I have found some citations to relate this to the partners of those with Asperger syndrome. I am not sure how valid, or even notable this is. I've just added the information for now. --Zeraeph18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While trolling around random pages, I found the article on temporal illusion.It's in a sorry state, but a search on Google scholar shows that a good article can be written on the subject.This is a polite way of encouraging you folks to write it.YechielMan05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies up front if this isn't the place, but after an exhaustive search on the net I could think of no other place to actually as people the question which to me relates greatly to the topic of psychology and to people who share a fondness of it and could perhaps shed some light.
We have all experienced at one point or another in our lives a person using the phrase "I dont want to argue with you". If we remove those cases when it is clearly obvious someone is purposely trying to pick a fight (ie the person saying the phrase says it because absolutely no answer will suffice ), what does a person really mean when they say this phrase?
I considered several possibilities myself, but would be very interested in finding out if there are any specific psychological conditions, behaviours, or mechanisms that might lead a person to use this to obfuscate something entirely different.
So as to not cause problems on this page I have created a sub-page you can reply to : Here
Barnstar Wikiproject Award for neuroscience articles - i dont really know how to format the box's and stuff -someone else can help with that - hopefully i can make a psych one soon. thuglastalk|edits15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some of you might know I started the Mental health professional article a little while back. My goal was to discuss what a mental health professional is, what fields they can go into and define differences.
After creating the article several people proposed the idea of creating a “psychiatry vs. psychology” article. Ever since I heard that idea, I’ve liked it. So many people out there don’t know the difference or think one is “better” than the other. Since that time I’ve written what will be the future article on this topic. It’s neutral, presents both professions/studies in a positive way, and talks about major similarities & differences between them. So that means I’ll be uploading it soon.
Some may ask, “Why not bring in other professions too?” Well good point, however most mental health professions are already in the Mental health professional article. My guess is most of the confusion lies between the “big two,” if you will. However, I will be mentioning the other professionals in this new article (briefly), and linking them to MHP.
One problem though. What to call the new article? I have a list of articles that will link to it all ready, but I still don’t know what the title of this new article should be. I’m sure I’ll be creating numerous redirects so it may be found easier, but I want the main article’s title to be informative & neutral. Let me know your thoughts.
Add your own comments below the list (dislikes & likes)
If you have some better ideas, add them into the list and explain with your comments below.
Psychiatry vs. Psychology might be best. Using the whole word "versus" seems to emphasize an antagonistic relationship between the two. Although this may sometimes be the case, I'd prefer not to emphasize it, almost to the point of choosing Psychiatry and Psychology. Psychiatry should definitely go first because historically, it was the first profession to go into this area. --Jcbutler14:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be listed there. I just proposed a new article because it is such a huge source of reference among information web sites out there. Googling "psychiatrist or psychologist" you get 1,210,000 pages. The other reason I was creating it was because of the 2 or 3 individuals on the MHP talk page who were requesting an additional article be created (not counting those here). Chupper18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just dont like when articles are long and stupid sounding. I think the smartest idea would be to link both psychiatry and psychology to a common article - mental health profession or whatever. Perhaps this is too long for the article but I would be semi-happy if you had a section on it, and then a - "click here for MAIN ARTICLE - Differences between a psychologist and psychiatrist right underneath the header. Is this a good even ground for everyone? thuglastalk|edits23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Just stumbled on an Afd on an article tagged by you guys as one of your own. It's Philosophy_of_Death_and_Adjustment, I don't know much about Pyschology, so if some of you sharper Psychological minds coukd comb over the article, see if it's notable and vote on the matter. It seems to be somewhat hot button.
--Sharz07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know at least one member of this group has turned attention to the article on locus of control, which certainly needed much editing. If any one knows about the familial origins of locus of control orientations, it would improve the article if such data were added to the article, as would increased coverage of applications of locus of control to health psychology and increased coverage of the work of those who have looked at changes in locus of control across the lifespan. Finally, a section on cross-cultural differences in locus of control would be a good additional touch to this article. ACEOREVIVED20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders, which recently got renamed through CfD, is already undergoing another CfD and needs comment. Over the last four days, the discussion has mainly been between two people disagreeing with each other. [1]. Although I expressed my own opinion about it a few days ago, I'm actually okay with either outcome. I just feel more people need to weigh in on this. Doczilla19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I seem to remember reading about Lorna Wing's defence of the existance of an autistic spectrum, composed of four subtypes. SPD would be included in one of them. The article could be structured to include (a) context about autistic spectrum (b) characteristics of SPD (c) stats (d) current research (e) proposed psychological treatment (d) diffs with other disorders/related disorders. Raystorm22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if someone who specializes in clinical psychology could have a look at Attachment disorder and give their opinion? There are also some 'popular psychology' issues involved. We would appreciate any opinion on that article.--DorisH16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
www.toad.net/~arcturus/ (The author of many pages being Sharon C. Ekleberry) seems to have been used as a reference/link on a lot of psych pages, specifically related to personality disorders, but perhaps also others. It also seems a valid reference, however, now it is gone :o(
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of requested articles in the psychology section. I deleted a few that were pop psychology nonsense or so vague as to be useless as a request. I also suggested a few redirects. Can we have someone with some expertise (especially in clinical/counseling psychology where most of the requests seem to fall into) look at the requests and either create stubs, or delete the nonsense that psychology so often receives?--Cassmus08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate clinical depression for an increase in Importance from high to top, for two reasons:
The topic would be a "must-have" for a "print" encyclopedia, and
The article is pending nomination as a Featured Article; if approved, it may be linked to from the main Wikipedia page, at which point it could have an audience of millions.
This topic has extensive coverage in psychology related books and scholarly journal articles, and the article itself could use some expansion here on the project... Smee19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is a proposed Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles, including suggested headers for clinical diseases/disorders. It seems that a lot of articles on clinical psych conditions would not be suitably covered by this approach (i.e. by just a medical model). Including the central article mental disorder. Would it be feasible to develop a similar guide outlining a more psychological (or biopsychosocial) format? I could help have a go at starting this if there were any agreement or advice. EverSince14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EverSince, I agree that we need some sort of psych/biopsych model. Consider the synesthesia entry, which I have been working on for a while now to attempt to bring up to good-article status. I have been working towards a medical model because this is what Sandy Georgia recommended to me on my talk page, but I do find it a little inappropriate for something like synesthesia, which does not generally cause medical difficulties, depsite the fact that we now have a clear understanding of the neural mechanisms whereby it arises. I am happy to help, as able. Perhaps on starting point would be APA format, with the Harvard reference system that is already in place? Or, do we want to go to the cite:php method even though it is less commonly used in psychological topics? Edhubbard16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edhubbard, I can see what you mean about its unsuitability for synesthesia, although the work there looks impressive. I have to say I've also previously encountered the editor you mention advancing a purely medical approach to everything. Of course, even if mental conditions/disorders do involve difficulties, there are both medical and social (and synthesis) models of disability, and different approaches to intervention and care.
To discuss the details and take this forward, given no objections, it seems that starting a subpage on this project space might be best initially (like the Anatomy Guidelines]. And perhaps if it does take a solid agreed shape it could be added to the manual of style space like WP:MEDMOS. I'll create this shortly. EverSince09:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Sandy's defense, she said that she was also initially uncomfortable with the medical model when she was working on Tourettes Syndrome (her baby), but that she adjusted to it. I think that, if there had been a well worked out alternative, she may have been able to choose that path instead. So, let's try to help out with this, and set up a model that we feel most comfortable with. Perhaps we can also work on trying to make clear what sections most good Psych articles should have? Edhubbard11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, there's just been difficulties with covering spectrum concepts and with Schizophrenia being classed as a purely biological/medical topic in featured articles. I've started a rough outline here, very much extracted from the MEDMOS guidelines with just some tinkering, all of which can be completely changed or revised of course. EverSince12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Schizophrenia is classified under Biology/Medicine at WP:FA simply because there's no other place for it. There aren't, basically, hardly any psychology featured articles, so they don't warrant a separate category. So, it's there by default, not design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all (Ed, I didn't know you were over here :-) We've extensively discussed (at my prodding) broadening the suggested section headings at WP:MEDMOS, making sure they included alternatives and possibilities for "non-disease-oriented" articles, and indicating that they are *suggested* headings. Of course, MEDMOS doesn't preclude separate psychology guidelines, but I'm posting this here so that you all will have a chance to weigh in. Hopefully, we've now gotten the medical groups to broaden the Manual of Style to the point that it now more comfortable encompasses, for example, Tourette's—they certainly had to hear from me at every turn. I would also say that EverSince doesn't understand me well in saying that I "advanc[e] a purely medical approach to everything". I do advance anything that will help us generate comprehensive, well-sourced articles. Hopefully you'll concur that MEDMOS, in its current form, will do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've been working with Sandy and others on WP:MEDMOS. The "section headings" section is only one small part of MEDMOS. I do hope your project can find agreement with all the other sections, and not feel the need to duplicate or deviate. Your suggestions to help with this accommodation would be welcome. Wrt to the headings, we've got a list of suggestions for the more clinical "disease/disorder/syndrome" articles because that is the background that many of our editors have. We've also got one for drugs. If Psychology topics are so different that you wanted your own suggested heading list, I'm sure that could be added as another sub-heading. In short, I'm not sure this project needs a complete Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Psychology) of its own. I would say that, though, wouldn't I :-) Even if you do decide to go your own way, I'd encourage you to comment on our proposal as this will only help with ideas for your own. Cheers, Colin°Talk21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly can I say I badly phrased the comment about always advancing a purely medical approach and didn't mean to make assumptions. However, Sandy, you have previously referred to the schizophrenia article as "one of the medical FAs in worst shape" (and since then, on the FA talk page, suggested it should stay listed under "Biology and Medicine" as may soon lose FA status anyway) and instructed me to use "correct medical references".
There seems to have been quite a lot of revisions to the MEDMOS article today and yesterday. The discussion related to this and broadening the suggested clinical headings (not sure if this is the extensive discussions you refer to Sandy, I couldn't see others) seems to have been archived even though it only it occured yesteday, and from some of the comments seems to have been partly about appealing to other projects including this one. I do actually like the changes to the headings, like 'characteristics' as an alternative to 'signs and symptoms', and of course think as many as possible should comment. I am confused and concerned, though, as to why there seems to be this desire and attempt to have psychology subsumed within it and not develop as its own thing? (Clinical) Psychology is not a subset of medicine, why do you think it is appropriate for it to be? Sandy has previously said on that spectrum disorder talk page that "The Psychology Project doesn't seem to be overly concerned with getting the basics in place" - you don't seem to want it to get its basics in place now?
If it is simply the case of finding ways to avoid duplication of effort (and conflicting style guides applicable to many of the same articles), I can see a rationale for that, and might suggest a joint "manual of style (clinically-related articles)" or something, rather than misleadingly listing everything under the rubric of medicine. EverSince22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) opposed to anything that would promote a stronger Psychology project—that aim is needed and welcomed. The paucity of featured and good articles in the Psychology realm is one indicator of the need for a strengthened Project, and the Schizophrenia article is another (it's no longer as bad as it was several months ago, but it's still not meeting current FA standards). The criticism of the Schizophrenia article isn't unique to Psychology; I also have three or four medical "disease" articles that need to be sent to WP:FAR. It isn't my intent at all to stall any guidelines for Psychology articles, rather to sort out any problems you any of you may see that remain on WP:MEDMOS. I resisted the headings that were in place at MEDMOS when I was trying to write the TS article, and getting no help anywhere from anyone. I had to find my own blend of headings that worked. I think/hope that the adaptations that have since been made render the MEDMOS guidelines more viable across the spectrum of diseases, disorders, conditions, and syndromes that are treated by physicians. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer proposing that psych manual of style - seems like it's been squished - so unless anyone else is then the draft thing that was done could be deleted. EverSince13:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EverSince, can you please help me understand why you are playing these games with my posts here? The timestamps on the posts clearly indicate when the posts were made, so it's a mystery why you are adding these comments. Yes, I came upon this discussion five days after it happened, when I came here to post about MEDMOS. And? I know EdHubbard from another Project, and didn't know he was also here. I responded to your five-day-old query about Schizophrenia right under your post, when I saw your post, but you've moved my posts. What is going on and what are you implying by highlighting that my post was 8 days later, which is already clearly indicated on the timestamps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I would ask you not to refer to these as "games" as it implies something negative, I think, and not assuming good faith? As explained in reply to your similar comment on the medmos talk page, there is no need to make a big deal out of this, I simply was trying to put things in chronological order, and when you reverted that to make the actual chronological order clearer. The timestamps do show it, obviously, but not very clearly, and I actually never noticed one of your replies until I did this reordering, becuase it was interweaved back in the text out of order. I've done the same with your comment here, simply to stop the flow of the discussion becoming impossible to follow as per WP:EQ. EverSince14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am restoring the talk page to accurately reflect responses indented under the post they are responding to, per talk page conventions. Please stop moving my posts, which distorts the record. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on locus of control has received the tag of an article needing attention from a psychology expert. I have made quite a lot of edits to this myself (I do know about this topic), but wondered whether I have inserted too much detail, especially in relation to health psychology and locus of control. There are about 20 or so references appending the article - is that too many, or about right, for a Wikipedia article? Finally, can any expert on developmental psychology add something to this page about the origins of locus of control orientation? Thank you in advance if you can respond to my continuing quest to improve this article. ACEOREVIVED20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This move is appropriate. "Skinner box" was a nickname for the thing. Skinner named it operant conditioning chamber. Doczilla17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This WikiProject lists several psych articles as being featured, but they are actually listed at WP:FA under "biology and medicine". FYI, this discussion from end 2006 seems to have lead to this, despite disagreement. It looks like the editor who initiated it was SandyGeorgia, then using the tag Sandy. In March, without having seen that prior discussion, I questioned this grouping, with only a reply from SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia says above on this talk page that it is "they" who don't want a separate psychology section - I'm not sure where that discussion is.
It seems that mental disorders like schizophrenia and asperger's (autistic spectrum) are very much psychological topics and are widely addressed as such. Major scientific developments in these areas and concepts have involved psychology (incl. experimental, clinical, neuropsychology) as well as medicine. If there are not yet enough articles to justify a separate psych category, should not the existing category title be expanded to "Biology, Medicine and Psychology"? EverSince11:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there are currently no topics in the category that are specific to Psychology, since there is no reason there won't be Psychology FAs in the future, I added Psychology to the existing Biology and medicine category in FA to cover any future concerns. Does this resolve your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schizophrenia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you might be aware of the List of psychology journals over at the Psychology Wiki. Just letting you know that I've recently started developing some of these articles. Part of the development includes creating links to online full texts. Please feel free to use this reference to gain access to papers that in turn can be used to further develop articles here at Wikipedia. If you have a link to a full text that isn't included on any of these articles at Psychology Wiki, please feel free to add it to the appropriate page. Some of these include:
Article is a partial copyvio (see my talk page for details). Since neither I nor User:PrimeHunter appear to be experts in psychology, I hope that one of you can completely rewrite the article. It has some references not related to the original author, so it's a start. x42bn6TalkMess23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone had not one but two psychology templates on parapsychology and further has it listed on its talk pages as falling under the scope of this Wikiproject... That's ridiculous. Parapsychology, despite the similarity in name, is not psychology at all. It's a pseudoscience. Having the psychology templates on that article gives readers the false idea that parapsychology is a science and respected academic discipline within psychology, which is certainly not the case. I have removed the templates, and the psychology category. I also think the template there saying that it belonged to this wikiproject should also be removed, but I'd hate to do it and have someone just undo it not realizing why it was removed. DreamGuy04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably, I suspect that the people who run the parapsychology institutes at Stamford, Harvard, and Yale would all have something to say about such a terse and unflattering generalization. In point of fact, parapsychology is indeed a recognized branch of psychological theory, espoused by some of the esteemed architects of general theory themselves. People like, say,...oh, Jung, Hillman, Erikson, Piaget...and, lest we forget the commentators, like Einstein, Hawking, and Wilber. --DashaKat23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure parapsychologist would have something to say, but then I'm sure the "Intelligent Design" people have something to say about the Evolution article here as well. In neither case does their POV concern us. And, sorry, but everything else you added at the end is either just nonsense or extremely outdated. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies, that doesn't mean the Sherlock Holmes page should have a fairy tale category on it. DreamGuy00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see you currently under arbitration for POV-pushing related to parapsychology via distortions of its acceptance in scientific circles and by abuse of Wikipedia projects and policies. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. DreamGuy06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your last statement is an out and out lie, as I don't even write on parapsychology, son. I suggest you keep your personal attacks to yourself. --DashaKat11:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I had you confused with the similarly-named and similarly acting User:Davkal. So that's not you... but then that doesn't mean your arguments are any more valid. DreamGuy21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some perfectly legitimate research being done under the name of parapsychology with full use of objective measures, falsifiability and the experimental method. The nature of the hypothesis does not, per se, make the research unscientific.Ratinabox19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for historical purposes it should be noted that the above-mentioned request was unanimously denied by every ArbCom member who voted out on it. DashaKat's request was deemed an inappropriate and bad faith filing which was created out of process and against policy to try to cause conflict. And that's pretty typical for DashaKat's behavior in general, I might add. DreamGuy03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks aside, for historical purposes it should be noted that, despite all three abitrations against DreamGuyhaving been dismissed, there have been three calls for arbitration against this editor.
And consistent with this editor's behavior, this statement, "DashaKat's request was deemed an inappropriate and bad faith filing which was created out of process and against policy to try to cause conflict." is a personal version of the truth, spun to reflect poorly on others, while casting this editor in a light that is more favorable. --DashaKat13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cadeceus is also a widely use symbol of medicine/healing hence its use in many places including the logo for the American Veterinary Medicial Association. Ratinabox18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a new member of this WikiProject, I have two requests, in line with the goals of the project:
Initial goal: make an inventory of the quality of psychology articles
Construct a coherent framework for categorization of psychology articles
My first request is that someone rate the article suffering for quality and importance. The banner for this is already on the page Talk:Suffering.
My second request has to do with the categories emotion, pain, perception, motivation... Would someone come with me for ordering them somewhat more? Robert Daoust16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these articles are disorganised and lacking in references. Given that panic attacks are a common problem, it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. Recently, Paulee24 has made some major edits that have several formatting and style problems and which reference an article in the text without giving a link as a footnote.
There is a suggestion to merge PA and PD but I think that is misguided and have justified my view on this elsewhere. Since CBT would appear to be the best treatment for Panic Disorder, a psychologist with expertise in this area would be best to have a look at it all.
I will make some suggestions on the talk pages but could someone else with the expertise have a look at it?
Standardname attempted to draw our attention to an ongoing content dispute on the Dissociative identity disorder page (see project page history). I reverted his extensive additions because this is not the place for the entire discussion. However, I am posting a notice here, to let everyone know about the material I deleted, so that you can read it over yourself. The most informative thing for me was to go and check the last 50 edits on the DID page. Having now reviewed that material, I think that StandardName is engaged in POV pushing by removing all mention of the scientific controversy that exists around DID, but it would be good to get feedback from other editors, too. Edhubbard08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This (that StandardName was POV pushing) was the consensus of the editors on Dissociative identity disorder as well as the conclusion of the two admins who posted to his talk page warning him about said POV-pushing and other policy-breaking actions. DreamGuy03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should noted that, while I am in agreement regards the activities of Standardname is guilty of the above-mentioned, DreamGuy himself is running point on the on-going content dispute/edit warring situation regards these pages.
Although DreamGuy's edits are warranted, in many cases, his on-going attempts to control the manner in which the information is presented are often (and this is not an accusation, it is an observation) the source of content controversy(ies). --DashaKat13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a post of mine copied from the Talk:Suicide page:
Not having seen this article for a while, my immediate reaction to the pictures in it was that they had the potential to glorify suicide. One potential outcome of this is copycat suicides. While there is a need to be NPOV about the subject, there is also a social responsibility to not contribute to further suicides. It is significant that neither the article on murder or homicide have pictures of victims despite the ready availability of such material. This brief entry is to encourage a debate about this. [Posted 28 July 2007]
There has not been a response to this posting in the last week and my entry remains the most recent page edit as I write this. I am therefore unclear as to whether this lack of response signifies disinterest or just that people have not looked at the page in the last week. --CloudSurfer10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that copycat suicides etc. is just a theory, and one that is IMO not to be taken too seriously. To try to edit articles based upon supposed "social responsibility" based upon one particular belief as if it were 100% real and needed to be honored as an agenda would be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long literature on copycat suicides and it is generally taken seriously by the media in many countries to the extent that reporting of individual suicides is rare. To acknowledge any bias, my background on this comes from being an Australian (Australia being one of the few countries that teaches the media about this), a psychiatrist, and a member of the board of our local LifeLine (equivalent of the Samaritans). I have run media workshops on the subject. Recently in Samoa we have had a spate of suicides that appears to be associated with an advertising campaign that symbolically glorified suicide, although that was not the advertiser's intention.
I do not know how you have reached your opinion but you might like to look at the references in the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, there is no dissenting view in that article. That would suggest that there is either not significant dissent on the subject or that the dissenters have yet to edit the article. My point about the suicide article is conveyed in Turkey's media rules, "Photography, pictures, visual images or film depicting such cases should not be made public."
All I am suggesting is the removal of most, if not all of the pictures. This would keep it in line with the homicide and murder articles. --CloudSurfer20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"All" you are suggesting is a distortion of Wikipedia rules because of your belief system. Various people believe that rock n roll is Satanic, that images of skinny women leads to anorexia, that video games cause violent behavior, etc. We simply cannot change how we edit articles to take those unproven beliefs to heart. And, based upon your description of the Wikipedia article, I bet that one could use some nice NPOVing... I've read literature on the topic and it seems to miss all sorts of alternative explanations and be written with clear agendas. "Teaching the media about this" etc. show extremely clear bias on your part, and that baias simply cannot be used to set standards for what articles should and should no have. And as far as "keep it in line with homicide and murder articles" I have no idea what you are talking about. Photos have been used on them as well. DreamGuy21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check finds no photos of victims on murder or on homicide, but also none other than historical special cases on suicide. I don't see any that could be at issue, so I'm wondering what this discussion is for. Dicklyon23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to both recent posts in order. Dreamguy, I have brought this topic up to open discussion in a collaborative manner. If you disagree with the evidence on copycat suicides then collect your references and edit the copy in line with the principles of NPOV. Your response at present seems to be based on your personal point of view. That's fine, but let's keep this friendly. It does not help to accuse me of "extreme bias" when I have deliberately disclosed where I am coming from on this matter to clear the air. I am doing my best to view this from all sides. Over the years that I have edited on Wikipedia I have tried to take a NPOV stance and have rarely been accused of the opposite. Having not been active for the past three years, you are probably taking me as a newcomer. Even then, it's best not to bite but to assume good faith.
Dicklyon, the issue is that the overall impression of providing pictures of victims may glorify suicide. That was my impression when I looked at the article a little while ago. It is quite possible that people considering suicide may go to Wikipedia to read more about it. If they gain an impression that it is a glorious end then it may encourage them go ahead with suicide. This is behind the decision by various press organisations around the world to not publish pictures of suicide victims and to minimise the reporting of it to special cases. These policies vary from country to country with the US seeming to put freedom of the press at a higher priority and so if either of you are from the US you may be influenced by that viewpoint.
I realise that this is a tricky NPOV issue and that is why I have raised it for discussion. Perhaps to look at the issue of social responsibility with an example might help. It would be perfectly in keeping within the spirit of an encyclopaedia to provide details of how explosives are manufactured, including home-made bombs using fertiliser. The question is, would that be socially responsible?
One of my problems is that the pictures in the article are really quite good. The following are my views on each photograph/painting. The lead photograph of the suicides in Leipzig is historically interesting but doe not add information to the topic and I suggest removing it. I think the Manet painting should stay because of its artistic worth even though it may glorify the subject. The euthanasia machine provides information and should stay. The painting of Lucretia is pretty harmless and depicts a significantly earlier representation of suicide and so has worth. The self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức is a disturbing picture and despite its historic worth, do we really want to show this to 10-year-olds, let alone someone contemplating suicide? I suggest removing it. The kamikaze attack should stay as it adds information. The picture of the two dead Japanese marines is fairly horrific and should probably go. The tanto knife is informative and should probably stay. So there you have my specific views and in summary, I am suggesting the removal of three pictures, each of which graphically depicts victims. --CloudSurfer06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting explicit. I wouldn't object to those images being removed from the suicide article, but I also wouldn't want that to be interpreted as a policy precedent. You'll have to see how other editors feel about specific pictures; I don't think you'll have a lot of luck selling the general rationale. Dicklyon06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, thank you for your response. In researching this topic further I came across Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images which failed to reach consensus. In some ways it deals with the points I am raising. Without reading it fully, I am coming round to the idea that removing images solely because they were disturbing may not have the consensus support of editors of Wikipedia. Alternatively, this may be a specific case where it is appropriate. At present I lean towards the latter view but welcome other input on this. Of course, I shall do nothing to the suicide article until this subject has had further input. It would be helpful if anyone commenting on this subject had read the article on copycat suicide to provide a background for this discussion. --CloudSurfer06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lean slightly towards the latter view too, and agree specifically with 2 of the images you suggest removing. However I would argue that the self-immolation image is iconic, but more importantly it is a notable historic event (and suicide), and so for informational reasons it should possibly remain. (Thoroughly clearly explained position and background above. I commend you for that effort.) --Quiddity04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments. In the light of your various feedback I am now happy to advocate the removal of two pictures. The German one at the top, and the Japanese soldiers near the end. I accept the "burning monk" is iconic. My summary of the views are: DreamGuy - against removal, Dicklon accepting the idea of removal of three pictures (inc the monk), CloudSurfer and Quiddity leaning towards removal of two picture. I will post a comment on the talk page of Suicide to see if there is further interest there. --CloudSurfer02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my request from above: would another participant in WikiProject Psychology come with me to bring some more order to classification under the emotion category? It is relatively easy and not long to do. At least two minds are required for validating judgmental decisions... This little task is much needed for at least two reasons: first, Wikipedia handling of affective notions lacks global coherence presently, and well-informed choices cannot be made at this time regarding emotion articles for inclusion in next release versions of Wikipedia. Robert Daoust14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. He may well be...this is the Wikiverse...but that does not necessarily mean that he has a command of English, or is able to impart ideas in a comprehensible fashion. I'll do what I can without intending to offend... --EmpacherPuppet10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to undertake a revision of both the Emotions Template and the Emotions-footer. Many of the items listed are not appropriate, and some are feelings...not emotions. Further, I believe an internal categorization scheme within the templates may useful. Thoughts? --EmpacherPuppet01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am with you on this matter, and DashaKat shows to be interested too. I suggest that we take Talk:List_of_emotions as a central place where to speak together while we will be editing the emotions section of the Psychology Project... Let's meet there if you please. Robert Daoust16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Attachment therapy and related pages are currently in ArbCom. In the course of the arbitration, 4 of the 6 editors (percieved by others to be controlling all the attachment pages) have been blocked and the other two have been banned for one year, except from presenting evidence at arbcom.
We need a page on Traumatic stress. Right now Traumatic stress redirects to a subheading inside the article 'James Brown is dead'. Could someone fix this? --DashaKat12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a new page on Familicide but it quickly became a candidate for speedy deletion due to its limited, dictionary-definition content. It is my wish that the psychology and crime scholars among you help me expand the article's content so that it will no longer be considered beneath Wikipedia standards. Thank you. J.A.McCoy02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am submitting a new Wikipedia categorization scheme for dealing with emotions, and more generally with all affective topics. I was using a section at the page Talk:List_of_emotions while I was working out that scheme, but then I realized that it would be more appropriate to create a new subpage at WikiProject Psychology. Interested people may have a look at the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. Please note that the initiative, in order to go further, now requires that at least a person or two agree with the propositions made. Robert Daoust04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remind participants in this project that our goal is to "Construct a coherent framework for categorization of psychology articles". Those who work with 'emotions' in Wikipedia will have noticed that that subject, a huge part of psychology, is especially in need of a coherent framework. On close scrutiny, it can be seen that 'emotion' is used as an emblematic term for much of what is affective in psychology. However, it does not apply easily to a great deal of what is affective, because most affective states lack the characteristic intensity of emotion. So, I suggest to reorganize Category:Emotion into Category:Affective states and processes: details of the new category and its provisionally proposed subcategories may be found right here. In German Wikipedia, should it be noted, category 'affekt' is a broad subcategory of psychology and a parent category of emotion. If anyone agree, I will make a 'request for renaming' at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. Robert Daoust18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that "petting", "kissing", "condolences", and such are emotions. In fact, emotions should be a small section affective states. Emotions are subjective states and therefore, for the most part, not in the realm of Psychology as a scientific field. Affective states are observable. Psychology deals in what is observable and measurable - or at least tries to do so. I would caution against going out in left field, as you seem to be doing. In my opinion, you should stick close to the field of Psychology, rather than making it into a catch all category. --Mattisse01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider, I think creating a new category for "Affective states" is probably a good idea. Showing my own lack of expertise, however, is there a standard, verifiable defintion of "emotion" such that it can easily agreed which articles qualify in that prsumptive subcategory of affective states or not? John Carter15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that the Category:Psychology is considered too big. We do not want to make this problem worse by placing articles that are not really in the realm of Psychology into the Category:Psychology. Affective states are defined in the current DSM and in the peer-reviewed literature. I notice, for example, that articles with neologisms are labeled as Category:Emotion and therefore become an article in the Category:Psychology. Also, topics that religious are being labeled as Psychology by applying the Category:Emotion to them. These are the types of problems that are occurring now. Remember, the Category:Psychology is already too big. Please help this problem. I do not think lay persons can make up terms for Psychology any more than I think lay persons can make up terms for Psychiatry, Medicine, Engineering, etc. Please do not contribute to the problem. --Mattisse16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{outdent) Here is an example of terms I found listed in Category:Emotion as it is currently structured - (in addition to Petting, Kissing & Condolences):
Limerence
Pet peave
New relationship energy
Emo (slang)
Beauty
Kissing traditions
Anthropopathy
In my opinion, we do not want to aid and abet using neologisms or categorizing behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology. --Mattisse16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading somewhere that there was (I think) a German language "list" of all the recognized emotions, somewhere in the vicinity of over 100? Maybe that would be the way to go, and just have the list of emotions without the category. Or, alternately, maybe add text to the category to the effect that only those emotions which have been "officiallY' recognized are to be included there. John Carter17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, John, there is no agreed upon definition of emotion in psychology, and that is the problem: the state of the art in this science does not allow easy categorization like more technical or hard sciences might allow. About articles to include under categories: there is no question that a big cleanup is in order. The question is what categories will be used for those articles, in as far as enough editors and readers consider that they are relevant to the subjects of mind and behavior. Please note everybody that a discussion on category emotion is now going on at Talk:EmotionCategory_talk:Emotion (mistake corrected an hour later) --Robert Daoust17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really a problem in Psychology, as psychologist use the word "affect" as in "affective states" or the word "mood" as in "Mood disorders". The word "emotion" describes a subjective state. You can go with the dictionary definition on this. As a psychologist, you do not know what the subjective state of another person is. Therefore, you go by the outward signs and behaviors, including what that person says, to judge that person's affective state or mood. With the word "emotion", you are trying to expand upon the dictionary definition. No wonder people do not agree. To expand upon and argue over the word emotion is unnecessary—it just adds more useless verbiage. --Mattisse18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) It is clear, from the link you reference above on Talk:Emotion, that the problem lies in the many disciplines that use the word in different ways, not in a dispute within Psychology. Perhaps you should look into those other disciples, for example Philosophy. Most of the arguments seem to be in that realm. --Mattisse18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I notice from the Psychology template that Emotion is under Research Psychology, not under Clinical. So I suggest you confine your recategorization to Research Psychology. --Mattisse18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I gave a wrong link above (now corrected). The right link for a discussion that is now going on about category emotion is Category_talk:Emotion. I believe nobody wants the word emotion anymore in categories, that's why I propose we make a request for renaming category emotion. What will be the new name? I suggest 'Affective states and processes'. Who agrees? Who says better?--Robert Daoust18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your suggestion of renaming. However, since "affective" does have such a specific meaning in Clinical Psychology, I do not think you should used that word. If the category is going to be completely interdisciplinary, which I agree seems to be the way to go, what about something like Category: Emotion (interdisciplinary), or even just Category:Emotion, as long as it did not automatically end up in Psychology. It could be like Architecture, for example, where Category:Ceiling is used along with qualifying categories like Category:Chinese architecture, or Category:Chinese architectural history, etc. See zaojing categories. Ceiling, like Emotion is general and does not automatically put the article in other categories; subsequent categories then narrow it down. (That may not be the best example, but you get the idea.) --Mattisse19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word affective may have a specific meaning in clinical psychology or in other contexts, but in common language it refers univocally to feelings, moods, sentiments, emotions, etc. Am I alone who see that what is needed is a category for all psychological phenomena relating to the affective dimension of mind? I mean, affective states include a lot more than emotional states. I believe that emotion has become 'emblematic' of the affective, because it is an intense, strong, 'conspicuous' kind of feeling. Emotion, however, is not 'representative' of the affective, since most affective states are mild, soft, 'discreet' feelings. See for instance Myriam-Webster: "emotion carries a strong implication of excitement or agitation", "feeling (…) may suggest the mere existence of a response but imply nothing about the nature or intensity of it". Emotions belong to a subclass of feeling, so to speak. Relationships between emotion, feeling, mood, sentiment are not simple, so, in order to keep it simple, why not simply talk of affective states? Mattisse, you seem to think that because you are not an affective scientist or an emotion researcher, psychology should not deal with the affective. You are emptying unilaterally, in the middle of an ongoing discussion on the subject, the category emotion, not minding that the category might have to be reconstructed more laboriously from scratch. There is a crowd, I believe, who consider that articles like anxiety, shyness or happiness belong to a common category, because they feel that the affective is a major and legitimate part of psychology. --Robert Daoust01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed with joy that an editor had undertaken cleaning up Category:Psychology, but the task is probably much too heavy for one person only. And I still wonder whether it is possible to do a good job without first reorganizing the category scheme itself... which is really not easy. Tree of Knowledge System is a novel, theoretical approach to the unification of psychology developed by professor Gregg Henriques. It could be useful for us here for 'the problem of psychologgy', though more useful on the diagnosis than on the remedy side of the problem, unfortunately. --Robert Daoust03:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the proposed renaming of category 'emotion' to 'affective states and processes' is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. --Robert Daoust18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been seeking sources for the unsourced article Episteme psychology from the article's creator. I told her that I would ask here for assistance with this. If you are familiar with the topic (or know where to look for sources on it), please pitch in. :) --Moonriddengirl15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is someone busy coming up with a list and categories for Psychology/Emotion who is considering "kissing" and "condolences", and "petting" and other such words as emotions. Is this WikiProject Psychology attempting to be a quality, professional Portal like Architecture or Portals for other disciplines. Or is this Portal a joke? I really am wondering. --Mattisse01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody tell me please the requirements for being one of these? Somebody signing himself 'Doug Pratt' left this comment in the portal box on AT [2] but does not appear to be on the list of Wikipedians interested in psychology or indeed registered at all. Nor has he responded to a reply on his talkpage. Whats the score on this? Fainitesbarley20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stuttering has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, at the moment there is a discussion going on about the meaning of modelling in psychology on the Talk:Modelling (psychology). The subject itselve is notable enough. But the original author has some very particular ideas about it... and gave a very specific meaning to this very general subject. I wonder if sone of you could take a look at this article and respond to the notability discussion on the talk page. Thanks. - Mdd18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sinthome needs rewrite for comprehensibility/clarity
The article Sinthome claims to be about a psychoanalytic theory, therefore I am including this note here. I added the *cleanup-confusing* tag to to Sinthome, as it is "likely to be confusing to the average reader, because it is obtuse, confused, or missing key information. Sometimes, we all write text that makes perfect sense to us, but does not make sense to most other people." (Per WP:CLARIFY.) The article needs to be rewritten for comprehensibility/clarity. -- 201.19.77.3911:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foreclusion needs rewrite for comprehensibility/clarity
Hi everyone, I came across the RMT page after I saw a story which appeared in the British news. There have been a lot of changes in the article this month, and I couldn't tell that it was currently within the scope of your project, but thought maybe it should be. I lack the necessary background knowledge to determine if all or some of these changes are needed for NPOV, but they appear to be making the idea more accepted than it really is. Thought the needed expertise might be found here. . .could one or some of you take a look? Thanks, R. Baley23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your comment about Citizendium? I could take it one way, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has commented because you want to talk about something not related to writing an encyclopedia. I suggest you take your comments to a message board. 99.240.165.52 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any of you guys interested to team work on emotion related articles? I almost rewrote Anger and nominated it as GA. I'd like to do the same with other emotions like Fear, ... but it would be nice to teamwork on this. The Psychology related articles are unfortunately in a bad shape and need to be sourced; we really need to do something about them. BTW, I am also interested in dream in case anybody wants to do some team working. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a clinical psychologist working on a project to improve imterpersonal communication within the Wikipedia Community. Would you please E-mail me if you would be interested in helping with such a project.
Barnstar Wikiproject Award for neuroscience articles - i dont really know how to format the box's and stuff -someone else can help with that - hopefully i can make a psych one soon. thuglastalk|edits 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Resolved