Talk:Psychology Today/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Psychology Today April 2004 cover.jpg

Image:Psychology Today April 2004 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed in chief details

This is clearly biased information. Perina worked at other publications but Vogue is singled out for sexist ends (i.e., it's "just" a women's fashion magazine). If no one else objects, I'd like to take the reference out because including the others will focus attention away from the magazine itself.--Aichik (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. No other Wiki article on a publication has this much background info anyway on its current editor, especially in its intro.--108.29.4.103 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Pop psychology critique

Cite "With content geared toward an audience interested in pop psychology," otherwise it should be taken out.--108.29.4.103 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit more history?

The page seems rather prefunctory at present. More about the history of the magazine should be present. For instance, the APA owned the magazine for a contentious time, and that should be covered (in fact that's why I sought out this page, to read more specifics about that). StoneProphet11 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see something about the credibility, and how it has fared in the past. Dtwedt (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Over 14 people view each copy?

The citation linked to no longer exists, but this number seems erroneously low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.111.1 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine exclusion

PsychologyToday.com has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. ––Handroid7 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted website comments

I disliked an article on Psychology Today’s website that was written by Dr. Lanza because it was nonsensical. I wrote a professional comment on the web page (I have a B.A. in psychology and other degrees fwiw) and it was immediately deleted. I wrote another one that said something similar and it was deleted too. This led me to believe that they are not objective and only want to hear voices that agree with them and support the people they promote.

How can this be added to the Wikipedia page? If I simply write something like I just said will it violate a Wikipedia guideline? If so, what do you suggest?

Jasonagastrich (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to section on "Concerns about content"

An extended section was recently added called "Concerns about content." This section has been substantially edited and shortened, as it contained a number of the following types of statements that seem inappropriate for a Wikipedia page on Psychology Today:

Personal opinion and speculation, e.g. "Psychology Today can and must do better. Further, readers must be critical of the information presented in this magazine."; "Without sufficient understanding of statistics and the science underlying the content they publish, it may be relatively easy for invalid conclusions to be published in Psychology Today."

Assertions without citations, e.g. "However, evidence reported by Dr. Richard Saul in his book ADHD Does Not Exist (cited in some Psychology Today articles) appears to be mainly anecdotal."

Statements tangential to the main subject of the article, e.g., "When diseases are overrepresented or access to information is easier, many individuals may engage in disease mongering..."; "Additionally, many claims made by disbelievers in ADHD do not follow accepted scientific rules..."

The section title has been changed to a more neutral phrase.

Bbmathust (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)