Talk:Rorschach test

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Too much technical detail for an encyclopedic format

[edit]

Beyond the discussion around public domain and image issues (which have been discussed before here), I have to say I am a bit surprised by the decision to include all of the test inkblots in the article, along with frequent responses from three different theorists for each image, and commentary for all of them as well. Given that the goal of the article is to offer a broader, more encyclopedic overview, it’s hard to see the reason in presenting the material in such a detailed, almost instructional way. It almost feels less like a panoramic review and more like a step-by-step mini-guide. Tam01 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. The issues do greatly overlap. I believe the original APA concerns were particularly over the detailed interpretations, although mere pre-exposure to the images themselves was also a source of contention. I don't think the articles on other subjective projective tests insist on showing all of the test material. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The images are included in the article to say "I told you we could do it" by image proponents to those who opposed the images. And apart from the ethics of Wikipedians' blatantly destroying test validity by publishing the images, what those same Wikipedians don't seem to realize is that the "frequent responses" actually do harm to those who take the test. To the naive test-taker, giving the "frequent responses" when administered the test doesn't make the test-taker look psychologically healthy (as might be the motivation for a parent in a custody evaluation); it makes them look very pathological. All of this reflects a profound ignorance of how the test works and the vast amount of research underlying its interpretation. But as I said, that's my two cents, and I have no desire to fight a battle over the images or the listing of "frequent responses". And to the image zealots, relax. I have no intention to change anything regarding the images. You'll be wasting your time if you want to pick a fight with me about the science. I learned long ago that in some corners of Wikipedia, expertise has no meaning, even if the expert can point to the research backing his expert opinions. I'll simply ignore the comments that reflect utter ignorance and move on to more important matters. That's not a slam on Wikipedia in general, just this particular part of it. The quality of other aspects of Wikipedia, including most medical articles, is good. That's because the medical experts here worked together to create very beneficial guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. What a very cynical and bitter analysis. But my exact argument in the RfC 16 years ago. And still now, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all this, how do we go from here? I'm not suggesting we remove all the inkblots or anything that drastic (as it will get reverted ASAP). But I do believe a measured reduction in that kind of detail would be a constructive next step. It might improve neutrality and better reflect how similar psychological tests are handled on Wikipedia. Curious to hear your thoughts.Tam01 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the blot proponents are still around, making even a slight change on this matter could, and likely will, result in a bloodbath. It will get very ugly. You are certainly entitled to try to make changes, but I don't want any part of it. I'll quietly disappear. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And editors who are still watching this article and who still support inclusion of all the ink blots should comment in this thread with their arguments for keeping them. I suspect that some may comment with "where's the evidence of any harm from the APA (or BPS)?" But, as I think I tried to argue in the original RfD, this is the sort of evidence that is practically and ethically impossible to construct. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am more on the line of questioning how including all of the inkblots, along with such extensive commentary on their interpretation, aligns with an encyclopedic approach at all. It’s less about proving demonstrable harm (which, as noted, is nearly impossible to measure in this context) and more about asking whether the current presentation meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Tam01 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems a perfectly valid argument and perhaps a stronger one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I have added Template:Excessive examples to the inkblots session. Will work on it later on. Tam01 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The inkblots are the test, they are not "examples" of some concept described in the article. The template therefore does not make any sense, thus I removed it. As for the excessive detail, a concise description of ten inkblots does not seem to me excessive at all; if anything, it seems quite right. But well, one can still think about splitting the description and make it more thorough in a separate article, if only that was the concern. I find it funny that y'all above are explicitly debating bad faith ways to sneak past consensus on the inkblot images. are candidly debating in the open what type of argument would stick to obtain the single end result of removing the images, judging how they might be weaker or stronger, to undermine a long standing consensus. edited --cyclopiaspeak! 18:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC) --cyclopiaspeak! 14:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited here in perfectly good faith. Kindly amend or retract that accusation. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPADE. It's 21 years I edit here, it's not like I am born yesterday. The discussion above is (admirably) clear: it is about reducing the amount of inkblots and/or information related directly to them. As acknowledged above, the harm arguments etc. have not been accepted by consensus so far, so it seems editors above are trying to find another rhetorical line that might stick with the same end result (removing at least some of the inkblots). This exchange in particular: "It’s less about proving demonstrable harm (which, as noted, is nearly impossible to measure in this context) and more about asking whether the current presentation meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards." "Yes, that seems a perfectly valid argument and perhaps a stronger one." - stronger with respect to what? why comparing the two arguments in strength if not about how they manage to obtain the same desired end result? cyclopiaspeak! 17:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly retract and/or strike your accusation or I will request Admin intervention. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to explain the comment exchange above. If there is a satisfactory explanation, I'll be glad to retract and apologize. cyclopiaspeak! 18:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in any "rhetorical line". My view is still that the images should not appear, with explanations, as they currently do, in this article. If this is not possible, the article should at least match other articles for psychological tests and simply show examples of the test materials. I believe the argument for consistency as stronger than the argument for preventing harm, as it is a boarder argument that applies across all of Wikipedia, and does not rely on the assessment of any external evidence. I do not regard expressing this logic as "explicitly debating bad faith ways to sneak past consensus". Again, kindly strike or retract your accusation. I am not requesting any apology. This is the third time I have now politely asked you. If you do not, I will report you at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will amend the comment above. cyclopiaspeak! 18:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "amendment" seems to have simply involved a re-write, with additional words, in very similar terms, which still ends with "to undermine a long standing consensus". That is not my understanding of how consensus works and how it should be respected. Oh, and you still "find it funny"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I struck the bad faith accusation. I did it sincerely, since your comment indeed made me change my mind. This indicates that you actually believe, in good faith, that what you debated above is a reasonable way of conduct. Therefore I apologize for having written and thought you were in bad faith; I was wrong. Yes, I find what you stated above and reiterated in your explanation problematic and somehow amusing in its candor and good faith; I believe we should not throw arguments and evaluate them as strategies to obtain a given end result that would also, in this case, overthrow a long standing consensus (yes, I know that consensus can change; it's the strategy I find problematic). I do not believe this is a personal attack and again, I sincerely understand you are in good faith. cyclopiaspeak! 19:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. I think it might help matters here if we all try to avoid wild personal accusations and focus more on the content arguments. I don't see very much wrong with "candor and good faith." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and apologies. cyclopiaspeak! 19:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it is not constructive to always characterize general efforts to trim this article as bad faith, regardless of its history. My current goal is to align the content with Wikipedia’s intended scope as a general reference work. As I’ve noted before, parts of the article, particularly the section displaying all ten inkblots with multiple interpretations, read less like an encyclopedia and more like a clinical training manual. This level of detail exceeds what’s appropriate for a general audience and contradicts Wikipedia’s summary style. A more suitable approach would be to include a representative sample, perhaps one or two inkblots, alongside a broader overview of interpretive methods. That said, this gigantic article clearly does need work, both in terms of tone and structure. Tam01 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the confusion from decades ago returns. Each blot is, in fact, an example of a test item. The original MMPI had 567 items. If we wanted to include the entire MMPI we would list all 567 items. If we wanted examples we would list only a few. Rorschach has ten example items, all of which are now in the article. Note that I'm not stating a position about whether all items (i.e., blots) should be included, nor do I intend to endlessly and futily debate that point. I'm simply clarifying what an example of a test item is. In any event, three editors now support the template. It should not be removed without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I also find the false accusation of bad faith unacceptable. A major problem in the debates decades ago was the false accusations of bad faith which muddled the relevant issues about inclusion of the blots. I'll add my request that the false accusation be retracted and never be done again. An apology would also be appropriate, although I wouldn't bet a penny that it will actually be offered. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for the quite insulting sentence «The images are included in the article to say "I told you we could do it" by image proponents to those who opposed the images», and then I can begin to consider rethinking about my statements. cyclopiaspeak! 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including 567 items would be a bit too much. Including 10 items is quite balanced. In Solar System we discuss all the planets and other major items, but we don't list all minor planets, obviously. cyclopiaspeak! 17:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is including 10 items "balanced", when those 10 items constitute the entire set of the test material? I really don't see much similarity between the Solar System and a subjective projective psychological test. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced as in, it doesn't skew the article (including 567 items would make >90% of the article about the test items). Given that the items are few and can be comfortably included in a section, we can afford to cover all of them. cyclopiaspeak! 18:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia rules on article size should determine whether a psychological test that has a smaller number of test items should be "wholly exposed" in an article. The article has more the appearance of a practioner's guide than a selective encyclopaedic summary. I don't see why the essential concept that ambiguous random ink blots can be interpreted differently by different people can't be adequately conveyed by showing just a few examples of the test items, rather than the entire test. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no balance between including 10 percent of test items compared to 100 percent of test items. It's not balanced. It's overkill, to put it mildly. To my knowledge, there is no other article about a psychological test on Wikipedia that includes all test items. And that has nothing to do with copyright or ethics. It's about acceptable and poor writing style. Again, I'm not arguing about whether any or all test items should be included. I'm clarifying what exactly the words "balanced" and "example" mean to try to stem the rising confusion from discussions years ago. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT; I am not going to check all articles about psychological tests, but most probably almost all such tests contain much more than 10 items. 10 items are a reasonable amount of material to include in full in an article; the threshold is very much subjective but let's say that if they were 15 or 20 I would find your argument much more reasonable. As it is now, the discussion of the blots in my opinion is not out of proportion given the size and breadth of the article. cyclopiaspeak! 18:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of a counterexample, Sexual Compulsivity Scale contains all items; they are also ten. Not that it matters much, because such a decision depends on several contextual factors, but well, it's not like this article is a lone outlier. cyclopiaspeak! 18:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "contextual factors" I don't see that particular psychometric scale as a subjective projective psychological test that requires expert interpretation. I was thinking more of something like the Blacky pictures test which currently has no examples. Perhaps that one is "an outlier"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic Apperception Test, another widely used projective test involving visual images, has no examples. Sundayclose (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh. I wish I'd thought of that one (see below)... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out, I'll see if examples might be added. cyclopiaspeak! 10:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it is not very helpful to look at other articles for guidance, especially in this case. Very few other psychological tests are like the Rorschach, AFAIK, conflating a small number of items, massive notability of the test and the way individual test items have been discussed in depth by several sources. Given that, I find the arguments about excessive detail/examples unconvincing. The inkblot paragraph now makes up less than 10% of the article text, if I measured it right - excluding references, notes etc. cyclopiaspeak! 19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Blacky pictures test was a poor example, as it was rooted far more firmly in Freudian theories of psychosexual development and was aimed at children, both of which things don't really apply to the Rorschach. In fact, I've just noticed that this article is given Category:Freudian psychology even though there's not one single mention of the good Professor. The Thematic Apperception Test has no examples, whereas showing just one example might be really useful. I'm guessing this may be partly because it is still protected by copyright, but that's not entirely clear at the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at it and for now I couldn't find a reliable source about the copyright status of the cards. If they are in the public domain they should definitely be added. cyclopiaspeak! 10:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the test has a set of 31 cards, from which a clinician selects 10 to 12 in a typical TAT session. Again I do not see the justification of showing all 31 cards, of even as many as 10. One or two examples should suffice. Probably best to raise a discussion over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my initial suggestion for improving the article would be to incorporate the current Inkblots section into the Method section, as both cover overlapping content related to the plates. This would help reduce redundancy and improve the article’s structure. To preserve illustrative value, I would propose keeping two images: one of Card IV, given it has a documented reference as "father card", and a colored card (perhaps Card VIII or IX) to highlight visual variation from the more commonly circulated black-and-white plates. Does that seem reasonable? RCS and R-PAS subsections could also benefit from substantial trimming. Tam01 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does that sound for a more approachable style of writing, right below "There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, approximately 18 by 24 cm in size. Each of the blots has near perfect bilateral symmetry. Five inkblots are of black ink, two are of black and red ink and three are multicolored, on a white background." in the Method section?
"The inkblots include variations in color (some monochromatic, some multicolored) and shading, each potentially eliciting different types of responses. According to various authors, they commonly evoke perceptions of animals, human figures, or abstract shapes, and may provoke associations related to authority, interpersonal dynamics, or sexuality. Certain inkblots are also noted for thematic emphasis. The test introduces increasing visual complexity and color, which can assess the subject's emotional and cognitive responses to less structured stimuli. Together, the images are designed to reveal patterns in personality, thought processes, and affective functioning as the subject progresses through the test."
That would incorporate the most relevant information without the excessive, in-depth detail on every single inkblot. The article would stay focused on the overall procedure rather than delving into exhaustive specifics of each individual phase. Let me know what you think. Tam01 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say much because I don't want to open the can of worms any more than it is already opened, but what you have written is immeasurably better than what's in the article right now. That's not to say there's no room for improvement, or that other parts of the article don't need a major rewrite. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that's an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just merged the content about the inkblots into the “Method” section, keeping two plates to illustrate the test’s dynamics. Let me know if you see anything else that could be improved, including tone. Next, I’ll turn my attention to the scoring systems, which could benefit from some streamlining as well. Tam01 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Father card

[edit]

(new section)

Just an FYI for anyone who's interested, the idea that there is a "father card" is archaic and has little, if any, empirical support. IMHO reference to a "father card" adds to the misconceptions in an article that is already bloated with misleading information. That's not to disparage or encourage any other criteria for inclusion of blots. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly adjusted the text and re-used the existing source, from that 1981 Journal of Personality Assessment paper, for Card VII. But I see that this is how rorschach.org refers to them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider rorschach.org a very reputable website or source of information. Sundayclose (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesn't look like a very professional site, does it. At least it provides links to The International Society of the Rorschach & Projective Methods, The British Rorchach Society and Société du Rorschach. The first of these is provided in the External links section of the article. There might be more detail at the member's area. But academic papers, which mention the "father card" and "mother card", e.g. this one and this one can easily be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academic papers from 50 or 75 years ago are worthless except as historical records of extremely outdated and unscientific opinions. Thus my use of the term "archaic". I oppose any reference to "father card" or "mother card" unless such a caveat is clearly explained and emphasized. Sundayclose (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So when do you suggest the Rorschach community stopped using those terms? I'd be interested to see your evidence. 1978 is only 37 years ago and 1981 is only 44 years ago, so presumably you're happy with those two? Or are they also "archaic"? I'm really not in any position to judge how quickly concepts become "outdated" in the world of the Rorschach Test, but it seems you are. Did you log in at the members portal at ISR to see they are not mentioned? Perhaps we ought to move this discussion to a separate topic thread. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being unclear. I'm simply stating that the most widely used interpretive systems today (Exner and R-PAS) don't rely on interpretation of card IV as being indicative of attitudes toward authority (i.e., father figures) unless it's supported by quantifiable, research-based variables (as opposed to "projection" of the test-taker's feelings toward father figures). I understand that the terms per se are used, just widely misunderstood outside the context of empirically supported interpretive strategies. I have avoided having a stake in how this article is written based on the discussions from years ago; perhaps I have taken my involvement in this discussion farther than I should have by my own standards. Thanks for your response to my comments. Sundayclose (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we move this discussion to a separate thread? I know you were responding to Tam01, but this is a different topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you can start a new thread if you wish to open this issue up to other editors, but I have no interest in any further discussion of "father card". Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't proposing a completely new thread. I was suggesting splitting off the existing discussion here, from your addition beginning "Just an FYI for anyone who's interested..." above, into a separate thread, regardless of whether or not any other editors wish to comment. Sorry if that was unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'm being dense, but I'm not sure what you mean by "splitting off the existing discussion" without creating a separate thread. But go ahead as you think is appropriate. In any event, I doubt I'll have anything more to say about father card. I'm not sure if I'll have any more comments about the general issue of whether any or all blots should be in the article; but probably not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean creating a new heading, along the lines of "Father card" and putting this discussion inside it. An alternative would be to just make "Father card" a sub-heading under the existing main heading of "Too much technical detail for an encyclopedic format". How about if I go ahead and split off this discussion as described, and then you can revert if you think it looks odd or inappropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me either way. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks neutrality and is biased against controversy per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

[edit]

Notably, in many sections discussing controversy or criticisms, statements about lack of efficacy are often immediately followed by claims that these criticisms have been disproved or undermines the point being made in general.

Original post edited (on 16th of August) to remove an off-topic comment about removed images. Simsarmy (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one "surreptitiously removed the images". LOOK at the discussion immediately above. If you want all of the images restored, you need to get a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You removed information, claiming that it is biased, and then you removed the citation to a reliable source that supports the information you removed. That's very bad form and not how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The resident gatekeeper. In the interest of good faith, I went and read the linked article carefully. Looks like the quote simply misrepresented the comment, so I've updated that and kept the citation intact. In fact the article is generally criticizes projective images, so in that sense I was wrong to remove it. Simsarmy (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you go on to remove good good-faith, researched edits and accuse me of being in an edit war with you. I was expecting resistance, but not this fast and not this quickly. I will happily escalate this since you are unwilling to act in good faith yourself. Simsarmy (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be aware that if something in the lead is sourced later in the article, a citation in the lead is not required. Read the ENTIRE article and ALL of the sources cited, not just what's cited in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have read anything I've said, the comments in my edits or in this talk page. You're clearly more interested in arguing than finding consensus and so I've escalated. Simsarmy (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, because it was bothering me: what point are you trying to make?
Keep the citation? I did that.
Remove that, I did that too (I admitted I did this incorrectly).
In fact, my contribution was to keep the citation, per your recommendation, and then update the quoted section to better reflect the citation. So not only is it being kept intact to be used elsewhere in the article, but it was being used more correctly where it was cited.
You also removed a perfectly valid change to improve readability and neutrality.
So help me find consensus: what exactly would you prefer I do so you won't reflexively undo my good faith (and I'd like to think well-made edits)? Simsarmy (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, I've had to reflect because the escalation was denied: I think you've misconstrued my intention with my edits and my post in this thread.
I made this post asking for some discussion about the bias in this article. But I also made two changes: improved the neutrality of the lead, this is valid regardless of consensus I would argue.
But I also updated the wording of the lead to better reflect the content of the cited passage; and I did so via the approach of editing a section that actually related to my concern, the criticism of the overall article with Wikipedia:EDITCON in mind. But you reverted both my original good faith attempt and my improved edit, after reading the citation more carefully.
So I'm looking for some guidance here; I tried to broach this issue by doing some small, inoffensive edits in good faith. Simsarmy (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You ask me what you can do? First, drop the sardonic ad hominem comments. No one is or has been the “resident gatekeeper” of the article. That kind of name-calling does nothing to foster communication. Likewise, stop making false accusations about "surreptitious" removal of images, ignoring previous discussion.

Second, wait for actual discussion (by more than one editor) before trying to bulldoze your unmerited removal of well sourced content out of the article. Coming here on the pretense of seeking consensus only after you have been chastised by an admin after making a false edit warring report is not an attempt at discussion. You don’t have the authority to remove reliably sourced content on a whim.

Third, read the entire article and all of the sources (not just those cited in the lead) before declaring the article biased simply because you don’t like it. Everything that you removed is well sourced in the article.

If you think there’s bias, point out the specific biased content here and why you think the sourcing is inadequate, but only after you have actually checked the sources (everywhere, not just the lead). And then wait to see if anyone agrees with you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sardonic comments dropped -- I'll apologise for that.
Actually, I agree with you; I removed the citation incorrectly. I'm not sure I appreciate the "bulldoze" characterization: I simply saw a section of the article that was misplaced and was better represented in the body. But after your suggestion I went on to read the citation more carefully, and actually it shouldn't have been removed - you were right!
So I provided a followup edit, keeping the citation intact and improving the intention of the sentence. Both edits were fairly innocent, intended with the soul aim of improving a small uncontested part of the article.
I'll note, I feel this was only somewhat related to my entry in the talk page. I am allowed to, and encouraged to improve the quality of any article, thus generating consensus with my edit. This topic was to broach the larger topic about the entire article, which is why I haven't gone in and made sweeping changes, just small good faith ones.
I will say this clearly, I am both allowed to broach the topic of bias in an article (such as I have) and also make quality, within rules edits to the article simultaneously.
For the sake of reaching an understanding: I'd like you to explain why my latest edit to the lead is not permitted, and to also revert your revert of my edit of the lead that you've not actually explained why it should be removed (because it was almost entirely a small and quality improving edit). Simsarmy (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat (for a third time), read and review all of the sources throughout the article. It's quite clear from your edits and your comments that you have not done that. The content you removed (noted in your link) is supported, not only in the citation in the lead, but elsewhere in the article. Note particularly (but not exclusively) the sources cited in the section "Exner scoring system". I'll ask you again, tell us (all of us who have edited the article, not just me) why you think those sources are unreliable or inadequate, and then wait to see if anyone here agrees with you. It was not "almost entirely a small" edit. It was removal of a major issue regarding the Rorschach and Exner's system. And please note, contrary to what you have said, making an edit does not "generate consensus". Consensus is determined by discussion on this talk page. What was in the article before your reckless removal of well sourced content is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. If you want to change that consensus, you don't do it by repeatedly removing content, you do it by discussion with other editors on this talk page. And you don't determine consensus by simply disagreeing with me. Consensus is determined with discussion from numerous editors, especially those who have contributed extensively to this article. One final word: I'm not required to endlessly repeat myself here. Your repeating the same point again and again does not require additional repetitive replies from me. I'll ignore additional repetition, as I am entitled to do. That in no way entitles you to make further removal of properly sourced content. So once again, wait for other editors to express opinions here before making any more than cosmetic changes to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not required to read all the sources in the entire article. Especially because I am not removing citated content -- I modified a section of the article to reflect its content satisfied that what I replaced was well represented in the rest of the article. Repeating yourself does not change that fact or my intentions. My edits and this thread are unrelated, if you have issues with my specific edits, create a new thread and discuss those diffs. Just because I have an issue with an article does not ban me from making other edits in general.
My two unique edits generated consensus, now we're discussing your reverts of my edits forming new consensus. Also we are numerous editors, and my edits were such small scope that I'm satisfied that I can resolve your issues with my edits together.
I'll express this again, I do not need the kind of consensus you're demanding to make edits to any page on Wikipedia. I have stopped editing the section you pointed out in the interest of fairness (so you claiming otherwise is being categorically unfair, especially labeling what I did as an edit war). But I will continue to make within rules edits as I'm entitled to. Simsarmy (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are, in fact, required to read any cited source that supports content that you remove. Failure to do so for well sourced content that you remove constitutes vandalism. Your sense of entitlement that you don't have to follow policies explains your destructive edits. Accordingly, this serves as your final warning that if you again remove adequately sourced content without explaining your objection to its supporting sources can and likely will result in loss of editing privileges. Until others weigh in I'm finished repeating myself. Sundayclose (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not required to read all of the citations on an entire page when I make an edit to a single citation. You have consistently failed to understand the scope of my edits; you have assumed wrongly multiple times that I simply reverted my change and that anything I was doing involved "removing sourced content", especially if you were to carefully review the actual diff of my change. You asked to restrain from ad hominem attacks, and I have; I was hoping you'd do the same. Instead of accusing me of vandalism, destructive edits and threatening me with punishments. I will not wait for others to weigh in for your baseless abuse of Wikipedia editing policy and your attempts at an edit war. Bring others with authority in if you'd like, I'm confident that my edits were well founded, legitimate and good faith -- unlike your entire appalling behaviour. Simsarmy (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in one final olive branch (as I too am sick of repeating myself), I will point out that I think you've, understandably, misread the paragraph in question:
The paragraph opens, paraphrased: "Exner Scoring System seeks to resolve original criticisms. Remaining criticisms are: [...]" and then a comma separated list of concerns including an entry that was simply misplaced in that list. So I updated the final point with text directly pulled from the citation (it's an article about how researchers don't think there's any value to projective images), clearly not the right citation for that entry in the list.
I actually checked long before you mentioned it "hey should I move this sentence further into the article; no looks like there's an entire section dedicated to this topic".
I hope you reading this will realise there's been a misunderstanding and that I truly wish to be on the same page with you. Simsarmy (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of bringing this useless discussion to a close, if you leave intact in it's entirety this sentence: "Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research some researchers continue to raise questions about the method", I will not remove your suggested phrase "value of projected images in general". That being said, let me make it clear that I do not agree with such a change, I am simply not objecting to it in the interest of moving forward. If, however, another editor with actual expertise in the Rorschach (and there are several who visit this talk page) objects to your change because it is based on your profound ignorance of the Rorschach, I may support that editor. And a final word of caution: Don't try to pull a fast one ("surreptitious", to use you false terminology) and try make additional changes that I have not supported. Try to pull that one and you have lost what shred of credibility you have with me. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also am pleased we've reached an uneasy agreement. I actually had no intention of doing any further edits (besides my original, and then my reviewed change) for a while (I was eager to put your mind at ease before I did anything further), despite what you might claim of me. I'll continue to refrain from further edits as I'd originally intended: I don't like the idea of anyone doing something if they feel coerced; I was merely frustrated that you seemed to be entirely misrepresenting my position. I'll await our peers now that you've managed to address one of literally any of my points.
But with that said, your behaviour continues to unimpress. You've based my "profound ignorance" of the Rorschach on very little evidence, considering I have done little else than to apply unambiguous and universal Wikipedia style rules (in the specific case you've pointed out (MOS:WEASEL, WP:NOR)) to this article. I may have started this thread with preconceptions, but you've certainly held onto yours with an insult streak that I couldn't hope to match: you won't have to worry about me, my edits will continue to lack surreptitious intent. Simsarmy (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request to Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements and I've tried to provide a neutral description of this disagreement. My legitimate hope is that this will come as a relief for us both, so that we can get back to improvements to our favourite wiki. This will be my last contribution to this article and this talk page for the foreseeable future. Simsarmy (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly your prerogative (as it is my prerogative to disagree with a third opinion) and I won't interfere with how that process goes. But I consider it a waste of time, because you and I have moved close to agreement on much of the dispute. I'm not surprised, though, that you can't tolerate anything less than having it your way 100 percent. But as has been the case throughout much of this debacle, it is yet another vast waste of time resulting from complete lack of understanding of the Rorschach. But so be it. I'll remind you of one thing though: Third opinions can be helpful, but they are not binding arbitration. They are not a license for you (or me, or anyone) to run roughshod over the quality of the article by (further) ignoring well sourced content. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll be blunt because sometimes it's important speak up in the interest of keeping the issue of article quality in the forefront: You did one hell of a lot more than "little else than to apply unambiguous and universal Wikipedia style rules". You ignored well respected and long standing research in favor of forcing your uninformed personal preferences. I can't speak for the quality of your edits in other areas of Wikipedia, but on this particular article, the net result has been damage, both to the quality of the article and to the amount of productive time available for other important parts of Wikipedia. I have generally avoided editing this article, but when someone comes through like a bull in a china shop hellbent on shaping the article into their personal project with no regard for legitimate scientific research or previous consensus, I am compelled to get involved. I would have walked away from this fiasco with agreement we finally achieved, but I suspect you haven't had your fill of wreaking havoc on the article. Sundayclose (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your last replies contain multiple personal attacks: calling my edits “uninformed personal preferences,” comparing me to “a bull in a china shop,” and accusing me of being “hellbent on shaping the article into [my] personal project.” That’s uncivil (WP:CIVIL), assumes bad faith (WP:AGF), and shifts focus away from content.
Please keep discussion to sources and policy (WP:RS, WP:NPOV). Simsarmy (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Telling someone that they are uninformed is not a personal attack. If someone tells me I'm uninformed about Chinese history, that's stating a fact, not a personal attack. My ego is not so sensitive that it is bruised if I'm told that I'm not an expert on every article I read, especially if i haven't bothered to read the sources cited. As for your sardonic ad hominem comments such as "resident gatekeeper", keep discussion to sources (which you claim you are not required to read, even those supporting content that you removed) and policy (including WP:V and WP:RS, even those that you feel you have a special privilege to ignore). Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further debate here seems unlikely to be constructive. Per WP:DISPUTE, I’ll leave this for the third opinion process to address so that discussion can return to sources and policy rather than personal remarks. I’d suggest we both avoid trying to get the last word and let that process run its course. Simsarmy (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually basing content on sources rather than refusing to read them would be a welcome change. As I've said, third opinion is likely a waste of time and not binding arbitration, but I will not attempt to interfere with that process. I don't plan to comment further unless other editors weigh in, or you make additional unwarranted removal of content, or you make additional ad hominem comments. Sundayclose (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Sundayclose)
....

After all of the above discussion, I can boil down my major concern: I believe any attempt to remove any part of this sentence:

"Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research some researchers continue to raise questions about the method" (particularly the part I have put in bold)

should be accompanied by an explanation as to why the sources cited to support it (especially from leading Rorschach researchers Exner 2002 and Weiner 2003) are unreliable or otherwise inadequate to support the sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In considering Simsarmy's comment below, I ask the 3O reviewer look at this edit: [1]. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their Third Opinion complaint focuses on the bolded portion at the start of the paragraph, but their discussion has shifted between that (“with an extensive body of research”) and concerns about content at the end. In my revised edit, I addressed the relevant portion noted in my summaries, kept all citations, and did not remove any factual content. The apparent misunderstanding seems to be from treating the removed material at the end as if it were tied to the earlier bolded phrasing, which it was not. Simsarmy (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, as long as the sentence I quoted above remains intact, I don't have a problem. I've stated this previously, so I'm unsure why there is a need for 3O, but the process has begun so it's up to the 3O reviewer to conclude this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to believe both of my contributions were valid. The first removed weasel wording — a style issue regardless of source — and the second revised the phrasing while preserving citations and factual content. The 3O request became necessary because the discussion kept shifting and because process has been used less to resolve content and more as a way to block edits. Simsarmy (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint by (Simsarmy)
....

My edits did not remove or challenge any citations, including those from Exner (2002) or Weiner (2003). I only made minor wording changes to improve readability and clarity, such as reducing weasel words and slightly rephrasing the sentence to better reflect the cited content (in my other edit). The factual claims and the supporting sources remained intact.

I did not provide an explanation about the reliability of these sources because I did not remove or dispute them. My changes were entirely style-focused and consistent with Wikipedia’s guidance (MOS:Weasel, WP:NOR).

In short, the content of the sentence, including the part in bold, remains fully supported by the cited sources; my edits only improved presentation, not substance. --Simsarmy (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion by Argenti Aertheri

@Simsarmy: What are you hoping to gain by having a third opinion? Are you also happy with the current version?

@Argenti Aertheri: I'd like a third party to evaluate whether my edits (1, 2, 3) were consistent with policy-focused improvements and shouldn’t have been reverted. My changes were quickly reverted without substantive discussion, and despite a lengthy back-and-forth I don’t feel my counterpart engaged with the policy issues I raised. They have previously threatened an edit-warring notice against me (in response, I escalated the issue through the proper channels, though the escalation was later deemed misfiled) and later implied they would continue to undo any changes I make. Therefore, I’m not satisfied with the current version as of edit 4, so I think an outside perspective would help clarify. Thank you for reviewing this matter.
As an additional point, of the two changes I proposed, only one was accepted — and reluctantly at that — and it was the less substantive one. I believe the other change, which removed weasel words, was even more clearly aligned with policy and should have been retained.--Simsarmy (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be sure I understand. Simsarmy, are you again stating that any part of this sentence should be changed:
"Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research some researchers continue to raise questions about the method"?
If so, we are back to square one. But perhaps I have misundsrstood. My question is simple, so I would appreciate an unequivocal yes or no. Sundayclose (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is the weasel wording, it is bad grammar and bad application of policy. I've addressed this exhaustively. Simsarmy (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree about the grammar, I studied psychology and I'm still not positive if it's saying Rorschach or Exner did extensive research. Try rewording the sentence Sundayclose and maybe then you can reach an agreement? It's worth noting that Exner actually did real research, unlike Rorschach himself (iirc) but currently that sentence is kind of a mess. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 13:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)To clarify, Exner (not Hermann Rorschach) conducted the "extensive body of research", as did Weiner to a lesser extent. Simsarmy, please write your proposed rewrite for that sentence here so there will be no confusion. If you eliminate the phrase "with an extensive body of research", please explain why the sources cited, especially Exner and Weiner, are insufficient to support the phrase. Sundayclose (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this rewrite fixes the grammar issue, it meets my approval:
"With an extensive body of research, the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system, although some researchers continue to raise questions about the method".
But again if Simsarmy wishes to eliminate "extensive body of research", we need an explanation as to why the sources cited, especially Exner and Weiner, are insufficient to support the phrase. Sundayclose (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original:

Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research, some researchers continue to raise questions about the method.

Amended:

The original Rorschach testing system faced numerous criticisms, which the Exner Scoring System—developed since the 1960s—aimed to address, particularly to improve consistency and reduce subjectivity.
Despite these efforts, researchers continue to raise concerns about various aspects of the test, including the objectivity of testers, inter-rater reliability, the verifiability and general validity of the test, bias in the test's pathology scales toward higher numbers of responses, the limited number of psychological conditions it can accurately diagnose, the inability to replicate its norms, its use in court-ordered evaluations and the value of projected images in general.
  • I'm a fan of dashes, it helps emphasise as an aside rather than a part of the main clause, improving readability. But I noted the rest of the article doesn't follow this convention, so this could be changed.
  • "raise questions about the method" was rephrased as "improve consistency and reduce subjectivity" which is more precise.
  • Breaking out the second sentence as a standalone paragraph clearly separates the Exner system’s goals from the ongoing concerns, making it easier to follow the logical flow.

Why “with an extensive body of research” is bad form:

This is a perfect example of weasel wording. The phrase evaluates rather than describes—it implies the research is impressive or authoritative instead of letting readers judge the cited studies or the explanatory section. It’s also vague: “extensive” isn’t quantified, and “body of research” doesn’t specify which studies or findings. Overall, it’s not good writing, and I would take issue with this phrasing anywhere on Wikipedia.

Final note:

I’ve explained my position multiple times and made every effort to clarify misunderstandings. If it’s still not understood, that’s not due to a lack of clarity or willingness on my part.

For me, the aim here wasn't about forcing my version live at all costs; it was about demonstrating that Wikipedia policy supports the approach I argued for. That approach also guided my editing strategy: my intention was to address bias gradually, starting with small, neutral, presentation-focused changes that would both improve the article and help me gain a deeper understanding of its content over time, demonstrating a willingness to do more than simply point out an issue. With that said, I will not be reverting my edits or making further changes myself. I realise I became too invested in this debate and need to step back, contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia, and return only when I can approach this article calmly and thoughtfully. At that time, I may request that neutral editors join me to review the article and consider applying the policies I proposed.

As an aside, I want to acknowledge that it was wrong, under Wikipedia policy and general decency, to assume gatekeeping, and I apologise again for having done so. I mention this because my original concern about bias in the article has been waylaid by how the discussion unfolded. Unfortunately, that effort was quickly overtaken by process disputes and reverts that bypassed substantive discussion over what should have been straightforward policy application. I invite readers to reflect on how the discussion diverged from its intended focus. --Simsarmy (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exner conducted over 60 blind-reviewed peer-reviewed professional journal articles in support of his Comprehensive System. Many other such studies on the Comprehensive System were conducted by other rersearchers. That system by far is the most widely used Rorschach system in the world. The vast majority of those studies are cited in several of his books. "Extensive body of research" is not weasel wording. Its a realistic description of decades of research by one of the most respected researchers among psychologists familiar with the Rorschach, as well as other researchers. The same can be said to a lesser extent about Weiner's research. To casually dismiss such a monumental achievement as weasel wording is overkill to say the least and a disservice to the quality of a Wikipedia article. Sometimes use of the word "extensive" is justified. I disagree that "extensive" is meant to be evaluative rather than descriptive. The word is more often used as a description to indicate large amount; see wikt:extensive and extensive. If we go through and eliminate every similar word throughout Wikipedia simply because someone thinks the word itself (not the meaning behind the word) is a weasel word, we would damage Wikipedia. As an aside, let me add that I appreciate Simsarmy's other suggestions, and I think some of them are worth discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the phrase "extensive body of research" is used in a dozen or so articles, and I have no issue with it in general, it's not working grammatically. Since I like the rest of Simsarmy's suggestions, maybe something like:
The original Rorschach testing system faced numerous criticisms, which the Exner Scoring System—developed in the 1960s after extensive research—aimed to address, particularly to improve consistency and reduce subjectivity.
Despite these efforts, researchers continue to raise concerns about various aspects of the test, including the objectivity of testers, inter-rater reliability, the verifiability and general validity of the test, bias in the test's pathology scales toward higher numbers of responses, the limited number of psychological conditions it can accurately diagnose, the inability to replicate its norms, its use in court-ordered evaluations and the value of projected images in general.
I don't think "extensive" is inherently weasel wording, just simplification for clarity. Nor is "body of research" inherently a problem. Seems like you both got stuck on that very specific phrase and the easiest solution is to stop trying to shoehorn that exact wording into a sentence/paragraph where it's just not fitting. I'm not sure that my suggestion is actually factual though, so don't paste it without checking, k? ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 20:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the wording suggested by Argenti Aertheri. "Extensive research" is fine, but leaving out the concept of "extensive" would diminish the accuracy of the statement. So, for example, simply stating "after research" would be inadequate. Again, "extensive" refers to the amount of research, not necessarily the quality of the research. But I think most psychologists familiar with Exner's work would also describe it as being of excellent quality. And the fact that his work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and his system is the most widely used speaks to the quality of the research. If someone wants to provide reliable sources about the quality of Exner's research, that would be an entirely different issue. For now though, "extensive research" refers to the vast quantity of not only Exner's research, but research conducted by others. Thanks for your input Argenti. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other less important note: The Exner system was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, and that would be supported by the citations already in the article. Even though he published a primitive version of his system in the 1960s, the Comprehensive System that we know today wasn't very well developed until the 1970s, when he first published The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Volume 1. Sundayclose (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the limited number of psychological conditions it can accurately diagnose"
The Rorschach by itself does not reliably diagnose mental disorders, nor is it intended to do so. It can aid in the diagnosis of some conditions, such as psychosis, but it would be inappropriate to diagnose a disorder based solely on Rorschach findings.
I suggest changing the wording to something like this: "the limited number of psychological conditions for which it has diagnostic utility." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Argenti Aertheri - Your revision of the first paragraph is an improvement. While the adjective extensive often is a weasel word, the way you have rewritten the paragraph removes the weaseliness. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mark Worthen regarding the statement about diagnosis. That's a common straw man accusation directed toward the Rorschach (and several other tests, including the MMPI) that it is poor at making a specific diagnosis. The fact is that no test alone can make a very good specific diagnosis. The tests can inform diagnosis, but not make them. The tests, including the Rorschach, are far more valuable than dumb mechanical "diagnosers". They inform us about the dynamics that are more nuanced than a diagnosis. In my experience, the tests often are most useful after the diagnosis is made, when they can assist in developing treatment methods. Sundayclose (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Argenti Aertheri: Would you like to change the article with your suggested wording, as modified by Markworthen? I don't mind doing it myself, but you are a neutral party so I would defer to you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work for everyone? @Simsarmy, @Sundayclose, @Markworthen?
The original Rorschach testing system faced numerous criticisms, which the Exner Scoring System—developed after extensive research in the 1960s and 1970s—aimed to address, particularly to improve consistency and reduce subjectivity. Despite these efforts, researchers continue to raise concerns about various aspects of the test, including the objectivity of testers and inter-rater reliability, the verifiability and general validity of the test, bias in the test's pathology scales toward higher numbers of responses, its limited diagnostic utility and lack of replicability, its use in court-ordered evaluations and the value of projected images in general.
~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 23:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for me (I assume the bold will be debolded). Thanks again Argenti for your help. Sundayclose (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess no one else is going to respond so I've gone ahead and done it. Please check that the citations are in the right places. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 02:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]