Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

  Main Talk Article guide Article alerts Assessment Popular pages Recognized content Resources 

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		3	4	11			18
FL			1	1			2
GA	6	15	27	69		10	127
B	30	191	314	315		94	944
C	29	338	1,101	1,965		462	3,895
Start	6	162	847	3,272		2,255	6,542
Stub		6	122	1,350	1	1,843	3,322
List	7	11	47	99	1	10	175
Category					1,843		1,843
Disambig					32		32
File					40		40
Portal					3		3
Project					14		14
Template					85		85
NA		7	45	155	340		547
Other					107		107
Assessed	78	733	2,508	7,237	2,466	4,674	17,696
Unassessed			1	12		402	415
Total	78	733	2,509	7,249	2,466	5,076	18,111
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 71,308			Ω = 4.80

Requested move at Talk:Autism spectrum disorders in the media#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Autism spectrum disorders in the media#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed now. Move request passed: now under Autism in popular culture. Oolong (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator has an RfC

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Vells (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Check your priority ratings

An editor first labeled Legality of cannabis as top-importance for this group, and after I removed the rating, has changed it to high-importance. Please decide for yourselves how you'd like to have it assessed.

I've seen a couple of editors (usually newer folks) "upgrade" their favorite subjects, perhaps in the mistaken belief that this will result in more editors working on the articles. I specifically suggest taking a look at what's in Category:Top-importance psychology articles and Category:High-importance psychology articles. I think you may be surprised to discover that, e.g., Ghetto has been rated of top importance to this group, and 1950s American automobile culture is supposedly of high importance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for help: ABA

Hi, the Wikipedia entry on Applied Behavior Analysis has been the cause of endless disagreement. From my perspective, it is currently written in a way that blatantly aims to minimise the controversy and makes it look as legitimate as possible - most notably in the lede. Numerous editors have brought this up and tried to fix it, but others have persistently reverted all such changes and dismissed the criticisms raised on the talk page.

I attempt to initiate a resolution process for this last year, but it was closed after three days because I didn't see that additional details had been requested (having not been tagged). Nothing has ever been resolved, and more editors have come along since to flag up the exact same problems.

This could really do with attention from more people with a grounding in psychology - preferably anyone with an understanding of behaviourism and why it's controversial - but it shouldn't necessarily require any specialist knowledge to see where the article falls short of our encyclopaedic ideals, I don't think.

Any input welcome. Thanks! Oolong (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oolong, I think that most of our autism-related articles are in poor condition, and that unfortunately that reflects confusion in the real world about what autism is. For example, the stereotype says that autistic people have difficulty figuring out how other people is feeling, except that some say that their problem is being too good at it, so every response from a neurotypical person is overwhelming. Also, I've been reading that even the "gold standard" tests can't reliably differentiate between autism and anxiety, or autism and the side effects of antipsychotic drugs. So our articles are weak and confused, in part because the state of science is in flux. As a result, I have low expectations for these articles.

I took a look at the ABA article. The end result is that I couldn't figure out what it actually is. While skimming down the page, I had in mind a real-world situation. I know a young woman who has multiple disabilities, including autism, and who has a dangerous behavior problem: She runs up to adult men that she doesn't know and hugs them.

So as I was looking through the article, I was trying to find some section that talks about what actually happens in ABA to address a truly problematic behavior. For example, do they sit in an office and talk about why it's rude to hug strangers? Do they walk around the grocery store and practice keeping their hands to themselves? Do they substitute behaviors, perhaps teaching her to politely introduce herself and then offer to shake hands instead of hugging total strangers with no warning? There is a whole lot in the article that seems very theoretical and abstract, but nothing that says what actually happens, even in the Applied behavior analysis#Methodologies developed through ABA research section.

I think that providing clear, simple examples of current practice would help a lot, because simple examples help people know what it is. I suspect that a lot of people have read on social media said that ABA used violent punishments, so it's evil, and that's all they know. The social media post probably left out the fact that aversive punishment was typical in the previous century (i.e., not in the current decade). So armed with this partial and biased piece of information, you would naturally expect the Wikipedia article to vilify ABA completely (or at least as much as an article like Lobotomy vilifies that treatment from the previous century). And it doesn't, so the Wikipedia article must be bad!

Except: maybe instead of more comment about ABA being evil, maybe what we need is more education about what ABA actually is and does in practice today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're certainly right about most of our autism articles being in poor condition, and that the problems with the ABA entry go much deeper than the problem of it being written from a blatantly pro-ABA perspective!

But your suggestion that 'people have read on social media said that ABA used violent punishments, so it's evil, and that's all they know' is way off-base, I'm afraid. It would be great if you could look at what's actually being said in the Talk page on the article.

To take one key paragraph, here's what the entry's lede says about the controversies:

ABA is considered controversial within the autism rights movement due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some forms of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives, such as electric shocks.

Nearly every part of this is misleading, without being technically untrue. It’s considered controversial because it is objectively controversial, within the autism rights movement and also among scientists, parents and practitioners due to a generally correct perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some forms of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives, such as electric shocks, among many other reasons, mostly relating to current practice.

The lede also features a bizarrely out-of-place and under-sourced list of alleged applications of ABA, very few of which are mentioned again except in the same list repeated again lower down... Oolong (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe not? Nothing is controversial because it's controversial. That's a tautology.

As for "normalization" (Do you mean something like masking? I usually think of "normalizing autism" as meaning that neurotypicals get used to autistic people existing in public, rather than autistic people conforming to neurotypical expectations), if you think about the young woman I described, we actually do need to "normalize" her behavior, or at least change it to something less dangerous. If we don't, either she's going to end up in the arms of a sexual abuser, or she's going to injure someone. (She doesn't gently "offer" a hug; she runs up to strangers and grabs them.) People should not be thinking "Oh, no, don't normalize her behavior; it's inherently bad to make an autistic person behave like a neurotypical person". They need to be saying "Yeah, her stimming is completely harmless, but this thing where she runs into the arms of total strangers has got to be stopped before she knocks someone over – or worse".

I wonder if you could save me some time by making a quick list of broad reasons why ABA is disliked. I've already got these:

• teaching Autistic people to behave like neurotypical people is not compatible with autism acceptance
• some past practices were physically violent

What else goes on the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it's controversial because it's controversial. I said it's considered controversial because it is, in point of fact, controversial. Quite different!

What is the word 'considered' doing in there? It implies there's some dispute about whether it's controversial.

Here's a piece on autism and normalisation that might be helpful in understanding its usage here. It is a little confusing that it's used to refer to two separate and contradictory things. Might be better to rephrase that bit, along with everything else.

Here's a quick summary of why ABA is controversial:

Many who have experienced it describing it as a kind of systematised abuse. It is also notably controversial among psychologists: several meta-analyses have failed to find significant evidence of any lasting benefit; grave concerns have been expressed about the systematic failure of researchers to investigate likely long-term harm; studies have overwhelmingly been authored by researchers with undisclosed conflicts of interest, likely resulting in substantial publication bias and motivated reasoning. Much of the work that initiated the field was unethical on a scientific and human level, conducted by some of the same people who pioneered pseudoscientific conversion therapy for gay people. ABA itself is sometimes described as conversion therapy for autistic people.

One of the USA’s major professional bodies for ABA spent many years taking money from the Judge Rotenberg Center — which gained international notoriety (and UN condemnation) for its systematic use of electric torture machines on disabled children — and inviting its representatives to give talks at their conferences defending these practices.

Let me know if you need citations for all that. Oolong (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no dispute over whether ABA is controversial. The word controversial means debated or disputed or thing people disagree about. There is no controversy over whether ABA is controversial. Every person who knows anything about ABA knows that people disagree about it. The controversy is over whether ABA is bad, not over whether or not people disagree about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

...which is why 'considered controversial within the autism rights movement' is a dishonest framing. Oolong (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk page for further discussion of this exact point. Oolong (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping a bit with this. Obviously the change you've made - similar to ones previously made by myself and others - is just one of the many changes needed to bring this article (especially its intro) anywhere near to neutrality!

Relatedly, I have an article coming out in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, probably tomorrow, on 'Autism, Wikipedia and Epistemic Injustice', describing (among other things) my struggles to improve this and related articles in any kind of sustained way... Oolong (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When there are serious differences of opinion in the real world, then I generally find that a long series of small changes is the most successful approach. A massive re-write usually results in a massive reversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I made a series of fairly small changes, after much discussion, in early 2022. Nearly all were undone without any discussion when I came back a couple of months ago. The bigger problem with this page in particular is a small number of editors who are clearly dedicated to portraying ABA in the best possible light.

In any case, there is certainly a case for major rewrites being done as major rewrites when necessary, but it's not something I have the energy for myself. Oolong (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that all mention of controversy has now been removed from the lead entirely!

Fascinating. Oolong (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that happened in this edit, as part of the creation of a separate section for controversy. Wikipedia:Criticism sections are not my own preference, but if you're going to have one, it is not unreasonable to put all the related content into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to remove it from the lead, which is supposed to be a fair summary of the contents of the article, 'including any prominent controversies'. Oolong (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And have you talked to that editor about your preferences? Or tried to WP:Be bold and restore the sentence you'd like to see there again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent major additions to Psychoanalysis

Hey—I just wanted to give a heads-up about a lot of recent additions to Psychoanalysis that I don't feel comfortable fully evaluating, but might do with more eyes on it from folks that do. Cheers! Remsense ‥ 论 11:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Repressed memory and dissociative amnesia

Hi, I am currently coming up against a lot of resistance to updating the repressed memory article. I can see from reading the archives, that I am one of many, many people with specialised knowledge in this area who have contributed a lot of time and energy to present evidence in an effort to try to get the article to reflect the contention in the literature. Multiple attempts have also been made to bring in the research on dissociative amnesia.

As the article currently reads, it states that the idea that memories can be unavailable for a period of time is scientifically discredited. I have spent a considerable amount of time tidying up the article and providing evidence to support the changes that will being it up to date, but I am shut down each time. A read of the archived talks shows that many people have responded to calls for evidence only to also be shut down. I have had my edits reversed, and have responded to the legitimate criticisms but have been accused of edit warring amongst other things. The research I have provided from the DSM-5, the American Psychological Society and various reputable journals have also been rebutted and questioned as being pseudoscience.

There are a couple of editors who seem to have a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia, but little understanding of scientific literature and are using editorial processes to shut down the changes. Given that those who may search for 'repressed memory' if dissociative amnesia remits see the link to Wikipedia second in the search results, it is important that the information reflects up to date research and is linked to dissociative amnesia. I also imagine Wikipedia does not want to be used as a vehicle to spread misinformation/disinformation, but this is absolutely what is happening at the moment.

Would really appreciate any advice or support. NpsychC (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You could've posted a brief pointer to the ongoing talk page discussion. Unfortunately, you've instead attempted to poison the well by casting aspersions and accusations of bad faith against other editors at the point of origin. Suffice it to say, after reading the your additions and the discussion, characterizations by others such as the additions being Poorly cited and written like your own essay, that they are extrapolating from [...] sources to make claims about Repressed memory which are simply not present in the citations, and that You need higher-level evidence that summarizes all the relevant studies are all clearly the case. Remsense ‥ 论 23:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice about using a pointer next time. As stated, I took on board the criticisms you have outlined, and responded. You may be referring to my first edit which I admitted was inadequate, I just assumed from the information in the introduction that the page was largely dormant. This was a mistake on my part and I admit that I did not have gone about it in the right way initially but cannot see how trying to bring to light concerns about editorial process is casting aspersions and accusations of bad faith. I am trying to have a conversation about the scientific literature on which the page relies. Further edits are in line with research and take into account the criticisms put to me by the editors. Can you explain what higher level evidence that summarizes the evidence, if not a systematic review? There are a lot of assertions in the article currently that do not have anywhere near this level of evidence. I am trying to replace the bias of the article with a neutral point of view and am genuinely confused by how much resistance I am experiencing. NpsychC (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is currently at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Repressed memory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Joker persona" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joker persona has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9 § Joker persona until a consensus is reached. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Nightmare

The Nightmare has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata and social sciences

Hi, I am trying to contribute on Wikidata around social sciences themes. I started to list relevant properties here : Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Wikidata for research/Data models/Social science results Feel free to suggest others, for example properties that may help generate infoboxes.

Jeanne Noiraud (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Consciousness

Consciousness has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of Mind

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Mind to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. The peer review can found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mind/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Solitary confinement of women in the United States

Could some member or members of this WikiProject take a look at Solitary confinement of women in the United States? It kind of reads more like an essay or academic paper than encyclopedic article from the very first sentence. It's also been recently expanded quite a bit recently by a student editor participating in a WP:WEP course and the newly added content might need some assessing from some Wikipedians more experienced in dealing with this kind of subject. The discussions on the article's talk page seem a bit contentious despite mostly being a couple years old. Anyway, I'm asking about it here because this is one of WikiProjects whose banner is found on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Article subject is unhappy with WP-article

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judy_Singer (Judy Singer), for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I would like to request editors to please weigh in at the Talk:parapsychology page regarding a dispute as to whether or not the psychology side bar should be on the article page. I added the sidebar and another editor removed it arguing that parapsychology is not psychology but rather that it is alternative medicine. I have provided some sources to support my position whereas the editor I am in dispute with has offered none to support their contention. I note that the Branches of psychology page lists parapsychology as a branch of psychology. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Electronic Harassment

Hello, there is a discussion on Talk:Electronic harassment about whether declaring a group 'delusional' falls under WP:MEDRS at Talk:Electronic harassment#Introduction Violates WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. This could use some editors more familiar with Wikipedia's standards. Amranu (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Jean Laplanche

Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at Jean Laplanche bibliography, which was recently created by Honigfrau. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of WP:NPP this question should be asked. I will also post to philosophy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As I created this bibliography, I think I ought to respond by saying that Laplanche's work deserves a separate entry for two reasons:

1) While separate bibliography entries are not widespread, they are not reserved for nobel laureates. Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault each have such entries. These are bigger names than Laplanche, but Laplanche has recently seen a massive surge in interest, which is why I believe a separate entry is needed.

2) And this ties into the first one: I eventually want to shorten the bibliography entry on the main Laplanche page, which is getting a big long, and which makes the rest of it a bit hard to read. Honigfrau (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles

I've found a lot of articles talking about what seem to be the same topic "Mental objects" / "Mental representations". I posted the main discussion over on Wikiproject Philosophy, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy#Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles. Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Masculine fragility#Requested move 4 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Masculine fragility#Requested move 4 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing at Family estrangement

Undertaking to improve the Family estrangement article, which appears to have no other active editors. A review of reference guidelines advises avoiding popular news articles due to the prevalence of misreporting, and also advises deprecating blog posts by topic experts into external links. Recommendations prefer peer reviewed social science journal articles.

Currently, the most-cited source for this article is a clinical psychologist who has several self-published essays on his personal website and who writes freelance pieces for the popular press on the topic, but who has authored only three peer reviewed papers indexed on Google Scholar and none at all on the PubMed index. Several of this individual's assertions appear to be unsupported in the scientific literature. For instance, in pieces for the popular press he claims estrangement is on the rise although recent scientific papers which attempt to measure incidence note that no study has measured changes in estrangement rates over time. This absence of foundational data is problematic, particularly because this clinician appears to have non-neutral views on his topic of expertise.

This clinician also has a tendency to make tenuous connections based upon research from other psychology subfields. For instance, this diff removed a claim which failed verification: the cited source is a reliable topic expert but the research in question did not bear on family estrangement, and only hypothetically could be relevant under an unsupported assumption that estrangement rates have increased in recent decades.

Posting here in an attempt to solicit input from experienced editors before proceeding with more edits like the diff above. In light of guidance pages on best practices, the way forward appears to be to search for peer-reviewed references which have a bearing on claims this individual makes, and retain or rewrite as much as can be verified through relevant peer reviewed sources without attempting individual research. A thoroughgoing revision of this type is likely to reduce the article length by substantial amounts. On the (somewhat) bright side, am proposing a merger with the well-referenced article Sibling estrangement which would bring in quality content.

This WikiProject appears somewhat quiet, yet would like to at least solicit experienced eyes and advice before proceeding. Baresbran (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral. Only Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral.

I suggest finding the (two? three? four?) best sources that you can, and starting with that. It is probable that you will have better luck with books (including psychology textbooks) than with peer-reviewed articles (most of which are WP:MEDPRIMARY). Remember that the goal isn't to make "this clinician" be wrong (or uncited); the goal is to fairly represent all the significant viewpoints, including that clinician's.

Also, wrt the diff you link ("A study of estrangement in the United States published in 2023..."), see WP:MEDSAY, and if your argument is that the cited source says X, but you don't believe that the cited source has itself cited sufficient research to justify it saying X, then see the end of WP:MEDASSESS: It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to decide whether a reliable source is justified in making its claims. One reason for this is that our sources are not required to cite their own sources at all, and they are definitely not required to cite 100% of the sources they're relying on. It is not unusual for a paper to say X, and cite a single source that supports X, but actually be relying on multiple uncited sources plus professional experience and other sources of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)