This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 10 August 2022, see discussion. no consensus, 9 December 2012 (UTC), see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on August 27, 2017. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for ((copyedit)). The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Merge proposal

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nigelmh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachprince6. Peer reviewers: Loulougirl5, Carlton7567, Tmelior, Hayleeelmore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't appear to be anything about cognitive re-framing in the article, although it's mentioned by name. It's just not described. If anyone working with one of the WikiProjects this article is part of could help on that front, that would be good. If not, then can that mention be removed?

WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The formatting for this page needs to be completely redone, even API services that use Wikipedia for data can't read the page due to the awfully poor formatting presented. Any editors willing to help would be appreciated. Tsuser (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm dubious of this topic, especially capitalized like it is. I don't think there's anything close to an objective definition of "Creative Problem Solving"; it looks like this article just gets into particular authors' definitions. This sounds NPOV, for example: "[creative solutions] need to be encouraged." Why? Who says? (I don't disagree, but it seems nonencyclopedic. —Ben FrantzDale 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that "creative problem solving" should not be capitalized. I don't know how to do such a "cross-namespace move", so someone else please do it. Thanks!

I've done a major rewrite, and the remaining creativity-oriented content that previously comprised most of the article is isolated in a separate section to give anyone an opportunity to either move it to the creativity article or rewrite it to make it relevant to creative problem solving.

The following long description of TRIZ was replaced with a shortened version because such detail belongs in the TRIZ article:

Genrich Altshuller et al. believed that creative solutions may be examined by scientific methods. After over 200,000 patents analysed, he developed a Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS, more commonly known as TRIZ). Besides a strong Laws of Technical Systems Evolution he has developed an Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving, which had become a practical outcome of the theory. The algorithm (known as ARIZ) is a set of steps for problem solving. The ARIZ text includes multiple rules, notes and examples, it is supported by information funds -- Table of contradictions and inventive principles; Set of Standard solutions; Effects (physics, chemistry, geometry, etc.) databases. Special operators help to overcome psychological inertia on the way to solution.

There is still room for improvement, but please do not include content that instead should be in the creativity, creativity techniques, and problem solving articles.

VoteFair 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a copy of the above-referenced creativity-oriented text in case someone wants to move it into the creativity page where it might fit. It does not define creative problem solving, and it is POV, so it doesn't belong here. The referenced publication remains in the article.

Creative problem solving begins when knowledge and simply thinking about a problem fails. Creative breakthroughs often follow extensive, even exhaustive efforts, to solve the problem resulting in frustration.^[1] Insight often occurs when one turns away from the problem, anecdotal evidence often recounting instances where inspiration arrived in a dream or other altered state when the problem was not the focus of attention.^[2]

One of the most famous anecdotes is of the chemist Friedrich Kekulé discovering the structure of the benzene ring while relaxing and gazing into his fireplace.

Creative solutions are often quite tentative at first; they need to be encouraged, evaluated and tested. Whether they will be depending much on the ambient environment the problem solver is operating in. Established, large, rule-bound organizations do not favor innovation, in fact, may punish it. Creativity is more likely to thrive in smaller, startups that encourage innovation.^[3]

VoteFair 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'creativity always involves creative problem solving' sounds like tautology. perhaps the author could try again. best, M.

• Where does this statement appear? The article states: "Creative problem solving always involves creativity. However, creativity often does not involve creative problem solving, ...."

• VoteFair 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm up for deleting this page. Anyone else? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first section above titled "dubious" refers to a version of this article that is long gone. That version was, indeed, awful. The suggestion to remove the article referred to that long-gone version, not the current version.

My recent edit removes the remaining half of about the only sentence that I didn't remove or rewrite from the awful version. I've made contributions to greatly improve this article, yet of course others are welcome to make further improvements. Deleting it is not an option because it is a well-established term that deserves to be defined. VoteFair (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion the recently added paragraph about artistic creativity (at the end of the Techniques and tools section) doesn't appear to say anything that isn't already stated earlier in the article, and in the article on creativity. I agree that the gap between a blank canvas and a painted canvas can be regarded as a problem for an artist, but that overlap is already stated earlier. It might be necessary to create a new section about what constitutes a problem, but I can't think of a good title. Clearly the added paragraph cannot stay as-is because it doesn't fit within the "Techniques and tools" category and is opinion-based rather than fact-based. VoteFair (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed this paragraph for the reasons explained above:

Creative Problem Solving does exist in the art arena if perhaps one broadens their definition of what art is. An artist see's the blank canvas as a problem... one has to work through elements of composition to get a desired result. Creating visual art or music, etc, could be thought of as the foundation of creative problem solving, that to truly bring innovative ideas forward, engaging in such artistic ideas would in fact, expand the use of the right brain and therefore benefit in solving problems of a different variety.

VoteFair (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page has only one reference, to a book by Richard Fobes, used over and over. The author of that book is also a major editor on this wikipedia page. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. 72.187.98.128 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Perhaps I should nominate it for deletion? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the two tags that say "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" and "This article needs additional citations for verification" are relevant. I too would like to see more citations. However, these two tags are redundant (or at least heavily overlap), so please merge them into a single tag.

Please remove the other two tags.

Specifically, regarding the tag that says this article perhaps does not meet the "general notability guideline", please look at the "Further reading" and "External links" sections. Those sections refer to publications and organizations that (hopefully) make it obvious that creative problem solving is a notable topic. (I am connected to only one out of those 14 references.)

The tag that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" is a disincentive to experts contributing to Wikipedia. You want experts editing articles! Elsewhere Wikipedia is trying to get (academic) experts involved in editing Wikipedia articles, so this tag should not be used when an expert does contribute.

In my desire to keep this article neutral, and non-spammy, I have not added a notation to the reference that would clarify that my book -- The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox -- has been published around the world in 9 languages by 11 different publishers. If there is an appropriate way to indicate the notability of this publication, please indicate how this can be done. For this purpose, this URL might be useful: http://www.solutionscreative.com/foreign.html

Inasmuch as Wikipedia is biased toward sources of information in the academic world (sometimes to the exclusion of the business world, which is what I'm involved in), perhaps I should point out that the above-referenced book has been used as a textbook in university classes, and I have been a guest lecturer on the subject of creative problem solving in for-credit university courses.

If someone should question my expertise by pointing out that my degree is in physics rather than creative problem solving, I'll point out that most universities do not offer degrees in creative problem solving, and possibly no university offers such a degree. (If there is such a degree, I think it would be appropriate to add it to the "External links" section.)

The topic of creative problem solving occassionally attracts self-promotion edits similar to the self-promotion edits that commonly occur in the related "Creativity" article. Yet, as 72.187.98.128 (in Florida) recognizes, I am not attempting to promote anything -- except an understanding of creative problem solving. Richard Fobes, a.k.a. "VoteFair" VoteFair (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss here in the talk pages whether or not "Synectics" belongs in this article. Removing it, re-inserting it, removing it, re-inserting it, etc. -- without discussion -- is not appropriate. VoteFair (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet again, for about the third time, someone wants to delete this article. Please read past discussions on this topic! The most recent appears in the "Advertisement" section above. Please read it!

I am an internationally recognized subject-matter expert on this subject. Yet today's deletion request -- plus, just now, an inappropriate reversion with no discussion! -- are leaving me with the desire to further reduce my contributions to Wikipedia.

I plan to write additional clarifications -- about what is causing the demise of Wikipedia -- in the WikiProject Editor Retention article (or elsewhere if I can find a better location). Alas, not only is Wikipedia losing valuable contributors -- plus me too if this continues -- but also the quality of the articles is declining as a result of editors making changes without an understanding of the subject, and without understanding who the subject-matter experts in the field are. VoteFair (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please undo the special revert done yesterday by Wikipedia-editor-with-special-permissions User:Sue_Rangell. I'm not doing it myself because I would be regarded as getting into a revert war. The removed content includes very valid references, which are important to Wikipedia's credibility. And the revert re-introduced some truly promotional content that I removed long ago. Although it is increasingly less common, I am a Wikipedia contributor who is also a subject-matter expert (on this topic). Specifically I am the author of a how-to book on creative problem solving that has been published around the world in 9 languages. (FYI, only the U.S. English-language edition is self-published; the other editions were published by notable publishers.)

Also note that the special reversion was done without discussion here. Please discuss here any concerns! Thanks! VoteFair (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• :I have already addressed this issue on the AfD page. Please respond there so as not to create confusion. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tagged the two sentences below from the second paragraph of the lede as dubious:

"However, creativity often does not involve creative problem solving, especially in fields such as music, poetry, and art. Creativity requires newness or novelty as a characteristic of what is created, but creativity does not necessarily imply that what is created has value or is appreciated by other people."

Compare to the first sentence of Creativity: "Creativity refers to the invention or origination of any new thing (a product, solution, artwork, literary work, joke, etc.) that has value."

It doesn't appear that the distinction is indeed a distinction at all, and makes me wonder if this article would fit WP:POVFORK criteria. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To begin with, this entry is focused on Elementary school application as it related to Arts Integration. That being said, Art is both a process and the product from which results from said process. Teachers can promote CPS by fostering the desire to combine students ideas and feelings in new ways. When promoted properly, the CPS process can produce many products; paintings, songs, dances, and literary art (the use of words.)

During CPS students are encouraged to demonstrate divergent perspectives, and the unexpected is embraced. Scaffolding is a crucial part of the learning process for CPS. Students who fail to receive appropriate scaffolding can become reluctant learners for fear of exposing their lack of knowledge.

Visualization is a key element of CPS. Visualization encompasses five distinct mental actions. Those mental actions are (1) transfer long-term memories into temporary visual memory (2) zoom in to identify details (3) embellish images (4) rotate images (5) scan visually with your mind’s eye.

68.115.232.26 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Michael Fischer and Janet Herrera-Gantt Converse College 2013 ^[1]Reply[reply]

I am new to this discussion, jand have tried to get caught up with the controversy over the creative problem solving page. The page as it stands is a hodgepodge that does not accurately reflect the depth and distinction of the topic. I would like to propose a complete rewrite of this page, resulting in an article with historical and academic accuracy, and (of course) with no bias. I have an M.S. in Creativity, and would like to take a stab at this new version, but wish to follow the rules, not posting a major update without prior approval of those who have been caretaking this page. Does this sound like a reasonable and workable idea? Thanks, all. Paulreali (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do make incremental changes to this page to improve it. However, do it in steps -- not as a single replacement -- because many portions have already been peer-reviewed. Also I suggest watching the edits on the Creativity page so that you better understand what is controversial and what is Wikipedia-worthy. (That page gets lots of people who think they are improving the article, yet their edits simply attempt to impose their own beliefs and their own writing style.) I no longer edit the Creative Problem Solving page itself because some people perceive a subject-matter expert as having a conflict of interest, yet I am interested to see what happens to this page, partly because it affects whether on not I contribute to Wikipedia fundraising efforts. VoteFair (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your article manages to have a good general structure in place, is unbiased, and is definitely in a place to grow out to become a really good article. It manages to stick to the information presented without any attempt to persuade readers to one or another viewpoint from what I currently see. The structure also follows a very logical flow of information. A couple of tweaks can still be made to really solidify the effort already put into the article. The biggest tweak would be to find several more sources from textbooks, journal articles, etc. to back up the information in the article as well as be used to expand and reinforce the information within the article. There are several statements, especially in the technique and tools section, that is never backed up by a source or the source was misplaced. Another tweak would be to remove the quote or use it in a more necessary way. In its current state the quote is a bit unnecessary. The main change would be to keep working on finding sources though. With all of this said, the structure and unbiased language is the current strength of the article and something I hope to apply more strongly into an article I am currently editing for a class. Good job and keep going!Carlton7567 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has a good backbone to start from and is unbiased. The sections are organized in a way that is easy to understand and makes sense. There are a few things that I would suggest to make it better. More sources from journals and textbooks would add a lot of important unbiased information to this article. Adding more information would help this article as well. It is very short and there could be many things added to it. There are some sources that are used multiple times and some sources links do not work so, fixing those would be great for this article. In all, this article is a great place to start and can be a really good article with more information and unbiased sources added. Good job! Hayleeelmore (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)HayleeelmoreReply[reply]