Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 10

Dispute at Psychology

There's been a dispute at Psychology#Health, well-being, and social change for a while. It looks basically like it's the depressingly familiar dispute over whether Industrial and organizational psychology is more important than Occupational health psychology. It is currently at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Psychology.

I think it would be helpful if a couple of active editors would keep an eye on all of the related articles, possibly for years to come. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As one of the disputants, I agree with user:WhatamIdoing that it would be helpful for experienced WP editors to keep an eye on the page. I, however, make one correction to the above. I do not claim that occupational health psychology is more important than industrial/organizational psychology. I/o psychology is more important in the some areas, such as employee selection, job analysis, leadership, performance appraisal, etc. Occupational health psychology has little to say about those subjects. Occupational health psychology is more important in the area of research on the impact of work (and unemployment) on the health of well-being of workers and interventions to improve working conditions.

I add this. OHP was founded because psychologists had been conducting too little research on the impact of psychosocial working conditions on worker health. This was true in both health psychology (where much valuable research had been devoted to preventing illness, helping people to stop smoking and drinking excessively, etc. but not on the work-health interface) and i/o psychology. That has been the context in which OHP emerged in the latter half of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Iss246 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But Psyc12 showed you the reliable sources Iss246 that throughout Europe industrial and organizational psychologists have been involved in worker wellbeing, welfare and job satisfaction since the beginning of last century. That is not a remarkable fact. There are literally millions of psychology students and psychologists globally who know this fact too. Also the core of the dispute for me is that Lillian Gilbreth who was a pioneering female psychologist is being prevented from being included in the article. Including a sentence to reflect her work over a 50 year career with sources to back it up seems logical. Over the years writers of psychology's history omit these female pioneering psychologists. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Psyc12 showed evidence that Mayer had a research interest in work and health. So I changed my mind a little about i/o psychology. But the evidence regarding Gilbreth does not demonstrate sufficient interest in work and health. The work of Gilbreth or Myers does not change the fact that industrial psychology was largely concerned with helping management. Even industrial psychologists' interest in rest periods in munitions plants during World War I was highly motivated by concerns for productivity. As admirable as Arthur Kornhauser was, he was a lonely figure in i/o psychology with most i/o psychology on the side of helping management. Worker health was far from the forefront of i/o psychology ([see https://paulspector.com/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/]). Also see Koppes Bryan and Vinchur who, in a 50-page history of i/o psychology, showed that i/o manifested a great deal of interest in important topics such as selection, testing, productivity, training, team relationships, leadership, task analysis, performance appraisal, and organizational culture; the chapter barely contained two sentences on job stress and health. Iss246 (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The section we are talking about "Health, well-being, and social change" also includes worker "wellbeing" which is separate to health. Why are you focused just on health Iss246? And you did not address the fact that we need to look at things from a worldwide frame not just in the USA. Lillian Gilbreth's entire career as an industrial psychologist was devoted to worker happiness, job satisfaction, welfare and wellbeing. I have included seven reliable sources. I am okay with leaving a source or two out. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography The Sullivan source supports the inclusion too. Sullivan, S.E., (1995). Management’s unsung theorist: An examination of the works of Lillian M Gilbreth. Biography 18(1), pp. 31-41. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, when this dispute comes up again, then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sportstir/Archive may be the page you need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion at The Bell Curve

Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect of Peter A. Levine to Somatic experiencing.

 Discussion ongoing...
Talk:Somatic experiencing § Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing ––Formal ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Social loafing

If anyone has a few moments to look at Talk:Social loafing#Merging Zamanfou into Social loafing, please do. It's been open for a while and it would be great to be able to move on. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Attachment theory needs cleanup

Attachment theory currently contains a lot of inappropriate and/or badly edited material added by Rimbaud1230 ( - From or about one "Yibo Li").

Would anybody like to clean this up?

thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8693:919C:A109:3EF9:168 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it has been reverted now. I was going to reply with "dowe need to make this personal" but it looks like a literature summary was pasted into the main page. It looks like Rimbaud1230 has a little background and has spent some time doing some reading, so it may be as well to have a read through the comments and see if any of the comments and links are interesting (perhaps pasting some of it into the talk page). I'm not sure I quite have the attachment theory motiuvation at the moment tho. Talpedia (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MEDMOS and suicide

There have been a couple of discussions recently about how we write about suicide. I'd like to put something in MEDMOS about suicide-related content. For example, IMO encyclopedias should summarize facts dispassionately, and not quote a suicide note, indulge in sensationalism, or state overly simplistic "causes" as being settled facts. If you are interested in this subject, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#New section on suicide and self-harm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal Cognitive elite→The Bell Curve

A discussion that may interest members of this project is occurring at Talk:The Bell Curve § Merger proposal. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice / help

Hey, I have a question. There are some articles related to psychology that are somewhat sensitive and maybe controversial, but I don't know where to bring the issues up other than the talk pages (but they don't seem to be very active and only have a few strongly opinionated people who seem very angry and adamant on their views), should I talk to an administrator or something? Does this wikiproject have experience with that? MargaretChloe (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• I get the impression that this is one of the problems of wikipedia and I'm not sure I have a good answer. But some thoughts:
  • People are opinionated, but will often follow the rules. A key one is WP:Verifiability If you make a change that is will written and cites the best source on a topic, and addresses the nuance that other people have added then it will probably stand.
  • It can be good to avoid too much WP:FORUM. On talk pages you often find many people willing to talk about things, but far less interested in actually writing about things. The more related to an actual change, rather that just what happens to be true, the less push back you get. If you make the change people might even not comment.
  • If you and an editor reach an impasse one approach is to go to an appropriate project page and ask other people for their opiion.
  • The is a process for resolving disputes (WP:RFC) to make changes when there seems no other approach. This can be a bit time consuming though, and it can be more enjoyable to pootle around making non-controversial changes than get involved in RFCs.
  • You might like to go hang out on WP:MED as this is more active than hear (while be related) and quite keen on looking after new comers.
  • People opinions will vary, and I wouldn't say wikipedia is the "wild west", but there can be a bit of "we are here to make edits for which there is consensus not to make friends" Talpedia (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah look Talpedia is right. We all have experience with frustrating editors. English wikipedia loves to pretend that people are rational at all times and that arguments are actually "civil discussions". It's a strange system. It does mean that if you put effort into an argument, then you're reasonably likely to change someone's mind - often, that'll be convincing someone passing by to join you.
      You're absolutely allowed to ask for help in relevant places, especially if an article doesn't have heaps of traffic or is mostly watched by people with Big Opinions. As well as this project, you can ask at other projects (like neuroscience, medicine, or sociology) or the noticeboards for particular issues, such as WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Those should be your go to, RFC is a hassle. Template:Noticeboard links lists the main ones. Most of the time, someone will help or will point you in the right direction. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Psychology tasks

If interested, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 7. -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies § Merge from Social construct theory of ADHD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies § Merge from Social construct theory of ADHD. Sundayclose (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple article merge proposal for Wellness Recovery Action Plan

I have proposed a merge of Mary Ellen Copeland and Copeland Center for Wellness and Recovery into Wellness Recovery Action Plan, and am notifying this project and WP:WikiProject Addictions and recovery as all three articles have very few watchers. Please join the discussion.

Note: all three articles have been subject to some level of conflict of interest editing. -- Xurizuri (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone & Mass Formation Psychosis

Afternoon all. Would appreciate some input from the Psychology crowd into recent pop-psych-guru Robert Malone, quoting Dr. Mattias Desmet's apparent theory of Mass Formation Psychosis. Presently the article quotes quite liberally Malone - I would consider this to fall under WP:FRINGE, where we should cite the core of the claim but functionally go no further pursuant to broader discussion / reliable sources. Would appreciate any comments / feedback here or at the talk page here. Thanks Koncorde (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested structure for psychotherapy articles

I started a discussion a couple months ago on the MOS:MED talk page that has essentially come down to, it would be good to have a suggested psychotherapy article structure there. I proposed this structure there, and said I would request feedback from this WikiProject. The structure is adapted from the cognitive behavioural therapy article, and the MOS:MED article structures for Drugs, treatments, and devices and Surgeries and procedures. The only major thing currently in the CBT article that would be an issue as a broad standard for all psychotherapy articles is that it has a separate section for criticisms.

Therapeutic uses or Uses (how the intervention is used, along with evaluations of efficacy, and any relevant risks, if available)

Technique (avoid step-by-step instructions)

Methods of access (only when discussed in reliable sources; e.g. therapist, group therapy, online, etc)

History (e.g., when it was invented)

Society and culture (includes legal and ethical issues, if any)

Research: Include only if addressed by significant sources. See Trivia, and avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers. Avoid promotional descriptions of early-stage interventions

The Techniques section is equivalent to the Description section for CBT, the Mechanism of action section under the structure for drugs, and the techniques section under the structure for surgeries. I can't think of a particularly suitable name for the section. Even if this doesn't end up getting added to MOS:MED, it would be good to add to our own article guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the analogue of "method of action" for drugs might be something like "theoretical model / model of cognition". So for example in CBT their is a model that cognitions affect, behaviour and emotions and that these cognitions often / usually go wrong due to biases which can be repaired.

Incidentally, it strikes me that the theoretical models for most therapies kind of lack a WP:MEDRS base because psychology is so terribly hard - though there is often empirical research backing up these hunches. I sort of feel as if psychotherapies can be pseudoscience / philosophy attached to empirical outcome measure. I guess the same can apply to psychoactive drugs - though there tends to be at least a bit of chemistry involved there before the handwavy hypotheses about how the brain functions, and how this interacts with the mind.

All a bit waffley, but I feel that something like "theoretical model of disease" fits into this somehow. Talpedia (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Xurizuri: Psychotherapy articles are too heterogeneous for your proposed structure, in various ways. For example, in this edit to List of psychotherapies, I noted that the list is a mixture of psychotherapy articles that cover topics at various levels of abstraction, such as theoretical frameworks, specific therapy packages, and individual techniques. Some articles cover general psychotherapeutic orientation (e.g., behavioral, person-centered, psychodynamic, systemic, integrative) and other articles cover discrete therapeutic techniques or procedures (e.g., affect labeling, modeling, role-playing, systematic desensitization). At least one article—focusing—is about both a general orientation and a discrete technique or procedure. In addition to the orientation/technique distinction, common factors and principles are also important. Although there are common factors and principles in psychotherapy, clinical pluralism is more of an issue in psychotherapy than in medicine. For example, behavioral techniques are often used in psychotherapy to reach a predetermined fixed outcome (e.g., cure of a phobia), whereas a humanistic approach such as person-centered therapy is often very open-ended, aimed at developmental outcomes that are not predetermined and are unique to the client's situation, and the latter approach arguably has more in common with education than with medicine. It may be possible to devise a guideline to accommodate all this heterogeneity, but it would require a very good knowledge of the psychotherapy literature about the relevant issues and controversies. Biogeographist (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a depressing answer, Biogeographist, but quite plausible. I remember an adage that the first step is understanding a topic is saying what is similar and different and why. Perhaps we could start point is to group articles together that "should have a similar structure" pick a couple as representative of the group and then people can mock the structure in those articles? Over time these prototypes might evolve into more or a manual of style Talpedia (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "depressing": Yes. There have been good attempts to systematize the field (e.g., the transtheoretical model of Prochaska et al. and their textbook Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis, and research in common factors and principles and mechanisms) but much of the psychotherapy literature does not reflect (or only imperfectly reflects) this systematization. Your suggestion to group articles together that "should have a similar structure" leads to a methodological question: What should be the criteria for grouping articles? And that question is the same issue as the systematization of the psychotherapy field in general, and a lot of work has already been done on that issue by researchers, which is why I said that any guideline that is devised should be explicitly informed by the literature about the relevant issues and controversies. Simply mimicking the article structures for Drugs, treatments, and devices and Surgeries and procedures is insufficient. The proposed guidelines need to be informed by the knowledge base of psychotherapy, and not assume that all psychotherapy articles will be isomorphic with medicine. Biogeographist (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to transtheoretical model: this is the sort of topic I am very much interested in. I guess the point of this approach is that you don't (ahead of time) know how to group articles, rather you look at the structure of some other articles and see which fits best (though you might have some hunches based on the article topics, its level of abstraction etc). This sort of "classify as go" approach allows you to avoid having to think of everything ahead of time. I'm very much thinking about something of the approaches in Qualitative analysis (e.g. Grounded theory) when I write this but also ideas about using prototypes as shows up in "case by case" reasoning (that originates in law but has started to show up in management as well). I think picking a "good" article that is quite similar to the current topic and seeing if the structure works is a reasonable approach if the "default" style guide does not work.

I agree that there is a risk of psychological articles (and practice!) being shoe-horned into a medical framework, though I think in practice people will just ignore a style guide that does not fit, albeit with some unnecessary reverting.

I do have my doubts as to how well this sort of iterative style development works on a policy level... policy does have to deal with disagreements. Talpedia (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As an example of an article that doesn't conform well to a medical model, take Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, which was discussed on this WikiProject talk page last year (and on its talk page and in a 2017 deletion discussion that includes my own ruminations on brand-name psychotherapies as POVs). Where would this article be classified in the orientation/technique distinction that I mentioned above? It's more an orientation than a technique: the lead section says that it "incorporates techniques from experiential therapies (such as Gestalt therapy and person-centered therapy) and ISTDP)". But as it stands, the article is also an artifact that shows an emic perspective of a student of the psychotherapy, and that POV has been controversial, as the discussions show, but it's a problem that is not entirely absent from other psychotherapy articles (although it may be especially obvious in this one) because brand-name psychotherapy orientations are POVs to a considerable degree (this is what Talpedia called philosophy attached to empirical outcome measure above!). I think this article could benefit from a more standardized structure, but not the structure for a technique as in Xurizuri's proposal above. There is a section in the article called "Map of the transformational process" but what it describes is not a technique, it's more like an ideal description of a sequence of subjective experiencing (if I'm not mistaken). Biogeographist (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies that I took a while to respond, I’ve had a very busy week. Firstly, I think I need to clarify something. I am not proposing this as the final version of this structure. This is literally the first draft.

I’ve understood from what you’ve both said that there are two key interconnected abstract-level issues with this whole process:

Psychotherapy is too heterogeneous to easily standardise

Psychotherapy is not medical

Both are true, however:

The name MOS:MED is misleading. It’s not actually about medicine, it’s about health-related information. See the explanatory supplement WP:BMI.

The article structures in MOS:MED aren’t enforced or required in any way – The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition.. They are a starting point or something to fall back on, so any psychotherapy that is so far from the mean that its article can’t be easily standardized wouldn’t be forced to conform.

While I did adapt this from medical sections, the key word is adapt. Regardless, medicine is not as straightforward as either of you have presented it as, and it’s hardly as though the structures I adapted this from have a limited or simplistic purview or even one which is particularly distant from psychology. It also includes alternative medicine, a lot of which has similar features to psychology, as alluded to previously (with the notable difference that psychology checks for efficacy – even though EMDR sounds super fake, it apparently works). Surgeries and procedures covers everything from rTMS to the Feldenkrais Method and all forms of psychosurgery. Drugs, treatments, and devices covers gene therapy for a cerebral disorder, neural implants for Parkinsons (in theory at least, it’s a bad article), and psilocybin.

I have some other assorted points:

As a combination of some of the ideas each of you have raised, one option would be to have 2 suggested structures. One would be for a pure orientation article and the other would be for a pure procedure article. And then, as befits a spectrum, we encourage editors to combine aspects as needed. If we realise that the orientation/procedure paradigm isn’t the best one, then we can apply the same model to another paradigm.

Biogeographist, you clearly have a lot of expertise in this topic and as you alluded to in your third comment, there are some articles that could really benefit from some standardisation. You have raised very strong general critiques, however while reading through this I was struggling to understand what exactly in this draft needed to improve. In your first comment, you mention that Psychotherapy articles are too heterogeneous for your proposed structure, however it would be helpful if you could specify what parts of the structure you find problematic. In your second comment, you raise that The proposed guidelines need to … not assume that all psychotherapy articles will be isomorphic with medicine – could you elaborate on which parts of the structure make that assumption? In your third comment, you say, I think this article could benefit from a more standardized structure, but not the structure for a technique as in Xurizuri's proposal above – is the map of the transformational process what you’re referring to with this? Or is the issue that the structure would still allow too much POV?

I am definitely on board with Talpedia’s suggestion of a "theoretical model" section. It would address parts of my concern about the “technique” section because it would help separate the theory and practice components and the exact line to draw between the two is a balancing act that individual articles can come to an consensus on. It would also enable a fair amount of flexibility in addressing the heterogeneity because of how broad “theoretical model” is as a term.

A lot of things were raised, so I had a lot to respond to, but sorry about the wall of text and I promise that I did try to be succinct. It's better to respond to as much as possible to avoid having to loop back around to those points. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be annoying and say I'm on the fence. It's plausible that there is more variety in psychology and repurposing a medical spec doesn't work. It's plausible that this covers a whole bunch of articles pretty well, and for the others it's obvious that we shouldn't use it.

I think it might be empirically quite clear if we try to apply this to a random sample of articles (or maybe "model" doing so) and see if it work. But I suppose we are at the stage before this, where we think about what sort of structure we should try out.

I guess there's a question about whether the enterprise is worthwhile or positive. I do think consistency is a win, and allow articles to profit from one another. I'm also aware that philosophical assumptions can lurk in lots of places.

I think it might be a fun exercise to sample articles and shee how the article structure might best differ in form. So I guess I'm keen... though not for very defensible reasons!

I'm a little worried about WP:MEDRS and the theoretical assumptions of therapies. I'm also worried that we might end up "blessing" these theoretical models as true just because the intervention itself is effective. I don't quite know how best to deal with this and I'm a little concerned that literatures might have an annoying habit of mashing up the evidence base with theoretical assumption such that they can't be separated without engaging in OR. Talpedia (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! @Xurizuri: Sorry that I was critical without proposing an alternative. At that point, I had not yet thought of an alternative, and I was even a bit overwhelmed by what seemed like the enormity of the task of devising one. I was wondering: Surely someone else has already solved this problem somewhere, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel? And then later a solution came to mind, the same as what Xurizuri proposed above: one option would be to have 2 suggested structures. One would be for a pure orientation article and the other would be for a pure procedure article. And then, as befits a spectrum, we encourage editors to combine aspects as needed. (By the way "orientation" and "procedure" may not be the best names; I just pulled those terms out of my own possibly flawed memory of the literature, but we can use the terms unless something better is suggested.)

Then I remembered that there is a ready-made structure for the "orientation" articles in the textbook that I already mentioned: Prochaska, James O.; Norcross, John C. (2010). Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. ISBN 9780495601876. OCLC 264006899. The current edition is 9th (2018), but the 7th edition (2010) in the Internet Archive has the same structure for each orientation, outlined on page 2. Here is that textbook's structure for what we're calling "orientations", with my comments or suggested replacement heading in square brackets:

• A clinical example
• A sketch of the founder [History]
• Theory of personality
• Theory of psychopathology [I guess whichever analogous term that is most used by the orientation could be substituted here: theory of problems, dysfunction, etc.]
• Therapeutic processes ["Processes" is a dimension of the transtheoretical model (TTM), but there may be a heading that conveys the same general idea without being specific to the TTM, such as: Mechanisms]
• Therapeutic content
• Therapeutic relationship
• Practicalities of the therapy [This includes aspects such as training, setting, number of sessions or other means of delivery, typical client populations; there may be a better term for this heading]
• Effectiveness of the therapy
• Criticisms of the therapy
• Analysis of Mrs. C [This kind of differential treatment description of a shared example client probably isn't feasible for Wikipedia due to the lack of unified editorial direction]
• Future directions
• Key terms [Not usually included in Wikipedia articles, but not a bad idea]
• Recommended readings [Further reading]
• Recommended websites [External links]

It's not necessary to copy this exact order, but it's striking how similar it is to an ideal Wikipedia structure, even including analogues of "Further reading" and "External links" at the end. If you don't understand any these headings, look at the chapters in Prochaska & Norcross's textbook for examples of how the structure is used.

By the way, on the next page of Prochaska & Norcross's textbook (page 3 in the 7th edition in the Internet Archive, page 3 in the 9th edition in Google Books) there is "Table 1.1 Theoretical Orientations of Psychotherapists in the United States" that lists the percentage of various types of clinicians in the US that report using each orientation, according to the cited sources. These data may indicate which orientations are highest priority for improvement in Wikipedia. (I don't mean to exclude the rest of the world; if there are global data somewhere, the global data would be preferable.)

Xurizuri's proposal above, as a structure for the "procedure/technique" end of the spectrum and when paired with a structure for the "orientation" end of the spectrum, seems OK, assuming that the "Uses" section includes contraindications too.

I hope Xurizuri's other questions for me are answered or mooted by this response.

Responding to Talpedia's comment that I'm also worried that we might end up "blessing" these theoretical models as true just because the intervention itself is effective. I don't quite know how best to deal with this and I'm a little concerned that literatures might have an annoying habit of mashing up the evidence base with theoretical assumption. I think that having a common structure for the orientations such as the one above, and editing for NPOV, should go a long way toward addressing this concern. The theoretical sections should exhibit close connections to basic science, expressed by psychologists as formally as possible. (There has been a lot of discussion about this recently throughout psychology, e.g., Robinaugh, Donald J.; Haslbeck, Jonas M. B.; Ryan, Oisín; Fried, Eiko I.; Waldorp, Lourens J. (July 2021). "Invisible hands and fine calipers: a call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 16 (4): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1745691620974697. hdl:1887/3632302. PMC 8273080. PMID 33593176.) And this is importantly different from the empirical outcome research in the Effectiveness section. When the theoretical sections are disconnected from basic science, it tends to be rather obvious, and is often also reflected in the Criticisms section. For me, what is equally concerning/annoying is the opposite case, where an orientation trumpets how well-grounded in basic science its theory is and how no other orientation is so amazingly indubitably scientific. (I am thinking of certain behaviorists. The example of behaviorism is richly ironic since behaviorism ignored so many basic mechanisms for so long: e.g., Bunge, Mario (1985). "From mindless neuroscience and brainless psychology to neuropsychology". Annals of Theoretical Psychology. 3: 115–133. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_7. ISBN 978-1-4612-9507-5.) Biogeographist (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That orientation structure sounds good! I have some suggestions on it: as someone mentioned at MOS:MED, a criticisms section is a flame to a moth for POV (see the essay WP:CRITICISM). It should likely be combined into other sections, particularly Effectiveness or Mechanisms, as appropriate. I would also say having an explicit clinical example section is a quick way to invite overly-stereotypical examples, however it may be useful to add a note that examples can be included under relevant sections as quoted material or closely paraphrased material from MEDRS.

I think we should continue to use the orientation/procedure language for now, and decide how appropriate those terms are later.

Regarding Talpedia's points, there's definitely an issue around evidence of theory as opposed to evidence of efficacy. But I do think that testing the structure would work out the bugs there.

At this point, if we agree this is a potentially worthwhile exercise, we could take over the abandoned Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy page to test and develop this. (I have actually just noticed that someone also drafted a guide for an article structure there in 2008.) --Xurizuri (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I remembered that WP does explicitly allow embedded glossaries in articles, so "Key terms" is definitely a viable section. -- Xurizuri (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a Criticism section is likely to be a very good idea in the case of psychotherapy orientations. The essay WP:CRITICISM is just an essay, but basically what it says is that a Criticism section should be avoided when it draws "undue attention to negative viewpoints". Whether this is true for any given article needs to be decided case-by-case, but it's likely not to be true for articles on psychotherapy orientations since an orientation is itself, to a significant degree, a POV, and a Criticism section can be helpful for showing how the orientation/POV has been critiqued by other orientations/POVs (indeed, this is exactly the role of the Criticisms section in Prochaska & Norcross's textbook), which is an important part of reaching the Wikipedia ideal of NPOV. In other words, the negative viewpoints in the case of these orientations is "due" not "undue"! For example, the articles on Marxism and Freudianism, two POVs that were started by scientists (Marx and Freud), both have Criticism sections probably for similar reasons as what I just said.

Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy is a good idea. Biogeographist (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

On criticism, what I personally dislike about it is that it can make it difficult to weigh claims against one another. E.g. you might have evidence against something in the criticism, and evidence for it in the main articles, and the two evidence bases never have to "interact". I think mixing up the for and against can create more nuance. Although nuance in wikipedia can look at little strange because of the strong OR constraints.

The stuff that I find useful in criticism sections are sort of "alternative conceptualisations" which don't necessarily sit nicely within the article. If you think everything about a framing is wrong because of one it's core precepts is wrong (e.g. integration of traumatic experiences versus repair of dysfunctional thought processes) then this doesn't necessarily fit into the article very well (although I guess it could go in the theory section - at the risk of messing with flow).

I also don't quite know where "critiques" most natural sit (e.g. feminist critiques, self-interest critiques etc). I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea of having a Foucaultian critique of an idea in every section and this could violate WP:DUE.

I'm keen to give some of these structures a test drive. Talpedia (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Talpedia's points, which I have said in different words on other talk pages, and which are reasons why Criticism sections need to be evaluated case by case (article by article). Prochaska & Norcross were able to use Criticism sections universally in their textbook because they had tight editorial control over the book as a whole so they could carefully put all orientations into critical dialogue with each other, which is not really practicable in Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've transferred information over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy. You both make good points about the criticism section. My main remaining concern is about specifically efficacy - if a therapy is just straight up ineffective for a given condition/situation, that needs to go in the same spot as where the condition/situation is listed. I think I agree with you that it's a good option to have otherwise, theory and some of the more... vague... parts are difficult to discuss and need flexibility. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?

New RfC on the talk page for the article, Addiction: RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

CfD about psych diagnostic tests

Hey, there's a discussion at CfD that needs some attention. It's about renaming the categories for psych diagnostic tests. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Grant Proposal: Leveraging Wiki Platforms for Academic Conferences

Hello! I am a member of the H-GAPS User Group and our goal is to share information from psychological conferences onto Wiki platforms. We are hoping to create a toolkit/template for psychological conferences to use to disseminate information on Wiki platforms. To support this project, we are applying for a Rapid Grant through the Wikimedia Foundation, and you are welcome to review the draft here: Leveraging Wiki Platforms for Academic Conferences. We welcome any questions, feedback, and endorsements! Please feel free to contact us at ncharamut@hgaps.org with any questions or feedback. Thank you, Hokuno (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion at dyslexia

There's a merge discussion about at Dyslexia about merging Characteristics of dyslexia. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal at autism

An editor has requested for Autism to be merged into Autism spectrum. Since you had some involvement with autism or autism spectrum, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Averixus (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

To speak euphemistically, I would describe it as "verging on intense incivility". Anyone that does contribute, please remain calm and remember that the conversation will still be there in a day or two if you need a break. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD discussion

There is a deletion discussion you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of psychology. Your participation is welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Steven C. Hayes

There seems to be an issue with the description of Steven C. Hayes's work on acceptance and commitment therapy that was brought up on the BLP Noticeboard.[1] We probably need some content experts from the project to review and verify some of the assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Steven C. Hayes. Biogeographist (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

DSM-IV and DSM-5

I've been reading a lot of psychopathology-related articles recently and noticed a massive amount of sourcing from the DSM-IV. I'm not a clinician or anything so maybe I'm unaware, but is the DSM-IV not at least approaching obsolescence at this point? I mean, it's almost a decade old, and science moves fast: by the time I finished my degree, there were things I'd learnt in sixth form that were out of date...and while I'm aware that the DSM-5 is not without its own issues, I don't feel that there was an exceptional amount of controversy when it was released, and I suspect it has only become more accepted as time goes on. Would it be sensible/helpful to update things to the DSM-5 as I come across them? In some cases, where useful and practical, potentially even commenting on changes and referring to both sources, e.g. when a diagnosis not present in the DSM-5 is frequently used in clinical practice, it may be useful to have information available on both the "official, up-to-date" diagnostic framework and the diagnoses that patients actually receive. My personal preference would be to update the vast majority of references to the DSM to be to the DSM-5, but I wanted to know what more experienced editors and people with more expertise have to say (I'm only a psychology graduate) as well as wanting to be made aware if there's already a protocol. Anditres (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Information should be up-to-date, and the DSM-IV is out of date. So yes, in a perfect world the DSM-5 would be cited by default and the DSM-IV would only be cited in the history section.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent points Anditres. In answer to your question, "Would it be sensible/helpful to update things to the DSM-5 as I come across them?" → YES! And please do not worry about being "only a psychology graduate". You possess the most important Wikipedian traits: Conscientiousness, tact, keen analytical ability, and good gosh Miss Molly ya know how to write! On the few occasions when your research and study do not yield sufficient understanding of a psychological concept or line of research, feel free to ask me and if I don't know I'll bug some other knowledgeable editors. ;0) I look forward to your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. All the very best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirect at Emotional turmoil

What should be done with this redirect? Is Emotional conflict a good target, or would something else be better? Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Emotional turmoil. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Dunning–Kruger effect

There is a discussion on Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect regarding whether DK is a true cognitive bias. A consensus is decidely absent. Constant314 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of North American Journal of Psychology

I've come across North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) a number of times in my travels on WP. I've always been stumped on whether or not it's actually reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia - to the point where I've dug into it a bit. I also asked about NAJP at WT:CITEWATCH, because I figured that they would have the most experience in what is and isn't a questionable journal practise (they said it's borderline so to ask for further opinions). I'm particularly concerned about the editors' habit of publishing their own papers, and them actively encouraging papers that other journals won't accept. Hopefully other people have more experience with the journal, or can just give an opinion on their assessment of the journal. If anyone else finds other evidence either way, feel free to add it to the lists, just please sign your addition so people can tell what was always here and what was added later.

Here are the relevant points, as I see it (most of this is copied from my post at CiteWatch). --Xurizuri (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Potentially bad signs:

• Editorial policy makes it pretty clear that they'll accept papers that many reliable journals wouldn't This is up to and including them saying that they are seeking papers on "Topics that are 'unpopular' in other journals".
• I checked the issues they've released over 2021 and 2020, and the journal's editor, McCutcheon, has published at least one article in every issue. And they're not even editorials, they're research articles. In every issue at least one other member of their advisory/consulting editors has also published a research article.
  • I'd normally assume it's fine, but because (as far as I can tell) there's a habit of publishing their "inner circle's" papers, it seems worth mentioning that there are a handful of other perennial authors, e.g. Clark and Ready.
• They advise people to add other authors onto their paper in order to reduce cost of application. It seems really weird to me to advise that authors give credit to people who weren't involved for the sake of authors saving money.
• The publisher of the NAJP is NAJP.
• Bad impact factor and SCImago ranking, with no improvement over time.
• As far as I've seen, the articles don't have DOIs. Potentially relatedly, they encourage authors to upload their articles to ResearchGate, etc, with an implication that getting the research accessible to people is the responsibility of the author.
• They publish papers that have very major methodological and theoretical flaws. For example - an article where part of the justification is The Secret, and the study picks out and compared 2 individual questions from a questionnaire (NOT how a questionnaire should be analysed), with no justification as to why they picked those specific questions.

Potentially good signs:

• Indexed in PsycNET
• Indexed in Scopus (39th percentile for sociology and pol sci, 29th for education, 18th for developmental/education psych, 17th for general psych - for anyone not familiar with percentiles, its basically the percentage of other journals that they're considered "better" than)
• There are well-known psychologists on their board, e.g. Philip Zimbardo

References

AfD: Animals in LGBT culture

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in LGBT culture

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for peer review of Paul Goodman, co-founder of gestalt therapy

Hi all, I'm looking for peer reviews of our article on the American public intellectual Paul Goodman, a co-founder of gestalt therapy, before the article goes to FAC, if anyone would be so inclined: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1. No prior experience necessary—just want to know how it reads for a general audience, given that the content gets a bit obtuse. czar 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oliver James (psychologist)

The article-subject (presumably) turned up at the Teahouse, Wikipedia:Teahouse#vandalism. He is not too happy with the article, and it it does focus on the negative, if rightly so I can't say. If someone interested and knowledgeable wants to take a look, it couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on talk:Manipulation (psychology)

A month-long ongoing discussion about the structure and style of the Manipulation article (and I think by extension, also other psychology-related behavior articles) has been taking place between myself and user:wiki-psyc on Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#May_2022_discussion. More opinions and perspectives would be much appreciated. Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts

I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts, an article of interest to this WikiProject, into Conversion therapy.

You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A discrepancy in the article for "Identification with the Aggressor"

I recently stumbled upon a minor discrepancy in the article for "Identification with the Aggressor" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_with_the_Aggressor ) with the biometric data of Sándor Ferenczi, which I can neither explain nor correct. According to the article, Ferenczi "[...] further elaborated this work until he published it in 1949 [...]", although he died in 1933. The date of publication seems to be in order, but I can't find any information regarding who might have undertaken this process for him. I doubt, he continued his work from the grave. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Accurationer (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Including Millon's subtypes

Should Millon's subtypes be included in articles on personality disorders? I would appreciate any feedback from other editors on this idea at Talk:Personality disorder#Questioning the inclusion of Millon's subtypes on all personality disorder articles Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Motivational Interviewing

Hello there, I am a MINT member (Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers).

I was perusing the Motivational Interviewing article on wikipedia and saw that the limitations are incredibly inaccurate. Really just downright wrong / false. I would like to delete the limitations, but am concerned that my account would be flagged as attempting to do some sabotage, when in actuality i'm an expert in Motivational Interviewing and these limitations need to be corrected.

For example:

Pre-contemplation limitation - I already edited this one, to make it less inaccurate - adding in the proper approach to be used when someone is in a pre-contemplation stage of change. Realistically though, the whole thing should be deleted - and perhaps this should be moved to applications. Evidence exists showing that MI appears to be far more effective than CBT at lower levels of change readiness. This bears out with years of personal experience, and really the entire ethos of what MI is. (i.e. the mi spirit / MI band of emotions involving non-judgment, acceptance)

Motivation limitation - this paragraph is literally just nonsense. Motivational Interviewing is not about our motivation, it is about the client's motivation. This is well known and is written about in 100% of all books on motivational interviewing. Literally any single book published by Guilford Press on Motivational Interviewing (which is most of them) talks about this. I mean this paragraph is so inaccurate its like saying my cell phone is a tree.

Therapist client / trust limitation. Once again this is not a limitation of MI, it is a strength of MI. MI builds trust incredibly rapidly. Not building trust - effectively means your not doing MI. For example, look at the Trust Equation. Trust = (Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy)/Self-orientation. In an MI interaction we are completely other focused, feeling curious, actively listening, and reflecting back the thoughts, feelings, insights, and motivations of our conversation partner. MI is not limited by trust - MI is quite literally one of, if not the best, interpersonal styles to rapidly build trust. This isn't a limitation, it is a massive massive strength. Also later on it says "confrontational processes by therapists will inhibit the process". This statement is true - it will inhibit the process because ***confrontation is not Motivational Interviewing***. For proof on this just look up the MITI Code 4.2.1, Confrontation, coded as a "C", often referred to as an MINA behaviour standing for Motivational Interviewing Non-Adherent behaviour. In other words if we confront someone, we are not doing Motivational Interviewing. To summarize the point, confrontation means you are not doing MI, which means that confrontation can't be a limitation of MI. As a teacher of MI, I help people to find and remove their need to confront.

So what am I looking for? I guess I'm looking for permission to remove false information. I also would value guidance on if/how I justify my edits to demonstrate their importance / accuracy. Enviromentum (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Enviromentum: Thanks for posting here and asking. Wherever possible it's best to WP:PRESERVE content as you mention. That article is quite long, and at a glance it seems the citations there are almost all over ten years old. I left a template on your talk page which has all of the important policies when it comes to editing. With regards to deleting content try to keep what you can if it is verifiable by sources. For anything that seems false, it's better to give editors a chance to respond, such as by adding inline or section templates to flag specific individual issues with aspects of the article. (see WP:TC) For content that you want to add, one of the most important things to do is ensuring content you add is WP:V-erifiable with inline citations to support the claims. WP:EXPERT may also be of help to you for the writing style that Wikipedia prefers over research material.

I imagine as an expert in the field you would already know, but I would point to this citation as a starting point for updating and correcting claims made in the article: Review articles, where available, are the preferred reliable source for medical articles including psychology. You don't need permission to edit on Wikipedia, but keep in mind that even good-faith edits can get reverted and this is a normal part of the Wikipedia WP:CYCLE.

References

Repeating what other people have said and trying to be specific. The ideal solution (though one requiring lots of work) would be someone replacing the incorrect sentences with more up-to-date ones from a recent systematic review that cover the same material. As to whether the OP has time to do this is another matter, but perhaps other people are motivated to help? I'd just throw out that for good or ill wikipedia outsources its expertise to academic literature wielded by amateurs (and everyone is assumed to be an amateur). The way to win against these amateur-savages is with a recent systmatic review or equivalent source Talpedia (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse/use disorder

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors may interest some editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, I commented on it - my first time posting on ANI. Hope it helps Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Donald Templer

I'm wondering if Donald Templer meets notability criteria for a stand-alone article. I don't know much about psychology, but it seems the single most prominent thing he's known for is the death anxiety scale, which might simply merit a mention and elaboration at Death anxiety (and thus Templer might redirect there). His appearance and speech at an American Renaissance conference drew brief mention by Robert Sussman (excerpted from his book in a Salon.com article), but the mentions of Templer in that are heavily based on a member and attendant at the conference, who may not be a reliable source. I've found no reviews or significant coverage of his book Is Size Important?, although he verifiably went on the Howard Stern show. He gets a passing mention in a Scientific American article. and a Psychology Today column, and has had a controversial article retracted, but on the whole I don't see significant coverage necessitating an article: if he or his work is to be mentioned in other articles (be they death anxiety or race and intelligence related), he could simply be identified in text as "psychologist at Alliant International University" without a wikilink. I don't want to minimize his controversial views, but also don't want to artificially elevate them for the mere purpose of "naming and shaming" or "calling out" racism. Does anyone feel a merger, or deletion is warranted? Or is there sufficient secondary material that can expand the article while maintaining core content policies and WP:BLP? Note: Templer was until recently described as deceased on Wikipedia, although no reliable source has been provided, so he should be considered living until reliably demonstrated otherwise. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence in plants ( Intelligence#Plant ) is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.

Our article Intelligence has a section on intelligence in plants - Intelligence#Plant.

This is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:3D7F:4056:46AB:658D (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy / Phantasy

My understanding is that the term/spelling "phantasy" is used with a specialized meaning in psychological theory.

We don't seem to have anything on Wikipedia that discusses this clearly.

Our article Fantasy (psychology) uses both spellings, more or less indiscriminately. Someone posted a comment about this on the article's Talk page back in 2010. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fantasy_(psychology)#F/Phantasy ].

We should have something somewhere that explains and clarifies this.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:B9DE:451B:EA95:CE48 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Repressed memory: "Largely discredited" or not?

• Repressed memory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

See the last edits of article and Talk page. I posted this on WP:FTN, and someone suggested (in a way that did not sound a lot like WP:AGF) that this could be a better place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Now expanded to False memory syndrome and False Memory Syndrome Foundation, the same user is playing the "false memory is an idea by pedophiles" card. It is not surprising that the claim "this is only about repressed memory, not about recovered memory therapy" was just temporary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Would you be willing to refrain from ad hominem attacks on another editor? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I had bad experiences with POV warriors in those articles, and there have been red flags pointing to a familiar pattern of editing in that area, such as expanding Underwager's role. If that turns out to be a false alarm, then fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

[2] Does not look like a false alarm to me. Already whitewashing the status of recovered-memory therapy and its methods with "critics say". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Dissociative identity disorder (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Related subject and article: can it be therapist-induced or not? New editor says no but got reverted. Talk page has a section about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Multiplicity (psychology)#Requested move 7 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Multiplicity (psychology)#Requested move 7 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating article

This article focuses on the lack of sleep associated with higher education. Even with the start of high school many adolescents face the cracking pressure of difficult education systems and spend nights studying, staying up late socializing, or just normal sleep irregularities which is actually crucial to not just their mental state but physical well being. On average a person should get at least 6 hours of sleep a night, but like this article mentioned especially in college most kids either a have extremely difficult course loads but also want to balance a social life and that leaves little time for sleeping which is actually what recovers our bodies. So it is quite counterproductive to spend so much time studying when you're not going to be able to retain it if you don't give your body recovery time which most would use either caffeine or energy drinks for this which just contributes to this constant unhealthy life cycle. This article honestly gives an excellent viewpoint it not only acknowledges the issue being faced but offers resolutions and as simple as it may seem it's hard to stick to. Angelinasutton (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Angelinasutton: You don't say which article this relates to. I advise you to 1) place your review on the Talk page of that article, not here; 2) argue not from your own experience, or that of people you know, but from published knowledge from books and research papers. Talk pages aren't forums for our own personal opinions on the topic; they are where we can assess whether the article is a fair summary of its sources, whether those sources are the right kind and whether there are enough of them. Have there been studies into the effects of a restricted sleep cycle, or of the damaging effects of caffeine drinks on sleep? Are they summarised adequately in the relevant article? Is there anything that could be added? If you recommend changes to an article, but want other perspectives on those proposed changes, then it's okay to come back here and ask. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Self-esteem vs. Self-worth

Need your thoughts on whether these topics should be split articles, at Talk:Self-esteem AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Interaction

Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are psychology related and others biology, physics, mathmatics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge

Hi. Psychology is not something I have in-depth expertise in, so I wanted to ask: is the merge proposed at Talk:Emotional safety a good thing and are these subjects really the same thing? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mini–Mental State Examination#Requested move 14 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mini–Mental State Examination#Requested move 14 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Featured article review

I have nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Human behavior

I'm in the process of expanding Human behavior. Given its scope, I think the article could benefit from feedback on where information needs to be expanded and what major omissions there might be. If anyone wanted to look at it and give their thoughts, I'd really appreciate it! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Applied Behavioral Analysis - Assistance requested

Hello! I have decided to come here after a DRN to resolve issues related to the Applied Behavioral Analysis page was not fruitful. There was a lack of activity and thus it was closed. To summarize, there were points of contention related to the lead of the article, what was undue and not, and if the article ever breached Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality. There have been concerns raised in the past that the article was overly slanted against ABA, and new concerns on the talk page include things such as the usage of non-scientific blogs for stating the “views of the autistic community,” whether an inclusion of a list of applications of ABA outside of autism therapy was appropriate, as well as whether there is a weak foundation to say that there is significant controversy over ABA outside the autism rights movement. I will provide several links that can help show the discourse surrounding the article, which I know has been very infamously contentious among users!

DRN page (closed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Applied_behavior_analysis

ABA talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#

Project Med discussion on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Applied_behavior_analysis_-_assistance_requested

Any assistance and feedback would be appreciated! Barbarbarty (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to Barbarbarty's request for help, while it's certainly true that there have been concerns raised in the past that the article was overly slanted against ABA, there have also persistently been concerns raised that the article was overly slanted towards ABA. So that's relevant context for anyone looking into this!

ABA is part of behaviorism, which viewers of this page are likely to be aware has attracted a great deal of controversy among psychologists (among others), for some decades, for a range of reasons.

For me, a lot of the most interesting and important questions in an article like this are around epistemic injustice: who gets to have their voices heard, about what. As B says, I have once or twice cited 'non-scientific blogs for stating the “views of the autistic community”' (although in fact, the only actual blog I think I've shared personally has been evidence-based, substantial and taken pains to lay out its methodology). I stand by the importance of including 'non-scientific' sources, because many of the questions at stake are not strictly scientific. I believe that an encyclopaedia has a responsibility to report something of the views of a population, about what is being done to it. I often wonder how Wikipedia would have dealt with homosexuality in the era when it was still listed in the DSM.

Anyway, as Barbarbarty says, assistance and feedback would be appreciated! Thanks folks. Oolong (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Polyvagal theory

There is an ongoing discussion about the Criticism section of Polyvagal Theory. The discussion is here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism. This discussion needs editors who can take the time to read the approximately 10 academic journal articles that have been cited. The issue is whether 95% of the section represents original research on violation of WP:NOR or not. Reading academic articles to confirm the absence of criticism about a topic is a bit challenging, admittedly, which is why I think members of this project might be well-equipped for the task. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the discussion is continuing here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Consolidation of Criticism section to reflect reliable sources and remove original research. Oleasylvestris (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

working on AEDP psychotherapy article

Hi I have been working on the aedp article for a few years. It was published 2020 but was recently taken down and the title redirected to Diana Fosha, the developer. The article can be accessed in my user page: carrieruggieri. Could someone please help me address the issues which I cannot seem to correct: weasel words, writing that seems promotional. other than that, the content is all there - definitions, historical influences, some details that tie into the overarching theory, description of how theory informs technique. In terms of jargon, it's as jargon free as I could manage. There are 60 references, I have read them all and each statement is supported with 2cd and 3rd party references for neutrality. The topic has been deemed notable. It is a matter of presentation. I think anyone other than me can easily figure out how to revise. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the draft this user is talking about is at User:Carrieruggieri/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A missing item, how this behavior is manifest to associate people! 2601:601:4002:67A0:598E:831C:71A2:1B51 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I will look at it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Splitting off "Autogynephilia" into its own page, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. An editor has proposed recreating the autogynephilia article, by splitting the relevant content from Blanchard's typology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

EMDR at Fringe Theory Noticeboard

A discussion is happening at WP:FTN that followers of this noticeboard may want to participate in. Loki (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC at EMDR

I've just made an RFC on the scientific status of EMDR, which I believe followers of this noticeboard might be interested in. Loki (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: Sleep Deprivation Therapy into Wake therapy dated: March 2023. Proposer's Rationale: This is the same subject worded differently. Hploter. Discuss >>>here<<<. Pleas join discussion as there may be some FRINGEY elements to these articles. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Conatus

I have nominated Conatus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - car chasm (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Incel Merge discussion

Hello, per point 3 of WP:PM, I am notifying this project of the merge discussion at Talk:Incel. This is based on a just recently closed AfD (see page of incels.is). The AfD closed with a consensus to merge, but since that consensus, I have increased the incels.is a lot in sourcing and content though, so a merge may now not be necessary. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox article for action tendency

I am currently composing a draft article for the concept of action tendency, a component of emotion which influences behavior. I am not a psychologist, so I could use some assistance with any formatting, fact-checking, and research synthesis pertinent to the standards of the discipline.

I came across the topic during my graduate studies and felt that further exposition was important to the analysis of various political and social issues, especially as the emotional component has historically been eschewed from the rather quantitative lens of rational choice theory and related explanations for social behavior. Doughbo (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

IQ problems

I'd appreciate it if other editors would take a look at Talk:Adragon De Mello, where an editor has been suggesting some IMO inappropriate sources to substantiate the claim of an off-the-charts IQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

An IQ of 400? I think that claim can't be substantiated with any RS and should just be removed. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it was a case of hopeful incompetence – my four year old did something that a normal 16 year old can do; therefore he has four times the average intelligence, which must be an IQ of 400 – but it was the basis for shopping the kid to the media outlets, so it probably needs to be mentioned. I just think it needs to be mentioned as what his father claimed, rather than having any basis in reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer review for Elisabeth Geleerd

A peer review has been opened for Elisabeth Geleerd, an article under the scope of this WikiProject, to potentially prepare it for featured article candidacy. Interested editors are invited to participate at the discussion page. Vaticidalprophet 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Family Systems Theory

I hope that there is an editor out there who might be interested in polishing up this draft to submit it for AFC review. Right now, the main space has a redirect at Family Systems Theory that points to the overview article Family therapy. It would be great if either this draft could be improved enough to take the place of that redirect or if the redirect could find a better target article. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Freudian psychology

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Freudian psychology. Proposal to delete this redirect because Freud was not a psychologist. Sundayclose (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Sundayclose (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Free association (psychology) § Psychoanalysis

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free association (psychology) § Psychoanalysis. Proposal to retitle article to "Free association (psychoanalysis)". An editor has already tried to rename it twice without discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sociology

Sociology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fugue state#Requested move 28 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fugue state#Requested move 28 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SilverLocust 💬 10:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Denise Stapley re-nominated for deletion

The article about Denise Stapley has been re-nominated for deletion. I invite you for your input there. Cheers. George Ho (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Polyvagal theory Talk page

Hi, I just wanted to let you all know that there’s a Request for Comment taking place here that concerns a discussion that seems relevant to the interests of this particular WikiProject. The topic of the RfC concerns the characterization of polyvagal theory in that article. Thanks for your attention. Ian Oelsner (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul Spector

I'm involved in some editing disagreement about the same user persistently re-inserting the personal website of https://www.usf.edu/arts-sciences/departments/psychology/people/pspector.aspx I don't know a whole lot on this subject. Is he a truly distinguished prominent figure in the field of psychology or is he nothing special? I looked him up on Google Scholars and I do see him cited 12541 times. Graywalls (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) - Clarification: the personal website in question is paulspector.com not the edu site. I provided the .edu site to identify the owner of the site. Graywalls (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If you look him up on Google.Scholar you will see that his work has been cited more than 109,000 times. If you click the name of his university in his profile, he appears as the most cited person at his university. In a Google search I came across this article by Anne-Wil Harzing who ranks him as 7th among the most influential academics in the field of Business & Management. I also found him in the Amazon bookstore. The links you are deleting are to lists of assessments, organized by topic that are linked to peer reviewed journal articles that are reliable sources. For example, the leadership category first entry is Abusive supervision by Tepper. Click the link and it takes you to Tepper's ResearchGate profile with a button to download the article about the assessment. This website is a useful research tool for people looking for measures.Psyc12 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It also happens that within the span of articles I have checked, the initial insertion of "Spector, PE" and his website have been from you, or Iss246. Do you have any personal or professional relationship with Paul Spector? Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Psyc12:, are you related to Psyc12 Spector in anyway or known him in real life? Graywalls (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: For context, what page are you editing? I googled Paul Spector and he certainly appears to be fairly prominent. I did some editing on the Roberto Burioni page and included information from his university bio so I don't think there's an issue there per se, however, as the Paul Spector page currently doesn't exist, I'd like to see the page being edited before commenting further one way of the other. Cheers! 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 09:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: @JohnnyBflat: Thank you JohnnyBflat. I have been trying to communicate that fact to Graywalls for a few days now. Iss246 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I also replaced Spector's nonworking link on the occupational health psychology page with a working link. He probably changed providers. Iss246 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@JohnnyBflat:, I initially came across a psychology related page in which it included a link to an author's personal website, which I felt wasn't a great source. When I started doing some digging around, I noticed two users were responsible for essentially all of of insertion of paulspector.com into all/essentially all the articles where that site is included. Within one of the subpages in Paul's off-wiki site, I noticed "Dedicated to Steven Eric Spector who taught me about blogging, content marketing, SEO, and Wordpress." on bottom of one of the pages. When I say I don't know a whole lot, I meant it in context of, is Spector's presence in the psychology field truly "world renowned" and such like Stephen Hawking to cosmology and Eistein to math? or is Spector respected, but just an academic within the field? Graywalls (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sundayclose and ParticipantObserver:. Notifying recent participant on spector concerns in different pages. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

When user:Graywalls says he/she does not know a lot, it is clear that he/she is not informed about IO psychology. Now Graywalls wants to take back what he/she wrote about not knowing a lot about the field once Graywalls put his/her foot in his/her mouth. Now Graywalls wants to compare Spector to Stephen Hawking as a way to evaluate a contemporary scholar/researcher. Of course, comparing any WP editor to Stephen Hawking (or Einstein) will show that the editor comes up short. Perhaps we should compare Graywalls to Stephen Hawking and Einstein! Why not compare Spector to his contemporaries in the field. The specious comparison to Stephen Hawking shows that Graywalls is editing in bad faith. Iss246 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that these links are giving undue emphasis to a single (very well-cited) scholar and the assessments that that scholar developed. At least for the psychological testing page, the other links are to general repositories of assessments--not those of a single scholar. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Spector website contains a general repository of assessments with links to the work of many people. The site has a section with his assessments that are frequently used by researchers as you can see if you do a Googlescholar search for them. For example, a search of "work locus of control scale meta" finds this article in a top tier journal that summarizes results from dozens of studies using this assessment.Psyc12 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Psyc12:, what is your personal or professional relationship to Spector, if any? Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The caveat is that it's a page where Spector's tests can be purchased for commercial use as well as links to purchase his books within the landing page. Inside Spector's page at https://paulspector.com/category/marketing/, that's where you'll see Dedicated to Steven Eric Spector who taught me about blogging, content marketing, SEO, and Wordpress. which makes me wonder... The insertion of Stevenericspector.com into articles too has been the work of one editor. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. This discussion was getting scattered around, and I appreciate the consolidation onto a single page. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As I noted Spector's webpages are valuable because they are helpful and accessible to readers. Some measures may be commercial but most are not. The website is not deficient if it includes a few commercially available measures. Occasionally a researcher will find that a commercially available measure (e.g., the Beck Depression Inventory) will be helpful if the measure has high validity and is not a dud. But most of the measures on the website are free of charge. Sometimes a creator of a freely available instrument will ask user to let the instrument's creator know that he/she is using it--a minor cost. None of the measures Spector and his colleagues created are commercially available measures and are available at no charge. Picking on this website is a waste of time. Iss246 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls:@Iss246: I think “world renowned” in any field would be setting the bar a little too high in regard to vetting sources for Wikipedia. I’ve taken a little time to dig into Paul Spector, and from what I have found so far, he is a well-known and respected academic in his field. He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in 1975, has authored several hundred papers in that field, and according to Google Scholar has been cited almost 110,000 times. Research.com [[3]] rates him as number 188 on their list of Best Psychology Scientists in the world. That’s no small thing. I haven’t found anything pseudosciencey or fringe about him. He seems pretty legit to me, and I would have no problems using him as a Subject-matter expert on related pages.

Regarding Dedicated to Steven Eric Spector who taught me about blogging, content marketing, SEO, and Wordpress. (which is at the bottom of every page, not just the marketing one), it looks to me like Steven is Paul’s son and that he helped his dad set up his site, hence the dedication. Academics may be experts in their field but can often be helpless when it comes to technology. Steven’s “About” page discusses his expertise with computers. I may be wrong but that’s how it looks to me.

Looking at the Paul Spector website: Graywalls, I get where you’re coming from regarding the possibility of this page being used to sell his books and tests. There is an appearance of marketing and thus I don’t think your request about editor’s relationships with Paul Spector is unreasonable, in case of a potential conflict of interest. I would note, however, that psychologists selling their tests is quite common in that field. I recently finished an internship with my university’s psychology clinic and very, very few of the assessments we used were free, so I don't believe that the Paul Spector site should be disqualified as a source for that reason.

Also, only a few of the links on the Paul Spector site are to Paul Spector’s products. Most of them are to assessments off-site by other psychologists. This is also true of the “Mental Health Assessments” page on the Steven Eric Spector site.

For these reasons, in my opinion, both pages are acceptable for inclusion under “Sources of psychological tests” on the Psychological testing page.

Graywalls, one last thing I’d like to note (and I’m sure you didn’t intend it this way), is that your sentence "Inside Spector's page at https://paulspector.com/category/marketing/, that's where you'll see Dedicated to Steven Eric Spector who taught me about blogging, content marketing, SEO, and Wordpress.. which makes me wonder..." read to me like it was a page marketing Paul Spector’s products. It’s actually a page of blog articles he’s written about marketing in relation to I/O psychology. I just wanted to make sure that was clear to other editors who might have mistaken it as I did. Cheers! 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 16:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

At this point I don't wish to voice an opinion one way or another about how appropriate it is to link Spector's website, but I would like to try to clarify a couple of points. If we're talking about Spector's website, I don't think it's the one linked in the OP by Graywalls, which is a link to Spector's page for his academic position at USF (although I don't mean to speak for Graywalls, and they can correct me if needed). I think the website in question is his personal website: https://paulspector.com/. My second point of clarification is, I don't think a major issue here is whether a psychologist can or should sell tests he/she develops (and that may not have been JohnnyBflat's intention). If that was a problem, no one would have ever heard of David Wechsler. Obviously psychologists are perfectly entitled to sell their tests. I think the issue is whether excessive linking to the psychologist's website is spamming, especially if it might be the psychologist himself who is doing the linking. Again, I only attempt to clarify, not argue the issue one way or another. If others feel that I have misinterpreted something, I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@JohnnyBflat:Just some more on background. in all of these articles where paulspector.com exist, initial insertions everywhere were done by Psyc12 or Iss246. We can also see Psyc12 does not answer their relationship to Spector in this discussion here. Finally, there's the discussion User_talk:Iss246#User_Psyc12. When these are all put together, I see strong WP:COI concerns. What initially drew me to this was the presence of "paulspector.com" in an article somewhere and it caught my attention. I started to investigate where else it is found. I connected the "paulspector.com" insertion to just two users. I asked here, because I wasn't sure if his creds were completely blown out of proportion.

So it seems to be cleared up he's legit. However, issues around apparent self-advocacy are WP:COI concerns. We respect sources like New York Times, but imagine one of their journalist shoehorning articles they've written into everywhere they can contextually slip their article into. If such insertion happened by uninvolved editor in a natural way, that's not COI/NPOV issue. If it's done by the author/anyone associated with the author, it is. Do you feel there's no COI related editing occurring with regard to Paulspector.com insertion?. You're correct that the quotation you talked about was on Paul's website. I mentioned it, because, finding a place in prose that's relevant to your website and slipping it in as a reference is a common "content marketing" technique to improve Google rank status. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

>If such insertion happened by uninvolved editor in a natural way, that's not COI/NPOV issue. If it's done by the author/anyone associated with the author, it is.

Contrast your statement with the actual guideline at WP:SELFCITE, which begins with Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I was only putting in my observation on a sentence about "content marketing" at paulspector.com, which is the URL that has been getting inserted. In case it has caused you confusions, I am going to make it clear that I'm not saying certain user is certain person. Now, to address your comment. The key being "within reason". Something worth checking out is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Continuing_UNESCO_COI_issues for a case of otherwise generally credible sources being unnaturally amplified. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO "within reason" should be considered wrt to the article's needs. One self-citation from an expert could be 100% of their contributions, but could still be perfectly reasonable for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear path forward here. From WP:SELFCITE: 'When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.' Iss246 need not insert the text themselves; why not propose it on the talk page instead? ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sundayclose, my understanding also is that we’re referring to the personal website, paulspector.com. Regarding excessive linking, I thought we were just talking in the context of the Psychological testing page? However, I see that Graywalls has provided a list of the relevant pages they found, thank you for that, it clears things up a bit. Do you feel there's no COI related editing occurring with regard to Paulspector.com insertion? Graywalls, I’m not saying it’s *not* COI editing, just that it doesn’t *look* like COI editing at first blush. I can certainly see your concerns once you dig down a bit. WhatamIdoing and ParticipantObserver also make good points.

So, the main concern seems to be whether or not Psyc12 is, or is related to, Paul Spector. It seems to me that the fastest way to move forward would be for @Psyc12: to confirm or deny this relationship disclose a COI if it exists. That would certainly make moving forward a lot easier. Outside of that, ParticipantObserver’s last suggestion works for me. I don’t have a problem with the citations on the Psychological testing page and I’m going to make a presumption that Iss246 would be happy with another editor reinserting them, if consensus goes that way. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 14:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is perhaps a minor quibble, but no one is under any obligation to out themself here. Rather, our COI guideline expects editors with a conflict of interest to disclose it. That can be done without exposing the nature of the relationship (e.g. self, student, colleague, spouse, friend, publicist, etc.), and suspected COI editors should not be asked to do otherwise. – bradv 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. Thank you for pointing that out. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here expects anyone to out themselves. But it is quite common on Wikipedia for someone to declare a conflict of interest as required by policy, and if Psyc12 has a COI they must declare it. I find it interesting that Psyc12 emerged after 14 months without editing to express an opinion here, and now is nowhere to be found as we are asking whether they have a COI. I'm not pushing one way or another about whether the links to a single website are appropriate, but I am concerned that those links have only been made by two editors. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have corrected my comment to be more appropriate. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

bradv, actually per WP:PE if they're a getting paid, then the nature of their relationship MUST be disclosed. So, a publicist would have to reveal that. Graywalls (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, a paid editor must disclose who is paying them, but they are not required to disclose their own identity. Regardless, that is not what is being alleged here.

Frankly, this thread is rapidly approaching harassment, as Psyc12 has not added any such links to mainspace in nearly two years. As they have now been cautioned, any further alleged COI editing can be dealt with if and when it continues. In the meantime, the articles can be evaluated and cleaned up based on their content, not their contributors. – bradv 15:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that there is anything approaching harassment. We are simply discussing whether one of only two editors who has added multiple links to a website might have COI, an editor who has expressed an opinion here after 14 months of not editing. That is all within policy. And the guidelines on COI, by the way, apply for COI even if it is not paid. It is not harassment to ask Psyc12 if they have any COI. That request is often made on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Bradv. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest here. I inserted references to what I felt was useful content in the context of particular articles. Others are free to disagree and delete them or replace them with something else. I agree with Bradv that the focus should be on the content and whether citations/links make significant contributions to each article. Where editors disagree, discussion to consensus is the reasonable way forward. I still keep track of what is going on with articles I edited in the past going back to 2013, but I rarely contribute anymore because I got tired of the bickering and personal attacks. Psyc12 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Psyc12. I agree the focus should be on content. I think now that you have responded we can keep that focus. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The Spector websites, although they have the "dot com" imprint, are noncommercial. Underlining the abovementioned focus on content, the Spector websites are service websites that help researchers, practitioners, students, and the educated public to learn about and get access to available tests and scales. Each website reminds me of an efficient central switchboard with its organized links. Again, I underline that the websites provide a service and are noncommercial. Iss246 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a great argument to make on the talk page of the article in question, to try and establish consensus. But there are at least three editors who have disagreed with their inclusion, and per the above discussion you should seek consensus before re-inserting the links. ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And when referencing subject area expert's self published contents, I believe such should be a fall back when proper second sources are not available. When other proper sources are available, there's no reason to piggyback paulspector.com Graywalls (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Self-published does not mean primary, you presumably meant that an expert's self-published content should be cited only as a fallback when non-self-published sources are not available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct. If another proper source is available, the merit of adding paulspector.com as a second citation, or to add them in further reading is questionable. Graywalls (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, if the "proper" source is WP:PAYWALLED, then I think many editors would appreciate a free-to-read source/summary being added as a second citation. Before you started editing, we did that with a parameter called |lay-summary=, but the consensus the last few years has been to list them as separate citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My positive evaluation of the Spector websites reflects these factors. First, the sites are noncommercial. Second, the sites are run by an individual having great expertise in the field. Third, the websites provide a central location where readers can access a good deal of information in one place. Fourth, I could not find another website that provides as much information in a form that is accessible to professionals in the field and the educated public. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

that might be a fan POV issue preventing you from seeing it in impartial light. Graywalls (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls, when you have a different objection every time you post, it begins to feel like you're moving the goalposts and throwing out anything in the hope that your personal preference will be implemented, even though there isn't clear support for your own POV. If you are concerned about articles have the "wrong" links, you might want to turn all of that energy towards Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Graywalls, I posted my reasons for using the Spector websites. Nowhere did I say that I am a "fan" unless the word fan means that I recognize effective and informative subject-related websites that work for professionals and educated laypeople who use Facebook. If you throw the word fan at me, I suggest that you are trolling me. Iss246 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

self published source Stevenericspector.com

Initial insertion occurred at Special:Diff/1050790405 in 2021, then it got added back most recently in August 2023 in Special:Diff/1171594964 in after I removed it. It looks like paulspector.com (whose author appears to be related to the site in question here based on skimming through both sites) could be permissible in some circumstances per WP:EXPERTSPS, I am not seeing anything citation referring to Stevenericspector.com author as an expert in the field of psychology, or in any discipline for that matter. I can only find blogs and social media type contents on this author and as far as I can tell, they are not above any other personal websites/blogs. Am I missing something? 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Req for expert assistance at Future Tripping

Future Tripping was recently created. There is a proposal to move it to anticipatory anxiety, which currently redirects to panic attack. Anticipatory anxiety appears to be a symptom of Panic disorder, but is not explicitly mentioned at that article. (will post in a few places) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Self-Assessment Manikin

I started the Self-Assessment Manikin article that recently got approved through AfC. If anyone has any suggestions/information they would like to add, it would be greatly appreciated :) 267 10:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Emotional intelligence § Merger proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emotional intelligence § Merger proposal. Proposal to merge Emotional competence into Emotional intelligence Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC).

Article renaming proposal

There is an article renaming proposal at Talk:Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)#Requested_move_9_September_2023 (and see the thread immediately above the proposal). MartinPoulter (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Dimensional models of personality disorders may need a revamp

The ICD-11 has adopted a dimensional model of PDs, and the corresponding article seems out of date.

For example, there's a section at the end that references putative changes to the then unpublished DSM5.

I haven't read it all, nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable to review and update the article, I was looking for an introduction to the concepts given their adoption by the ICD. Pygy (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Due weight discussion about psychological testing

discussion at Psychological testing Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Stevenericspector.com link farm in Psychological testing

Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Steven_Eric_Spector Iss246 requested that someone from psychology topic weigh in, so I am advertising invitation to comment. Graywalls (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember if I had done so or, if I had done so, where I wrote about requesting people "from psychology" to weigh in on the psychological testing encyclopedia entry. I may have but I don't remember—a lot of messaging on talk pages has taken place. I have a Ph.D. in psychology. My judgment is informed by that training. It is my judgment that the Steven Spector website is a valuable addition to the external links section of the psychological testing entry. However, what is rich about user:Graywalls using me to call for more people with training in psychology to comment is that he has reversed many of my edits of the psychological testing entry although he has admitted that he has little knowledge of the field. Iss246 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you having PhD in psychology is relevant to Wikipedia editing. One's alleged knowledge on the subject area doesn't give them an upper hand or priority. Anything that is placed into Wikipedia should never be based on personal knowledge, but based on what sources say. Graywalls (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I have been agreeing with you a lot lately. I think it is good that we are getting more in sync. Here, I respectfully disagree. I think having a PhD is can be a little bit helpful to a WP editor because the training in research methodology, statistics, and sources and their content can help an editor understand and write about the most solid products of research as well as identify questionable text. Please bear in mind, I am not saying that having a PhD makes you perfect. Just that the training can be somewhat helpful at times. Iss246 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you read this advise for subject matter expert? If you have not read it. While this is only an essay rather than a guideline, it is linked from WP:V guideline. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I am with you regarding adhering to the principles in WP:EX. Indeed, a PhD does not make someone perfect--I said as much. Of course, not having a PhD does not make someone an expert either. But I am sorry to say that your response to my complaint about your neglecting to place the citation needed tag on the interest inventories section of the psychological testing article is deficient. Iss246 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

is not a magic pass allowing the insertion of uncited contents and remain indefinitely. In several articles I am working on, there is far too much uncited, or tagged contents in prose that remained TOO LONG. It's not the discretion of the person wishing to keep the contents to order it be tagged citation needed as opposed to removal. Whoever that has been making substandard edits by adding contents that isn't supported with sources should have corrected it before getting tagged or drafted in their sandbox with citation in place. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is asking for magic, just good organizational citizenship behavior. A reader can tell if a paragraph or a section is well-written and dovetails with another article but a source is missing. Of course, delete poorly written crap. That is important too. But if some text is well-written and dovetails with another article, alert the community that a source is missing by adding the CN tag. It is no more difficult than deleting the paragraph. Adding the CN tag shows you have some respect for the original writer and that you are signaling other editors to help out if you don't have the means to help out yourself. Let's have less social Darwinism and more cooperation. Iss246 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

How about using your sandbox and leaving it there until you have proper citations before moving it to into mainspace? This is not petty thing. Directly cited contents is one of the essential foundations of Wikipedia articles. Without citation, the contents are just questionable things written by random people. It might be excellent, or it might be total junk and it's only a guessing game. How well the sentence is written is not an indication of accuracy or neutrality of the contents. Graywalls (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a constructive comment. Generally, when I add a sentence or two to a WP entry, I include a source. I don't use the sandbox. I typically have the source at hand. What I am driving at with regard to placing the CN tag is this. When another editor has written cogent text but for one reason or another left out the source, putting the text in my sandbox won't help. I would like all editors who visit the WP entry to see the CN tag and be alert to the fact that a source is missing, which would allow one or more of the editors to pitch in and locate a proper source. Iss246 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The way you want it done doesn't override WP:BURDEN. As a courtesy, I can park the removed material to talk page so its preserved in an accessible way, but you can't compel other editors to do it the way you prefer it absent guidelines or policy prescribing it that way. If it's left up to the discretion of anyone, you can't compel others to do it your way. Graywalls (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you challening me at every turn? I am not trying to compel anybody. That is BS. We are all volunteers working on WP. Some volunteer editor who sees the CN tag and knows the material may want to help. That is all. Iss246 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Burner accounts doing massive contents drop in I-O psychology relevant articles

I am noticing this in articles in this field of single purpose burner accounts that show up out of nowhere and do a massive content dropping and disappear. This is common with promotional editing in organizations, companies and biography articles but outside of that, I don't see it often elsewhere. Anyone else notice?

• Special:Diff/1177551781
• Special:Contributions/JPAteam

Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I will just weigh in for that article and can see that the latest series of series of burner/IP account edits there seem ok. I don't have enough technical perspective on the topic to say whether the article is worded too promotionally, but the edits and most of that article don't follow style guides and could be worded much better. Note the first result for earwig copyvio ([4]) is a mirror from wikipedia and should be disregarded. The second result ([5]) has two paragraphs copied and modified which should be removed/rewritten. And yes that topic definitely seems a promotional editing magnet. In general, COI/promotional/burner account editing on psychology/psychiatry topics does happen for therapies and pharmaceuticals pretty often in addition to orgs and BLPs. Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Students are getting told not to cite Wikipedia directly, but in academic world, it's been a good destination for sources. So, it would be logical place where scholars wanting to get their work selected for being cited into scholarly work would place it here. Just one way to look at it. I am used to seeing PR and promo edits in BLP and CORP pages but I wasn't expecting to find throwaway accounts outside of those. I wonder why it's more pervasive in psychology than say oncology, dentistry, etc. Graywalls (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, there is some merit to what you write. I haven't begun to think about the big picture in fields like medicine and dentistry in WP.

Scholars tend to shy away from WP as a source of information because they have access to databases in university libraries that make it easy to find review articles and meta-analyses that summarize vast amounts of research.

I add this. My understanding is that the trend is for students to increasingly rely on AI websites like ChatGPT. I think AI will diminish the importance of encyclopedias (e.g., WP) to students. Students' use of AI will pose a greater challenge to teachers/professors than students' reliance on WP; text plagiarized from WP is easily traced. Iss246 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls I wonder why it's more pervasive in psychology If you're genuinely not familiar, it's just the profit motive. It happens plenty in all fields of medicine - referring to your examples, see alternative cancer treatments and holistic dentistry. Believe me, it is a very, very long list, and a lot of them start with burner account edits and later get found and cleaned up. It happens for psychology/psychiatry in part because pharmaceutical companies have an economic chokehold and are routinely found guilty of fraud and illegal marketing. COI editing wikipedia is just another low cost way to do that, and it just gets picked up more in other areas of Wikipedia because it's used frequently by medical students and there are just less qualified editors in psychology/psychiatry.

[6] is a good read. Psychology therapies also tend to be poorly regulated, eg. see [7]. For reference I wrote the article on the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which is rather notorious in that it specifically excludes regulation for psychiatry professions, leaving it to the significantly more lax policies of the RANZCP. Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It gets interesting in March and April of 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_and_organizational_psychology&action=history&dir=prev&offset=20101016002616%7C390975932&limit=500 there's a farm of disposable accounts used with a handful of them used just for one day. I wonder if that's part of JPA "Team". Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Power (social and political), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing the info box on Dissociative identity disorder?

You are invited to comment on the discussion on the talk page entry here. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Digital media use and mental health

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC of Education

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article Education for featured article status. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to review it. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Education/archive1. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. For a short FAQ on the reviewing process, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Reactive attachment disorder

User:Buidhe has nominated Reactive attachment disorder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Psychological barriers to effective altruism

Hello, we are looking for more editors to review Psychological barriers to effective altruism. Please take a look at the article if you have knowledge or interest in psychology and/or effective altruism. There is previous discussion at Talk:Psychological barriers to effective altruism. Cross-posted to WT:WikiProject Effective Altruism. Many thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Psychological trauma and its narrowness of definition

The definition given here of what counts as psychological trauma (and what doesn't!) is much more narrow than on the French article Traumatisme psychologique. There, factors such as harassment, being a victim of alcoholism, poverty, are also listed as traumatic events. Why isn't it the case here, where such a demarcation is made as "The event must be understood by the affected person as directly threatening the affected person or their loved ones with death, severe bodily injury, or sexual violence"? To me it seems like the most extreme ones, as countless people are permanently scarred from for example complete emotional neglect in early childhood. This demarcation is problematic because someone who didn't get shot or raped might will feel their trauma is less valid. Synotia (moan) 11:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Psychological trauma § Narrowness, and I suggest that others respond there to keep the responses centralized on the article talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Move on Cognitive load

Some discussions on Talk:Cognitive load were brought to my attention from a notification on WP:OSH. I can see that there's some general confusion regarding the title and subject; however, I don't have the knowledge to determine if it's right to move the article to Cognitive Load Theory and make a redirect to Workload. Would appreciate input or action from more knowledgable folks on the subject. Reconrabbit 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Information processing (psychology)#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Information processing (psychology)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The ICD-11 coding challenge

Hey you! Do you dislike unfinished objects? Are you on the autism spectrum? A bit obsessive compulsive? Or do you simply like to make Wikipedia a little bit better? Great! Then join the ICD-11 code challenge! See this thread at WT:MED for further information. Yours sincerely, Manifestation (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Id, ego and super-ego#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Id, ego and super-ego#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual surrogate#Requested move 28 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual surrogate#Requested move 28 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)