Talk:Rorschach test

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rorschach test.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

November 3 to 9, 2013

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rorschach test article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 30 days

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

GigsVT (2009-07-14). "Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship". Slashdot.
Noam Cohen (2009-07-29). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?". The New York Times.
David Dain (2009-07-29). "The Crew Take The Rorschach Test". FOX Good Day LA (video).
Mark Morales (2009-07-29). "Answers to the Inkblot Test Revealed on Wikipedia". NBC Washington.
Patrick White (2009-07-29). "Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail.
Ian Simple (2009-07-29). "Testing times for Wikipedia after doctor posts secrets of the Rorschach inkblots". The Guardian.
? (2009-07-29). "Wikipedia svela il "test delle macchie"" (in Italian). Il Secolo XIX. {{cite news}}: |author= has numeric name (help)
Claudine Zap and Vera H-C Chan (2009-07-30). "This Is Only a Test: Rorschach Blots Rocking the Web". Yahoo! Buzz Log.
Wray Herbert (2009-07-30). "Analyze This: The real problem with the Rorschach test: It doesn't work". Newsweek.
Carol Forsloff (2009-07-30). "Rorschach Personality Test: Did Wikipedia Leak a 'Cheat Sheet'". Digital Journal.
? (2009-07-30). "Wikipedia irrita a psicólogos" (in Spanish). BBC Mundo. {{cite news}}: |author= has numeric name (help)
CTV.ca News Staff (2009-07-31). "Psychologists see red over inkblot test posting". CTV Canada AM (video). {{cite news}}: External link in |agency= (help)
cbcnews.ca (2009-07-31). "Sask. MD's Wikipedia posting of ink blots angers psychologists". CBC News (video). {{cite news}}: External link in |agency= (help)
Benjamin Radford (2009-07-31). "Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial". LiveScience.
Jeremy Laurance (2009-08-01). "What do you see here? (the answer could say a lot about you)". The Independent.
Anne Kyle (2009-08-01). "Inkblot secrets spilled on the Web - Psychologist posts Rorschach answers". Calgary Herald.
The Canadian Press (2009-08-01). "Critics say online Rorschach tests invite easy cheating". London Free Press.
Christie Nicholson (2009-08-02). "Answers to the Rorschach Test Revealed". Scientific American.
Pascal Biber (2009-08-03). "Rorschach-Test durch Wikipedia entzaubert?" (in German). Schweizer Radio DRS.
Colby Cosh (2009-08-04). "A secret no longer". National Post.
Noam Cohen (2009-08-23). "Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test". The New York Times.
Warren Riddle (2009-08-24). "'Rorschach' Wikipedia Entry Angers Some Psychologists". Switched.
Dan Goodin (2009-08-25). "Doctor investigated for posting inkblots to Wikipedia". The Register.
? (2009-08-29). "Arts in opspraak na publiceren Rorschach-afbeeldingen" (in Dutch). NOS Journaal. {{cite news}}: |author= has numeric name (help)
Sam Soloman (2009-08-31). "Publishing Rorschach info lands SK doc in hot water". Parkhurst Exchange.
Kerry Benjoe (2009-09-04). "Moose Jaw doctor faces complaints for posting Rorschach inkblot test online". The StarPhoenix.

Note: Discussion related to disclosure of information related to the Rorschach test should be conducted at Talk:Rorschach test/disclosure. Please also review the archived discussions on this matter.

Note: For historical reference, discussion regarding the inclusion of the images primarily happened at WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images and Talk:Rorschach test/images.

Archives

Index of archives^edit

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The inkblots are proprietary information and are used by psychologists to assess personality disorders. These cards should not be readily available online. Please remove them.

More information regarding the problem with having testing materials available to the public can be found here: https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/data-disclosure-faqs Semert (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. And I did in 2009. But you may wish to read through this RfC and all the other substantial discussions in the archives about this issue. One would need to raise a new RfC, I think. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of R-PAS?

Seems like a glaring hole in this article. I think this should be updated Time2track (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest some reliable sources that explain what R-PAS is? MartinPoulter (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://r-pas.org/Home/About

I can think of no better source than the official website, although there are official textbooks on it Time2track (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this test considered scientific?

I don't think it is, and the article doesn't explain why it's scientific either. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]