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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Arbitrary inclusion of certain work is certainly NPOV. For example, multiple references to Steven Pinker are unnecessary (on many levels). Perhaps we should look for some secondary sources from something like...a history of psychology textbook. I also imagine that the APA and APS have likely generated releases about key developments or scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyoung2 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say that arbitrary inclusion of certain work is certainly NOT NPOV - but I guess that is what you mean. And I fully agree. Good idea to check with secondary sources. Lova Falktalk 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than three years later, this is still a problem. I would very much like to remove all women that are mentioned just because they are women or just because they are not white. The reason is that this is not something that drives the development of psychology forward. If nobody protests, I will do this in a week or so... Lova Falktalk 18:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this now. Explaining a bit more: These women should be represented in a timeline of feminism and multiculturalism within psychology - but not the timeline of psychology. Lova Falktalk 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather lonely here... Anyway, I put in a couple of women who I do think should be on this timeline. There is many more, but these were the first ones I could think of. Please add! Lova Falktalk 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the women and feminism stuff needs to be removed; it has very little to do with the article itself. Being the first black woman or woman to do something shouldn't fill up so much space on the article, it clearly degrades the quality and is completely useless information.~~
Controversial removals need consensus on the talk page before changes. Stating your intent is not a discussion. Other editor's input is needed. There is no timeline of feminism and multiculturalism within psychology, so suggesting the content be moved there is not constructive. Rather than stating opinions, I suggest you find precedent in other timeline articles, or a discussion on a wikipedia policy or guideline page that supports the removal.Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 1700 letters of useless derailing information from a long article. I won't let a feminist clutter up this page again. The information took 2,3% of the whole long article. These changes will stand. 86.50.88.16 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, you need to ground your changes in wikipedia policy and/or precedent. This is not about whether anyone is a feminist. It is about removing content in a disruptive way. If you won't revert your removal at least until other editors weigh in, the next step is to have this discussed at the administrator's noticeboard. I believe the removed content has a legitimate place in the article because the subjects of the entries all have their own wikipedia articles, and thus meet WP:N. Undue weight might be an issue for something like repeated mentions of Steven Pinker, as in the comment that started this discussion, but I don't accept that, for example, the inclusion of a sentence on the founding of feminist psychology is undue weight. Dialectric (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of overcapitalization here, of psychological concepts that are not normally capitalized per MOS:CAPS as well as [1]. I've done my best to put these into lower case in accordance with these style manuals. If anyone would like to discuss this issue, please do so here, rather than putting loads of extra capital letters into the article itself. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography for updating this and other articles[edit]
I like reference books that take a historical approach, and I have some to suggest to editors of this page. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is removing content sourced to a website called "Feminist Voices" (http://www.feministvoices.com/), which is "a project directed by Alexandra Rutherford at York University in Toronto, Canada. She is joined on the project by a dynamic group of undergraduate and graduate students who use historical, feminist, critical, and constructionist approaches to analyze the past and present experiences of women and minorities in psychology and society." Alexandra Rutherford is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. It's difficult to know how to treat this site. It may be worth raising it at WP:RSN. Assertions cited to it do seem rather dubious. "1903 – Helen Thompson Woolley published the first dissertation on sex differences, The Mental Traits of Sex" Are we seriously to believe that there were no studies of "sex differences" in psychology before 1903? According to Barbara Lloyd "At the beginning of the twentieth century, Helen Thompson Woolley commented on nineteenth and early twentieth-century psychologists' and physiologists' efforts to understand sex differences. She wrote: 'There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot to such an extent as here'" (Sex and Gender, Cambridge University Press, 2002). In other words she was responding to previous theories. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the Helen Thompson Woolley article, roughly the same claim ("Being that it was the first known dissertation on sex differences, it received mixed reviews.") sourced to Benjamin, Ludy T. (2007). A Brief History of Modern Psychology. No page number, and the Google Books link provided has no preview. On the other hand, the 2nd edition does have a preview and "Woolley" has no results. However, I found another book stating saying "[Woolley's] doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago was the first experimental test of the Darwinian notion that women were biologically inferior to men, an idea assumed at the time to be so obvious that it needed no scientific study (James, 1994)." Schultz, Duane; Schultz, Sydney (2011). A History of Modern Psychology (10th ed.). Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. p. 142. ISBN9781133387053. I can't get Google Books to show the references section, so I can't tell you what James 1994 is. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, found out what James, 1994 is. We can't cite it directly as it's an unpublished manuscript (or at least it was in 2000, in the 7th edition I was able to get access to an ebook of), and the title doesn't pull up any hits anywhere other than Google Books (as a reference in the Schultz and Schultz book). But given Schultz and Schultz makes the claim and cites to something, that makes it a secondary source for the purposes of the claim that Woolley's study was the first one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mentions of the Positive Psychology movement here...I'm unable to add them as I've just begun learning about it's history. Can anyone contribute those? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:200:6FFB:5C8C:BAD0:F96D:B0B5 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Traite Clinique et Therapeutique de L'Hysterie wasn't written by Breuer but by Pierre Briquet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.11.9.175 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
