Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tiny tiny templates

Have you guys seen the templates on pages such as applied psychology lately? They're really hard to read. --Yath 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra syndrome

I ran across a mental health stub for Cassandra syndrome, although it looks more like it belongs in Category:Science fiction themes.Does this term actually exist outside of fiction, as it seems somewhat similar to Martha Mitchell effect? Static Universe talk|contribs 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is in the correct spot either. I have not heard of this as an actual disorder and mental disorders do NOT make you omniscient thuglastalk|edits 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have found some citations to relate this to the partners of those with Asperger syndrome. I am not sure how valid, or even notable this is. I've just added the information for now. --Zeraeph 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal illusion

While trolling around random pages, I found the article on temporal illusion.It's in a sorry state, but a search on Google scholar shows that a good article can be written on the subject.This is a polite way of encouraging you folks to write it.YechielMan 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters with phobias

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#List_of_fictional_characters_with_phobias. Regardless of which position you take, I think it's important that people already focused on psychology examine something like this instead of leaving it to the people who visit all the AfD discussions. Doczilla 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does "I dont want to argue with you" really mean?

Appologies up front if this isn't the place, but after an exhaustive search on the net I could think of no other place to actually as people the question which to me relates greatly to the topic of psychology and to people who share a fondness of it and could perhaps shed some light.

We have all experienced at one point or another in our lives a person using the phrase "I dont want to argue with you". If we remove those cases when it is clearly obvious someone is purposely trying to pick a fight (ie the person saying the phrase says it because absolutely no answer will suffice ), what does a person really mean when they say this phrase?

I considered several possibilities myself, but would be very interested in finding out if there are any specific psychological conditions, behaviours, or mechanisms that might lead a person to use this to obfuscate something entirely different.

So as to not cause problems on this page I have created a sub-page you can reply to : Here

Enigmatical 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Image:Neuronew5.png Barnstar Wikiproject Award for neuroscience articles - i dont really know how to format the box's and stuff -someone else can help with that - hopefully i can make a psych one soon. thuglastalk|edits 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a Christmas star. --DanielCD 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! --Jcbutler 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha well its supposed to be neurons thuglastalk|edits 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of new article

As some of you might know I started the Mental health professional article a little while back. My goal was to discuss what a mental health professional is, what fields they can go into and define differences.

After creating the article several people proposed the idea of creating a “psychiatry vs. psychology” article. Ever since I heard that idea, I’ve liked it. So many people out there don’t know the difference or think one is “better” than the other. Since that time I’ve written what will be the future article on this topic. It’s neutral, presents both professions/studies in a positive way, and talks about major similarities & differences between them. So that means I’ll be uploading it soon.

Some may ask, “Why not bring in other professions too?” Well good point, however most mental health professions are already in the Mental health professional article. My guess is most of the confusion lies between the “big two,” if you will. However, I will be mentioning the other professionals in this new article (briefly), and linking them to MHP.

One problem though. What to call the new article? I have a list of articles that will link to it all ready, but I still don’t know what the title of this new article should be. I’m sure I’ll be creating numerous redirects so it may be found easier, but I want the main article’s title to be informative & neutral. Let me know your thoughts.

  1. Add your own comments below the list (dislikes & likes)
  2. If you have some better ideas, add them into the list and explain with your comments below.

Thanks for your help! Chupper 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For ideas & current policies see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions

[edit] Possible article titles

  • Psychiatry versus Psychology – alphabetical, no punctuation
  • Psychiatry vs. Psychology – alphabetical, most common
  • Psychiatry and Psychology – alphabetical but doesn’t focus on differences

[edit] Possible article redirects

  • Psychiatry vs. psychology – alphabetical, most common
  • Psychiatry and psychology– alphabetical but doesn’t focus on differences
  • Mental doctor – simple name
  • Psychology vs. psychiatry – common
  • Psychology versus psychiatry - common
  • Psychology and psychiatry- alternative
  • Psychologist or psychiatrist – alternative using titles
  • Psychiatrist or psychologist – alternative/reverse order using titles
  • Psychologists or psychiatrists – plural alternative using titles
  • Psychiatrists or psychologists – plural alternative/reverse order using titles
  • Psychiatrics and psychology – using ‘ics’ instead of ‘y’ on psychiatry
  • Psychology and psychiatrics – using ‘ics’ instead of ‘y’ on psychiatry/reverse order


[edit] Comments

  • Psychiatry vs. Psychology might be best. Using the whole word "versus" seems to emphasize an antagonistic relationship between the two. Although this may sometimes be the case, I'd prefer not to emphasize it, almost to the point of choosing Psychiatry and Psychology. Psychiatry should definitely go first because historically, it was the first profession to go into this area. --Jcbutler 14:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with any versus/difference stuff. Cant it be a section in the mental health professional article?thuglastalk|edits 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be listed there. I just proposed a new article because it is such a huge source of reference among information web sites out there. Googling "psychiatrist or psychologist" you get 1,210,000 pages. The other reason I was creating it was because of the 2 or 3 individuals on the MHP talk page who were requesting an additional article be created (not counting those here). Chupper 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just dont like when articles are long and stupid sounding. I think the smartest idea would be to link both psychiatry and psychology to a common article - mental health profession or whatever. Perhaps this is too long for the article but I would be semi-happy if you had a section on it, and then a - "click here for MAIN ARTICLE - Differences between a psychologist and psychiatrist right underneath the header. Is this a good even ground for everyone? thuglastalk|edits 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autistic spectrum disorders

Input is needed regarding a category rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_11#Category:Autistic_people. Doczilla 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy_of_Death_and_Adjustment AFD

Hey, Just stumbled on an Afd on an article tagged by you guys as one of your own. It's Philosophy_of_Death_and_Adjustment, I don't know much about Pyschology, so if some of you sharper Psychological minds coukd comb over the article, see if it's notable and vote on the matter. It seems to be somewhat hot button. --Sharz 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics

I have a list of missing topics related to psychology. I've tried to find any relevant redirect and similar articles but I would appreciate if you could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic complex

Just a note, Messianic complex is up on AFD. Perhaps someone here has an idea what to do with it, or has an opinion. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

Articles need help - go to Operant Conditioning Thuglas (talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Peer review for Clinical Psychology

A request for peer review has been made for the article Clinical psychology in order to get it FA-worthy. Please look over the article and add your comments on the peer review page. Thank you! Psykhosis 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention on locus of control paper

I know at least one member of this group has turned attention to the article on locus of control, which certainly needed much editing. If any one knows about the familial origins of locus of control orientations, it would improve the article if such data were added to the article, as would increased coverage of applications of locus of control to health psychology and increased coverage of the work of those who have looked at changes in locus of control across the lifespan. Finally, a section on cross-cultural differences in locus of control would be a good additional touch to this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autistic category already revisited

Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders, which recently got renamed through CfD, is already undergoing another CfD and needs comment. Over the last four days, the discussion has mainly been between two people disagreeing with each other. [1]. Although I expressed my own opinion about it a few days ago, I'm actually okay with either outcome. I just feel more people need to weigh in on this. Doczilla 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SemPrag could do with work.

Semantic Pragmatic Disorder was recently mentioned in the The Times - and it didn't come out very well. The exact word I used was "rubbish". WP:PSYCHOLOGY might want to spruce it up a bit (hint, hint). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I seem to remember reading about Lorna Wing's defence of the existance of an autistic spectrum, composed of four subtypes. SPD would be included in one of them. The article could be structured to include (a) context about autistic spectrum (b) characteristics of SPD (c) stats (d) current research (e) proposed psychological treatment (d) diffs with other disorders/related disorders. Raystorm 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone give a knowledgeable opinion

I wonder if someone who specializes in clinical psychology could have a look at Attachment disorder and give their opinion? There are also some 'popular psychology' issues involved. We would appreciate any opinion on that article.--DorisH 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd for Sexual repression

Note: Clerical error: this to an RfD. Please see Wikipedia:rfd#Sexual_repression_.E2.86.92_Religion_and_sexuality. --Shirahadasha 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new(ish) articles that may need attention

Positive behavior support, Sensory integration therapy, Floortime, Developmental Social-Pragmatic model. Nice to have articles about these, but the author did have some other pages speedied for promotion and/or copyvio. Probably a good editor off to an unsteady start without knowledge of policy. Just a look over these articles by informed eyes would help. — coelacan — 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Site toad.net/arcturus gone

www.toad.net/~arcturus/ (The author of many pages being Sharon C. Ekleberry) seems to have been used as a reference/link on a lot of psych pages, specifically related to personality disorders, but perhaps also others. It also seems a valid reference, however, now it is gone :o(

So keep an eye out for these links, they can be replaced using http://www.webarchive.org, until we find other sources. --Zeraeph 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested articles

In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of requested articles in the psychology section. I deleted a few that were pop psychology nonsense or so vague as to be useless as a request. I also suggested a few redirects. Can we have someone with some expertise (especially in clinical/counseling psychology where most of the requests seem to fall into) look at the requests and either create stubs, or delete the nonsense that psychology so often receives?--Cassmus 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help on articles please

I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.--Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clinical depression

I nominate clinical depression for an increase in Importance from high to top, for two reasons:

  • The topic would be a "must-have" for a "print" encyclopedia, and
  • The article is pending nomination as a Featured Article; if approved, it may be linked to from the main Wikipedia page, at which point it could have an audience of millions.

Also, I suggest that you consider the possibility of maybe merging it with depression (mood). 69.140.155.148 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both proposals.--Cassmus 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large Group Awareness Training

[edit] Psych style

There is a proposed Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles, including suggested headers for clinical diseases/disorders. It seems that a lot of articles on clinical psych conditions would not be suitably covered by this approach (i.e. by just a medical model). Including the central article mental disorder. Would it be feasible to develop a similar guide outlining a more psychological (or biopsychosocial) format? I could help have a go at starting this if there were any agreement or advice. EverSince 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi EverSince, I agree that we need some sort of psych/biopsych model. Consider the synesthesia entry, which I have been working on for a while now to attempt to bring up to good-article status. I have been working towards a medical model because this is what Sandy Georgia recommended to me on my talk page, but I do find it a little inappropriate for something like synesthesia, which does not generally cause medical difficulties, depsite the fact that we now have a clear understanding of the neural mechanisms whereby it arises. I am happy to help, as able. Perhaps on starting point would be APA format, with the Harvard reference system that is already in place? Or, do we want to go to the cite:php method even though it is less commonly used in psychological topics? Edhubbard 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Edhubbard, I can see what you mean about its unsuitability for synesthesia, although the work there looks impressive. I have to say I've also previously encountered the editor you mention advancing a purely medical approach to everything. Of course, even if mental conditions/disorders do involve difficulties, there are both medical and social (and synthesis) models of disability, and different approaches to intervention and care.
To discuss the details and take this forward, given no objections, it seems that starting a subpage on this project space might be best initially (like the Anatomy Guidelines]. And perhaps if it does take a solid agreed shape it could be added to the manual of style space like WP:MEDMOS. I'll create this shortly. EverSince 09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In Sandy's defense, she said that she was also initially uncomfortable with the medical model when she was working on Tourettes Syndrome (her baby), but that she adjusted to it. I think that, if there had been a well worked out alternative, she may have been able to choose that path instead. So, let's try to help out with this, and set up a model that we feel most comfortable with. Perhaps we can also work on trying to make clear what sections most good Psych articles should have? Edhubbard 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, there's just been difficulties with covering spectrum concepts and with Schizophrenia being classed as a purely biological/medical topic in featured articles. I've started a rough outline here, very much extracted from the MEDMOS guidelines with just some tinkering, all of which can be completely changed or revised of course. EverSince 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Schizophrenia is classified under Biology/Medicine at WP:FA simply because there's no other place for it. There aren't, basically, hardly any psychology featured articles, so they don't warrant a separate category. So, it's there by default, not design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all (Ed, I didn't know you were over here :-) We've extensively discussed (at my prodding) broadening the suggested section headings at WP:MEDMOS, making sure they included alternatives and possibilities for "non-disease-oriented" articles, and indicating that they are *suggested* headings. Of course, MEDMOS doesn't preclude separate psychology guidelines, but I'm posting this here so that you all will have a chance to weigh in. Hopefully, we've now gotten the medical groups to broaden the Manual of Style to the point that it now more comfortable encompasses, for example, Tourette's—they certainly had to hear from me at every turn. I would also say that EverSince doesn't understand me well in saying that I "advanc[e] a purely medical approach to everything". I do advance anything that will help us generate comprehensive, well-sourced articles. Hopefully you'll concur that MEDMOS, in its current form, will do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've been working with Sandy and others on WP:MEDMOS. The "section headings" section is only one small part of MEDMOS. I do hope your project can find agreement with all the other sections, and not feel the need to duplicate or deviate. Your suggestions to help with this accommodation would be welcome. Wrt to the headings, we've got a list of suggestions for the more clinical "disease/disorder/syndrome" articles because that is the background that many of our editors have. We've also got one for drugs. If Psychology topics are so different that you wanted your own suggested heading list, I'm sure that could be added as another sub-heading. In short, I'm not sure this project needs a complete Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Psychology) of its own. I would say that, though, wouldn't I :-) Even if you do decide to go your own way, I'd encourage you to comment on our proposal as this will only help with ideas for your own. Cheers, Colin°Talk 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly can I say I badly phrased the comment about always advancing a purely medical approach and didn't mean to make assumptions. However, Sandy, you have previously referred to the schizophrenia article as "one of the medical FAs in worst shape" (and since then, on the FA talk page, suggested it should stay listed under "Biology and Medicine" as may soon lose FA status anyway) and instructed me to use "correct medical references".
There seems to have been quite a lot of revisions to the MEDMOS article today and yesterday. The discussion related to this and broadening the suggested clinical headings (not sure if this is the extensive discussions you refer to Sandy, I couldn't see others) seems to have been archived even though it only it occured yesteday, and from some of the comments seems to have been partly about appealing to other projects including this one. I do actually like the changes to the headings, like 'characteristics' as an alternative to 'signs and symptoms', and of course think as many as possible should comment. I am confused and concerned, though, as to why there seems to be this desire and attempt to have psychology subsumed within it and not develop as its own thing? (Clinical) Psychology is not a subset of medicine, why do you think it is appropriate for it to be? Sandy has previously said on that spectrum disorder talk page that "The Psychology Project doesn't seem to be overly concerned with getting the basics in place" - you don't seem to want it to get its basics in place now?
If it is simply the case of finding ways to avoid duplication of effort (and conflicting style guides applicable to many of the same articles), I can see a rationale for that, and might suggest a joint "manual of style (clinically-related articles)" or something, rather than misleadingly listing everything under the rubric of medicine. EverSince 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) opposed to anything that would promote a stronger Psychology project—that aim is needed and welcomed. The paucity of featured and good articles in the Psychology realm is one indicator of the need for a strengthened Project, and the Schizophrenia article is another (it's no longer as bad as it was several months ago, but it's still not meeting current FA standards). The criticism of the Schizophrenia article isn't unique to Psychology; I also have three or four medical "disease" articles that need to be sent to WP:FAR. It isn't my intent at all to stall any guidelines for Psychology articles, rather to sort out any problems you any of you may see that remain on WP:MEDMOS. I resisted the headings that were in place at MEDMOS when I was trying to write the TS article, and getting no help anywhere from anyone. I had to find my own blend of headings that worked. I think/hope that the adaptations that have since been made render the MEDMOS guidelines more viable across the spectrum of diseases, disorders, conditions, and syndromes that are treated by physicians. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer proposing that psych manual of style - seems like it's been squished - so unless anyone else is then the draft thing that was done could be deleted. EverSince 13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

EverSince, can you please help me understand why you are playing these games with my posts here? The timestamps on the posts clearly indicate when the posts were made, so it's a mystery why you are adding these comments. Yes, I came upon this discussion five days after it happened, when I came here to post about MEDMOS. And? I know EdHubbard from another Project, and didn't know he was also here. I responded to your five-day-old query about Schizophrenia right under your post, when I saw your post, but you've moved my posts. What is going on and what are you implying by highlighting that my post was 8 days later, which is already clearly indicated on the timestamps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I would ask you not to refer to these as "games" as it implies something negative, I think, and not assuming good faith? As explained in reply to your similar comment on the medmos talk page, there is no need to make a big deal out of this, I simply was trying to put things in chronological order, and when you reverted that to make the actual chronological order clearer. The timestamps do show it, obviously, but not very clearly, and I actually never noticed one of your replies until I did this reordering, becuase it was interweaved back in the text out of order. I've done the same with your comment here, simply to stop the flow of the discussion becoming impossible to follow as per WP:EQ. EverSince 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I am restoring the talk page to accurately reflect responses indented under the post they are responding to, per talk page conventions. Please stop moving my posts, which distorts the record. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment at capture-bonding

Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eidetic memory

The article Eidetic memory is painfully full of opinion and original research with a potentially endless list of characters people think could have eidetic memory. Doczilla 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Locus of control

The article on locus of control has received the tag of an article needing attention from a psychology expert. I have made quite a lot of edits to this myself (I do know about this topic), but wondered whether I have inserted too much detail, especially in relation to health psychology and locus of control. There are about 20 or so references appending the article - is that too many, or about right, for a Wikipedia article? Finally, can any expert on developmental psychology add something to this page about the origins of locus of control orientation? Thank you in advance if you can respond to my continuing quest to improve this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move: Skinner box -> operant conditioning chamber

I've placed a move proposal on the article Skinner box. The term Skinner box is often used in ad hominem attacks against the experimental analysis of behavior. I propose that the page be moved to the more technically correct operant conditioning chamber (with appropriate redirects). Please direct your comments to Talk:Skinner box. Silly rabbit 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This move is appropriate. "Skinner box" was a nickname for the thing. Skinner named it operant conditioning chamber. Doczilla 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article categorization

This WikiProject lists several psych articles as being featured, but they are actually listed at WP:FA under "biology and medicine". FYI, this discussion from end 2006 seems to have lead to this, despite disagreement. It looks like the editor who initiated it was SandyGeorgia, then using the tag Sandy. In March, without having seen that prior discussion, I questioned this grouping, with only a reply from SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia says above on this talk page that it is "they" who don't want a separate psychology section - I'm not sure where that discussion is.

It seems that mental disorders like schizophrenia and asperger's (autistic spectrum) are very much psychological topics and are widely addressed as such. Major scientific developments in these areas and concepts have involved psychology (incl. experimental, clinical, neuropsychology) as well as medicine. If there are not yet enough articles to justify a separate psych category, should not the existing category title be expanded to "Biology, Medicine and Psychology"? EverSince 11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though there are currently no topics in the category that are specific to Psychology, since there is no reason there won't be Psychology FAs in the future, I added Psychology to the existing Biology and medicine category in FA to cover any future concerns. Does this resolve your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia FAR

Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the talk page for locus of control, you can see that my plea that a developmental psychologist visits this site remains. ACEOREVIVED 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article candidate

  • The article Large Group Awareness Training has been greatly expanded since last I posted to this talk page about it. There are currently (41) sourced citations, and (3) free-use images. The article is currently up at Wikipedia:Good article candidates, in the Psychology section. Please take a look and if you think it is worthy, give it a pass. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
    • The article has been successfully listed as a Good Article. Thank you for your time. Smee 02:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Up for Peer Review, comments appreciated

  • I have put the article up for Peer Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Large Group Awareness Training. Any comments on the content of the article as to how to get the article up to Featured Article status, would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Template:LGAT has been listed for deletion.

See also: Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training#RFC_Summary ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of journals

Some of you might be aware of the List of psychology journals over at the Psychology Wiki. Just letting you know that I've recently started developing some of these articles. Part of the development includes creating links to online full texts. Please feel free to use this reference to gain access to papers that in turn can be used to further develop articles here at Wikipedia. If you have a link to a full text that isn't included on any of these articles at Psychology Wiki, please feel free to add it to the appropriate page. Some of these include:

Psychological Review, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Science, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Clinical Psychology, and Evolution and Human Behavior - EPM 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-compassion

Article is a partial copyvio (see my talk page for details). Since neither I nor User:PrimeHunter appear to be experts in psychology, I hope that one of you can completely rewrite the article. It has some references not related to the original author, so it's a start. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective eating disorder

An editor posted a note on the Help Desk indicating that they recently added an entry on Selective Eating Disorder or SED, "a newly acknowledged eating disorder." Since it is newly acknowledged, there may not be enought Wikipedia reliable sources to write a verifable article on the topic. I think this one requires some expert knowledge. Would someone please give Selective eating disorder a once over? Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

Someone had not one but two psychology templates on parapsychology and further has it listed on its talk pages as falling under the scope of this Wikiproject... That's ridiculous. Parapsychology, despite the similarity in name, is not psychology at all. It's a pseudoscience. Having the psychology templates on that article gives readers the false idea that parapsychology is a science and respected academic discipline within psychology, which is certainly not the case. I have removed the templates, and the psychology category. I also think the template there saying that it belonged to this wikiproject should also be removed, but I'd hate to do it and have someone just undo it not realizing why it was removed. DreamGuy 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regretably, I suspect that the people who run the parapsychology institutes at Stamford, Harvard, and Yale would all have something to say about such a terse and unflattering generalization. In point of fact, parapsychology is indeed a recognized branch of psychological theory, espoused by some of the esteemed architects of general theory themselves. People like, say,...oh, Jung, Hillman, Erikson, Piaget...and, lest we forget the commentators, like Einstein, Hawking, and Wilber. --DashaKat 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure parapsychologist would have something to say, but then I'm sure the "Intelligent Design" people have something to say about the Evolution article here as well. In neither case does their POV concern us. And, sorry, but everything else you added at the end is either just nonsense or extremely outdated. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies, that doesn't mean the Sherlock Holmes page should have a fairy tale category on it. DreamGuy 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I see you currently under arbitration for POV-pushing related to parapsychology via distortions of its acceptance in scientific circles and by abuse of Wikipedia projects and policies. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. DreamGuy 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Your last statement is an out and out lie, as I don't even write on parapsychology, son. I suggest you keep your personal attacks to yourself. --DashaKat 11:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had you confused with the similarly-named and similarly acting User:Davkal. So that's not you... but then that doesn't mean your arguments are any more valid. DreamGuy 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is some perfectly legitimate research being done under the name of parapsychology with full use of objective measures, falsifiability and the experimental method. The nature of the hypothesis does not, per se, make the research unscientific.Ratinabox 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration re: DreamGuy.

An arbitration request has been opened on DreamGuy. Interested parties may view the proceeding at WP:RFAR DreamGuy. --DashaKat 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And for historical purposes it should be noted that the above-mentioned request was unanimously denied by every ArbCom member who voted out on it. DashaKat's request was deemed an inappropriate and bad faith filing which was created out of process and against policy to try to cause conflict. And that's pretty typical for DashaKat's behavior in general, I might add. DreamGuy 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks aside, for historical purposes it should be noted that, despite all three abitrations against DreamGuyhaving been dismissed, there have been three calls for arbitration against this editor.
And consistent with this editor's behavior, this statement, "DashaKat's request was deemed an inappropriate and bad faith filing which was created out of process and against policy to try to cause conflict." is a personal version of the truth, spun to reflect poorly on others, while casting this editor in a light that is more favorable. --DashaKat 13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Applied Drama into Drama therapy

It was suggested in October 2006 that Applied Drama be merged into Drama therapy. This has not been resolved. Please discuss it here. JohnnyMrNinja 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autism peer review

Autism needs a peer review. Please contribute to it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Autism. Eubulides 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psi & caduceus image

Due to lack of interest at Talk:Psychiatry, I have cross-posted here.

Where is this image derived from? The caduceus is a symbol of commerce. Axl 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The cadeceus is also a widely use symbol of medicine/healing hence its use in many places including the logo for the American Veterinary Medicial Association. Ratinabox 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The symbol is derived from the imagery surrounding Asclepius, an ancient Greek demigod. See the serpent on the staff, on the image below.
Statue of Asclepius
Statue of Asclepius
-JTBurman (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A small assessment request and a short collaboration request

As a new member of this WikiProject, I have two requests, in line with the goals of the project:

  1. Initial goal: make an inventory of the quality of psychology articles
  2. Construct a coherent framework for categorization of psychology articles

My first request is that someone rate the article suffering for quality and importance. The banner for this is already on the page Talk:Suffering.

My second request has to do with the categories emotion, pain, perception, motivation... Would someone come with me for ordering them somewhat more? Robert Daoust 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panic Attacks - Panic Disorder

Both of these articles are disorganised and lacking in references. Given that panic attacks are a common problem, it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. Recently, Paulee24 has made some major edits that have several formatting and style problems and which reference an article in the text without giving a link as a footnote.

There is a suggestion to merge PA and PD but I think that is misguided and have justified my view on this elsewhere. Since CBT would appear to be the best treatment for Panic Disorder, a psychologist with expertise in this area would be best to have a look at it all.

I will make some suggestions on the talk pages but could someone else with the expertise have a look at it?

--CloudSurfer 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Debate on the Dissociative identity disorder page

Standardname attempted to draw our attention to an ongoing content dispute on the Dissociative identity disorder page (see project page history). I reverted his extensive additions because this is not the place for the entire discussion. However, I am posting a notice here, to let everyone know about the material I deleted, so that you can read it over yourself. The most informative thing for me was to go and check the last 50 edits on the DID page. Having now reviewed that material, I think that StandardName is engaged in POV pushing by removing all mention of the scientific controversy that exists around DID, but it would be good to get feedback from other editors, too. Edhubbard 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This (that StandardName was POV pushing) was the consensus of the editors on Dissociative identity disorder as well as the conclusion of the two admins who posted to his talk page warning him about said POV-pushing and other policy-breaking actions. DreamGuy 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It should noted that, while I am in agreement regards the activities of Standardname is guilty of the above-mentioned, DreamGuy himself is running point on the on-going content dispute/edit warring situation regards these pages.
Although DreamGuy's edits are warranted, in many cases, his on-going attempts to control the manner in which the information is presented are often (and this is not an accusation, it is an observation) the source of content controversy(ies). --DashaKat 13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Coming from you with your edit history, that's a joke. DreamGuy 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copycat suicide risk

Below is a post of mine copied from the Talk:Suicide page:

Not having seen this article for a while, my immediate reaction to the pictures in it was that they had the potential to glorify suicide. One potential outcome of this is copycat suicides. While there is a need to be NPOV about the subject, there is also a social responsibility to not contribute to further suicides. It is significant that neither the article on murder or homicide have pictures of victims despite the ready availability of such material. This brief entry is to encourage a debate about this. [Posted 28 July 2007]

There has not been a response to this posting in the last week and my entry remains the most recent page edit as I write this. I am therefore unclear as to whether this lack of response signifies disinterest or just that people have not looked at the page in the last week. --CloudSurfer 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that copycat suicides etc. is just a theory, and one that is IMO not to be taken too seriously. To try to edit articles based upon supposed "social responsibility" based upon one particular belief as if it were 100% real and needed to be honored as an agenda would be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a long literature on copycat suicides and it is generally taken seriously by the media in many countries to the extent that reporting of individual suicides is rare. To acknowledge any bias, my background on this comes from being an Australian (Australia being one of the few countries that teaches the media about this), a psychiatrist, and a member of the board of our local LifeLine (equivalent of the Samaritans). I have run media workshops on the subject. Recently in Samoa we have had a spate of suicides that appears to be associated with an advertising campaign that symbolically glorified suicide, although that was not the advertiser's intention.
I do not know how you have reached your opinion but you might like to look at the references in the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, there is no dissenting view in that article. That would suggest that there is either not significant dissent on the subject or that the dissenters have yet to edit the article. My point about the suicide article is conveyed in Turkey's media rules, "Photography, pictures, visual images or film depicting such cases should not be made public."
All I am suggesting is the removal of most, if not all of the pictures. This would keep it in line with the homicide and murder articles. --CloudSurfer 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"All" you are suggesting is a distortion of Wikipedia rules because of your belief system. Various people believe that rock n roll is Satanic, that images of skinny women leads to anorexia, that video games cause violent behavior, etc. We simply cannot change how we edit articles to take those unproven beliefs to heart. And, based upon your description of the Wikipedia article, I bet that one could use some nice NPOVing... I've read literature on the topic and it seems to miss all sorts of alternative explanations and be written with clear agendas. "Teaching the media about this" etc. show extremely clear bias on your part, and that baias simply cannot be used to set standards for what articles should and should no have. And as far as "keep it in line with homicide and murder articles" I have no idea what you are talking about. Photos have been used on them as well. DreamGuy 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A quick check finds no photos of victims on murder or on homicide, but also none other than historical special cases on suicide. I don't see any that could be at issue, so I'm wondering what this discussion is for. Dicklyon 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
To respond to both recent posts in order. Dreamguy, I have brought this topic up to open discussion in a collaborative manner. If you disagree with the evidence on copycat suicides then collect your references and edit the copy in line with the principles of NPOV. Your response at present seems to be based on your personal point of view. That's fine, but let's keep this friendly. It does not help to accuse me of "extreme bias" when I have deliberately disclosed where I am coming from on this matter to clear the air. I am doing my best to view this from all sides. Over the years that I have edited on Wikipedia I have tried to take a NPOV stance and have rarely been accused of the opposite. Having not been active for the past three years, you are probably taking me as a newcomer. Even then, it's best not to bite but to assume good faith.
Dicklyon, the issue is that the overall impression of providing pictures of victims may glorify suicide. That was my impression when I looked at the article a little while ago. It is quite possible that people considering suicide may go to Wikipedia to read more about it. If they gain an impression that it is a glorious end then it may encourage them go ahead with suicide. This is behind the decision by various press organisations around the world to not publish pictures of suicide victims and to minimise the reporting of it to special cases. These policies vary from country to country with the US seeming to put freedom of the press at a higher priority and so if either of you are from the US you may be influenced by that viewpoint.
I realise that this is a tricky NPOV issue and that is why I have raised it for discussion. Perhaps to look at the issue of social responsibility with an example might help. It would be perfectly in keeping within the spirit of an encyclopaedia to provide details of how explosives are manufactured, including home-made bombs using fertiliser. The question is, would that be socially responsible?
One of my problems is that the pictures in the article are really quite good. The following are my views on each photograph/painting. The lead photograph of the suicides in Leipzig is historically interesting but doe not add information to the topic and I suggest removing it. I think the Manet painting should stay because of its artistic worth even though it may glorify the subject. The euthanasia machine provides information and should stay. The painting of Lucretia is pretty harmless and depicts a significantly earlier representation of suicide and so has worth. The self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức is a disturbing picture and despite its historic worth, do we really want to show this to 10-year-olds, let alone someone contemplating suicide? I suggest removing it. The kamikaze attack should stay as it adds information. The picture of the two dead Japanese marines is fairly horrific and should probably go. The tanto knife is informative and should probably stay. So there you have my specific views and in summary, I am suggesting the removal of three pictures, each of which graphically depicts victims. --CloudSurfer 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting explicit. I wouldn't object to those images being removed from the suicide article, but I also wouldn't want that to be interpreted as a policy precedent. You'll have to see how other editors feel about specific pictures; I don't think you'll have a lot of luck selling the general rationale. Dicklyon 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dicklyon, thank you for your response. In researching this topic further I came across Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images which failed to reach consensus. In some ways it deals with the points I am raising. Without reading it fully, I am coming round to the idea that removing images solely because they were disturbing may not have the consensus support of editors of Wikipedia. Alternatively, this may be a specific case where it is appropriate. At present I lean towards the latter view but welcome other input on this. Of course, I shall do nothing to the suicide article until this subject has had further input. It would be helpful if anyone commenting on this subject had read the article on copycat suicide to provide a background for this discussion. --CloudSurfer 06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I lean slightly towards the latter view too, and agree specifically with 2 of the images you suggest removing. However I would argue that the self-immolation image is iconic, but more importantly it is a notable historic event (and suicide), and so for informational reasons it should possibly remain. (Thoroughly clearly explained position and background above. I commend you for that effort.) --Quiddity 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. In the light of your various feedback I am now happy to advocate the removal of two pictures. The German one at the top, and the Japanese soldiers near the end. I accept the "burning monk" is iconic. My summary of the views are: DreamGuy - against removal, Dicklon accepting the idea of removal of three pictures (inc the monk), CloudSurfer and Quiddity leaning towards removal of two picture. I will post a comment on the talk page of Suicide to see if there is further interest there. --CloudSurfer 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

Several articles relating to specific emotions have been nominated for inclusion in a release version of wikipedia at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations#Emotions. If any uninvolved editor from this project would be interested in reviewing the articles for scientific accuracy and neutrality, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 16:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my request from above: would another participant in WikiProject Psychology come with me to bring some more order to classification under the emotion category? It is relatively easy and not long to do. At least two minds are required for validating judgmental decisions... This little task is much needed for at least two reasons: first, Wikipedia handling of affective notions lacks global coherence presently, and well-informed choices cannot be made at this time regarding emotion articles for inclusion in next release versions of Wikipedia. Robert Daoust 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Robert - I'd be happy to undertake this with you. Kindly give me some direction, and I'm off! --DashaKat 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks DashaKat. Please have a look at #Emotions template hereunder. Robert Daoust 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary dream interpretation

Contemporary dream interpretation needs expert attention. I've placed a rewrite tag on it, on the hopes that it can be salvaged, but I think the original contributing editor speaks English as a second language. —Viriditas | Talk 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go at it. --EmpacherPuppet 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI... the original contributing author is Heuves (talk · contribs). His user page says he is a clinical psychologist and senior-psychotherapist in the Netherlands. —Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. He may well be...this is the Wikiverse...but that does not necessarily mean that he has a command of English, or is able to impart ideas in a comprehensible fashion. I'll do what I can without intending to offend... --EmpacherPuppet 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions template

I would like to undertake a revision of both the Emotions Template and the Emotions-footer. Many of the items listed are not appropriate, and some are feelings...not emotions. Further, I believe an internal categorization scheme within the templates may useful. Thoughts? --EmpacherPuppet 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am with you on this matter, and DashaKat shows to be interested too. I suggest that we take Talk:List_of_emotions as a central place where to speak together while we will be editing the emotions section of the Psychology Project... Let's meet there if you please. Robert Daoust 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Attachment

Attachment therapy and related pages are currently in ArbCom. In the course of the arbitration, 4 of the 6 editors (percieved by others to be controlling all the attachment pages) have been blocked and the other two have been banned for one year, except from presenting evidence at arbcom.

Several of the articles have already been substantially rewritten, including Attachment therapy, Attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment theory and Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. The rewrites are not complete, but the articles are so different now that they no longer present a fringe view as the mainstream that they could really do with reclassifying. I think they all say 'start class' at the moment. I hope this is the appropriate place to raise this.Fainites barley 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could anybody explain why attachment disorder is rated as high importance, Reactive attachment disorder as mid importance and attachment therapy as low? Fainites barley 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All 6 socks now blocked. Arbitration ended. Fainites barley 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Admin to delete redirect Traumatic stress

We need a page on Traumatic stress. Right now Traumatic stress redirects to a subheading inside the article 'James Brown is dead'. Could someone fix this? --DashaKat 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Familicide

I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions (resolved)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the emotions section of the Psychology Project

I am submitting a new Wikipedia categorization scheme for dealing with emotions, and more generally with all affective topics. I was using a section at the page Talk:List_of_emotions while I was working out that scheme, but then I realized that it would be more appropriate to create a new subpage at WikiProject Psychology. Interested people may have a look at the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. Please note that the initiative, in order to go further, now requires that at least a person or two agree with the propositions made. Robert Daoust 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I remind participants in this project that our goal is to "Construct a coherent framework for categorization of psychology articles". Those who work with 'emotions' in Wikipedia will have noticed that that subject, a huge part of psychology, is especially in need of a coherent framework. On close scrutiny, it can be seen that 'emotion' is used as an emblematic term for much of what is affective in psychology. However, it does not apply easily to a great deal of what is affective, because most affective states lack the characteristic intensity of emotion. So, I suggest to reorganize Category:Emotion into Category:Affective states and processes: details of the new category and its provisionally proposed subcategories may be found right here. In German Wikipedia, should it be noted, category 'affekt' is a broad subcategory of psychology and a parent category of emotion. If anyone agree, I will make a 'request for renaming' at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. Robert Daoust 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that "petting", "kissing", "condolences", and such are emotions. In fact, emotions should be a small section affective states. Emotions are subjective states and therefore, for the most part, not in the realm of Psychology as a scientific field. Affective states are observable. Psychology deals in what is observable and measurable - or at least tries to do so. I would caution against going out in left field, as you seem to be doing. In my opinion, you should stick close to the field of Psychology, rather than making it into a catch all category. --Mattisse 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As an outsider, I think creating a new category for "Affective states" is probably a good idea. Showing my own lack of expertise, however, is there a standard, verifiable defintion of "emotion" such that it can easily agreed which articles qualify in that prsumptive subcategory of affective states or not? John Carter 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that the Category:Psychology is considered too big. We do not want to make this problem worse by placing articles that are not really in the realm of Psychology into the Category:Psychology. Affective states are defined in the current DSM and in the peer-reviewed literature. I notice, for example, that articles with neologisms are labeled as Category:Emotion and therefore become an article in the Category:Psychology. Also, topics that religious are being labeled as Psychology by applying the Category:Emotion to them. These are the types of problems that are occurring now. Remember, the Category:Psychology is already too big. Please help this problem. I do not think lay persons can make up terms for Psychology any more than I think lay persons can make up terms for Psychiatry, Medicine, Engineering, etc. Please do not contribute to the problem. --Mattisse 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

{outdent) Here is an example of terms I found listed in Category:Emotion as it is currently structured - (in addition to Petting, Kissing & Condolences):

  • Limerence
  • Pet peave
  • New relationship energy
  • Emo (slang)
  • Beauty
  • Kissing traditions
  • Anthropopathy

In my opinion, we do not want to aid and abet using neologisms or categorizing behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology. --Mattisse 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that there was (I think) a German language "list" of all the recognized emotions, somewhere in the vicinity of over 100? Maybe that would be the way to go, and just have the list of emotions without the category. Or, alternately, maybe add text to the category to the effect that only those emotions which have been "officiallY' recognized are to be included there. John Carter 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, John, there is no agreed upon definition of emotion in psychology, and that is the problem: the state of the art in this science does not allow easy categorization like more technical or hard sciences might allow. About articles to include under categories: there is no question that a big cleanup is in order. The question is what categories will be used for those articles, in as far as enough editors and readers consider that they are relevant to the subjects of mind and behavior. Please note everybody that a discussion on category emotion is now going on at Talk:Emotion Category_talk:Emotion (mistake corrected an hour later) --Robert Daoust 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not really a problem in Psychology, as psychologist use the word "affect" as in "affective states" or the word "mood" as in "Mood disorders". The word "emotion" describes a subjective state. You can go with the dictionary definition on this. As a psychologist, you do not know what the subjective state of another person is. Therefore, you go by the outward signs and behaviors, including what that person says, to judge that person's affective state or mood. With the word "emotion", you are trying to expand upon the dictionary definition. No wonder people do not agree. To expand upon and argue over the word emotion is unnecessary—it just adds more useless verbiage. --Mattisse 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It is clear, from the link you reference above on Talk:Emotion, that the problem lies in the many disciplines that use the word in different ways, not in a dispute within Psychology. Perhaps you should look into those other disciples, for example Philosophy. Most of the arguments seem to be in that realm. --Mattisse 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, I notice from the Psychology template that Emotion is under Research Psychology, not under Clinical. So I suggest you confine your recategorization to Research Psychology. --Mattisse 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave a wrong link above (now corrected). The right link for a discussion that is now going on about category emotion is Category_talk:Emotion. I believe nobody wants the word emotion anymore in categories, that's why I propose we make a request for renaming category emotion. What will be the new name? I suggest 'Affective states and processes'. Who agrees? Who says better?--Robert Daoust 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your suggestion of renaming. However, since "affective" does have such a specific meaning in Clinical Psychology, I do not think you should used that word. If the category is going to be completely interdisciplinary, which I agree seems to be the way to go, what about something like Category: Emotion (interdisciplinary), or even just Category:Emotion, as long as it did not automatically end up in Psychology. It could be like Architecture, for example, where Category:Ceiling is used along with qualifying categories like Category:Chinese architecture, or Category:Chinese architectural history, etc. See zaojing categories. Ceiling, like Emotion is general and does not automatically put the article in other categories; subsequent categories then narrow it down. (That may not be the best example, but you get the idea.) --Mattisse 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Category:Emotional states might be more acceptable? John Carter 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The word affective may have a specific meaning in clinical psychology or in other contexts, but in common language it refers univocally to feelings, moods, sentiments, emotions, etc. Am I alone who see that what is needed is a category for all psychological phenomena relating to the affective dimension of mind? I mean, affective states include a lot more than emotional states. I believe that emotion has become 'emblematic' of the affective, because it is an intense, strong, 'conspicuous' kind of feeling. Emotion, however, is not 'representative' of the affective, since most affective states are mild, soft, 'discreet' feelings. See for instance Myriam-Webster: "emotion carries a strong implication of excitement or agitation", "feeling (…) may suggest the mere existence of a response but imply nothing about the nature or intensity of it". Emotions belong to a subclass of feeling, so to speak. Relationships between emotion, feeling, mood, sentiment are not simple, so, in order to keep it simple, why not simply talk of affective states? Mattisse, you seem to think that because you are not an affective scientist or an emotion researcher, psychology should not deal with the affective. You are emptying unilaterally, in the middle of an ongoing discussion on the subject, the category emotion, not minding that the category might have to be reconstructed more laboriously from scratch. There is a crowd, I believe, who consider that articles like anxiety, shyness or happiness belong to a common category, because they feel that the affective is a major and legitimate part of psychology. --Robert Daoust 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Something is happening now in cat psycho, at last! --Robert Daoust 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed with joy that an editor had undertaken cleaning up Category:Psychology, but the task is probably much too heavy for one person only. And I still wonder whether it is possible to do a good job without first reorganizing the category scheme itself... which is really not easy. Tree of Knowledge System is a novel, theoretical approach to the unification of psychology developed by professor Gregg Henriques. It could be useful for us here for 'the problem of psychologgy', though more useful on the diagnosis than on the remedy side of the problem, unfortunately. --Robert Daoust 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ANNOUNCEMENT: I made a request for renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes. You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12 --Robert Daoust 03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to agree

It appears that the proposed renaming of category 'emotion' to 'affective states and processes' is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. --Robert Daoust 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episteme Psychology sources

I have been seeking sources for the unsourced article Episteme psychology from the article's creator. I told her that I would ask here for assistance with this. If you are familiar with the topic (or know where to look for sources on it), please pitch in. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Discussion: Episteme Psychology

Episteme psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episteme psychology (2007-09-27 – 2007-10-07) Move→Epistemological psychology; otherwise, no consensus→Keep

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology (emotion) - are we taking Psychology seriously as a discipline? Or is it a joke?

There is someone busy coming up with a list and categories for Psychology/Emotion who is considering "kissing" and "condolences", and "petting" and other such words as emotions. Is this WikiProject Psychology attempting to be a quality, professional Portal like Architecture or Portals for other disciplines. Or is this Portal a joke? I really am wondering. --Mattisse 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Jungian psychology

Category:Jungian psychology is being nominated for a rename to Category:Analytical psychology. Comments are welcome at its discussion page. Samuel Grant 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Result was to keep as is. Doczilla 03:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality and Importance raters

Can somebody tell me please the requirements for being one of these? Somebody signing himself 'Doug Pratt' left this comment in the portal box on AT [2] but does not appear to be on the list of Wikipedians interested in psychology or indeed registered at all. Nor has he responded to a reply on his talkpage. Whats the score on this? Fainites barley 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment DRV

Template:Emotion-footer seems to be a list of topics that may lend themselves with being dictionary definitions rather than articles. Now pending at DRV is the Disappointment DRV. Your comments at that DRV may help in resolving this Psychology(?) issue. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuttering FAR

Stuttering has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD debate on Psychiatric abuse starting

All input here to gain consensus...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion: Ranidaphobia

The following is an AFD that could be closed at any time:

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review of Psychiatric abuse

There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse

cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modelling (psychology)

Hi, at the moment there is a discussion going on about the meaning of modelling in psychology on the Talk:Modelling (psychology). The subject itselve is notable enough. But the original author has some very particular ideas about it... and gave a very specific meaning to this very general subject. I wonder if sone of you could take a look at this article and respond to the notability discussion on the talk page. Thanks. - Mdd 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinthome needs rewrite for comprehensibility/clarity

The article Sinthome claims to be about a psychoanalytic theory, therefore I am including this note here. I added the *cleanup-confusing* tag to to Sinthome, as it is "likely to be confusing to the average reader, because it is obtuse, confused, or missing key information. Sometimes, we all write text that makes perfect sense to us, but does not make sense to most other people." (Per WP:CLARIFY.) The article needs to be rewritten for comprehensibility/clarity. -- 201.19.77.39 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreclusion needs rewrite for comprehensibility/clarity

Per previous on Sinthome, I see that Foreclusion is if anything even worse. -- 201.19.77.39 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Time-madness

Resolved.

Time-madness (via WP:PROD on 2007-10-22) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. --Mattisse 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovered Memory Therapy

Hi everyone, I came across the RMT page after I saw a story which appeared in the British news. There have been a lot of changes in the article this month, and I couldn't tell that it was currently within the scope of your project, but thought maybe it should be. I lack the necessary background knowledge to determine if all or some of these changes are needed for NPOV, but they appear to be making the idea more accepted than it really is. Thought the needed expertise might be found here. . .could one or some of you take a look? Thanks, R. Baley 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion: Cold feet

Resolved.

Cold feet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold feet (2nd nomination) (2007-10-28 – 2007-11-05) Redirect→Raynaud's phenomenon

AFD outcome was subsequently overturned via DRV to no consensus (2007-11-11).
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI: AfD is over. Result was redirect. Doczilla 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology

Resolved.

International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (2007-10-22 – 2007-11-06) Deleted

a nonprofit antipsychiatry research and educational network
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasure: call for participation

The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This simply reflects the relative degree to which they have been studied and doesn't strike me as silly at all Ratinabox (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does "basic" mean and who gets to decide that? Doesn't this invoke POV? Doczilla 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This already happens... its called the Citizendium. 99.240.165.52 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain your comment about Citizendium? I could take it one way, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neurotransmitters

I questioned the science reference desk about this, but nobody there has commented yet. In "Talk:Neurotransmitter#Neurotransmitter effects" I describe a recent psychopharmacology mishap I'm recovering from, and my attempt to map the effects of changing neurotransmitter levels. Does my interpretation appear correct? Which receptors appear to have been preferentially overstimulated or understimulated? 66.218.55.142 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented because you want to talk about something not related to writing an encyclopedia. I suggest you take your comments to a message board. 99.240.165.52 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a related site

If one looks at the article on aging, one sees that it is currently under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology, but it is surely an article that also relates to psychology. I have made a proposal at WP: Council to start a new WikiProject group on gerontology - are members of this WikiGroup interested? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Hi, I just created American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I'm handing it over to y'all for the addition of any templates etc etc etc that your wikigroup suggests. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody interested?

Any of you guys interested to team work on emotion related articles? I almost rewrote Anger and nominated it as GA. I'd like to do the same with other emotions like Fear, ... but it would be nice to teamwork on this. The Psychology related articles are unfortunately in a bad shape and need to be sourced; we really need to do something about them. BTW, I am also interested in dream in case anybody wants to do some team working. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knol and insomnia

Look at [3]. It would be better to improve article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol, and now its quality is rather poor. 83.5.242.20 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renfield's syndrome

Hi, I've nominated this for deletion here as I doubt it satisfies notability. Chipping in with opinions is welcomed, including reasons or evidence for keeping it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Communication

Hello,

I am a clinical psychologist working on a project to improve imterpersonal communication within the Wikipedia Community. Would you please E-mail me if you would be interested in helping with such a project.

Regards,

Michael David (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Main Page nomination

I've nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, a featured article, to appear on the Main Page on January 16 2008, the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the Act into the US Congress. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 16. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)