Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic psychology topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Index · Statistics · Log
Psychology
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 5 2 1 8
A 2 2
Good article GA 1 3 5 2 1 12
B 13 76 71 15 10 185
Start 11 97 149 123 89 469
Stub 26 93 62 55 236
Assessed 27 207 320 203 155 912
Unassessed 3 3 1 139 146
Total 27 210 323 204 294 1058
Archive
Archives
1 - 2006
2 - 2007


Contents

[edit] Epigenetic Theory

I found this article in stub condition with thin assertions of notability and the science stub template. I added the psych-stub template and put it in this project. Maybe someone here will take a look and improve or decide to delete. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted -- epigenetic theory is an important sister-project to contemporary evo-devo -- but it definitely needs to be improved. (For example, the line about Gilbert Gottlieb is wrong: he only developed an offshoot of the theory, which he called probabilistic epigenesis.) Within psychology, the most important epigeneticist is Jean Piaget, whose later works built on earlier ideas developed in biology by Conrad Waddington. But it has a long and fertile history, going back at least to James Mark Baldwin in psychology and Karl von Baer and Ernst Haeckel in embryology. --JTBurman (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review notice

Getting It: The psychology of est is on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Getting It: The psychology of est. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primal therapy

There's a discussion on WP:BLPN about Primal Therapy, Janov, etc. Much of the article looks like COI and WP:fringe to me. But folks who know something about psychology as a science might be able to help here. Is the article just Janov or a fan pushing a fringe theory, or is there something to it? Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-psychiatry

The article Anti-psychiatry is currently tagged for {{POV}}. Since this is within the scope of this project, I was wondering if some editors here would like to improve the article to cover more viewpoints -- in particular, the conventional view that psychiatry is ethical and efficacious. At the moment there are problems in the article of WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints, as well as the common problem of insufficient citations. One citation I'd like to see added is "A response to the anti-psychiatry movement" [1], but I can't get ahold of a copy -- my university library doesn't carry Psychosomatics.

Of course, psychiatry skeptics are more than welcome to edit the article as well -- I consider myself a skeptic of psychiatry, if not an anti-psychiatrist -- but the article is already skewed that way, IMO.

Also, for those neutral observers -- if you read the article over and don't see any bias, feel free to remove the tag.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Megalomania

I'm trying to recruit a couple of editors for megalomania. It's been on the WP:WPMED open task list for several months, and while the worst material has since been removed, no one seems to know what to do with it beyond a definition. For example, is this term ever used in modern practice? Is there any difference between megalomania and narcissistic personality disorder? When was it first described? I'd really love to have some help. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not consider that a psychological term or condition and would suggest not including it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinabox (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The term Narcissistic personality disorder is a diagnostic classification in DSM and ICD-10. Megalomania is not used in the diagnosis. Mattisse 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. There are about 200 articles that link to that page (including redirects like 'megalomaniac' and 'megalomaniacal'), so I don't think that deleting the article entirely is going to be successful. Moving the Megalomania (disambiguation) page there is a possibility, but there's very little support for it -- and certainly if the linking page is using the term loosely (to describe foreign policy, for example), then hitting a dab page isn't exactly explanatory. Do you happen to know who invented the term or first described it? A paragraph that says something like "Megalomania was described by Freud like this, and it's now considered hopelessly out of date" could be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the wikionary is enough. It is really just a word definition. It needs to be removed from the disambig page as a "psychological condition", unless there can be found reliable sources for calling it that (besides a dictionary). Even if there are, as far as I know, there is nothing else to say about it. No scientific studies or treatments. No body of data. Mattisse 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about article

Would watchers of this page look at Psychohistory and Early infanticidal childrearing, two articles which seem to relate to psychology. I wonder if they are pushing a fringe POV, or if they are accurate, and do not have the expertise to judge. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These articles appear to me to be primarily Original Research based primarily on the writings of a non mainstream writers such as Lloyd deMause and written mainly by one or few people. I think the articles need more "eyes" to determine if they are purely OR. Mattisse 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, see my response in talk:Early infanticidal childrearing about your OR tag.
BYW, I cleaned a lot these articles by dozens of step-by-step, minor edits. That's why my name appears a lot in the history pages. However, the majority of the sentences are not mine.
—Cesar Tort 16:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response from the talk page:

Because regurgitation of one obscure writer's hypothesis (or whatever it is) and attempting to make it seem mainstream by adding unsourced material and additionally throwing in the names of a few other writers in a way that misleadingly indicates they are all referring to the same hypothetical construct is OR. Besides, using deMause as a source for deMause in not following WP:V but is rather using primary sources. You are using deMause to objectively support the accuracy and relevance of what deMause is saying.

Mattisse 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion about "doing history" in psychology

In response to the spate of recent edits of the history of psychology article, which incorporated anachronistic presentations of Islamic "psychology" into the general description of the discipline, Chris Green started a discussion at his blog. Having evolved over several days, this examines the clashing historiographic sensibilities evinced between expert and naive contributions to Wikipedia, as well as suggestions from both communities about what to do about it. Although further comments are of course welcome, the discussion itself may serve as a useful touchstone for future edits with historical implications. (In short, the argument is that historical movements should be examined in their own contexts, rather than in ours.) --JTBurman (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made between "psychology" as a general term, at times almost synonymous with Philosophy, under which almost anything may fall on wikipedia, and Psychology as a science and discipline that originated, we could perhaps agree, in the 1800s with experimental psychology (e.g. Pavlov) and writer/clinicians such as Freud, Kraepelin (really psychiatrists) and others continuing on to Alfred Binet, William James etc. through John Watson and its formation as a recognized profession with standards and credentials in the 1940s, in the United States at least. In short, I agree with the above statement. by JTBurman. Mattisse 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar issues can be found at the following pages:

Please feel free to add to this list. -JTBurman (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder

This article has achieved GA and been peer reviewed and I am proposing to take it to FAC shortly. I would be obliged if someone expert or knowledgeable in the subject could pass an eye over it. Thanks. Fainites barley 07:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Its now nominated. Fainites barley 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic ritual abuse

The above referenced page is getting a great deal of attention from individuals who are seeking to add content supporting the allegations of abuse, generally doing so with sourced material, probably giving that minority opinion on the allegations undue weight. If anyone here has any sourced information which they would be able to add to the article one way or another, please feel free to do so. It should be noted however that the article as it is currently structured seems to be giving undue weight to the minority opinion supporting the allegations, so sources regarding the majority consensus which doesn't give these claims particularly credence would be most welcome. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup request

Hello. I just stumbled on Teaching Students with Tourette Syndrome through the uncategorized projects. The content seems to be taken from another wiki (with a compatible license) but it's a bizarre article. At the very least it needs to be wikified but, currently, it does not read like an encyclopedia article. Nevertheless, there's a lot of salvageable content and I think a cleanup would be well worth the effort. I myself have no background in psychology so I'm hoping to find some competent, motivated editor(s) here. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nom Implicit cognition

Opportunity to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Implicit cognition. Coffee4me (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Test of automated article selection for WP:1.0

Hi, we're testing a system for automated article selection for offline releases, based on the assessment tags you have on article talk pages. We have some test data on a few psychology articles, and we'd really appreciate your feedback. We realise that the list is far from complete, but the important thing is that the ordering of the articles should be right, in terms of importance/quality (with more emphasis on importance). There are three sets of results, ranked using different formulae. Have the articles been ranked in a reasonable order? Please take a look here and leave comments either here or there. Thanks a lot! Walkerma (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help sourcing further information

I'm trying to flesh out an article on Maressa Orzack, a psychologist who achieved notability through her work on computer, internet and game addiction. Trouble is, I don't have much information on her work before she set up the Computer Addiction Centre at Harvard. Not having a background in this area myself probably handicaps me a little, as I'm not sure where to start searching for further background information. If anyone fancies helping out on researching her pre-Harvard days or location any notable journals or books she has been published in, that would be a huge help.

Thank you all for your time! --Gazimoff (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child development & Child development in behavior analytic theory articles

New material had been added to Child development leading to problems of WP:Weight, I split the new material to Child development in behavior analytic theory - both articles need attention. Paul foord (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On that point - can anybody explain why this new article Child development in behavior analytic theory has been rated high importance and who by? 82.69.73.181 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] missnamed pages

I have proposed multiple mergers of inproperly titled pages dealing with family therapy and systemic therapy. If you have thoughts, please contribute to the talk page here: Talk:Family therapy#Merge proposal --Sharktacos (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe?

If anyone here is interested in this, please take a look at medical model and medical model of disability. I think that they're supposed to be the same thing (and thus candidates for a merge), but (reading between the lines) one focuses on schizophrenia-like illnesses, and the other on autism-spectrum-disorder-like conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Psychology societies

Category:Psychology societies has been nominated for merging or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RfC on article on Intelligence

For anyone interested in intelligence, you're invited to comment on the worthiness of a source on this request for comment. Ward3001 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Bowlby and Michael Rutter

Are there any interested editors at this project that would be willing to help resolve some editing difficulties on this page? Fainites barley 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring Michael Rutter to attention. Both pages need a set of fresh eyes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systems psychology

I started the Systems psychology article a week ago after that discussion on the Talk:Systemic psychology page. I wonder if one of you could take a look at that article and give some feed back on the articles talkpage. Thanks -- 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to repeate this request. Could someone take a look at it and give me some feed back. If not. Could somebody explain why? Thank you.-- Mdd (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pain

Hi - Pain is, according to the Wikiproject Medicine page, the current Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Psychology has a long history of research into pain. The involvement of editors from this project would be much appreciated. Anyone here just great with language?

  1. How about a easy quick definition of "physical pain"? (Unfortunately it needs to agree with the IASP definition too)
  2. Or the history of the term "physiological pain"? (Nociception we have already but there is another one I remember, another "??? pain", that was nearly equivalent to "physiological pain" but didnt include the (?)CNS - any takers?)
  3. Or how to, in one, (hopefully accurate and non-misleading sentence that in no way violates IASP definition), disambiguate Pain and Suffering?
  4. Or a source for taxonomy of pain in the 20th centuary covering physiology, psychology, neurology and general medicine?

Editing Pain ain't easy - the language is just a little convoluted, with multiple discipline specific non-intuitive definitions. SmithBlue (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nootropics

The article on Nootropics (aka "smart drugs", "smart nutrients", "cognitive enhancers", or "brain enhancers") needs some very serious attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting It: The psychology of est is up at WP:FAC

Getting It: The psychology of est is up at WP:FAC, comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The FAC nom for this was restarted. Comments would be appreciated at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intuition

There is a discussion on Talk:Intuition about converting the current dab page into a primary topic and moving the dab to Intuition (disambiguation). Since this concerns Intuition (knowledge), a psychology-related article, your thoughts on the talk page linked above are welcome. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Using Wikipedia to recruit participants"

Yannimalliaris (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Dear friends. I am a new user to this community and I recently used wikipedia to make any entry that discussed the process of participating in psychology studies and following that I listed a link to one of my web-studies. I found my entry being deleted many times without realising why? I took the time to read the different policies and to discuss the matter with one of your editors who was kind enough to explain things to me. Initially he did not consider my act violating wikipedia's COI - but I did and I first asked him whether that was the case? He later told me that this would be indeed the case. As I said to him I can see why this would be the case. It appears that by applying this policy strictly to all kinds of material would make any researcher who would try to use wikipedia to recruit participants illegal. I wonder whether we are missing an important opportunity here taking advantage of the great gift of knowledge and traffic that wikipedia brings to us? I can see the COI of interest when money is involved but the majority of these projects are academic and non-commercial. I do not wish to name people here but one can find entries of "notable" and wealthy personalities blatantly using wikipedia to advertise themselves and their commercial research projects. They had the money in first place to pay for good advertising to make themselves and products known, which somehow makes their entries in wikipedia more acceptable... What I simply proposed was to have a page with a list of different psychology studies that would give an opportunity to wikipedia readers learn more about these and participate if they wish. This would also engage researchers to contribute more to different articles here. Not sure how and if this can happen really. Anyway, I was encouraged to post my question in public here by your editor. Thanks for listening. Yanni.

[edit] Thomas Grossmann

Tagged it with your project. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opportunity for Inter-project Collaboration

WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology have proposed a collaboration to improve Placebo, an article that is supported by this WikiProject. If this topic interests you, and you would like to help (in large ways or small) improve this article through collaborative editing, please go to the WPMED project's collaboration page and sign your name (~~~~) to show your support. The next collaboration will be chosen in about five days, and the article with the most votes from potential collaborators is chosen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination: Ephebiphobia

This is a notice that the article about Ephebiphobia is being considered for deletion. Your input regarding the decision is requested. • Freechild'sup? 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Result of AfD was Keep. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of psychology is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 02:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crying in humans

I noticed this rather notable subject had not been addressed besides a brief paragraph in the Tears article and was a requested article. I've created it and done a fair bit of work. Would appreciate any input to the article. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

..and if anyone is particularly bored they could fix my references with the proper citation templates! Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name change for clinical depression discussion

Please add 2c here Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Eyewitness memory

I've just created this today. If anyone would like to help?! Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Bellman

Anyone from California know this guy and care to reference or expand the article? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Eric Bellman is a notable psychologist. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dysthymia needs your help

I noticed that the article Dysthymia repeats the symptoms or diagnostic criteria several times. I see on the Talk page that someone else has also complained of this. Anyone care to fix? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Done, most of the repetitions are gone, the remainder seem to be necessary for the structural integrity of the article. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Personality theory

I'd like to request a Personality Theory (List of) and/or a Personality Theory focused Navbox. I may get around to doing this on my own (I have made Navboxes and the like, and know a bit about Personality theory), but work is always desired from others.

I've started a subpage for this WikiProject, it doesn't have many wikilinks in it yet, or even a halfway complete listing (though most of the main personality theories are listed there), but it's a start. I'll be watching the page, please help or add constructive commentary if possible. Thanks.

From the subpage: I would like to create a relatively "complete" list of well known and/or "frequently" used personality theories. I'm making this list as a project subpage as it doesn't belong in wikipedia main at this point in its development (and will go unnoticed to this WikiProject community as a personal subpage).

Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)