily because the content wasn't overly helpful and the boxes were actively inaccessible. Everything that used to be on the home page is either still there or on a page that's linked in the tabs at the top. There's an incredibly high chance that I missed something or put something in a bad place, so if you don't feel comfortable correcting something yourself, let me know and I'll do it (as long as it's something I know how to do or can find out how to do). One non-layout change I made was the addition of priority tasks. This would be a good way to direct effort, rather than just having everyone run off on their own (not that it isn't useful to have some solo agents). I'm not overly committed to the ones I suggested, EXCEPT the first. A key component of keeping a wikiproject alive is to keep recruiting, and there are a lot of people out there editing psych articles who we have never invited. What small-ish tasks would other people like to see us prioritise for a bit? --Xurizuri (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has anything psych-related that they'd like a handful of people to help with? --Xurizuri (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . Looks like you've done some great work organizing WP:PSYCH--thank you! I am interested in getting involved in WP:PSYCH and am working with a group of professionals who bring psychology training and expertise, though not a lot of Wikipedia know-how--not yet, anyway. Just wanted to introduce myself. I am an M.D. and know a lot about psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychology, but am interested in helping to improve the psychology pages in general. I've made some suggestions for revisions to the Personality article in response to its being selected an Article for Improvement. You can check out the suggestions at Talk:Personality. I have ideas for improvements to other pages, as well. Is the best way to proceed to make the proposals at the individual article Talk pages and then request comment here on the WikiProject Psychology Talk page? Cheers, Hypoplectrus (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've seen you around! It's really exciting to hear that you have a bunch of ideas. The approach you've described is generally the best approach to take if your suggestions might be controversial or you don't know how to make the changes, although you can still be bold and make changes yourself (see WP:CYCLE for an explanation of one common approach to article improvements, and WP:CONSENSUS for the backbone of almost all decisions or changes on wikipedia). If you do decide to make bold changes, try to only do one big change at a time so it's easier for others to keep track and assess them. The talk page of the article should almost always be the first place to discuss improvements, so the main discussion should normally be there. Notifying us is a good approach too, although for some articles there may be other articles that should be notified if there's a major change being suggested (e.g. if I was proposing to merge any of the Autism spin off articles, I would let the main Autism spectrum article know).
 * On another note - you mentioned that you're working with a group of professionals. Do they also have Wikipedia accounts, and are you part of any external organisation? Conflict of interest editing is allowed, but it's best to declare any interests you have that may affect your editing and any external coordination you may be doing with other editors. Alternatively, if they don't have their own accounts, it's important that they don't edit using your account, as each account should have only one user. I hope you all keep editing! --Xurizuri (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much for all this helpful advice. Much appreciated! You asked about external organizations. I am a member of the American Psychoanalytic Association (just joined in the last month, actually), and I met some others through APsaA who have expressed interest in editing Wikipedia. Our connection is highly informal. All of us are participating on Wikipedia on a totally volunteer, unpaid basis and we come from a variety of training backgrounds. I myself am not a psychoanalyst, but have studied it. I don't know any of the others' usernames or even if any of them have begun to edit. I mentioned them just to extend them as a resource to WikiProject Psychology in the event that we can help answer any questions, particularly about clinical psychology and psychodynamic psychology. Thanks also for your feedback on my proposed improvements to Personality. I will get to work implementing them, let you know when I make changes, and look forward to your feedback. Cheers, Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Creativity and mental health
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Creativity and mental health that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)