Talk:Rorschach test

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Third opinion

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)

In considering Simsarmy's comment below, I ask the 3O reviewer look at this edit: . Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Yes for me (I assume the bold will be debolded). Thanks again Argenti for your help. Sundayclose (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED

Have restored the section that includes the common responses. This was stable in the article for years. Yes I know many folks want to hide these details but Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. Also AIs are more than happy to provide these details, so seriously the cat is out of the bag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This article's overhaul was not related to censorship, but rather to the aim of maintaining it as a broader, more encyclopedic overview, instead of presenting the material in an excessively detailed or quasi-instructional manner. In its previous form, the article was basically a step-by-step mini-guide to its administration or interpretation. The changes were also discussed before they were implemented.

The inclusion was therefore reverted because the argument that the material should be retained in order to avoid potential censorship does not, by itself, make the information automatically relevant, encyclopedic, or necessary for inclusion in the article. Editorial relevance should be assessed according to the article’s scope, due weight, and encyclopedic purpose.

For that reason, claims of censorship seem misplaced by default, especially since the article still retains a sample of 20% of the inkblots for illustrative purposes. What would be the encyclopedic rationale for including such a large amount of highly detailed material? Tam01 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

You need consensus to remove it. Specifically I am not seeing any discussion here Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure. Also please read through this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images consensus, specifically "This shows a consensus that inclusion of the images and the common responses to them is appropriate within current policies." which was supported by about 60 individuals. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but the old RfC should not be treated as automatically settling any further questions. That discussion is now more than ten years old, and the article has since undergone a broader structural revision. The current version has been stable since August 2025, following discussion and consensus on the main article’s talk page, and the changes were made in the context of reshaping the article into a broader encyclopedic overview rather than a detailed or instructional presentation of the test.

The point is not that images or common responses can never be included. The article still retains a representative sample of the plates for illustration. The issue is whether restoring a large amount of highly detailed material is proportionate, necessary, and consistent with the article’s present structure and scope.

Simply re-adding the images and common responses by default would also make several sections of the revised article redundant, since the current structure is designed to summarize the test, its history, use, interpretation, criticism, and disclosure issues in an overview format. Any restoration of detailed plate-by-plate material should therefore be justified in relation to the current article, current sourcing, due weight, and encyclopedic relevance, rather than relying solely on an older consensus reached under a different version of the article. Tam01 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Than run another RfC. Yes I realize that there has been a concerted effort by a small number of folks to remove these details for more than a decade. The table has been stable in the article for the last nearly 6 weeks. And was in the article for years before that. There is a process to check to see if consensus has changed, and this process was not followed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the current version of the article contains redundant information, since some of the previous edits were written to discuss the inkblots and common answers as illustrations and examples, not to coexist with a restored common-responses section. Tam01 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We often include some overlap of content in different formats. This table is also discussed in the text MV_Hondius_hantavirus_outbreak#Table_of_cases for example. The lead summarizes the body as another. Etc. It is not like we have a lack of space. But your also attempting to remove a fair bit of information entirely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not referring to removing the common-responses section that has been restored. I meant editing the other sections to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Some overlap is normal, but the article is already long enough that we should still avoid avoidable duplication where possible. Tam01 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

At 102k bytes the article is not particularly long. You can raise that in a RfC if you think the consensus has changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James 100% --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Tam01 you are now good with the table with 10 images and the common responses? That is what this section is about. If you want to adjust other parts of the article we can have a discussion in another section here on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I stand by the point that retaining the full table greatly lowers the quality of the article, for the reasons I have previously explained. That said, if consensus is to keep it, the rest of the article should be adjusted accordingly.

The previous version was edited on the assumption that this information would be approached illustratively in other sections, so restoring the full table created redundancy. Reviewing the version prior to my edits may be the fastest way to identify which additions should now be removed (or consolidated). However, that would require time to analyze, and I do not currently have the availability to do it myself, so anyone who agrees that this is a useful approach is welcome to do so. I'll likely take a swing at it when I have the time if it's not done. Tam01 (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

Change "card IV" in the section about Card VII to read Card VII, as in "Card VII has been called The Mother Card" (Currently, it says "Card IV has been called The Mother Card" in that section, seems to be a typo.) ~2026-40430-90 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)