Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

DSM-5 plan of action

Couple of questions...

1) Is there a plan of action for updating references from DSM-IV to the DSM-5?

Ex. On the main page for this project, under the resources heading, there are links to the DSM-IV codes. Do we want to update that?

2) Speaking of codes, is there consensus here about always using the ICD-10 codes from now on?

It looks like there's been some attempt made to keep the info boxes consistent, but IDK if that stemmed from this project or WP:Medicine or if on this project we have an opinion about it. Info boxes on most WP:Psych articles list both the ICD-10 code and the DSM-IV code that corresponded with the ICD-9 (see bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder). There are stragglers that were never updated to the ICD-10 (see bipolar I disorder). So if I were to update an article like bipolar I disorder, should I leave the ICD-9 stuff and add ICD-10? Seems to me that we should work towards removing the ICD-9 codes completely at this point.

4) Do we generally try to keep the terminology in articles consistent with the current version of the DSM?

Ex. What was Substance abuse in the DSM-IV-TR is now substance use disorder-mild in the DSM-5 and substance dependence is was changed to SUD-moderate or severe. It bugs me having the outdated stuff there, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's an argument for keeping it. (I'll make a separate post later about the outcome of the 7-month old discussion to merge/not merge certain SUD-related articles that I just read on the substance dependence talk page. It seems like they thought SUD only replaced substance abuse in the DSM-5.)

5) Has there been any discussion about how to handle references to the DSM-IV that no longer apply in the DSM-5?

Ex. Polysubstance dependence was removed from the DSM-5. I miss it, but it's gone. Clearly the article needs at least one sentences addresses that, but is it due the same amount of weight as before?

Permstrump (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from the topic, but Wikipedia is sometimes accused of being U.S.-centric, including by the medical community. I am not opposed to including information about any version of DSM in any article, but of the two systems (ICD and DSM), if one takes precedence it should be ICD because it represents a worldwide view. Even in the United States insurance companies require ICD. For the record I am an American with a Ph.D. in psychology and a medical degree, but I do think we should be sensitive to the issue of Wikipedia being written for worldwide readership. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be rigorous one way or the other. Our terminology should be based on the literature as a whole. DSM and ICD are very important parts of the literature, but they shouldn't be the sole determinants of our terminology. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Any medical diagnostic system for psychopathology has many shortcomings. There are other diagnostic systems, but they are not well known and thus rarely used. But as far as coding and official names for disorders are concerned, ICD should take precedence. Sundayclose (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sundayclose and Looie496: I agree that the ICD should be the default. Is there a reason to standardize info boxes on articles that talk about specific psychiatric diagnoses? It looks like some effort had been made previously. Some disorder still only list the ICD-9-CM's equivalent in the DSM-IV (e.g. bipolar I disorder says ICD-9-CM 296.7), but most articles were updated at some point to list both the ICD9CM and the ICD10 codes (e.g. bipolar disorder says ICD-10 F31; ICD-9-CM 296.0, 296.1, 296.4,296.5, 296.6, 296.7,296.8). If there's a good reason to standardize the info boxes, IMHO we should delete the ICD-9-CM codes completely and only use the ICD-10 codes.

As a separate thing, the DSM is the international standard for research for now, so the vast majority of peer-reviewed sources that are cited in articles covered by WP:PSYCH will refer to the DSM, so I think there's a good argument to use the DSM in a consistent way across psych articles. IMHO it's important to clarify which articles are about conditions that exist in the current version of the DSM (and therefore also the ICD) vs articles about terms that are used colloquially or by pop psych writers who coin buzzwords for book sales. I think the articles on lovesickness and obsessive love are good examples. Note: I did update some of the phrasing in both leads a little bit recently. I liked the way the previous version of lovesickness said in the first sentence that it was informal terminology. I'd want to tighten up obsessive love in a similar way, but I haven't done that yet, because that's kind of part of this question. Permstrump (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • FYI there's actually an active proposal initiated by someone on WP:MED about moving the current standard infobox on med-related articles (which includes a lot of articles that fall under psych too) from the top to the bottom of the page. They're not talking about deleting ICD9 codes, but figured I'd point it out since it's kind of related. I guess the WP:MED people must have been the ones that standardized the infobox on a lot of the psych articles like bipolar disorder since I think this project is a branch of WP:MED. Permstrump (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This project is independent of WPMED, but psychiatric disorders are an area of overlap for the two. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor comment: I wouldn't agree entirely that DSM is the international standard for research. The actual alphanumeric codes are rarely used in research. The verbal descriptors of disorders may or may not conform more to DSM rather than ICD. I would agree that a lot of research uses DSM terminology, but I wouldn't say that DSM is the "standard" for research worldwide. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I should have worded the segue into the second paragraph better, b/c when I started talking about the DSM being the international research standard, I didn't mean the codes. I only meant the terminology and criteria. Maybe standard was a strong word, but the DSM criteria are used the majority of the time for research so that researchers can use the same tools for measurement as people in other countries and be able to compare their findings. I can't find the exact article, but this one says the same idea. My point was mainly that for the people who actually like to read the original source that was referenced in an article, it would be easier for laymen to understand if the language in wikipedia was consistent with, or at least explained the difference in, the terminology used in the sources cited within that article. Permstrump (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: Nations and intelligence

Please comment on Talk:Nations_and_intelligence#rfc:_Lead_section. --The Master (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please visit and help


Hello friends. The following articles could really use some neutral input:

Many, many, many, and I mean many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Verifying Autism spectrum diagnosis

I occasionally review the list and categories of people with autism spectrum disorders, to verify the items that are added to them. I remove an entry if I find evidence that it is based on something that is plainly not an expert diagnosis. For example, I remove people who self-diagnosed.

This is what I recently did at Gary Numan. There are two relevant citations in the article. In one, Mr. Numan says that he has an Asperger syndrome diagnosis and "it makes a lot of sense." But what sort of diagnosis? The other source gives more detail: Mr. Numan's wife suggested to him that he had the syndrome, so he took online questionnaires and then announced to the world that he has it. That is self-diagnosis, open and shut. He could, hypothetically, have obtained a separate expert diagnosis. That's something he can clarify, and until he does, it's mere speculation against his own words. I removed the category, but other users have restored it, claiming that the former source contradicts the latter. They don't contradict, they are just separate statements that give different details. I believe that the category should be verified from all available information, not part of it.

Question (for discussion on the article's talk page): Is it proper to remove an autism category because a person has publicly admitted self-diagnosing? Or should that admission be ignored because it wasn't repeated on another occasion? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure if it's better to cite WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP for that one. Permstrump (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pica comorbidities

The lede paragraph of Pica (disorder) included the sentence

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and they often have psychotic comorbidity.

The writing is awkward. I think what was meant is that pica often has psychotic comorbidity, not that the mental and emotional disorders do.

I have rewritten it as

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and often has psychotic comorbidity.

But this should be checked by someone with the relevant medical knowledge.

Also listed at Talk:Pica (disorder)#Comorbidities and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Pica comorbidities. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ulysses syndrome

Hi, I have just joined this WikiProject. I've been editing the article on Ulysses syndrome, but have noticed that there seems to be two different definitions of the syndrome.

1. A set of symptoms experienced by migrants following migration:

2. The ill-effects felt by patients due to a wrongfully diagnosis:

Would it be more appropriate to split this article into two articles in order to address the two different definitions? I am not an expert in this topic, perhaps the definition regarding symptoms experienced by migrants refers to a wrongful diagnosis of a disorder. That's what this article seems to suggest in the bottom paragraph of the second page. Thanks! LoudLizard (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that we should have an article with this title at all. For the first use the only sources PubMed finds are two articles in Spanish from 2005 and 2006; for the second use the only things found are two articles in an obscure journal from 1992. The other sources listed above are not compatible with our guidelines for appropriate sources for medical articles, as laid out in WP:MEDRS. There are no signs that the term is actually being used, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Psychiatry

I was just clicking around Democratic Psychiatry and some of the other articles that Hoary mentioned above and found myself on the Anti-psychiatry page and... it's a mess. The first 2 sources I checked randomly had nothing to do with anti-psychiatry. From a quick skim, I'm pretty sure it's going to need a serious cleanup. I got the sense from the talkpage that there's a lot of poorly sourced information backing up ideas about psychiatry that stem from scientology. Permstrump (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The article keeps banging on about Szasz, who seems pretty radical; yet the article on Szasz says "He served for most of his career as professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York [and was a] distinguished lifetime fellow of the American Psychiatric Association [... who] maintained throughout his career that he was not anti-psychiatry [...]." I infer that anti-psychiatry doesn't seem to mean any one thing. If I'm right, this wouldn't make an article inappropriate or impossible, but it would bring a need for subtle exposition and careful organization. Where some WP:FRINGE ideology has demonstrably had a real world effect, I suppose that it must be written up, but I'd hope that the article wouldn't aggrandize any pseudoscientific or cult beliefs. And sorry, but I can only observe this from the sidelines. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I only heard the term "antipsychiatry" yesterday for the first time myself too, but from the couple of articles I read, I think you summed it up perfectly (my understanding of it, at least). It's confusing, because, like you said, a lot of people who were labeled "anti-psychiatry" had widely different views from each other. I get the impression that in the 60s and 70s, the term was used as a kind of catchall snarl word for anyone who criticized Establishment Psychiatry, so there were practitioners, patients and laymen who opposed things like frontal lobotomies and longterm involuntary commitment in asylums that were labeled as anti-psychiatry and lumped together with legit mental illness deniers like scientologists and Szasz (to an extent). If anyone's interested, Szasz's obituary in the NYT helped me make sense of how his views fit into the big picture and RationalWiki has a pretty good, but snarky, article on Szasz too (obviously RationalWiki isn't RS, but it was a good read for getting a understanding of the forces at play). Permstrump (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's clear that there was also quite a bit of rancour among some of the various factions which, rightly or wrongly, have been widely called antipsychiatric, with one faction claiming that the opposition of another to conventional psychiatric practice was spineless or meaningless, etc. Complicated further by alliances with this or that political creed or organization (and raising questions such as that of the meaning -- in relevant contexts, not recent US federal politics -- of terms such as "libertarian"). And the somewhat cultish regard for certain figures, who had spokespersons who may or may not have misrepresented what those figures actually thought or said. Urghhh. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The article "Thinking critically about scientology, psychiatry, and their feud", cited in the article, is a bit of an eye-opener. Here's how it starts: For many Americans who gain their information solely from television, all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists, [...]. The mass media has been highly successful in convincing Americans to associate criticism of psychiatry with anti-drug zealots from the Church of Scientology, the lucrative invention of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. That was published seven years ago and things may have changed since. But so far as it's true ... neither American nor a watcher of TV, I'm amazed (and appalled). No wonder the cult has its toehold in that article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Basaglian psychiatry

[Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, as suggested by Ozzie10aaaa] Over at the apparently sleepy page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, I've posted a request about the article Morire di classe (a book coedited by Franco Basaglia) and a couple of questions related to "Democratic Psychiatry" (founded/championed by Basaglia). If you know anything about this kind of thing, please take a look and respond there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hoary I'm responding here because even though this wikiproject is slow, the WT:Medicine/Psychiatry task force looks dead-dead and some of what I have to say ties into the conversation we're having below too, so it just seemed easier to keep the conversation on the same page. I haven't read the entire Morire di classe article yet, but so far it looks really good. I'm up to the section on book design.
It looks to me like the editor(s) who contributed a lot to the articles on Democratic Psychiatry and Franco Basaglia didn't speak English as a first language. "Democratic psychiatry" is clearly a direct translation of the Italian phrase into English, but it might not the best translation. I have a hunch that it's equivalent to the concept of "community psychiatry" that was popularized in the 60s, that refers to similar reforms that Basaglia was arguing for: deinstitutionalization, humanization of patients, civil rights for people with mental illness, etc. I tried to start a thread on wordreference.com to ask for input on the best translation, but no one responded. It's probably too jargon-y, like, even as an English-speaker, I never heard of "community psychiatry" until I started working at a clinic called Blah-blah-blah Community Psychiatry and I didn't know it was tied into the psychiatric reform movement of the 60s until yesterday. Maybe there's someone on Wikipedia to ask who would know the best translation?
I can't exactly tell what the democratic psychiatry article is supposed to be about, if it's about the organization or the movement. I think that's your question too, right? From what I've read, it seems like Basaglia is usually considered as part of the ill-defined antipsychiatry "movement" and so are a lot of the people you listed as contributing to Morire di classe (Goffman, Foucault, etc.). But like we were saying in the thread below, a lot of people who were labeled as antipsychiatrists rejected the title, so that probably partially explains why the Basaglia article is categorized as anti-psychiatry yet the editor was trying to distance Basaglia from the term. I think another reason might just be the current state of affairs over at the Anti-psychiatry article. I wouldn't want to be associated with that either. :-P Permstrump (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the question. Imaginably psichiatria democratica is a term that's only used by members of, and other people close to, Società Italiana di Psichiatria Democratica; while the concept is actually close to that of community psychiatry. Conceivably the meanings are near identical. But if they can be teased apart, well, [analogy] probably only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's readers are interested in any difference between "free software" and "open-source software"; but there is a difference, and informed, energetic editors have been able to write it up coolly. True, for most people a desire not to be mistaken for a "scientologist" would be reason enough to avoid any label that's also applied to that bunch, but I think that avoidance of the term predates much awareness of "scientological" comments on psychiatry. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hoary: I finished reading the Morire di classe article yesterday and I don't really have any suggestions at all. I thought it was really well written and concise and the discussion of issues re:psychiatry and the people involved was clear and accurate. It made me want to take the book out of the library. :) Permstrump (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

See Talk:Bipolar_disorder#RfC:_Is_the_happy.2Fsad_mask_in_the_infobox_section_appropriate.3F Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Permstrump (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of people with mental illness and other disabilities: Comments requested

Comments requested at 2 ongoing discussions:

Permstrump (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Misfortune"

The usage and topic and primary topic of Misfortune is under discussion, see talk:Misfortune (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplication in articles on consanguinity, incest, etc.

Participants in this project may be interested in a discussion I have (hopefully) started on the WikiProject Law's talk page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

I have the feeling that the new article Structure of Temperament Questionnaire might benefit from the attention of someone in the phychology field! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to those who jumped in and helped. But wait: there's more! Activity-specific approach is from a related editor methinks. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hypercorrection

Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in the following discussion: Talk:Hypercorrection#Adding hypercorrection section for psychology. Expert help would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on my Individual Engagement Grant talk page about my proposal for Guided Checklist for Health Topic Experts

Hello everyone,

I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of new health topic expert recruits does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health articles on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.

My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Additionally, because many of the health articles are shared, I'm inviting people who are active in WikiProject Psychology to comment and participate. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page on Meta. Or endorse if you support the idea. Going forward, I'll keep this project updated on the proposal. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help with Samuel Slavson article

Hi everyone, I just finished translating the article on Samuel Slavson from German to English. I've done all the translation proper, but need someone to proofread it. Additionally, I've been having trouble finding English-language sources relating to Slavson and his work on the internet, so it would be great if anyone here with access to a college library or anywhere else with large archives of psychological work could dig up some more sources for the article and expand some of the sections. This is also the first article I have ever created or edited on Wikipedia (yay!) so I'm bound to have forgotten or messed up some of the technical things relating to article categorization and so on. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at that and fix it. Please bear with me, I'm still learning the ropes around here. Thanks! Commissaress (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be asking the same favor soon, so I want to pay it forward. :-P I'm not sure when I'll have a chance though, but this project isn't super active, so I wanted to at least say a little something so you knew someone saw this. P.S. I've never created an article before either, so the most I can offer is probably a second pair of eyes for general editing . You'd probably still want to have a more experienced editor look at it. If you know of any specific articles behind paywalls, tell me the titles/authors and I'll check my work database. I'd probably be able to get almost any journal article, but it's less likely that I'd be able to find ebooks for most book sources. PermStrump(talk) 01:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :) I don't actually know of any specifics since psychotherapy isn't really my field, and I didn't know much at all about Slavson and his work before doing this article - I just thought I could help with the translation. But some general editing would definitely be helpful. Commissaress (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I made some minor tweaks and put some invisible comments in a few places where I wasn't quite sure what it was supposed to mean. I can't read the original sources, so I don't know if all of the statements come from the existing sources or if some of it still needs to be sourced. Once it's properly sourced though, I think it will be good. PermStrump(talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Behavioral Genetics

Hi all, I'd like to add Behavioral Genetics as a "Basic Type" to the sidebar on the psychology page. I've initiated a discussion on the talk page for the psychology sidebar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Psychology_sidebar . My take on the sidebar is that BG is as basic a type of psychological inquiry as are many of the other basic types already listed, including differential, evolutionary, cultural, personality, cross-cultural, etc. BG has as rich a history as these other subfields (starting with Galton, a founder of several areas in psychology). Please let me know. If I don't get any responses soon, say within a week, I'd like to go ahead and add BG to the sidebar. I'm also working on expanding the behavioral genetics page, to have better representation on wikipedia. Vrie0006 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As a professor of psychology at a major research university, I also agree with this. Behavioral genetics is a key area of inquiry in behavioral sciences, is well represented in the major journals of psychology, and is a funding priority for NIMH. It's frankly surprising that it isn't there already! --Mckeller7 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it is surprising it is not there already, given its prominence in journal publications and in grant funding. It is a subarea of psychology in a number of top research universities in the US and internationally. Nf003 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Barnaby B. Barratt

Dear psychologists: Is this draft about a notable psychiatrist, and are the references appropriate?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we reply here or to the old conversation about it from 2013? I didn't see a more recent conversation in your link. Am I overlooking something? Permstrump (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is in mainspace now. Sorry I didn't see the reply; in any case I couldn't find another posting about this page besides this one. Thanks anyway.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"

The usage and primary topic of Disturbed is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. Disturbed (band) → Disturbed Disturbed → Disturbed (disambiguation) would dislocate the dab page direction to Mental illness In ictu oculi (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Highly sensitive person (HSP) legit?

Hi guys, I'm not part of the ASP or the Psychology task force, but sometime ago I came across the Highly sensitive persons article and it's haunted me ever since. Upon googling it I found many others online asking; Is this legit, or a scam? I nominated the article for deletion but it didn't stick. Most of the sources for the article cite Dr. Elaine Aron; the creator of the concept (who has specifically avoided it becoming a diagnosis, preferring to keep it as a personal concept of hers [which she occasionally claims "sensory-processing sensitivity" is the true scientific name of).

It just seems to my skeptical brain that she has fairly open criteria for declaring people "HSPs", including anyone who is "overwhelmed by such things as bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens nearby?" - is "bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes." - "annoyed when people try to get me to do too many things at once." - or anyone who tries hard to "avoid making mistakes or forgetting things." - or who tends to be "very sensitive to pain" and the suggested cure to these symptoms seems to be buying one of Dr. Elaine Aron's books or seminars from the store front page of the official Highly Sensitive Persons website, run by Aron or to perhaps buy some merchandise from the website for SENSITIVE: THE MOVIE a feature length film on the topic. The incredible trailer for which has a testimonial from the singer Alanis Morissette. Dr. Elaine Aron also runs horse retreats for Highly Sensitive Persons to meet Highly Sensitive Animals.

Anyways, I'm fine with someone having a cash cow; I'm just not fine with Wikipedia being used to legitimate or promote that cash cow. Any feedback or help or even dissenting opinions are welcome. I'd just like to bring the article to wider attention and see what others want done about it. Thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Highly sensitive person (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jobrot: It's legit in the sense that it seems to have enough notability to warrant an article. But is it a legit condition? I don't think so and I don't see anyone else in the field taking it seriously, just lay coverage in Huffington Post, etc. I doubt the people studying sensory processing disorders are using the terms synonymously. She must have had a good marketing team. I guess I don't see it getting deleted, so probably the most that can be done is making sure the tone and weight are in check à la WP:PROFRINGE. PermStrump(talk) 18:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) characterizing HSPs is definitely considered a legitimate concept by reliable sources. It is monumentally frustrating and needlessly time-consuming to deal with Jobrot's persistent pursuit of the above reddit-inspired WP:PROMO conspiracy theory, still pursued despite his having garnered exactly zero editors to endorse his failed AfD. Partially echoed above, hIs AfD's comments demonstrate his pervasive misconceptions, and the AfD was launched based on his personal suspicions supported by exactly zero reliable sources. Besides abundant lay sources, hundreds of journal articles study, accept, use and even extend the HSP/SPS model (not "just Huffington Post etc" coverage as PermStrump wrongly claims): HSP/SPS is far from a fringe theory. I urge informed editors to contribute here, to put the conspiracy theory to rest, once and for all. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually the outcome of the AfD was "...cleanup to remove promotionalism, and consider merging with Sensitivity (human)". - which in my view is a clean up that should be done with WP:PROMO (obviously), WP:PROFRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY in mind. I think it would also be good to create an article on SPS and merge HSP into it, or failing that merge HSP to Sensitivity (human) as per the recommendation of the AfD. PermStrump Thanks for your advice. I hope all reading this thread take it in WP:GOODFAITH. --Jobrot (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cziko AfD

There is a deletion discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Cziko if you would like to weigh in on this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Prenatal and perinatal psychology

People might be interested in this AFD for the article Prenatal and perinatal psychology. The article is basically an arbitrary mix of statements related to prenatal or perinatal something, so it's hard to tell if there is actually a unified subject worth talking about. I think there might be a fringe group, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for an article as the terms are so broad that it's hard to google. PermStrump(talk) 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Photographic memory vs. eidetic memory

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help assess a draft at AFC

Is User:Lukendo/sandbox/identity The Self Perception Questionnaire a notable topic? Do sufficient acceptable sources exist? The current draft is quite promotional, so if it is worthwhile developing it will need quite a bit of work to get it into acceptable shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment there. —PermStrump(talk) 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New Wiki-GLAM Project at the Wellcome: focus on Psychiatry & Mental Health

The Wellcome Library and Wikimedia UK are jointly supporting a Wikimedian in Residence, and the residency will focus on the history of Mental Health and Psychiatry. Please consider getting involved WikiProject Psychology members!

Ways to get involved include:

  1. suggest pages to be created or developed at editathons
  2. attend editathons here at the Wellcome or host a satellite event somewhere else
  3. suggest or plan events / talks / activities that could happen in conjunction with editathons
  4. … or something else – feel free to suggest things!

Thousands of images from the Wellcome have already been uploaded (take a look at the project page to find them), and the residency coincides with a project to digitise historical records of key UK psychiatric institutions and personnel, so there should be lots of material to inspire your editing.

In addition, if you are in / near London over the coming months, there are Wellcome exhibitions running which may inspire wiki-content: States of Mind: Tracing the edges of consciousness and Bedlam: The asylum and beyond.

Please get in touch via the project page or my user page if you'd like to get involved in any way.
Zeromonk (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject: Bullying

Hello!

I would just like to inform you about Proposal for WikiProject Bullying. If you have any comments on this matter, either use my talk page or use the proposal page. Thanks,

East Anglian Regional (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture

Please comment at Articles for deletion § Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture. —PermStrump(talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New Wiki Child Project?/"Altered states of consciousness"

Hello WikiProject Community,

we are a group of students working on articles about methods that induce altered states of consciousness (ASC). We did some organisational work already and think about starting a Wiki Project.

The proposed scope of the Project is:

  • induction methods (pharmacological and non-pharmacological (~100 methods))
  • accidental & pathological causes
  • research methods (questionnaires, subjective experience report)
  • history
  • models of ASC
  • philosophy of mind

We would love to know your opinion about it. Would we be a good fit as a child project? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante Aum (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I very much welcome this. I've been going through some of our unassessed articles (we have more than 2,600) and often there is another Wikiproject's assessment, and copying it over will save time and give us a better overall picture of the state of psychology articles. Are there any objections? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No objections - I agree.--Penbat (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I have another more far reaching idea for a bot. It looks to me that in general Stub cats are more reliable than Stub class assessments. As an article gets developed any Stub class assessment, and to a lesser extent a Stub cat, tend to get left behind. On balance, it would improve things if any Stub assessment not supported by a Stub cat could get changed by a bot to Start class. To extend this further all unassessed classes could be updated by a bot so the class is changed to Stub if there was a Stub cat, otherwise it could be changed to Start class.--Penbat (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I could handle that too, but I might have a better idea that could upgrade articles based on size (to account for articles that never received a stub template). I'll reply later tonight after I have a chance to tinker with a tracking category. ~ RobTalk 16:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I get impression that it is not common for articles to wrongly not have a Stub cat and obviously size is not always an accurate determining factor. But you could incorporate a low minimum number of words as a prerequisite safeguard for automatically updating the class assessments as I suggest to try and weed out such cases.--Penbat (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Large Stub-Class psychology articles is now set up so that any articles that are more than 2,000 bytes that are tagged as stubs will appear there. 1,500 bytes/characters is the usual unofficial cutoff for stubs (as used at DYK). I'm not 100% sure if the category will automatically fill up or not. Sometimes, the Wikimedia software is funky with if statements triggered by something other than an edit to the page that the if statement appears on/is transcluded on. In this case, the if statement on the talk page is triggered by the size of the article page, and I don't know if those will properly update. Null edits to the talk pages would definitely do the trick. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Rob. Since we have one agreement (thanks Penbat!) and no objections, I've formally requested auto-assessment. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just recording here for future reference that there are 2,902 unassessed articles in advance of auto-assessment. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And post auto-assessment, there are 1,405 unassessed articles- that's a huge improvement! Thanks Rob! MartinPoulter (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration on Proposed New Entry: Belief Perseverance

Friends,

On June 25, 2016 I submitted my first article for consideration. The topic is Belief Perseverance (BP), and you can see the submission, and the reason it was declined, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Belief_perseverance

It was declined because it’s written more like an essay than an entry in an encyclopedia

The reviewer, Omni Flame, later suggested that I incorporate the article into the Confirmation Bias (CP) article, making it part of the Confirmation Bias entry. I feel CB and BP are distinct, though overlapping. I feel moreover that not having a BP entry in Wikipedia is a glaring omission.

So, here is my request. I don’t know yet how to make entries more encyclopedic. Can someone help me revise this draft to conform to the guidelines? Better still, is anyone interested in taking this project over or collaborating so that this important psychological concept finally receives its own, belated, entry?

Thanks, Brachney Brachney (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Brachney: Hi and thanks for taking on this topic. Belief perseverance, backfire effect and attitude polarisation seem tightly intertwined, and the sources are frustratingly unhelpful for demarcating them. A lot of what you'd call the belief perseverance experiments are also listed in textbooks as attitude polarisation experiments. Still, I think your draft could become really good, and Wikipedia needs summaries of these experiments.
I can give a couple of bits of advice about encyclopedic style. 1) "after the fateful day came and went,"- that's a journalistic style rather than encyclopedic. It's not wrong, it's just colourful in a way that Wikipedia style tries to avoid. Better would be to say what the cult predicted, what the scientists predicted about their reaction to disconfirmation (which wasn't just that they would continue to believe), and what happened when the prophecy failed. 2) "Belief perseverance bears upon the centuries-long dispute involving human irrationality." This is true as far as it goes, but it's too vague to be encyclopedic. "bears upon" could mean all sorts of things. "Dispute" between who? etc. If the sources say that belief perseverance is an example of human irrationality, or something like that, then it's better to put that. As I said, there is a place for this article on Wikipedia, but there needs to be a lot more spelled out about each point and each experiment. The Confirmation bias article is a Featured Article i.e. at the top of the quality scale, so it's an example of the style to aim for. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Can Draft:Belief perseverance be accepted into mainspace in it's current condition? It is now one of the oldest pending drafts at AFC, we'd really like to get this taken care of sooner rather than later. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Attention to recent changes at Limerence

I reverted several edits at Four horsemen of the Apocalypse and Cybernetics by an IP editor that didn't seem constructive. This editor also recently made a series of edits to the article Limerence that at the start looked okay, but eventually ended up in territory where I'm unsure. Could someone take a look?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I'd noticed it on my watchlist for the past few days, but like you said, the first few edits were innocuous so I started ignoring it. I just restored to the version before the IP edits b/c they introduced way more neutrality/tone problems than they fixed. Though there were definitely pre-existing wording issues, which I guess was why I had it on my watchlist to begin with. The whole article feels UNDUE, but I haven't put in the effort to really look into it yet. —PermStrump(talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Category move for discussion

There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here (at CfD). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Phobias

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Category:Phobias. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

Those skilled in the art are invited to comment here. Эйхер (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete proposal - expert advice sought

The following article has been nominated for speedy deletion: Accelerated_experiential_dynamic_psychotherapy It might be senisble for people with a wider specialist knowledge to comment before that happens --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Helping Give Psychology Away workgroup

Hello, I am part of a group whose goal is to build small groups to improve the information about psychology on Wikipedia. We aim to make it at the level of the best college textbook on the topic and helping clinicians, clients, and educators each find high quality resources quickly. Check out this page here for more information! We are excited to have researchers, clinicians and students to help out with this project. Ongmianli (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are all of the articles for improvement about ratings scales and why is it required to publicly post full names and email addresses in order to participate? Also, why is this workgroup not part of this project? —PermStrump(talk) 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Great to see you using WP:MEDMOS as your template. Please promote the use of review articles and major textbooks aswell. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect to emails, this is a reflection of one of the differences between Wikipedia and academic culture. I am happy to see the transparency personally and my email is easy enough to figure out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Permstrump: and @Doc James:, thanks for the interest around this! I agree with Doc James that this is a reflection of one of the differences between Wikipedi and academic culture. However, I also want to respect potentially interested Wikipedians who may not want their email to be public to everyone. We have switched over to a Google Form. This will allow people to continue to submit their name/email (so we can reach them easily), but keep their name/email private (only we will know). Also, our group is interested in putting the best rating scales up on Wikipedia. We decided that it would be best to limit our scope to this for now. Ongmianli (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts

I just learned about article alerts so I wanted to point out WP:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts in case other editors didn't know about it either. If you add it to your watchlist, you can get notifications whenever things like AFDs or RFCs are created for articles that fall within the scope of this project (as long as the template is on the talkpage). Right now there are a bunch of open AFDs for articles on obscure Greek terms for various Specific phobias that could use some more participation. —PermStrump(talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Free access to The American Psychological Association books and journals now available!

Hi all. The Wikipedia Library is happy to announce that we have just opened signups for free access to APA! If you don't already have access and would like to use their resources on Wikipedia, please apply! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Under your scope?

Hello. Just found the page Guilt-Free Consumption, which may possibly fall under your jurisdiction. It's in need of some pretty major help, but a lot of effort seems to have gone into its creation, so it may be worth improving. I'm not a member of this project, nor do I know anything about the topic, so I figured I'd inform someone better qualified to handle it. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@2ReinreB2: I moved the article to guilt-free consumption per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and I've noted some problems with the article at Talk:Guilt-free consumption#Suggestions for rewrite. Biogeographist (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

UNC opening access to library resources for Wikipedian interested in evidence-based assessment

Hi WikiProject Psychology,

The Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) wants to help an experienced Wikipedian improve the quality of articles related to evidence-based assessment in clinical psychology.

UNC is committed to improving public knowledge of clinical psychological science and will provide full access to its library's resources (databases, ebooks, etc.) in exchange for a commitment to bring some of the articles you work on to B-class or better. This is a remote Wikipedia Visiting Scholars position open to editors anywhere. For more information see the UNC Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, you can ask on my talk page (or email if you prefer). If you know you're interested, head to the application form. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Somatic marker hypothesis

It mas mainly written by IP editors in 2005 and second take in 2011. Since then no serious editing. There are 2-3 occasional clarification requests in talk page, but the article remains difficult for understanding, both for subject itself and for its place/recognition within the field. Basically it is one big advert for the hypothesis and it is unclear for non-experts whether it is sourced only from supporters of the hypothesis or there are independent sources as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Split homelessness discussion

The article homelessness is very long and probably should be split. Please join the discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Alternate title for Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir

At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Carl Jung or Carl Gustav Jung

The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Psychology/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Research on the effects of violence in mass media

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Research on the effects of violence in mass media#Latest edits. Permalink here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

'Psychologist', an article of Top Importance to our Project, has Multiple Issues. Let's improve it!

Answered Questions

Donald Trump

Avoidant Restrictive Feeding Intake Disorders (ARFID)

Malignant narcisissm

Missing topics list

The Authoritarian Personality Method Summary

April editathon on psychologists at Women in Red

Attentional bias

RfC-Borderline personality disorder

CBAT (Community Based Acute Treatment)

Advice on an article

Please help with a draft at AFC

Video game addiction

Another AFC draft needs a subject specialist review

Opinions needed!

Draft:Dignity of risk

Parental Alienation

Popular pages report

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Person-centered therapy

Do you know how to create a Template?

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

New article about pussy torture

Abuse of teenager

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Conveyed concept

Epidemiology of depression, faulty source

Nomination of Donald Trump's handshakes for deletion

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Video game rage

Requested move of Decision-making

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Neuroticism

ISO 4 redirects help!

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

RS needed for link between Intentional infliction of emotional distress and Suicidal ideation

AfD: Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017

Editing the Anxiety and Depression Association's Wikipedia page

A most dire and important question

Suicide terminology: "committed"?

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Attachment theory

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Article on intuition

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Draft:Comparison

Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial

Parent-infant psychotherapy

AOT and whether or not it benefits the majority of severe mentally ill

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

New peer-reviewed paper about "psychology of belief in histories of science and the occult"

Intersectionality article - Will you take a look?

Would appreciate some more qualified eyes on Pointing

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

A link to a DAB page

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Arm-chair

Potential new task force

Request for Comments regarding faith healing and pseudoscience

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

Psychoacoustics

Merger discussion for Longitudinal study

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

Request for review

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Draft:Visual Antipriming

Admitted hoaxing

Rejection Sensitivity as a stand-alone article

Tie signs

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018

Hysterics and structuralism

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018

Arrested Development

Ophidiophobia badly needs work

Trypophobia needs work and watchlisters

Draft:Two-Track Model of Bereavement

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks