Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Location of the inkblot image

I don't have time to look right now, but I think that during one of the image wars a consensus did emerge to place the image adjacent to the "Methods" section. If anyone can find that in the archives I'd appreciate knowing where. I'll look later if no one responds. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm too busy now to look it up, but the version that produced the Rorschach in the methods section was indeed the results of months of heated discussion. It shouldn't have been changed arbitrarily.Faustian (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The hell with that. The image positioning was the result of months of bickering between people who support the Rorschach test and believe that Wikipedia was somehow tainting the test, and people who realize that Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Just because a large number of people can bully their version through on this mostly unpopular article does not mean it should be so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the location of an image is not Censorship. It isn't suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material.Faustian (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"To hell with" consensus -- and from an admin. This place is falling apart. Ward3001 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just very pissy right now. Don't take that as any sort of indication of the health of the project, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the image from the lead was done because the image was seen to be "objectionable or offensive" by a certain group of editors. That is specifically what WP:NOTCENSORED is about. There is no scientific or even ethical reasoning behind its removal. A fringe pseudoscience is not a legitimate justification for the modification of a Wikipedia article in a detrimental fashion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rorschach is not "fringe pseudoscience" (unless you believe that the field of psychology is a fringe pseudoscience, but that in itself would be a fringe belief) and, again, the image is in a different location rather than removed.Faustian (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is if I'm half insane. Regardless, I think this is bullshit. If someone can provide me a peer-reviewed journal stating that there is damage if someone sees an inkblot, I will support this wholly. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) With [1] catching my eye, good to see Rorschach recognised also in Bulgaria, I thought. But looking at the bg:Херман Роршах page I see all the blots immediately on display. How many other national versions the same, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I suggest we put it right up at the top. Right above the picture of Mr Rorschach would be consistent with how we do most article. That is to say leading with a picture of the subject. Chillum 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but let's get Damien's Skull above his picture first, in due homage to this week's Cartrain? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the test, not the images nor the cards themselves. There is no need to put the blot at the top of the article. Somehow I don't see a picture of the SAT itself on the top of that article's page (an example of an essay is further down in that article).Faustian (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The inkblots are the visual portion of the test. We usually start and article with a picture of the subject. I don't see how the image of the creator is more relevant to the test than a picture from the test. Perhaps we should just swap the positions of the person and the card. Chillum 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed Faustian's point. The article is about the test, not the inkblots. The inkblots are items in the test. Look at other articles on tests. In addition to the example given by Faustian, other articles about widely used tests that do not place test items at the top of the page include: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Thematic Apperception Test, Personality Assessment Inventory, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. There are others. This article properly begins with an introduction to the test, its background, methods, and then the test materials (i.e., inkblot). Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken I suppose. But it begs the question, why not? Especially on such a visual test. Chillum 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Many tests have visual components, including some of those noted above. There is a lot more to the test than the visual part. Ward3001 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think showing the picture up top is contrary to there being a lot more to it than that. Chillum 01:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is contrary to Wikipedia style (not to mention good writing style in general), meaning that an article does not begin with specifics; it begins with more general introductory information and usually proceeds to historical information (if it exists), and then more specific details. That is exactly what this article does, what most (if not all) articles on tests do, and, indeed, what most Wikipedia articles on any topic do. The article on Complete blood count does not begin with "Results"; it begins with overview, definitions, history, methods, and then it gets into results. There's a logical way to write articles. This one follows that logic. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. However I think it is a minor point. I remain unconvinced but am not going to push this matter any further at this point. Chillum 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The other articles that have been listed as examples of tests that don't put an image at the top are irrelevant. Only one of them even has an image at all, and that image has too much text compressed into it to be readable as a thumbnail. That said, this is an inkblot test. Seems perfectly rational to have a picture of an inkblot at the top. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You also missed the point. Faustian and I are not saying the other articles don't contain images at the top. We're saying that the other articles don't begin with specific test items at the top. Articles in general don't begin with specific details at the top. At the risk of repeating myself several times (but I don't have any choice), articles begin with a general overview, historical background, and then more specifics. And again repeating myself, the article is not about the inkblots; it's about the test. To say that the test is only about inkblots reflects a profound misunderstanding of the test. It's equivalent to saying that the MMPI is about sentences. Ward3001 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As English editors I suppose we must restrict ourselves to commenting on this article. But it does seem a litlle inconsistent that other langauge variants, such as the Bulgarian one, may have a whole set of images, even on just the article for Rorschach himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian article is also quite unprofessional and sparse. Should we emulate that, as well? To someguy, the Thematic Apperception Test is also a test based on images on cards. Yet there isn't an image there at all. The Rorschach test involves much more than just cards; placing the image of a card on the top is undue emphasis on one aspect of the test. If this article were about the cards themselves it would be a different story; but it's not.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I doubt that emulatation of anything in that article would be sensible, assuming one could find an accurate translation. We don't see 1812 Overture with a recording of that entire piece at the start. Surely, this is an encyclopedia, not a library - of music, of projective test materials or of anything else? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the Thematic Apperception Test is also a test based on images on cards. Yet there isn't an image there at all." Then there should be. Another article's failings are not a good basis for decisions on what to do in this article. The inkblots are emblematic of the Rorschach test, recognizable to far more people than could even remember the name. Wikipedia articles tend to provide an opening image which helps illustrate, in the best fashion possible, the content of the article. On this article, the most helpful image to begin with is not that of the test;s creator, but that of an example of the centerpiece bolts used on the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For about the fourth time, the article is about the test, not the inkblots. The test is a lot more than inkblots. How many times does this have to be repeated? The fact that this has to be repeated over and over and over epitomizes what happens when people who have no knowledge of the test think they should decide what is best for an article on the subject. Try editing the lead of Complete blood count with the sentence "This test is about blood", insert a photo of a pool of blood at the top of the page, and see how long it stays in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so why can't there be an image that's actually relevant to the article at the top of the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that a test item from the MMPI is not at the top of that page. Read all of the points Faustian and I made above. The image is placed in the appropriate place in the article: Test materials. It is stylistically poor writing to begin the article with specifics (i.e., test materials). The test is first introduced with an overview, then historical information is presented, then more specifics (method and test materials), just like thousands and thousands of other articles are written. Articles begin with the most general and then move into specifics. Does Complete blood count begin with details about various ways the test is carried out? No, those specifics come later. The same is true of this article. An example of a test item, an inkblot, goes adjacent to the specific section about test materials, the only logical place to put it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach created the test, how is he not relevant? The article Annus Mirabilis papers has a picture of Albert Einstein, not the papers he worked on or the instruments he used to develop his theories.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I strongly agree with Ward3001 and Faustian. At the risk of setting the debate back a step, I would remind Jaimeastorga2000 and Someguy1221 that there were plenty of editors who had doubts about there being an ink-blot image in this article at all. This has all been through dispute, edit war, protection, informal voting and seeking consensus. The current postiion was seen as a compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"For about the fourth time, the article is about the test, not the inkblots. The test is a lot more than inkblots. How many times does this have to be repeated?" Unfortunately, we can't include a picture of the methods and analyzes that are also a fundamental part of the test. The best image we can provide, therefore, is one of the inkblots, without which the test could not be carried out. Your argument about them being part of the methods and therefore not worthy of being at the top does not hold water, because the blots would be included because of their value as iconic images without regard for their status on the test. It is like claiming that the main article on Windows XP should not have a screenshot at the top because Windows XP is so much more than the graphical interfaces and that you do not begin an article with specifics about GUI. The point for both that image and the proposed move of inkblots to the top, of course, is NOT to illustrate specifics before their due but to illustrate, in the best manner possible, the subject of the article, even if by doing so one happens to illustrate specifics as a side effect. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You have explained why an image of an inkblot should be included in the article, but you have not provided an adequate rationale for why it should be misplaced (away from the section on "Test materials", which it illustrates) at the top of the page. And I must (again) repeat myself because you, like others, have missed the point, since Complete blood count is a test about blood, why is there not an image of blood at the top of the page? The answer (again) is that the description of blood cells comes later (logically) in the article, so the image of blood cells is adjacent to that section. Similarly, in Rorschach inkblot test, the image about the test materials (inkblots) logically is placed adjacent to the section on "Test materials". If you want a more appropriate image to go at the top, find (or create) an image of a psychologist administering the Rorschach to a patient. That would (in your words) "illustrate, in the best manner possible [or at least as well as an inkblot image], the subject of the article", because the subject of the article is not inkblots, but the Rorschach test. I don't mean to sound like I'm insulting anyone's intelligence, but Faustian and I have repeated that point so many times that it is apparent to me that it is a very difficult concept for some people to understand. So again, the article is about the test, not inkblots. And again, the entirety of the test is not inkblots. Saying that the test is about inkblots (again repeating myself) is equivalent to saying that the MMPI uses printed words on a page, so it is about words. Placing the image away from its logical section implies that the entire test is about one or more inkblots, and now for about the fifth time, the test is about much more than inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When a person thinks "Rorschach inkblot test" they think, and immediately care about the actual inkblots. The face of Mr. Rorscach is not immediately associated with the test, nor immediately relevant. It's not impossible to include an image at the top and in the relevant section, either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding, this is an argument on the basis of "it's the best choice", not "it's a good choice". If we did have one of someone administering that, that would definitely be more suitable up there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles about accurate presentation of the subject of an article, or about "what people think"? So what someone who has no knowledge of the test thinks about when he hears "Rorschach" should take precendence over the facts and decades of research? And now for about the sixth time, when the average person hears "complete blood count", he probably thinks about blood, imagining all the times when blood has been drawn from his arm. So since that is "what people think", does that mean we must include an image of blood at the top of the article, ignoring the fact that the article is about a lot more than an image of blood? A lot of people "thought" Richard Jewell carried out the Olympic Park bombings in 1996, so if we were writing his article in 1996, should we have said he did the bombing just because that's what people thought? Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What does the head of Rorscach have to do with years of research? The only image we have that is relevant to the test itself, and quite relevant indeed, is that of the inkblots used within it. Is Zombie Hermann Rorschach conducting the tests suddenly? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If editors are so hellbent on including an image at the top besides that of Hermann Rorschach, it would be a very simple matter to take a photo of two people sitting at a table, one with a clipboard in his hand offering a rectangular card to the other person, with the caption "An illustration of how the Rorschach is adminstered". Please, by all means, take that photo and place it at the top of the page. I personally think the picture of H. Rorschach is more appropriate, but I will not split hairs. Take the photo, and put it at the top of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If and when we have an image of a psychologist administering the test, we can discuss it's merits as top image in the article (I think I would probably lean for it over the blots if it was a good picture). Until then, we have to make due with what we have, which are a picture of Rorschach and a picture of an inkblot. You brought up the CBC article. Do you think the image at the top of it is a good image to illustrate it? I don't; I think a picture of a blood vial being loaded into an analyzer machine would be much better. I understand that the article is about the test, not the blots, but the blots are the best way to represent the test not only due to being the visual aspect of it, but because they are ingrained in public consciousness as the most prominent part of the test. If someone stumbles into this article without recognizing the name and glances at the picture of Rorschach, s/he is no closer to knowing what the article is about, but if you put the image of the blot at the top, chances are the average reader will immediately recognize the test. That's why the blot should be the top image. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, of the two images already in the article, the image of H. Rorschach is the best way to illustrate the entirety of the test, because if it were not for what he did, there would not be a test. If H. Rorschach had used puzzles instead of inkblots and the article was entitled the "Rorschach puzzle test", it would still be Rorschach (not pictures of puzzles) that would best illustrate the test as a whole. Is your goal to have a logical article with the images illustrating the sections as they are discussed, or is it your ultimate goal to get that inkblot at the top of the page at all costs? Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that argument just really doesn't strike me as quite relevant. We should put pictures of Mendel at the top of half a dozen articles on genetics; George Washington as the image for United States; <sarc>God as the image for the universe and for the human race</sarc>. It's still boils down to the fact that we have one image that benefits a reader's understanding and recognition of the subject, and one image that doesn't, unless a person wanted to know what the inventor looked like. And also let's keep in mind that this putting a picture or Rorschach himself at the top arose pretty late in the main dispute over a year ago, and the main reason for moving or removing the inkblot was based on the unverifiable claim that it was medically harmful. But I also agree that we're all repeating ourselves at this point. Anyone who still wants to move for the inkblot to return to the top of the article should start an RFC. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That makes no sense. He is not the test, nor is he an element of it. Charles Darwin is not natural selection. Albert Einstein is not the Photoelectric effect. If you want to argue placement in sections, his head is best served being placed in the History section, and is certainly not more suitable for the top than an actual inkblot. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If Rorschach had used puzzles instead of blots and they had become as ingrained in public consciousness as the blots are now, I think a picture of the puzzles would be appropriate. If some other person besides Rorschach had designed the test, would the article be better served with that (wo)man's picture at the top? A picture of even a part of something is better at illustrating it than a picture of its creator, specially when no picture of the whole is available or possible and when this particular part is so widely recognized. As for my goal, it is the same goal that everyone here has; to improve the article. And I think an article is better when it's most emblematic images are not pushed down in favor of images of subject's creators because it also fits with one of the article's subsections. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendel did not create genetics. Washington did not create the United States. Rorschach singlehandedly created the Rorschach test, and he didn't just create the inkblots; he created the initial methods for administation, coding, and interpretation. It is the Rorschach inkblot test, not just the inkblot test. If the test had been called the "Rorschach personality test" (and it could easily have been called that, as are many personality tests), would it be imperative to put a picture of a "personality" at the top (whatever that would be)? No. So if my perspective does not "strike [you] as quite relevant", that probably has more to do with your (lack of) knowledge of the test, not the relevance of my argument. To say that Hermann Rorschach is less relevant to the test than an inkblot is a profound misunderstanding of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And if they had created them, do you think it would be appropriate to have pictures of them as the leading images in those articles? This article is not about Rorschach; it is, as you yourself have reiterated many times, about the test. Neither is the test named merely the Rorschach test, as it easily could have been, but the Rorschach inkblot test. I am sure the test gets its unique structure from the ideas and theories of Hermann Rorschach, but as it's creator he is less relevant than a part of the test itself. A widely recognized part, I might add. Jaimeastorga2000 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeastorga2000 (talk • contribs)

If someone had created a test in its entirety, yes it would be as appropriate to have the image of the creator at the top as it would to have an item in the test. And the article is as much about H. Rorschach and what he did as it is about an inkblot. The article is actually about a massive amount of information that would be more appropriate to include than either of the images, but that information is copyrighted and cannot be included for that reason. Ward3001 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, this article is about the test, which a man named Rorschach just happens to have made. You can counter, of course, that he just chose to use inkblots instead of something else, but the difference is that inkblots are instantly recognized as the hallmarks of this examination. A picture of a blot helps a reader understand what this article is about, if only because they can then recognize the test; a picture of Rorschach does not. Jaimeastorga2000 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeastorga2000 (talk • contribs)

You did not read what I wrote correctly. So let me repeat some things. I did not say the article is about H. Rorschach. I did say that the article is as much about H. Rorschach and what he did as it is about an inkblot. The article is not entirely about H. Rorschach. The article is not entirely about an inkblot. The article is about a test, and the article is not more about an inkblot than it is about H. Rorschach.

As for what the reader can "instantly recognize", readers can instantly recognize printed words, and the MMPI items are printed words. But that doesn't mean that placing an image of printed words at the top of the page would help the reader understand the test more than would an image of the creators of the test (or no image at all, and just beginning with an overview of the test). Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And I point out that even if the article is equally about Rorschach and inkblots (which I alluded to when I stated a possible counter argument to my argument that was completely analogous), inkblots still get the edge for being at the top due to their notoriety. No, readers can't "instantly recognize" words, at least not words which aren't nearly as famous nor remembered as the very idea of putting inkblots on cards as part of a psychological test. A user can glance to the side and know the content of the article in literally one second, if the blot is at the top. Fewer people can do that with the name. Just knowing, right off the bat, that this is an article about "that psychological test where they show you inkblots" is the purpose that the inkblot picture would achieve at the top; the Rorschach picture achieves nothing. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Although expertise carries little weight on Wikipedia, I can safely say as an expert (and if you read the professional literature on the Rorschach this will be confirmed), the test is far more about what Rorschach did than it is about inkblots. Many psychologists would argue that it may be more about what John E. Exner did and thus his image should be at the top instead of Rorschach's, but that would be quite controversial. Ten inkblots (out of dozens that Rorschach created) are really only a vehicle for the groundbreaking work that Rorschach accomplished. And as I have said more than once, if you want to talk about first impressions by the reader, placing an inkblot at the top of the page can erroneously lead the naive reader to the conclusion that the test is only about inkblots. The comments in this very debate provide more than ample evidence for that misconception, and I believe Wikipedia is in the business of creating verifiable truth rather than misconceptions. In fact, the image that should go at the top that would create the least amount of misconception would be no image at all. Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And placing the inkblot on top merely serves to perpetuate that ignorance.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test?

We are arguing about whether to use a picture of Hermann Rorschach or an inkblot on a card as the leading image in the Rorschach inkblot test article. You can read our arguments above. Jaimeastorga2000 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For additional discussions and a full history of this issue over the previous two years, see Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1#Keeping the inkblots secret, Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2, and Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3. The archives are largely related to this specific issue, although there are occasional irrelvant discussions. Ward3001 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, based on the above, has your position changed to be that there should be no leading image? Should we retitle this section and template? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion was (and still is) that there should be no image of an inkblot anywhere in the article, but that point of view did not prevail in a very heated and difficult consensus that was achieved. So, given that consensus, my position is that if an image of an inkblot must be in the article, it should be in the most logical place: adjacent to "Test materials", and H. Rorschach's image is more appropriate adjacent to the discussion of overview and background, as I have repeatedly pointed out above. I don't see any point in retitling the RfC. The issue here is not whether there should be an image of an inkblot, but rather the most appropriate place to put it. Ward3001 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the test, not the inkblot. Placing the inkblot in the front of the article perpetuates the false idea that the test is all about the inkblot, when it is all about the administration, analysis, relationship, etc. Does the article on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale include cubes from the block design subtest on top? No - indeed none ofthe test materials are pictured in the article. How about the Thematic Apperception Test which also uses cards. Again, no. And no images of the figures of the Bender-Gestalt Test either. The article on the SAT shows an example of an essay which is included an appropriate place in the body of the article, not at the top of it.Faustian (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to respond to this when it's entirely hypothetical. Your negative examples of including images of test materials at the top of an article actually have no images at all, except for one chart that would probably just be confusing before it's been introduced. Show us an image someone wants to put at the top, and then we can discuss whether its appropriate, on the appropriate talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The blots, particularly the first card, are quite iconic. Having it at the top helps readers identify that they found the right article. Put the picture of Hermann Rorschach just below. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about the blots, it's about the test. And when I put "rorschach test" through google images there are all sorts of images besides the first card: [2], suggesting that it is not that iconic.Faustian (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion above, so you don't have to repeat everything. The blots are a central and very visual part of the test. I may be wrong about the first card being more iconic than others. Most people probably don't remember the details. I have no opinion on which card to show. Btw, has this RfC been advertised? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So part of your argument is: "because the test materials happen to be visual images, this gives greater justification for exposing one of them in the visual medium of wikipedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing where to put the image in the article, not whether it should be shown at all. I think it should be at the top, to help quickly identify this article with its common visual image. For that purpose a "fake" inkblot would do just as well, but that would be disingenuous and misleading. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a properly labelled "fake" image would mislead. I think the essence of this article ought to be a critique of technique not a display of actual materials. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Ward3001, Faustian (and others) and for exactly the same reasons. In the original consensus I had (and still have) great difficulty in understanding exactly how scientific evidence could produced to show one way or another that displaying an image here could compromise the effectiveness of the test. But if we were to err on the side of caution, we ought to heed the reservations of the relevant professional body (APA) and protect the images. I also suggested that if the point of an image was simply to be illustrative, then a novel new ink-blot could be created for use here. As neither of these points seemed to be agreed upon, I saw the current positioning as an acceptable compromise. Since then, however, more convincing arguments over use of test materials in wikipedia articles have been made. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We should hold to WP:CENSOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to safeguard the sanctity of the test; it's job is to provide informative articles on the subject. This article can be improved by having a picture of an inkblot at the top, and that is all that should matter, not potential "harm" that can be brought upon people who may hypothetically take or would have taken this test at some future point in time. APA guidelines are for it's member psychologists to adhere to, not encyclopedias. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair suggestion for use or non-use, but WP:CENSOR would be a (welcome) backward step? I still think APA guidelines have relevance to this discussion - it seems a little churlish to dismiss them so glibly. Maybe wikipedia can show me how to produce scientific evidence of whether harm is produced or not - but if it cannot, then it should not be making a judgement here but erring on the side of caution, and I will prefer to take the advice of those who actually use the test for real, that's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the images cause "harm," wikipedia is not in the business of protecting it's readers from potentially harmful information. Even if we err on the side of caution and assume this test is very important, that showing the image renders it useless, and that every single reader who stumbles into this article wished to take the test at some point in the future, it would all be as irrelevant as APA's ethical guidelines. We are here to distribute information in the best way possible (where Wikipedia's guidelines and policies have been established by the project as what it believes is "the best way possible"). There is no guideline against moving the image to the top and it would be an improvement to the article. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Greetings Rorschach editors. It is true we had an uneasy compromise to keep the image from being on top of the article however consensus can change. I know that many of you feel that showing the image is a bad thing that can invalidate the test but we have crossed that bridge by observing the fact that it is public domain. Therefore its placement should not matter in this regard. The ink blot is a better example of the article and belongs at the top. Hermann Rorschach's picture belongs at the top of Hermann Rorschach article (which it is by the way) and maybe down in history of this article when talking about him creating it. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, please explain how the image of an inkblot is a better example of the article if the article is about neither inkblots nor H. Rorschach. Neither image is really a good example of the article because the article is about a test. If the test (and hence the article) is not about inkblots (or H. Rorschach), how could either of them be a "better" example of the article. I'll repeat my earlier proposal that someone should create an image of two people at a table, one with a clipboard handing a rectangular card to the other. That would be a "better example" of what the test is about than either an inkblot or H. Rorschach. But in the meantime, please explain how an image of an inkblot is a "better example of the article". Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be many images in the public domain which most of us would never expect or wish to see in wikipedia! Are you are confusing copyright or property issues with relevance and duty of care? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It seems the most relevant image to the article and most recognized. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So your argument runs: "if it does no harm to show the image then no problem, if it may do harm then that harm will have already been done (e.g. c/o Google Images etc) so it doesn't matter if wikipdia does a bit (or a even a lot) more harm"?

How about, if someone's going around the internet searching for "Rorschach inkblot", they shouldn't be surprised when an inkblot pops up in their face? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true Someguy. Besides, If seeing the inkblot invalidates the test, something that is still waiting for a citation by the way, I fear it's much too late to try and put the cat back into the bag. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to make the best articles possible, regardless of who it may "harm." The image at the top conveys more information and makes the article better, ergo it is there that it should go. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaimeastorga, please explain how inkblot image at the top "conveys more information" about the test than the image of H. Rorschach.; and please distinguish between more information about the test rather than more information about an inkblot or a test item. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It can probably be assumed that many readers will recognize the inkblot; the test has appeared in numerous movies, television shows, and elsewhere in popular culture. Seeing the image will make someone go, "Oh, I've seen that before; this is the test where they show you pictures." Also, the claim that the inkblots aren't an important enough part of the test is plainly rediculous. The test is analyzing people's reactions to seeing inkblots. That's about as important as I think it can get. As for the current image, it conveys precisely one thing: "This is what the inventor looked like." Someguy1221 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, first of all, the inkblots are not "pictures", and there are lots of tests with pictures. Secondly, if it is "plainly rediculous [sic]" to say that the inkblots are not the most important aspect of the test, please tell us which aspects of the test are less important and which aspects are more important than the inkblots. Be specific: name each aspect of the test and identify whether it is less important than the inkblots or more important than the inkblots. And for each, please tell us why it is less or more important. And please, please don't say there is nothing else to the test other than inkblots, because not only will that be an embarrassing error, it will show that you have not read the above comments in this discussion. So, tell us: which parts are more important than the inkblots, and which parts are less important. Ward3001 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First, you show me one other part of the test you can get an informative image of. As for the test, OK: 1) Preparing the environment, so the patient can view the ink blots without distraction; 2) Showing the inkblots and letting the patient respond; 3) Showing the patient the inkblots for longer and recording everything the patient does while studying them; 4) taking time to analyze the patient's reaction to the inkblots. If the inkblots are not the most important part of the test, I have no idea what your definition of importance is. It's also insulting to suggest (as you and others have done repeatedly) that everyone who disagrees with you is relying on popular misconceptions about the test. The fact is that the desire to censor the image has clouded every other argument on the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• "show me one other part of the test you can get an informative image ": One example: A patient articulating a response represents something more illustrative of the test than an image of an inkblot, because the responses are the basis for the entire scoring and interpretive process. And again, if you think the patient's responses are less important than the inkblots (as you indicate in #2 above), it is a profound misinterpretation of the test. Now for my replies to what can only be called glaringly vague examples of ... God knows what ... or laughable examples of non-parts of the test:
• "Preparing the environment":Are you seriously saying that the instructions you give the patient prior to beginning the test are less important than the inkblots? The only way I can characterize that is: absurdly wrong. If you present the instructions improperly, you could get more useful information by showing the patient a jar of pickles rather than an inkblot.
• "recording everything the patient does while studying them": You didn't identify this as less important than the inkblots (why is that?), but if that's what you're saying, please explain how recording card orientation or certain gestures the patient might make while responding (and these are only two of a vast number of other things the patient "does") are less important than the inkblots. Give us specifics as to why your opinion should be accepted instead of a substantial amount of research otherwise.
• "taking time to analyze the patient's reaction to the inkblots": The only possible response here is, how can you be serious in saying that the analysis and interpretive processes, the very essence of the usefulness of the Rorschach, are less important than the inkblots, again flying in the face of decades of research? Please explain your position in detail.
• "I have no idea what your definition of importance is": OK, let me try to simplify it. Tell us which aspects of the test are less important and more important than the inkblots in making the Rorschach a clinically useful test that can provide susbstantial improvements in diagnosising, treating, and understanding the patient.
• "It's also insulting to suggest ... that everyone who disagrees with you is relying on popular misconceptions": Then by all means, please give me something in your responses to my question that includes something besides misconceptions, because so far you have not done that. Something with a little science behind it might help. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're really just stonewalling at this point. Alright, let me put it as simple as possible for you: Every part of the test involves the inkblots. Either preparing the patient to see them, or letting the patient see them, or letting the patient see them again, or analyzing the reaction to the inkblot. The inkblots are important for every part of the test. Thus, they are the most important part of the test. As you would know if you read the article, there has historically been more than one way to administer and analyze the test, which would make the inkblots themselves the only non-dispensable part, and thus the most important. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a complete cop-out to claim that I'm "stonewalling" for simply asking for a scientifically sound explanation to your argument that other aspects of the test are less important than the inkblots. "Every part of the test involves the inkblots: Let me try to express this as a comment on the content, not the contributor. That statement reflects an almost complete lack of knowledge of the test except for the knowledge that it involves inkblots. "As you would know if you read the article, there has historically been more than one way to administer and analyze the test": Do you honestly think a psychologist who specializes in the Rorschach is not aware of the various systems? I am quite familiar with H. Rorschach's, Piotrowski's, Klopfer's, and Exner's systems because I have administered Rorschachs using each one. Can you delineate the differences in administration of those systems? And your statement that the different systems "would make the inkblots themselves the only non-dispensable part" again shows a complete ignorance of the many other commonalities in administration, coding, and interpretation among the systems. Do you actually think that Exner, for example, did not draw on techniques and knowledge from the other systems in developing his system? So again, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in your comments that is not mostly based on misconceptions. There is no need for anyone to feel insulted simply because they don't understand something. I don't understand the more advanced details of relativity theory, so I'm not insulted if someone points out a misconception I might have. Where the imagined insult comes into play is when someone assumes he understands something, based almost entirely on misconceptions, then proceeds to tell others who do understand it where they are wrong, and then takes offense when the glaring errors are pointed out. I truly apologize if I insulted you or anyone else, but I will not pretend that you are right about something that I learned is false in the first month of the very first course in personality assessment. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I cannot begin to claim the level of familiarity or expertise that you obviously have in these matters, but your argument is more convincing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward, I think you're reading something I never wrote, and I realize now I was vague about this. I never meant to imply that the inkblots have a greater or even equal impact on the test results as the other major components. When I consistently called it the most important part of the test, as the non-dispensable part of the test, I was referring to its central nature. I'm also aware that the choice of images to show the patient is not of incredible importance compared to the method of scoring, though it does have an impact. I was referring to the fact that as the test has evolved over the decades, you're still using the Rorschach inkblots. If you weren't using the inkblots, it wouldn't be the Rorschach test. As you're allegedly someone who professionally analyzes people, I'd hope you'd realize that subjective valuations can vary between individuals not as a result of misconceptions. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "I was referring to the fact that as the test has evolved over the decades, you're still using the Rorschach inkblots: Just as you are using dozens of other common aspects of the test in addition to the inkblots, aspects that you have yet to identify, despite the fact that I have identified several examples. That point advances your argument exactly ... none.
• "I'd hope you'd realize that subjective valuations can vary between individuals not as a result of misconceptions": If that statement was comprehensible, I would try to respond to it. Are you saying that the components of the test that the psychologist uses are "subjective"? If so, you're wrong. Are you saying the amount of research that has been published on the various components of the test besides the inkblots compared to the amount of research on the inkblots themselves is subjective (for example, 10,000 studies vs. 1000 studies) is subjective? If so, that is laughably wrong. If you're saying something else, it is to be found only in your mind, not in your words here.
• Someguy1221, it has become more than obvious, even to non-experts, that you know nothing about the Rorschach beyond the few details you have picked up in the article. That should not be insulting to you, nor should it be something on which to fault you, except for the fact that you have made comment after comment, with almost no factual basis, all the while refusing to acknowledge that you know nothing about the test beyond what is in the article. If there is any insult to you here, you have brought it on yourself. For that reason, I don't see any point in continuing this particular part of the discussion. Your continuing to espouse baseless points as if they were based on actual knowledge of the test, and my continuing to point that out, does nothing to improve either this RfC or the article. Let me suggest that if you wish to debate your knowledge of the Rorschach with me, we should do it on our talk pages. That having been said, I also don't intend to sit silently, pretending that you know what you're talking about, if you continue making comments based on ignorance of the test Ward3001 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You once again managed to read significantly more from my comment than I ever wrote, although it's getting kind of tiring trying to make my views more clear to you. I have no intention of debating the intricacies of the test. I know full well that I don't know the test at the level of detail that you do. I have never implied anything about the test or its history that you are suggesting I did. My sole point through this entire string of back and forth comments is contained precisely in my comment above. The only subjectivity I was referring to was your own subjective determination of importance, a vague word that has to be strictly defined to have any meaning. I have provided my own, which differs from your own. I never implied that other aspects don't change. I never suggested that the inkblots are the only thing to stay the same. If you have an informative image of another defining aspect of the test, I would love to see it. If you actually want to understand my views, I can only suggest you reread my comments and realize that I'm not hiding any meaning inbetween the lines. Although if you overinterpret this comment as well, there's no further clarification I can provide. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"I have provided my own [subjective determination of importance].": Finally something with which I can agree. Your interpretation that the inkblots are the most important aspects of the test is, indeed, overwhelming subjective and based on an entirely uninformed point of view. So we are left with a choice between making a decision about placment of the image that is based on decades of scientific research, or based on the opinion of someone who admits having virtually no knowledge of the test. My vote is to base it on science.

"If you have an informative image of another defining aspect of the test, I would love to see it.": As I have said repeatedly, either no image or the image of H. Rorschach is a far better representation of the entirety of the test and would not be nearly as misleading as the image of an inkblot. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How about, if someone wants to consult an encyclopdeia, instead of having `all kinds of images popping up in their face', they choose Wikipedia? Just because the cat is out of the bag doesn't mean we all take a hand in killing it off through over-exposure. And how would anyone produce that citation we're all waiting for? Wikipedia's job is to act responsibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How does censoring an image (by removing it or by banishing it from the lead) because of an unverifiable claim of hypothetical harm correspond to acting "responsibly" when Wikipedia's purpose is to be an enyclopedia? We also have a drawing a blowjob right at the top of the article despite the unverifiable claims that viewing hardcore images can hurt children's minds, and we even have the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures right at the top of the article, despite the fact that these did cause a lot of harm when they were seen. It all boils down to the same point, and that's the spirit of not being censored. We do have a responsibility not to bombard people with potentially harmful images. And that's why the images mentioned before are rightfully confined to their articles. Other potentially harmful images are similarly kept from pages on which they are not essential. But it is not our responsibility to protect people from themselves. Anyone who searches for a term should expect to see an image that might be representative or iconic of the term. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your argument extend to a similar proportion of the materials for all other psychometric and projective tests? Are all psychological tests on a par with blowjobs and cartoons? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In all the debates on this matter that I've followed, not a single article on a psychometric or projective test has been presented that has any images. But yes, all psychological tests are precisely on par with blowjobs and cartoons. If the possibility of harm from images has been rejected on articles about sex and cartoons, it should be rejected from articles on psychometric tests as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is analogous to claiming the Santa Claus article should not mention that he is a legend for fear of harming young children's minds. Creating the best article possible takes precedence. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. People aren't going to go around reading articles about various psychometric and projective tests unless they want to learn about and compare such tests. Our job is to provide the best possible information to those to seek it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The jist of my question related to all test materials, not just those tests which use images. Do you see no distinction between sexual preferences or religious beliefs, where an individual may be expected to freely choose what is right for them, and a forensic test which legally requires a trained tester to administer and the result of which may be used, in conjunction with other assessments, to deprive the subject of their liberty? And yes Santa really is a fiction, whether we ever see him or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the end this is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to provide information. What others do with that information, or what the information does, is not our concern. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But where that information comes from, and if and how it is used elsewhere, should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, we have claims that the inkblot image is "iconic" but no proof that this image is "iconic". Indeed, when I google-imaged "Rorschach test" that specific image did not even come up on the first page: [3]. A black outline of it did come in, the third image, but wasn't event he most common. Any proof that the image is "iconic" and has appeared in movies etc.? I'm not willing to base deciions on personal opinions. If we don't have proof that it is iconic or widely known then we cannot assume that a reader will see the image and conclude that this is the article he is looking for. Moreover, just because something is iconic does not make it accurate. The test is about more than the inkblots, and the most accurate image should show what it is about. After all, King Kong is probably the most iconic gorilla, yet it wuld be inaccurate to place him at the top of the article.Faustian (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

? I see the image appear twice in that google link. Googling the name of this article shows the image 4 times in the front page (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ei=HPfwSdWlKZL2tAPgtpHQCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rorschach+inkblot+test&spell=1) along with a bunch of other inkblots. Clearly inkblots are associated with this test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, in the link I gave a black and white version of the image is shown twice. The image we are discussing doesn't appear at all. On your link the image showed up twice and a black and white version also showed up twice. Out of 18 images. It would seem the black and white version is at least as iconic as the real version when one google images "Rorschach inkblot test" and more iconic when one google images "Rorschach test". But in both cases, the image makes up 11% of responses, which doesn't seem to be very iconic.Faustian (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing we need to have the first image because that one, above others, is particularly iconic. I argue that the inkblots in general are iconic of the test. We are discussing the first card because it is the one that is currently in the article and it would be the easiest to move, but if we used another inkblot from the set I wouldn't be opposed. The point both image searches reveal, however, is that inkblots are the predominant image associated with the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't make it correct. The erroneous belief that the test is all about the image leads to outraged, misinformed comments such as "how can child custody be decided by inkblots" that one comes across in various forums involving the test. Indeed, why perpetuate a misconception because it is popular? This is the actually the most realistic image of the Rorschach test that came up: [4]. Either the first image is a realistic depiction fo the test or it is not. If not, it seems arbitrary what you use - an image of the inkblot, a black and white version of the image, H. Rorschach himself. If you want to base the image on sheer popularity, google searches indicate that the nonshaded version seems more popular or iconic than the actual one. If you complain that the more popular nonshaded version is not realistic, though, then you ought to concede than neither such image is a realistric depiction of the test. You can't have it both ways, IMO. Popular "iconic" image = nonshaded version, accurate realistic image = an actual administration of the test or something like that.Faustian (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Upload a good quality such image; either one. I'll be happy to have it at the top of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's place to try and give credibility to the test (I happen to think it is a pile of rubbish, for example) by virtue of shifting public attention to the fact that the test is more than inkblots. Wikipedia's job is to describe the test. The text already goes into detail about the fact that the test is more than inkblots. Inkblots should be used at the top because they are the most visual and the most easily recognized part of the test. If a reader happens to get wrong idea that the test is solely based on the blots, that is due to pre-conceived biases and it is frankly not our problem that the test gets denigrated as a result. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's place is to accurately reflect what the literature says. The literature says that the test is about many things, not just the inkblot, and that the result are based on interpretation, proper administration, etc. So it is our problem if we actively create the article in such a way as to mislead the reader by not following what the literature says and by emphasizing just the inkblot by placing it on top of the article. You have the opinion that the test is rubbish. However, we ought not to spread this opinion (or the converse opinion, or any opinion) and just stick to facts and what the literature says. The literature is quite clear in describing what the test is about. Moreover, your opinion of the test as rubbish is a minority one within the field - perhaps even fringe - as reflected in the scholarly literature. Even the anti-Rorschach zealots led by Lillenfeld et al concede the Rorschach is somewhat useful in differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic individuals.

The fact is that the test is about interpretation, administration, and test materials and emphasizing just the inkblot by placing it on top of the article is an editorial decision that makes the claim that the inkblot image is the most important thing about the test. This would seem to be a violation of the no original research policy. The claim that the image is "iconic" is false because the most common images seem to be nonshaded ones. The claim that it is most recognizable doesn't address the fact that it is also an inaccurate representation. Frankly, if we can't find an acceptable image, I don't understand why any image needs to be on top of the article. A reader will know whether it's the right article or not merely by reading the first sentence: "The Rorschach inkblot test (pronounced IPA: ['ʁoɐʃax]) is a method of psychological evaluation." We do have precedents to go on, btw. On no other psychological tests on wikipedia is there an image at the top of the article. Look at the articles on on numerous other tests such as SAT, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. BTW several tests use cards with images on them, such as the Thematic Apperception Test, the Holtzman Inkblot Test, the Bender-Gestalt Test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. Interestingly, none of them include images on the top of the article; indeed most don't include images at all. Why the exception here?

So, our choices seem to be: follow what the literature says and have either no image on the top of the article or at least one that accurately represents the test, such as an image of two people sitting across from one another with the card held by one of them. Or, go with an allegedly "iconic image" that misleads the reader by emphasizing one aspect of the test. Faustian (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More iconic image, for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned my opinion of the test was to make the point that it isn't Wikipedia's job to push for either direction (that the test is valid or not, and it is therefore not our job to "rectify" the test's standing in public eyes). Since you agree with that, let's move on. I know the literature agrees the test is about much more thank inkblots; I've been conceding this since the beginning. However, as I have kept arguing, there is no picture of those other parts of the test. The inkblots are the test's most visual component and highly iconic ones at that. It isn't an inaccurate representation anymore than the screenshot at the Windows XP article is an inaccurate representation of the OS because Windows contain tons of lines of codes and it is much more than a GUI. We are not putting the image at the top to say "this is the test; this is all there is to it. No need to read the article any further. Go away now." We are putting it to showcase the images most often associated with the test. The idea that the nonshaded ones are the iconic ones are based on two quick google searches, and are focused on the first card of the set (I've already said all blots are equally iconic and any one will do). It seems silly to me that, having agreed to put an inkblot at the top, we should go for a black and white version instead of the real thing. Also, "The Rorschach inkblot test (pronounced IPA: ['ʁoɐʃax]) is a method of psychological evaluation" only lets people know that they've found the test if they already know the name. A lot more people can recognize the test where they show you inkblot pictures than have memorized the name.

Now, in the absence of a guideline from the psychology wikiproject, I can only assume that the lack of pictures on the other test articles are either due to copyrighted images or simply due to them not being as good as they could be. We should strive not to conform to the mediocricy of the other articles, but instead to be better. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you agree that the literature says that the test is about more than the inkblots, the first picture (which I would comapre to the article's lead) which ought to summarize or capture the test should not be about a part of it. It's better to have no picture at all or at least a nuetral one (such as the image of H. Rorschach) than one that sends an inaccurate message - that the inkblot is the most important part of the test.Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My image suggestion was a (rather sarcastic) question, not an agreement, I'm afraid. But I now still suspect your motives here. It seems the "mediocrity" of some articles may be the "scientific complexity" of others. Or do you think that all psychologcal tests are the same and thus should be judged by the same wiki-yardsticks? Striving to inform might involve seeking for, or even, creating new images. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "the scientific complexity" of others? I am afraid I don't understand. No, I don't think all psychological tests are the same. They are obviously based on different ideas, have different purposes, and have different methods. But for their place in wikipedia articles, I think most article are helped by having a good picture at the top whenever possible. I don't know about other articles, but I know that in this one, we already have a good image that we should put at the top. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to draw your attention to the concerns of Ward3001 who obviously feels strongly that the test is `more than the sum of its parts', and certainly more than one of its parts. I recognise that, despite your earlier personal view, you are suggesting an improvement in good faith. It seems ironic, doesn't it, that the one test that has such a recognisable public face generates the most debate about whether that face is a true one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. While I understand Ward3001 concern's, and to some degree agree with them, I still hold the position the change would do more good than potential harm. Tis ironic indeed that such a recognizable face must carry with it such a great dispute, the question being whether it does a disservice to it's body or not. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• As for the unrelated issue of censorship, where does censorship indicate where on a page an image appears? Inclusion/noninclusion are censorship. Location is an editorial choice not having anything to do with censorship. Faustian (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For as long as the claim is being made that the inkblot shouldn't be at the top because it is harmful, the issue of censorship will probably remain in the discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of censorship involves deletion or suppression of information. Since placing an image in a section devoted to that image is neither suppressing nor deleting it, so the word is inapropriate in this context where we are deciding where it best belongs, not whether to remove it.Faustian (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppression. A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test, so the blot will remain undiscovered near the bottom. Furthermore, the only reason the page exist as it is is due to a compromise between people who wanted the inkblot to be the lead image and people who didn't even want the image to be in the article at all, so in a way all this spawns directly from censorship. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that a lot of people won't get further than the top of the article if they don't see a picture of an inkblot, moreover one that they probably won't even be familiar with in the first place (google image only gives that image 11% of the time when one searches under "rorschach inkblot test" and it doesnm't come up at all on the first page of google image "rorschach test".? Reading the sentence isn't enough for them? It seems we ought to fix the first sentence to make it clearer rather than add an image that isn't representative of the test as a whole. Plenty of good articles don't have an image at the top of the article. We shouldn't add an incorrect one just for the sake of having some sort of image there. As for suppression - an image in an appropriate section isn't suppression, unless you believe that, say, anything in a newspaper not on the top of the front page is somehow suppressed and therefore censored. Wes houldn't use the term censored lightlyFaustian (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Google image search for "Rorschach test" gives the original inkblots and/or black and white silhouettes for almost every result on the first page. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of the 18 images on the first page, only two include original inkblots. Three include pure black versions of original inkblots. The rest include "fake" inkblots, "fake" all black inkblots, cartoons, etc. The next page: [5] showed only one original inkblot (on a T-shirt), an all black version, an outlien version, and a black-an-white version of a colored card. This suggests that the original inkblot image is hardly iconic. Actually, the most common image seems to the all-black version, making it most iconic. If the purpose of putting the image first is really to show someone that they're on the right page, that would be the image to place because it seems to be the most common image. But astill it wouldn't be appropriate because it would add undue weight to the inkblots rather than the test, which what the article is about. Frankly, the best image would be this one: [6]. It shows the Rorschach being more or less correctly administered, and shows an inkblot on the card. If the caption could only be changed....

And, again, could you provide any evidence that "A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test"?Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So GoogleImages is our wikiyardstick? Isn't capitalism wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What has a search with GoogleImages to do with capitalism? Anyways, google searches are often good for getting quick ideas about trends (such as the section below about which name to give to this article). It's a good, useful tool. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk)

On this, I agree. And I will largely end on this positive note - I have a rare guest from out of town until next Sunday so will contribute but only sparsely until then....Faustian (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Idea: Okay, how about this? We put the inkblot at the top, but include a caption that makes it clear it is a limited part of the test. For example "The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test, the only visual part of the test" or "The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test. While these inkblots are the image most associated with the test, they are represent only a small part of it's administration" or something similar? That way we still get the most iconic and recognizable picture at the top without giving the impression that it is the most important part of the test. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your idea probably deserves more time than I have right now, but I didn't want to wait a week. Some points (with apologies if they aren't thoguht through much):

1. The need for an iconic image seems to be based on the premise that, as you have said, "A lot of people won't get further than the top of the article without the blot prompt to let them know they've found the test". Do you have evidence supporting this assertion?
2. As we both agree, according to the literature the test is about much more than the inkblot. Placing the inkblot would create an inaccurate impression by emphasizing one aspect of the test. Adding a caveat to the image is certainly an improvement over no caption. However, the bottom line is that you still have an inapropriate image there (albeit one with an explanation at the bottom). To make an anaology, it's like placing a picture of the iconic King Kong on the article about gorillas, and then adding the caption that gorillas are actually much smaller than portrayed in King Kong, are not agressive, etc.
3. Whether or not the inkblot from the actual test is truly iconic is far from clear clear. Indeed, Google image search results seem to indicate that the most iconic image is a nonshaded pure black inkblot rather than the actual from the test: [7]. The ratio of pure black to shaded inkblots is 7:4 - almost twice as many. If we assume that the reader needs an "iconic" inkblot to know that he or she found the right article, then a pure black one needs to be the one at the top of the page, perhaps with a caveat stating that the test is about more than the inkblot, and that this is a pure black version of the inkblot with an actual one displayed in the test material section. However, such a solution would still have the exact same problem that I mentioned in point 2, above and implementing it would still seem to be contingent upon the unproven assertion in point 1.
4. The article is it now stands is the result of carefully worked out compromise over many months of heated discussion. The point is still considered controversial, as evidenced in the article's edit history [8] by the periodic and never-ending deletions of the image even from its current location, such as this change: [9]. This would seem to indicate that there would need to be a major need to change the current format. I don't see that need there, particularly given the problems outlined above (and elsewhere in the discussion by other editors).
5. I do believe you are making a good faith effort to improve the article and do appreciate your effort!
6. That being said, you have stated that you believe that the test is rubbish. This is very far from a mainstream belief. Even the Rorschach's harshest mainstream critics (Lillenfeld) do not go nearly that far. In a conflict about the article content, one would think that proposed changes to the article by someone who admits to a far from mainstream belief about that topic (not meant insultingly, but descriptively) should be scrutinized very carefully. It would be comparable to someone who admits to being a follower of the intelligent design theory wanting to make good faith changes against previously held consensus on the Darwinian theory article.

With all this in mind, it seems to me that it's better to just leave the article as it is. The best alternative would be to put in a purely accurate image (which no one has yet created) of two people sitting acrioss from one another, one of whom is holding up a card with an inkblot image on it (which would at least cover 2 of three main elements of the test and would at least show that the test isn't just about inkblots), or have no image on the top of the article.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is only natural to make the lead picture of the subject of the article. Not sure why there is any question. Chillum 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is why the inkblot ought not be the lead picture, as it is not the subject of the article but the test is, of which the inkblot is only a part (as has been discussed quite a lot lately). A seperate article can be made about the inkblots, how they were created, etc. The image would be appropriate at the top of that article. But not this one, which is about the test. Faustian (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, we show a picture of the front of a Dog as the lead even though that is not the whole dog. That argument makes no sense. I certainly don't think the picture of the creator shows the whole test. That argument is very weak to me. It is part of the test, if you can show another part of the test we can show a picture of then let me know. Your arguments lacks a reason why we should not use that image. Chillum 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you assume that people will assume that a dog consists only of its front if that is what is pictured? The image of the creator shows the image of the man who made the test and after whom the test is named. To use a precedent, the article on Darwinism has an image of Darwin at the top. And it at least doesn't convey an inaccurate meaning. Faustian (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No more than someone will assume the card is the whole test. The caption can clear that up. I really can't understand your point. Chillum 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reread all points above. A caption to clear things up seems like a poor way of compensating for an inapropriate image. It would be the equivalent of, say, posting an image of Cerberus at the top of the article for dog and then adding a caption, "Actual dogs only have one, not three, heads." Or on the article for dog, placing a picture of its paw at the top and then writing about what the rest of the dog looks like. The image of Rorschach at the top of the test that he created and after whom the test is named is no more copntroversial than the image of Darwin at the top of the article about Darwinism, or Albert Einstein at the top of the article on the Annus Mirabilis papers which he wrote.

If you read the top of the this talk page, the current version is the result of carefully arrived at consensus to avoid all sorts of edit warring etc. by people with various opinions. It would seem that there should be something seriously wrong with the way the article is now, or fantastically right about the proposed change, to justify making such a change. Enough flaws exist in the proposed change to suggest that it's not worth making it.Faustian (talk)

The idea that having an inkblot at the top makes readers think the test is only about inkblots still makes no sense. Also, we are not here to avoid editwars, but to create the best article possible. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It overemphasizes the importance of the inkblots. I agree we are not here to avoid edit wars but to make the best article possible. The problem is that editors disagree about how to do that. This is why we edit collaboratively and, yes, make compromises. Because my idea of best is not the same as yours. Here we have an article about a psychological test. Hopefully the opinions of actual psychologists are taken into account in the article's form.Faustian (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Support Chillum on this point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the test is showing inkblots (10 of them?) and interpreting the results from answers given. If the test had multiple sections, some of which included inkblots and some that didn't, then I'd understand the argument, but the image is shown, and the result is read, all in short succession [right?]. The article is about the test not the creator of the test. The blot is a better representation of the test than an image of the creator. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The materials include the cards with inkblots, writing instruments (some psychologists use recording devices), etc. The test is not completed in short succession - analysis is a careful and time-consuming process, which takes up far more time than does the administration, and is really the most important part of the test. Your comments, above, are an example of the sort of misconceptions and inaccuracies that are spread by emphasizing the inkblots themselves by placing them on top of the article. Wikipedia shouldn't be int he business of spreading inaccuracies, even if they seem to be widely held by nonexperts. In contrast, the image of Rorschach does not lead to any misconceptions.Faustian (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly fun to see such a spirited discussion about such a simple question! I have a potential solution - While it is undisputed that the image of an inkblot is tightly associated with the Rorschach test (inkbot section), there are a number of arguments against featuring an actual "inkblot" on this page. First, I will iterate the main arguments against featuring an inkblot image:

• The APA thinks it may affect testing results
• It gives the wrong idea about the content of the test - letting readers instantly think that the test is solely about inkblot images
• It is not iconic of the test itself, only a portion of the test

With this in mind, my proposed solution is to show a set of images that may make the content of the test more obvious. While I am not sure what images would be used, one image cound certainly be an inkblot, and others related to other parts of the test. This would allow readers to quickly grasp that the inkblot is part of the test, but not the test in its entirety. As for the APA, respecting their request not to feature an inkblot should be considered, but I would fathom that the outcome of a more indepth discussion about respecting the APA's wishes would lead to - "inkblot images have been shown before in public media, and are closely associated with this test. Due to this, a single inkblot image will be used, to help the content of the test be identified quickly by users browsing Wikipedia." 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Accurate, but wouldn't a set of images at the top just leave it cluttered? Isn't it just simpler to have each image in its appropriate location within the article?Faustian (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true, clutter could pose a problem. Perhaps a simplified flow chart showing the process of the test with images would be more appropriate than just a simple set. This would allow each image to be shown in context with how it fits into the testing process. This would be more of a "center page" item, rather than a simple image on the side. If the image on the side is preferred, then an easy solution would be to have images in a column on the side of the page, ordered according to the flow of the contents of the article. This would minimize clutter and still give a clear "visual index" to the article, hilighting all parts of the article (and thus the test). 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten a good reason why the image of just one inkblot is in any way misrepresentative. I have heard it said a few times, but it has not been explained why. Faustian can you explain why the picture is not appropriate other that it not being "the whole test"? I didn't know what the ink blots looked like, that is why I looked this article up. Please don't say that the test involves more than inkblots, I know, but it does contain inkblots. I don't see any concern that people will think that the picture of the creator will lead people to think that is what the test looks like. I really can't make sense of the arguments against this. Chillum 13:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you looked up this article you would find the image in the apporopriate section, about the test materials. The issue here isn't whether or not the image is here, but where it ought to be. I also think that you have a somewhat mistaken impression of what the Rorschach test is about. Let me try to clarify this; forgive me if I'm not clear enough. You are correct that the blots are part of the test. However they are a lesser part than what you seem to imply them to be in your reasoning. According to the literature, the test is about much more than the inkblot. Indeed, a much larger amount of time is spent on test analysis and interpretation, using algorhythms based on 10,000s of responses, than is spent on the inkblots. This is because the focus of the test is the subject's perception, not the inkblots! This is a hugely important point. Placing the inkblot at the top of the article would create a grossly inaccurate impression of what the test is about by emphasizing one aspect of the test (and moreover one not central to what the test is all about). The inkblots are essential to be sure - the test can't be done without them (which is why compromising them should not be done lightly) - but they are not what the test is all about, no more than a paper and pencil or computer are what the SAT is all about, or wheels or what a car is all about, etc. The very fact that you see those images as apparently so central to the test that you feel they belong in the lead or top of the article suggests that this point isn't as clear as it ought to be. We shouldn't support this lack of clarity further by putting the image on top of the article.

It's also important to note that the article as it now stands is the result of carefully worked out compromise over many months of heated discussion which can be read in the archives. Some editors felt strongly that the image ought not be included at all, others that readers should be given the choice of whether or not to view it by hiding it and requiring a click to see it (my preference). The point is still controversial, as evidenced in the article's edit history [10] by the periodic and never-ending deletions of the image even from its current location, such as this change: [11], although prior tot he compromise the problem was worse. A delicate balance has been struck, in which the image was placed in the appropriate section (test materials). While not everyone thought this was ideal, consensus was nearly universal that it was at least acceptable. Collaborating and compromising is an important part of the wikipedia project, right? It would seem to me that there would need to be a major need to change the current format. Given the issues described above, I don't see that need there. I don't think that by any standards having the image in the "test meterials section" is such a horrible thing that it ought to be moved against longstanding consensus and against the objection of several editors (moreover, editors who happen to be the ones most knowledgable about the subject, but I suppose that's another point).

I am busy with RL issues this week (out of town vistors) and may not continue this conversation for a few more days, but please let me know if I can add further clarification!Faustian (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is one opinion. I am not convinced though. I am going to go through this page and its archives and see if your opinion is shared by others. Chillum 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, consensus can change. Just because a compromise was worked out before does not mean it is the perfect solution. We can still change that decision. Chillum 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do read the archives carefully so we don't have to repeat the same points again and again, as Faustian and I have had to do several times above. And of course consensus can change, but thus far it has not. Ward3001 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

section break

Thank you for the summary Faustian. Obviously it would be ideal if everyone was up to speed, but conservatively there have been over 30,000 words written on the topic, not including Archives 3 and 4 (I gave up counting). Let me ask one more points of clarification on the RfC. Is this RfC asking to decide the issue of whether there should be an image (or whether it should be hidden), or simply the issue of what the top picture should be?

Image choice issues are all the rage on RfC these days, so this is a wide concern. Shadowjams (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue, as I see it, is whether the image should remain where it is currently (adjacent to "Test materials") or at the top of the page. I don't think there's much disagreement in this RfC about the choice of images, just location. Ward3001 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is about whether the image should remain in the Test materials section or whether it should replace the Rorschach picture as the lead image. The reason the idea of not having a picture at all keeps being brought up is partly, I think, because some editors still have reservations about showing the picture at all, and partly because it's current placement (and thus the previous consensus) was arrived as a compromise between editors who wanted the image at the top and editors who did not want the image to appear at all. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're stating (directly or by implication) that those of us who have opposed including the image at all in the past are pushing to have it removed altogether in this RfC, you are wrong, and (if you are) I challenge you to point out any comments we have made in this RfC advocating removal of the image. This issue is contentious enough already without having false accusations created out of thin air. The tactic in debate style of trying to discredit your opponent by falsely representing their point of view and then arguing against it may be effective in some situations, but not here. If you are not making this implication, please clarify because that's certainly how it is expressed. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Ward3001, that is not what I meant and I apologize that it came out that way. What I meant was that some editor's opinion that the image should not be included at all were influencing their decisions because, in that case, they might see the issue as one of choosing between not having an image at all and having the image at the top of the page, in which case the current version is somewhat middle of the road and acceptable, instead of seeing it (as was stated in the RfC) as a choice between the image of Rorschach and the image of the inkblot at the top. So it keeps being brought up as a "we didn't even want the image in the first place, so it's current position represents a big compromise already" when I think some other editors (including me) are working from the assumption that the inkblot on the test page is the starting point and moving it to the top is the change sought. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You articulated the point very well. The dangerous with assuming that the current version is the "starting point" is that it sets up a situation that ultimately and inevitably leads to the lack of compromise. On this article, for example, my preference was for the image to be hidden and to require a click to see it, which is how the aticle looked for a while until about a year ago (?). Others wanted no image at all, or a simulated version of the image rather than the real one. However after long and difficult discussion we all settled with an acceptable compromise, the current version. Assuming however that this compromise is the starting point sets up a situation where the starting point changes every few months until ultimately we have the majority's version completely, with no compromise with the minority. This seems to subvert the wikipedia policy on consensus which is all about reaching an acceptable compromise for good-faith editors with various points of view.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the inkblot image as the first one. It's iconic, and it is the image a user would most expect to see. The caption can be used to direct the reader away from misconceptions... but I think that whole exercise is somewhat ill-informed: Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs, it's just a place to convey basic information. Surely, the best way to remove misconceptions is to get the reader interested in reading the entire article, and the best way to do that is to make it clear the reader is at the right article (by starting with the inkblot image) and then encouraging them to read it by not having a preachy caption. This is not an article about Rorschach the man, also -- so an image of him first seems rather out of place, given that we have a more natural choice. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's iconic": Iconic of what? Of an inkblot? OK, correct. Iconic of the test? No, you're wrong, as has been explained in much of the preceding discussion.

"This is not an article about Rorschach the man": It's also not an article about inkblots. It's an article about a test. See all of the discussion above. Ward3001 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read the discussion above. It is the natural image to represent the test. I know test is more than the blot. But it does a good job visually representing the test, much better than a portrait of Rorschach. Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. And again, please read all of the above. H. Rorschach is a better representation of the entirety of a the test than an inkblot. If you disagree, please tell us specifically which parts of the test (and H. Rorschach developed most of them) are more or less important than an inkblot. Name each aspect of the test, and tell us whether it is more or less important than inkblots. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward, you don't seem to get it. We have read the discussion. It is not that we are unaware of your point of view, it is that we don't agree with it. You can't start giving pop quizzes to qualify who is entitled to an opinion and who is not. The inkblot is part of the test, Dr. Rorschach is not part of the test. We can't show a picture of the whole test, so we want to show a picture of one of the more visual parts of the test. You have not really addressed the points of others, rather just repeated your point while insisting others don't understand. Chillum 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem that you or Mangojuice gets it. I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify specifically which parts of the test are more or less important than inkblots, and no one has even attempted to present that information. How can you argue that the person who developed most aspects of the test isn't a better representation of the test than one part of the test if you fail to explain why inkblots are the most important? So again. Name specifically the parts of the test that are more important than inkblots, and name the parts that are less important than inkblots. Without giving that rationale for the inkblots being the best representation of the test (more so than anything else), how can you possibly say that inkblots better represent the test than H. Rorschach. So for about the fourth time, please give details about what is more and less important than inkblots. It's not a pop quiz about who can give an opinion. It's a request for an explanation of your fundamental argument: inklbots are the best representation of the test. Anyone can express an opinion. But it seems that no one seems to be able to explain the basis for your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is you have not succeeded in convincing the community of your point of view. You cannot fix that by declaring they don't get it, or by setting your own arbitrary challenges that people must pass before they can have a say. There just is not much support for your point of view. Chillum 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem obsessed with your false assumption that I am arguing against others' being able to express an opinion, let me try to simplify. I did not say others don't "have a say". I have not presented a "pop quiz" for expressing opinions. I have asked for facts to back up others' arguments. Even more simply: anyone can express an opinion at any time. No one has responded to my request for facts. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end, Ward, no Wikipedia policy is going to mandate either outcome. It comes down to consensus. The purpose of an RFC is to gather input from the broader community in order to gauge consensus. I've explained myself already, there's nothing more behind the opinion than this. I understand your argument that the inkblot is an imperfect representation, I even agree that the inkblot is not a perfect illustration of the test. I just disagree with your opinion that the imperfection of this image means we should use the portrait instead. You think it's better, I think it's worse. I can respect that you disagree, please extend me the same courtesy. Mangojuice^talk 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. Could you point out in my words where I indicated that you don't have a right to disagree? So far I've been told that I tried to give a pop quiz that editors must pass to express an opinion (show that one to me also), that I have said others "don't have a say' (I can't seem to find that one either, if someone could help me find it please), and now that I don't respect anyone's right to disagree. Geez, I seem to be missing a lot, so I'd appreciate if you'd quote my words in which I say all of these things. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of discussion

I have just taken stock of this discussion and it seems to me that Ward3001 and Faustian don't think the image should be at the top. Jaimeastorga2000, Apoc2400, Garycompugeek, Chillum, Shadowjams and of course Mangojuice all seem to disagree with those two. I think it is clear that consensus is in favor of the image being at the top. While Ward and Faustian have produced volumes of text on the subject, they have failed to convince the community of their arguments. We should move the image to the top and put the picture of the creator down below. Chillum 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum again is misrepresenting opinions. He has omitted Martinevans123. Ward3001 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop tossing around nonsense accusations and assume some good faith buddy. If I didn't mention certain people it is because their position is not so easily summed up, not because I am trying to "misrepresent" anything. You are welcome to point out anything I have missed but don't start throwing around baseless accusations of bad faith. No reason to make the argument about anything but the issues at hand. Chillum 03:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Martinevans123's position clearly opposes placing the image at the top (if you disagree, give a link to his comments to the contrary). I assumed good faith the first time you misrepresented his opinion by placing him on the wrong side of the issue. The good faith becomes tarnished when you leave him out altogether. Now that you have misrepresented him a third time, I must assume either you did not read his commnents, do not understand his comments, or are purposefully omitting him. (And by the way, a false accusation of not assuming good faith is in itself an assumption of bad faith.) Ward3001 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to be baited into making this discussion about you or me. The discussion is about the tests and the picture. Please don't use ad hominem arguments as they do not move the discussion forward one bit. Seriously man, I removed an honest mistake that you objected to and now you are jumping down my throat for that? Your points would be served better by trying to convince others of your position than by trying to tarnish me. Chillum 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Baited??? That's a complete cop-out over a critical issue: What opinion has Martinevans123 expressed on this issue? This is more than a simple error. It's either three errors, two of which you fail to acknowledge, or it's purposeful misrepresentation. And now, rather than backing up your claims, you completly sidetrack the issue by saying that you are being "baited". I'm asking for some simple evidence about a critical piece of information that you have misrepresented, not once, not twice, but three times. I can accept that the first one was an honest mistake. But then you removed his opinion altogether. Then you claimed his "position is not so easily summed up." I'm saying that Martinevans123 has clearly and consistently opposed placement of the image at the top of the page. This whole matter can be cleared very easily if you will simply give us the diffs in which Martinevans123 expresses any opinion to the contrary. If you can't do that, then who is "jumping down" who's "throat"? You attacked me for not assuming good faith, but you have made no effort to point out where I am wrong. Ward3001 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - you may be right when you say that my "position is not so easily summed up" but Ward3001 is also quite right when he says that I have opposed placement of the image at the top of the page, and you do not seem to have read the extensive debate that occurred last year and which I think may now have been archived. I have opposed an image, anywhere, all along. I suggested a fake image, but this is apparently deemed to be both orignal research and censorship. My basic gripe is this - just becuase an image is freely available elsewhere does not mean that wikipedia has to use it directly in this article. But my more detailed gripes have to do with the use of "scientific evidence" and the misuse of test materials. I think both you and Ward3001 are arguing in good faith, but I respectfully ask that you look at the complete histoy of this debate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinevans123, for confirming what was more than obvious to most of us. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[back to 6 May 2009]:

Hold your horses. First of all, consensus is not determined by majority votes. Secondly, you failed to factor in all the discussion in the archives. Thirdly, it's too early to declare a consensus. Sometimes consensus takes longer than a few days, and this is a very contentious issue. There is not time limit for conensus. Your declaration of consensus at this point is premature. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not counting votes, I am saying you have failed to convince the community of your point of view. Secondly, consensus can change so archives are merely a reference point for future decisions. Thirdly, too early? This has been going on since December and there are no more supporters of your point of view now as there was then. Just accept that you have not achieved your goal of convincing us of your beliefs. You can continue to argue your point of view. Right now the consensus is that the image goes at the top, if you can change that consensus then we can change the page. Chillum 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"I am not counting votes": You did a good job of naming everyone and their position, clearly making it easy for anyone to conclude the number of votes.

"This has been going on since December": Would you care to tell us the specific date in December 2008 when this RfC was posted, because what we're doing here is responding to the RfC. I don't remember this RfC being up five months ago. If you want to count the amount of time, count the years of archives. But, of course, then you would have to consider the opinions in the archives.

"there are no more supporters of your point of view now as there was then: Counting votes again.

"archives are merely a reference point for future decisions": A reference point that you have failed to consider.

"Right now the consensus is that the image goes at the top": Right now there is no consensus.

"Just accept that you have not achieved your goal": Just accept that you're not declaring a consensus right now. Ward3001 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made this section into a thread of its own. I don't want it to seem like the footer to the discussion. I think that there is no problem with the discussion continuing. That is the nature of WP:CCC. If in the future consensus changes, then the page will change with it. While I disagree with Ward and Faustian I do appreciate contrary points of view. Chillum 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears we are going into itemized discussion mode.

I listed the people involved to demonstrate the people involve. At the very top of the page you can see yourself and Faustian arguing this point on Dec 16th. Since Dec 16th not one person has been convinced of this point of view, rather numerous people came out to disagree.

See the top of the page, discussion is not limited to RFCs.

Care to show me who you have swayed?

I have been involved in this debate for about 2 years, we probably have not overlapped much because my time here is a bit further back in the archives and under another username. I assure you I have considered this.

There is a consensus, two people can't hold back what everyone else thinks it the correct way to go.

If you think that I have misinterpreted consensus lets both wait 2 days and come back and see what other people think. If you agree to this I will revert my change to the page until others can weight in(in the spirit of fairness).

Also, lets not talk in itemized lists anymore, it is difficult and not natural to me. Chillum 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem with someone who jumps the gun in declaring consensus and is hellbent on vote-counting: inevitably, important information is overlooked. And you, Chillum, have overlooked something. Did you bother to consider the opinion of Martinevans123? Apparently not, because you took it upon yourself to declare consensus after incorrectly counting the votes. Look closely at all of the above discussion, rather than just glancing at it and jumping to a conclusion based on your preconceived ideas. Martinevans123 is a legitimate editor; he expressed legitimate opinions. And those opinions happened to favor leaving the image in its proper place with "Test materials", despite your placing him as favoring the position that you prefer. I'll assume good faith, but please read before tell us who favors what. If you can't even count the votes correctly, how can you declare consensus based on vote-counting. As of right now, there is no consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets both wait a couple days and see what other people think. Chillum 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll wait long enough for consensus. If that's 2 days, fine. If it's more than 2 days, that's the way it will be. And please move Martinevans123 to the appropriate place in your analysis above. I don't think you are entitled to misrepresent his opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's review what consensus really means: Wikipedia:Consensus. It is not about majority vote: "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." It is all about compromise: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." As has been noted and seen in the archives, there have been many approaches taken to the inkblot images. Some editors have felt that they shouldn't be here at all and that the articles should only include simulations (and such editors have created simulations), others (such as I) have wanted to have the image hidden, requiring a click to open and view it, thereby giving the reader the choice about whether or not to see it, while others have wanted the image on the top, unhidden. The present version was arrived at through compromise; it was a mutually derived version. Such a compromise was a good example of the collaborative nature of wikiepdia editing. What has changed since then? The number of people espousing particular opinions about what to do with the image seems to be at a similar ratio. But now, rather than compromise, it seems that someone has decided that the majority simply dictates what happens. That's the real change. And it is contrary to wikipedia's consensus policy. We are all editting in good faith here, we had a compromise version arrived at through mutual good-faith efforts by people with different opinions, are there any arguments compelling enough to overturn that?

The other piece I will add is that Ward and I seem to be the only ones involved in this discussion who have actually contributed referenced content to the article and that are most familiar with the test (I choose to contribute anonynmously but would be happy to verify my credentials privately with an admin if that's an issue). While I certainly don't suggest that this means we own the article, I do state that the situation of potentially completely throwing out the opinion of the minority in favor of the majority would also mean throwing out the opinions of the only people involved in this discussion, who are actually experts in the test and who have actually made content contributuions to the article. Dismissing us as "two persistent editors" on the edit summary...we are persistent because we know and care about the topic. Is there something wrong with that? Shouldn't people knowledgable in the field be ones whose opinions mean something, rather than ones whose opinions are simply rejected because they're outvoted 2 to 6 and some of the 6 don't compromise?Faustian (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong with holding your opinions as the only ones that mean something; the whole purpose of an RFC is to gather a wider array of opinions from uninvolved people. In fact, the alternate view may be just as good: editors heavily involved in a topic may be too close to it to see the issue clearly, and outsiders, above the fray, are better suited to help decide difficult issues. Plus, WP:OWN specifically goes against the idea. It's probably best if we just take everyone's opinion as valid. I see your point about this being all or nothing but the debate seems to be, largely, about whether or not to put the inkblot image at the top. I think we would all agree that the image of Rorschach is better than nothing... so if there's a way to compromise between these views please share it, I don't see one. I suppose this may mean abandoning an older compromise, but consensus can change. Mangojuice^talk 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect to holding one's own opinion as "the only one" please see my comments below which are directed at you as well as at Apoc2400. I can't emphasize enough that this conversation cannot be understand seperately from the context of previous discissions, found in the archives. The current version of the article is a compromise, forged over many months. Consensus hasn't changed - the ratio of for and against is the same as before. We can't just keep moving the goal posts closer to what the amjority wants every few months until eventuially the article reflects the majority's opinion while completely ignoring that of the minority.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not just about counting votes, but it also does not mean that you can ignore anyone you disagree with. If we were sockpuppets or people who were recruited to vote a specific way, then you could ignore us, by we are not. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Ward and I are being ignored (or at least outright rejected). And actually when looking at the previous discussion it seems that Marinevans123 doesn't want the image there at all, much less at the top of the page: [12]. If you recall, my preference is for the image to be hidden and to require a click to be viewed, for reasons we shouldn't get into here (it is discussed plenty in the archives). However after a lomg discussion I was willing to compromise and acqiesce to placing the image in the appropriate test materials section, unhidden. Now it seems some editors want to ignore this compromise and just go with the opposing uncompromised version - the inkblot at the top, unhidden. And if this happens, it violates the policy of consensus because the article doesn't take into account other editors' opinions but ignores them completely. Consensus doesn't mean whittling away at a version until, after a few months, the majority's preference is the one used, with all input from the minority removed. It is compromise. Which is what the present version represents. Consensus can indeed change. Has it in this case? I haven't changed my mind, and neither has Ward. A person who wanted the imagge removed completely and who had engaged in this doscussion int he past doesn't seem to be editting anymore. Nevertheless, the ratio of who prefers which version is pretty similar to what it was before, so where is the change in consensus? Should I go back to my original position? Should Ward argue that there ought not be an image at all? So we can end up at the same compromise? Sorry for editting and compromising in good faith.

Another issue is that editors out there other than just us do not contribute to this specific discussion but do periodically remove the image, as was shown here: [13]. This seems to happen every few weeks, and I suspect if you add them up their number will even things out more. These folks are part of the community too, no? Just because they're not voting and discussing here doesn't mean that their opinion does not matter. Community isn't limited to nine people on the article's discussion page.Faustian (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out: maybe your arguments are being rejected (not you, just your arguments on this one point). Are you saying that because of your involvement on this page, your arguments cannot be rejected? I don't think you're being ignored, though -- if you feel that way I definitely think it's worth rectifying. Mangojuice^talk 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't address tha points I made above, although I do not think I'm being ignored completely, by everyone. However, I feel strongly that the opinion of an editor who has made contributions to an article, and who is an expert in the field about which the article is written (yes, I'm posting anonynmously, but if anyone doubts my claims I'll privately show my credentials, CV, or whatever to an admin), ought not be rejected but should be incorprorated into the article. Please see my earlier comments (here: [14] and above) about the need for consensus and what consensus is all about - compromise.Faustian (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I also am quite willing to provide my credentials privately to an admin, although it appears that the only editors here who care about scientific opinion regarding a scientifically-based article are Faustian, Martinevans123, and myself. If I have omitted anyone, by all means let me know. Ward3001 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Credentials do not matter here Ward. What matters is the opinion of the group of editors who have gathered here. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding Garycompugeek!! Wow! I did not know that credentials don't matter. My goodness, I've been editing here for about four years and it never dawned on me that expert opinion doesn't matter at all on Wikipedia. How could I be so stupid! But wait ... let's see ... let me check to see if I said that credentials matter ... nope, I sure didn't. I see the word "credentials", but I don't see the word "matter" in my edit. I believe if I rememember correctly (and can read what I wrote a couple of lines above), I said that if anyone cares about scientific expertise, Faustin and I can verify that we know something about the Rorschach. But you, Garycompugeek, have made it abundantly clear that the science of the Rorschach has no bearing in your thinking, just what you know from reading a Wikipedia article on the subject. That completely slipped my mind. Thanks for reminding me that science doesn't matter here. For a second there I thought we were talking about an encyclopedia instead of a conglomeration of uninformed opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and share it, but please don't let that cause you to become less civil.Faustian (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum once again is misrepresenting opinions. Now he has omitted Martinevans123 altogether. I assumed good faith when Chillum stated Martinevans123's opinion contrary to what it actually is. With this omission, however, the likelihood of good faith is damaged. My personal opinion is that Chillum decided what he wanted the outcome of the consensus to be and is trying to declare consensus before it is achieved. He tried to push through his version regardless of others' opinions, first by placing Martinevans123 on the incorrect side, then changing the article without proper consensus, and now omitting Martinevans123's opinion altogether. If, however, Chillum acted in good faith and made two mistakes in determining the weight of opinions, I think at the very least it tells us that his bias renders him ineffective as the person to declare consensus here. We have not achieved consensus, with or without deception. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say consensus in this matter has changed (it has been talked up and down) to show the ink blot on top of the page (and maybe move Herman's picture to history section) and would say that a majority of us feel this way. I respect everyone's opinion who has commented on the matter regardless of whether or not I agree with you. I am moving both pictures but will not edit war and revert this change. The next step would be arbitration but before anyone goes there think on this... if you cannot convince us then I doubt they will prove different for this seems an unbiased group of seasoned editors. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How has consensus changed? As I've noted (and for some reason everyone basically ignored my comments) consensus isn't about a straight vote but about compromise and fitting in numerous editors' opinions. How has that changed? The ratio of what people in this disucssion page want seems to be about the same as it was a few months ago. Some people want the image at the top/front of the article, one editor wants it gone completely (Martinevans123), another would prefer that it be hidden (me), and I've not sure what Ward's ideal is but cleaely it isn't the majority's. In addition, judging by the edit history, a bunch of editors out there not contributing to this discussion want the image removed completely. So what has changed since then? The fact that the majority of people on the discussion have a preference for it one way hasn't changed; that was always the majority. Have we decided to abandon wikipedia policy on consensus and just take it to mean majority decides everything, no compromise and collaboration necessary?Faustian (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What we need to do here is bring in more outside opinions, rather than argue about the precise level of consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, although I'm not quite sure what you mean by outside opinions. Do you mean other Wikipedia editors? If so, I generally would favor extending the RfC and possibly rewording it. I don't mean that it is poorly worded now, but possibly a mention that one side of the issue sees the image as "iconic" of the test and easily recognizable (or however that side wishes to word it), and another side sees the image of the inkblot as an overemphasis on one small aspect of a test that is scientifically grounded in much more than inkblots (I'm not pushing those exact words, but maybe we could at least agree on some form of rewording that might bring in a wider range of editors). If, on the other hand, by outside opinions you mean psychologists or others knowledgeable about the test, as much as I would love to see other psychologists' opinion, I'm not sure it would change any minds. But I could be wrong. Perhaps if a few more psychologists weighed in it might bring about a firm consensus. My two cents. Ward3001 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. My first thought was that if it's about the test, then the inkblot image is the one to use. If this was an article about the man himself, a biography, then the obvious image to use is of the man. In a biography you would surely use an image of an inkblot somewhere, and in skimming the discussion I gather that one image is considered by some to be iconic? I would guess this would be the butterfly one? Well they all look like butterflys! There can be no argument that a biography would use a portrait image, conversely then an article about the inkblot is about the inkblot, so better show an image of one of those please. Use a portrait later on. Why not have both images in the article? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"There can be no argument that ... an article about the inkblot is about the inkblot": Two glaring problems with this comment that are more than a little obvious if you read the entire discussion. First, the extensive discussion here quite easily refutes the idea that "there can be no argument". Secondly, for about the twentieth time, this is NOT an article about an inkblot. It is an article about a test. Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So you keep saying however the general public seems to feel that the iconic ink blot image best represents the rorschach test article. Even when editors come late to the party and read all of the discussion they have not been convinced of your argument. As it stands we have three editors who didn't want the image to be shown at all to now not want it to be the lead image because "the article is about the test not the inkblot" (an instrumental, easily visible, part of the test). Garycompugeek (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, a correction, Garycompugeek. We have LOTS of editors who have removed the image. Look at the edit history over the past few years. Secondly, I don't believe you know any better than I do whether this "editor who comes late to the party" actually "read all of the discussion". You assume too much, but that is not surprising in the least. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Spare me your assumption of bad faith. I am well aware that many editors have come here trying to remove the image. They are a minority overall. My point remains, since the discussion has started, no one has bought your argument. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Ward's argument was for sale. Does investment count as part ownership? Surely previous editors, now archived, agreed with Ward's arguments? How long does a discussion last? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All that matters is the here and the now or consensus would never change unless someone from the past came back to change their position. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that you are in the majority and I have laid out false claims of support? Come now. The three of you have tried admirably to convince others to your position and failed. I admire your zest and passions but unless new arguments are brought to bare consensus in this matter has changed and the ink blot image will be moved to the top of the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe in my arguments, not in whether or not I am in the minority or the majority. I have seen nothing that persuades me that the image should be shown. But Ward, and others, have made a number of very sound arguments for why the image should not be shown at the top and I support them in those. I also believe that good arguments continue to exist even though they may not be constantly repeated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, who are your "three editors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Do you dispute that number? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It matters to me, if I am included. But I'd guess the veracity of that number may matter to other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am including you unless you wish to change your position. I am also including Ward and Faustian. You are welcome. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"now"? I don't want it to be lead image because I don't want it here at all. I haven't changed my position to now wanting it to be a non lead image. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive's missing

Could somone with more wikitech sophistication than I have please fix the links to the archives. Right now they don't work. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been moved or deleted. An admin or someone with rollback should be able to retieve them. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not deleted. They're at Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1, Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2, and Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3. It appears they just need to be renamed. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You've found them and I've repaired the links. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

fyi I've moved these to a subpage of this page, leaving redirects behind. –xeno^talk 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• First, I must apologize for dropping an additional 106 kb onto this page (not counting the 33kb generated thus far in #The discussion). Together that means the page is 437k. Would it be OK if we archived at least everything above this point? (There's nothing newer than 21 May 2009). –xeno^talk 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've been bold and archived some threads, leaving the headings in place with a pointer to where they went, reducing the size of this page from 335k to 171k. Hope that's ok. This is to make it a bit easier on people who may come here to discuss after I notify them they've been mentioned in the review. If you need to continue one of the discussions that was archived, perhaps copy the comment to which you are replying back here, and continue from there. –xeno^talk 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Consensus?

We are proposing changes allegedly based on a shift in consensus, yet there has been no clear discussion on what consensus means and no detailed discussion of it when I mentioned it earlier. Since my earlier mention has been buried in a discussion, I'll repost it here in homes we can have a conversation limited to this topic:

Let's review what consensus really means: Wikipedia:Consensus. It is not about majority vote: "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." It is all about compromise: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." As has been noted and seen in the archives, there have been many approaches taken to the inkblot images. Some editors have felt that they shouldn't be here at all and that the articles should only include simulations (and such editors have created simulations), others (such as I) have wanted to have the image hidden, requiring a click to open and view it, thereby giving the reader the choice about whether or not to see it, while others have wanted the image on the top, unhidden. The present version was arrived at through compromise; it was a mutually derived version. Such a compromise was a good example of the collaborative nature of wikipedia editting. What has changed since then? The number of people espousing particular opinions about what to do with the image seems to be at a similar ratio; it seems that the various opinions of what is "ideal" are exactly the same as they were before. A majority wanted the image to be presented one way; a significant minority disagreed strongly. Working together, we made a compromise that was acceptable to all. But now, rather than compromise, it seems that someone has decided that the majority simply dictates what happens. That's the real change. And it is contrary to wikipedia's consensus policy. We are all editting in good faith here, we had a compromise version arrived at through mutual good-faith efforts by people with different opinions.Faustian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have some kind of compromise to propose, go ahead. Because it seems to me that your position is that since you have already compromised, you are opposed to compromising any further, despite the clear feedback from the broader community. Myself, I have a hard time thinking of how to compromise between having an inkblot image at the top of the article and not having it there. You're right, this isn't a vote. But you two proclaim yourselves to be experts on this subject and yet have been unable to provide a convincing argument for your point of view. I don't mean that in an absolute sense, I mean it empirically: your arguments have not been convincing. In the end, when there's a decision to be made that is binary, the minority has the right to be listened to, but at some point will have to accept that they are in the minority and the community wants things another way. In other words, yes, majority does rule, in the end of it all, but no, that doesn't mean Wikipedia operates by voting. If this debate isn't over, please tell me where the debate is going to go that's new, because otherwise we just go around in circles and get hung up endlessly on this issue. Mangojuice^talk 06:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "compromising further?" Does that mean that, according to you, the minority must "compromise further" every couple of months until, eventually, there is no compromise left at all but the article purely reflects what the majority wants? That process would seem to violate wikipedia policy with respect to compromise as outlined above. The only reason that the choice is presently binary is that we have compromised to the point where the final step now seems to be that either the majority gets its way 100% (no compromise) or the article stays the way it is, which is the compromise version. If you look at the article history, you will see that originally there was no image. Then there was a simulated (fake) image. Then there was a black and white version of the real image. Then the real image, but hidden (requiring a click to see it). Finally this version. Every time there was a compromise with the majority until we've gotten to the point where the only thing left to do is ignore the minority's opinion entirely. Wikipedia policy is clear: Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." It is all about compromise: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." By gradually changing the starting point little by little were are reducing "consensus" to purely majority vote, i.e. clearly violating wikipedia policy.Faustian (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To add a point: one other editor has decided that it's better not to have any image. Coming back to this heading, consensus - the minority have failed to convince the majority (and likewise the majority have failed to change the views of the minority). This is not in doubt. SO what do we do with this fact? Do we follow wikipedia consensus policy and stick with the compromise already in place, or do we ignore the policy and just go with majority vote.Faustian (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia policy dictates that the previous version was consensus should remain until the minority is convinced. I think we go with the majority version, which is not "a vote" nor is it "ignoring policy." I looked back through the archives: what was basically under discussion was whether or not to directly display the inkblot image. Is there really that big of a difference to you between having it at the top and having it at the bottom? If it's in the article, people will get exposed to it. Instead you've picked a bad style argument that doesn't convince anyone to suggest that the image should not be on top. If I'm understanding you, it's really the issue of exposing people to the image that you have a problem with, but that debate has been settled and you didn't prevail. This just feels like sour grapes, frankly. You should realize that this is still a compromise, after all, we are only showing one of the blots. Mangojuice^talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not better to ask about this on the consensus page? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems applicable here. Unless you mean you want a discussion about possibly changing wikipedia policy on consensus to mean strictly majority vote. Are the experts, specifically, on consensus policy whom we can turn to in this case?Faustian (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that there should be an inkblot at the top of the page, as that is the most iconic image people have of the test. However, to address the concerns raised, can't it just be any old ink blot? I can make an inkblot, scan it, and upload it. Would that satisfy everyone? LK (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading over the archives to understand this compromise Faustian refers to. Basically, my summary is that there has been a long-standing dispute over whether to include the inkblot images. Proposals to use a substitute image or an "outline" of one of the blots have consistently been rejected because such images are not relevant to the article to nearly the same degree (any more than, say, having a picture of some other car on the Honda Accord page, to repeat an argument from the archives). Sure, I think we can all see it would be better than nothing, but frankly, nothing is not on the table any more. Mangojuice^talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it's not on the table anymore is that I and others agreed to compromise and accept placing it in the test materials section (which is the most appropriate section anyways). We can reargue this again and end up with the current version as a compromise, or we can just leave the current version as it is. What I object to is using every compromise as a new "starting point" which necessitates a new compromise that becomes closer to what the majority wants. Eventually, after a series of "new compromises" every few months this approach will take us to the point where the final result is 100% what the majority demands with no compromise to the minority at all. And clearly this final result violates wikipedia policy on consensus.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not on the table because it's incompatible with Wikipedia's core principles to not include the image. What actually happened during the discussion is barely relevant -- how the discussion played out here does not actually explain why the decision went that way. The more independent, established Wikipedia editors commented, the more clear it was that the community believes strongly in the principle of no censorship and views this as no exception to that principle. The fact that eventually, a user came up with a compromise because they had been worn down by unending debate and demands does not mean that everyone agreed on the outcome. Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mango, I for one was certainly "worn down by unending debate", which, unsurprisingly, srill shows no sign of ending. That's why I went along with what I thought was a compromise, but now seems to be the new norm. I think LK's idea about using the most popular fake Google image may not be such a bad one. Although using a completely novel one seems much better. If you have a few basic materials (I seem to remember from my early school days), it takes about 30 seconds to make one, and then a few more minutes for the ink to dry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

A thought just struck me - the name "Rorschach Test" is used much more often than "Rorschach Inkblot Test" professionally and in the literature. Google results for "Rorschach Test" show 480,000 hits [15] and for "Rorschach Inkblot test" only 36,900 [16]. Google scholar shows 14,600 for "Rorschach test" [17]and only 1,200 for "Rorschach Inkblot Test" [18]. Google books shows about 5,000 for "Rorschach Test" [19] but only 825 for "Rorschach Inkblot Test" [20]. Since "Rorschach Test" is used many times more often than "Rorschach Inkblot Test" in general usage, scholarly usage, and in printed books, doesn't it make sense for the wikipedia article to follow this and therfore for the article to be appropriately named "Rorschach Test"?Faustian (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the numbers, I agree. Let's move this article to "Rorschach test." Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. All the agreeing gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Faustian I give you the honors since this was your idea. I think I speak for all of us when I say "Make it so". Garycompugeek (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! It's nice to agree for a change!Faustian (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and much healthier, thankyou. Why does this get the small t and the band get the big T? Maybe that's just trivial (with a small t). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin I assume your referring to test not being capitalized in the title? It is per WP:NAME. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was, as in Thematic Apperception Test and Holtzman Inkblot Test? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...At first glance I would say they are incorrect and should be changed per aforementioned policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, like MMPi, perhaps?

They all appear wrong and I have posted notices, Thanks. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have assumed that such tests as MMPI carried some kind of legal protection as registered Brand names or Trademarks which extended into the wikisphere. Who knows, maybe they are considering litigation already. Unlike poor old Herman of course. Isn't capitalism wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to be the exception. If a title is always capitalized then so do we. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive's missing

Could somone with more wikitech sophistication than I have please fix the links to the archives. Right now they don't work. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been moved or deleted. An admin or someone with rollback should be able to retieve them. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not deleted. They're at Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 1, Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 2, and Talk:Rorschach inkblot test/Archive 3. It appears they just need to be renamed. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You've found them and I've repaired the links. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another compromise

I missed that suggestion when I scanned the talk page. The discussion here is getting tl;dr. How about we have a random inkblot at the top of the page, and a 'real' one further down? Would that satisfy both parties? LK (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise that might be acceptable. I continue to think that the image of H. Rorschach is the best representation of the test as a whole, but if others agree to place the current inkblot image in its appropriate place with "Test materials" and a non-Rorschach inkblot at the top, I can accept that. I would stipulate that the non-Rorschach image should not be an alteration of a current Rorschach image (i.e., simply changing the color of an actual Rorschach image or starting with a Rorschach image and adding to it). Thanks for that suggestion, Lawrencekhoo. Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A fake ink blot has been postulated but was considered hiding the original and a form of censorship. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, we now have 3 opinions on the compromise. Any more? Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this compromise. I thought the argument put forth was that inkblots were not the whole test? A fake inkblot should then be no more acceptable than a real one (indeed, it should at least be slightly less so) unless there is a desire to keep the real inkblot card from becoming the lead image at all costs. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but make up your mind, Jaimeastorga2000. Why do you use our argument that inkblots are not the whole test and thus the actual Rorschach inkblot should not be at the top when you don't even accept that argument as valid? You can't have it both ways. You seem to be using our point of view only when it suits your purposes. The compromise is over replacing the image of H. Rorschach with a non-Rorschach inkblot, not whether a test item should be placed away from the "Test materials" section. Is the purpose here to improve the article or to get that Rorschach inkblot at the top of the page at all costs? Ward3001 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that if the side in opposition to the inkblot as the leading image was to shift arguments and agree to a compromise which wasn't (from that point of view) any better than having the real inkblot at the top of the article, it would seem that the argument were just tools used to try to keep the inkblot from leading rather than the actual reasons for which the users wished to keep the real inkblot from being the leading image. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold on I am confused. The argument I see being put forth is along the lines that the inkblot in the test materials area was not a representation of the whole test, being just a part of it. So why would you accept a picture that is not even from the test? I don't agree one bit with that argument, but if one did accept that argument wouldn't a fake image be even less representative of the test? The only party that a fake image satisfies are those who are concerned that the real image will adversely effect the outcome of the test and thus should not be shown at all. The idea that it should not be shown at all has been repeatedly rejected. If we are going to have any image of an inkblot at the top then it should be a real one. And if we are to reach a compromise it should be one that makes sense in the context of the arguments. Chillum 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, what Jaimeastorga2000 just said. Chillum 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on why you want an inkblot at the top. If the purpose of doing so is because an inkblot is "iconic" of the test and therefore necessary at the top so that the reader knows he's on the right page, then a google image search reveals that the most common image is actually not the original inkblot but an all black version of it: [21]. 12 of 18 images are unshaded, all-black images. The reader allegedly looking for the test would be more likely to see the unshaded version and know it's the right version. A caption could then be added stating "an all-black representation of the inkblot, which is only one part of the test etc. etc....) with the actual inkblot in the appropriate test materials section. Personally, I would strongly prefer the current version or at least an image of someone giving the test for the reasons discussed earlier - an inkblot, any inkblot - is not the test as whole and the article is about the test not the inkblot.

The idea that the image should not be shown at all has indeed been rejected by most editors (although, speaking of "community", someone just deleted it today). But that doesn't mean that the objections to showing the images can't be taken into account when making the article. Consider the articles on, say, sex positions. Most of them involve pictures (often from classical art) rather than footage from porn videos, even though the latter would be better/more realistic illustrations of the acts. Someone compromised. One can make an analogy here: instead of the actual inkblot, why not a representation that looks like it? Or instead of placing the image right at the top, why not put it in a place where it is clearly appropriate - the test materials section - so as to accomodate, at least to a certain extent, those that feel that actual image placed there is harmful.Faustian (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see an explanation of why a fake inkblot would be better than the real one when the argument put forward is that the real inkblot does not represent the test enough. I am all for compromise, but I want to know what the reasons for the compromise are. If your argument is that the image should not be shown for medical reasons then this compromise makes some sense, if your argument is that the image is not fully representative of the test then this compromise does not make sense. We show an image of the subject of the article as a standard practice here, even if that image does not show the entire subject. I have yet to receive any substantial argument to do otherwise except for the "it can damage the test results" argument, is that the argument being presented? Chillum 23:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an all black representation if that is indeed what is used in the tests. If the all black representation is not used in the actual test and is simply more "iconic" then I think we should stick with what is in the test. The purpose is not to be iconic or to show the reader they are on the right page, it is to visual demonstrate a component of the test. Chillum 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak (much) for others who object to the image at the top. In my opinion, a fake image is better than the real one for medical reasons. To an extent viewing the image spoils the test and therefore placing the image here is harmful. That being said, I understand that due to wikiepdia censorship policy we probably can't just keep the image off. The reason I say, "probably" is because we have a precedent on the pages of the sex positions in which drawings are used instead of photos of people having sex, and the article on Pedophilia does not include any images at all (I'm not sure about the laws but I recall reading somewhere that drawings are not illegal). So we don't have to put a correct image onto every article. However, most editors seem to want a real image rather than a fake one. Just because the image can't be kept off doesn't mean that the people wanting the image off are wrong in their views or that we can't accomodate their opinions somehow. This is the spirit of the collaborative process that is so important to wikipedia. Following wikipdia's consensus policy, we ought to try to balance these two views. So, if we are going to use a real image, then we can at least take into account the opinion of those who object by placing it in a place where it is not at the top but is at least appropriate - the test material section. This is what ultimately happened and the article was stable like this for a few months.

So there are two reasons not to put it in the front of the article. One is to compromise with those who do not want the image in the article, a second reason is that it doesn't depict the test but only a part of the test. I think both reasons are sufficient to keep the article the way it is now. However if someone were to use a fake blot at the top, that would at least cover one of the reasons. In my opinion it is not the best solution, but it wouldn't be as bad as just having the image there. I wish that someone would create a drawing of a test being administered, such as this cartoon: [22]. That would be ideal and would probably please everyone.

With respect to the "iconic" argument. The reason I mentioned using an "iconic" image is because one of the people who wanted the image at the top wanted it there because it was "iconic" of the test and would therefore confirm to a curious reader that he was at the right article. Google image search shows, however, the image most commonly shown as a "Rorschach" image is an all-black version.Faustian (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither the medical reasons, nor the argument that it does not show the whole test are particularly compelling to me or others. The former is contrary to our philosophy of not being censored, the latter is not a legitimate reason to not use a picture. If there is no better alternative than showing a portion of the test then a portion of the test is the best we have. Very few pictures can show the entire subject in one little thumbnail, almost any picture for any subject only conveys a portion of the subject. Showing the creator sure does not show the whole test. The minor criticism offered towards this inkblot in no way diminishes it compared to the picture of the creator which is a lesser subject only tangential to the primary subject. Chillum 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The medical argument is compelling to enough people (even though n ot to you or others) that it ought to be taken into account when the page is constructed. It is a minority opinion among editors, but a significant one that just happens to be held by editors who are experts on the topic at hand (but not only by them, if you look through the archives). And this argument need not be taken into account through censoring - hence the compromise version.Faustian (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If we have agreed to place the image in the article, why keep considering the medical implications at all? It seems to me that, having once agreed to place the image in the article, it does no greater harm at the lead than at the middle. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is less harmful in the middle rather than at the top because placing it in the middle gives people a choice about whether or not to continue reading the article. My preference was for the image to be hidden, with a descriptive phrase about the seeing the image spoiling the test, allowing the reader to click to see it. The reason for doing it this way was best articulated here, by an editor not involved in the current discussion: [23] (I hope you take the time to read it). Ultimately the idea of hiding the image was rejected, but a compromise (consensus) was worked out to place the image within the article in the test material section. Because this section is placed after the article mentions the importance of not viewing the image, presumably someone really not interested in the viewing the image would still be able to make an inforemd decision about not reading the article - the image wouldn't be forced on everyone who happens to be looking up the test.Faustian (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In principle I don't mind this compromise, but it comes down to one worrying thing to me: what caption would we put under the fake inkblot image, that won't make the article look ridiculous? We have to own up to the image not being part of the established set of inkblots, it would be dishonest not to. Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about, "The Rorschach test evaluates reactions to inkblots (similar to the one pictured above), to determine personality and emotional functioning." LK (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, showing a made up inkblot is original research. We can't use original research because some people are worried that if people see what they have looked up that there will be some sort of damage. We should use real test materials only. This is very similar to when people were asking that Muhammad's face be covered with a veil so that certain people will not be offended by the image, it is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Using a fake or modified image because certain parties don't think the correct one should be shown is contrary to the spirit of our project. If people don't want to see an inkblot then they should not be looking them up in an encylopedia. We don't limit information here because we think the knowledge may be harmful to someone's mind, if we did that then genocide would not have shocking pictures(It certainly does not show a Wikipedian dressed in rags staging a picture with a caption "Many people were brought to the brink of starvation(similar to the Wikipedian dressed in rags pictured above)"). Chillum 13:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To put is shorter(for those who don't want to read all of that), we are not bound by external rules and regulation that apply to medical bodies(rather we are a neutral encyclopedia attempting to disperse knowledge) and as such may and should show material that other publications would not. This argument will not fly here. Chillum 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not certainly not bound by external rules and regulation that apply to medical bodies. That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to ignore them as a principle, or not take them into account at all. We are not proposing moving around the image or using a fake one because of medical body regulations, but because of the reasons underlying those regulations - public good. Faustian (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Faustian, and find Chillum's viewpoint dogmatic. For purposes of illustrating what the test is about, I see no difference between a random inkblot, and an inkblot made by Roscharch. I would actually prefer a black and white inkblot at the top, as it is more iconic of the test. I still hope that a compromise can be reached, but if it can't, I see no concensus here for a change from status quo. The image of Card 1 as it is currently used should be in the criticisms section. LK (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:OR is a policy and we can't just decide to ignore it and create our own novel content for this page. Please don't confuse the policies and core goals of this project with dogma. Chillum 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reread the OR polict please: [24]. "Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.

Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce original research into an article when captioning images."Faustian (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the real image is copyrighted? You said it yourself that images that constitute original research are not allowed. If we have the real image it is original research to make up our own image. We are not writing the book on the subject, we are documenting what has already been written. That part of the policy in no way excuses original research it simply says that an approximation is acceptable if the real thing is not available. Well, the real thing is available. I am afraid any proposition that would violate our "no original research" policy is doomed to fail. Chillum 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that caption is good, it's not clear enough that the image is not a part of the test. Before I read the article, I didn't realize there were specific inkblots used by everyone, and I didn't realize the blots were not pure black on white. I think heading the article with a fake image, especially a silhouette of one, would be reinforcing misconceptions on the subject. Mangojuice^talk 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The caption can be made more clear.Faustian (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be more clear, but I'm not sure it can be better. We could be totally explicit that the image we are using is not part of the test but I think then the reader will just be baffled as to why we're including it, and we can't explain *that* in a caption. On the other hand, if the reader doesn't realize this right away, they are being misled or misinformed, or we're reinforcing misconceptions. This is the Catch-22 with this idea, it's why I couldn't think of a caption that would be acceptable. I don't see any way out of this; if others do, I would like to see the caption first before I would agree. Mangojuice^talk 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reareading LK's proposal, it does seem rather clear: "The Rorschach test evaluates reactions to inkblots (similar to the one pictured above), to determine personality and emotional functioning." It states that the image is similar to the one depicted (which clearly means, not the same as) so the reader is not misinformed. Googleimage search reveals several popular images of the Rorschach that are not the actual image (indeed, based on googlesearch results the actual image much less popular or "iconic" than a fake image [25]). Perhaps we can include the popular fake image with a caption such as "The Rorschach test involves the analysis of reactions to inkblots in order to investigate personality and emotional functioning. Depicted is a popular representation of a Rorschach inkblot. Actual inkblots are shaded or colored." The body of the article can include info about the importance of keeping the images private for medical reasons, and perhaps an actual inkblot in the test materials section (which is an appropriate place for it anyways). My quick 2 cents.Faustian (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This would be more acceptable to me if we could use the "outline" of the same inkblot that we show below, with a similar caption. I am somewhat sensitive to this issue but while many of the later plates are somewhat obscure, images of the 1st one are all over the place; you can buy magnets, a necklace, t-shirts with the 1st blot outline. If we are going to illustrate a "popular representation" of the test, then that outline is the one. (File:Inkblot.png, already on commons.) Oh, and BTW, I disagree about the image being in "test materials" because that is a subheading of the "controversy" section; it's not really about what the test materials are but about controversy around them. The image should be in the "Methods" section, where the test materials are actually described. Mangojuice^talk 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Test materials indeed out to be seperate from "controversy" and its own seperate section, following the methods section. This placement would ensure that the reader would read a bit about the test before potentially seeing the actual image and would address the concern of those who object to the readers being forced to see the image without knowing about the consequences of doing so.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the structure of the article needs a lot of improvement, really. The "Controversy" section is overly broad, it may even be somewhat unbalancing, as if there is no support for the test, only criticism of it. Those criticisms and responses to them ought to be treated chronologically at least to some degree. There's information missing that should probably be there, like the position of medical groups on the use of the test. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm passes the online t-shirt validation test, then. The Rorschach in Popular Culture section can't be far off now, can it. Faustian - what a really funny carton that is. It seems to sum up so much of the debate so far. But then maybe I'm just projecting some emotional turmoil here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld et al?

I noticed a huge number of references to articles, critical of the Rorschach, written by those guys. Their opinion is a minority one within the field [26] and much of their claims have been debunked. Per WP:UNDUE shouldn't the extent of their use here be toned down?Faustian (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Critics should only recognized here to the extend that the public at large has recognized them. Chillum 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

James M. Wood's book seems to be well-known criticism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's well known but a minority view within the field. His criticisms certainly should be included in the article, but they seem to be much too prominant the way they are now. Much of his work was debunked in the scientific literature. For example, the very highly regarded forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy, probably one of the top experts in the study of stalkers and psychopaths, wrote a brief critique (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346), of just one part of Wood's book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" where Wood attacked the claim that the rf response was linked to psychopathy. Wood ( on page 251 of his book) wrote "ten replication studies examined the relationship between rf responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship." (in psychological research, statistical significance means it is statistically unlikely that the difference was due to chance or random error. Typically the threshold for significance is .05 or 5% - meaning there is only a 5% chance that the difference found in a study was random and not caused by the variables being studied).

Woods initially impressive claims fell apart under scrutiny. Eight of the ten studies tauted by Wood as contradicting claims about the Rorschach's effectiveness in differentiating psychopaths from nonpsychopaths were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those eight dissertations, but he was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between rf responses and psychopathy. The particular dissertation Meloy was involved in dissertation did not have enough participants who were psychopathic to make comparisons. It did not show a relationship because it could not show the relationship even if there was one, not because there was no relationship. This fact was ommitted by Wood.

Of the ten studies cited by Wood, only one was peer reviewed and published, and this one found a significant difference. A second study was a non-dissertation study that although not peer-reviewed was published as a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on rf responses. However, the psychopaths produced three times as many such responses, and the results just barely did not meet significance (p value was .07, slightly above the .05 threshold required for significance, meaning that instead of a 5% chance that the difference was random, there was a 7% probability that the rsults were the result of randomness or chance). None of these details were mentioned by Wood et al.

Basically Woods comes off as a crusader who bends the truth a little bit, ommits facts that don't agree with what he tries to say, etc. After his work was debunked by many articles in the scientific literature he took his criticism to "laypeoples" magazines such as Scientific American. I would generally compare Woods to the minority of scientists who don't believe that global warming is man-made. Yes, the views are out there and their work has some merit (I am not comparing Wood to the intelligent design people) but it's clearly a minority view within the field and accordingly shouldn't be overemphasized in the article.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Which parts would you keep and which parts would you remove? As a layman it is hard to tell which parts have legitimacy. Chillum 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms certainly ought to be mentioned, they should just be summarized more briefly so as not to have undue weight in the article. The reliability, validity, and tester projection subsections of the controversy section ought to be trimmed significantly.Faustian (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"the field" here should be all of psycology, not just Rorschach research. What are the common views of the Rorschach test then? Scientific American is a well respected popular sciene magazine, and not like global warming deniers going to the tabloid press. A counter-example is cold fusion, which most physicists think is bunk, but a small minority believe in and work on. Cold fusion journals and cold fusion researchers all say it exists, while more general science publications show the mainstream scientific opinion.

Now, I do not know whether the Rorschach test is more like global warming or cold fusion. However, I do not think you are neutral and it is not our job to analyze the research in detail. What has been published about the validity of the Rorschach test in peer-reviewed jounals that are not dedicated to Rorschach and similar tests? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The facts that the Rorschach is the second most commonly used test by psychologists who specialize in personality testing (the Society for Personality Assessment), the second most commonly used test in forensic assessment, is used by 80% of psychologists who work in assessment and is taugt in 80% of psychology graduate programs tells us that it is indeed widely used and accepted within the field (these facts are all referenced in the article's lead). The anti-Rorschach ideas of Wood, Lilienfeld et al are more comparable to cold fusion. They are a minority in the field. A vocal minority that has gotten some publicity and has prompted some waves within the field (as I suspect the cold fusion guys have done in physics), but still a minority. Why do you suggest I am not nuetral with respect to this test? How do you define nuetrality in this context? If I support the consensus of the majority of the scientists within the field, does that make me not nuetral? Is a scientist who claims that global warming is man-made not nuetral because he has taken a stand on the issue? Your question "What has been published about the validity of the Rorschach test in peer-reviewed jounals that are not dedicated to Rorschach and similar tests?" seems, with all due respect, somewhat odd to me. Info about psychological tests tends to be published in journals dedicated to psycholgical testing. It's a bit like asking, what has been published about cold fusion in journals not dedicated to physics? Faustian (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the test being very common and used by many who specialise in such in such a field in any way discredits criticism. If the criticism has gained notoriety then it should have mention, if a specific community of professionals disagree then that should also be mentioned. The idea the we should leave out criticism because the field does not accept it seems contrary to neutral coverage of a topic. We should base our content on how much notoriety the sources have. We should however be very clear what the context of the information is. Chillum 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I don't think that anyone proposed leaving criticism out. The issue was that the article seems to contain too much criticism relative to other parts of the article and relative to the criticism's importance within the field. The reason I showed the widespread use of this test was to disprove the notion that the test was considered fringe in the field (such as cold fusion within physics).Faustian (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The source cited above by Faustian to try to support the idea that criticism of inkblot tests is a minority position in the field is misleading. The source quoted is an organization explicitly in favor of such tests, which in itself is only a minority in the field of psychology. If we are going to talk about WP:UNDUE weight we can't promote a minority agenda-specific group as some neutral source of opinion for the whole field. Much of the field of psychology disagrees with each other. Cognitive and behavioral psychologist as a whole do not support the unscientific methods of those who use projective tests like this test and Freudian psychotherapy and so forth. Saying that most people in the field supports these tests based upon the claims made by a group specifically in favor of such tests would be like claiming that most voters in the U.S. wanted McCain to win over Obama in the last Presidential election based upon opinion polls held at the Republican National Convention. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please give us some information to back up two claims you have made. First, please elaborate on the "unscientific methods of those who use projective tests" in specific terms of the Rorschach and the Exner system for interpretation (since that by far is the most frequent use of "projective tests"). What specifically is unscientific about Exner's research and methods? Secondly, please give us the specific statistics that psychologists who use the Rorschach are in the "minority in the field of psychology". "Minority" would mean no more than 49%, which seems to contradict the source that says 80% of psychologists who work in assessment use the Rorschach. Sources to back up your claims would be very helpful. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know a few cognitive psychologists who use the Rorschach using the Exner system. Less anecdotal, thew factthat 80% of graduate programs teach it, the majority of internship oprograms require it, and that 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessment use it tells us that its the opposing side who are well within the minority within the field. But to the point - I'll get some more info about its widespread prevalence in the field and put that into the article.Faustian (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Four percent of graduating psychology Ph.D.'s are experimental psychologists and one percent are "Cognitive psychologists.":[27]. Yeah, that's a substantial number.Faustian (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

summary of method section, please

It would really help this article, if someone could briefly summarize the "methods" section in the lead. Currenly, I cannot even get a vague idea of how this test is supposed to work without reading the rather verbose method section.--98.210.233.15 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done!Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Other pages with controversial images

For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter. LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Muhammad has been mentioned before in this discussion, as have the controversial cartoons. The situations may be similar and that sounds like a sensible precaution. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these situations are analogous. Seeing a Rorschach ink blot will not upset anyone's religious sensibilities. –xeno ^talk 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. It's OK to interfere with their mental health diagnosis and treatment, but let's not do anything to their "religious sensibilities". Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If people are worried about their psychologists drawing the wrong conclusion from the results of their Rorschach test, I think they shouldn't be reading the article whatsoever, let alone seeing a picture of the first inkblot. –xeno^talk 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to stop them before they can start to worry? Maybe "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for gander", as Someguy was trying to tell us a little earlier? Of have I come to a "wrong conclusion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, I wonder if you could explain two things related to your comment about "people worried about their psychologists drawing the wrong conclusion". First, how is someone supposed to know that the inkblot will be staring him/her in the face until he clicks on the article and sees it; are you assuming they should magically know that the image is there before they click to open the article? And second, even if they somehow are miraculously aware that the image is there before they look at the article, what about the person who looks at the article before his/her psychologist decides to administer the Rorschach; since there is no alternate version of the Rorschach test, is the psychologist supposed to magically create a new test on the spot that will produce equivalent results? In my 20 years of using the Rorschach, I don't believe the answers to those questions was ever covered in my training or experiences. So it would really help me and the other psychologists if we could get your solutions to those problems. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position, but this just strikes me as an "argument against spoilers". We have the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. We are an encyclopedia and people should expect full coverage of the subjects they're looking for. –xeno^talk 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sympathy. I asked for the answer to a couple of questions based on your earlier comment. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The person will know an inkblot will be staring them in the face because they've asked for an article on an inkblot test. As Martinevans123 cleverly demonstrated above, if I want to see a picture of a girl giving a blowjob, all I do is type it into the search box and voila. If I wanted a picture of Hermann Rorschach, I would probably type just that. This is why the inkblot picture belongs at the top, because it is what the reader is looking for. Wikipedia's remit is not our readers' psychological well-being - that is yours (assuming you are practicing and have patients that read Wikipedia). –xeno^talk 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So someone can actually know before clicking a link to an article which particular image will be there, and that it will be at the top of the page. I haven't figured out how to do that yet; that sounds like a wonderful skill to have, so could you please tell me how it's done? And you forgot my second question, so I'll repeat it: "even if they somehow are miraculously aware that the image is there before they look at the article, what about the person who looks at the article before his/her psychologist decides to administer the Rorschach; since there is no alternate version of the Rorschach test, is the psychologist supposed to magically create a new test on the spot that will produce equivalent results?" And I just thought of a third question: so it's really true that Wikipedia has no concern for someone's psychological well-being, but we should be concerned that Wikipedia might "upset anyone's religious sensibilities"? Ward3001 (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, don't miscontrue what I said. I didn't say Wikipedia had no concern for someone's psychological well-being. I said it was not our remit. Moving on to the rest in order, one can never know for sure that a completely descriptive image will be at the top of an enyclopedia article, but it's a fairly safe bet. Without looking, I can tell you that Tiger will have a picture of a tiger at the top of the article. If someone is on Wikipedia, looking up information on psychological testing, it stands to reason they want a full exposition of the matter, including pictures. If your patient, who you haven't yet decided to administer an Rorshach test to, who you haven't advised not to research psychological testing (beansy, and all) as it may taint the results, goes on Wikipedia and starts researching the Rorschach test, then well, you're pretty much SOL anyway. They will probably read a good deal of the article, make it past the fold to see the inkblot (FYI on my resolution, it's visible above the fold in its previous location), and most likely corrupt your results completely, don't you agree? –xeno^talk 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, they're not my results; they're the results of the patient I am trying to help, possibly a 15-year-old who may be suicidal but not telling anyone (a finding that certainly could be revealed by the Rorschach results when nothing else would reveal it); and that 15-year-old, misproperly diagnosed and without the results regarding suicide because you (yes, you Xeno) decided it was in the best interest of everyone concerned to get that fucking image at the top of the page at all costs because ... well, because you can ... and because you know that those of us who understand the test are in a minority ... that 15-year-old might actually succeed in that suicide. So, just a slight correction; it's not my results; it's the results of my patient who might be desperately hanging on to life by a thread. Now, I'm sure in your comfortable den looking at your computer enjoying this intellectual debate, that you will no doubt conclude that I am grossly misinterpreting these matters because ... well, because it's not your child who might commit suicide.
One thing for sure that I can tell you. If the patient reads the article without the image, the patient will not see the image. If the patient clicks on the article with the image at the top, there's about a 100% change he/she will see the image. If the image is in it's proper place adjacent to "Test materials", I don't know the odds that he/she will see the image, but I'll take those odds over the odds when the image is at the top. Ward3001 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting hypothetical. Would I be correct in assuming that you'd really prefer the article not exist at all? –xeno^talk 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd, but not surprising, that you find the suicide of a 15-year-old an "interesting hypothetical". I think it's safe to conclude that you haven't personally known many teens who have suicided. To answer your question, I would prefer that the image is not in the article, and, if that is not possible, that it is in it's only logical place as a test item, adjacent to test materials. Is that a sufficient answer to your "hypothetical" question? Ward3001 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only hope it's hypothetical and you aren't discussing your actual patients' case files with me. That's not quite what I asked, but it's sufficient enough to understand your approach to editing this article. –xeno^talk 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears you know as much about psychologists' professional ethics as you know about the Rorschach. Information about patient case files are published in professional journals; the simple little trick that I'll let in on is that you don't NAME the patient (and in this case, we're not even naming the psychologist because my name ... believe it or not ... is not actually Ward3001. And likewise, you have made it more than clear what your approach is to this article, science, and mental health. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a professional journal. It is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to inform its readers. –xeno^talk 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I say this is a professional journal? Let's see ... no, I don't think I did. Did you caution me about discussing my case files on Wikipedia? I believe you did. Let me try to make my point more simply. If I can discuss case information in a journal, I don't think there's a problem if I discuss it (properly) on Wikipedia. I'm not sure it's possible to simplify that concept any more. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't caution you about anthing. I just said I hope you aren't discussing your case files with some complete stranger. Perhaps I have my own interpretation of professional ethics: I'm not a practicing psychologist. Consequently, I don't have an approach to science or mental health, but to the spread of information and knowledge. Last question, answer it truthfully and directly and I'll go away: Do you agree that reading the article in its entirety is going to do as much or more damage than simply seeing an inkblot? –xeno^talk 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Among psychologists familiar with the Rorschach, that's a no-brainer. Seeing an image of a Rorschach inkblot is much more likely to invalidate the test than reading a few general paragraphs about the test that don't suggest specific responses. Now that I've said that, I suppose the next project of the image-at-the-top proponents will be to confabulate hypothetical responses and insert them near the top of the page. Ward3001 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

happy editing, –xeno^talk 03:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have full respect for Ward's suggestion of putting hypothetical responses near the top of the page, I think it would be a violation of our goal not to produce original research. We should stick to documenting what has been publishing in as neutral a manner possible. The inkblot seems to be from a reliable source and I have no doubt to its verifiability. It seems to be in full compliance with both our policies and our goal of providing informative encyclopedic coverage on all encyclopedic topics. Chillum 04:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never cease to be amazed at you Chillum. Please read again. I DID NOT SUGGEST PUTTING HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSES IN THE ARTICLE. And for those of you jumping at the chance to chastise me for SHOUTING, please consider Chillum's history of misrepresenting opinions throughout this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary there is no need to shout, I have not been misrepresenting anyone thank you. If you think I have then take the evidence to my talk page, this is not the correct venue. We are talking about image placement here, not you or I. If you had read just a little further down you would have seen I recognized my misunderstanding already. There is no need to once again try to accuse me of bad faith. Surely you must realize how you comment was less than clear. Sarcasm does not work well in text based communication because it lacks the tonal and visual queues that normally give it away. Chillum 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statement, and your edits and the responses by Martinevans123 speak for themselves. You misrepresented Martinevans123 three times, and you were corrected not only by me (which you called "baiting") but by Martinevans123 himself. And Martinevans123 even corrected your mispresentation of my comments. And now you have mispresented me by claiming that I suggested putting hypothetical responses in the article. And no, I DON'T agree that my "comment was less than clear". I will agree that you did not read it adequately, but nowhere in my words did I suggest that anyone should add hypothetical responses to the article. So either drop this issue or give us the diffs for the following: (1) give us diffs in which Martinevans123's position was either to put the image at the of the page, or the diffs that was your basis for leaving his opinion out altogether; (2) give us the diffs in which I suggested putting hypothetical responses in the article. Since I can't read your mind, I have no idea whether your misleading comments were errors (four such errors stretches credibility, but I'll accept that with the caveat that your edits are still misleading because they are prone to multiple errors) or intentional deception. I'll let other readers come to their own conclusions. But there is no doubt that your statements, whether by mutiple honest errors or malicious intent, are misleading. As all of the edits above speak for themselves, until you can produce the diffs to back up your claims, this is the end of discussion on this point for me. Ward3001 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, Ward's comment was entirely clear to me and you seem to have misunderstood it. In your reply you then misrepresented what Ward had said. That was equally clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I told you before Ward, I will not be baited into allowing this discussion be about me instead of the topic at hand. If you think I have done something wrong them take it to my talk page where you are always welcome. This article's talk page is not place for your accusations of bad faith on my part. Chillum 01:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And again you have not been "baited", your favorite word to avoid accepting responsibility for your errors. If you'll take another look, I'm not the only person here commenting on your misstatements. There is no "baiting"; there is simply corrections of your misrepresentations. And discussion of your errors belongs here, not your talk page, so that the rest of those in this discussion can see your pattern of making error after error after error in your incorrect restatements of what others say. The rest of the people in this discussion deserve to know when you make an error and how many errors you make. Ward3001 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please take any commentary regarding me to my talk page this is not the place for it. I will not let this discussion be side tracked. This discussion would be far more productive without argumentum ad hominem. Chillum 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again, despite your attempts at diverting attention to your several errors, discussion of those errors, especially when they are misleading, belongs here. Ward3001 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But no, Xeno, I wasn't trying to cleverly demonstrate that your argument was right before you had made it. I'd hardly expect to see a blow job when I was looking for a goose. Searches do not always produce what is anticipated, surely that's part of the reason for searching. What about a search for Rorschach, which might be a very easy mistake to make? And excuse me, but instead of answering Wards' legitimate concerns you seem to have have treated him with condescending scorn. Have you now left us with that little wave of your administrative hand? Chillum, I don't think Ward was "suggesting" that at all, do you? Surely that was his glum prediction of the level to which this article might fall unless arguments such as his are properly heeded. I think you may be being disingenuous in order simply to score points here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Don't worry, nobody wants to resort to original research here(as far as I can tell). "wave of your administrative hand"?? Not sure what that has to do with the subject, this is not an administrative issues, this is about our content and our content related policies. I may be an administrator but I have not made that part of the debate. Lets keep this about the debate at hand and not resort to assuming scorn in others.

I don't find the arguments that people might be looking for a comic book or band by the same name and will accidentally see it very compelling. Even if this does happen from time to time it is no justification for altering out encyclopedic coverage of this subject. Even then what are the odds that someone about to take this test is going to be researching a comic book of the same name, really? That argument sounds so unlikely. The fact is that if a patient is actively researching the test(or a comic book of the same name for some reason) they are going to learn about the subject. Anyone with a somewhat modern computer monitor will see the picture anyways, by your logic we should just delete the article or perhaps hide it with some sort of content disclaimer.

We don't offer medical advice, and our content should not be taken as such. Our disclaimers are clear about that. If the test really relies both on a significant statistical sampling of many people's reaction to a set of the same images and also requires the the person being tested has not seen them then the problem is not Wikipedia, it is the internet. Perhaps a test that must be both well viewed by many people, but not viewed by a patient has a fundamental flaw in the age of the internet. That is not a problem for Wikipedia though, that is just modern availability of information.

I don't think we should be tucking away information down at the bottom "for the reader's own good". What about the vast majority of people who are not about the take this test? Chillum 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, your argument seems to be - "inkblot images are freely available all over the internet, whether or not people want or intend to see them, therefore, why not have one in this article." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: As Chillum says, there's nothing "administrative" about what I'm doing here. I didn't mention that I was an administrator, I didn't mention any administrative actions, I simply raised some questions that highlighted that certain editors participating in this dispute may have motives incompatible with building an encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer, I am an academic, but not a psychologist. I originally came here in response to the RfC. My opinion is that there is no real need for the image to be at the top of the page. Wikipedia's role is to provide information, and the information is still there whether it's at the top of the page or in the middle of the page (as long as the information is organized logically, and clearly labelled). If someone wants to see the inkblot, all the have to do is look at the table of contents, and see the section labelled test materials - there is no censorship here. The question is, if Wikipedia can accommodate requests from religious communities by placing religous images further down the page, why can't it accomodate a legitimate request from the mental health community? Let's just let this one go and let it stay as it is. It's not going to kill anyone to have to hit the space bar if they want a look at one of the original test cards. LK (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should not be accommodating requests from religious communities, to do so is in violation of our goal of providing a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not perfect and sometimes we are not completely neutral, but that is a poor argument to allow outside concerns effect our content in such a way. Past and current failures to prevent this sort of bias in no way justifies further bias. Bias is exactly what is being talked about, letting one specific group let its traditions dictate our content. Saying that it has simply been moved and still available is missing the point, we should not let outside ethics, tradition, dogma, beliefs or superstitions color our encyclopedic portrayal of content at all, not even a little bit. Chillum 17:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, it seems that you haven't left us after all. You really didn't have to mention that you were an administrator, but my apologies if I have offended your non-administrator sensibiities. Can you please now tell us who exactly has "motives incompatible with building an encyclopedia"?

Chillum - the issue here is surely not one of "accommodating requests from religious communities" and I thought someone argued earlier that those articles with controversial religious images were NOT analagous to this one? Goodness me, if Wikipedia has all its own `ethics, tradition, dogma, beliefs and superstitions' it's begining to sound a bit like a new religion in itself. Or did you mean that Wikipedia is not a place for ethics at all?

LK, your suggestion seems very reasonable and practical. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chillum. We should pursue our goals without regard to religious sensibilities. I am not saying we should go out of our way to offend religious people, but if anything we do for a legitimate reason happens to offend them, we should not let it affect us. And as a comment to Ward3001, let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaimeastorga, I am truly horrified by your apparent lack of concern for the possible effects of what may be shown by Wikipedia. I had not realised that there was no place in "the mission goals" for any kind of social responsibility. But could you please explain why you feel this article is connected with "religious sensibilities"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Horrified" may be an understatement. To use a phrase from the 1960s, "the whole world's watching". Regardless of where the image ends up, I think it's important that the entire English-speaking world see the real priorities of those who control this article. Ward3001 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Martinevans123, religious sensibilities were brought as a parallel, including cases where there have been disputes about how to accommodating them into articles (specially with pictures involved), so I thought I would comment on that. As a side note, I believe people should have the right to commit suicide if so they choose. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"If they choose"?? A 15-year-old? Again, "the whole world's watching". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward3001 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 May 2009

Yes, Jamieastorga, I can see that other articles where images have been in dispute may be relevant, some of which may be connected with religious beliefs. But I think different sets of considerations may also apply between psychological test materials and religious beliefs, explicit sexual acts, or whatever. My point was really more "this is not religion, it is health care" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I really don't think that seeing a picture on Wikipedia of an inkblot is going to make anyone commit suicide. Chillum 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry that you don't understand that the Rorschach can detect suicidality, but only if it is not invalidated by seeing a Rorschach image prior to taking the test. You're entitled to your opinions about what the test can and cannot do, but your expressing those opinions does negate the fact that your opinions about the test are not based on a scientific understanding of it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have rather over-simplified the single hypothetical case that Ward was offering, into a rather crass likely/unlikely dichotomy. Perhaps a more general question might be this - how can we know that further internet over-exposure of one part of a set of psychological test materials will or will not blunt beyond use an established test which may already be suffering from over-exposure? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the suicide theory because that is the opinion being put forth. I can only respond to those arguments put forth to me. An opinion is one thing but we work on reliable sources. Can you show a reliable source that says us showing the image will lead to people killing themselves? Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. When providing this source please take care not to reach a novel synthesis based on information from multiple sources. Chillum 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, why do you interpret English sentences differently than the rest of us do? Martinevans says he opposes the image at the top; you say he favors it at the top. I express fear that someone will place confabulated test responses in the article; you say that I have suggested that we place test responses in the article. Now ... can you please show me where anyone, myself included, has said that "showing the image will lead to people killing themselves". Once again, I write a sentence that everyone interprets one way and you interpret it completely differently. If you will take the time to actually read what I have written, I have said that the Rorschach can detect suicidality; I have said that viewing the image prior to taking the test can invalidate the test and thus lead to incorrect conclusions, including conclusions about suicidality. I have not said that looking at an inkblot can cause someone to commit suicide. And it appears that you are the only one who has interpreted my statements that way. Now, if you want a reliable source that the Rorschach can detect suicidality, please read Exner, J.E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 0471386723. And if that definitive source isn't good enough, I can give a few more. But if you consider this authoritative source to be sufficient, then please let it be understood that my statements about the Rorschach and suicidality are accurate and let's move on. If you don't accept Exner's conclusions as accurate, then please provide your own reliable source that refutes Exner. And please, please read my comments several times before leaping to incorrect conclusions about what I'm saying. Ward3001 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought Chillium's statement was a very clear reference to your implicit suggestion that viewing the inkblot could hamper efforts to prevent a suicide that might not otherwise occur. I think you're taking an overly literal interpretation of Chillium's statements instead of assuming he knows how to read and is being figurative. I'm also not sure why you insist on repeatedly bringing up Chillium's misinterpretation of Martin's position. So he made a mistake. Live and let live; it has no bearing on the resolution of the dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So you consider the statements "Showing an image can lead to people killing themselves" as equivalent to "Viewing an image can invalidate a test and result in a false test conclusion about suicide"? You actually believe those two statements say the same thing??? And I bring up Chillum's repeated errors because he has made four such misprepresentation of facts (and possibly five) in this discussion. I believe that is more than a little noteworthy, and I am not the only editor who feels that way. So I brought it up more than once; live and let live. Misprepresentation of opinions repeatedly is not a minor issue. Ward3001 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for blunting test materials, it is not our job to protect systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed. Our goal is to provide knowledge and if a particular test, theory, religion etc requires a lack of knowledge then our goal is not compatible with theirs. You said it yourself that it is already suffering from overexposure. I don't think use moving the image down lower will change that one whit. Simply put, we provide information, if people need to avoid this information then this is the wrong place for them. Perhaps knowledge is dangerous, but we provide it non-the-less. Chillum 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You should review wikipedia policy: [28] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." (emphasis added by me). So we do do take ethical concerns into account when editting wikipedia. We balance those ethical concerns with the necessity of being encyclopedic. We don't just throw them out.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, please tell us what are these "systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed". I suspect that you would include in this set all psychometric tests where prior knowledge of the answers might invalidate the test. Maybe Wikipedia should have an article detailing all of the answers to the tests currently constructed to allow entry into the armed forces? Candidates could simply then learn the answers mnemonic fashion before the test. Might that not be dangerous? Or are you simply saying that psychometrics per se are all just a complete waste of time? Would you at least agree that the type of "knowledge" used in a projective test is somewhat different to that used in a quantitative cognitive psychometric? And how much over-exposure is too much over-exposure exactly? I certainly don't know, but I was suggesting that might be the case, based on advice from the relevant professional body. And would you care to please apologise now for blatantly mis-representing my position? I certainly want no part in anything that is dangerous to human health or well-being thank-you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My opinions on the value of psychometric testing are not relevant here, and neither are yours(that is part of my point actually). We should simply be documenting the information out there and not letting our own opinions effect the content in such a way. That is the basis of neutrality. The argument I see being put forward is that if we provide the knowledge of what a rather common image looks like then it will damage a diagnostic system designed to require a lack of such knowledge. So this is the argument I respond to. My only point was that this requirement of the test is the test's problem and is not our burden.

Please assume good faith. Once again if you want to talk about me go to my talk page, this is not the correct venue to talk about each other. I will not let this discussion be made about your or I, it is about the topic at hand. I have not misrepresented anyone's position, I made a misunderstanding about 2 weeks ago which I fixed and apologized for and have been harped at about since them. Let it go, or take it to an appropriate venue. If I have understood the position of others incorrectly it may be because the positions presented seem a little hard to grasp, they seem to change depending on context. Not long ago the argument put forward was that the image did not show the whole test and thus should not be shown, now the argument seems to be it shows too much of the test. A comparison to religious images is made and I respond only to be told that I was misrepresenting. A comment about there being more suicides if people see the image is seen has been made, I respond to that and am again accused of misrepresenting. Well, what exactly is the argument then? Lets have a debate instead of just pointing fingers and making accusations.

Back to the debate at hand(lets try to stay on topic). If the Rorschach test required that the person taking knew nothing of the test, not its history, its basis, that is uses inkblots, anything, would you argue we get rid of the article completely? Or would we simply accept that the test and are article are not compatible? Chillum 13:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you did more than have a "misunderstanding about two weeks ago". You made four errors in your representation of others' opinions. And you did more than comment on suicidality. Your exact words were: "seeing a picture on Wikipedia of an inkblot is going to make anyone commit suicide". And neither I nor anyone else said anything even remotely close to that. There is a huge difference between seeing an image as a cause of suicide and seeing an image as a cause of test invalidation.

Your repeatedly referring to one error does not negate the other three. And no one here (except you) knows whether those were intentional misprepresentation of opinions or multiple but honest errors. My point is that others must be cautious in drawing conclusions when you attempt to represent another person's opinion because four such errors in the same discussion is more than adequate reason to be cautious. And once again, others deserve to know when so many errors are made in the same discussion, so discussion of your errors is appropriate here, not your talk page. I could easily add multiple comments that you have said something when you didn't actually say it, then I could argue "Take it up on my talk page, not here", but that doesn't make my misrepresentations any less of an error. Now, if you want mention of these errors to stop, you need to do a few things. First, stop denying (including implicit denials by stating that you made A mistake when you made four mistakes). Second, don't misrepresent others' opinions again. And third, stop bringing it up yourself. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rorschach does not require that the person knows nothing about the test. That's a moot point. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your hypothetical straw-man here adds any weight to your argument, Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Chillum, I don't want to talk about you, I just wanted an apology. You misrepresented my position. Oh well. Could you answer the general questions I asked you about psychometrics, as I believe they are relevant to the discussion of the content of this article. Please tell us what are these "systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a heated discussion is taking place. One can easily find images of all the ink blots with a google image search. As in here [29] If one knows the name of the test they can find how the test is performed. I do not think we need to sensor these images in anyway. http://www.uptodate.com/ does not mention these images. They are not used in routine clinical practice.[30] No one will every die from having seen these images before being tested with them. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reassuring words, Doc, I'm sure. But why should your handy "uptodate" commercial website (subscribe at no risk) mention inkblots at all when the nearest it comes to any mental health issues or any psychological test is Neurology? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Doc, let's straighten out the misconceptions you created by using this commercial website, and in fact taking the information out of context. The website is full of errors that are completely contrary to current practice and the fact that the Rorschach is among the most widely used personality tests in clinical practice. But the website did manage to get one little detail correct, but you conveniently left that part out. Here's the full statement: "Although psychological tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory or the Rorschach, are not administered routinely in current clinical practice, these tests can be quite helpful for diagnostic purposes. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee Martinevans123, I already retracted my incorrect statement. If all you want is an "I'm sorry" then "I'm sorry". I took it back, I admitted it was a mistake, and now I have apologized, can we now move onto the debate at hand instead of concentrating so hard on the people involved in the debate? Martin, you say "what are these 'systems that require a lack of knowledge to succeed'", when I just finished saying "The argument I see being put forward is that if we provide the knowledge of what a rather common image looks like then it will damage a diagnostic system designed to require a lack of such knowledge", that is my answer to your query. If that is not the argument being put forward then please clarify it. Chillum 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I appreciate your input. Please do not be intimidated on what you can plainly see to be a heated discussion. I know sometimes a debate can seem like something to be avoided when it continually strays from the topic at hand, but I if we focus on the topic we can make progress. I think that if level heads prevail then things will go well, if hot head prevail then... well... lets hope that does not happen. Chillum 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And Doc, please be cautious not to accept representation of someone's opinion by others, as such representations are prone to errors in this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, suicide risks (or even mental health wholesale) aside, the general point is surely this - "tests don't tend to work so well if you give someone the answers before they do the test" ... even in the case of the Rorschach, where there are no definitive "right" and "wrong" answers as such. (But, I suppose, this will be all rather irrelevant to some practitioners who don't believe that tests are even worth performing). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any test that is published openly is that the person who may take it can simply look it up ahead of time. That is why most tests are kept secret. I know this is not practical when the test relies on an exposure to a large number of people for a statistical baseline, but regardless the problem exists. Doc put it very well when he said that you can find this information simply by googling it. I fail to see why we should lag behind other information sources when our action would not really prevent the image from being seen. The cat is already out of the bag, no sense in closing the bag now. Chillum 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find lots of things by Googling them, such as how to create a hidden explosive to destroy hundreds or thousands of lives, or how to carry out necrophilia, or sexual images of children. Is that the appropriate standard for Wikipedia: If you can find it by Googling it, then Wikipedia should have it? Let's not lag behind the terrorists or the pedophiles. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we are showing a smudge of ink not child porn or explosive instructions, lets keep things in perspective. I once again reject the argument that the image will result in a higher suicide success rate(I hope this wording does not misrepresent your point, please correct me if I am mistaken). I don't think it has been demonstrated independent of opinion that people will actually die as a result of looking that this image. I don't think we even have a policy on images that kill, such an idea being so far out there. I have seen a reference that the test can detect suicidal tendencies, but that is not really the same thing. So can sitting down and talking with someone, or reading their diary. Looking at the likeness of Muhammad may increase certain people's likelihood of wanting to commit suicide. Reading an article on hanging may improve somebodies success of properly hanging themselves. It is not really relevant to writing a neutral and informative encyclopedia. People will inform themselves as they see fit, it is our job to give them this information in a neutral fashion not influenced by outside dogma. Chillum 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK you insisted on a reliable source that the Rorschach can (and does) detect suicidality, which I provided (Exner, 2002). And I'll further add that (per Exner's research), the Rorschach can detect suicidality beyond the other methods you mention. Now that you have denied that to be the case, you are obligated to provide a reliable source to refute Exner. Not your opinion; a reliable source. Otherwise your statement that you "reject the argument that the image will result in a higher suicide success rate" is a complete fallacy. Ward3001 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a question. Should the article on Psychics leave out the part where it says that many psychics use cold reading to accomplish this feat because this knowledge would invalidate the therapeutic value of talking to your "psychic friend"? Let me put it in the form of a statement instead of a question; If the viewing of a Rorschach inkblot is harmful to the results of the tests and it is common practice to not show it, then it is our job to document this practice, not to follow it. Chillum 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the issue, so I'll repeat it: give us a reliable source to refute Exner's research on Rorschach and detection of suicidality. And by the way, I must again correct your misrepresentation, no one has said that "looking at the image" of a Rorschach inkblot will result in someone dying. Ward3001 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source says that Rorschach can detect suicidality(sic), we should document this next to the image. You have provided a reliable source that demonstrates this. You may find a source that says that showing the image will invalidate the test. But Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position makes it clear you cannot take a few reliable sources that are in some way related and combine them to produce a novel hypothesis. That is original research. You need a source that shows showing the image kills people, then I Wikipedia can document that fact. We can also consider that when deciding to show the image. Chillum 23:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Suicidality" is a correct English word that is properly spelled. Your use of "sic" should be applied to your own error. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"it is common practice to not show it, then it is our job to document this practice, not to follow it": Sorry, I have no idea what this means. What exactly are you saying is being combined to reach novel hypothesis; and what is the novel hypothesis? I fail to see it. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And does previous knowledge of the test effect the ability of the test to detect suicidality and than if this is the case does it lead to missed cases of suicidality? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Viewing the inkblot before taking the test can damage test validity, which can reduce the tests ability to detect suicidality. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I want a reference for, "Viewing the inkblot before taking the test can damage test validity, which can reduce the tests ability to detect suicidality." I have not seen a reference to that claim yet, only parts of it. Chillum 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been presented for each end of the argument, but one cannot combine sources to come up with a novel idea like that, it is a form of original research. An existing reliable source needs to make that connection. I have not actually seen a source that says it invalidates the test, but I don't doubt it has a negative effect. I would imagine reading the article itself without any pictures would certainly taint one's unconscious answers with prior expectations anyways. Chillum 23:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take a few days off of this debate. It is starting to get repetitive. I hope when I come back there are some new arguments or at least progression of some sort. Chillum 23:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Source regarding prior viewing of a Rorschach inkblot and possible test invalidity: Sciara, A.D., & Ritzler, B. (2006) The little book on administration for the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Asheville, NC: Rorschach Training Programs. Test security in general (not just the Rorschach) is addressed by American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code Of Conduct. Washington, DC: APA.
Detection of suicidality and precautions against interpreting invalid tests has already been sourced (Exner, 2002). Ward3001 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

These books are hard to come by. Anything from journals?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No harder to come by than old journal articles. The books summarize journal articles. Since these data have been in existence for decades, I would have to dig to find original journal articles. For examples, Exner's work on suicide and the Rorschach dates back to the 1970s and 1980s. If I can find something online, I'll post it, although I don't plan to make a trip to the library for old journal articles when the information is readily available in the books. And the books themselves are available in good academic libaries. So, it's a matter of who has to go to the trouble to go to the library. I have the books. I can access many journals online. Be my guest to make a trip to the library for anything else. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the earliest (but certainly not the only) studies by Exner on the suicide issue is Exner, J.E., & Wylie, J. (1977). Some Rorschach data concerning suicide. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(4), 339-348.

A more recent study on the suicide issue: Fowler, J. C., Piers, C., Hilsenroth, M. J., Holdwick, D. J., & Padawer, J. R. The Rorschach suicide constellation: Assessing various degrees of lethality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76 (2), 333-351. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A review article that includes a review of suicide data: Viglione, D. (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach. Psychological Assessment, 11 (3), 251-265. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a controversial test. A significant proportion of the scientific community is not even sure the test is useful: "current research is insufficient to demonstrate the utility of the Rorschach" [Hunsley J, Bailey JM (2001). "Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence". Psychol Assess. 13 (4): 472–85. PMID 11793892. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversial, yes. Misunderstood because critics have not considered much of the solid research in the last three decades? Yes. But neither of those facts mitigates its usefulness. I would caution against a quick computer search, reading article titles and abstracts, and jumping to conclusions without doing a thorough literature review. And read the refutations (as well as the sources cited) in Rorschach test. I suspect you know of medical procedures that at one time were controversial, but have become commonly used after research was conducted and the dust settled. The Rorschach is a very complex test. Quick glances at the literature with intent to find controversy will certainly turn it up, but without the thorough review, you can come away with a very inaccurate impression. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually looked at the whole review that I posted above. Can send you the complete copy if you want. I have not as you said looked into this extensively. Never used the test myself. A little to time consuming in the environment I work in. It does seem that some consider it useful and others do not. The popularity of this test in different professions and different locations would be interesting material to add to this article. This sort of data however is hard to find if it is even avaliable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To correct another false impression that you created, Doc, the statement "if it is even avaliable" suggests that it might not be (it's a bit like my saying, "if you are even a physician"). The data are available. And the data may be hard for you to find because you haven't gone to the trouble to find them. But the data are easily found for those who wish to actually take some time to do so. Ward3001 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An exerp from the paper you list above "In a study with adolescents, Silberg and Armstrong (1992) found that the S-CON did not discriminate previous adolescent inpatient suicide attempters from nonattempters. However, a six-variable empirically derived cluster did discriminate them quite well. Four of the six variables (SumV > 0, C.Sh > 1, MOR > 1, CF + C > FC) overlapped considerably with the S-CON. Meyer (1993) reported that the S-CON was not associated with a weak suicide risk criterion. This rating-scale criterion was confounded with depression, and the sample contained only 12 serious attempters."

Seems some studies find association and others do not.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, please don't pretend that you understand the Rorschach and its research based on reading one article. Do you actually think you have mastered the level of knowledge needed to understand this test? Just as you did in your very first post in this discussion, you have selectively picked tidbits here and there to confirm a preconceived notion of yours, ignoring (or ignorant of) the larger composite of research. For example, I could selectively pick the following statement from the same article and suggest very different conclusions: "The complex of data support the utility of the S-CON". For your (uninformed) information, the Silberg and Armstrong study was attempting to devise a revised S-CON for adolescents. It was not a full investigation of the effectiveness of the then-current S-CON. And you have completely ignored the research on adult suicide. Do you know anything about the relative effectiveness of the S-CON for adolescents compared to adults? My hypothetical example may have involved a 15-year-old, but that does not make adult suicide any less serious. For someone who claims to understand science, you're making some of the most egregious scientific fallacies possible. (May God be with your patients if you apply the same scientific standards to diagnosing and treating them.) Look, the vast majority of physicians know almost nothing about the Rorschach; and that's perfectly OK because they don't pretend to undertstand it and instead rely on those who do understand it to inform them. You're a physician. You're not a psychologist, and you're not God. There have been about 500 quality journal articles published on the Rorschach since Exner began his work. How many of those have you read? Please tell us what is the complete basis for your expertise in the Rorschach that lets you draw sweeping conclusions from one journal article. Otherwise let's not be fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about because you read a journal article. Your opinions as an editor are welcome here. But you're nothing close to an expert on the Rorschach or any major personality test. Expertise is not a requirement for a Wikipedia editor. But acting as if you're an expert without any justification seriously damages your credibility. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heartening to see editors now engaging positively and providing useful and relevant references to support their positions. But I suspect the heated dicussion over Ward's hypothetical example may have somewhat skewed the debate - which now seems to be on the brink of "if prior exposure could cause suicidality to be missed, the image must go! (or stay further down the page)". I'd suggest that suicide is a worst case scenario and that the more common problem would be less severe mis-diagnosis caused by the blunting of the test's validity. But I still think it unethical to ignore this possibility. I am still struggling, however, as I have all along, to see how this could ever be "proved" one way or the other. But I am not a medical practionner and am certainly not familar with the literature. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the "worst case scenario" issue may have sidetracked us some (although that worst case scenario is very important and, in fact, the research on suicide detection with the Rorschach has been some of the most useful research that has been conducted on the Rorschach). There are a lot of things that are hard to prove beyond any doubt; that's true in almost any scientific endeavor. Proving anything about suicide is even harder because it's such a rare event. But it's such a devastating event (and not just for the victim) that anything that improves our diagnostic skills is worthwhile. But beyond suicide, diagnostic precision in general can be critically important. And I don't mean which DSM-IV category a person might fit into. I am referring to the kind of diagnosis that provides more than a superficial pigeon-holing of the patient into a category. And the Rorschach adds immensely to our skills in gathering such information, but only if the results are valid and not contaminated (such as with prior exposure to an image). Just in the small town in which I work, there are several psychiatrists, internists, and family medical practitioners who rely on myself and other psychologists to help guide them in medication and other treatment decisions. The Rorschach certainly isn't the only source for their information, but it's one component used by responsible practitioners who have a healthy respect for the complexities of mental health diagnosis and treatment. Ward3001 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Ward. I must admit that inappropriate medication following misdiagnosis was a concern - could the ostensible consequences be much less obvious than a successful or attempted suicide, but still be very serious for an individual's quality of life? And a question for all Goggle-lovers - will there come a day where Wikipedia use determines popularity of image search in Google, or are we even close yet? What would our yardstick of public exposure then be? Perhaps some web expert could help with that one. (Note to Chillum - these questions are not meant to be rhetorical). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, misdiagnosis and the resulting medication decisions can have far-reaching consequences that don't involve suicide. As just one example (and the possibilities are almost endless, so let's not just focus on this one scenario henceforth), if we have an out-of-control 10-year-old who is saying that voices tell him to do bad things and who is not responding to standard behavior management techniques, are we dealing with a bad case of ADHD combined with emerging Conduct Disorder and manipulative behavior, Bipolar Disorder, psychosis, some combination of those, or something else that hasn't been considered? The medication and other treatment possibilities there are incredibly complex with a host of potentially avoidable side effects. And about the only test that can be administered directly to that child (not just questionnaires for the parents) is the Rorschach. I have been in similar situations on numerous occasions. Sometimes the Rorschach results were a critical piece of the puzzle, sometimes they helped, and sometimes there were still lots of questions. But on the whole, the precision of the diagnoses was improved significantly with the Rorschach results. Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This worst case scenario was about the only thing I found even a little convincing about the arguments to tuck the image away. Now Doc's investigation seems to show varied findings in that matter. I don't think a mere blunting of the test in any way justifies any sort of editorial bias. I agree with Doc that the image should be moved to the top. I don't think we need to put all of the images in a gallery at the bottom. I don't think the article is long enough to need that many pictures. What is more, once you have seen one example of the ink blot there is little encyclopedic value in the other inkblots(imho). Chillum 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are varied opinions on pretty much everything in science, including human controbution/causation of global warming. So what? The fact is that 80% of psychologists doing assessments consider the test useful (80% of such psycholgists use the test) and 80% of academic departments do too (otherwise they wouldn't devote considerable time and resources to teaching it to their students). Just because a minority are opposed to it for whatever reason doesn't mean that we disregard the consensus within the field. So, the consensus is that the test is useful in a healthcare field for healthcare purposes.Faustian (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, please tell us the specific literature (name the sources) that justify moving the image to the top. It's fine for you to have that opinion as your opinion, but if you want to attribute your justification to "the literature" as if there is some scientific basis for your opinion, you need to back that up with citations. Let's turn the tables. I could edit a medically-related article that you have invested some time and research in; I could claim to have looked at "the literature", and then I could rewrite that article based on ... ? Is it based on the literature, or is it based on my opinion? So please back up your claims regarding "the literature". Otherwise let's acknowledge that it's simply your opinion, not a scientific one. Ward3001 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Chillum, that was a short few days. I'm not sure I have managed to tame those darned hotheads in your absence, but I do hope that there are now "some new arguments or at least progression of some sort". Does your finding the worst case scenario "even a little convincing" mean that you accept that pre-exposure of an image may damage the validity of this test? Or if not, why not? I know it's only your opinion, but I'm still very interested to hear it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I will state I am not a psychologist but a physician. They did not teach this during medical school or residency in Canada as of the year 2000. I have never nor have I ever seen any other physician use this test in my 10 years of practice. Non of our social workers or councilors use the test either. I do see suicidal children and do not believe that this would have added anything to there treatment / diagnosis. I have been unable to find any statements by the American Psychiatric Association pertaining to this test. Were is it being used? Is it just regional?

My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc, no offense, but you continue to reveal your lack of knowledge here. Social workers and counselors neither administer the Rorschach nor are trained in the Rorschach. The Rorschach is administered and interpreted by psychologists. There is a difference. American Psychiatric Association??? Once again, Doc, psychiatrists don't administer the Rorschach; psychiatrists leave that task up to the properly trained psychologists. And the fact that you see suicidal children but choose not to seek input from a psychologist who could help diagnose that child properly does not diminish the power of the Rorschach. I'll leave up to others to decide what it might say about your professional judgment. And it's perfectly fine that you have not been convinced not to place the image at the top, but let's make it clear that that is your personal opinion, and it's not based on a review of the scientific literature or any more than a superficial understanding of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Offense has been taken. You make it clear that you would prefer subtle insults than discussing issues. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, you have offended the sensibilities of serious scientists in some of your subtle suggestions. Cheers. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take too much offence, DocJames. It's very encouraging that you have been clear about your professional interest and experience here, instead of pretending to have a level of knowledge that you do not. I'm sure your views are respected, even if they are deemed to be personal opinions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can agree that psychiatrist / social workers do not use this test. Neither do our psychologists ( who I referred to as counselors above ) Any data supporting the 80% of psychologist use this test?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was actually Faustian who added that information, although I don't doubt its veracity as I've seen the figures. I can't remember the specific source, but if Faustian doesn't provide it soon I'll try to dig it up. But only on the condition that no one will selectively cherry-pick quotes and post them here out of context to create a false impression. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it was Faustian. This is why I commented on the use of this test by other health care professionals. I presume you are referring to the review I mentioned above when you comment on cheer picking :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of cherry picking here, but bringing all that up serves no purpose at this point. I just wanted to get my caveat about it on the record so that if/when I find the source (if Faustian doesn't), it might prevent it from happening again. I think I've made my point and don't intend to bring up cherry-picking again unless it happens again. Thanks for your understanding. Ward3001 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Still have no idea what you are talking about...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't I doubt that I could convince you, so why don't we just let bygones be bygones and move on. My edits above will always be there if you ever want to look at them in more detail. If no one tries to cherry pick quotes in the future, that aspect of this debate won't be a problem. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to continue on with my point. In most areas of the world psychologists do not deal with the presentations of emergency psychiatry. It is primarily dealt with by psychiatric nurses, emergency physicians, and psychiatrists. And please correct me if I am wrong but it seems only psychologists use the Rorschach. If this test were important in picking up frequent subtle presentations of depression that are detectable by no other method and this test could prevent the discharged from care of children who subsequently commit suicide we would all be using it. As we are not this does indirectly cast some doubt on the usefulness of this test. All other professionals other than psychologists are not idiots who miss important tools which are essential for helping their patients. And there are lawyers which makes sure no one falls though the cracks :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not in most parts of your world, but in my world (and I practice in a small town, but I have trained in metropolitan areas), psychologists are an essential part of emergency psychiatric situations. I am frequently called by the hospital at which I sometimes work for emergencies involving psych patients. Psychiatrists often seek my opinion (or another psychologist who is available) before making major decisions, including involuntary commitments. In fact, I have been involved in involuntary commitments more than any non-psychiatrist physician at that hospital. And I will correct you since you asked me to. Yes, only psychologists administer the Rorschach, and contrary to your impression, such data are often requested by psychiatrists and other physicians. As to your statement that "we would all be using it" -- no, only the psychologists administer it, but lots of specialties use the results. I seriously mean no offense, Doc, but I really think you have a very narrow and outdated view of psychologists. Maybe it's your training, maybe it's your specific geographic region, or maybe it's something that I don't know about. But physicians in many locations rely heavily on psychologists to assist them in their diagnosis and treatment. And I did not say that other professions are idiots. That's a very warped and cynical interpretation of my comments. There is a needed place for everyone -- psychologists, physicians, social workers, licensed counselors. They all have their important roles. It just happens that psychological testing is one of the roles of the psychologists that other professions don't use (and most don't wish to have to learn how to use them anyway). Psychologists don't expect others to know about the details of the tests, and most of the physicians, social workers, and counselors I know are quite satisfied with being part of a team in which the psychologist plays an important role, just as all the other specialties play an important role. That's mental health care in the 21st century. Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists do not generally use this test because it is not their area of expertise. However, at least at the Ivy League hospital where I work, psychiatrists are quite familiar with it and residents are trained in basic knowledge about it and are expected to know about it. Similarly, psychologists don't prescibe meds (except in some very limited settings) but are expected to have some basic knowledge about certain medications. Psychiatrists turn to psychologists when they feel the use of the test is called for, (for diagnostic clarification, risk management, etc.). The fact that they don't administer it themselves in no way indicates that they do not believe in its utility. It just means they didn't spend a year learning how to properly administer the test and analyze the results. And here is the reference for the facts that 80% of psychologists practicing assessment use the test and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach it: [Weiner, I.B., Greene, R.L (2007). Handbook of Personality Assessment. John Wiley and Sons. pg. 402. ISBN 0471228818]. The reference was in the article, why didn't anyone find it?Faustian (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It does state that 80% of psychologists use this test. This ref here says in the assessment of children and youth 40% never use the test and 4 % use it always.

Title:Child and adolescent psychological assessment: Current clinical practices and the impact of managed care

Source:Professional psychology, research and practice [0735-7028] Cashel yr:2002 vol:33 iss:5 pg:446

So yes I agree the test is used by many psychologists. Even more of a reason to discuss it in full detail.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, if 40% of psychologists never use the test in the assessment of children and youth, 60% use it at least once in a while. I agree that its widespread use is a good reason to discuss it in full detail. A detailed discussion doesn't have to mean spoiling the test however.Faustian (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know the name of the test you can spoil it regardless of Wikipedia. If you are searching for it by name you are expecting to see the images of it. The article just looks better with the inkblot in the lead. When I search for this test that is what I expect to see. Trying to hide it for ethical reasons I find strange and goes against the ethics we follow in medicine. Unless something will cause definite harm to the patient it is their right to know.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are searching for it by name you are not necessarily expecting to see the image. The page is about the test, not the blots. Your opinion is that the page looks better with the image in the lead. Others feel it shouldn't be here at all. So the collective compromise was to have it in the test materials section where the blots are described. The test is considered useful, so therefore compromising it is harmful. What sort of ethics would consider it acceptable to compromise a tool that is useful in treating people? Nonmaleficence or "do no harm" is an essential component of ethics. And we ought not leave it behind when we go online. Faustian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New consensus has emerged

Ward one new voice does not change consensus. It takes a new argument that other editors support. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus before the "one new voice". The "one new voice" only makes the absence of consensus more pronounced. Lawrencekhoo's revert was before the "one new voice". Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek has stated in an edit summary that Xeno was functioning as an admin in his edit of the article. For the record, this is what Xeno wrote above: "there's nothing 'administrative' about what I'm doing here". There are legitimate disagreements here, but please don't fall into Chillum's habit of misrepresenting opinions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward your childish mud slinging and lack of good faith does nothing to improve this article or your arguments. Xeno was an uninvolved admin trying to make a point. Soon you shall see admins acting officious. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he said. He said I was an "uninvolved admin", and, for all intents and purposes, I am. I don't use the Rorschach test in my professional practice. I don't anything to gain or lose by ensuring the image is at the top or not. I hadn't edited the article until coming here from the request for comment. It was my uninvolved opinion that consensus was for the image being at the top, this being an article about the Rorschach test and not Hermann Rorschach, and this being an encyclopedia. I only count three people arguing for it not being at the top (some with obvious biases and conflicts of interests) and many more arguing persuasively for it being there. –xeno^talk 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, let me suggest that you stop your own "childish" threats. I think Xeno has explained himself to my satisfaction. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, this bickering does nothing to enhance the article or justify your position. I have not threatened you but merely stated a fact. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Soon you shall see admins acting officious". Ward3001 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes because you refuse to accept a new consensus and have been edit warring to avoid it. Ward, your own behavior threatens you, not I. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Soon you shall see admins acting officious". Your words speak for themselves. A threat is a threat is a threat. As for edit warring, I think if you read the false edit warring report you made on me, you'll see that you're as guilty as anyone. I don't plan to revert the article any time soon out of respect for Wikipedia policies. But Gary, look at your own history, not just on this article but elsewhere. You're not exactly the virgin bride who's entitled to put on that white gown now are you? Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My report was not false and I will not allow you to slander me, "A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts" says policy and EdJohnston. The fact that I am as guilty as you for 3 reverts does not make my report false or change the facts that I have consensus on my side. Now you troll my history and continue name calling. Your behavior is deplorable and I will not continue this thread for it does nothing for the article in question. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is "trolling your history", Gary. It doesn't take a major investigation to look at your talk page. Geez. Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Still you slander. My talk page is a lesson in civility that you should learn. Noticed I do not revert criticism as you do but actually engage other editors in thoughtful discussion. If you wish to engage me that is the place. This article's talk page is for improving the article. Please desist this thread. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Falsely accussing someone of slander is ... slander. I'll "desist this thread" just as soon as you do. Thank you for your cooperation. Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this discussion is getting no were, has been going on a long time, and is often uncivil containing personal attacks. Maybe an RFC is needed? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean an RfC on placement of the image, actually all of this debate has arisen from an RfC that's still in effect (look a few sections up). Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I put that one up a while ago. Speaking of which, quick question. If an RfC does not solve an issue, what is the next step/tool/procedure supposed to be? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia:Mediation Committee been tried? Wikipedia:Arbitration may however be needed but one has to show that all other measures have been tried. I am new to this discuss so am not up on the history here but there is definately a lot of animosity and may WP:Policies are being broken.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By far consensus is the preferred method. After that you follow WP:DR. I think third opinion is the next step. Then informal mediation, formal mediation, and arbitration. But the details are at WP:DR. Probably best to let the dust settle a couple of days and see how things stand. Ward3001 (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What new consensus? Consensus isn't majority vote, it is coming to a version mutually acdeptable by most parties. The ratio of those supporting the image at the top and those opposed to displaying it is the same as it has always been. I posted consensus info before and I'll do it again because we ought to know what consenus really is before we make edits or edit war based on false notions of consensus. Either continue this conversation [31] or have it here:

Wikipedia:Consensus. It is not about majority vote: "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." It is all about compromise: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." As has been noted and seen in the archives, there have been many approaches taken to the inkblot images. Some editors have felt that they shouldn't be here at all and that the articles should only include simulations (and such editors have created simulations), others (such as I) have wanted to have the image hidden, requiring a click to open and view it, thereby giving the reader the choice about whether or not to see it, while others have wanted the image on the top, unhidden (this point of view was besr expressed here:[32] by an editor not involved in the current discussion). The present version was arrived at through compromise; it was a mutually derived version. Such a compromise was a good example of the collaborative nature of wikipedia editing. What has changed since then? The number of people espousing particular opinions about what to do with the image seems to be at a similar ratio and that various opinions of what is "ideal" are exactly the same as they had been before. A majority wanted the image to be presented one way; a significant minority disagreed strongly. Working together, we made a compromise that was acceptable to all. This was a good example of consensus as defined by wikipedia policy. But now, rather than compromise, it seems that someone has decided that the majority simply dictates what happens. I'm assuming this is being done in good faith due to not knowing what consensus really means - compromise and taking all viewpoints into account to create an acceptable article.Faustian (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Faustian I mean no insult when I say I do not believe you understand consensus. It's true consensus is an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on but that doesn't and rarely means that everyone agrees. It's also true that this is not a democracy done by voting but it is a majority based on logic. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that consensus means that everyone must agree - what it means is that it needs to be something that takes into account most viewpoints - as you correctly stated "consensus is an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree." Where is this effort when someone pushes to have a version that reflects 100% of what the majority wants without taking into account the opinion of a significant minority? To summarize yet again, we have some editors who feel that this image shouldn't be here at all and should be replaced by a fake image or a sillouette of an image, we have other editors who prefer a "hidden" image that can be unhidden with a click, and we have the majority that wants the image there and on top. We arrived at a consensus to display the actual image, but rather than place it on top we placed it in the test materials section, which is the section that describes the images and cards. This was a good example of consensus. Could there be unsatisfied lone individuals? Sure - consensus doesn't mean veto power by single editors. But utterly refusing to take into account the opinion of 30% or so of editors involved in the article and just ramming through the majority preference is not consensus as defined bywikipedia policy. On that page: [33] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions." (emphasis added by me). The ethical part is important, but more pertinant to this discussion is the emphaiss on a product that reflects a negotiation that balances competing views. Again, where is the negotiation that balances the competing views when the final version is a 100% representation of what the majority wants?

Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."

Moreover, [34] "Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus.

A vote may help to organize discussion around specific proposals, but this can sometimes breed conflict and division. One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option. Even a "middle ground" option can be insufficient, as forcing people to choose between options may prevent new ideas from coming forward that would gain more support. Another problem with voting is that it might prevent a real discussion, as voters do not have to justify their position. This prevents people from evaluating the underlying reasons for a vote, and criticizing weak or inaccurate reasoning for a vote. It also prevents people from coming up with alternative ways to satisfy the voter's concern, with a less divisive course of action.

The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time."

Again, where is consensus when the opinions of a significant minority are simply disregarded when it comes to the content of the article itself - when the article does not take into account their opinions at all? In that case, how is negotiation reflected in the article content? Where is the synthesis of different viewpoints?

I would like to add that I take no offence by your words. I also hope that you and others don't let your attitude be swayed and nuetrality compromised by unkind words by another editor who is arguing against you.Faustian (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. whenever possible. Being logical you must agree that this is not always possible. We have beat this issue to death for months at a time and arguing about the definition of consensus brings us no closer to solving the dilemma at hand. I respect your opinion that you do not believe consensus had changed but do not share that view. Regardless, the next step in the dispute resolution process should be followed, Mediation or Arbitration. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree generally. I would add that if in this case agreement is impossible it is due to the deliberate effort on the part of those wanting the image at the top. I have listed my prefrence and have agreed to and worked on a compromise. Once this whole process is complete, I hope the end result isn't to reward those who refuse to compromise and refuse to go by consensus, whose meaning is quite clear: "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""; "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue."; "[35] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

It's clear what consensus is. I am playing by the rules here, it's unfortunate that others choose not to.Faustian (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said it is pointless for us to debate consensus (do you really believe the Admins who feel consensus has changed do not understand what consensus is?) and your argument maybe turned around to say you would not compromise to move the picture. What really matters is the weight of the arguments each side postulates. The three of you have stuck to your principal arguments but failed to convince others of their validity in the encyclopedia environment. Please respect that we disagree and either side is not likely to change its mind considering the amount of time already devoted to this issue. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Being an admin does not necessarily mean that one knows the policies well, as we have seen above. The policy is outlined above: which parts of the policy go against what I have been saying? Moreover, there are four editors here who have argued against placing the image at the top, not three. Furthermore, my position has been to hide the image - the current page the way it is is a result of compromise, not my original position. Others have not wanted the image here at all or wanted a fake image. We have compromised by accepting the actual image, unhidden, in the test materials section. We followed consensus policy which clearly indicates that wikipedia is based on taking into account various points of view and accomodating them as much as possible. The side that seeks to circumvent that policy by just ramming through their version is not mine. I repeat the points on consenus that for some reason are conveniently ignored:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."

• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""

• "[36] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

Please point out how ramming through the majority's preference with no regard to the minority's points in terms of how the article looks is not a violation of the the three points above? Saying "because I think so and I'm an admin so I know better what policy is" is not an argument, with all due respect. Faustian (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, an other discussion about what consensus is. "Consensus" on Wikipedia IS a vote, but obvious sockpuppets, canvassed people, and those who clearly have no idea what they are talking about are ignored. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This not the place to debate what consensus is. Feel free to do that at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. This talk page is for improving the Rorschach test article. Let us return to topic at hand. Anyone object to mediation? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To Apoc2400 - Consensus policy clearly states it is not a vote. Read the first line here [37]. Your implied accusations that there are sockpuppets etc. is noted.

To Garycompugeek, the heading here is your claim that "new consensus has emerged." Has it? A discussion of what consensus is, is pertinant here. Your refusal to do so (beyond merely stating it is what I say it is) is unfortunate. I've outlined what wikipedia policy on consensus is. I don't think we can just ignore policy completely as Apoc2400 seems to want to do.

The discussion of consensus is important and relevant because outlining what consensus is, affects the way we approach changes to this article. I urge you to read or reread the policy and please point out in which way I am mistaken, if I am mistaken, with regards to these points and how the article ought to look, when we take into account all the divergent views. This goes directly to improving the article, as an ideal article takes into account various views, which is what wikipedia concensus policy mandates. I'll repeat it again:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus? is quite clear: "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."
• "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.""
• "[38] "Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are consiered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

You made the claim that consensus had changed. What evidence did you have for that? Basically, a majority vote. But this clearly is not what consensus is about, as outlined above. Do you retract your claim? If so, do you seek to determine the article's content in a way that in essence goes against consensus policy by refusing to negotiate/compromise/synthesize other views/tking onto account ethical restrictions etc.?Faustian (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No I do not retract my claim. I totally believe that consensus has changed but refuse to debate the issue with you. It seems like you would rather debate the definition of consensus than press your argument for picture location or do you fear the outcome of mediation? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you make a claim and refuse to defend that claim after evidence was presented that the claim is based on a faulty understanding of what consensus means. That's unfortunate. I have already made numerous arguments on picture location, as have others. We've settled on a situation with different opinions. So now we need to come to a consensus by making a good faith effort to synthesize our various views. I've made that effort. Have you? Have you tried to come to an agreement and take into account others' views which is what consensus means? Or do you refuse to do so. As for mediation, what do you mean by that?

Moreover, I am wondering other than you how many others refuse to do so. Because it seems we are presented with two discrete issues here:

1. how many people prefer one presentation of the image versus another
2. how many people want to arrive at consensus and work on a mutually agreeable solution, versus how many want to make no compromises whatsoever.22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)

May or may not be new consensus

I figured that was obvious but does this make you feel better Faustian? I have tried to take the definition of consensus nonsense to either Wikipedia talk:Consensus or even your discussion page. Let me also be plain... Faustian and I do not agree on what consensus is. OK. Let's move on to formal mediation if there are no objections otherwise I suggest arbitration. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The heading implies that one opinion about consensus is true.Faustian (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10