Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Interesting piece from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/27CRASH.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad summary of the state of the post-Wood storm a month after it occurred, but given that the article is about six years old, it is missing most of the debunking of Wood et al. that came later. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we can incorporate the point of view of both the supporters and the detractors of this test in the interest of neutrality. Chillum 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that one of the major problems with the page as it stands now (as I said ages ago), and one of the really delicate balancing acts in writing this article, is presenting the various positions about the test with appropriate weights given to them, not just giving "equal time" because you can't tell which is what. There are some folks who think all projectives are bunk, some who think just the Rorschach is bunk, some who think most projectives are bunk but the Rorschach is a neuropsych test that just also happens to have some projective aspects, some who think the Rorschach is great but find it too complex for their own purposes, some who think it's one of their desert-island tests, and probably some other viewpoints I haven't even noted. There are many different viewpoints and nuances to each, and to have a sense of how prominent each one actually is within the field is going to be really tricky. Mirafra (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why can it not be more or less gauged by the amount of peer-reviewed material written about it from these various points of views? --LjL (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Much of Wood et al.'s hype is designed to stir up non-psychologists so they can get press outside of peer-reviewed publications and sell books. There's not a lot of peer-reviewed support for Wood et al. Much of what they've said has been debunked in peer-reviewed publications. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
When reading peer-reviewed literature, I think that quantity is one metric, but it's also important to read the literature itself. Lots of more subtle indicators exist (such as which journals something is in, how many different people are publishing on different aspects of the same viewpoint, etc). Also, within the papers, just because something got published does not mean that it is of equal quality (in terms of research design and implementation and rigor of interpretation, etc) with everything else. This is quite an ambitious undertaking. Mirafra (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why we cannot present all significant viewpoints. If there are reliable sources who claim Wood is wrong, then we can include that too. It is common in scholarly areas for people to disagree, we need to cover that disagreement. Chillum 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't present all significant viewpoints, just that we should take care to give them no more than their due weight, which sounds reasonable. --LjL (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree more. I am sure the criticisms of the test are due some weight, how much is a question that can be determined through the referencing of reliable sources. Chillum 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

...and another interesting piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?_r=1&hp (linked above in the press multi). At least now we have a reliable source for the controversy and the positions of psychologists. A little bit of a feedback loop, but useful nevertheless... –xenotalk 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Positions of psychologists, perhaps, but we certainly have a reliable source for the position of the publisher that licenses the test.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the picture they used any more representative of the present-day administration of the test? –xenotalk 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps our opposition will take a break on Wikipedia and spend some time telling the Toronto Star what not to put in their articles. I imagine their coverage is larger than this article gets, the image is shown much larger and they describe the common answers given to that card. Chillum 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was in the print version, I'll take a walk over to the box a bit later. Their common answers appear to have been lifted directly from here, including the peculiar colon "blue: crab, lobster, spider". –xenotalk 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah, really? So they took my "answers", which all psychologists here were saying aren't really accurate, and I'd be ready to admit the same since they're straight from Samuel Beck which isn't exactly new, and published them as the actual answers? Now this is getting real fun. --LjL (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that is from our article. I am not sure, but I think the colon after "blue" indicates that those shapes are the blue part of the inkblot. It could be more clear if that is what is meant though. Chillum 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes Chillum, that is what I meant. Basically, the original table had "W: whatever" for responses pertaining to the whole image, then "D1: whatever" (or D2 etc.) for detail responses. Now, in some cases, detail responses are more common than whole-image responses, so I thought specifying the color like that would be the quickest way to convey that without making those captions as long as this reply. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Streisand break

article views on Jul 29 - 187,300, on Jul 30 - 581,300 [1]

It's also trending very highly in the blogs and networking sites like Twitter... Here's an interesting piece I found [2]. –xenotalk 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This recent influx of media attention has made the previous spike in traffic from the slashdotting look like a small bump: Usage statistics. Looks like about 187 thousand people looked at the page on the 29th compared to the average of the about 3-4 hundred we normally get in a day. I am glad this article is getting so much attention, I just wish it was not due to a debate that has been long settled. Chillum 13:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. If the debate had been settled, there wouldn't be at least three or four people who keep insisting about removing images and data; if there hadn't been such people, the NYT wouldn't have written an article about it; if the NYT hadn't written an article about it, 190000 people wouldn't have looked at the test cards. Oh well. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But the images that are the subject of the debate have not changed on the page for weeks, yes people are still talking about it, but the debate is clearly settled. We have come to the conclusion to keep the images and it does not look like this is going to change. What we have right now is just people beating a dead horse. If it was a debate it would be moving forward. Chillum 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's because y'all refused to allow any such changes. It seemed obvious that anyone who removed the images would be seen as vandalizing the page and immediately reverted. Mirafra (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat interesting comparison between the slashdotting and the NYTimes'ing; on the day of the slashdotting the article received 45.8k views whereas the talk page received 51.9k (113%) while on the 29th/30th, the talk page only received 4.5k (2.4%) and 10.4k (1.8%) respectively. General public seems less interesting in our arguing than the article whereas the reverse for the slashdotters? –xenotalk 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the criticism section

Ok. One problem I see with the article is that the "Criticisms" section is very big (bigger than the rest of the article), and while I'm fine with having criticism, it does seem to me like - on one hand - some of the things mentioned are actually descriptive of the test and therefore would be better in the actual descriptive part of the article, and - on the other hand - many of these same things aren't really needed to expose the criticism or counter-criticism. Examples
  • "Tester projection": why make this whole argument about form quality, when it's made a matter of statistics in the Exner system? If "tester projection" is still considered an issue, use an actual current example of it, and move the remarks about Exner's way of scoring form somewhere else (they're there already, but they wouldn't mind another reference for sure).
  • "Validity": who cares about the specific details of R correlating with this and that? I mean, I do care, it's pretty interesting... but not in the context of criticism, where I'm sure just saying "several scores correlate well with general intelligence (such as R)" would do.
These are the two most striking ones for me, but the whole section does read a bit like it's an argument between two parties (rather than the description of one) and could be trimmed down with a bit of care. --LjL (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section is too long. It both contains material suitable for sections than merely describe the test, and fails outright to mention some of the more prominent criticisms such as The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak by Wood, Nezworski, Garb, and Lilienfeld (2006), this paper also references several other relevant sources. Chillum 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. All that silly stuff about "validity"! Who needs that psychometric babble! And wow! Let's give Wood et al. even more of pop psychology exposure. It'll do wonders for their book sales. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What do others think? Chillum 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LjL. Some of the critism section should be combined into the main body of the article as it seems to represent the majority opinion of the psycological community.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Citation needed for the previous statement. Sounds rather like elevating this user's POV over others, to make it be the supposedly neutral background of the article. Mirafra (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This section Population norms for example should be moved out of criticism into the main section. This ref here seems to imply that this test over diagnosis pathology ( ie false positive ) Diagnosis someone with schizophrenia / pyschosis who does not have it is a big deal. http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Except that the test doesn't diagnose anyone. I agree that some people will have a positive score for psychosis who are not psychotic (I had a couple in my work over this past year -- one autistic, one with a severe and lifelong trauma history) based upon other available clinical information. The professional sources do not claim that the test makes diagnoses. The interpretive process creates clinical hypotheses which must be evaluated within the context of other clinical data. This is a straw-man argument. And irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia -- if what you're saying is that you insist that the article be brought in line with your personal viewpoint that the test should not be used, that sounds awfully like pushing a POV to me. Mirafra (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Social impact

This test hold an important place in the psychee of the Western world. I think the article needs a section discussing this. There is even a carton... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, please tell me more. Chillum 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iovUDMlEoc
Here is are page on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)
2009 movie http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0029762/
And even a board game http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36231
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Very fitting. Discussions of cartoons and board games is just what this article needs. You're making my job a lot easier. Go ahead and create lots of information about cartoons and board games. I'll let the people at Britannica know what's going on here. I'm sure they can't wait to see it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not an instruction manual on how one would administer a Rorscharch written by experts for experts. The reason why we are all here debating this page is the Rorschach is one of the most famous and well known bits of psychology and has infact had an impact on Western culture. This impact would be of interest to many readers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is even becoming well known. We may even have to comment on it soon...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You must be very proud of yourself...from Moose Jaw to the NY Times. All at the relatively small cost of just harming people who could benefit from the test.Faustian (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume that since the NYT has revealed James' complete name and town of residence, it's OK to mention it here on the talk page. It's helpful for readers to know what kind of doctor is making some of the comments here. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Faustian I knew you would approve :-) All in the name of holding back the return of the dark ages. I guess you could call this my little part in preventing 1984. If only this test were better than cold reading than maybe you could claim harm. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant/anachronistic claim about coldreading notwithstanding (people haven't generally used the Rorschach like that in 50 years), the utility of the test is generally accepted within the field (otherwise 80% of clinical psychologists doing assesment work wouldn't be using it) and thus the harm you caused people is real. I wonder if you've hurt as many people through wikipedia as you've helped in your medical practice. Faustian (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say the material mentioned has a strained relationship to this test at best. I suppose a mention that this projective test has become far more familiar to the public than most others would be relevant though. Chillum 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia for a general audience doesn't mean we add useless trivia of no overall importance... not here or any other Wikipedia page. See WP:NOT, and. more directly, WP:ENC, for a refresher course. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is trivia at all. Many articles have cultural impact sections. There's also not that many psychological tests that are household names like the Rorschach. For example, see all these publications using the phrase "has become a Rorschach test" [3] –xenotalk 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the Rorschach test itself has, in fact, become a Rorschach test, a reflection of anxiety about mind-reading or mind-control or the possibility of someone else making decisions about you for reasons you don't understand. This page is, if anything, more about that tension than about the test itself. Mirafra (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would agree to a limited mention of how this test is far more familiar to the public than most projective tests. However I don't think we go too deep in our coverage of things loosely based on the idea of this test. Chillum 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying that we should add information about the above products. They just show how prevalent some knowledge about this test is. The test does not exist in a clinical vacuum.
There are whole pages on sports scores / teams that have reached FA as well as a good article on Michael Jackson's health and appearance so obviously what is considered trivia is not that broadly applied.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I support some coverage of this area, within reason. Chillum 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

James, you've given me some ideas. Just as there is an effort to add "cultural trivia" to this artilce, I hope you'll support me if I try to add it to other medical articles. For example, will you defend me if I add jokes and trivia to pages like Pap test or Rectal examination? If not, then why is it appropriate here? Ward3001 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support you adding relative cultural information to other medical pages. How the pap test is a break through in preventative care. What percentage of women do not have them as they consider them unpleasant, etc would all be appropriate.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If cartoons and board games are appropriate here, would humor (such as jokes) be appropriate on these or other medical articles? Medical jokes are commonly found our culture, so would you support me in adding those to articles about specific medical procedures? Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
A mention of cultural significance is different that adding cartoons to this page. I have never suggested we add cartoons here or anywhere else for that matter. One line saying the Rorschach has had a cartoon, a movie and a board game loosely based on it and holds a significant place in the psyche of the Western world is an interesting cultural piece of information about this test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So if I find well-sourced information commenting on jokes, comedic TV shows and films, cartoons, or board games about medical procedures, place a brief summary of that commentary in a medical article, you would support it if challenged, right? Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite understand your apprehension, Ward. The Rorschach is arguably one of the most well-known psychological tests. It has definitely had a social impact... As for medical articles... Rabies#Cultural impact ? (Though I would like to see something far less "trivia"-like for this article) –xenotalk 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't really say I'm apprehensive. More skeptical that one set of standards isn't applied to this article and another set to other medical articles. Just speaking from painful experiences. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you comment on the cultural importance in NPOV and it is well sourced yes I would support this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that a thoughtful and neutral and well-sourced discussion of the place of the Rorschach in contemporary culture would be quite appropriate to the page. Personally, I think the combination of absolutely rotten face validity and terrific clinical validity, plus the historical connections to the least-supportable aspects of old-school psychoanalysis and the position that has in the culture, has made it resonate with people's anxieties about having their minds read and/or controlled. But that's just me standing on one foot theorizing. Doubtless there are multiple dissertations already written on the topic. Mirafra (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well, in fact I am surprised that there isn't a cultural impact section already. The test is used frequently in popular fiction, and other works. Indeed the term is now used regularly as a metaphor for all kinds of eye-of-the-beholder situations. I think that's significant. It's no different from the fact that there is an extensive socila and cultural impact section for The Pill. Lot 49atalk 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've usually heard the term "has become a Rorschach test" not so much meaning that "it can be viewed in many different ways," but more meaning that, "how you view it says a lot about you." That's why I'm saying that the Rorschach test itself, and this page about it, have both become Rorschach tests. Mirafra (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Circular Links

Several links in this article are self-referencing. Exner Scoring System is one such example. Can some one please remove these? — 173.3.112.55 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the link you mentioned, if there are others just let us know. Chillum 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

no such word as administrating

The word "administrating" should be changed to "administering." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.162.77 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. That being said, administering may be a better word. I am not sure. Chillum 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The English language does not have a system of official words. According to linguists, if the word can be understood then it is a word. However, some words are more formal than others in the traditional academic setting. At the same time, some belong more to writing than in speech. I cringe every time someone uses "to [poss. pronoun] chagrin..." on television because it comes off as ostentatious. You're right in the need for a change, but not in its legitimacy of use in the language. To say something isn't a word can be a statement which, however unintentional, has racial and ethnic-centric implications. 204.56.177.250 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An ER Doctor is not a Pyschologist

The article states "...clinicians, including Bruce L. Smith, a psychologist and president of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, objected that the publication would "render the results meaningless." However, not all psychologists agree. Dr. Heilman compared the publication to the publication of an eye chart..."

The way Dr. Heilman's metaphor immediately follows "...not all pyschologists agree" is confusing. It sounds like Dr. Heilman's opinion is that of a dissenting Pyschologist. But the guy is not a psychologist, he's an ER doctor. This could be easily cleared up with a new paragraph after "...not all pychologists agree".Trefalcon (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the comparison to the Snellen chart is not even remotely apt. The normative information for that is not about "which letters in which order," but about the size of the letters on the chart. The usefulness of the eye chart to detect dangerous drivers can be restored by the simple expedient of shuffling the letters -- it's much more analogous to a change of password. In fact, as far as I can recall, the last time I had to take an eye exam to renew my license, it was not on the standard Snellen chart, probably for precisely that reason. Mirafra (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed that section as undue weight and self-reference. We only mention Wikipedia in articles if they are a major part of the subject, we are not a major part of the subject. See the thread I started below for details. Chillum 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what seems to be Dr. Heilman's approval of the fact that his father could use memorization of the Snellen chart to get a driving license that he may not otherwise merit. I only hope that if he gets into a fatal accident, he doesn't kill anyone other than himself. SPAdoc (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it intersting that a man who works in the ER supports having a guy lie on a test in order to enable him to drive a car without being able to see properly. It would be sadly ironic if he or his victims ended up in the same ER where Heilman works. Faustian (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no approval of this lieing. This was an example of how we do not hide / suppress / censor information just because of theoretical potential harm. We do not suppress other info with similar justification provided so why would we suppress this. If we followed what some see as sufficient justification for information removal Wikipedia would not exist. That is why this discuss is important. We do not want to set a precident.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points: 1) I didn't mean to imply Heilman was a pyschologist. Bad editing when I was finalizing the text. Sorry about that. 2) The comparison to the Snellen chart may not be perfectly analogous, but it's very understandable, which is why Heilman said it and why the NYTimes writer quoted it (and why I also quoted it). RoyLeban (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, "German doctor Justinius Kerne" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Justinus Kerner" -- I could not find a regular place to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.238.134 (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Self reference

I have removed the section talking about the Wikipedia controversy. In the subject of Rorschach test, Wikipedia is an insignificant part. I really don't think we need to be covering our own controversy in this article like that. I think it constitutes undue weight. This is after all a rather minor controversy in the scope of both the Rorschach test and Wikipedia. Wikipedia guideline tell us to avoid self references and that we should only mention Wikipedia in an article if Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article. We do not play a major role in this test, in fact I would say be are only tangentially related to the subject. I welcome other opinions on this matter. Chillum 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed: one writeup does not a controversy make... but it may yet come. The reference is good for use elsewhere in the article, but I agree the paragraph was a bit much at the present time. –xenotalk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the notion that the self-referential stuff is inappropriate, I think that part of the whole problem here is that WP is indeed either already a significant player, or well on its way to becoming so. It becomes a gathering place for people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that psychological tests (either in specific or in general) should not exist, and provides them with a way to collaborate on imposing that POV not just on WP, but on the field as a whole, by working towards the destruction of the scientific knowledge. Mirafra (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are a significant player. The media likes to blow things out of proportion and that is just what they are doing now. I am happy that we have found common ground in that we both believe we should avoid self-references, perhaps we can build on that common ground. Chillum 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Dog's Bollocks - Psychologists peddle a lot of pretentious pseudo-science. They certainly are not worthy to be admitted to a Bsc degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.207 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Caveat: I don't have any affinity with this article.) In my opinion, when the New York Times writes that an organization may be damaging the very test this article is about, it should be written about in the article, even if that organization is Wikipedia. If the objectors are correct, then Wikipedia certainly is a major player. I don't think it's undue weight, though it might be temporal weight -- it seems more important now because it's fresh. Omitting it makes it look like Wikipedia is not willing to link to critical information. As it stands now, there isn't even a link. RoyLeban (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recentism. Undue credence to a mass media organisation with no capacity to comment in an expert manner.Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This just goes to show the cultural importance of the Rorschach. Why play does this down? I am somewhat blown away by it all... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed... as I predicted, many more media organizations have picked this story up, and there's been a huge spike in internet search results for "Rorschach". –xenotalk 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage

We state that the test is commonly used in the USA should we mention that it is rarely used in the UK? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/rorschach-answers-wikipedia --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase referring to unknown critics ("critics dismiss it as out-of-date and it is rarely used in the UK") is hardly a basis for leaping to such a sweeping conclusion. Identify the critics. They may know little about the test, and they may be only two or three in number. Ward3001 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment, the quote contains two distinct clauses, the first does involve unnamed critics who "dismiss it as out-of-date" but the second "and it is rarely used in the UK" is not attributed to those critics, it is a statement of fact by a reliable publication. Guest9999 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Results citations

Can the citation for the popular/common responses be made explicitly clear? If it is Samual Beck, then can we explain briefly who he is, and when and where he said these were the popular responses, and perhaps how he is qualified to speak on the subject? Vivaldi (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We do. Have you checked out the article ("History", last paragraph)? "The test scoring system originally created by Rorschach was improved after his death by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others."
Aside from that, if Beck himself is notable enough, I suppose you're free to create an article about him.
And the citation for the common responses is explicitly clear. It's currently citation number 62: Alvin G. Burstein, Sandra Loucks. (1989). Rorschach's test : scoring and interpretation. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.. p. 72. ISBN 9780891167808.
--LjL (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Publicity etc

The Rorschach test has been around for some 80 years - so there will be some familiarity generally with it, given that the images have remained constant over that period.

The Internet has been around for 20 years which will have increased such familiarity.

Society itself has changed over the past 80/20 years ('this time 20 years ago' the Berlin Wall was still up) - so interpretations/cultural aspects will have changed (and consider the claims of cultural bias in IQ tests - and interpretations of the prophecies of Nostradamus).

There is general familiarity with the theories of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and many other psychiatrists - but this is not considered to invalidate their methods - nor the Ishihara color test.

The Snellen chart and related eye tests, exist in various forms - so why not the Rorschach test?

Whatever the arguments on the other side 'the spread of information cannot be prevented' (which is why study exams are changed every year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The norms are, in fact, updated to reflect changes in cultural norms. And interpretations of stuff not in the norms tables are also permitted to change as needed. Practitioners often consult with each other in order to improve the reliability of that process.
We've explained extensively before why simply changing the blots is not as trivial as shuffling the letters on an eye chart. Short version: For one thing, you've got to recreate the norms tables about what people in different clinical and nonclinical populations see and how they talk about what they see. That's a huge undertaking even within itself, although, as I just said, it does get done periodically. Note that creating norms from scratch typically requires far more extensive investments of time and money than simply updating them. Additionally, you then have to re-do the thousands of studies that established clinical validity for so many more different clinical and nonclinical populations. Just because a certain type of response at a certain level was correlated with a certain psychological characteristic when one set of blots was used, does not mean that this will necessarily be true when a new set of blots will be used. The old data can give us clues as to where to look, but it can't tell us what we might find.
And to make matters worse, some of the most useful information relies on data that is not easy to get -- for example, the Rorschach is frequently used to predict suicidality, to determine whether or not someone is likely to be able to remain safe outside of a hospital environment. To re-create that would require having a large quantity of new-Rorschach results that were administered to people who committed suicide shortly thereafter. So you'd have to convince Institutional Review Boards at hospitals all over the country to let you administer a brand-new test that gives no information because it's brand-new to a population that is highly vulnerable and thus has only questionable ability to give truly informed consent to participation in research. On the hopes that some of them would kill themselves shortly after the test administration so that you could analyze their data. This isn't the 1960s -- standards for protection of human subjects are very high. Oh, and you'd have to train hundreds of clinicians on your new method and compensate them for their additional time. Not that you couldn't do this, but boy, it would be quite an expensive and extensive project, just to get data for one clinical index.
The concern here is not so much that the spread of information must be prevented -- in fact, most of the information is publicly accessible in scholarly sources -- but that the re-presentation of that information in easily-findable and easily-understandable form is changing the playing field. Psychology as a field fundamentally cannot keep up -- our experiments take years to do. The paradoxical effect could well be to push psychology away from academia and towards industry (which has different standards regarding the publication of data) as our creators of tests. (There is some movement in that direction at present.).
It's ironic, the extent to which folks here are attempting to direct the functioning of a field in which they do not work, while also rejecting any suggestions that people who are members of both this community and of the scientific community might have something to say about how the encyclopedia should work. That is, you're happy to tell us what we should do as psychologists and to insist that we have no right to become fully part of you and to make suggestions about what we as a large group of encyclopedia-writers should do. This is not meant as a personal attack on anyone, just as an observation about process. Mirafra (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to interject, whether it is important or not, but just kind of a "for the record"-type thing. The Rorschach Test images were also printed in William Poundstone's Big Secrets about 20 years ago. This is not a scholarly work, rather it's a popular work, and it, too, includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's. Squad51 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which probably doesn't take very much since the "answers" on Wikipedia are from decade old Beck and just sketchy examples of the one statistically most common response. --LjL (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How much more irresponsible can we get? A couple of weeks ago I commented that this article is approaching the level of irresponsibility of the amateur websites that purportedly tell someone what the best answers are, but in reality tell you how to produce a pathological Rorshcach. We get closer and closer every day. My advice to anyone reading this who may take the test: try to put everything in this article and talk page out of your mind; tell your test administrator if you read the article and suggest that he read it; he/she may very well conclude that, unfortunately, you cannot obtain the usual benefits of taking the test. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how we might be getting "closer and closer", compared to your last rant before this one, considering the article is full-protected. --LjL (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think editors are the only people who read talk pages? Consider the comment "includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's". Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone so chooses to check out a (huge) talk page, that's their prerogative, but talk pages are not part of Wikipedia proper. Yes, the cat is very much out of the bag, but that's not really ontopic for here as long as it's not the article we're talking about. --LjL (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Any issue related to the article or talk page is relevant here. And I never said it's not "their problem". Any time someone is harmed it's "their problem." I asked how irresponsible can we get? And it appears to be quite irresponsible. Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for information; in the UK, where I am, the continuing agitation regarding this topic has found its way today into the popular press. So the fact that the "answers" are available on this site is now generally known. I am afraid that the efforts of our Clinical Psychologist editors has proved counter-productive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The scholar papers challenging it.

Doing a little looking around I found two very potential useful articles critical of the Rorschach test as a diagnostic tool:

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 395 - 430

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 441 - 448

If the names look familiar they should; they are the SAME authors of "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading". Some quotes out of these articles should prove most illuminating.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is something from 2006 by the same author: http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And brief rebuttal: [4].Faustian (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian article linked above (and linked again) ends with a UK doctor who used it at Broadmoor Hospital, a rather... shall we say intense... place who is openly skeptical about the test as well. --Mask? 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)(fix my link, sorry :) --Mask? 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find something written by anyone besides Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski? The writings of those authors have been largely debunked, so it's misleading to repeatedly present them and only them. If that's all the critics here can come up with, I think that tells us something about where criticism of the Rorschach stands in the mainstream of personality assessment. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Rorschach out there, but most of what I've read (written in the past 15 years; anything older is outdated) focuses on specific issues (such as active and passive movement) and do not make a sweeping dismissal of the Rorschach as a whole. As Faustian said, if you want a minority and largely unscientific perspective about global warming, go the the extremist critics of global warming. If you want a minority and unscientific perspective about the Rorschach, go to Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski. Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way James, for your PR campaign in the media, you might need a little more than Wood et al. Even some non-psychologists know that a few critics don't make up the entire scientific community? Have you hired an agent? Are you scheduled with Oprah yet? Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Some more challenges:
Viglione Jr, Donald J. ; J. S. Tanaka (1997) "Problems in Rorschach Research and What to Do About Them" Journal of Personality Assessment, 1532-7752, 68:3, Pages 590 – 599
Hunsley, J; J M Bailey (2002) "Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence: The utility of the Rorschach in clinical assessment" Psychological assessment 13(4):472-85.
I should point out that Ward3001's insistence that these claims are refuted are his to prove by giving us the papers that do refute them.
READ the talk page Bruce. Faustian posted links to articles, one written by a top forensic psychologist with credentials far superior to those of Wood et al., that very effectively rebut Wood et al. It's on the talk page. Furthermore, the rebuttals have been linked in the article for a long time (unless a pro-image editor decided to remove them). You just need to look before jumping in telling me my claims are "mine to prove". As I point out a few lines below, there's lots of glancing and spewing superficialities here, but there's not much actual reading going on. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The " Concerning the Current Status of Rorschach Assessment" is in Editorial and Opinion section. It doesn't even tell you who the blasted author is in the article. The "CyberPsychology & Behavior" link was totally useless to the point at hand, he used wikipedia itself as evidence in other link (totally useless and a Strawman argument), the Meloy piece is a comment not a formal article, the Ganellen and Miller articles are a response to Wood of 1999 or earlier and therefore useless in contesting statements made from 2000-2009 and the infroworld link wasn't working and since Faustian was too lazy to do the link in an intelligent manner (like Wood, James M. (2003) M. Teresa Nezworski, and Howard N. Garb. "What's Right With the Rorschach?" Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice so if the link doesn't work you have no freaking idea where it goes to.
Faustian's counter references reminds me an poster on youtube to the James Randi, "Head-On" and Homeopathy video who tried to use Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61, 12:1197-1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015 as an example of an article refuting "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005).--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, there's nothing wrong with editorial, opinion, or comment if they are scientifically based as these are, especially Meloy. Look at the post from Faustian comparing the credentials of Meloy with those of Wood; Meloy is a internationally recognized expert; Wood has virtually no clinical experience. Don't make up your own rules about what is considered a rebuttal. And the fact that Ganellen and Miller articles respond to earlier work of Wood et al in no ways negates the value of the rebuttal, because Wood et al. repeat many of their arguments in various sources. But if you want another source, read this one from 2005. I'm sure, of course, you'll suddenly come up with another unique criterion to exclude that rebuttal. It seems that by your standards, anything that supports Wood et al. is acceptable; anything that rebuts it is not a good source. And if you want more articles, find the comment by SPAdoc referring you to a pdf of the Society for Personality Assessment review of the Rorschach literature; find the reference list in that article and read those articles. SPAdoc's comment may be in the archives by now, so look there before you make any false accusations about what I'm referring to. There's plenty out there if you're open minded enough to find it and read it. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That "The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statements by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment" Journel of Personality Assessment 85(2) 219-237 (this is how you do a reference Ward3001, not just throw in a link going to who knows where because you are too blasted lazy) paper is on par with the tobacco makers telling you that smoking tobacco is healthy. As far as "make up your own rules" these are not my rules but my best understanding of the rules as explained to me by Wikipedia administrator User:Akhilleus who said Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 stated "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." was not usable in the Christ myth theory article despite Anthropology of Consciousness being a peer reviewed journal published by the American Anthropological Association and he wanted to remove Price from the article despite the fact the man had published Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, and Journal of Unification Studies) simply because the statements were self published. If you think these interpretations are little wonky I suggest you take it up with the Wikipedia administrator User:Akhilleus who came up with them in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Notable opinions backed up by reliable sources should be mentioned. Akhilleus has not weighed in on this matter that I saw, and Wikipedia administrators don't define the rules, nor are their statements on matters of content privileged more than those of other wikipedians in any way. This article is not Christ myth theory, and the rule is WP:V, not just whatever some random admin or Wikipedian not participating in this discussion happened to say once, as here, it is an out of context (irrelevent) statement. --Mysidia (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus did wade on the issue and not just on Christ myth theory talk board but on the Reliable sources one as well. Furthermore, digging around I found Herbert, Wray (2009) "Analyze This: The real problem with the Rorschach test: It doesn't work" Newsweek Web Exclusive Jul 30, 2009 stated "The journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this PSPI report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." putting the whole 'Wood has been disproved' claim on the questionable side if not in the WP:OR bin. Newsweek is a national newspaper and so fits a key requirement of WP:RS and the article is on the subject. Despite my own efforts to change it WP:RS has no real formal ranking of sources so unless someone can pull a peer reviewed article that directly supports (WP:RS's bold not mine) the claim that Wood's research is refuted, debunked or whatever can be regarded as WP:OR violating WP:NPOV. The Newsweek article stating Wood's 2000 paper "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach" creates a real problem for those who keep claiming he is a fringe nut.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
BruceGrubb, the link I placed (not the full citation you gave) is a very common means of providing a source for readers of a talk page, so your personal attack on me is against policy as well as incorrect. And the source that you (of course) dismissed is from a peer reviewed publication and is written by the leading experts in the field. Faustian has provided other sources. And your ranting about anthropology has nothing to do with the clinical use of a psychological test in a mental health setting. It's fine if anthropologists don't find the Rorschach useful in their work; I never suspected that they would. Psychologists find it very useful, and that is the focus of our attention here. Ward3001 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Even Wood says the Rorschach test is "useful". His main argument is that it is not useful for some of the purposes that it is being put to. Big difference. Also, just because it is "very common" to use footnote style links on talk pages doesn't mean it it is good ( I consider it a horrible idea). Links can break or sites go temporarily out of order and when someone years later goes over these talk pages in the archives I think they would like to know where or what in the sam hill the links are going to before they click on them. For example reference 61 should read Cohen, Noam (July 28, 2009). "A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?". New York Times. Retrieved Aug 2, 2009.. Now isn't that more informative before you even click on the link then what is there or simply [5]?
I noticed you didn't really address the issue of Newsweek stating that the Wood report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." Any proof that Newsweek doesn't know what it is talking about?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is your proof that a magazine in the popular press has a better idea about a scientifically-based test than all the peer-reviewed journals that have presented decades of well-conducted research on the topic? Ward3001 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that anthropologists have been trying to use Rorschach in the field in their efforts to create a field of psychological anthropology. The result of that as Melford E. Spiro said in his "Anthropology and Human Nature" article has been poor even though the efforts go all the way back to the 1940s ("The Rorschach technique in the study of personality and culture"). The situation got such that Allen, James ; Richard H. Dana (2004) "Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural and Multicultural Rorschach Research" Journal of Personality Assessment, 82:2 pages 189 - 206 was written and seemingly ignored by the anthropological community. These 60 years worth of anthropological research indicates that while Rorschach is great for finding culture differences between groups it is pathetic in finding any kind of general conscious--a key requirement of the psychological claim regarding it to be worth beans. The whole thing with the Rorschach test mirrors that with Homeopathy--despite researchers showing that the research supporting it is questionable it still gets favorable write up in some of the best medical journals in the world. This is despite by basic physics and chemistry there is no way Homeopathy can work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Bruce, please fully explain "it is pathetic in finding any kind of general conscious--a key requirement of the psychological claim regarding it to be worth beans", and please back up what you say with reliable sources from psychological test experts. I've studied psychological testing in clinical settings for about three decades, and I've never heard of the requirement that any test should find "any kind of general conscious". I've read a lot about the need for reliability, validity, and psychometric soundness, but never the requirement for "general conscious". Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, Viglione is one of the leading Rorschach researchers in the world. If you actually read the article you cite (which I just did), he talks about the "impressive empirical support" for the Rorschach. Identifying concerns about how research is conducted and how it can be improved is a normal part of the scientific process.
The Hunsley and Bailey article is part of a special issue of the journal, where researchers from different points of view were invited to discuss the issues in, again, a normal part of the scientific process. It would be appropriate to include all of the articles from that special issue. And again, to actually read them intelligently. Mirafra (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a part of the problem here Mirafra. There's lots of search engine use and uncovering an article title that looks like it opposed the Rorschach, but there's not much actual reading of the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that one of the major problems with the page in general is the WP:UNDUE weight that is given to this minority opinion. More ironies, really. Mirafra (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sure the psychologists hearts are in the right place but trying to keep a secret scientific club going in the 21st century/information age? Is there any other scientific field attempting this? Their attempts are futile and they must know this. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" speaks for itself.
It looks like everyone in the world will have seen these images soon. It is the APA's policy and your efforts to inforce it that has brought the medias attention to this issue. If editors would have allowed wikipedia to add encyclopdic information without attempts at censorship then maybe the Rorschach images would have not made international news but have remained a historical and clinical curiosity.
And another quote "Is it not the responsibility of those we entrust our medical care to be aware of and proactive about concerns such as the corroded value of certain diagnostic tool? Rather than bemoaning the inevitable" [6] ie. welcome to the information age.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WRT WP:UNDUE editors express the opinion they find most compelling. If you think the proponents of the test are not well represented please represent them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Except those who understand the test here are outnumbered by those who do not understand it. And in this particular article, the minority is ignored and the majority makes all the decisions. Hence, regardless of what the experts here say on the talk page, the article has been under the control of those who do not understand the test for several months now. Ward3001 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This page, like all pages, is controlled by wikipedean policies. No original research is allowed and sources are properly documented. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Duh. The problem is that in order to determine how much weight to give to various sides of a highly technical professional debate, it really helps to have some understanding of the highly technical professional issues. There are a few people publishing on one side of the argument. There are many others publishing on the other side. To create a synthesis of both of those sides, giving a neutral point of view that reflects the weight of scientific consensus, is quite challenging. It's like writing the pages on global warming -- "equal time" doesn't cut it. To create that neutral synthesis requires thoughtful judgment and a thorough understanding of the ins and the outs of the topic. It's not original research to write the article. Under normal circumstances, one would hope that the normal process of argument towards consensus would help create the right balance. But here we have an article where one group of editors has declared another group's position (ironically the editors who have the best professional knowledge of the subject) invalid, and has made changes to the page that effectively prevent those who disagree with them from participating in the process. They've effectively subverted WP's policies to serve their POV. Sad. Mirafra (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's lip service, Gary. In the past few days, I have been told to go away and edit another encyclopedia. "Doc" James has said (and this is a direct quote), "the majority has heard your [psychologists'] complaint and does not think they are significant". Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. If you can't, consider whether the repetitive parroting of the phrase "this page is controlled by Wikipedia policies" serves any purpose to further the truth for this specific article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)cl
Ward your free to edit the document like anyone else. Endless repetition of the same arguments has cause most to tune you out or bite you in frustration. I understand this is a sad state of affairs for you and believe or not I sympathize with your position but ultimately your goals do not look compatible with the encyclopedia's mission. This is not likely to change. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Missed my point again, Gary. So let me try to simplify. I didn't say I don't have the capability of clicking "Edit" and then editing (if I chose to violate ethics). I said psychologists have been told to "go away"; our comments about the article (not editors) have been threatened with removal; we have been told that the "majority" doesn't consider our opinions significant. And that's just the tip of the iceberg over the last week or so. It's crystal clear that the "majority" (all non-psychologists) gives the "minority" (mostly psychologists) no consideration in the majority's control of the article, despite the fact that the minority knows much more about the subject matter. So your repetitive "according to Wikipedia policy", although perhaps well-intentioned, says absolutely nothing about what's really going on in the control of this article. It's just a reflection of the unfulfilled ideals of Wikipedia, not the true state of affairs for this article. If you disagree, I'll ask you again: Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. Ward3001 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason for this "go away" is if the responses have been like Ward3001's not one single peer reviewed paper actually refuting Wood has been produced; rebuttals are not refutation. Never mind the 60 years worth of anthropological work that shows that the Rorschach test may have problems cross culturally knocking a key issue of its usability without cultural bias suspect. The Chicken Little reaction by the psychologist and psychiatrist community including claiming the Rorschach test is still under copyright when it is in fact publish domain in most of the world has not helped the credibility on the pro side of the issue. Never mind the fact that even among scholarly papers that support the test a few admit that it has been used in manners for which it is totally unsuited.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You're seriously in error here, Bruce. As I pointed out above in response to one of your demands for information already on the talk page, Faustian has posted links to excellent articles by top researchers that rebut Wood et al. And the links have been in the article for a long time. You just didn't bother to READ the talk page (or the article). And I've also asked you above to give us some details that make sense to the field of psychological testing in your ramblings about anthropology. I've studied psychological testing for several decades and have not run across any support for your claims that anthropologists have determined that the Rorschach is useless. This is a psychological test. You need to cough up some really solid evidence that the important factor in deciding the utility of the Rorschach in clinical psychology hinges on the opinion of ... an anthropologist? Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have shown above most of Faustian's links are useless for the issue at hand (article too old for the issue at hand, comments rather than formal articles, etc), nevermind he is too lazy to provide proper links so you have some idea what the blazes you are going to. Never mind that even Wood acknowledges that the Rorschach test is good for something--just not what it tends to be used for. Even Viglione accepted the fact there were "Problems in Rorschach Research" and then stated on how to address those problems. Trying to say Wood is claiming the Rorschach test is totally useless is a misrepresentations of his position. Some more article that should better flesh out that position follow:
Garb, Howard N. James M. Wood, Scott O. Lilienfeld and M. Teresa Nezworski (2005) "Roots of the Rorschach controversy" Clinical Psychology Review, 25:1, January 2005, Pages 97-118
Wood. James M. (2006) "The Controversy Over Exner's Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak" Independent Practitioner.
Lilienfeld, Scott O. (Editor), William T. O'Donohue (Editor) (2007) "Better Measurement Makes Better Clinicians" (Wood here again) The Great Ideas of Clinical Science
Please note that unlike Faustian I provided the actual full reference so you have some idea of what in the sam hill I am sending you to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Bruce, read my response (a few paragraphs above) to what you "have shown" about Faustian's links, as well as the information about additional information about rebuttals. As I said, there's lots of rebuttal information out there to Wood et al. if you're open minded enough to actually find it and read it. Wood et al. are in the minority in personality assessment, and they use statistical voodoo and junk science to reach their conclusions. You just haven't gone to the trouble to find the evidence for that. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply claiming it is junk science doesn't wash especially when that so called junk science appeared in a peer reviewed journal The fact you don't understand the link with anthropology shows you are ignorent of this little gem: "Psychiatry is, as we all recognize, at a critical juncture. Anthropology must come to its aid."--Thomas Gladwin National Institute of Mental Health in 1962 American Anthropologist Vol. 64, No. 6 pg 1962. As the old adage say those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out, Wood, et al. are a distinctly minority view, as evidenced by the surveys of assessment psychologists on their usage of the instrument. Anyone is free to claim something is "controversial," but that doesn't make it so. Peter Deusberg still insists that HIV has no relationship with AIDS and claims that the HIV "hypothesis" is "very controversial." Others claim that evolution is a "controversial" theory in biology and no more accepted than literal creatioinism. That doesn't make it so. The fact that the earth is roughly spherical is not controversial, despite the claims of Flat Earth Societies. There are few researchers outside of the Wood cohort claiming that the Rorschach is invalid (although as with any psychological instrument, validity depends on the question asked). In an earlier post, I published the URL of the pdf of the Society for Personality Assessment review of the Rorschach literature. That review has many references to studies, including all major meta-analytic studies of the Rorschach validity. Reviewers of the meta-analysis of Rorschach research have all concluded that it possesses validity coefficients on par with other psychological tests (slightly better at predicting behavioral outcomes, less at predicting self descriptions). Read the data.SPAdoc (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SPAdoc. What a great idea for anyone trying to edit article: "Read the data". Ward3001 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A survey doesn't mean squadoo especially if we don't don't know how the questions were worded.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
To repeat what SPAdoc said, READ the data, Bruce. Read the sources (they have been linked) before your pronouncment of non-squadoo meanings. Ward3001 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SPADoc. Go take a look at the SPA review and read the large number of papers it cites, and give that position its appropriate weight.
As Anthropologists have known since Minor's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema," American Anthropologist 58 (1956): 503-507 article shoved it in their face there is no such thing as "raw data". The reality is the "data" was what the researcher expected to find and resulted in the whole emic-etic concept and later system-theory to try and address the problem. James Burke would later take system-theory to the general public in his famous Connections and Day the Universe Changed"" series. Then you have the "data" from where, when, and regarding what issue? Even its supporter accept that the Rorschach test has been used in ways for which it is ill suited and even Wood accepts that it is very good in certain areas.
Paul, Annie Murphy (2004) The Cult of Personality lambasted the uses the Rorschach test is put to. Herbert, Wray (2009) "Analyze This: The real problem with the Rorschach test: It doesn't work" Newsweek Web Exclusive Jul 30, 2009] stated "The journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this PSPI report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."
Wikipedia:Verifiability states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." and despite my own efforts to get a ranking of sources (see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Decision_Memory) they are considered on equal footing. Since the Newsweek article is the latest one on this issue and states the PSPI report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach" that puts all these other claims of Wood being "refuted" as being highly suspect bordering on WP:OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Regarding the issue of cross-cultural use: Yes, there has been sigificant work in recent years regarding the cross-cultural use of the Rorschach. That's a good thing. It's not a question of a black-and-white "it's valid" vs. "it's invalid" position -- this is a very complex test, with many different variables, each of which may have greater or lesser validity with any given client or population. Nor is cross-cultural research even an effort to prove that the Rorschach is invalid. Collecting normative data from different population groups is precisely how the process of developing scientific knowledge works. We would expect there to be some differences. The fact that research indicates that differences exist does not prove that the test is invalid; rather, it provides useful information to those doing assessments on members of different cultural groups.
As we've been saying for quite a while, it's a tremendously difficult undertaking to wade into a vast field of research on a topic where you don't have even the most basic background knowledge (like, say, about the entire concept of "correct" answers). Mirafra (talk)
I disagree. The whole emit and emic issue in anthropology showed that the very idea of "correct" answer is a misnomer. Worse it also showed that the very theory you go into the field with can distort what you record. About a decade later James Burke would use the very some idea in his "Day the Universe Changed" series especially the last episode where he uses all those optical illusions. The problem is if there is too much interpretation involved then a Rorschach test may be no better than a lie detector.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Bruce, I am having a very hard time making your rather odd connection between the Rorschach and ... anthropology??? I've asked you to explain it earlier, but so far you haven't. The Rorschach is a psychological test. Please give us details, including references to reliable sources, as to how the decades of research by psychologists on the Rorschach is in any way negated by research by an anthropologist. Clinical psychologists have found the Rorschach to be very useful in mental health settings. If an anthropologist doesn't find the Rorschach useful in the field of anthropology, what does that have to do with clinical psychology and mental health??
Another point Bruce. Please justify your comment that "there is too much interpretation involved [in] a Rorschach test" specifically as it applies to Exner's interpretive system (by far the most widely used system). Do you know anything about Exner's system? Do you know how the hundreds of interpretive variables are derived from the patient's responses on the Rorschach. Exner's system does not rely heavily on subjective interpretation by the examiner. This is pointed out even in an article as brief and as full of errors as the Wikipedia article on the Rorschach. Have you read that? The Rorschach examiner doesn't simply read a few of the patient's responses and suddenly speculate about a diagnosis. There's a very complex, scientifically based, statistically sophisticated method for reaching interpretive conclusions. So, please explain how "there is too much interpretation involved [in] a Rorschach test". Ward3001 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the comment regarding anthropology. I have to admit as well that the Rorschach is extremely unsuited for...detecting the presence of colon cancer, not to mention HIV infection. Interestingly, however, there has recently (in the last 2 years) been an impressive research effort in terms of collecting international norms. These are now collected in a special edition of Journal of Personality Assessment [1]. These will enable researchers to analyze differences between cultural groups based upon hard data. What these data show, by the way, is that in general, norms do NOT differ between countries, but that there are some intriguing isolated differences that appear to be consistent with anthropological views of particular societies. SPAdoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Yet another article: [7].Faustian (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Infligment

Why don't they create new test and put them under their copyright? Stop shitting and turn your brain on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.87.173 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep a WP:CIVIL tone. I just addressed this issue about half a screen above here. Mirafra (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And it has been addressed many times in the past. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to my comment?

This edit seems to have disappeared in the archiving. --NE2 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, I've gone ahead and added it to /images in the same place as it was on here. (Sorry if you had a reason to omit that, Xeno. I didn't see any though.) 24.76.174.152 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies. No, it wasn't an intentional omission - I will take a look later to see where it got lost and see if anything else was lost with it. –xenotalk 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Was being moved in this edit, but for some reason it didn't make it in this edit. Sorry 'bout that, thanks for fixing it 24.x.x.x. –xenotalk 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Use in court

Rorschach tests get used in court, and are hardly ever challenged. Isn't that reason enough to publish the test? Shouldn't any citizen have the right to understand and rebut the evidence presented against him in court? If the psychologists really wanted to keep this test secret, then they would not have used it in court. Roger (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"These days most reputable psychologists feel the Rorschach is unreliable at best and dagerously misleading at worst." (Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center)--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, that's hardly a reliable source. The Rorschach is used very frequently in custody cases. The sourse you took the quote form is full of nonsense.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether the test is reliable or not, there should be public info on any test used in court. Is someone arguing that the courts should use secret tests of unknown reliability? I don't see the argument for censoring the inkblots. Roger (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Unknown reliability??? Could you tell us where you came up with this? The reliability of the Rorschach is well studied and supported. And at the top of this section, you said, "Rorschach tests get used in court, and are hardly ever challenged. Isn't that reason enough to publish the test?" Um, no, the fact the the test is not challenged in court is because it has been shown to be a very useful instrument that helps the court reach conclusions. Then you said, "Shouldn't any citizen have the right to understand and rebut the evidence presented against him in court?" The court uses experts, not defendants, to understand the test results, and any defense attorney who is halfway competent would not ask his/her client to do the rebuttal; that attorney would find an expert. And then you said, "If the psychologists really wanted to keep this test secret, then they would not have used it in court". The issue of test security to prevent invalidating test results has little to do with whether the test is used in court. Courts do not publish copies of the actual test (i.e., the images). They may release copies of psychological evaluation reports that interpret the test findings. I fail to see your point about use in court and keeping the test "secret". Ward3001 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliability is known and established, and the type of secrecy we are talking about is the same sort as not giving out the questions and answers to the SAT or any other test.Faustian (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Court cases are public record for the most part. --98.238.145.2 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But the court doesn't publish copies of the test images. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In court cases, psychologists, even under subpoena, are PROHIBITED from releasing test questions/items/protocols to the court. They release the reports, notes, etc. - but never the test protocols themselves (to the court or attorneys). They only release the protocols to other psychologists (most often on the opposing side), who then review and analyze their opinions (because only a trained psychologist is able to interpret testing data meaningfully and responsibly). I'll repeat again, the tests themselves (this includes many other tests beyond the Rorschach) ARE NOT released to the court or attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the court does not publish the Rorschach test images or protocols. That is why it is so important that WP and others do it. You can argue all you want that the test is reliable, but I should not have to accept someone's opinion against me in court. I should be able to examine the evidence myself. The psychologists gave up all right to secrecy when they started using this dubious stuff in court. Roger (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing dubious about it, as the Rorschach meets the Daubert standard and, as the article states, has been used in 8,000 cases and only been challenged 6 times and overturned once. Do you also propose that wikipedia also release all the answers and test items on medical licensing exams, college entrance exams, all other tests including all psychological tests in case on of them is used in a court case somewhere? I may be wrong, but it sounds like you just don't feel that any psychological tests ought to be used in court (because, any psych test would be spoiled if all the answers and test items were known). Faustian (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the information presented doesn't tell you what the Rorschach test was used with. Also contrary to popular belief lie detectors are allowed in some US courts even at the federal level and those are known to have questionable realizable and last time I checked would seem to have a major fail with regards to the Daubert standard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You give the wrong impression, Bruce. Lie detectors are not admissible as evidence in most U.S. courts. They are frowned on by most judges. They are used by law enforcement and businesses, but they are not admissible as evidence in most courts. The Rorschach, on the other hand, has been admissible in almost all cases when it was used by a competent forensic psychologist. And I have no idea what you mean by your statement "The problem is the information presented doesn't tell you what the Rorschach test was used with"??? Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If the Rorschach meets the Daubert standard, then that is all the more reason for it to be subject to public scrutiny. If some other test is used against people in court, then yes, it should also be subject to public scrutiny. Roger (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The psychometric characteristics, research on reliability and validity, and the reliationship of the test to behavior are fully open to public scrutiny. Anyone can read any journal article or book that pertains to a test. But that does not mean the test items must be made public. Research on the SAT is open to public scrutiny, but the test items are never released to the general public. Intelligence tests are often used in court. Does that mean that the test items should be released to the public? If your answer is yes, that would mean that a new test would have to be developed every time the public demanded access to the test items. And to do that would require millions of dollars and years of research every time a new test had to be developed, essentially making test development impossible. To demand that test items for every test used in court should be made public would effectively render every one of those tests useless. So that means a determination of (for example) a defendant's fitness to stand trial would be impossible in many cases. It means that someone who might qualify for a disability claim on the basis of mental retardation could not take his case to court. I hope you're getting my point about the ridiculousness of exposing test items in the name of public scrutiny. Public scrutiny does not require violating test security. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So a court can only tell is someone is retarded with some inkblot images, and then it cannot do it anymore if the inkblots are published? I just don't believe that. Roger (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I'm not sure if you are having difficulty understanding the words in my comment, or if you didn't read my comment, or if you are wildly jumping to conclusions (or maybe you're trying to make a joke). Please give me the diff in which I said "a court can only tell is someone is retarded with some inkblot images". I'll try to restate my point more simply. You argue that tests used by the court should be open to public scrutiny. You conclude that this means that the Rorschach test items (the images) should be available to the public. I made a point that if we make test items available to the public because the court uses them, then every intelligence test (not inkblots) used by the court to determine mental retardation will then be useless. My most basic point is that public scrutiny of tests does not require public exposure of the test items (which damages the tests), whether it's the questions in an intelligence test or the images in the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So maybe some supposedly retarded guy will study the popular intelligence tests on WP, and then some court will be unable to prove that he is retarded because he will know how to ace the tests? Is that the problem? That just seems so farfetched to me. It seems much more likely that the court will use some bogus test that has only gained acceptance because of a lack of public scrutiny. Roger (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, let me try to simplify this even more. If intelligence test items are released to the general public, the test is useless. There are a limited number of intelligence tests that can be accepted in court. If all of them are rendered useless by public release of the test items, there will not BE a test that can diagnose ANYONE mentally retarded. Therefore, no one who is actually mentally retarded will be able to be diagnosed as mentally retarded for purposes of the court. That means that no one could have a legitimate disability claim based on mental retardation presented to the court because no one could be diagnosed. And that's just for the court. There are dozens of other important uses of these tests outside the court that would be made impossible by public release of test items. That, Roger, is not far-fetched. And that's only for intelligence tests. Other tests are used by the court to determine if someone is competent to stand trial. Release of the test items to the general public would render those tests useless. Therefore, the court would never be able to determine if someone was competent to stand trial. And here is the most important part (read carefully): it is not necessary to release test items in order to have public scrutiny of a test, whether the Rorschach, MMPI, intelligence test, or any other psychological test. I don't think I can make that any simpler. Ward3001 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, what would happen is some people who were mentally retarted would still fail the test. For people who passed the test, there are two possibilities (1) they're not mentally retarted, or (2) they figured out which test would be administered to them in advance, executed a search to find public info about the test, memorized the answers, and used them to demonstrate non-retardation. An intelligent person who was not mentally retarted could still be diagnosed as retarded by a test, by intentionally falsifying answers, they don't need to know the test items in advance to do that. Tests such as Lie detector tests or the Roschach test should not be all that easy to cheat; lie detector tests rely on physiological response, and Roschach test relies on the examinee's interpretations of what they see: unless someone has told them what to see in advance, their interpretations during the test should still be their own. They can lie about what they see, or blurt out canned answers, but they could do that without seeing the images in advance, and it will be up to the examiner to determine if that's what is happening.. --Mysidia (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Mysidia. Let me try again. If there is no usable test (as would be the case if the test items were released to the public) there would be no test to fail. If the tests used by the court are rendered useless, there is no "passing" or "failing" the test because there is no test to administer; there is no diagnosis. Thus, no one can make a disability claim in court on the basis of mental retardation. Similarly, if all tests used by the court to determine fitness for trial were made invalid by public exposure of the test items, the court has no way to determine if someone is fit to stand trial. As for another of your comments "Roschach test relies on the examinee's interpretations of what they see", are you saying that a person will give an identical response to a Rorschach image if he is seeing it for the first time compared to if he has studied the image, thought about what it might be, talked to his friends about what it might be, read suggested answers on websites? Are you saying the same responses and the same results will occur under both of those conditions? Ward3001 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Your scenario still seems farfetched to me. Are there any examples of courts that were unable to diagnose someone because some test had been revealed? I just don't believe that would ever happen. But if I am wrong, there should be some examples to prove I am wrong. Where has there ever been any harm from disclosing a test like this? And even if there was some harm, it is surely more than compensated by having fairer and more open court processes. Roger (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a "scenario", it's a practical and legal fact. If it is so farfetched, please tell me how a court would determine whether a person is mentally retarded if there is no test to determine mental retardation. Legal determination of mental retardation requires test scores. If the items of all tests used to determine mental retardation are released to the public (thus making all of them useless), how would you propose that a court should determine that someone is mentally retarded? Give me the specific procedures for determining mental retardation without test scores, and then I might be able to make this a little clearer for you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A test score can only ever affirm retardation, not disprove the possibility, other than to say it's unlikely (statistically). If a person tested by the court takes the test and fails to demonstrate the intelligence being tested for, they will be scored as mentally retarted whether they had been exposed to test items before or not does not invalidate that finding: even if the candidate had access to the test items, them failing the test, is still an indisputable failure to demonstrate the intelligence being tested for, and therefore, they suffer the ratardation. The situation in that is unclear only if they take the test and do demonstrate the intelligence being tested for; only test results that say the examinee has the intelligence being tested for are really in question. This is why knowledge of the items wouldn't totally invalidate the test; it would only invalidate one possible finding based on test results (a finding of 'normal' or not afflicted by retardation). Tests are directional in nature; if someone fails to perform normally on a test, the test provides useful information. If someone performs normally on a test, it could actually be a retardation, or an ailment (in the case of Rorschach) not detectable by the test. I don't think use of psychological tests in court cases is a valid reason to publish test details, but the images of Rorschach don't compromise the details of the test either: the public domain images are used by the test, but are not the test. --Mysidia (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a fact. The SAT makers used to claim that the SAT had to be super-secret. Now SAT tests are published, and the public has a better understanding of the tests. I think these psych tests are just kept secret to protect them from criticism. It can't be that hard to test for mental retardation. What do you think, that some retarded guy is going to memorize all the tests? If he can do that, he is probably not retarded. Roger (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, I'm beginning to think that you either have problems understanding English (no offense intended, that's just my impression in case your first language is not English and that's why we're having so much trouble communicating), or that you are purposefully being obtuse here as a joke. But in the event that neither of those is true, please tell me how anyone can memorize the test items IF THERE IS NO TEST, because if the test items are released to the public, the test will never be used again and there will be no test to memorize. And by the way, the SAT test questions for tests that have not yet been administered are never released to the public. Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the SAT revises their tests or utilizes large question sets to allay obvious attempts at memorizing questions for better college placement scores. However, the article doesn't provide information that could be used to cheat Roschach; it is not as if you can study ink blots longer and memorize "right answers". The article doesn't actually say in detail what questions the test examiner will ask, how the images are used, what all the things the examinee will be asked to do. The test must still work, even if the examinee has been tested before (meaning they've already seen the images in the past, when they were being tested). The examiner will very likely ask the examinee if they've seen the image before, and if necessary, utilize a different test. Rorschach is definitely not the only projective test that can be utilized. --Mysidia (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Mysidia, the norms (data from which all interpretations are based) for the Rorschach are from people who are seeing the images for the first time and is based on their first impression in seeing the images. So I have two specific questions I would like for you to answer: (1) Are you claiming that a patient will give an identical response on seeing the inkblot the first time, compared to someone who has studied the blots for some time, perhaps thinking about possible answers, perhaps talking to his friends about what they see in the blots, and perhaps reading the common responses that are in the Wikipedia article? (2) You said the examiner can "utilize a different test". There are some things the Rorschach can do that no other test can do, or not do as well. For example, no other test has a suicide constellation that has been shown to empirically identify patients who are suicidal (that's just one example). What other test will the psychologist "utilize" to get that information? Will the psychologist instantly create a new inkblot test (the current one is based on 90 years of research that would no longer apply to a new test)? Please give us specific answers to those two questions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Your argument seems very improbable to me, but there is no reason for me to take your word for it anyway. Are there some published studies which show that the Rorschach only diagnoses suicidal thoughts if the inkblots are being seen for the first time? That other images and tests do not work as well? That suicidal patients are likely to study Wikipedia in order to learn how to beat a psych test? That patients are somehow worse off even if they do try to beat the test? It seems to me that publishing inkblots would be beneficial to almost everyone, but I will look at evidence to the contrary if there is any. Roger (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Which part is improbable? Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would financially benefit psychologists if they published the images. Put them on windows, hang a shingle, and put one on a business card. It's good commercial advertising, and if it helped advance the cause better diagnoses and early treatment of mental illness, then why not? But the fact is that two national societies, the British and the American, forbids this for its members. See [8] and [9]. Plus, the APA has published a statement on the disclosure of test data (of which the Rorshach is one) that states that disclosure would harm the test and the public. I can see no conspiracy behind this, and I doubt very much whether a conspiracy could be successful. In all the criticism of the test, this position statement is not contradicted by any other source. I think we can take it as reliable information. The question then becomes what do we do with this information? We should consider all the facts. Then, using dynamic tension we make a judgment. We should consider all the facts and all the arguments, pro and con, and then make a determination. See arguments at Talk:Rorschach_test/images Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the APA forbids inkblot disclosure by members, but the inkblots are being disclosed by non-members, so there is no ethical violation. The APA statement does not say that disclosure is necessarily harmful. It says, "Disclosure of secure testing materials ... may decrease the test's validity." That suggests that some disclosures may be beneficial, and some may be harmful. Roger (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the APA thinks disclosure of test materials may be beneficial??? I wonder if you could please give us the details of your logic, because if you could convince the psychologists here that the APA thinks exposure of test materials is beneficial, then the psychologists can go ahead and pack our bags, leave this talk page completely, and go get re-educated in the APA's complete reversal of its longstanding policies and opinions. So please, how did you conclude that the APA might think release of test materials could be beneficial. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The APA does not set Wikipedia editorial policy. Regarding choice to publish the images, it doesn't matter all that much whether the APA is opposed to it or deems it harmful/beneficial or not. I would consider the APA to be an interested party, who would likely oppose publication for much the same reason as the publisher of the test would oppose publication of the now free images. The discussion is really getting convoluted and repetitive, and it would appear consensus has already formed to publish images... --Mysidia (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Mysidia, you're making the discussion even more convoluted. I never said that APA sets Wikipedia policy. I asked Roger where he came up with the idea that APA considers exposure of test items possibly beneficial. Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The APA was cited to support the idea that disclosure is harmful. But the APA does not say that. The APA position seems to be that some disclosures can be beneficial while others can be harmful. It does not take a stand on the Rorschach images. Roger (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The APA position is not that some disclosures can be beneficial. That's either deliberately misreading the APA code of ethics or just being a bit thick. The ethics code says that we have to protect test security because some disclosures might be mostly neutral, some might be harmful to the usefulness of the instrument, and that some have not been fully researched. In many ways, it's hard to do the research to establish this kind of stuff clearly -- we can't really do research on how a culture changes without actually doing the thing we're worried isn't a good idea to do -- so we go under the general principle that we always want to give a test in the way it was normed, on subjects who are not familiar with the test content. Yes, the research is, in fact, being done. But it takes enormous amounts of time, money, and volunteers to do so. The nature of what we do and how we develop new knowledge prevents us from being as agile as a software person just changing security protocols.
Also, the notion that the APA code of ethics doesn't necessarily apply to the Rorschach is a nonsensical argument that has been shot down numerous times already. The APA code of ethics refers to test security for all tests used for psychological evaluation. The Rorschach is a member of that class of objects. The total number of items in that class numbers somewhere in the hundreds or thousands (maybe more -- I suppose someone could check the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook for a better numerical estimate). The APA code of ethics talks about general concepts, rather than enumerating all possible instantiations. For a different example, it says that it's unethical to exploit a client for financial gain. It doesn't list all the possible ways that might happen: this is a way to protect the public, by preventing an unethical person from saying, "Well, you didn't specifically prohibit what I did, so it must be okay." Mirafra (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If the APA does not realize that disclosures can be beneficial, then that is their ignorance. I am glad to hear that research is being done on whether disclosures such as inkblot disclosures are harmful. I doubt that there is any harm, but if any harm is ever proven, then you can suggest that WP remove the images. Roger (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There seems to be some implication that the APA holds some authority over this test. That is not the case. It is in the public domain and thus the public has every right to see them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has said that the APA has any authority over any test. There is enough confusion on this page without that type of unfounded claim. Roger made a bizarre claim that the APA might see disclosure of test items beneficial, and I asked him to tell us how he came to this conclusion. Ward3001 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just quoting an APA web page. I gave a link to my source. I don't know what the APA thinks. I assume that it says whatever will maximize the income of its members. That probably means keeping the inkblots secret. But the APA never says that there is any harm to disclosing the inkblots. And there are some obvious benefits to disclosure, whether the APA admits to them or not. Roger (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger, again I'm struggling to believe that you fully understand English (just in case it's not your first language). But once again, I'll accept the fact that you may have misread something. Nowhere on the page that you link, nor on any other APA webpage, does it say that the APA might consider release of test items beneficial. That was your own bizarrely contorted conclusion. Ward3001 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to insult me, or to address what I actually said? Roger (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't insult you. I seriously wonder why you seem to misinterpret most of what you read. I have communicated with people on Wikipedia who have limited English skills (and had good discussions with them), and your comments have reminded me very much of them. You misinterpreted almost every response I have given to you above, having tremendous deifficulty understanding why if a test does not exist, it cannot be used by a court, even though I said that in about three different ways in very plain English. Even another editor corrected you. And I DID address what you said a few lines above (but of course you didn't get it). So let me put it a different way. Give me the direct quote from any APA webpage in which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. If you can do that, then maybe I can help you understand my point. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are very insulting, and you do not address what I said. I suggest that you reread what I said, if you want to understand it. If you want APA website quotes to support whatever point you want to make, then I suggest that you get them yourself. Roger (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments were not insulting; you only chose to take them that way. And let me quote you directly: "The APA statement does not say that disclosure is necessarily harmful. It says, 'Disclosure of secure testing materials ... may decrease the test's validity.' That suggests that some disclosures may be beneficial". Do you deny that you wrote that several paragraphs above? If not, I'm asking you to either back up what you said, or admit that it's wrong. Give me a direct quote from any APA webpage in which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. If you can't do that, or if you don't acknowledge your error, I'll consider your above comments insulting. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I posted that APA quote, except that you omitted my link to the APA web page containing the quote. I give you the link again: [10] Read it yourself, if you like. Now that you finally found the quote that I posted, I hope that you will stop insulting me. If you want to post your own quotes from the APA, go ahead, but I am tired of answering your questions over and over again. All you ever had to do was to find the quote on the web page with the link that I provided. Roger (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you linked to a webpage; you did not post a quote from APA. There's a difference between a link and a quote. I am asking you to quote the specific words on the webpage from which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. I'm asking you to back up this claim with the specific words from which you came to this conclusion. The reason I ask is because those words are not there. That was your conclusion; it was not suggested on the APA webpage. If you disagree, give the rest of us the exact words that would suggest that APA thinks release of test items could be beneficial. Otherwise, it is your false conclusion about something that APA has never said. Ward3001 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did quote the APA. If you have a disagreement, then go ahead and post your disagreement. Roger (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Roger did quote the APA correctly when he said that disclusure of test date "may decrease the test's validity." However, he went on to conclude that the APA left open the possibility that disclosure may also increase the test's validity or benefit. He has produced no reliable source to back up this inventive interpretation, which stands in stark contrast with the sentences before and after the one he quoted. So I think his interpretation is best forgotten. Really, I think he was having fun with us, weren't you, Roger? More to the point of this thread, Roger wants to know if the public is entitled to know everything about the evidence against the accused. That's a fair question, I think. We've heard some say that it's the expert testimony by the psychologist that is entered into evidence, not the images themselves. This makes sense to me, since it is the subject's responses to the images that are at issue, not the images themselves. And since only an expert is qualified to judge the subject's response, then the images are several steps removed from the actual evidence entered into court. I think the accused has a right to see and hear the evidence against him. And in this case, the evidence does not include the Rorschach images. But Roger's question is still valid: What does the public have a right to know? I think a lot. I think we can provide a lot of information, without actually showing the images. Information that can help either side of a court case. But to go so far as to vandalize a test (and in the case of SPARC, sabotage the test) crosses a line. That's not a valid purpose. Destroying knowledge defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia and harms the subject of our articles. It's disrespectful to the subject. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have a point DD. I myself had wondered if Roger was playing a game with us by pretending that he had done something he had not done. If so, no harm done, but let's move on. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But I studied the test! Why did I fail?

I've read through a tonne of comments here after seeing a report about the page on Newsworld in Canada. There seems to be a lot of criticism of the author because he's an ER doctor and works in a smaller city. This is ridiculous. It only goes to show the ignorance of the posters.

A doctor who works in a small city is trained in exactly the same manner as one who works in a large urban center. Also, an ER doctor is often the first person in the medical system who deals with the mentally ill so their experience in the matter shouldn't be entirely discarded. Finally, on the matter of their worthiness to post an article on the test, an ER doctor will spend close to a decade in school studying medicine. They have the academic background to comment on a medical test.

Now on to us laypersons. I love being able to read about this and any other psychological test that are used to diagnose mental illness. To have psychologists hide them behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz, makes me suspicious of the very validity of such testing. Surely they can't believe that a mentally disturbed person would study these tests to fool the tester into believing something that isn't real? If one test points to one result surely the tester would administer other tests to confirm or deny it. Unless, of course, the tester already has made a diagnosis and is just waiting for one test to confirm their opinion.

Leave the images and the article on the site. Let knowledge triumph over superstition and fear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanQboy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TanQboy, thanks for your comments. I think your comments are very well-intentioned, but I think you have greatly misunderstood what you read. The criticisms here about the ER doctor have nothing to do with the size of the city in which he practices. The fundamental criticisms are that an ER doctor, including this one, is not trained in the Rorschach. Being a "doctor" does not make someone an expert on everything related to healthcare. With the exception of psychiatrists (and the doctor you refer to is not a psychiatrist), most physicians have almost no training in psychological testing, and even less training in the Rorschach. It's quite possible for a typical physician to have read only a paragraph or two in a textbook about the Rorschach (if that much), and to never have had any direct experience with the Rorschach whatsoever. So your comment "They have the academic background to comment on a medical test", when applied to the Rorschach, is simply untrue. If your physician had no more experience with a medical procedure he was planning to use with you, would you feel comfortable about it? I certainly wouldn't. So the physician in question here has very little expertise on the Rorschach. He may have read a few journal articles on the topic out of the hundreds that need to be read for any expertise. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this physician has never been trained in administration or interpretation of the Rorschach. On the other hand, there are a few psychologists here who have read almost every major resource on the Rorschach, have studied the test for decades, and have directly administered and interpreted hundreds of Rorschachs. I hope this clarifies things for you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will be my last comment for a while. I echo what Ward3001 says. Being an expert in one field does not make one an expert in another--no matter how many years s/he spends in school. I consider myself an expert on the Rorschach; I have used it for over 35 years, I have conducted research on it, have published dozens of papers on it, etc. None of that gives me the slightest clue how to interpret an MRI scan of lumbar soft tissue. If a physician came up with a diagnosis of my back pain that I disagreed with, I would hardly be able to "rebut" it by looking at the MRI. As for "hiding" tests from the public, this is not the thrust of the argument here. Most tests work best if the individual does not have prior knowledge of the content. The college board goes to great lengths to safeguard the security of the SAT and its companion tests. If a candidate had access to the test and memorized the correct answers, it would not give an accurate reflection of that person's aptitude (except, perhaps, his or her aptitude for sociopathy). Similarly, if someone "boned up" on the Rorschach and gave pre-programmed responses, the resulting assessment would not reflect his or her true psychological functioning. Interestingly, some of the information on the Wikipedia page is, in fact, inaccurate; someone who relied upon it to create a false protocol wouldn't even be doing what s/he thought they were. The tenor of some of these comments seems to imply that psychologists are somehow trying to "trick" people by "hiding" our tests. This is not the case; we are merely trying to ensure that when we conduct assessments--especially high stakes assessments (e.g., conflictual custody battles, criminal cases, law enforcement screening) our assessments are as accurate as possible. To do otherwise does a disservice to both the person being evaluated and the general public.

Having said this, however, I don't want the impression left that the display of the blots here will invalidate the test. At worst, it may make it easier for some individuals to invalidate their results; the instrument will survive.SPAdoc (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TanQboy, for allowing me the opportunity to discuss the subject of the arguments advanced by DocJames. Speaking as one of the non-experts who disagrees with DocJames, my argument with him has less to do with his job or location, but rather with his attitude that it's okay to cheat on a test. His rationalization revolves around the idea that an ER doctor and optometrists have to deal with patients who have access to health information, so why should psychologists be any different? I find this argument to be nonconstructive. Up to now, I have hesitated to comment on it because so few other of my opponents have advanced the same position and I didn't want to give dignity to an argument that can be characterized by "Ah shucks. You think you got problems: When I was a boy, we had to walk 3 miles to school in snow."
Instead, I have been focusing most of my time at those who insert their own opinion in place of position statements by major health organizations, such as the following. [11] [12] [13] Doc James is among those who does not respect this source of information. See WP:MEDRS for policy on respect for secondary sources. We are not supposed to advance our own opinions in place of secondary sources. It's natural to form an opinion about Rorschach images. Indeed, that is their function. But we should trust our sources more than our own opinions, because that's what Wikipedians do.
If you'd like to read more about the various arguments both pro and con, you may find them at the image discussion page by clicking either the arguments con button or the arguments pro button. I think you'll find that the arguments go a lot deeper than how you have characterized things. And again, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to comment on the arguments advanced by DocJames. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not "what Wikipedians do". Sorry to interject, but by now I'm seeing this (IMO mistaken) attitude far too many times. Wikipedia wants secodary sources for its articles. Most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are about articles. Statements in articles must be reliably sourced. That's entirely different from what's "ethically" appropriate to have in guidelines and to practice! Don't give people weird ideas about Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If we don't use reliable sources for our information, who do we use? The community? You and me? I think that's just wrong. You can try and make a distinction between information we use solely in our discussion pages and how it trickles up to our articles, but I worry about going down that road. You're saying that policy only applies to what we do on our articles and not to how we discuss them. But I think there are plenty of policies for how we are supposed to act in our discussions. Why some and not others? I also think the better we organize our talk pages, the better will be our articles, because one derives much from the other. Think about it... If we don't apply some pretty basic rules to our discussions, like fact checking and attribution, then I shudder to think what will happen as the results trickle up to our articles. At the very least, it will result in articles that change drastically over time, depending on who's doing the talking, which is what is happening here at the Rorschach test.
By relying on our own opinions, I worry that we've compromised some basic principles to the operation of an encyclopedia. I think we need to take a step back and really consider what it is that we are trying to do. I think we should stick to writing an encyclopedia with general articles (see WP:MEDICAL) that inform us about real-world context, (i.e. information that is relevant but not exhaustive) and that does not destroy knowledge or utility. I want this knowledge to be available to future generations. Because, really, what is knowledge without utility? See similar discussion at SUBPAGE Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS states, "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". And what does that footnote say? "Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement". Note that policies and guidelines are explicitly listed as an example of what WP:RS does not apply to. You can feel free to have the opinion that it should apply, but that does not change the fact that it doesn't. A reliable source telling Wikipedia that something is bad and they shouldn't do it is not at the moment basis for actually not doing it.
Furthermore, please stop claiming that it is 'destroying' information to include details of the test. It is not. It may arguably be making the information less useful, but it doesn't 'destroy' it in any reasonable sense of the word. You might as well claim that evidence that displayed limitations of classical mechanics and led to the development of more modern theories was 'destroying knowledge' and ought to have been suppressed. Or that the evolution of languages is 'destroying knowledge' because older people don't know what those damn kids are saying these days, and few people can understand Old English anymore. Some information is only valid given certain assumptions, and when these assumptions cease being correct, so does the information. This can hardly be described as 'destruction'. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Look, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion about what talk pages and policies/guidelines (I was really talking mostly about the latter, by the way) should be based upon, but it is unreasonable to think that your opinion would suddenly change other people's minds about how it all works. Talk pages are clearly separate from articles, and there are reasons that I and, I suspect, most other Wikipedians find valid for that. We don't make policy based on what reliable sources think should be policy, we make policy based on consensus. If you want to change the way Wikipedia works so drastically, go ahead and try, but that is not something I am currently willing to contemplate. At the very least, though, don't make it seem like your opinion is the way it currently works, because it is not. --LjL (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Wood has published in peer review journals and then you have Hallowell, A. Irving (1945) "The Rorschach Technique in the Study of Personality and Culture" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1945), pp. 195-210; Adcock, Cyril J. and James E. Ritchie (1958) "Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 5 (Oct., ), pp. 881-892, Mensh, Ivan N. and Jules Henry (1953) "Direct Observation and Psychological Tests in Anthropological Field Work" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 461-480; Boyer, L. Bryce; Ruth M. Boyer, Charles W. Dithrich, Hillie Harned, Arthur E. Hippler, John S. Stone and Andrea Walt (1989) "The Relation between Psychological States and Acculturation among the Tanaina and Upper Tanana Indians of Alaska: An Ethnographic and Rorschach Study" Ethos, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 450-479; Edgerton, Robert B. and Kenneth Polk (1959) "Statistical Problems in the Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 1092-1093 showing how well (or how poorly) the Rorschach test works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You're seriously arguing against the Rorschach based on a bunch of articles in Anthropological journals from 60 years ago? As for Wood, that's already been addressed. Part of one small group of critics, a small miority in the field. His critical articles are outnumbered by perhaps 20:1 by other peer reviewed articles that use the test for various purposes.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Faustian, with all due respect you simply doesn't get is that the Roschach test pictures themselves are over 80 years old. Also last time I checked 2009-1958 is more around 50 years ago not 60. Nevermind challenging Hallowell "a pioneer in cross-cultural Rorschach analysis" (Regna, Darnell; Frederic Wright Gleach (2002) Celebrating a century of the American Anthropological Association: 1949 American Anthropological Association) just shows the importance of who I sited. Furthermore, Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes 64:1 2001 had several commentary articles like "Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist", "Why Psychiatry and Cultural Anthropology Still Need Each Other", and "Edward Sapir's Thought Experiment in the Interdisciplines of Cultural Anthropology and Psychiatry" all show that some Psychiatry professionals consider either that Psychiatry and Cultural Anthropology are related or need each other as recent as just seven years ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The blots are over 80 years old, but the current research on their clinical use is current. Mirafra (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge is different than information. Knowledge is the ability to use information. And according to a reliable source, we are destroying knowledge. (quote: "the loss of effective assessment tools." [14]) See discussion at at SUBPAGE Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Except the initial reference material does NOT say what you claimed it says:
"Psychologists who use tests are required to respect the confidentiality of test materials and to avoid release of test materials into the public domain" "Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers" British Psychological Society. Since Rorschach test images went public domain in the US (anything first published before 1923 or BY the US government is public domain in the US (even if it is not elsewhere and yes the reverse is true as well) and in Rorschach's native Switzerland in 1992. So epic fail of the "avoid release of test materials into the public domain" requirement of this document.
The Ethical Principles Of Psychologists And Code Of Conduct (June 1, 2003) states "Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." The Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data which also states "Psychologists are required by the Ethics Code to maintain the integrity and security of tests and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations (APA, 1992; Standard 2.10 "Maintaining Test Security")." Again both US and Switzerland law states the Rorschach test blots images are public domain so the "consistent with law" clause applies.
The Exner Scoring System however is copyrighted and fully protected under all these documents. But this article doesn't provide any details outside the most basic information on the Exner Scoring System that is not already available to the public. In fact given that Exner's work on how to actually do the test can easily be gotten through Amazon makes the whole issue Mount Everest out of mole hill. never mind the Newsweek article puts Wood's position on a very high bar by Wikipedia standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Bruce, your lack of knowledge is showing I'm afraid. According to Dr. Exner (when he was alive), Exner's Comprehensive System is not copyrighted. His books are copyrighted, but not his system. That's why there is software available that does the calculations for the system that was not created nor given the rights by Dr. Exner, but it does not violate copyright. And that's straight from John Exner. And another point: if Newsweek puts any position on a higher bar than scientific publications by experts, and if that's the bar we use, then Wikipedia has very little credibility in its science articles. Ward3001 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot systems per say cannot be copyrighted but they could have been patented which would have given Exner more control over how they were used. On the Newsweek issue you will see by the table I put up over at [Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Decision_Memory] I tried to present the idea of ranking sources with Peer reviewed journal (in relevant field) at the top and unfortunately that idea went over like a lead balloon. Then I tried Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Making_the_WP:RS_guildlines_an_actual_guide and that went exactly nowhere as well. So we are stuck with WP:RS that as it stands now IMHO boarders on the useless as a guide on how to actually apply the three polices of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV to sources.
Newsweek article meets the requirement of WP:PRIMARY: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." Wood, James M. (2006) "The Controversy Over Exner's Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak" Independent Practitioner creates even more headaches. That a 1986 article in Psychosomatic Medicine about Rorschach testing predicting cancer exists doesn't exactly help the pro side.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like there's a lot you forgot (or were never aware of). You never answered my question that I asked in another section: What is your evidence that a popular press magazine (such as Newsweek) has more credibility than peer-reviewed journals that have published decades of scientific research that contradicts Wood et al.? Publications from such peer reviewed scientific journals have been presented that confirm that Wood et al. are in a small minority in their criticisms among those who have researched the Rorschach. Being published in Newsweek does not give Wood et al. more credibility than the much larger majority of researchers published in peer-reviewed journals who have overwhelminingly rejected most of Wood et al.'s criticisms. You have a rather strange way of assigning credibility to sources. In your view, popular magazines are more credibile than scientific journals, and archeologists' opinions are more credible than psychologists' opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My "evidence" regarding Newsweek is straight out of the way WP:RS is written and what WP:PRIMARY says on the matter. In fact if you dig using google you find out that the key point is a near verbatim quote of Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."
So we find out that the statement is not Newsweek's but rather that of a person who is part of an organization that deals with Psychological Science, who printed her article through said organization in its news section, and worse for Ward3001 publishes the very journal (Psychological Science in the Public Interest) the Wood piece appeared in. Her article has already been picked up by Medical News Today, Science Daily, EurekAlert! (run by the AAAS}, lab spaces, physorg.com , and several blogs (which don't count as far as [WP:RS] goes. SO this is not just a one shot wonder and the quality of the statement is way better than Ward3001 made it to be.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Danglingdiagnosis if we add encylopedic material or not does not depend on the statements of professional organizations. What we add to the article pages needs a RS not our arguements on the talk pages. Wikipedia's goal is to catalogue the bredth and depth of human knowledge and provide it free to the world at large. This goal does not get overridden by an organizations false claimed ownership of material that is in the public domain. Also these images were already on Wikimedia commons. I only tagged them to this page. Even though it seems many wish to vilify my role in this process, the widespread dissemination of these images was inevitable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hide the associations?

How about we use Template:Hidden to hide the word associations, so only those who want to read them will be motivated to click "show" and read it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that has been discussed before (about the images themselves, but same thing) and 1) there's no consensus 2) it's against guidelines. --LjL (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The reflist template

The documentation for the reflist template says:

Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided.

Would anyone object to changing it to either 2 columns or to colwidth=30em? If you prefer one or the other, please note that.--Rockfang (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to 30em. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The world supports the addition of these images (reason number 7 I think)

Not only does the majority of editors on Wikipedia support the addition of these images but so does the majority of the world ( look at the comments of the NYTs article). People do not beleive science should take place behind locked door but they beleive it should be an open process.

I spoke to both the head of psychiatry and the department of psycology at my hospital yesterday. No one here uses the Rorschach test even though some have been trained in it. My college the psychiatrist has congratualed use on bringing this discussion out into the open and in her words "exposing this test". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And as I've said before, James, your neck of the woods is not in the mainstream. I know a number of Canadian psychologists who regularly use the Rorschach and who regularly consult with physicians about test findings as they relate to diagnosis. And I suspect the congratulations given to you relates more to your publicity seeking and 15 minutes of fame rather than any general opinions of Canadian psychiatrists. Ward3001 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This page did receive over half a million hits yesterday. Looks like people consider the topic interesting. Do you have any data to back up your assertion of test usage in Canada? "A number of" does not sound like very many. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
As much data as you do for your claims. Do you have any data to back up your conclusions that "the majority of the world" has any particular opinion based on a few comments in the NYT and a congrats to you for your 15 minutes of fame by one psychiatrist? Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we lower the heat a bit gents?... Remember to comment on content, not contributors. –xenotalk 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is a notable controversy over Wikipedia, just document it already like we always do. There isn't any real debate on whether the images should be removed, just as on Talk:Muhammad/images. If it's (a) notable and (b) legal, Wikipedia will carry it, there is simply no point in arguing about this. If Wikipedia content "has stirred controversy" or whatever, just make a sourced statement to the effect and be done. --dab (��) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like someone broke the shaman's magic wand. Though it doesn't really seem to matter at all. The results just depend on how the shaman hits the patient on the head with that wand. --84.226.18.142 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand the logic here. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of kids applying to college would love it if WP would publish the questions for the SAT. Public demand does not create scientific or encyclopedic necessity. Mirafra (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's basic principles is consensus, though. --LjL (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like most other languages of wiki articles include all 10 inkblots. A few just have a single blot and one uses a fake blot. Looks like the international muultilingual consensus is for inclusion of all ten images.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this the "everybody else does it" defense again? Perhaps they too have nonprofessionals who have hijacked their pages. Mirafra (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Perhaps they too have nonprofessionals who have hijacked their pages"... This comment really speaks volumes regarding how you perceive Wikipedia. Non-professionals have just as much right to edit as professionals. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone. This page has not been hijacked, in fact it is under firm control of the consensus of the community. Chillum 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think you've correctly read my mind. I perceive Wikipedia as a largely highly successful social endeavour, but one which is subject to abuse. I am not claiming that anyone owns this article. I am, however, claiming that a certain set of people, who have little actual knowledge of the subject, have hijacked the article, refusing to acknowledge the depth of their own ignorance, and refusing to consider points of view that are more based on actual reading of the relevant research literature than theirs are. They have been shouting down any efforts to change their viewpoints. After a period of ignoring, they then claim that "discussion has gone on long enough and we think our POV is consensus, so stop trying to tell us anything we don't want to hear." Although this is clearly not how WP is supposed to work, and I don't think it's generally how WP does work in the overwhelming majority of pages, it seems to be the dynamic here. Mirafra (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well people with conservative POVs have set of to start their own encyclopedia [15] They felt I think that the truth had a liberal bias.[16] Perhaps those who disagree with the foundations of Wikipedia can head off and start their own encyclopedia? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very glad that the founders of Wikipedia insisted on using a license that allows those who do not agree with our editorial practices to create their own fork on their own web servers. It allows for even non-neutral points of view to be published and based off of our content. Chillum 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

multiple similar examples exist in medical field

As a practicing physician (not a psychologist, i admit) with practice experience of both developed and developing countries, I think that these 10 images should be in the article. People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way. Removing it from the article will only make the article less useful for the common people. The predictions of harm from psychologists are not true. The medical field is littered with such stuff e.g. Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and various motor and especially sensory function neurological tests/assessments which completely depend upon the subject's responses. if we follow psychologists argument, then a significant proportion of medical knowledge will become classified. Access to these plates should not be monopolized. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except the norms (data from which all interpretations are based) for the Rorschach are from people who are seeing the images for the first time and is based on their first impression in seeing the images. Are you claiming that a patient will give an identical response on seeing the inkblot the first time, compared to someone who has studied the blots for some time, perhaps thinking about possible answers, perhaps talking to his friends about what they see in the blots, and perhaps reading the common responses that are in the Wikipedia article? Ward3001 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Again as I said earlier, (Almost)No genuine subject/patient reads wikipedia articles about Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and neurological tests/assessments before visiting their physician. Some scammers/malingering patients may do that, but deletion of these things from the wikipedia does not help as in all likelihood they will not stop and find what they seek from thousands of other websites. I don't see a reason why these Rorschach plates should be an exception. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, even if you're right that almost no patient reads Wikipedia regarding the Snellen chart (and I'm not sure that you are right about that), I don't think you can safely generalize that to the article on the Rorschach. Most people find the Rorschach more interesting than the Snellen chart, so that alone would motivate many to read it. And people who know they will be taking a psychogical test often feel apprehensive about it since they know nothing about it; in that case, a natural thing for someone to do is read about it (and Wikipedia is a common place to do that). But more importantly, there are extremely important situations in which someone is given the Rorschach who may be motivated to research it for other reasons. The Rorschach is commonly used to provide evidence to the court about the mental status of a defendant, or a litigant in a high-stakes lawsuit. That person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible. Wikipedia would be a likely starting place for that person. Ward3001 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well as you said wikipedia might be a likely starting place for that person, but as you said if this person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible, then in all likelihood the deletion of these plates from wikipedia will not make a difference except for a 30 seconds delay as wikipedia might be the starting point but it is not going to be his/her stopping point especially if he did not find what he/she seeks in the wikipedia article. That person will spend the next 30 seconds on his favorite search engine and find what he seeks. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That argument (i.e., the information can be found elsewhere, so it might as well be here) has been put forth here numerous times. The quality of the argument depends largely on the goals and objectives of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia should allow any and all information as long as it's available elsewhere, then you are right. If, on the other hand, Wikipedia (like most other mainline encyclopedias, such as Britannica) has some editorial control based on the opinions of experts in the field and based on a sense of balancing the provision of knowledge with responsibility to society, the argument is seriously brought into question. In recent months, the former position has been the majority position, and the minority (psychologists and those who respect psychologists' opinions) has been ignored. For a lot of reasons, this has weakened the article beyond the issue of whether the images should be displayed. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That is Not my argument. I think that these plates are essential for the article and also I think that this censorship attempt is pointless, useless and ineffective. 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Help me understand why your argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here, especially since you said, "People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way". Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My dear friend, My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet." My argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here. This is not a personal attack, but I seriously believe that your views might be colored as looks like you are psychologist with some publications. And thus you probably know that you have some conflict of interest issues here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I could have sworn that the statement "you cannot erase these plates from internet" means that they are found elsewhere on the internet. And this also is not a personal attack, but I believe your opinions and comments are colored by the fact that most physicians know virtually nothing about the Rorschach. I'm not saying they should understand it; I spend a large part of my working life consulting with physicians, and they seek my opinions because they are not experts on psychological testing, just as I am not an expert on a lot of medical tests and procedures. Additionally, if I understand your point about my "conflict of interest", first of all, I use the test clinically with patients almost every day; I don't just study it in an ivory tower and write papers about it. Secondly, your statement about "conflict of interest" suggests that anyone who has studied the Rorschach in depth and published on the topic should not be a contributor to the article because of "conflict of interest". Let's turn the tables a bit. Would you suggest that physicians should not edit articles in their areas of expertise (perhaps they have published; some physicians who practice also do research)? Are you suggesting that those articles should be written entirely by non-physicians? Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that we're not just objecting to the publication of the images, but also to the publication of detailed information about test interpretation (however nonsensical and incomprehensible it currently is -- just because one editor has not managed to do a good job doesn't mean that we shouldn't object to the entire enterprise on principle). Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well Whenever I publish article in my area of expertise, I have to declare my conflict of interests. And no journal accepts article from any author if their are serious conflicts of interests. For example Most journals refuse articles about smoking from doctors employed by tobacco companies. I am not saying that Rorschach test is harmful(as opposed to smoking). I am just saying that you might have a bias here. You might be subconsciously trying to remove every conceivable threat to your academic, professional or financial health.123.50.162.4 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
So are you saying that cardiologists who perform procedures related to cardiology shouldn't contribute to articles about those procedures because it's a conflict of interest? A scientist who specializes in global warming shouldn't contribute ot an article about global warming because it's a conflict of interest? If articles are written only by people with no ties to the subject you are basically excluding experts. Which, in the case of a complex topic which nonexperts can barely understand, is obviously a recipe for disaster with respect to the goals of an encyclopedia.Faustian (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
For anon 123.50.162.4: I didn't ask you about publications. I asked whether you think that experts on the Rorschach should not edit the article (or make comments on this talk page) or whether physicians should not edit Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise. As to your comment that I "might have a bias here", what is your point? That I should not provide information based on 30 years of studying and using the test and reading every major resource on the Rorschach? If what you feel might be a "bias" renders my comments of no value, then almost every article on a scientific subject in almost every encyclopedia is full of information that should have no value because it was added by experts. Is that your point? And I'll also ask, do you think lack of knowledge about the Rorschach could give someone a "bias" in their comments here? Ward3001 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well cardiologists do not monopolize the the information about cardiac catheterizations or try to remove the images of their procedures from wikipedia. I am not saying that you should not contribute to the article or to the talk page. You are welcome to do so. I am suggesting that it looks like that here in wikipedia psychologists and psychiatrists might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health. My arguments are same. My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet."123.50.162.4 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do you assume bad faith by stating that psychologists here "might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health". Do you think it's impossible for someone to earn his/her living as a psychologist and not resort to underhanded tactics? Do you understand that the psychologists here are focused on damage to the test because that damage can seriously impact the patients who benefit from this (or any other test)? Can you understand that something besides selfishness and financial greediness can be the motivation for the psychologists who contribute to this talk page? The vast majority of psychologists who visit this page decide very quickly to move on because they see that psychologists' opinions are not welcome here. Do you think that those of us who hang on are so desperate in our work lives that we can only survive by keeping images off of a Wikipedia article? Your emphasis on your speculation about the personal motivation of a few psychologists here seriously clouds the much more important issues. Ward3001 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The notion that people who are actually experts on a topic must inherently be inferior sources of information to folks who haven't had professional training in that topic seems kind of silly. If I wanted useful information on a cardiology procedure, I'd ask a cardiologist, not some random person who had decided to read up a bunch of medical stuff. The content of this page shows the folly of having pages be written by people who don't even know what they don't know.
I'll say it again. Those of us who are professionally trained in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests are not objecting to publishing useful encyclopedia-appropriate information, in a form that is understandable to a lay reader who is curious about the test, even if he's curious because he's going to be given it in the near future. We would like to be part of creating that article, so that we can both preserve the usefulness of the tests, help inform the public about what the tests do and do not do (hint: we still don't read or control minds!), and give a clear sense of the realistic strengths and limitations of the instrument. This applies not just to the Rorschach, but to any psychological test. The purposes of Wikipedia are not served by cutting us out of the process.
A brief digression: "Informed consent" to assessments is part of the APA Ethics Code, too (section 9.03). We explain these tests to people all the time, both before and after they are assessed. And the fact is that most assessments are completely voluntary -- the person being assessed, or someone who cares deeply about them, wants information and understanding. In the situations where assessments are involuntary, mandated by the courts (whether de jure or de facto), informed consent is still important -- even more so. We have to not only talk about the tests, but we have to also specifically warn the subject about how the information might end up in court (it's called a Lamb warning). But regardless, we literally cannot test someone who does not cooperate. No one can force you to speak about what you see in an inkblot. You say, "I don't see anything," or, "No, I don't want to do this test," and we're stuck. Test over. We can write about the fact that you didn't cooperate, but we can't generally claim that your lack of cooperation proves anything. APA Ethics Code, Section 9.01: "When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations." Given the amount of paranoia that exists around the Rorschach in the general (nonpatient) culture (whether it's justified or not), I personally wouldn't make any claims that being nervous about the Rorschach, by itself, proved anything about a client.
I made that digression because it seems to me that there is some kind of us-versus-them dynamic here, where psychologists are being cast into the role of "evil intrusive controlling censoring unwelcome other."
Psychological testing lets us see things that we might not otherwise be able to see, just like stethoscopes let medical doctors hear things that they might not otherwise be able to hear. It creates a sample of human behavior that we can use to make possibly meaningful comparisons to other people's behavior under identical circumstances, kind of like improving the controls on a scientific experiment. That's all it does. This is the professional service we offer to the public. We want the tests to stay secure so that they will stay more useful to us in doing that work so that people can get quality assessments. That's all. No nefarious motives. Why are we asserting that being an expert is worthwhile here? Because it takes a lot of training and experience to get good at it. Similarly, a trained and experienced doctor, listening to the funny noises made by the valves in a patient's heart, is going to know a lot more about what to notice and how to interpret the data provided by the stethoscope than an enthusiastic amateur.
We want to provide good and accurate information about the tests, consistent with our duty to help provide informed consent. But it's not just about duty: If someone is nervous about any psychological test, we want them to have access to accurate information that will help them decide whether they wish to consent or not. It will improve the validity of our test results if what we're seeing is a person who is participating in the process, not someone who is so freaked out about the imaginary possibilities that their test-session behavior isn't really a reflection of what they're like in real life. Even if that means that they decide they don't want to participate in certain tests, I'd rather have a client feel that I am a useful expert ally and fully participate in the tests they are willing to participate in, because my ability to help them and to advocate for them is improved.
"Advocate for them?" Yes. Thinking back over the times I've administered the Rorschach over the past year, in virtually every case, the results allowed me to take a kid who was being seen as "a bad kid in need of more discipline," and to help the grownups who were getting angrier and angrier at them (including people like judges and probation officers) understand that these kids were not "bad kids," but kids who were confused, traumatized, brain-damaged, terrified, despondent, achingly lonely, learning disabled, developmentally disabled, on medications that were making their problems worse, etc -- they were kids who were, in fact, doing the best that they could. I wasn't making excuses for the kids, but I was trying to help the adults understand what they actually could do that would help, instead of continuing the prior strategies that hadn't been working. Having good solid test data was part of how I was able to advocate for my clients.
To be continually attacked for someone's imaginary ideas about what evil ulterior motive we might secretly harbor is both against WP policy WP:AGF and really offensive. Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Psychologists don't put test questions from the WAIS-IV intelligence tests, achievement tests, or the MMPI online because to do so would give clients the opportunity to prepare for the tests and distort assessment results such that they are not representative of the clients' true skills/styles. The Rorschach is no different and the cards and any sort of "coaching" information should be removed. The need for "common" folks to learn about the test is outweighed by the potential harm to assessment results in this case. Furthermore, just because medical tests are online doesn't mean the psychological/psychiatric community should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.66.168 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not "the psychological/psychiatric community". This is the Wikipedia community. And in the Wikipedia community, the "need for 'common folks to learn" about encyclopedic topics outweighs just about anything. Some people here keep complaining that the psychologists' opinion is not taken into due account, but what I keep seeing is people talking as if they assumed that their opinion is automatically relevant, and ruling, for Wikipedia. That's absurd. --LjL (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What I think is interesting is that some editors here think that they speak in some privileged form on behalf of "the WP community," while other editors here are not considered to be a relevant part of that community. Mirafra (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well said, Mirafra. This talk page and the archives (and the personal talk pages of some editors) are replete with examples of false and very biased accusations, misrpresentation of others' opinions, and what is seen as justified personal attacks if done on behalf of "the WP community" (i.e., those who disagree with the psychologists) but egregious "personal attacks" when done in the context of pointing out the problems with edits in the article or unfounded (and sometimes bizarre) statements on this talk page. Some editors here are not considered relevant, and they can say nothing without it being misconstrued as a personal attack or casting aspersions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
To LjL: Could please explain how the "need for 'common folks to learn" about encyclopedic topics" include having them read the actual test items and (supposed) answers? If they want to learn about, say the SAT or medical licensing exams or national final exams etc. do they also, in your opinion, need to see actual items and answers? Or is the Rorschach special and why? I know about the copyright issue but is that the only thing keeping medical licensing exam questions, national finals exam questions etc. off wikipedia? It seems to me that you have labelled giving out answers and questions as "learning about" tests when this is not necessarily so. Presenting the test itself and learning about it are not necessary the same thing. You can learn about any test without getting the leaked questions and answers. Wikipedia is full of such articles, just look at Medical College Admission Test or Block design test among many many others. Faustian (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The Medical College Admission Test page actually does link to entire tests and the SAT page explains were you can get copies. Looking at the test does give you an idea about how the test works. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about tests yet to be administered (and thus usable) rather than past tests.Faustian (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Differing philosophies

I think the issue we have here is one of differing philosophies. We have one group which believes information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large. Than we have another group who wish to restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm. I think both sides have heard the arguments of the other. Neither side is swayed. Wikipedia however is based on the philosophy of the first argument and has the support of the majority. It has therefore won. Now if only we could all accept this and move on....--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with the assessment. --LjL (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree but the problem is what is going to going to prevent those who do not accept the idea that the plate should be available even if they are public domain when the page is finally unlocked? I don't think we want an edit war turning this page into a WP:EW mess or where a small group feels they basically Wikipedia:own the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is what blocking is for, a fine alternative to protection. Chillum 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that is what the blocking is for but Chillum points out below you can't keep article protected forever. The effort to totally ignore a statement that came out of a news division of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology just shows how much some people want to ignore that the fact do NOT support them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Roger (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
James, you've confirmed what the psychologists have been saying all along: You view this as a game with winners and losers. Majority rules without consideration of the minority's opinions. What you are calling "consensus" here (on this talk page only, not Wikipedia in general) is determined by majority vote. Thanks for making out point. Ward3001 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree I don't think we will ever change the mind of those who want the images removed, and I don't think they will ever get consensus to remove them. I am all for moving on and dropping this matter. We also can't keep the page protected forever so I suggest blocking anyone who edit wars or ignores consensus instead of letting the article suffer. Chillum 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

As protection is due to expire shortly, I thought I'd drop a note here to ask whether it needs to be extended, or whether it's going to be okay to lift it. If the consensus is that it should be extended, I'm happy to do it, so let me know, or ask the protecting admin, Enigmaman. If we're not around, you can post a request at WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be extended until the media circus on it dies down.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, you and I finally agree on something, about the media circus (I have no opinion on page protection). Indeed, there is a media circus about this page, thanks to some publicity seeking, poor ethics, and ignorance of the facts. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the page should probably get another week of protection, there is still a lot of press attention out there. I also think this talk page could do with some outside administrative supervision to keep the levels of personal attacks and incivility under control(not to mention thinly veiled threats of a legal/professional nature). Chillum 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree there needs to be administrative supervision by an admin who isn't biased and misleading. There needs to be supervision to address the personal attacks (such as telling someone they are not welcome here), the long history of misrepresenting others' opinions, the biased accusations that excuse those who take one position but accuse those who have another opinion, and the unveiled legal/professional threats such as the one left by an anon editor a few days ago (there are no "veiled" threats; there are issues of professional ethics and conduct that are within the domain of this talk page, but no threats of legal/professional action beyond that left by the anon). Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the media still on about this? I haven't been updating the Streisand effect section. FWIW Slim, the "regulars" have rarely engaged in edit warring, it was more anon users and the occasional casual (but autoconfirmed) user warring over the images for the most-recent protection. I would also echo Chillum's suggestion that you stick around and help mediate here. –xenotalk 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say anything, but I did think from the beginning that protection may have been applied a bit hastily, and I think it shouldn't be extended. It says "pp-dispute", but as you said, I don't really believe the regulars will behave like children (they haven't so far, there's no reason why they would start now), and media attention can also mean more people will actually constructively work on the article. Keep it protected for too long, and that won't happen. --LjL (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask people to stop making personal comments about the editor who added the images, and I'd suggest removing any that crop up. The issue here is purely about the content, and whether it's policy compliant and has consensus. Who added it makes no difference to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read this talk page, but there are so many personal remarks it's hard to see what the actual content dispute is about. Is it about whether to remove the images, or is there something more? If it's still just the former, I suggest you consider opening an RfC page on it eg. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach images. You could take a look at a user conduct RfC page and copy the format. For example (picking one at random), see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sbakuria. You wouldn't need all the headers. Someone would need to write a brief statement of the dispute; then ask for "users who endorse this summary." Then add headers for other views: response by User:X, and so on, and underneath each view a space for "users who endorse this summary." Threaded comments go on talk, so that the RfC page is left relatively clean and easy to read. At the end of a couple of weeks, ask an uninvolved admin to close it for you and give a summing up. Getting extra eyes on the issue is likely to settle it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Have posted at Wikiquette just a few brief things from the last couple of days. [17] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin it's not just about the images. It's not even just about the Rorschach. It's about test security in general, and refers both to text and images, for this and all other protected psychological tests. Professional ethics require that we preserve test security so that the tests remain useful for actual use. This is having the extra side effect, then, of preventing psychologists from participating in the process of improving the page, because the folks who are committed to breaking test security early-and-often will not consider suppressing any information. For my part, I am going to continue to respect the reality that folks have shut down the possibility of removing information that harms test security, so I will not edit this page in any way. I'm continuing to participate in the talk-page discussion in the hopes of helping people understand why psychologists feel that the policy needs a very narrowly-tailored exception for this type of information, both because of the social harm that can be caused by the destruction of psychological tests, and because if that exception is made, then the quality and the comprehensibility of the information presented in WP can be improved because the folks with more extensive knowledge of the topic can actually participate in the process. Mirafra (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think semi-protection will do. The influx of autoconfirmed users coming here and edit warring has stopped, and I see productive work being done already. I would like to echo Xeno in that, with the occasional exception, edit warring by the parties involved in this debate has not been an issue. Chillum 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd personally like to see how unprotection fares. I asked the protecting admin to give it a shot a while ago. –xenotalk 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Utterly cool-headed correction

The pronunciation of the test's name is given as [ʁoɐˈʃax], with the stress on the second syllable. This is incorrect. It should be [ˈʁoɐ ʃax] (or [ˈʁoɐ.ʃax]), with the stress on the first syllable, beginning with an uvular [R]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.231.219 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Another small correction: In the table containing the ten ink blots at the bottom of the article, the tenth plate is labeled "Plate V." It should be "Plate X." Alex144 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. The latter is my fault; I changed Arabic numerals into Roman because that's what I saw in all the literature. On that topic, shouldn't we also change "plate" into "card" for the same reason? I hardly ever see "plate" in sources. --LjL (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Perspective - Hope to Move Forward

I have been a standby observer who has enjoyed the discussion/debate that has occurred throughout this talk page. I am a layman with limited exposure to the Rorschach test, but am an inquisitive individual who will, if a topic interest me, seek additional knowledge via searches more often than not starting with Wikipedia. I assume this is relatively representative of the individuals who the community of psychologists throughout this talk page seem so intent on protecting for our own sake.

There is benefit to incorporating the images into the article. I do not see how the inclusion of the images on Wikipedia leads to negative effects. My premise is not that it is a situation of, “let’s do it because everyone else is.” More so it is the fact that these works are publicly available, were available prior to DocJames release and cannot be concealed ad infinitum. The professional psych community (majority or minority?) cannot make the assumption that these images would forever be protected, the issue was not if but when. There must be other primary tests to confirm or deny findings from the Rorschach test.

  • Note: I did not search the Rorschach test, prior to the release here, as such I cannot attest to their prior availability.

On an aside related to the test itself, will the Rorschach test be administered multiple times to the same patient, do multiple practitioners test the same patient to evaluate consistency in diagnosis, can a single patient be analyzed by a panel of practitioners?

Intuitively the initial exposure to this test would be the most effective and offer the greatest insight – yet I am not convinced by this. This cannot be a single application test (the answer to my above questions would greatly help my understanding here). Throughout prior discussion this clinical tool has been compared on multiple occasions by psych practitioners to the SAT and other similar tests; this is not a valid comparison for many reasons (the SAT is annually adjusted, past exams are provided, exam prep is provided, answer keys are given). I am not suggesting that similar material be provided for the Rorschach test, the element of practitioner expertise and the complex method of evaluation make this impossible. The discussion of the methodology of evaluation also follows intuition – the practitioner does not simply evaluate your response but also analyzes your behavior, this is expected and its discussion in the article is beneficial. I find little dispute here with the inclusion of these two elements.

Discussion of whether all of the images should be included vs. some and the level of detail regarding evaluation techniques should be further discussed.

I would like to emphasize this is my first post on Wikipedia and as such I am not exceptionally familiar with all of the policies, thus please bear with me for errors in my analysis. It is my impression that Wikipedia does not provide “How to Articles” and as such the discussion of the images, methodology et al. should be limited to macro level. From this perspective I find the Most Common Interpretations to be useless and un-encyclopedic in nature adding little value to the article itself.


With regard to DocJames, the act is done (bold?) and cannot be reversed, the associated dispute regarding this editor (writ. Ego trip) adds no value to the article and should be limited in nature.

The conversation on this talk page must be re-aligned to the article whereby a reputable article discussing the Rorschach test, its application and validity can be discussed. Possibly we should define non-starters, goals and attempt to incorporate new perspectives. Thank-you I understand that all of the aforementioned points have been discussed ad nauseum I simply wanted to add this perspective in hopes that the article can move forward in a substantive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.238.69 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, 209.x.x.x... Have you considered registering an account to help us move forward? Calm, rational voices are definitely helpful here. –xenotalk 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is 'no original research' (as distinct from 'providing original summaries to avoid copyvios/provide overviews) - so it can be assumed much of the information was 'available in various places' for those prepared to look for it. Given the length of time the images and the mechanics of analysis (eg 'does the testee rotate the images, and do they ask permission to do so') will become generally known but not the specifics of analysis (the #significance# of rotating the image and asking permission or not). Information on the former may require analysis of the results to be tweaked - or may result in the testee giving answers based on a more in-depth response to the image: information on the latter #may# cause contamination or invalidation of the response.

Consider 'exams in an educational response': having access to previous test papers does not invalidate the results of actually taking the exam.

'As a general observation' - two months down the line the article will 'disappear' into the general Wikipedia information cloud and there will be a similar argument over another topic (and possibly a couple of others in between): most visitors to the page will again be those wishing further information on a passing reference somewhere, and the effective impact on analysis will be no different to that of 'looking for images in clouds.' Besides, to 'the casual curious layperson' - (colloquially put) if merely having WP (as distinct from other sources) providing the images contaminates the responses to them sufficiently to damage the analyses thereof (which seems to involve much analysis from a range of sources) the layperson is likely to think that the test was not robust enough for purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can this talk page be archived ahead of the 'next flurry of assorted squawkings arising' once the protection on the article is lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 83.104.132.41 the talk page is getting rather lengthy with a lot of repetition, archiving prior discussion would be rather helpful. I took your advice xeno and have registered my account, I look forward to being a calm and rational Wikipedian :) Quasistellar (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've set MiszaBot to archive threads older than 5 days... Should remove some of it tomorrow. –xenotalk 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the goalposts?

I'm not sure where the goalposts are anymore. I'd like to see the situation resolved such that psychologists can begin editing the article again and not be concerned about their personal or professional ethics. If this or a similar image were in the lead, would compromise be reached? Or does it also require the removal of some of the 10 inkblots and/or the common answers? –xenotalk 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that all ten inkblots need to be removed, as well as the common answers. The discussion of scoring methods would need to be thought through carefully by people who actually know the test well -- this is not an area where one can self-educate quickly and easily, honest. I could probably find a way to get comfortable with the proposed lead image, although I'd prefer one with a fictitious blot. That's where I've been the whole time. What has bothered me is the way the goalposts seem to keep getting moved on the other side, with each new hit to test security being claimed as a new consensus. Mirafra (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried that the polar sides aren't even on the same soccer pitch anymore. –xenotalk 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I know what you're saying Xeno. Sadly, the psychologists don't have a lot of choice in the matter. At one time, it seems long ago, there was a very stable compromise in place in which one blot was adjacent to the "Test materials" section. During that time psychologists participated in editing even though they had some mixed feelings about it. That was pushed aside. I can't speak for other psychologists, but such a situation might encourage more psychologists (including new ones) to participate. Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I do notice there was a time from about August 16 until December 16 when there wasn't a single edit to the talk page in the whole four-month span. But neither was there much improvement in the article during that time: [18]. –xenotalk 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if the wikipedia page doesn't magnify the damage that is otherwise easily accesible (i.e.,. you don't have to dig through a library or even through googlebooks to find it) I would probably contribute. The images are easily available to those who seek them so I am not arguing for their complete removal from wikipedia. It's not my preference, but I can live with images being on wikipedia. However, there is no need for the image of a card to be in the article's lead when other images such as the one you posted would be a more accurate representation of the test (this article is about the test, not the blots after all). With respect to the images, a hide/show option would have been ideal, but this runs afoul of technical considerations. Limiting the images to the back of the article, and to the minimum necessary to illustrate the article's points, would be acceptable to me. We no more need a gallery of every single card than we do a gallery of every painting by Pablo Picasso on his page. Alternatively, the blots can be treated in the exact same way as Muhammad is on with respect to Islam. There is no image of the founder of that faith on the Islam article; instead they are placed on the article devoted to the man himself (and even there, not in the lead). At this point, we probably have enough material for a Rorschach Inkblots page (or at least for a substantial stub) which no psychologist would touch. We can move the gallery there, and maybe keep one card on this page in the test materials section with a lead similar to the Getty image. That would be a compromise I could live with. As for the answers - they are inaccurate when not understood in their proper context anyways and are more likely to muck up the test for people than to provide encyclopedic content. Thye ought to be removed.

One lingering problem would be shifting goalposts. For a long time this article had a compromise in place during which the inkblot was in the test materials section. I made a number of content contributions during that time which I regret making now because they somewhat limit the article's level of nonsense. I'm leery of this happening again: make the compromise, let psychologists fix the article, and then ignore the compromise/consensus after awhile.Faustian (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. All the more reason for an actual narrowly-tailored policy about these things. Mirafra (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Recording the breadth and depth of human knowledge is not something that is compromisable. This has been the goal all along and one which has never changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Josef Mingele no doubt would have strongly agreed with that statement. Ward3001 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In some cases, we have to give up our cognitive distortions, such as black-and-white thinking (#1 in that article), in order to move forward towards a greater goal of actually recording the breadth and depth of that knowledge in a way that is both accurate and not socially harmful -- right now, you're serving neither ideal effectively. Mirafra (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that we're clearly not in agreement about the need to make an ad-hoc exception to Wikipedia guidelines for this article. You point out that the general goal should be scrapped in this case. We don't agree. What does that mean? It means we're back to the default: following the general principle. It's that simple. --LjL (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I love it. You always know that the arguement has hit rock bottom when one side starts calling the other a Nazi. Well played Ward. It has been a couple of months since I was called one of those. But I guess it is the least I deserve as I sort of compared you guys to communists a while back.  :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

James, give me the diff in which I called you a Nazi. Read my words. I was addressing the issue of non-compromising recording of knowledge without regard to ethics. That same theme that I brought up was also commented on by another editor. I simply gave an example of someone who would agree with the concept in theory. I did not call you or anyone a Nazi. This picky parsing of words, reading things into someone's comments that are not there, making false accusations based on comments about content and not editors, has gone over the line. I'll let others decide whether you have grossly overreacted. I think you have. Ward3001 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave Mengele out of it. I don't think anyone here should be compared to Nazis, fascists, Communists, etc (although I will note that those accusations have gone in both directions in this discussion).
But the more general point is precisely what we're asking you to consider. People who are trying to find and publish information sometimes, in their enthusiasm for the goal, go to lengths that cause harm to others. Some of the classic social psychology experiments of the 1960s are horrifying examples of just this problem, and they led to the development of research policies for the protection of human subjects -- the pursuit of knowledge-at-all-costs was not considered to be so important that it justified giving no thought to the collateral damage. Perhaps this history is why it's obvious to the psychology-types here why we as Wikipedians need to think carefully about how our documenting and spreading human knowledge might cause inadvertent harm to humans, many of whom won't even be the ones who accessed that knowledge.
Wikipedia has now become large enough, prominent enough, and enough of a go-to place on the internet, that it's now no longer appropriate to put one's hands in the air and say that whatever harm might come to others through our actions isn't our problem or our responsibility. We're now the equivalent of a kid standing on a freeway overpass and tossing bricks into the air -- I would hope that most of us wouldn't buy the argument that it wasn't that kid's fault if someone happened to be driving underneath. (Yes, I know, brick-tossing is probably illegal. I'm not managing to find an analogy that holds perfectly. So don't quibble. Work with me here.)
I know it can be hard to hold two ideals when they sometimes come into conflict. Tolerance for ambiguity is not something that comes easily for a lot of people. I believe strongly that information should, whenever possible, be shared openly. I just also believe that there are sometimes situations where the harm that this is likely to cause outweighs that goal. Test security is a small area of psychology, and even within the test pages, there's a great deal of information that can be disclosed without causing harm to test security. But we need to think about our position within society. Mirafra (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra: If we take a step back, I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia is still in its adolescence (and unfortunately, discourse is often dominated by adolescents). As such, there is a natural attraction to rigid black/white thinking. "we are committed to expanding human knowledge, and anything that detracts from that must be opposed." We even have examples such as LjL's infantile assertion that he would be comfortable posting information that would aid terrorists in his own home city because it is not wikipedia's responsibility to promote personal safety. The notion that as long as you cling to some abstract principle, you are excused from all forms of social responsibility or from the consequences of your actions is quintessentially adolescent. Unfortunately, you are speaking for--and to--the adults here. While I think that arguments about how much social harm is or is not done by posting the images or attempts to find ways of posting information that mitigates harm are important, blind assertions of "principle" are, in my view useless.SPAdoc (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You really had no need or reason to qualify my assertions as "infantile" for the purposes of your reasoning, and I ask you to refrain from doing so in the future.
As for "information potentially aiding terrorism", such information is already on Wikipedia, in the form of... well, in a huge number of forms, for instance in the form of detailed information about aircraft systems - just the first example that comes to my mind, since I have edited a few of those. Do you plan to remove such information? --LjL (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions?

So it looks like we have settled things than. A number of the psychologists here will not take part in any activity which might improve the article well any image of the Rorschach or comments about common responses are presented on this page. The majority of editors will not agreed to there removal. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and if as is acknowledge above certain editors cannot ethically take part in this process... Those who are still interested in improving this page should just continue on. If any of those within the field change there mind they are always well to join in. By the way most of the articles on Wikipedia are not edited by experts within the topic field discussed. This page is not required to be different ie. input from psychologist would be desired but it is not essential. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's settled. Perhaps at a dead end, but that's not the same as settled.
Many articles such as those related to film stars are not edit by experts. Most technical articles are not controlled by experts, but they are generously edited by experts. Wikipedia would be in a lot worse shape if that was not the case. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Although the article on Jennifer Lopez might not be edited by experts, the ones about, say Endoscopyor PET scans probably have some expert involvement. The Rorschach has more in the common with the latter than the former type of article, and the editors hellbent on refusing all compromise with the experts are basically insuring that the article is written by people who - however intelligent and well-meaning they may be - have little clue about a complex topic, thus insuring that it's a poor encyclopedia entry.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I also don't agree that it's settled.
Frankly, also, besides its near-incomprehensibility, I feel that the article in its current form is seriously out of whack on the NPOV front, in large part because it has not been balanced by folks who have a broader view of the scientific literature on the test. This is not a subject upon which one can just read a few papers and instantly understand the complexity of it. Even among psychological tests, the Rorschach is beyond beyond beyond complicated.
On most of WikiProject: Psychology, folks seem to have a clue about how professionals and nonprofessionals can collaborate effectively. I'm enjoying dipping my toe in there. I would hope that this could be established here, too. Mirafra (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This comment can be considered an "aside", so skip it if you wish. It's interesting that if psychologists could contribute to the article, a lot of the "bickering" (done civilly, of course) would probably be among the psychologists because of genuine disagreements among experts. Over time, that could improve the article, and would be a refreshing change!!! Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Mirafra you are correct that this test will probably not get full coverage without the contribution of psychologists. But we are not restricting your contributions. Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist and balance the article if you wish. We must compromise. We on the other side are not going to remove verifiable information that is encyclopedic and of interest to the general public to create and article that might be more of use to practicing psychologists. This encyclopedia is written for a general audience first and for professional second.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Now I think you've slipped into some faulty thinking James. As Miafra has said in the past, psychologists don't follow the ethical code simply to avoid getting in trouble. Do you think the only reason psychologists or physicians have ethical codes is to stay out of trouble? No, they have them because it's a good idea, and it's for the protection of the public and improvement of the profession. If I understand you correctly, you're actully now encouraging psychologists not only to violate ethics, but to be deceptive about it. Is that what you're saying? And by the way, there was a very effective compromise a year or so ago that was in place for a long time. Ward3001 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's remarkable how he is encouraging others to try to get around ethical codes ("Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist and balance the article if you wish").Faustian (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion? Maybe the best would be to make the article read "Rorschach was a test", I think it is and will be for the future no more on account of the images and tips for the user. Someone will write a paper about how this destroyed the test and there will be psychologists discussing what has happened here for many year of the future. I had made one comment one other time, and it was erased. Is this correct policies? Perhaps only the posters who wish the inkblots posted have a real say? I am a psychologist myself resident in Mexico. Mex-psych (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I can't speak for anyone else Mex-psych, I think your comment was removed by an admin because it was personalized toward an editor, not toward the concepts being discussed. I personally don't see any problems with the comment you made above. Welcome to this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was removed by an uninvolved admin here: [19]. Please direct your comments towards the issues and not the editors. And welcome. –xenotalk 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Mex, I don't think that the Rorschach should be instantly spoken of in the past tense. Mirafra (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion for compromise

This is the second time I've suggested something without looking in the archives (or even Xeno's summary (looked, didn't see it) ) to see if it's been proposed before. Shame on me, I just don't have the stomach for it.

Anyway, I just thought of something, and thought I'd throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. Could all 10 images, and their typical interpretations, be included in a sub-article to this one? The main article could go back to having a single image with no interpretation that, apparently, was the previous status quo. That way, theoretically at least, those psychologists who don't feel comfortable editing a page with all the images and standard responses could still help with this one. They'd obviously stay away from the other one completely.

Kind of like setting up a "bad bank" with all a bank's toxic loans, so the rest of the bank can operate normally. The disagreement would no doubt continue, and megabytes of talk page discussion would roll on and on, but it would only continue on the sub-article's talk page. This more-general article might be the better for it.

In theory, psychologists would be able to separate their dislike of the sub-article from their willingness/desire to work on this one. In theory, those who think even more should be written about the images and the various interpretation could expand the sub-article. It wouldn't be a POV fork, because it would only deal with the images and their interpretations, not re-hash whatever was in this article. The Harry Potter article doesn't have a section which lists all the characters, but refers to a List of Harry Potter characters. We could do the same here. List of images used in the Rorschach test, or something.

If neither side likes this idea, does that make it a good solution, or a bad one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scooped again, Faustian just proposed this 10 minutes ago! ;p (I also vaguely recall it being pitched as an aside) But this section would be a useful place to discuss it. I think this would be a good compromise. Rorschach test inkblots would be better than "List of..." imo. That would be a good place to discuss their cultural significance as well. –xenotalk 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(3 e/c's, all with Xeno (grrr :) ) That's eerie; Faustian seems to have just proposed something very similar in The "#moving the goalposts" section, above. I can't type fast, so the 10 minute difference in timestamps should prove that I'm not just parroting his idea and claiming it as my own... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good to me - although I'd like some sort of guarenteee that the images wouldnt just be put back into place after the article's fixed. Of course if it sounds good to me I can expect the almost knee-jerk contradiction from some quarters : ( Faustian (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if such a guarantee can be given as CCC. The best way to prevent the articles being merged would be to make sure they are both quality articles that stand on their own. –xenotalk 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree strongly: I would support such a move. The images and a discussion of there social significance and the ethics of their publication could all be moved. Before we move the lead image however I think we must find one similar to that that appeared in the NYTs as mentioned above.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    That exact image will cost us $600.00 per year to license, so we should probably consider restaging it. I think we have a project that does stuff like this, I'll try shopping it around. –xenotalk 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Fer cryin' out loud, if we can come to some actual agreement here, any of us shrinks can stage it, trivially. Let me think about the rest for a bit. Mirafra (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to get someone to stage it at Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 7#We need an image of the test being administered but didn't really get any traction. I made a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop#Rorschach test staging, so please cancel it if you decide to do it. –xenotalk 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. We already had a pretty firm agreement from most involved that such an image would be the preferred lead image.
Have started an outline of what this future page could look like. All who wish are free to edit it. User:Jmh649/Sandbox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Xeno, I think one reason you didn't get any traction is that the psychologists gave it some thought, then a few red flags popped up because of our history of being in the unheard minority here and fears that it would somehow only result in temporary improvement, then back to the same old issues when the majority steps in. Just my opinion. But it's worth discussing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree strongly. It's fine, as I said a few times, to move the lead image further down after finding a better image for the lead (staged test would be fine, but surely not with a wrong/blurred inkblot, I said that before too), but moving the images and part of the text to another article is unacceptable, especially after I'll have added information about differences in responses among various cultures (which I intended to do shortly before the article was locked). The images belong to this article; articles are split for technical reasons, not to hide away stuff (that doesn't need hiding, anyway; the images are at the very end of the article, you'll know you'll hit them if you scroll down). Besides, there seemed to be agreemend that the media blew this controversy out of proportion, and now we're saying it deserves its own article (just so the images can be moved there)? Please. --LjL (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually since the test is about much more than the inkblots it is a legitimate argument that all the emphasis on the blots in the article constitutes undue weight.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight is about point of views, not factual content. This latter (and sometimes the former) should be fixed by adding balancing content, not by removing the overweight content. An encyclopedia grows by adding information (and of course, you have to start somewhere, which may be the inkblots in this case - but see later), not by removing it on the grounds that there is not enough other information - I'm sure you see the absurdity there.
(Anyway, what undue weight would the inkblots have? Most of the article is not about them. That's basically... well, the inkblots themselves in the gallery, what else?) --LjL (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't read policies just to support your POV.WP:UNDUE states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.." So yes, it is about factual content also, absolutely.Faustian (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We would be remiss if we did not at least leave the first inkblot on this article, as it is an iconic example of this test, and something a reader coming to this article would expect to see. Perfectly fine with moving or removing the gallery though, as I do not believe it adds much to this article. An image of a doctor administering the test as a lead, thus pushing the first ink blot below the fold, would also be an ideal compromise, in my view. Resolute 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with this compromise.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This would also allow more thorough discussion of the ink blots. Have translated some text from the French wiki and changed the image positioning just as an example of what it could look like. There is certainly enough about these blots to deserve their own page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
James, if that proposed page isn't such an amazing example of (1) apparently-bad-faith attempt to move the goalposts about two hundred yards in your direction and (2) complete nonsense about the actual current use and interpretation of the Rorschach blots, I don't know what is. Guys, go take a look, but make sure you don't have any liquid in your mouth first. Mirafra (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that is the draft of the sub-article, not the Rorschach test article. –xenotalk 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said it is only a translation from the French Wikipedia. Now if this will solve nothing than we will just stay with what we have. If we move these images to another page we will need to increase the content surrounding them or what would have been the point. Some how you were hoping that we would just be moved off into a corner were they could languish and be forgotten about? We are here to write an encyclopedia and if that is not the desire of some of the editors here than maybe they should think of doing something else.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess that shows you how valid WP is as a source for psychological information. And I think we've had enough of being told to go away. Mirafra (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure (I really have no idea, just asking) that isn't merely a more-or-less accurate description of the traditional French system of interpretation (there is one, see for instance here)? --LjL (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In which case it would need to be clearly referenced as such, and clearly distinguished from the other interpretive systems, so that it is not misleading to a reader who would otherwise think that this represented accurate information about the current usage of the test in the English-speaking world. Otherwise, it reads an awful lot like a way of using discredited approaches from the past as a way to tar the well-supported approaches of the present. Not very good NPOV or encyclopedic practice.
I still stand by my statement, by the way, that adding paragraphs of purported "answers" when even the addition of one or two purported "answers" was the topic of heated debate represents a serious effort to move the goalposts. Mirafra (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, LjL, you're about 100% wrong here. At present, there are several French schools of the Rorschach. One (represented by the author of the chapter you cite) uses the Comprehensive System (the same empirical system used in the US), another uses a psychoanalytic-developmental model, another a linguistic-psychoanalytic model. The gibberish translated from the French wiki article represents I-don't-know-what, but is not a dominant paradigm anywhere.SPAdoc (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit it did sound more than a bit dubious and unlike everything else I've read. --LjL (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on policy. WP:POVFORK is very clear that you cannot simply create a new article because consensus does not agree with you in the main article("A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."). Forking articles is not for the purposes of getting around consensus or neutrality. You can however fork a copy to your own web servers and do what you will with it under the terms of the GFDL. Consensus and neutrality aside there is just not enough content to justify making an article with the content found to be objectionable by some here. Chillum 23:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to make the explicit point about content forks, but it's undoubtedly a valid (and important) one. --LjL (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm. While I am still of many minds about having the blots on a separate page with nothing else, I certainly can't agree with the notion that there be a "bad bank" that psychologists are asked to pretend doesn't exist, particularly if the purpose of establishing that bad bank is to create a playground where non-psychologists can write whatever they want about a subject they know little about and seem to have very strong POVs about. If they do the job well, they destroy test security, which gets us right back to where we started. If they do it poorly, it's harmful to the encyclopedia (and also still creates problems in terms of test subjects giving ridiculous responses). Either way is rotten. To suggest that this somehow solves the ethical problems is to massively misconstrue the notion of professional ethics.
I think the problem is that this goes way beyond the blots themselves. It's about the text. The blots shouldn't be in the article, but in some ways they're the least of the problem at this point, thanks to the recent spate of goalpost-moving. A lot of the recently-added (mis)information about test scoring and interpretation should also not be in the article, because it's largely incorrect, it's not relevant to a general reader audience, and because it violates (or confuses) test security. To know what should and shouldn't be in it, what the balance of the current research position is, what will help a general reader understand how the test works and why something with such rotten face validity is so strongly valued by many psychologists, is something that really needs to be hashed out by the people who actually know the current system and the current state of research well. Mirafra (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's funny, because I see a moving goal from your side, too. Initially, the goal seemed to be simply to censor out the images; now, it seems to be to censor relevant text, too. I think I said that before, but, why don't you just propose removing the whole article, since there's the risk that even mentioning (for instance) the concept of a color response may skew the results (and if you don't agree with the sources that says that... I don't know what to say then)? --LjL (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like this will accomplish nothing. It will only move the argument to a sub page were we will have the same group continue to try to have this information removed from Wikipedia.  ::::The reason why I added the content from the French Wikipedia was to get around WP:POVFORK as than it would need to be forked due to size. For this I was assumed to have bad faith.  ::::I think we are working at different end. One group is trying to remove encylopedic material well the other is attempting to create an encyclopedia. The two are obviously incompatible.-Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really believe finding ways to "get around" policy is the way to go, anyway. Nor, honestly, do I believe there's any actual grounds (because of the current fuss or otherwise) to make a separate article about the controversy/inkblots/whatever, nor do I believe there's a sane way to separate a part of article that doesn't need or benefit from the inkblots for discussing the topic from one that does. They're entangled. --LjL (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think the article needed to have information removed until you guys started adding information recently. Nice try at the whole minimizing and shifting-blame thing.
And I am sick of being told that your POV is the one with the monopoly on wanting to create an encyclopedia. That's why we're here, too. What I can't figure out is why it means so much to you to write about something you know so little about and can make such a poor contribution to. Mirafra (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My addition of the gallery did bring over a million people to this page well what had been here previous was only getting 200 hits per day. So I think people wish to see these images.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Bringing a million viewers to a nonsensical page seems hardly a useful goal. Mirafra (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we did bring Wikipedia into the spotlight for a brief moment. And we tweaked people curiosity all well giving psychology some press.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, until information was added, you wanted no information removed. Makes sense. I do suspect your last statement shows that you don't quite understand the whole thing behind most people writing on Wikipedia; anyway, that's not particularly relevant. --LjL (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It was not the images that brought the million people here, it was the resistance to the images that sparked all of the interest. If anything good has come from this debate it is that it has informed many people about the test. Thanks for that by the way. Chillum 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
But given them incorrect information. I fail to see how this helps either the readers or Wikipedia. And again, this sounds awfully like what I hear from clients in domestic-violence situations -- "If you'd just let me do whatever I wanted, none of this would have happened. So it must be your fault." Mirafra (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been asked a few times that anyone point out any incorrect information, if you point it out it would help a lot. Domestic violence? What are you talking about? I am not indicating fault, I am showing gratitude. Chillum 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The last bit is a not so subtle insult. The previous bit was a little strange though. Not sure Mirafra is referring to the Rorschach a "nonsensical" test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already said many times that we can't play 20 questions. Ethics aren't about lawyering.
If you provide nonsensical information about the test, then the encyclopedia article is not serving the goal of an encyclopedia.
No, it's not an insult. It's an analogy. My reference to domestic violence is referring to your claim that the disclosure of information is our fault for having objected to it after the fact, rather than expecting folks who posted the information to take responsibility for their actions in making those disclosures. Mirafra (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Mirafra it is very insulting to compare use to wife beaters, if you don't realize that then you need to stop and think for a little while. Do you realize how it sounds when you tell us that the article is incorrect but you cannot tell us how? This is an absurd statement. What exactly are we supposed to do to address this undefined concern of yours? Chillum 00:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously remove all the images and the bulk of the article text. I'm starting to think you aren't listening, Chillum! --LjL (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This all really goes against the purpose of the talk page. It is here to improve articles not post about how horrible it is now that everyone in the entire world has seen these blots. Now that everyone has seen these images the test is useless per some peoples words and thus the test has only historical significance. It therefore is in the realm of the historian and no longer that of the psychologist. Maybe we should tag it with the history wikiproject?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as insulting -- that was not my intention. But the point still stands -- if person A does something inappropriate, person B says they shouldn't have done it, and the resulting argument draws attention to the action, it seems pretty out-of-line for person A to suggest that it's all person B's fault for not just silently acquiescing to A's action.
Chillum, if you need yet another explanation of why professional ethics prevent me from answering your questions while you insist upon then using that information to further violate test security, then I think you should just go back and reread the archives, since I've explained it several times before.
LjL, I don't think that most of the article text needs to be removed. I think that a lot of the historical information and the discussion of research support is not NPOV, and that much of the information about interpretation needs to be rewritten by someone with knowledge of the test so that various ideals can be held in dynamic tension.
James, that's also nonsense. It's still a well-used test, despite what appear to be your best efforts to destroy it.
I'm trying to see if we can find a way for you guys to recognize that right now, you're not actually making a good encyclopedia article, in that it is not NPOV, it is not accurate to the content, and it is written in a way that prevents experts from helping with it. It might be a long article, but if it's filled with information that is misleading and confusing, that's hardly good encyclopedic practice. Mirafra (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay to be serious. We all known that this is the way the psychologists editing here feel. And we all know that you are only able to tell us how bad the page is and you are not able to make any recommendations or to help yourselves to improve matters.
There is only one goal and that is to have the test material removed from this page. We all understand that. But this is not the place to continue venting your complaints.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, Mirafra, then forget my intrusion and answer Chillum's original question, please. --LjL (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not just making this stuff up Mirafra. The content of the media coverage was not about the test itself, but rather the controversy on this very talk page(a pity). Wikipedia does things a certain way(ie neutrality, not being censored, providing relvant verifiable information etc...), some people came here and fought against it prodigiously(without success) to the point that it got media attention. Those million people did not come here to see our article, but rather to see this spectacle that we have created. Your analogy also depends on the assumption that providing this information is inappropriate, that is just an opinion, a minority opinion at that.
I have heard all you have to say about ethics and I accept that you choose not to edit this article or even be clear in your criticisms. I am telling you that if you cannot express you concerns then they will not be given consideration. This lack of consideration is not personal, you just have chosen not the given us the information we need to give such consideration. I really don't think you will convince us of anything if you are not willing to go into details about what your concerns are. Chillum 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think what is just still boggling my mind is the idea that you'd rather have an inaccurate and incomprehensible set of articles on secure tests than think productively about how to engage collaboratively with the editors who would like to help. Mirafra (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bit mind boggling that you expect any response when you won't tell us what is wrong with the article. You seem to be confusing "engage collaboratively" with "blindly obeying". I don't accept the false dilemma that without doing as you say we can never have a good article. I am starting to doubt the very existence of these mystery inaccuracies that you refuse to point out, how on Earth can it be against your ethics to point out a factual error? If it is against your ethics to point out a factual error, then how come you are able keep vaguely referring to such error. Is the line really positioned such that you can only insinuate but not inform? Chillum 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think we're asking you to blindly obey anything -- perhaps that is the source of the misunderstanding. We're asking to engage collaboratively. For us to feel comfortable doing that, we are asking that our professional ethics and the actual real-world usefulness of the tests the articles are about to be respected.
The problem is this. If I say, "Here, this statement is right, but this other statement is wrong," then you are getting confirmation for the correct statements. And then you'll come back and say, "I don't know what's wrong with it, you have to tell me." It's facilitating the process of your continuing to damage test security. I cannot ethically help you do something I feel is deeply ethically wrong and will cause harm in the real world of real people. I'm saying, "Your page is crap," because it's clear that the people who are currently contributing have no clue how nonsensical their statements are -- they think they don't need our help, and I'm saying that they clearly do. If I were truly anti-WP, I would say nothing and let folks keep writing nonsense -- that's harmful to the public position of the test (in that it doesn't present NPOV), and it will contribute to the problem of uninterpretable protocols, but at least it would contribute less to the efforts of someone who was trying to deliberately fake. But since I think that having a clear and informative WP article would be a good thing in the world, I'm willing to keep trying to come to some understanding. Mirafra (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter to prevent image removal

I added blot images to Special:AbuseFilter/131. If nothing extraordinary happens in the next few days I will unprotect the article. Ruslik_Zero 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll point out that last time (I mean right after the media exposure), disruptive edits by IPs were not really limited to the images. Anyway, I do believe we can just wait a little and see what happens this time. --LjL (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another compromise section

Given the latest proposal just got bogged down in other debate again...

Ultimately, I think all sides will agree - whether they support this decision or not - that there is not nearly enough support for removing all inkblot images from this article. There is, however, also a great deal of concern expressed regarding the display of all inkblots. In my view, the top two issues are the following:

  • The inkblots are public domain, already available, and are of encyclopedic value. As such, they belong on this article.
  • The gallery of all images is provocative, especially to those within the field.

Everything else we've discussed is really just static that is generated by these two core arguments.

I suggested it above, but wanted to formalize my proposal:

  1. Keep the first inkblot (and not a shadow copy) in the article.
  2. Remove the gallery. We already have a link to the Commons category that has all images, but perhaps add a see also section link to that category indicating that all images can be found there.
  3. If possible, have someone create an image of the test being administered to use as the lead image, pushing the remaining inkblot "below the fold".
  4. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia believes there should be no disclaimers in articles, I wonder if we could get away with a statement in the lead discussing the expert reaction that is along the lines of "Many experts believe that the publication of the images, such as the one displayed below, could compromise the reliability of the test."

I believe this would be a good compromise that gives voice to all sides. The first image especially is an iconic representation of this test, and we really can't remove it while claiming to want to document the sum of human knowledge. However, I personally do not find galleries to be especially encyclopedic as a general rule. As such, removing the gallery would be an editorial decision to improve this article, while ensuring that the links to all images are available and visible so that readers with an interest in seeing all ten plates may still do so. Moving the remaining plate down, while adding a statement along the lines of what I propose would allow us, without using an explicit disclaimer, to both express the concerns of the psychological experts (which is notable enough for the lead), and caution the reader that they will find such an image later in the article. They can then choose to continue reading or not at their discretion.

This proposal is something that can be discussed independent of the feasibility of creating a child article dedicated to the images themselves. Thoughts? Resolute 03:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another good suggestion. Of course the recent NYT et al. media frenzy provided us with many good sources to create a disclaimer-that-isn't-really-a-disclaimer. –xenotalk 03:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Would support the previous recommendation over this one. The page was only getting 200 hits a day before the media and most were probably from those directly involved in this debate. I am sure it will go back to that and this test will return to obscurity. I think people have put to much emphasis on the importance of Wikipedia. I know we all think it is the greatest thing ever but I do not think most of the world care. Just as they would not go to a book store to read up on this test once this passes they will not come to Wikipedia to see it either.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazing how a squabble among 6 or so editors turned into a world media event. Not a good commentary on the media's ability to choose what is and is not important. And media "expert" treatment of the Rorschach leaves me wondering how wrong they are on topics that I know nothing about (and thus can't verify the accuracy of).Faustian (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I counldn't agree more. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a consensus that the media has blown this out of proportion. Chillum 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
IMHO the media tends to blow everything out of proportion as that is what sales.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three groups of people in this discussion (and in most other WP 'debates on controversies': the casual passer by who merely wants basic information ('WP as a point of first resort'); the practitioners of the subject, who wish 'to maintain the integrity and practices of their subject'; and those who wish to find out all they can about the subject/develop WP as far as they can. There will #always# be a tension between the professionals and the investigators about how much information should be generally accessible (as has been said variously above, some information should be kept out of the public domain 'for a variety of reasons specific to the given context').

What is required of the page is - 'an inkblot image' (which, as far as many passers are concerned could be an inkblot specifically generated for WP) - and, as it has 'been found' the image of the inkblot in use; and a statement to the effect that 'the Rorschach test is used to generate a set of numbers which are subjected to various transformations: various psychological attributes and conditions generate consistent "patterns" in the results.'

It should have been evident that the specific images would come increasingly into general visibility, especially once they moved out of copyright, and other images would feed into the process (inkblots are easy to generate, also sertain computer image generating programs, Mandelbrot diagrams 'and so on'). Eventually the intepretative documents themselves will come into the public domain - and then what? No explanation has been given as to how the interpretation is independent of context - why someone living during the Great Purges, a member of a remote tribe and a person with a Second Life avatar can be number-crunched in the same way - when the comparison test case is more self-evident for 'aliens, ancestors, apes and us' with the Snellen chart and the colour-blindness tests.

And in response to the response 'somewhere above' - just because I (and probably many others on WP) do not understand the scoring system #does not make my comments worth ignoring# - even those 'ignorant in a particular field' (and I, like others, have my areas of expertise) can make valid comments/raise issues that need to be addressed (whether or not there are constraints due to particular circumstances). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the efforts to "compromise" seem to be based upon the idea that we should hide images that have no reason to be hidden to try to satisfy people whose satisfaction has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy or standards. The inkblots should all stay, "above the fold" or no, and the lead cannot be used to push a POV to try to scare readers away. DreamGuy (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, no one claims that the interpretation is independent of context -- exactly the opposite is true. The reason psychological evaluation isn't done by trained monkeys is because it is crucial to understand the individual in systemic context. But that's a side issue.)
83, I think you've summed it up well, and presented a not-unreasonable compromise. The only lingering problems I have are that (1) this fight is then going to just recreate itself at some future point, at which point the experts who will have helped to make the page more clear and informative are going to feel that we were taken for a ride, and (2) it's going to do so on every page about secure tests. I really think this is something that needs to be thought through at the policy level, with some clear and vaguely permanent resolution. Mirafra (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to create a subpaged-style RFC wrt to this. –xenotalk 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If that's aimed at me, I need more explanation. Mirafra (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
See the instructions at WP:RFC. You would be creating something like WP:Requests for comment/Protection of test materials or something. An example: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing. –xenotalk 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I am very new to the whole new-policy thing. Not sure how to avoid the inevitable accusations of forum-shopping and meatpuppetry and we-already-ignored-you-before. Could people who are more clueful than I perhaps talk with me someplace other than here about how to make a very narrowly-tailored policy that would provide for maximal information freedom within the boundaries of test security that might trigger a more thoughtful response? (WikiProject Psych? my talk page? ) Mirafra (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok, but it's already there, last paragraph of the lede. --LjL (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • LjL puts it well, "1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok, but it's already there". In short, I see no reason to remove the gallery other than reasons that the community has rejected. I have always supported an improved lead image with greater encyclopedic value(not simply to push something "below the fold"). Chillum 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I find the opposition to moving the gallery rather interesting. Especially Dreamguy's comments above, because I could easily argue that WP:IG, a policy, would apply in this case. Does a gallery of ten images add anything that the single image does not? In my view, no. We should always have at least one of the real inkblots in the article - I would not support 83's suggestion for that reason - but I don't believe that the gallery is a necessity for this article, as the other nine plates to not add significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. Especially if we make it clear that all images are easily available on Commons, which is also in line with the image gallery policy. Resolute 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before, I for one did not know there were multiple colors in the later cards. I also did not know what they looked like. I don't see how WP:IG applies as there is a very specific number of these images and they give a clear context to the prose of the article. Also notice that there is textual encyclopedic content that relies on the images, see the comments below each image in the article. This information would be meaningless without the images. Chillum 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    Meaningless without all ten images? One black and white card, one black and red card, and one colored card would be sufficient to show each type of card.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The text says that there are colored cards. Again, I don't see that actual cards are needed to show this. Mirafra (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • From WP:IG: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made" (emphasis added). Comparing and contrasting is precisely what we are doing, we have information about each image that would not fit into the article if they were not present. Last I checked there was also a strong consensus to show all 10 images. Chillum 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was the first example I was just going to make, colors. There is more than that, though; as I said before, I intended to introduce information about cultural differences in responses, and now that the article is unprotected, I've actually started that section. I find it's absurd to have a description of the different responses given to cards in Europe vs America without having a gallery of the cards themselves, don't you think? (Of course, I bet some people here obejct to the textual content as well, but I personally find that so far from my ideas I'm honestly not really even willing to discuss that). --LjL (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if our only goal is to make the best article possible(and that is our only goal) then we should not remove the gallery as content of the article depends on it. Chillum 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the 10 images should remain within the primary article as each image is significant in its own right. I will side with LjL's above conclusions 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes (if possible), 4) Yes. I do not forsee the images being removed and believe we should refocus our discussion on the text content.Quasistellar (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The gallery is at almost the bottom of the page. This means that it is not given very much emphasis / importance. Yet still it is all we can discuss. With how much attension it seems to generate on the talk page and elsewere maybe it should be listed first? By the way agree with LJL 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes, 4) Ok Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Vol 89(Suppl1), 2007, S124-S130.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_10&oldid=1136235735"